Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 56 (Wednesday, April 28, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 28, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2429-H2449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERMANENTLY EXTENDING INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION, AND 15-PERCENT
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION, FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS
FILING JOINT RETURNS

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 607, I call up
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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 4181 is as follows:

H.R. 4181

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR
MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to basic standard
deduction) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the basic standard deduction is--
``(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of--
``(i) a joint return, or
``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
``(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined
in section 2(b)), or
``(C) $3,000 in any other case.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 63(c)(4) of such Code is amended by striking
``(2)(D)'' each place it occurs and inserting ``(2)(C)''.
(2) Section 63(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (7).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE
BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING
JOINT RETURNS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 1(f ) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to phaseout of
marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket) is amended to read as
follows:
``(8) Elimination of marriage penalty in 15-percent
bracket.--With respect to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2004, in prescribing the tables under paragraph
(1)--
``(A) the maximum taxable income in the 15 percent rate
bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the
minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income
bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum
taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table
contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under
this subsection), and
``(B) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table
contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts
determined under subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for subsection (f )
of section 1 of such Code is amended by striking ``Phaseout''
and inserting ``Elimination''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments
made by sections 301 and 302 of such Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in part A of House
Report 108-470 is adopted.
The text of H.R. 4181, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 4181

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR
MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE
BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING
JOINT RETURNS.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments
made by title III of such Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended,

[[Page H2430]]

it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part
B of the report, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the
bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we have before us an issue that we have debated in
the past, an issue which has earned bipartisan support. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to bring H.R. 4181 to the House floor today.
This legislation makes the marriage tax relief provisions of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act permanent. Currently
there are 36 million American working families that benefit from the
elimination of the marriage tax penalty. However, without H.R. 4181,
this relief will be reduced next year and expire in 2010. Frankly what
that means in simple terms, if this legislation fails to become law, 36
million married working couples will suffer higher taxes and see much
of their marriage tax penalty return in the coming calendar year.
To make sure this does not happen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Gerlach) and I introduced H.R. 4181 last week. Overall, our
efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty have taken more than 6
years. We have made great strides but we are not done yet. We are
determined to bring this effort across the finish line and today's
legislation achieves that goal.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act, which President Bush signed
into law on June 6, 2001, eliminates the marriage tax penalty in three
steps. First, we double the standard deduction to twice that of
singles. This helps families who do not itemize their income taxes.
Additionally, it eliminates the marriage tax penalty for homeowners and
others who itemize their taxes by widening the 15 percent tax bracket.
Finally, it phases out the marriage penalty suffered by low-income
couples when they utilize the earned income tax credit as a married
couple.
Much of the relief which became law in 2001 was accelerated last year
when President Bush signed a second piece of legislation called the
Jobs and Growth Tax Act into law. The accelerated relief included in
what some call the Bush tax cut expires at the end of this year. Unless
this marriage tax relief is extended, 27 million married couples will
face an average tax increase of $300 and over 30 million American
