[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7509-H7520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
                     PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee on Ways and Means 
be discharged from further consideration of the veto message 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Archer moves that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged 
from further consideration of the veto message on the bill H.R. 4810, 
an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of September 6, 2000 
at page H7239.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is 
recognized for 1 hour on the motion.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is simply a procedural motion to move to consider the veto 
message which will be subject to debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question 
on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President 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. The question is, will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we make one last attempt to end the marriage tax 
penalty for 25 million married couples. Since 1995, a growing 
bipartisan majority in the Congress has tried time and time again to 
end this gross unfairness in the Tax Code. But each time, President 
Clinton and a majority of the Democrats in Congress have just said no. 
In the past 6 years, President Clinton has blocked marriage tax penalty 
relief more often than Tiger Woods has won golf's major championships.
  President Clinton's latest veto leaves a Clinton-Gore legacy of 
denying 25 million married couples relief from the marriage tax penalty 
for 8 years. It means that married couples will have to wait longer for 
relief. It means that they will have to vote for new leadership in the 
White House if they want justice and fairness in the Tax Code.
  This bill does bring fairness to the Tax Code. 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, Mr. 
Speaker, we all know that is the lowest income tax bracket that affects 
primarily lower- and middle-income people, and the earned income credit 
income threshold, which affects the very low-income people, 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 tax penalty.
  Despite all of this unfairness, I expect we will still hear some 
excuses from the Democrats today why we cannot do this. They will say 
that stay-at-home moms and dads and people who own homes or donate to 
charitable organizations should not get relief, and this is their idea 
of targeting. Their plan actually denies relief to these important 
parents, and I accentuate those who itemize, who have home mortgages or 
pay taxes on their homes, who have itemized deductions get no relief. 
They do not want them to get any relief, but that is wrong. Raising a 
child is the single most important job in the world and we are right to 
provide these families with relief.
  Another excuse we will hear is that our bipartisan plan is too 
expensive. Too expensive for whom? Too expensive for the U.S. Treasury, 
which is expected to vacuum in 4.5 trillion surplus dollars over the 
next 10 years from the American taxpayers, or too expensive for 
President Clinton who, just yesterday, said he needed to spend that 
money for more government programs.
  Last week, Vice President Gore talked about a rainy day fund, but the 
President's deluge of spending will soak that up like a super sponge. I 
would note to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
undoubtedly will call this bill fiscally irresponsible that the ranking 
Democrat of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, 
voted in July for this exact same package. No one can say that he is 
fiscally irresponsible.
  In his January State of the Union, President Clinton stood in this 
exact Chamber and asked Congress to work with him to fix the marriage 
tax penalty. We have done that. He vetoed it. So here we are today 
making every effort to override that veto. When he spoke, there were no 
preconditions, there was no quid pro quo, no wink and a nod. In fact, 
there was only boisterous applause and cheers from both sides of the 
aisle. But 8 months later, when most American families were on vacation 
or getting their children ready to go back to school, he quietly vetoed 
the bill.
  Now is our chance to right this wrong and finally put an end to the 
marriage tax penalty for 25 million married couples. We should all vote 
to override the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the rhetoric of the 
distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as he would 
have us to believe that the Democrats do not want to give relief as 
relates to the marriage penalty. Now, he knows that I know that we 
Democrats have come forward with a bill that true, it does not cost the 
$300 billion over 10 years, as his does, but it takes care of the 
marriage penalty, the same way we tried to take care of the estate tax 
abuses that we found in the Tax Code.
  The difference between the so-called Republican solution is that it 
is not concerning itself just with relief for those people who have an 
additional tax burden because they are married, it goes beyond that and 
it is a part of this tremendous, huge billion dollar, trillion dollar 
tax cut that they conceived in the last session which could not get off 
the ground. When it was vetoed, they did not even bother to override 
the veto. So if we were to take the cost of this bill far beyond that 
of marriage

[[Page H7510]]

penalty, we will find plus $200 billion that does not even relate to 
the problem that we are addressing. The same thing was true when they 
tried to do something with the estate tax. No, my Republican colleagues 
do not want to pass laws, they want to pass bills that are going to be 
vetoed.

                              {time}  1100

  They almost made certain that they have the veto before they bring it 
to the floor, because the President of the United States has already 
publicly said if they want to negotiate a solution to the tax penalty, 
sit down and talk.
  But if it was not so close to the election, this thing would be 
hilarious, because the first time the Republican leadership has an 
opportunity to go to the White House and to talk about working out a 
solution to legislation so we can get out of here, do they talk about 
the marriage penalty? No. Do they talk about estate tax relief? No. Do 
they talk about a general tax cut for everybody so people can have 
their money? No.
  What do they talk about? Well, listen. Stay tuned in. There is a new 
Republican plan, and the plan is to set aside a part of the surplus to 
pay down our national debt. And when does it come in? Three weeks 
before the conclusion of the legislative session.
  So this is poppycock. They are holding the marriage penalty bill 
hostage because they want to vote on the President's veto. He had the 
courage to veto this bill because it is irresponsible. We have to 
sustain the President, and then find out what is the next rabbit they 
are going to pull out of the hat before we conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a respected gentleman from the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and my colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), for his strong leadership in 
enactment of this bill.
  I urge every one of my colleagues to override this veto. At a time 
when every Member of Congress is going around the country, particularly 
the candidates for president, and saying they are family-friendly, it 
is unbelievable to me that any Member could turn around and vote 
against ending a tax penalizing married individuals.
  Some Members here have already turned their backs on working 
families, small businesses, farmers. When we tried to protect their 
families from the legacy destroyed by death taxes, we were 
unsuccessful. We will debate and discuss that. But I urge them not to 
do that today to married individuals.
  As a society and as a civilization, we cannot afford a government 
that punishes marriages. I ask every one of my colleagues to search 
their hearts and souls and think about this upcoming weekend as they 
return to their communities, their churches, and their friends by 
standing up for the institution of marriage, standing up for families, 
giving them the relief they deserve, and overriding the President's 
political veto of this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
sovereign State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that there is not 
anybody on this floor who does not want to help middle class families. 
When the Contract with America was brought out here with all the 
fanfare in 1995, the marriage tax penalty was in it. When the first tax 
bill came to the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered an amendment to 
remove the marriage tax penalty in the Committee on Ways and Means. 
Every single Republican on the committee voted against it.
  The only reason we could say they did it, I suppose, was kind of 
``NIH,'' not invented here. They did not have their name on it. So they 
came back the next year after they had done the polling and realized 
they had made a mistake, and they have been trying ever since, but they 
always wrap it in a humongous tax cut.
  Now, none of us believe that we will leave this session without a cut 
in the marriage tax penalty. I will be willing to bet anybody on this 
floor that when we sign off and leave here about October 1, we will 
have agreed with the President on a middle-class tax cut on the 
marriage penalty.
  What is amazing is what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) just 
talked about, the meeting that happened in the White House yesterday. 
The Speaker of the House came and said, ``We have a plan: 90 percent 
goes for debt relief, and 10 percent goes for investment.'' If we take 
all the taxes that have been pushed by the Republicans and are pushed 
by Mr. Bush of $1.7 trillion, and we only have $5.5 trillion, if we 
have a calculator in our pockets, which the Speaker ought to have, we 
realize that that is 31 percent of the projected surplus that is going 
for tax cuts. We cannot do it in 10 percent. It is 3 times as much as 
we left on the table.
  So either the Republicans on the floor are walking away from Mr. Bush 
and his tax cut, which I think most of them are, or they simply are 
trying to put a fraud out on the people that they can do 90 percent for 
bringing down the debt and 10 percent, and there is no money left for 
investment, no money for social security, no money for Medicare, no 
money for education, none of the issues that we ought to be doing with 
the surplus.
  The American people are faced in this election with a choice: Will we 
have a big tax cut, or will we invest in the future? Most Americans are 
interested in protecting their retirement, their social security, their 
Medicare, which is really security in health areas. They are interested 
in educating their kids to deal with this economy so we do not have to 
bring in, under the H-1B visa, hundreds of thousands of people from 
around the world because we say our own kids are not qualified to take 
the jobs in this economy, we have to give the high-paying jobs to 
people outside the economy.
  When we get down to this tax cut, it is part of an overall package. 
We are going to cut it and make a negotiation at the end.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, that is wishful 
thinking.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise to express my support for the 25 million married couples in 
the country who will be negatively affected by the President's veto, 
and strongly urge that we override that veto.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats agree. Congress and the 
President agree. It is wrong to tax 25 million couples at a higher rate 
just because they are married. So why are we forced to override a veto 
to right this wrong? The answer is simple: partisan politics.
  The President and the Democrats say they can't support the effort to 
resolve this injustice because it ``doesn't help the right people.'' 
Here are the ``wrong people'' it would help:
  Nearly a million low-income working families who would receive up to 
$421 more a year from raising the phase-out level of the Earned Income 
Credit.
  25 million taxpayers at all levels who would save up to $1,450 in 
federal taxes because the standard deduction for married couples would 
be made equal to two individuals.
  Millions more middle-income families who would save hundreds of 
dollars each year because the 15 percent tax bracket for couples filing 
jointly would be increased to twice that of single filers.
  Millions of married taxpayers at all levels would be treated fairly 
for the first time in nearly 40 years. These couples have been paying 
extra taxes every year since their wedding.
  The Democrats and the President have said they can't support this 
reform because it provides some relief to the taxpayers who pay 65 
percent of the nation's taxes. These are the people who have funded the 
surplus that we are now blessed with. And when this fairness 
legislation is in place, they will still pay 65 percent of the nation's 
taxes.
  The Democrats and the administration clearly believe the federal 
budget surplus is their money. They cannot conceive of allowing the 
people who have already provided this surplus to pay less in future 
years. Instead, they would spend it on mammoth new federal programs,

