[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 28, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2424-H2427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4181, PERMANENTLY EXTENDING 
INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION, AND THE 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX 
   RATE BRACKET EXPANSION, FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call

[[Page H2425]]

up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 607

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4181) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     permanently extend the increased standard deduction, and the 
     15-percent individual income tax rate bracket expansion, for 
     married taxpayers filing joint returns. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1130

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified closed 
rule for the Marriage Penalty Relief Act.
  H.R. 4181 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend the increased standard deduction and the 15 percent individual 
income tax rate bracket expansion for married taxpayers filing joint 
returns. It will also make permanent the increase in the phase-out of 
the earned income credit for joint filers.
  Before 2001, the Tax Code penalized many married couples by forcing 
them to pay higher taxes just because they were married. The 2001 tax 
relief bill, enacted by President Bush, brought fairness to the Tax 
Code by phasing out these penalties. This law increased the standard 
deduction in the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice as 
much for individuals. The relief was accelerated in the tax relief that 
was signed into law last year.
  Thirty-five million couples currently benefit from the elimination of 
the marriage penalty. However, this relief will be reduced next year 
and will expire in 2010, and we cannot let that happen. Unless the 
relief is extended, 27 million married couples will face an average tax 
increase of $300 in 2005, and over 35 million will see a tax increase 
of more than $700 starting in 2011.
  H.R. 4181 ensures that the marriage penalty relief is not reduced 
next year and that it stays in the law permanently.
  We all know our economy is starting to rebound. Businesses are 
beginning to hire workers again, and Americans are starting to spend 
their money with more confidence. If we do not eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty and prevent other tax increases, our economy might slow 
down and prevent job creation.
  Married working couples will be able to use this tax relief to 
benefit their families, which always helps the economy. They will be 
able to spend this money to improve their home or buy something they 
want, like a new washing machine or a new TV; and the more money they 
spend, the more jobs they will help create for their neighbors and 
friends.
  This is what the bill is all about. The most important thing we can 
do today is revitalize our economy here at home, and we do this by 
eliminating the marriage penalty tax.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty tax relief is a good thing, not paying 
for it is a bad thing. All of us in this Chamber support tax fairness 
for married couples. But the question is, who supports tax fairness for 
future generations?
  The deficit in this country continues to skyrocket, and what is 
disturbing to me is that there do not seem to be very many people on 
the other side of the aisle that care very much about that fact. We 
have to give President Clinton and his administration credit because, 
during the Clinton administration, this country experienced the first 
budget surpluses since the 1960s. Democrats and Republicans, working in 
a bipartisan way, delivered balanced budgets and extended the solvency 
of Social Security and Medicare well into the 21st century, but then 
the Bush administration moved into the White House, and fiscal 
responsibility went out of fashion.
  Over the course of three major tax cuts, essentially handouts to the 
wealthiest Americans and corporations in this country, the $5.6 
trillion surplus became a $2.9 trillion deficit, a stunning $8.5 
trillion reversal.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership claimed they were providing 
middle-class tax relief, but the truth is that the vast majority of 
these tax cuts went to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in 
this country. They claimed that these tax cuts would stimulate the 
economy and create jobs, but the truth is that this country has lost 
more than 2 million jobs since the President took office. They claim 
that this country could afford these tax cuts; but the truth is, they 
have squandered the Clinton surplus and actually hidden the long-term 
costs of these tax cuts by pretending that they will expire in 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people, I believe, can separate the 
rhetoric from reality. Over the next 4 weeks, starting today, this 
House will consider legislation to extend various provisions of the 
2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Mind you, we will consider these bills without 
a budget resolution, the framework for all Federal spending for the 
upcoming fiscal year; and we will consider them years before many of 
them actually expire.
  Today's offering is a bill to extend marriage penalty tax relief 
beyond 2010. I fully support extending tax relief for married couples, 
but this bill that the Republican leadership has drafted has the same 
problem as their previous bills. It is not paid for. Well, I should say 
actually it will be paid for some day, but not by this Congress. Just 
like in 2001 and 2003, the Republicans pass the cost of their tax cuts 
to our children and to our grandchildren. In essence, they are raising 
taxes on future generations. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair and that is 
not right.
  Democrats, I think, have a better plan to extend marriage penalty 
relief. The Democratic substitute improves this legislation with three 
simple, commonsense provisions.
  First, the Democrats extend the earned income tax credit for low- and 
middle-income married couples; and the Democratic bill speeds up the 
EITC marriage penalty relief included in the 2001 tax cut bill, 
ensuring that low- and middle-income married couples are not penalized 
by this unfair tax.
  Second, Democrats exempt any marriage penalty relief from the 
alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, over half of the marriage 
penalty relief is taken away from married couples by the Federal 
Government because of the alternative minimum tax. The Republican bill 
fails to fix this unfair taxation, and many married couples will find 
that the government is taxing the very relief promised them by the 
Republican leadership. We will not see that in the Republican press 
releases today.
  Third, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats provide an offset. Unlike the 
Republican bill, Democrats actually pay for this tax relief. Democrats 
do not believe we should be passing the burden of paying for these tax 
cuts onto future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, every day American families must make tough choices with 
their hard-earned money. They budget for groceries and housing, 
transportation, education and child care. They spend sensibly within 
their means.
  Congress could learn a lot from the average American family. Congress 
should live within its means as well.