working couples will face an average tax increase of more than $700
starting in 2011. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan agency
of this Congress, estimates that these same couples will pay nearly
$105 billion in higher taxes over the next decade in marriage tax
penalty unless we pass H.R. 4181, making marriage tax penalty relief
permanent today.
Over the last several years, I have introduced my colleagues to some
young couples from the district that I represent. One couple, Shad and
Michelle Hallihan, was the first couple I shared. They are from
Manhattan, Illinois, a married working couple, two schoolteachers. I
explained how they suffered from the unfair marriage tax penalty. They
benefited from the legislation that was signed into law by President
Bush in 2001; they benefited even more in 2003; and we will protect
them from the marriage tax penalty in this legislation we hope to send
to the President this year.
Two years ago I introduced to my colleagues another couple from my
district, Jose and Magdelene Castillo, of Joliet, Illinois. In 2002,
they earned combined salaries of $82,000 a year. Jose made $57,000 in
2002 and Magdelene earned $25,000. They suffered the marriage tax
penalty. They have two children, Eduardo and Carolina. As a result of
the tax law changes that we passed and President Bush signed into law,
their marriage tax penalty was reduced by $1,125 a year. This
represented a 12 percent overall reduction in taxes for the Castillo
family.
Imagine what this means for families like the Castillos, the
Hallihans and other middle-income working Americans. With that $1,125,
the Castillos could start saving for their children's college
education. They could go back to school at Joliet Junior College and
pay for a semester or two of college education. They could save for
their retirement. They could put a small down payment on a car or a new
home. The bottom line is $1,125 is real money for families like the
Castillos.
Overall in the State of Illinois, which I have the privilege of
representing, 1,544,000 couples today benefit from the marriage tax
relief passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush.
What Congress must do now is to make sure that American families can be
confident that this much-deserved tax relief will not be taken away.
They want to be sure that we are committed to fairness in the Tax Code
by ensuring the marriage tax penalty is gone and will stay away. We
must make marriage tax relief permanent for the 36 million American
couples that benefit from the tax law changes that we passed into law
last year and were signed into law by President Bush.
As unfair as the marriage tax penalty is, it seems even more unfair
to consider telling couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan of
Manhattan, Illinois, or Jose and Magdelene Castillo of Joliet,
Illinois, that in just a few short years the marriage tax penalty may
return because Congress failed to extend and make permanent the
elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Let us remember, this bill
makes permanent the marriage tax penalty relief included in the Bush
tax cut. We make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty
for those who use the earned income tax credit. We double the standard
deduction for those who do not itemize to help provide those with
marriage tax relief. And for many middle-class families who itemize, we
eliminate the marriage tax penalty by permanently widening the 15
percent tax bracket so you can earn as a married couple twice that of a
single person and stay in the 15 percent bracket.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4181 is a good bill. It encourages the values we
hold most dear, marriage, family and hard work. My hope is this
legislation will earn bipartisan support today. I think we can all
agree that it is wrong to punish society's most basic institution, the
center of every American family, and that is marriage. I encourage my
colleagues to vote for H.R. 4181, making marriage tax relief a
permanent part of our Tax Code, because it is the right thing to do, it
is the fair thing to do for American families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill was summed up perfectly by my
friend the gentleman from Illinois when he said that this bill was
introduced last week. So the bill was introduced last week and now it
is on the floor this week, a complicated tax bill? I think the oldest
committee in the Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, would have
had an opportunity to digest the details of this legislation, but this
must be some new mechanism that we have developed here whereby on a
very important tax matter the legislation is introduced last week and
it is on the floor today for discussion without incidentally having
gone through the committee, which for people like myself happen to
believe that this is the basis of the Congress, sending legislation
through the committee so it might be vetted properly and there might be
an opportunity for people to examine the details of the legislation
before it is brought to the floor.
Let me speak specifically to the tax cut mania that we are hearing in
this institution. What is striking about this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is
that, I want to remind people, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq who are
serving with honor and distinction every single day. We have 12,000
more troops in Afghanistan who likewise are serving this country
admirably day in and day out. So here is the strategy in the modern
Congress.