[[Page H7511]]

run by Washington bureaucrats. Or they would tell taxpayers now to 
spend their own money in order to qualify for any reduction in the 
taxes they pay.
  It's time for Congress to recognize that this money belongs to the 
taxpayers. At the very least, we should pass this legislation to 
provide tax justice to 25 million families.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means who has fought very hard for this legislation.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric, 
particularly on the other side today, but what is the issue today? 
There is one issue: that is, do we override the President's veto of our 
effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty that affects 25 million 
married working couples who suffer higher taxes just because they are 
married?
  In fact, 25 million married working couples on average today pay 
higher taxes of almost $1,400 a year just because they are married 
under our Tax Code.
  I have an example here, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school 
teachers from Joliet, Illinois, who suffer the marriage tax penalty. 
They have an average income each year of about $65,000. That is their 
combined income. They are homeowners. They have a child, little Ben. 
They suffer the marriage tax penalty, about $1,400.
  In the South suburbs of Chicago, $1,400 is real money. It is one 
year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; it is 3 months of day care; 
several months' worth of car payments; it is a home mortgage payment, a 
month or two for many, many families; but it is real money for real 
people.
  That is what this is all about, is do we allow folks like Shad and 
Michelle to keep their money, or do we send it to Washington, 
particularly on this issue of tax fairness?
  I was so proud. After several years of working, my chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), has been concerned about this issue 
since he first came to this Congress. Many have been working on this 
issue for a long time. This House and Senate voted to wipe out the tax 
penalty for people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan this year, and we 
did it the year before. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it.
  We want to help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty: those 
who itemize, those who do not.
  I was proud to say that every House Republican voted to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. Fifty-one Democrats joined with us to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty. We doubled the standard deduction for joint 
filers, for married couples, so they earn twice as much in the same tax 
bracket.
  We also widen the 15 percent tax bracket. We help those who itemize, 
we help those who do not itemize. The bottom line is, we help 25 
million married working couples.
  As I mentioned earlier, Shad and Michelle make about $65,000 a year, 
their combined income. They are middle class public school teachers. 
They suffer the average marriage tax penalty. When Al Gore called for 
the veto of this legislation, he said that people who own a home, who 
make about $65,000 a year, who pay the average marriage tax penalty of 
$1,400, are rich, and that if people itemize their taxes, like Shad and 
Michelle Hallihan, because they are homeowners they do not deserve any 
marriage tax relief because they are rich.
  So that definition of rich says if one pursues the American dream, 
gets married, has a family, buys a home, and then has to itemize their 
taxes, they are rich and they do not deserve marriage tax relief. They 
should still suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  That is wrong. I believe, and I think the majority of this House 
believes, that if one really wants to be fair, we should help everyone. 
Couples making $65,000 a year like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, who 
happen to be homeowners and happen to itemize their taxes, deserve tax 
relief just as much as anyone else when it comes to the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Let us override the President's veto. I invite more Democrats to join 
with us. Let us be fair to people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They 
are not rich, they are middle class.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago there was a man from Michigan 
whose advice to elected leaders was, ``Say what you mean and mean what 
you say.'' Of course, that man's name was Gerald Ford. He led this 
Republican House as a Republican leader, but it would not hurt if those 
who followed him heeded his words today, because yesterday, in a 
complete turnabout, a complete about face, the Republican leadership 
suddenly announced their hunger to join Democrats in working to pay 
down the national debt.
  Of course, that was yesterday. Now, it is less than 24 hours later 
and we are back at it again. Here they go again, they are trying to 
pass another piece of their $1 trillion tax cut package, a $1 trillion 
tax cut package. It is the mother of all tax cuts, and it would rob 
America of its resources that we need not only to pay down the debt, 
but to strengthen social security and Medicare, as well.
  Our message to Republicans is that it is time to mean what they say.
  Should we do something about the marriage penalty? Of course we 
should do something, and the example that was just given, they are 
absolutely right, that couple should be given a marriage penalty tax 
relief act.
  But the bill that we are now discussing would only give tax relief to 
couples who face a marriage penalty. Only about half of that goes to 
those people. The other half of that bill, which is a monstrous bill in 
terms of the dollar amount, would go to, Members guessed it, the 
wealthiest people in our country who have no marriage penalty problem.
  That is why Democrats crafted a fiscally responsible marriage penalty 
relief plan. It is a plan that would help people in Macomb County, in 
St. Clair County, middle class families that I represent. I am talking 
about folks just like the couple that we have just seen up here who 
work hard for a living, pay their mortgage payment, pay their car 
payment, but do not have a lot left over or anything left over to save 
with at the end of the month.
  We can give those people a hand, and we can do it without taking 
money out of Medicare and social security, and without risking the 
premise of reducing the national debt. But we cannot do it if we pass 
this Republican plan. That is why the President is standing so 
steadfast against it.
  It is time that we focused our attention on helping middle-class 
families, not just those who are reaping enormous amounts of wealth in 
this country who have no marriage penalty problem, but who would get 
half of what this bill is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal, and to sustain the 
President veto.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would briefly respond to a statement made by my 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan, which is not accurate. That is 
that the Democrats would take away the marriage penalty for those who 
itemize. Their plan does not, I repeat, does not provide any help for 
those people who have homes and mortgages and taxes and want to itemize 
rather than take the standard deduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo).
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, Shane and Penny Fox were married in 1997. 
Shane is a graphic designer for a charity, and Penny is a legal 
secretary.
  In 1997, their taxable income was $47,000. When they went to file 
their joint income tax return as required by law, they paid $8,691 in 
income taxes. But if they had remained single, they would have paid 
$7,055, so these two people with a combined income of less than $50,000 
a year paid $1,636 just because they were married.
  I participated in that wedding ceremony. I read the Scripture where 
it says that God says that a marriage is a holy union. Yet, the 
official policy of the Federal government, of Congress and the 
administration, is to discourage marriage. It is to say, they should

[[Page H7512]]

not get married. Marriage is not the right thing to do economically.
  That does not make sense. That is public policy being made in 
Washington that discourages people from getting married. What type of 
government penalizes people because they say, ``I do''?

