[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 97 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1309-E1310]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 20, 2000

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill 
earlier, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so. But I 
cannot vote for this conference report.
  My support for the bill was reluctant because while I support ending 
the ``marriage penalty,'' I thought the House bill was not the right 
way to achieve that goal. In some areas it did too little, and in 
others it did too much.
  It did too little because it did not adjust the Alternative Minimum 
Tax. That means it would have left many middle-income families 
unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken 
away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative 
Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill.
  The Republican leadership's bill did too much in another area. 
Because it was not carefully targeted, it did not just apply to people 
who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of 
the total benefits under the bill would have gone to married people 
whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. 
In other words, a primary result would not be to lessen marriage 
``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bonuses.''
  And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the 
House bill would have gone too far in reducting the surplus funds that 
will be needed to bolster Social Security and Medicare.
  Those were the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They 
were strong reasons. In fact, as I said then, if voting for the bill 
would have meant that it immediately would have become law, I would 
have voted against it. But, I reluctantly voted for it because at that 
point the Senate still had a chance to improve it.
  I was prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to 
correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending 
it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican 
leadership would allow the bill to be improved to the point that it 
would merit becoming law--meaning that it would deserve the President's 
signature.
  Unfortunately, they did not take advantage of that opportunity. 
Instead, today they are insisting on sending to the President a bill 
that falls short of being appropriate for signature into law. I cannot 
support that approach, and I cannot support this conference report.
  The conference report is not identical to the House bill, but it is 
still very poorly targeted.

[[Page E1310]]

Half of the tax relief would go to couples who are not affected by any 
marriage penalty at all--and overall the bill is still fatally flawed. 
It seems clear that the Republican leadership has decided to insist on 
trying to force the President to veto this bill, on a timetable based 
on their national nominating convention.
  I greatly regret that the Republican leaders have decided to insist 
on confrontation with the President instead of seeking a workable 
compromise that would lead to a bill that the President could sign into 
law.
  The President has said that he will veto this conference report, and 
I expect that to occur. I hope that after that veto members on both 
sides of the aisle will work to develop a bill that will appropriately 
address the real problem of the ``marriage penalty'' and that can be 
signed into law this year.

                          ____________________