{time} 1400

We are simultaneously fighting two wars with three tax cuts.
One of the things that I am most proud of during my time on the
Committee on Ways and Means is that we

[[Page H2431]]

were able to put together the details that balanced the budget of the
United States for the first time, I believe, in about 3\1/2\ decades,
and then we projected surpluses where we may well have had the
opportunity to repair Social Security, to repair Medicare, to spend
some money on education and to have done the things that we all desire
in terms of improving our environment. But the strategy afoot today in
the modern Congress is you introduce the bill last week, and then you
bring it to the floor for a debate without even going through the
committee process. So two wars, three tax cuts, $500 billion in
deficit, and there is no vetting of this process in front of our
committees?
Let me speak specifically, if I can, to the proposal of the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller). Let me tell the gentleman, I know people
like the Hallihans. Here is the problem with this proposal: What we
give to them with this hand, the alternative minimum tax takes away
with the other hand. For a family who already has discovered a couple
of weeks ago how ferocious the alternative minimum tax can be, they are
going to discover that with the headlines of marriage penalty relief
that there is a take-back provision.
So we are going to give them the benefit today of what we deem to be
or call marriage penalty relief, and, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The
Hallihans are about to discover that if they are a married couple with
two children who make $72,000 a year, they are not going to get any
relief in this proposal because of the alternative minimum tax.
Now, I along with others have been talking about the problem of the
alternative minimum tax for the last few years around here. I said
recently seldom have I ever been part of any issue in the 16 years in
which I have had the honor to serve here where people said to me, keep
up the good work, we appreciate what you are doing on both sides of the
aisle, and then we do not do anything about it.
So let me go back to the Hallihans for a second, because I expect
that they are going to know about alternative minimum tax very quickly.
If they have two children and they take the standard deduction with
income of $72,000 a year, let me repeat, they are not going to get any
tax relief with this proposal. Part of the problem is AMT, and part of
the problem happens to be the President's tax cut proposals.
I am going to go back to what I said at the beginning. How can we be
fighting two wars with three tax cuts? That is what we ought to be
discussing and deliberating here. We passed $87 billion for the war in
Iraq, that on top of $60 billion, and everybody in this institution
knows that after the election we are going to need more money for the
Iraq war and the Afghanistan war.
Where are we going to go to get it? I do not know any businessman or
businesswoman in America that could hope to run their company the way
that we are undertaking tax cut legislation in the modern Congress.
Then on top of that, we stand at the microphones and tell people, you
are going to get relief under this proposal, and more relief under this
provision. Then they get their tax bill; and they discover not only is
there not any more relief, but, because of alternative minimum tax,
they are going to pay more.
There are two issues that we should all be able to agree on in this
Congress: tax simplification, there ought to be an appetite here for
getting it done; and the second part of this issue, we should be fixing
permanently the alternative minimum tax. That is what we should be
doing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that this House will be considering in the
next few weeks legislation for broad AMT relief. In fact, 11 million
taxpaying families will benefit from the AMT relief that we will pass
later on in the next few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished leader in the effort to permanently
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support H.R. 4181, a straightforward piece of legislation that will
provide permanent marriage penalty tax relief.
First, I would like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller) and his staff for the tireless work that they
have done regarding marriage penalty relief over the past years. The
dedication of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) to providing
married couples with tax equality is admirable.
I would also like to convey my gratitude to the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means staff
and members for their expertise and knowledge in developing and moving
forward with this legislation. Their actions over the past years to
eliminate the marriage penalty and to increase the child care tax
credit has greatly benefited American families and our economy.
Prior to 2001, the Tax Code penalized many married couples by forcing
them to pay higher taxes after they married. Two unmarried people
living in the same home frequently paid far less in taxes than a
married couple with the same income. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act set out to rectify this situation. These
penalties would be phased out beginning in 2005. By 2010, the standard
deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket for joint filers would be
increased to double those for single filers. However, the bill included
a sunset provision that eliminated all of these benefits after 2010.
Last year, this Congress took even greater steps to provide tax
relief for 35 million hard-working married couples by accelerating this
relief. Married couples in 2003 and 2004 received twice the standard
deduction for single filers, and the 15 percent tax bracket was doubled
to twice that for single filers.
Unfortunately, the accelerated relief provided last year will expire
after the 2004 tax year, and all penalty relief is due to expire after
2010 as a result of the 2001 act's sunset provision.
Let me illustrate the effect of our tax policy. In 2001, Mr. and Mrs.
Smith each earn $27,000 for a total household income of $54,000. If
they filed individually, they would each have a standard deduction of
$4,550, or a total of $9,100, and both would fall into the 15 percent
tax bracket under the marginal rates at that time. However, if they
filed jointly in 2001, they would only receive a standard deduction of
$7,600, because the standard deduction for married couples in 2001 was
just 167 percent of the individual standard deduction.
Further, the joint income of $54,000 would put them in the 27.5
percent marginal tax bracket. So if they both filed as individuals,
their total tax would be $6,734. If they filed jointly, their tax would
be $7,110, a marriage penalty of $376.
Under the 2003 act's tax cuts, Mr. and Mrs. Smith could file a joint
return in 2003 and 2004 tax years and receive the standard deduction
for a married couple of $9,500. This is equal to twice the standard
deduction for individuals. They would also fall into the 15 percent
rate bracket. As joint filers, they are treated no differently from an
unmarried couple.
What will happen to Mr. and Mrs. Smith in tax year 2005? If the
standard deduction for the individual remains the same and the Smiths
filed separately, they would each have a deduction of $4,750. Their
total deduction would be $9,500. That would put them in the 15 percent
rate bracket. As a married couple in that tax year, their deduction
would be 174 percent of the individual standard deduction. This works
out to $8,265. If the 15 percent rate bracket income limit for single
filers remained the same, they would return to the 27.5 bracket.
Over the next few years, Mr. and Mrs. Smith would make out better as
the phase-in of the marriage penalty relief continued. In 2010 they
would return to what they remember as the ``good old days'' of 2003 and
204 when they were treated the same as unmarried couples.
Unfortunately, in the following tax year, the rug would be pulled out
from under them, and the Tax Code would treat the Smiths in the same
inequitable and unfair manner as it did before 2003.
H.R. 4181 will ensure that the marriage penalty relief is not reduced
next year and that the relief stays in the law permanently. As a result
of this legislation, couples will no longer have to worry about
incurring a tax penalty just by getting married.
If we fail to act, more than 35 million married couples will see an
average tax

[[Page H2432]]