                              {time}  1115

  Did they realize when they said for ``better or worse'' it meant the 
Federal Government would come along and penalize them $150 a month just 
because they got married?
  The tax is immoral, and sometimes we have to eliminate taxes because 
they are immoral. Anytime we say marriage is wrong by the Federal 
Government, it is an immoral tax, and it has got to go.
  Do my colleagues know what? Under the Gore-Clinton plan of so-called 
marriage tax relief, because they bought a home, they would not qualify 
for their plan. It discourages homeownership.
  It is very, very simple. Marriage is good, it is a holy union, but 
not to the Federal Government, and certainly not to these two who have 
been penalized $1,607 just because they said ``I do.''
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished Member of the Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, today we waste more precious time on yet 
another bloated tax bill. This motion to override the President's veto, 
as the chairman has correctly pointed out, will fail. He knows that. 
The Republican leadership knows that as well. Yet we persist in this 
play-acting.
  The Republican leadership must give the appearance of doing 
something, anything in this do-the-wrong-thing- for-special-interests 
106th Congress. What do I mean by that? The reason we do not reach a 
compromise on this is not because of those who are penalized under the 
marriage penalty but those who are not penalized, the wealthiest in 
America. That is why we do not come to agreement with the President. 
That is why we do not come to agreement on both sides, not because of 
the couple discussed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). We 
can all agree on that.
  The Washington Post got it right recently when it said of these 
Republican tax bills, and I quote, ``It is not clear which, if any, 
will be sent to the President. But that does not matter in a mock 
Congress. It is the show that counts.''
  Here we are at the show. Just like last week's debate on the estate 
tax where we could give millions of Americans relief, but the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer), my friend, the chairman for whom I have a 
great respect and affection, we are not doing it, because of the 
thousands that the President will not include in the bill and that we 
will not include in the bill.
  We are being forced to participate in this show once again today. 
Meanwhile, the clock keeps running. There are less than 20 days left on 
the legislative calendar, and we still have not approved 11 of the 
annual spending bills that keep the Federal Government operating.
  The prospects for a Patients' Bill of Rights, a meaningful 
prescription drug benefit for seniors, a minimum wage increase, a 
middle-class tax relief grow bleaker by the day.
  We agree that the marriage penalty must be remedied. Our bill offers 
$95 billion in relief over 10 years. But instead of reaching 
compromise, the perfectionist caucus says do it my way or take the 
highway.
  The leadership once again forced us to genuflect at the alter of 
Republican ideology, tax cuts for those who need them the least. That 
is where we differ, not on the couple that the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) just referred to.
  This bloated tax bill would cost an estimated $292 billion over the 
next decade. It would squander our surplus while not helping this 
couple who would pay higher interest rates because of the deficits that 
would result in the squandering of the resources. It would strip us of 
our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare and, as I said, 
a prescription drug benefit.
  Pay down the debt and invest in our children's future. The 
Republicans' special-interest political agenda is preventing, not 
facilitating, tax relief for working families. Let us sustain the 
President's veto, and let us get down to meaningful compromise that 
will affect millions of Americans that need it most.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
again to respond to, I think, an unintended inaccuracy on the part of 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). He said we are ready to fix 
the marriage penalty for those people who own their homes and itemize. 
They have never included that in one of their proposals. But they say 
they are ready to fix it for middle-income people. I would like to see 
that fleshed out in one of their proposals. They have resisted it over 
and over and over again. It is unfortunate that they want to cut out 
these people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) just 
talked about. We will continue to pursue that.
  I also want to say to the gentleman from Maryland I never said we 
were not going to override this veto. I am still hopeful that there 
will be 40 percent of the Democrats who will be enlightened enough and 
fair enough to do this.
  Then, finally, I will say that Vice President Gore in his tax relief 
has said he wants to help stay-at-home moms and stay-at-home pops. Yes, 
we do that also while we fix the marriage penalty. What is wrong with 
doing it in the same bill? Why do the Democrats suppose what their own 
presidential candidate wants to do as a separate item?
  This is a very good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer). This Tax Code is so perverse, it even taxes sex; 
marital sex, that is.
  Now, let us put the hay where the goats can reach it. If one does not 
get married, one pays less taxes, one gets rewarded. If one gets 
married, one pays more taxes, one gets hit over the head. To me, that 
is unbelievable.
  Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, we have so many unwed mothers in 
America, so many kids on the street, kids without guidance, kids 
without stability, kids without fathers, government paying the bills, 
and Congress expecting schools to straighten them out, to discipline 
them and to raise them? Beam me up.
  Now, let us tell it like it is. I think there is too much partisan 
politics here today, and we should be dealing with the people's 
business.
  Let us look at the facts. Our Tax Code subsidizes illegitimacy, but 
taxes the institution of marriage. Our Tax Code promotes sexual 
promiscuity, but taxes the institution of marriage. Beam me up.
  One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see this is the right 
thing to do. I will vote to override this anti-family, anti-child, 
anti-mother, anti-wife presidential veto. We are relegating people to 
the bottom end of the ladder, and the only hope we are giving them is 
go to the next rung.
  This is not the way to do it. The President is wrong. We should 
override this veto.
  I proudly join forces with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Archer). If the truth be known, there are more Democrats deep down in 
this election year that would like to vote with him, and they should.
  I yield back all the broken homes in America and all the kids in jail 
that need not be there.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was so moved by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), the previous speaker. But just let me say this, it seems as 
though the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, in his remarks to this august body, referred to the 
tax proposals of the Vice President of the United States. It may be 
parliamentarily proper to do that, but I do not think we want to hear 
anything about Vice President Gore's tax proposals on this floor 
because I will be tempted, tempted to bring up Governor George W.'s tax 
proposals. But because of my affection for my Republican friends, I 
would not want to offend or embarrass them and to have them to run away 
from them on the floor. So let us confine ourselves to our legislative 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin),

[[Page H7513]]

a senior 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, earlier, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, said that the 
real issue is overriding the veto. He, I think, exposed what this is 
all about for the majority party. The real issue should be marriage 
penalty relief.
  My suggestion is that, if people really want such relief, my 
Republican colleagues withdraw this effort that is doomed to failure 
and they do what we have never done on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has said, sit down and work 
out a marriage penalty relief bill on a bipartisan basis. They never 
tried to do that.
  The majority of us favor marriage penalty relief. We can do it on a 
bipartisan basis. But, instead, we have a bill here that goes way 
beyond that. It is too broad. It is part of a package that is much too 
large; and as a result, the package is weighted too much in favor of 
the very wealthy. No one on the majority side has ever answered this 
fact: according to CBO, almost half of the tax cut in this bill goes to 
couples that pay no marriage penalty at all.
  So let us sit down and do what we should do and work out, if we are 
serious, a marriage penalty relief bill. My Republican colleagues do 
not have a political issue with this because the majority of the public 
understands what they are after, and that is a 30-second ad instead of 
a 5- and 10-year tax relief bill.
  So I close by saying this, we are ready on the Democratic side to sit 
down with my colleagues, if they are serious about policy and do not 
want what they think is a good political move, and put together a 
marriage penalty relief bill. I hope they will do that after the veto 
is sustained.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected Member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), the chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I say in response to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan way to 
fix a problem. The Constitution provides for veto override.
  This need not be a partisan ballot. Indeed, when people get marriage 
licenses, they do not record political affiliations. But when they fill 
out their tax returns and they are penalized to the tune of $1,400 a 
year, that is a concern whether one is a Republican, Democrat, 
libertarian, vegetarian, independent.
  It comes to this simple philosophy: let married couples and their 
families keep what they earn to save, spend, and invest. This need not 
be partisan.
  We in the legislative branch have the constitutional ability to 
override the President of the United States. We invite our friends on 
the left, join with us, stand for families, not for disguising targeted 
tax cuts as spending programs, but straight up, allowing American 
families to keep more of what they earn. That is true compassion. That 
is why we must override this presidential veto.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I have two points I would like to share 
with the body today. The first is that I am somewhat confused. I read 
here in the Congress Daily that the Republican leaders went over to the 
White House yesterday, talked to the President, and they told the 
President that they are going to set aside their tax cuts in favor of 
debt reduction. Any surplus coming in would be used for debt reduction, 
a plan that the American public supports.
  Well, that was yesterday. Now today they come back to the floor of 
the House and try to override this bill they call the marriage tax 
penalty.