[[Page H2426]]

  It is very simple. If you are going to spend, you should pay for it. 
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the other side of the aisle 
is ignoring that important lesson.
  We have an opportunity here today to work together and provide 
meaningful marriage penalty relief to married couples, regardless of 
income; and we can do this in a way that we pay for it.
  So I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us 
today. Support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute. Show the 
American people that this Congress can actually act in a fiscally 
responsible manner, that it does indeed care about the deficit and the 
fiscal health of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to the gentleman that we do have a bit of a 
philosophical difference here because, throughout history, every time 
we have done tax relief, the economy improves, and we put more money 
into the system, and it pays for itself over and over and over and over 
and over again. So this is just a philosophical difference we have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the examples of inequities and simply 
unfair and lacking-in-commonsense provisions of our existing Tax Code 
are just too numerous to mention. I wish I could wave a magic wand and 
eliminate them all overnight.
  This President and this Congress are doing their best to bring about 
much-needed and long-overdue tax reform to the American people, but I 
am a realist. I know that a journey of 1,000 miles requires many steps 
forward. Today, we have an opportunity to take a joint step forward.
  I stand before my colleagues as a proud cosponsor and strong advocate 
for eliminating permanently the marriage tax penalty. And what is the 
marriage tax penalty? I wish it were easy to explain to the American 
people, but think of it in these terms. When the only thing that 
changes in the lives of a man and a woman, not their job, not their 
income, nothing else, when the only thing that changes is that they 
fall in love and get married, only to discover that their tax 
obligation is dramatically increased, not double what they were paying 
as two single people but double plus, that just does not make sense.
  The 2001 tax relief act, enacted by President Bush and proudly passed 
by this Congress, brought fairness to the Tax Code by phasing out this 
penalty; however, this relief will be reduced next year and will expire 
entirely by 2010 unless we take the action called for in this good 
legislation.
  We want to provide tax relief for the American people. We want them 
to keep more of their own money so that they can make the wise 
decisions on how to spend that money. We want to provide relief for the 
American business community to incentivize them to buy new equipment, 
to build new buildings, to expand and create more jobs. The President 
and this Congress are seeking to do just that.
  It is mind-boggling to me to think that anyone would oppose it, but 
we get people who stand up on this floor and say I am for it, but I am 
for it but. There is always but, but, but. Let us do it, provide tax 
relief to the American families, tax relief that will get our economy 
moving again; and this is one very important step forward in that very 
important and long journey.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who I 
have great respect for.
  We serve together on the Committee on Rules, and I did not think we 
had much of a philosophical difference because I have admired a lot of 
the comments that she has made over the last several months about the 
importance of this Congress being fiscally responsible. The gentlewoman 
actually heads the Republican's Study Group which represents a lot of 
the more conservative Members of this Chamber, but I read a quote that 
she had made that appeared in Congress Daily on January 22 that I 
actually agree with. She says, ``I support making tax cuts permanent, 
but we have to pay for them.''
  I think the only kind of difference that we seem to have on this 
debate, which I did not think we did based on this quote, was that we 
want tax relief and we want it paid for.
  My colleague from New York says that we always want to say but, but, 
but. Well, it is not that we want to say ``but.'' I think most 
Americans want us to be fiscally responsible, and the fact of the 
matter is we are faced with the largest deficits in the history of our 
country. That used to be a concern on the other side of the aisle. It 
does not seem to be a concern anymore, and we are also faced with 
record job losses. I mean, 2.6 million jobs have been lost under this 
administration.
  I am concerned by the fact that we cannot seem to get a highway bill 
to the President's desk. The gentleman from New York is on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He knows full well that 
if we passed a transportation bill, we would create a lot of jobs by 
investing in our infrastructure and investing in our highways.
  So if we want to get serious about controlling this deficit, I think 
we need to show a little fiscal responsibility here on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts, I say this: if my colleagues provide tax relief to the 
American families, they are not going to hide the money under the 
mattress. They are going to use it to buy goods and services, 
manufactured right here in the United States, by his neighbors and 
mine.
  My favorite four letter word, and we can use it in polite company, is 
``jobs.''