increase of $300 in the 2005 tax year. In 2011, 35 million married
couples would see a tax increase of more than $700. In many of our
districts, that is the equivalent of a month's rent.
As we all work to help our economy to continue to recover, the
greatest error we could make would be to allow an increase on taxes on
our families. At a time in our allocating of Federal funds to promote
marriage for public assistance beneficiaries, how can we even consider
allowing the return to a Tax Code that penalizes married couples?
In conclusion, this is the right bill, this is the right time, and I
request all of our Members to support the legislation on final passage.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who was elected
on the same day as I was. I would point out he is a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, which generally is in a position to take
up these sorts of issues.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I too am concerned about the total lack of process around here and
what we are supposed to be doing. My concerns really do not go to the
substance of the bill or the policies, but the total lack of process
and the fact that we do not even have a budget by which we can gauge
what our priorities ought to be.
I am going to talk about something here as a business person, that I
am looking forward to this tax cut a week over the next several weeks,
because I think it is going to give us a wonderful opportunity to
explain to the American people what is going on in this town.
Generally speaking, when you are in business, you have a budget. You
try to decide what you are going to spend money for and what you are
going to do. We do not have that, so we come with these ad hoc tax
bills, and the mantra seems to be that a tax cut generates money; it
does not cost money. In fact, the majority party tries to apply PAYGO
rules only on the spending side and not to the tax side. It is called a
balance sheet. It is not a liability sheet; it is a balance sheet. You
have to have both.
What I think they fail to understand is that a tax cut today with
borrowed money is a tax increase tomorrow, and it is called interest.
We are now paying over $300 billion a year in interest on the national
debt. If that was all that we had to worry about, maybe we could figure
out a way to pay that back with inflated dollars or in some way do
something to get us out of this hole, if that is all we had to worry
about.
I remember when Secretary Snow came before the committee and I asked
him about interest. He said, oh, yes, it is an obligation that must be
paid. I said, yes, it must be paid off the top. Everyone who has
borrowed money knows about interest, and this bill today on the floor
adds another $100 billion of unpaid-for tax consequences that we will
have to begin paying interest on as we borrow it. Again, if that was as
far as it went, maybe we could somehow justify that, if we had a
budget, which we do not.
But Secretary Snow, getting back to him, when I asked him about
interest, he said, yes, it is, but this is nothing to worry about,
because the United States economy is so large and this is such a small
percentage of GDP that the borrowings we are incurring today, we can
handle them.
What he did not say was that back when we did have a percentage of
GDP of borrowings this big, it was the American people who were funding
the deficit, who were buying the IOUs of the Treasury. That is not true
today. I want to tell the American people that this is a national
security issue, and I hope I can explain why to them.
Last year we had a budget deficit here in this town of over $370
billion. Over 70 percent of that debt was purchased by foreign
interests. Let me say that again: foreign interests are financing the
deficit borrowing that this Congress is doing.
I just want to know, how far are we willing to go to mortgage our
financial future to foreign interests? According to the Treasury
Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities now
total over $1.6 trillion. Over 34 percent of the money, hard currency,
that we owe, is held by foreign interests. China alone holds over $200
billion. The Japanese hold over $600 billion. Furthermore, the Central
Bank in Beijing has increased their holdings of United States debt by
over 100 percent since 2001.
You would be amazed at what is going on here. We are borrowing money
to cut taxes, indicating that in tomorrow's day, our citizens will have
a tax increase because they must pay interest on what we are unwilling
to either cut or unwilling to raise money for our needs, particularly
those soldiers, sailors and Marines in Iraq.

{time} 1415

We cannot even extend to them $100,000 worth of life insurance
because they say they do not have the money, and here they are going to
spend $100 billion, borrowing 70 percent of it from people around the
world. As I say, I do not have any problem with the substance, but this
is the wrong way to do it.
Let me just give an example. The Caribbean Banking Centers, we owe
them $74 billion; Taiwan, over $50 billion; OPEC, who is raising
prices, cutting production of oil, while gasoline in this country is $2
a gallon, OPEC owns over $43 billion worth of our debt. Korea, $37
billion; Singapore, $22 billion; Italy, $15 billion; Brazil, $15
billion; Thailand, $14 billion. We are putting our country in hock all
over the world with this deficit spending that is going on, and sooner
or later, let me tell my colleagues this: sooner or later those
countries are going to say to the American Treasury we do not want any
more debt, we are not going to buy at a relatively low rate of interest
your paper any longer.
Do my colleagues know what is going to happen then? Interest rates
are going to go up, because we are going to have to hike the interest
rates that we are willing to pay for borrowed money so somebody
somewhere will buy it. Again, that will directly result in a tax
increase on the American people and particularly these young people.
We all are witnessing a generational mugging, because my generation
is sending young men and young women to Iraq to fight a war, we are
borrowing the money, taking a tax cut, my generation is taking a tax
cut to borrow the money from foreign interests and giving them the bill
when they get home, some without an arm, some without a leg. What is
there to be proud of about what we are doing here? That is exactly what
is happening.
Thankfully, the Wall Street Journal finally picked up on this
national security argument I have been making for 7 or 8 months, about
how crazy it is, foolhardy it is, and how dangerous it is to continue
to borrow money from foreign interests. They said, ``Some would
argue,'' in this Wall Street Journal article, ``that foreign countries
would never sell off U.S. debt. However, economic history shows a
number of times when countries have subordinated their economic
interests to political goals and clout.''
Some day, I do not know when, in the future, China, Japan, any of
these other countries that I read, the Caribbean Banking Centers, OPEC,
you name it, some day they are going to say we do not see the world as
the United States does, and we are going to either threaten to dump
this debt or we are going to sell off, in which case it will have a
direct effect on the markets of this country.
Thankfully, Wall Street is beginning to wake up to this national
security issue of being held hostage and in hock financially to foreign
interests who may or may not see the world as we do in the future.
I think again that there is no way to overemphasize how dangerous
this course of action is. This bill is just one little symptom of a far
greater problem that we have in this country and in this Congress, and
that is the absolute unwillingness to ask the American people to
sacrifice anything in the event of war. We are at war in Afghanistan,
at war against terrorists, at war in Iraq, and nobody in this country
is asked to do anything except the men and women in uniform, the
Reservists and the Guardsmen who are fighting. Nobody else has been
asked to do anything except take a tax cut, and when they see the
terrorists flare up we are advised by the administration to go
shopping.
This is really a sad day. This bill is a symptom of a far greater
problem, and