                              {time}  1130

  Well, let me talk about that for a moment. If in fact we provide 
relief to those lovely couples that the Republican colleagues are 
bringing out on the posters, that would cost, over a 10-year period, 
$95 billion. In the whole scheme of things, that is affordable. The 
Democrats support that. Republicans support that. The President, in his 
State of the Union standing behind me, supports that.
  Then, why are we not doing it?
  Because the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, costs $290 billion. Well, 
wait. Marriage penalty is only $95 billion. Where is the other $200 
billion going?
  Seems as the bill made its way through the process, the Republicans 
added a little rider, they slipped in a little amendment. And that 
amendment expanded the tax income for the 15 percent bracket. The 
effect is that the bulk of the $200 billion added to the bill goes to 
the wealthy. But the Republicans still call it marriage penalty tax 
relief bill.
  Well, my colleagues, that is a hoax. It is not marriage penalty tax 
relief. The bulk of the bill goes to people who do not even pay the 
marriage tax penalty. So what we have here is a sham, a hoax, a Trojan 
horse.
  On one day, out of one side of their mouths, they go to the President 
and say, no more tax cuts, we were wrong, the American public does not 
buy it; they want debt relief. Then, they come before the House floor 
and cry alligator tears for these young, married couples when they know 
the bulk of the $290 billion goes to their rich friends. That is what 
is going on around here.
  The American public has said, Congress, if in fact there is a 
surplus, and know full well this is all projections, it is a guess over 
the next 10 years, but if the guess is right, reduce the national debt 
on my kids and grand kids, which today is over $3 trillion.
  That is where the emphasis should be, and that is what this Congress 
should be up to. But it is an election year, so what we have to do is 
try to sell a bill to married couples which really does something else 
to help in the election process.
  I urge my colleagues to not override the veto. Let us get back to 
what they said yesterday. Let us pitch debt reduction relief.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe we can clarify this a little bit. What we are 
talking about in terms of the standard deduction, what our Democrat 
friends are saying is that they will support an adjustment in the 
standard deduction but they will not support what we do with the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty, which is to say that we also 
take care of those who itemize.
  Now, 40 percent of the taxpayers itemize; and that is because 40 
percent or more have homes or have a condominium. And, as a 
consequence, all of the examples we have seen here today, the posters 
on the floor, are of those people who, frankly, itemize their 
deductions. And because they itemize, they will not get any relief 
unless we pass the Republican bill. Under the Democrat proposal, they 
do not get relief from the marriage tax penalty.
  Now, on average, this is $1,400 per individual.
  Now, the President says these are the rich. But it is just not the 
case that everybody that owns a home or everybody that owns a 
condominium and, therefore, itemizes is rich. That is not true. I 
wanted to point out that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York 
and our ranking member for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to override the 
President's veto of the marriage penalty tax relief.
  I support real marriage tax relief, but this bill is fiscally 
irresponsible. This bill would cost $292 billion over 10 years, $110 
billion more than our House version.
  Despite its appealing name, more than half the tax cut would benefit 
couples who not only do not pay marriage penalty but actually get a 
marriage bonus. And we are not talking about the ones who may have a 
second home.

[[Page H7514]]

  Now, having been married for over 30 years, as much as I would like 
to get a bonus for having been married that long, I would like to work 
our tax policy differently, Mr. Speaker, and just correct the problem 
of the marriage penalty and not the marriage bonus.
  Let us deal with that marriage bonus. Let us reward people, stay-at-
home moms or stay-at-home fathers, in a separate piece of legislation 
and not confuse the issues. We are talking about marriage penalty 
relief.
  In addition, the Republican bill allows many couples are denied tax 
relief because of the interaction between the alternative minimum tax 
with the increase in the standard deduction in the bill. About half the 
total tax cuts in this bill would benefit only the top 10 percent 
couples who have incomes over $92,500.
  We did have an alternative plan. A Democratic proposal gave $10 
billion more in marriage penalty relief to couples and it was not 
burdened by all the other problems this bill has. But the Democratic 
bill also cost half as much as this bill even though it added $10 
billion more to marriage penalty relief.
  My Republican colleagues have designed a bill to give the tax breaks 
to the highest income couples even if they do not suffer from the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Tax relief is important but so is protecting and strengthening Social 
Security, Medicare, investing in education, providing for a 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and also making sure our 
national defense is paid for, paying off the debt accumulated during 
the 1980s and early 1990s.
  We have to balance it, and that is why we need to correct the 
marriage penalty. The Democratic alternative provides for a middle-
class tax cut and still protects our vital national priorities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Without objection, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) will control the time for the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Archer).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4810, the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act, and in opposition to the President's 
veto.
  I became an early cosponsor of this legislation because I believe the 
marriage penalty is the most indefensible thing about our Nation's 
current Tax Code.
  The current Tax Code punishes married couples where both partners 
work by driving them into a higher tax bracket. The marriage penalty 
taxes the income of the second wage earner at a much higher rate than 
if they were taxed as an individual. Since this second earner is 
usually the wife, the marriage penalty is unfairly biased against 
female taxpayers.
  Moreover, by prohibiting married couples from filing combined returns 
whereby each spouse is taxed using the same rate applicable to an 
unmarried individual, the Tax Code penalizes marriage and encourages 
couples to live together without any formal legal commitment to each 
other.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 42 percent of 
married couples incurred a marriage penalty in 1996, and that more than 
21 million couples paid an average of $1,400 in additional taxes. The 
CBO further found that those most severely affected by the penalty were 
those couples with near equal salaries and those receiving the earned 
income tax credit.
  This aspect of the Tax Code simply does not make sense. It 
discourages marriage, is unfair to female taxpayers, and 
disproportionately affects the working and middle class populations who 
are struggling to make ends meet. For all of these reasons, this tax 
needs to be repealed and I support the veto override.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I sat in this Chamber with 
many of my colleagues listening to a very long State of the Union 
speech. It was long for a lot of reasons, but one of them was that 
there were a lot of applause lines. Many Republicans and Democrats, in 
fact, stood during one of those, as I did, when the President talked 
about ending the marriage penalty tax.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It was a bipartisan bill in both the House 
and the Senate. It is not one side trying to jab the other. This is not 
a tax cut for the rich. It does not help any special interests except 
for working couples.
  What is wrong with that?
  Many of these couples, in fact, are struggling to try to make ends 
meet. They are living from paycheck to paycheck to paycheck.
  We need to override this veto. We need to override this veto for 
American families in all 50 States. I hope that my colleagues would 
join me in voting to override that veto later this morning.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, about 9 years ago, a constituent alerted me to the fact 
that he was paying about $1,200 more in taxes for having gotten married 
than he and his spouse had been paying as singles. He understood the 
reason for it that, when two people get married, they oftentimes have 
only one mortgage or rent to pay and they can economize in other ways 
and when they have children they get a deduction for each child and 
that there is some rationality to the Tax Code. But it did not seem 
quite fair.
  We introduced a bill and it did not get too far. The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) had another bill that he got through the 
Ways and Means Committee. Our bills cost only about $9 billion a year 
to fix the whole problem.
  What this bill does though, under the guise of fixing the problem, is 
to put us further in debt to the tune of about $200 billion more over 
10 years than is needed to fix the problem. Most of this bill just 
gives deep tax cuts that are not targeted and do not produce the 
desired effect.
  The reality is that almost as many people get a marriage bonus as get 
a marriage penalty. Why do we need to give any further incentives to 
get married? This is not the way that we should be using scarce 
resources.
  What we ought to be doing is paying down the debt. We, the baby boom 
generation, got the benefit of the debt. We should not be passing our 
bill on to our kids. We should put first things first, pay off our 
debts and put our money aside to pay for our retirement, so our kids 
don't have to.
  Let us fix the marriage penalty but do it in a responsible manner. 
Let us not squander the surplus. Let us provide for the future.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear the word ``target,'' let us ``target.''
  The Tax Code targets everyone who works and earns a check or earns an 
income. So when we talk about relief, we should also look at everyone 
who works and earns an income, whether they be employed or self-
employed.
  The purpose of the marriage penalty relief bill is to try to 
establish some fairness in a Tax Code that many people feel is unfair, 
that many people and almost all of us know is very complex and is very 
costly to the individual to abide by.
  So what we were trying to do here and we were successful in the bill 
but we were not successful with the President's signature was to 
establish a standard deduction that is equal and fair to each 
individual, whether they are single or whether they are married.
  A single person has a $4,400 deduction. We were creating a $8,800 
deduction for a married couple rather than current law that is about 
$7,300.
  We were taking the approach that the first dollars earned as adjusted 
gross income, whether it be single or whether an individual or a couple 
be filing as a married couple, that the first dollars earned would be 
subject to the 15-percent tax rate. For a single individual, the first 
$26,000 would be subject to the 15-percent rate. And I am using round 
numbers. For a couple, the first $52,000 would be subject to the 15-
percent bracket.
  Equal. Fairness. There is nothing wrong with that. And why those who 
do not support that or why the President did not support that I do not 
know. I know the excuses, but I do not know the reasons. The excuses 
were that we are helping the rich, we are helping those no matter what 
their income level.