                              {time}  1145

  And if you provide tax relief for the families, they will use their 
money wisely to create new jobs. If you incentivize business to buy new 
equipment, build new buildings, create new jobs, that is the best way 
to get more money flowing into the Treasury to reduce that deficit.
  I, like you, want to do that; but we are moving in the right 
direction. We have got the right ticket to drive this economy forward 
if we provide much-needed tax relief for the families and for the 
businesses of America so that our economy, which is moving in the right 
direction, will do so at an accelerated pace.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and say to the gentleman from New York that my favorite four letter 
word as well is ``jobs,'' and I am, quite frankly, very worried about 
the fact that under this administration and under their economic 
policies we have lost 2.6 million jobs.
  I want to make sure that our economy moves in a different direction. 
I guess I also believe that one of the ways to help continue to move us 
in a different direction is to get our fiscal house in order and to 
reverse this trend that we are now pursuing, which is one of record 
deficits.
  Going deeper into debt, in the long run, is going to undercut our 
economy and undercut our ability to grow jobs. What we are simply 
saying here is that, yes, we believe in marriage penalty tax relief; 
but we think it should be paid for. I do not think that should be 
controversial. That seems consistent with a lot of statements made by 
the other side of the aisle over the many years I have heard speeches 
being given on this floor.
  What we are doing today is not paid for. What we are doing today, in 
the end, is going to bring us further into debt; and I think that we 
can do this better. We should be able to come together in a bipartisan 
way and get this right. I think that is what the American people would 
expect.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and to quote someone a lot more famous than me, ``There you go 
again.'' It is, we believe in this, but, but, but. Let us do it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and again thank the gentleman for his

[[Page H2427]]

remarks; but this is not an excuse. This is very serious.
  We are now faced with the biggest deficit in the history of this 
country; and every single Member, Republican and Democrat, liberal and 
conservative, should be worried about it because we are passing this on 
to our kids and our grandkids. That is no joking matter. That is 
serious.
  I believe if we do not reverse this trend, we will undercut our 
ability to grow jobs. So I want tax relief, but I also want us to be 
fiscally responsible and pay for it. That is consistent with the 
statement of my colleague from North Carolina, who I have great 
admiration for. I just wish when we say these things, we would actually 
fight to make them a reality on this House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and would just say that I am glad the gentleman agrees that we need tax 
relief and we need fiscal constraint, because the budget we are looking 
at bringing forward, of course, has a freeze on spending, which is a 
very important part of this to reduce the deficit.
  And again I would just say that we have a difference in how we look 
at this and how we pay for the tax cuts, because we believe that there 
will be increased monies coming in to the Treasury through the economic 
generation that is done with the tax relief. It has happened throughout 
history. And because of that, we will see the tax cuts paid for and the 
deficit reduced.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), another distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I thank 
my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for legislation that amends 
the Internal Revenue Code, and I am pleased the House will have the 
opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation and 
also an amendment from the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Tax Code remains hopelessly complex. Just a 
few years ago, it was so convoluted from years of tax changes that it 
punished married taxpayers merely because they were married. 
Unfortunately, only under this current monstrosity of a Tax Code could 
the marriage penalty that this House eliminated reappear in the very 
near future. This rule before the House, H. Res. 607, will give Members 
of the House an opportunity to consider legislation that not only makes 
the Tax Code fairer but also ensures that we can halt a targeted tax 
increase on married Americans.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for 
introducing this important legislation, H.R. 4181, which extends 
indefinitely the tax relief that the Congress and President Bush 
enacted in 2001 and 2003 to help married couples.
  Previously, our income tax code penalized couples who got married, 
frequently forcing them to pay higher taxes than if they had remained 
single. If we fail to enact H.R. 4181, tax rates will revert to their 
pre-2001 levels, and the marriage tax penalty will be reinstated at the 
end of this year.
  As a Nation built on strong families, we should promote marriage, not 
penalize it. Our tax system should not discourage getting married and 
raising a family. Therefore, it is imperative we pass H.R. 4181 today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
so we may proceed to debating the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the Democratic substitute that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) will 
offer. I think it is a responsible way to approach this issue because 
it supports marriage penalty tax relief, but it pays for it.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina mentioned that their budget 
resolution urges that we pay for additional spending programs. I am all 
for pay-as-you-go rules, but I think they should also apply to tax 
cuts. I think it is the responsible thing to do.
  I think all of us here would like to go home to our districts and 
talk about all the tax relief that we can provide our American 
families; but I think without specifying how we are going to pay for 
it, it is really irresponsible. It is a nice press release. It is a 
nice kind of public relations item. But if we do not pay for it, what 
we are really doing is we are passing the burdens on to future 
generations, to our children, our grandchildren, and our great 
grandchildren.
  My grandfather used to say to me that you cannot have dessert without 
first having your spinach, and I think that that is a good lesson for 
us to apply to how we do business on the House floor. It is nice to get 
up here and talk about tax cuts and tax cuts and tax cuts, but it would 
be better to do so in the context that we pay for them. I think that is 
what the American people expect. That is what American families have to 
do. They pay as they go. They have to live within their means, and I 
think that same lesson should apply here.
  So having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the rule, 
but I would urge my colleagues very strongly to do the responsible 
thing and to support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I say to my friend from Massachusetts that tax cuts do not cost 
money, they make money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________