[[Page H2433]]

I look forward to laying out how much we owe to foreign interests and
what it means to this country if they ever decide to change their mind
about whether or not they will buy our paper.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois I would note that later during this debate we are going to be
debating a Democratic alternative which, according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation, raises taxes on individuals and small business
by $207 billion. Think what that will mean to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 4181, the permanent repeal
of the marriage tax penalty.
On June 7, 2001, President Bush signed a repeal of the burdensome
marriage penalty tax as part of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act. With this, President Bush lifted the unconscionable
burden for millions of Americans taxed more than other citizens simply
because they were married.
If H.R. 4181 is not passed this year, married couples will be
required to pay 20 percent more in Federal taxes than unmarried
Americans earning the same income. And in 2010, they once again will be
paying the exorbitant marriage taxes in place before tax relief was
enacted in 2001.
One of the many charges the Preamble of the United States
Constitution requires of us who serve in government is to promote the
general welfare of the people of this Nation. Before President Bush
took office the economy was heading into a recession. The Nation was
shocked and the recession made worse when the attacks of September 11
took place. The acceleration of the President's tax cuts returned money
to the pockets of American citizens, the people best qualified to
reinvest and spend their own money on their businesses and consumer
goods. The increased spending which has resulted from these tax cuts
has led to the steady improvement of the economy, a steady improvement
which we as a nation continue to enjoy.
The repeal of the marriage penalty is also an important step in
strengthening marriages and families in this country. The idea that
couples were and could be again penalized by incurring taxes for
getting married is unacceptable. It is wrong that a nation would lay a
tax on marriage in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4181, and I urge my
colleagues to support and pass this legislation.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are 10 million people,
married households who are going to get no benefits from this proposal;
3 million more are only going to get part of the benefits. That means
we are denying 13 million married households a benefit that is being
promised to them today because of alternative minimum tax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to look at the record.
Under this monolithic Republican government that we have here in
Washington, 2.6 million jobs have been lost, long-term unemployment is
at a record high, we have gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus in the
Federal budget to a nearly $3 trillion deficit. This year alone the
budget deficit is expected to reach $500 billion, primarily due to the
President's and the congressional Republicans' economic program.
Mr. Speaker, 4 million people lost their health insurance, and 1.3
million people have gone into poverty. Median annual income for middle
class families is down by $1,400.
Yet, instead of extending the temporary unemployment benefit program
that expired in December and addressing the litany of problems that I
have mentioned, the Republican bill before us today continues the kind
of reckless policy that has been pursued by the Bush administration and
by the leaders in this House.
The bill will cost approximately $100 billion over the next 10 years,
all of which will need to be borrowed because Republicans provide no
offset to pay for these tax cuts. This will further increase the debt
tax that Americans must pay to ensure that our country does not go into
bankruptcy. And, as is the case with most Republican tax bills, when
you look at the fine print, you find even more reasons to worry.
Thirteen million middle income families, 26 percent of married
couples earning between $75,000 and $100,000, and 60 percent of married
couples earning between $100,000 and $200,000, receive no benefit or
scanty benefits from this bill. Additionally, the Republican tax bill
is shortchanging our most needy families.
While this bill makes the new $3,000 earned income tax credit
permanent, it forces low-income families to wait 4 years before
receiving the full benefits of the bill. All other marriage penalty
relief provisions are accelerated under this bill, except the one
benefit that is aimed at those people who need it the most.
When it comes to the wealthiest Americans, the Republican bill makes
sure that no multimillionaire is left behind. Families with incomes
over $1 million will be twice as likely as other families to collect
the bill's full benefits.
The Democratic substitute, on the other hand, would make the marriage
penalty relief permanent without borrowing a single dollar. The
Democratic bill pays for its tax relief through a rate adjustment for
married couples earning over $1 million a year. The Democratic
substitute adjusts the alternative minimum tax to ensure that middle
class families see all of the benefits we are promising them today. It
also accelerates the phase-in of the highest earned income tax credit
that is used by lower income families.
The Democrats' bill provides 13 million families with twice as much
tax relief, and all married couples earning less than $1 million each
year will receive more benefits under the Democratic proposal.
So the Democratic bill deals in a much fairer way, a much more
equitable way, and in a way that is going to provide benefits which
will be beneficial to the families who will receive them, because they
will receive them now, and beneficial to our economy because we will
not have to borrow the money in order to pay for it.
So if you are a multimillionaire, you are probably going to like the
bill that has been presented to us by the Republican Party and the
White House. If you are a middle class American, you are not going to
like it, because whatever scanty benefits you do get under their bill
we are going to have to borrow the money to provide those benefits, and
you will have to pay back that money with interest in the near future.
And to the extent that you are not paying it back, middle class
families, your children will have to pay it back. That is the enormous
problem with this piece of tax legislation.
We need to return to the sound fiscal policies that we had during the
decade of the 1990s when people were working and we had fairness and
justice in our tax policies as well.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there are clear differences being outlined
here today. Democrats are proposing a $270 billion tax increase, the
Republicans are proposing a simple extension of existing marriage tax
relief.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to build on the
introduction and comments of my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. We
have already heard about what this underlying bill is about. H.R. 4181
is one of the fundamental tax equity issues that will come up in this
Congress. We are talking about extending and making permanent the
relief that we have extended to working couples and end permanently the
marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a vote about mortgaging our future, about
Iraq, about macroeconomic policy, or even about the budget deficit.
This is a narrow, important issue that speaks to fundamental tax equity
for working families, and I speak from experience on this.
Twelve years ago when my wife and I were married, she was a teacher,
I was a staffer for the State legislature working for someone who is
now a colleague