[[Page H7515]]

  What we were doing was establishing fairness on the bottom rung of 
the ladder. And as they climb the ladder of income, they climb the 
ladder of progressive tax rates, marginal rates. We have five marginal 
rates, 15 percent being the lowest. Then it goes to 28 and to 31 and to 
34 and to 39.6. And then, as they reach that plateau, they begin to 
itemize. They even lose their itemized deductions based on their 
income.
  I regret that we have opposition to this bill that supports a measure 
that would actually prohibit the itemized deduction of homeownership. 
We should encourage homeownership. That is part of the American dream 
is to own a home.
  We should encourage people to save. Part of these reductions and part 
of letting people keep more of their earned income could lead to the 
possibility that some of them would save. Some of them may even put it 
into a savings account for their children for education purposes.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we should encourage marriage. Marriage. When we 
have a tax code that discourages it, that is wrong.
  So I ask my colleagues to swallow the pride of supporting a President 
who does not quite understand the measures of this bill and support the 
American people, whether they be single or whether they be married.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, through the first 11 months 
of this fiscal year, our Nation ran a $12 billion surplus. That is 
available for every American to read. It is a published report of the 
Bureau of Public Debt. So there is no surplus. The only surplus is in 
the trust funds.

                              {time}  1145

  For the past 4 years, for 3 of those 4 years, I have heard the same 
Congress that controls the purse strings tell our veterans, the very 
people who gave us the opportunity to even have this debate, that their 
budget is frozen, for 3 of the past 4 years. In 1994, the last year 
that the Democrats controlled Congress, there were 404 ships in the 
United States Navy. After 6 years of Republican control, we are down to 
315. Why? Because there is no money. Well, if there is no money for the 
veterans, if there is no money for the survivors' benefit pension 
offset, if there is no money for dual compensation for people who are 
crippled while they become military retirees, why is it that we can 
afford to give away $200 billion to people who already get a tax 
benefit the day they get married?
  The Democrat plan would free up those $200 billion to take care of 
our veterans, to take care of our military retirees, to build the 
United States Navy back up. It is now the smallest it has been since 
1933, while the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress.
  Those are my priorities; and, quite frankly, I am not going to steal 
it from the Social Security trust fund. I am not going to steal it from 
the military retirees trust fund. I am not going to steal from it the 
Medicare trust fund, and I am not going to stick my children with my 
bills.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) makes some 
very well-phrased comments. Neither are we going to steal it from 
Social Security or from Medicare or from any trust fund; but what we 
have done, in the appropriation process, is to increase funding in all 
levels that he has spoken of so that we can honor the promises we made 
to our veterans and so that we can replenish the funding needed for our 
defense.
  He mentioned there is no surplus. Mr. Speaker, we have a positive 
cash flow, though, and this positive cash flow is real.
  I went into business at the age of 18, and at the age of 18 I went 
into debt. Mr. Speaker, I am still in debt; and I do not have enough 
funds in my account to pay all of my debt, but what do I have to do? I 
have a positive cash flow that allows me to meet my obligations, and 
through the years I have had positive cash flow in some years and not 
in others; but those years that I did, I was able to give myself a 
little bonus, and what we are talking about here with this positive 
cash flow is leaving some of it as a bonus for those who earned it and 
paid it into the Government, paid into the Treasury, a positive cash 
flow, one that can be used to meet our obligations and one that can be 
used also to give relief and a bonus to our people across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say I agree with the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) about the priorities he noted, which is why we 
are increasing in record levels VA health care funding and we are 
increasing our spending on military readiness, which is something that 
is long overdue; but that is a debate for another day.
  What we are here to talk about today is the marriage penalty, which I 
think is a no brainer. I cannot believe that we have to debate this 
thing. We have 75,000 married couples in South Dakota who pay higher 
taxes because they choose to say ``I do.'' These are regular working 
people.
  I will give an example of just what I am talking about. There is a 
young couple that came into my office. The husband makes $46,000 a 
year. The wife makes $21,000 a year. They are married. They are in 
their early thirties and they have two young children under the age of 
4.
  Last year, they paid $1,953 more for the price of being married. That 
is wrong, and anyone can see how unfair this is. These people are not 
rich. They do not drive fancy cars and take glamorous vacations. They 
have to make car payments and mortgage payments every month. They have 
to pay doctor bills when one of the kids has an earache and they have 
to pay for day care.
  This is common sense tax relief for working South Dakotans and for 
working Americans, and I hope all Members of this House can see the 
value of this legislation and the message it sends to the American 
people and the people of this Nation that we value marriage, we 
encourage marriage, we do not want to penalize people because they 
choose to get married. We need to repeal this law and stop punishing 
married couples in this country for having made a commitment to each 
other. Overriding this veto and repealing the marriage penalty and the 
tax law is the right thing to do for this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how quickly we dismiss 
the statements of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) regarding 
the trust funds and the desire of many of us to change the manner in 
which we have been addressing the trust funds. Today, again, we have a 
simple question; and I have a simple question to pose. If one believes 
that providing a tax cut as large as possible is more important than 
eliminating the national debt and protecting Social Security and 
Medicare, then vote to override the veto of this bill. However, if one 
agrees that eliminating the national debt and protecting Social 
Security and Medicare is more important than any new spending or tax 
cuts, then vote to sustain the veto.
  I am for marriage penalty relief. We could come to this floor this 
afternoon and in very short order develop a fiscally responsible 
compromise which would bring meaningful support and tax equity to 
millions of Americans. Sadly, we choose this morning to continue a 
charade.
  I continue to be amazed at the level of inconsistency in the 
leadership of this House reflected from one message of the day to the 
next. On one day this House loves to congratulate itself on its 
commitment to debt reduction. The next day it is tax relief for small 
businesses. Another day we swear our support for lockboxes for Social 
Security and Medicare and then we promise huge tax cuts not only for 
middle- and low-income married couples but we also sneak in wider tax 
brackets to benefit the higher-income folk.
  Now, I think most of these are worthy and, in fact, should be among 
our highest priorities; but it is just not possible to have ten 
different number

[[Page H7516]]

one priorities. It takes leadership. The Blue Dogs looked at the whole 
picture early this year and realistically balanced each concern with 
the other. We decided that our number one priority should be 
eliminating our national debt so that we can meet our commitments to 
Social Security and Medicare in the future. We should talk about tax 
cuts after we have agreed on a long-term plan to set aside enough of 
the surpluses over the next 10 years to eliminate the debt and deal 
with the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare.
  I would congratulate my colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
for coming around to the Blue Dog position on debt reduction, at least 
in their rhetoric yesterday. Unfortunately, the leadership's conversion 
to the cause of debt reduction appears to have been a short-term plan 
of convenience and not a serious long-term commitment to paying off the 
debt. The fact that we are voting today on this fiscally inconsistent 
tax cut makes me seriously doubt the seriousness of the Republican 
leadership's rhetoric about debt reduction.
  If the leadership of this House were serious about debt reduction 
yesterday, they would not be coming to the floor today with this 
override. We should be working on a fiscally responsible tax cut. I 
urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the veto so we can get to work on 
a fiscally responsible marriage tax penalty relief.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk this fall about 
who is for the powerful and who is for the people, and I have a 
populist thread that runs deep to my core and most folks know I come 
right from the center of this floor, from this body to the microphone 
to speak from time to time; and I have to say that this is where the 
rubber meets the road because this is a people's issue. This is a 
populist issue. It is about average people, 110,000 of them in my 
district. They will pay $1,400 per couple less in taxes. Since they are 
married, they should not be taxed unfairly.
  This is where the people are heard. This is an issue where the rubber 
meets the road. I clearly believe we are on the side of the people here 
on repealing the marriage tax penalty. Our Tax Code is too complicated. 
That debate is for another day, but we have to come back to that. It is 
also unfair. This tax is unfair. We need to eliminate it. This is where 
the rubber meets the road.
  There was a comment about protecting Social Security. My side, for 2 
years, has kept us out of Social Security. That is a success. We 
deserve the credit for that. There is no question that we pushed the 
envelope there and we stayed out of Social Security. We are now talking 
about what do we do about staying out of Social Security and giving the 
people some of their money back. We hear targeted tax cuts. This is 
targeted for couples who are married. What better way to target tax 
cuts than to people who are married? My goodness, my goodness, there 
should not be any question about this.
  This is a people's issue, and on this one we are on their side. We 
are doing what the people need, married couples, low income, middle 
income, all folks, married couples. What better way to target tax 
relief. Vote to override the President's veto. Vote with the majority 
side here. Vote for the people and repeal and override the marriage tax 
veto.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as one who celebrated her 37th wedding anniversary last 
week, I certainly do not support marriage penalty, but I do support the 
Democratic alternative and urge my colleagues to sustain the veto and 
congratulate the distinguished ranking member for his extraordinary 
leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that couples should not be penalized by the 
tax code when they decide to marry. That is not the issue. The problem 
with the Republican marriage penalty bill is that its tax cuts go well 
beyond marriage penalty relief by widening the tax brackets of higher 
income tax payers. Half of the relief in the Republican proposal goes 
to people who do not pay any marriage penalty today. As a result, their 
proposal costs an astounding $182 billion over the next ten years, 
consuming nearly one-fourth of the surplus.
  Such substantial costs will leave less money to strengthen Social 
Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, 
pay down the national debt, and provide other essential government 
services. I support President Clinton's veto of this fiscally 
irresponsible Republican proposal because enacting a tax cut that 
reduces our ability to address these important priorities will harm 
families, businesses and communities across the country.
  Democrats have a sensible alternative that costs almost half as much 
as the Republican bill, while still providing marriage penalty tax 
relief to a majority of Americans. The Administration has indicated 
that President Clinton would sign the Democratic alternative if it came 
to his desk. Marriage penalty relief could be signed into law right now 
if the Republican leadership would support this alternative.
  Despite what Republicans claim, Democrats do not oppose tax cuts, and 
we have not opposed marriage penalty relief. However, we do emphasize 
the importance of both fairness and fiscal responsibility when 
providing tax relief. Fairness that ensures family security and fiscal 
responsibility that protects our nation's priorities. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the override of President Clinton's veto.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the ending of the 
marriage penalty, to say that the Democratic alternative did that for 
people that actually have a marriage penalty, and our problem with this 
bill is that it extends about 60 percent of its benefits to people that 
earn above the middle class and have many more means than the middle 
class and, frankly, do not have a marriage penalty.
  Our problem with the bill, and the President's problem with the bill, 
and the reason the bill was vetoed, is that it goes ahead and does a 
lot of things that have nothing to do with the marriage penalty.
  We are all for getting rid of the marriage penalty. For about $100 
billion over 10 years, we could do that for the people that have a 
problem. We could be carrying on a discussion today about a bill that 
the President would sign that would end the marriage penalty, but that 
is not what was chosen to do. So we are wasting time today, again, 
working on a bill that has been vetoed that will never see the light of 
day. I go door to door in my district; I went door to door last weekend 
and people talked to me about all kinds of issues, prescription 
medicine and Medicare, a Patients' Bill of Rights, helping public 
education and trying to get smaller classroom sizes.
  And they talk about tax relief; but they want tax relief that is 
affordable, reasonable, feasible, and is targeted at the people that 
really need it. They do not think we need tax relief for people that 
earn $130,000, $150,000, $200,000 a year. They earn $30,000 a year or 
$40,000 a year; and they would like the tax relief limited and targeted 
at them. They also want us to save the vast majority of the surplus to 
pay down the debt and to take care of Social Security and Medicare.
  Now yesterday in a meeting in the White House, the Speaker and other 
Members of the Republican leadership came in with a new budget, and the 
new budget is that we are going to save 90 percent of the unified 
surplus to pay down the debt. Now, there are two problems with this. 
One, we are back to the unified surplus. I thought we were putting 
Social Security in a lockbox. If we are exposing the unified surplus to 
some new goal setting, 90/10, it could mean that in some years we would 
enter the lockbox and start spending Social Security money.

                              {time}  1200

  I cannot imagine that we would want to do that.
  The second thing is, here we are on the floor today spending an hour 
trying

[[Page H7517]]

to override a veto on a $300 billion tax cut. If you add up all the tax 
cuts that the leadership has brought to the floor and passed, you are 
well above 10 percent of the surplus. So the action today is 
inconsistent with the theory that was propounded just yesterday. We 
want to do these bills.
  I say to my friends on the other side, let us stop the posturing. Let 
us stop the putting out bills that are not going anywhere. People in 
your districts and in mine want us to do something now, this year, to 
end the marriage penalty. We can do the marriage penalty before these 
next 3 or 4 weeks are up, if we will only target it at the people that 
actually have a marriage penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote to sustain this veto. Let us sit 
down in a spirit of bipartisanship and let us get the job done for the 
American people.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to assert that our 
families need some help in America, and this is the way to give it to 
them.
  For a third time President Clinton and Vice President Gore have 
vetoed a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax because they say it 
is risky.
  My question is: What is risky about helping married couples keep more 
of their own money.
  Marriage is a cherished institution in America and we should promote 
it, not discourage it.
  Right now, married couples pay more in taxes than two single people 
living together. That's just not right. Washington must stop penalizing 
the cornerstone of our society--the American family.
  We should encourage marriage--not penalize it.
  In my district alone, this bill would end the marriage penalty for 
over 150,000 Americans.
  Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore should stop playing election year politics. 
This bill is just too important.
  A vote to override the President's veto is a vote for American 
families.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really fascinating at times how short people's 
memories are or the lack of sense of history. When the Republicans 
became the majority in 1995, we had 40 years of the Democrats control 
of this body. For 40 years, they ran up the debt on this country.
  For 40 years, they had budgets as far as the eye could see that were 
going to run deficits and increase the debt on our children and 
grandchildren. When we came in, we told the American people that we 
would balance the budget, that we would give some tax relief, and we 
would start paying down on the debt.
  We were told by this side of the aisle and Washington pundits and 
Washington media that that is impossible, we cannot balance the budget 
and cut taxes and pay down on the debt. I am very proud to stand before 
my colleagues and tell my colleagues that the budget is balanced, and 
it has been for a couple of years, that we stopped the raid on Social 
Security that was going on for 40 years.
  They were taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on 
government programs. We did that last year. And we will do it again 
this year.
  We stopped the raid on Medicare surplus. They were using that for big 
government programs. We have a big surplus, and for the last couple of 
years, we have actually not talked about it, we actually paid down over 
$350 billion on the public debt.
  We started this year with a budget that said that now that we have 
this surplus, we have got to keep it out of the hands of the Washington 
spenders, and we need to return it to the American people, because they 
are the people that paid it and it is their money and they are 
overtaxed. That is the definition of a surplus.
  We said that we would take, and I remind the minority leader, at that 
time we would take 85 percent of the surplus and pay down on the debt, 
and take other 15 percent and give some of that tax money back to the 
American people, and we do it in many ways. Repeal the death tax, well, 
the President vetoed that.
  One of the most important reasons is why we are here today is to give 
some relief to married people, and there is a surplus, there is a $70 
billion surplus. Not counting the Social Security surplus, we have a 
surplus that does not count the Social Security surplus or the Medicare 
surplus, and we can take 90 percent of that and pay down the debt.
  The institution of marriage is the foundation of our communities and 
our government. Marriage is something that we ought to be honoring and 
we ought to be respecting. It is time to repeal the destructive immoral 
tax currently imposed on married couples, a tax that this 
administration refuses to lift.
  The President had the opportunity to end this unfair tax earlier this 
summer, and with the stroke of a pen, he could have extended fairness 
to the millions of American families who are burdened by this tax. 
Unfortunately, the President placed a higher value on retaining 
Washington spending than he did on extending relief for struggling 
young families during the last vote on this issue.
  A very strong bipartisan majority of the House embraced the simple 
common sense of ending a tax that discriminates against people starting 
families. All of us understand that when we tax something we get less 
of it. Why in the world would the Clinton administration retain a 
policy that forces married couples to pay a financial penalty? How can 
they call a family that is making $43,000 a year rich? Their definition 
of middle class is anybody that does not pay taxes.
  Why do Democrats offer an alternative that says it is fine, we can 
take advantage of the marriage penalty tax and repeal it, but if we 
have a home and pay a mortgage or we itemize deductions, we do not get 
the benefit of repealing the marriage penalty.
  The support in this House for ending the marriage penalty clearly 
shows that the American people want and need relief from that tax. A 
country founded on freedom should not maintain a Tax Code that 
arbitrarily places an extra burden on husbands and wives.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and the President to support this 
effort and to end the unfair tax on married couples.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is supposedly about the 
marriage penalty, but like last week's debate on the estate tax, it is 
really about priorities and fiscal discipline.
  It will never be possible to design a tax system that is perfect. 
Often people of good will disagree about objectives and 
interpretations. Most of the people I represent, however, and a 
majority of Americans want us to do the job right. They know we can do 
better. The President is correct in resisting a series of tax cuts that 
favor those who need help the least until there is at least equal 
attention to the plight of those who need our help the most.
  There are some serious marriage penalties in the tax code and in 
other areas of federal law, but this bill would not fix them. Lower-
income workers, who benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, face a 
sharp reduction in benefits when they marry. This bill does not begin 
to address that problem. Nor does it try to distinguish between the 
slightly less than half of America's couples who are affected by the 
marriage penalty and the other half, who receive a marriage benefit. 
This bill lowers taxes for many, while overlooking those who need our 
help the most.
  This bill does nothing to ease a difficulty that fully 50 percent of 
families will face by 2010--the risk that using the child care and 
education credits will force them into the Alternative Minimum Tax. 
This is a very real problem, especially for larger families who simply 
will not get the tax relief they were promised.
  These problems can all be fixed, and the cost would be lower than the 
unfocused proposal the President rightly vetoed. We could have tax 
relief for those who face the biggest problems, while still reserving 
funds to provide health insurance to some of America's 11 million 
uninsured children; to offer prescription drug coverage to the one-
third of older Americans who have no insurance for this expense; and to 
pay down the national debt.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I will vote to override the 
President's veto of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.
  Elimination of the marriage tax penalty has long been my priority. 
Some argue it is overly generous because it widens the 15 percent tax 
bracket for all married couples. I see nothing wrong with increasing 
the 15 percent