[[Page H2434]]

of mine. When we got married, we ended up paying several thousand more
dollars in taxes. That was an absolute absurdity. When we ran the
figures, we were astounded to find this marriage tax penalty, and I am
proud to say since I have come to Congress, I have been fighting
consistently on the Committee on Ways and Means to permanently correct
this problem.
Now, our friends on the other side want the revenue. They do not want
to provide the relief to the families. They want this important fix to
our tax system to expire next year and effectively raise taxes on
working families, not on multimillionaires. Give me a break. I was not
a multimillionaire a few years ago when I was first contending with
this.
This is not a reckless policy, as our friend from New York
characterized it. This is about fundamental tax fairness. And if our
friends on the other side of the aisle are in favor of that, if our
friends on the other side of the aisle are against punishing families
who happen to choose to get married, then I think they need to join us
in supporting this fundamental, straightforward tax reform bill that I
think draws a clear contrast between the two parties.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a contrast
between the two parties. To suggest that this is not about paying for
Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous. Of course it is. We are borrowing
the money to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan: $87 billion. Of course this
is entirely relevant.
Also, I do not believe that the Committee on Ways and Means brought
this issue up. Maybe I was not there that day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1430

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we have two alternatives before us; that is
not always true on this floor. Often Democrats are not allowed a
substitute. This time we have been granted that. We should always have
that, by the way. Always, always.
The alternatives are very different. The issue is not whether we want
this to expire, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
We do not. And surely it is not a question of fundamental tax fairness.
Indeed, the opposite is true when you look at your proposal.
First of all, it does discriminate between couples of certain income
brackets and couples in lower income brackets. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle do that. They differentiate, indeed, they
discriminate. Why discriminate against working people who have less
income and help working people who have more? What is the reason? What
is the reason?
Well, I remember when we argued over the child credit, and my
colleagues thought it was defensible to differentiate between those
with kids who have certain incomes and those who have kids with less
and lower incomes. All right. That is one difference between the two
alternatives.
Another relates to the alternative minimum tax. And here, to put it
charitably, my colleague is not telling it like it is. Because
essentially what my colleague is going to do is to give to millions of
couples with one hand, and they are allowing it to be taken back with
another. Indeed, the figures I think are pretty clear that about half
of what would be given through this will be taken back by the
alternative minimum tax. One-half.
Millions of couples who think, because of my colleagues'
advertisement, that they are going to get some help on a permanent
basis, are going to have that taken back when they face the alternative
minimum tax.
My colleagues have not faced up to the impact of the alternative
minimum tax, period. Millions and millions and millions of taxpayers
are going to fall within it because of my colleagues' inaction. And it
is always next year they say that they are going to do something about
it.
So that is a second difference between the two bills. We do not
discriminate between married couples according to their income and
differentiate against those who have lesser income. And we do not give
with one hand and take back with another. We address the alternative
minimum tax issue.
And, thirdly, and my Democratic colleagues have talked about this,
and it relates, really, to the AMT, is my Republican colleagues' fiscal
irresponsibility. They do not pay for this at all. They say the more
debt, I guess, the better. That is their philosophy. The more the
national debt goes up, the better. The deeper the hole, their
philosophy is, dig it deeper and my colleagues think over time growth
as some magic wand will fill in a deepened hole. That is irresponsible.
Indeed, it is worse than that: it is dangerous.
So there are three basic differences between those two alternatives
and why I urge serious consideration, indeed, all of my colleagues to
vote for the substitute. It does not discriminate according to income.
It addresses the alternative minimum tax so we will not take back from
millions those that we pretend, or my colleagues pretend, to help; and
it is fiscally responsible.
And if my colleagues vote otherwise, essentially what they want is
not tax equity; they want what they think is a political issue. They
are dead wrong. Americans do not want discrimination against low-income
families. They do not want them to say one thing and then another thing
be done through operation of the AMT.
And I think they are increasingly sick and tired of the fiscal
irresponsibility of the majority in this House, the majority in the
other House, and the chief executive of this country.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a note that this House will be
considering broad AMT relief in the next few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller) for yielding this time to me. I want to compliment him that he
has been a complete hero with regard to doing away with the marriage
penalty, and he has been fighting for this for many, many years.
The previous speaker, I can understand his sensitivity to alternative
minimum tax because it was part of the Democrat Party that really made
this worse in 1993 with the tax increase of President Clinton. If my
memory is correct, not one Republican supported that particular piece
of legislation.
We are in the process, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
said, of working on a bill that will help clean that up. The
alternative minimum tax is a very harmful tax, and it is one that
should be put to rest forever.
The marriage penalty, however, which is under discussion today, one
would not know it to listen to the other side, but this penalty for
many Americans, it is wrong; it is wrong for the government to promote
marriage and family and at the same time to financially penalize
couples for getting married and having two incomes. Can you imagine
that?
Approximately 1.8 million Florida couples, that is 3.6 million