[[Page H7518]]

bracket for married couples from the current income level of $43,850 to 
a level of $52,500. No one can claim that those couples are rich. 
Because our tax structure is progressive, obviously widening the income 
covered by the 15 percent will impact on all the upper income levels. 
The issue is whether the lowest tax bracket group should be increased.
  I want the Republican and Democratic leadership to get together and 
work out a marriage tax bill that will be signed by the President. I 
voted for the Democratic proposal in July. The differences between the 
two proposals are not so wide that they cannot be bridged. My vote is 
meant to send a message that repeal of the marriage tax penalty is due. 
Eliminating one of the most unfair provisions of the tax code is long 
overdue. If increasing the lowest tax bracket make it too expensive, 
then let's compromise that, so it costs less. But let's pass the repeal 
of the marriage penalty.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
support to override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, the Marriage 
Penalty Tax Elimination Reconciliation Act. This bill will have a 
positive effect, in particular, on middle and lower income married 
couples.
  At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas (Mr. Archer), 
for introducing this legislation.
  It is important to note that H.R. 4810 passed the House on July 20, 
2000, by a vote of 271 to 156, with this Member's support. The Senate 
also passed the same reconciliation measure. In turn, the President 
vetoed H.R. 4810 on August 5, 2000.
  While there are many reasons to support overriding the President's 
veto of H.R. 4810, this Member will enumerate two specific reasons. 
First, H.R. 4810 takes a significant step toward eliminating the 
current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Second, H.R. 
4810 follows the principle that the Federal income tax code should be 
marriage-neutral.
  First, this legislation, H.R. 4180, will help eliminate the marriage 
penalty in the Internal Revenue Code In the following significant ways:


                           standard deduction

  It will increase the standard deduction for married couples who file 
jointly to double the standard deduction for singles beginning in 2001. 
For example, in 2000, the standard deduction equals $4,400 for single 
taxpayers but $7,350 for married couples who file jointly. If this 
legislation was effective in 2000, the standard deduction for married 
couples who file jointly would be $8,800 which would be double the 
standard deduction for single taxpayers.


                       the 15-percent tax bracket

  It will increase the amount of married couples' income (who file 
jointly) subject to the lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate to twice 
that of single taxpayers beginning in 2003, phased in over six years. 
Under the current tax law, the 15 percent bracket covers taxpayers with 
income up to $26,250 for singles and $43,850 for married couples who 
file jointly. If this legislation was effective in 2000, married 
couples would pay the 15 percent tax rate on their first $52,500 of 
taxable income, which would be double the aforementioned current income 
amount for singles.
  Second, H.R. 4810 will help the Internal Revenue Code become more 
marriage-neutral. Currently, many married couples who file jointly pay 
more Federal income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. The 
Internal Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals 
discuss their future marital status.
  Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his 
colleagues to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, the 
Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination Reconciliation Act.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill the 
first time, I voted for it--although I was very reluctant to do so--in 
the hope that the Senate would improve it sufficiently to make it 
acceptable.
  However, that did not happen. So, I could not vote for the conference 
report on the bill and will not vote to override the President's veto.
  I support ending the ``marriage penalty,'' but my initial support for 
the Republican leadership's bill was reluctant because I though that 
bill was not the right way to achieve that goal. That was why I voted 
for the Democratic alternative, a measure that would not have been 
vetoed.
  In some areas the Republican leadership's bill did too little, and in 
others it did too much. It did too little by not adjusting 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. It did too much 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 
Republican leadership's bill as originally passed by the House would 
have gone too far in reducing 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 did 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, they insisted on sending to the President a bill falling short 
of being appropriate for signature into law. I cannot support that 
approach.
  The bill as sent to the President--the bill that is not before us 
again--is not identical to the original Republican bill as initially 
passed by the House. But it is still very poorly targeted. Half of this 
bill's 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 back in July the Republican leadership decided to 
insist on sending the President a bill he would veto, on a timetable 
based on their national nominating convention. If that was their 
desire, they have achieved it. I greatly regret that the Republican 
leaders 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.
  If the President's veto is upheld--and I think it will be--I hope 
that 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. Certainly, I am 
ready to join in their efforts.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the veto override 
of H.R. 4810. With just under fourteen legislative days remaining, we 
are poised to vote on a measure that will only provide tax relief to a 
small segment of Americans, at a cost of $292.5 billion over 10 years 
and at the expense of providing universal Medicare prescription drug 
benefits, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and paying off 
the National debt during the 1980's and early 1990's. Mr. Speaker, this 
massive tax cut, like the Estate and Gift tax bill before it, puts our 
seniors and our fiscal security at risk.
  H.R. 4810 is overly broad and benefits not only those subject to a 
penalty but also would confer tens of billions of dollars of ``marriage 
penalty tax relief'' on millions of married families that already 
receive marriage bonuses. Approximately half of the tax reductions from 
the bill's ``marriage penalty relief provisions'' would go to families 
that currently receive marriage bonuses. According to a recent Treasury 
Department study, roughly 48 percent of couples pay a marriage penalty 
and 42 percent get a marriage bonus under current tax law. Therefore, 
this bill, which will cost $292.5 billion over 10 years will provide a 
mere $149 in tax relief to the average family with income of less than 
$50,000. Further, once fully phased in, nearly 70 percent of the 
benefit will be enjoyed by couples earning more than $70,000 annually, 
even if they suffered no marriage penalty under existing law.
  As I have said before, the most troubling aspect of H.R. 4810 might 
well be the plan's increase in the 15 percent bracket for married 
couples to twice the single level, phased in over six years. This one 
provision, which accounts for nearly 60 percent of the measure's cost, 
would provide no relief to the 61 percent of all married couples are 
already in the 15 percent bracket. Moreover, once H.R. 4810 is 
implemented, nearly half of American families with two or more children 
can expect to receive little, if any, tax relief because an increasing 
number of these families would be subject to new tax liability, under 
the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). As we all know, the AMT tax was 
designed to ensure that wealthy taxpayers could not avoid income taxes 
through excessive use of preferences such as credits and deductions. 
Mr. Speaker, surely the Republican Leadership does not see middle-class 
families with children as tax evaders.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to abandon H.R. 4810 and join me in 
supporting the

[[Page H7519]]

Rangel alternative. Offered during original consideration of this bill, 
the Rangel alternative would cost $89.1 billion over ten years and 
provides for real relief by increasing the standard deduction for 
married couples filing jointly to twice the level for single filers as 
well as an exemption from the AMT. The Rangel substitute adjusts the 
AMT in an attempt to ensure that the benefits of the standard deduction 
change would not be nullified. Further, it grants couples a $2,000 
increase in the beginning and ending income phaseout levels for 
families claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 2001 and a 
permanent $2,500 increase starting in 2002.
  Unfortunately, with the House's rejection of the Rangel alternative, 
no legislation providing relief from the marriage penalty will be 
enacted this year. Moreover, the Republican Leadership, by scheduling 
this vote today, are telling us that they would rather have a political 
issue than working with Congressional Democrats to craft a bill that 
the President could sign to give an immediate targeted tax cut to 
middle-class American families. Mr. Speaker, let's not squander this 
opportunity to work together and act fast to bring about a targeted tax 
cut that relieves those who actually suffer a marriage penalty while 
maintaining our commitment to paying off the debt, providing a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit for seniors, and strengthening Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
override the President's veto of H.R. 4810, a bill that purportedly 
addresses the marriage penalty but in fact misses the mark.
  I strongly support marriage penalty relief. In my view, the tax code 
should not penalize couples because they choose to get married. That is 
why I have repeatedly voted for tax cuts to alleviate the marriage 
penalty for hard working families.
  Unfortunately, the bill vetoed by the President was inflated to 
nearly $300 billion with about half the total tax benefit going to high 
income earners who do not even pay the penalty. As a consequence, the 
vetoed bill would crowd out our ability to enact other tax cuts for 
working families, to pay down the national debt, and to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare. We can eliminate the marriage penalty 
without jeopardizing these other important priorities.
  This override vote need not and should not be the last word on 
marriage penalty relief this Congress. Members of both parties have 
offered proposals to address the marriage penalty and there are clearly 
grounds for compromise. The Republican presidential candidate, for 
example, has offered a targeted marriage penalty proposal that would 
restore the 10 percent deduction for two-earner families--a far 
different approach from the vetoed bill. The distinguished ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, sponsored 
legislation that provides more relief from the marriage penalty than 
any other proposal offered this year by allowing couples to choose 
whether to file jointly or as individuals.
  In the spirit of compromise, today I am introducing the House 
companion to the Moynihan amendment. Under my bill, couples who 
currently pay more in taxes because they're married would have the 
choice to file as individuals, eliminating the marriage penalty. My 
bill is simpler, provides more marriage penalty relief, and is more 
fiscally responsible than the vetoed bill.
  The one-half of all married couples in this country who pay the 
marriage penalty deserve our best efforts to reach a compromise. They 
gain nothing from political posturing and override motions that will 
inevitably fail. These couples deserve to have a bill enacted this 
year. We can deliver that tax relief, and I hope the legislation I 
introduce today can serve as a starting point for how we can address 
the marriage penalty and protect other key national priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues 
to vote to override the President's marriage penalty veto.
  Last February, this House passed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act 
of 1999, with 51 Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republican 
majority.
  In August, President Clinton vetoed the bill. Today, the House has 
the opportunity to vote to override the President's veto.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, 25 million couples 
every year pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes simply because they 
are married. That's enough for their children's collect expenses or a 
down payment on a family car.
  Here's how the discrimination works: A single taxpayer earning 
$30,000 annually pays $3,000 in federal taxes. But if two taxpayers 
earning $30,000 each marry, they owe $8,400 in federal taxes--40 
percent more than the $6,000 they paid when they were single.
  There is no justification for making families pay higher tax rates 
than single Americans. In my own district of Texas, about 66,000 
married couples would benefit from the bill.
  Raising a family is difficult enough. The federal government should 
not add to that burden with unfair taxes. That's why I support the 
House's override of the President's marriage penalty veto.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4810, the 
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.
  Last year, leadership tried to enact a $792 billion tax cut bill that 
would have seriously endangered efforts to strengthen Social Security 
and Medicare, pay down the $5.7 trillion debt and invest in important 
priorities such as education and a prescription drug benefit for all 
seniors. The American people soundly rejected this fiscally 
irresponsible plan.
  This year nothing has changed except House leadership has broken 
apart their big tax bill into smaller pieces. So far, the leadership 
tax agenda adds up to more than $748 billion over 10 years. This amount 
is nearly the same as the large irresponsible tax bill rejected last 
year. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill passed by the House and the 
Senate and vetoed by the President is, once again, just another vehicle 
for leadership to push through their tax cuts, at the cost of $280 
billion over ten years if its provisions remain permanent, while 
providing nothing for hard working families.
  While I support tax relief for those couples who are penalized, I do 
not, however, support H.R. 4810. Most of the tax cut would go to 
couples that pay no marriage penalty at all, in fact they receive a 
marriage bonus. That is why I supported the substitute originally 
offered by Representative Rangel, which was fairer and more fiscally 
responsible. In fact, two-thirds of America's couples would get the 
same tax cut under the alternative bill, as they would under H.R. 4810. 
It would have eliminated the marriage tax penalty by increasing the 
basic standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint income tax 
return to twice the basic standard deduction for an unmarried 
individual, but it would not have further exacerbated the current 
inequities in the Tax Code by providing a large tax act windfall to 
couples receiving a marriage bonus, that is, paying less in taxes 
because they are married than they would if they were single.
  Although the President vetoed H.R. 4810 in August, leadership has 
insisted upon using the short period of time that remains in the 106th 
Congress to vote on this bill again, knowing that it will not be 
enacted into law as currently drafted. If leadership was serious about 
providing relief to married couples who incur a penalty, they would 
have worked for a truly bipartisan bill that all Members of Congress 
could have supported and the President would have signed into law. From 
the beginning leadership proved they were not serious about tax relief 
when they broke their own budget rules by first bringing up their bill 
in February, long before they passed a budget resolution. Their timing 
was purely for show, they wanted to provide tax cuts for married 
couples on Valentine's day. Further, they never bothered to schedule 
bipartisan meetings to discuss their bill, they never held a House-
Senate Conference meeting, and leadership drafted the final bill behind 
closed doors.
  Our current strong economy has begun producing surplus federal 
revenues, and, as you might imagine, there is no shortage of ideas for 
``using'' the surplus. I am in favor of providing relief for those 
couples who are penalized by the marriage tax and I hope we can still 
reach a compromise on tax relief. Unfortunately, this tax relief would 
have made it more difficult to meet our nation's existing obligations; 
such as paying off our $5.7 trillion debt, protecting Social Security, 
modernizing Medicare by offering a prescription drug benefit, and 
investing in our children's education. Surplus funds allow us to pay 
down the principal on this burdensome debt, thus reducing the annual 
interest payments which amount to approximately $250 billion annually. 
In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, that ``ongoing 
progress to pay off the national debt is an extraordinarily effective 
force in this economy,'' and that our first priority should be to 
continue to rack up annual surpluses.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have tax cuts this year, but they should be the 
right ones, targeted at those who are currently penalized by the 
marriage tax. I urge all my colleagues to oppose the Marriage Penalty 
Tax Relief bill and sustain the President's veto of the Marriage 
Penalty Tax Relief Act. Then let's get back together to pass a 
reasonable compromise that recognizes our obligations to pay off the 
national debt, strengthen Social Security, modernize Medicare and 
invest in our children.

[[Page H7520]]



                          ____________________