people, benefit from the repeal of this unfair tax. In particular, the
penalty is especially harmful to younger couples starting out together.
These are not millionaires, Mr. Speaker, by any stretch of the
imagination. They are struggling young people who are trying to raise a
family, pay their mortgage, put groceries on the table, and go on with
their lives and at the same time to save for college education, which
we are hearing a lot about in a lot of rhetoric in this Presidential
campaign.
Without passage of H.R. 4181, these couples would see their taxes go
up an average of $300 a year. That is $300 that could be used and be
saved for college education or put simply for house payments.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. And I
urge all my colleagues, and I am sure many Democrats will join with us,
to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller). Today we will vote on permanently ending what is perhaps one
of the most unfair taxes in the U.S. Tax Code: the tax on marriage.

[[Page H2435]]

The marriage penalty rose from a 1960s change in tax law to relieve
what was perceived as an unfair burden on single taxpayers. At that
time, a special deduction was also created to relieve the effects of
the marriage penalty. However, during the 1986 Tax Act when Congress
reduced all tax rates, a special allowance was repealed for single
filers; but the marriage penalty has remained and has existed ever
since, with only temporary respite.
Today we must end it, permanently. Paying more in income taxes
because one is married makes as much sense as paying more for a loaf of
bread simply because they chose to be someone's wife or husband.
The Tax Code should not discriminate between people who are single
and people who are married. When couples say ``I do,'' I do not think
they were referring to the IRS. Half of all marriages in this Nation
end in divorce, and less than half of all children spend their
childhood years in a two-parent family. We need to be supportive of
families in America, not punish them.
We must ensure the Tax Code treats single and dual earners equally.
It is simply wrong for anyone to pay more in taxes simply because they
exchange marriage vows.
I urge my colleagues to end this unfair taxation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Illinois (Mr. Weller) for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4181 because I
know how critical this tax relief is to so many American married
couples and hard-working families. This Congress must permanently
extend the increased standard deduction and the 15 percent individual
income tax bracket expansion for married taxpayers.
As a Congressman representing both Charleston and Myrtle Beach, I
recognize the great impact these types of tax cuts have upon our
economy, especially in keeping the travel and tourist industry alive
and well. By continuing to provide this tax relief to married couples
filing jointly, more American families will be able to take vacations
and spend time together at our golf courses and hotels and museums and
beaches and historic places.
With so many perils and stresses facing parents in today's society,
it is more important than ever for families to get away and enjoy life
and strengthen family bonds. Tourism is the largest industry in my area
and serves as the backbone of the local economy. It grows our economy,
generates jobs, and provides for capital investments in South Carolina.
Last year alone, my district hosted more than 18 million visitors,
nearly a 7 percent increase over the previous year. These visitors and
the businesses that caters to them, spent $5.1 billion in 2003 compared
with $4.7 in 2002.
Jobs, those directly and indirectly linked to the tourism industry,
grew by 8.9 percent to $93,702, while wages increased by 9.4 percent to
an aggregate of $1.28 billion. I believe that all of this would not be
possible without limiting the marriage penalty and putting in place the
President's tax cuts that have done so much to spur the economy.
The institution of marriage is under attack from so many angles
including the courts and some segments of the media and popular
culture. Our tax system should not serve to weaken the bonds of
marriage; instead, it should serve to strengthen this great institution
by ending the marriage penalty forever. How can we tell American
families that they will have to pay nearly $90 billion in new taxes
over the next 10 years? Not on our watch.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4181, which will end the marriage penalty once and for all. It is time
to put this debate to rest, and it is time to abolish this Nation's
anti-family tax policies.
When we pass this legislation, this House is making a statement that
we as lawmakers will not stand for a Tax Code that punishes married
couples. To place an additional tax burden on married couples simply
because they are married is crazy. The Federal Government cannot be
passing tax laws which are designed to drive people apart rather than
bringing families together. It is counterintuitive.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
say, well, who cares. After all, they say, the government needs more
money, and we should be the ones to decide who to redistribute the
wealth to based on our concept of what is good.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Federal Government should have tax policy
that has three fundamental caveats: it needs to be pro-growth; it needs
to be pro-opportunity; and, most importantly, it needs to be pro-
family.
Social engineering has been practiced by the other party, and it has
had very negative results on our society.
Mr. Speaker, this House must pass H.R. 4181 to ensure that the
marriage penalty relief is made permanent. The majority in this House
has been an advocate for families by passing needed tax relief for
hard-working families, expanding the child tax credit. Passage of this
bill shows that this House is committed to this Nation's families. A
fall-back to the old fashioned and anti-family tax policies that this
Nation faced prior to President Bush taking office is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support our Nation's families
and to support H.R. 4181. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill,
and I will be very proud to go back home and tell my constituents that
this House is working for them and for their families. Vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 4181.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full
support of H.R. 4181. There is no doubt that our society is overtaxed
when we are talking about people simply because they decide to get
married. The Federal Government has no business punishing people for
making a choice. And that is essentially what this tax is, a punishment
for choosing to get married.

{time} 1445

Prior to 2001 the standard deduction married couples could take was
less than that allowed for two single taxpayers. There is something
wrong with that picture. Are we saying single people deserve more of
their money back than married people? We need to do all we can to make
the Tax Code fairer. Passing H.R. 4181 to extend full marriage penalty
relief through 2010 and beyond so that marriage tax equity becomes a
permanent law is a great first step.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people's money, not ours. Let us
get it back in their pockets so they can save for a down payment on a
house, buy a car, buy clothes for the kids or spend it in whichever way
they see fit.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4181, to help ease the
tax burden placed on hard working American families.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) earlier
spoke of the need for tax relief, and other speakers on the other side
have offered different proposals suggesting that we should proceed down
this road of tax cuts regardless of whether or not we are going to need
this money for Iraq and for Afghanistan.
Now, let me go back to the point that I raised earlier in this
debate, and I hope people are listening. Without batting an eye in this
institution, we borrowed $87.5 billion for the war in Iraq. Now, the
only reason we did not hear the real cost of the war in Iraq is because
people would have reacted very differently. Everybody in this
institution today, the people that are watching, the people that are
here as guests, they know you are going to need more money for Iraq and
Afghanistan. Tens of billions of dollars more will be needed for Iraq
and Afghanistan.
For years Democrats were accused of being the party of fiscal
irresponsibility even though we set the Nation on the right course in
the mid-nineties with record surpluses, record economic growth,
unparalleled prosperity, and we demonstrated you could balance the

[[Page H2436]]

budget and still fix Social Security and Medicare.
Today we are, and I want people to listen to this carefully, we are
borrowing the money for this tax proposal before us today, borrowing
the money and sending the bill to our children. We are fighting two
wars. For the first time in our history we are having tax cuts at the
same time that we are fighting two wars. We watch the red ink
everywhere, $500 billion this year in deficit, and the answer here is
let us add more to it.
The President comes forward with a proposal to finance the war in
Iraq, which I voted for because I thought those soldiers needed the
best equipment and best supplies we could provide them with, but we
borrowed the money to do it. And the answer today is, let us borrow
money for tax cuts to pay for these proposals. And then people like
myself who have been talking about alternative minimum tax for years
here were told, well, do not worry because we are just going to do this
in a couple of weeks. We are going to fix the alternative minimum tax
in a couple of weeks.
The alternative minimum tax problem is going to cost $500 billion to
$600 billion to fix. We will not fix it in 2 or 3 weeks here. Everybody
knows it. We will have the tax cut of the week in an effort to massage
the numbers.
Let me give you another specific quick example of what we seek. The
AMT problem reaches in to more families based upon the more kids you
have. So the families who take the standard deduction and have four
kids with incomes of $64,000, they are not getting any benefit from
this proposal today because what they are offering them on one hand,
they are taking away on the other. So they suggest we will give you
marriage penalty relief, and then the IRS is going to say, aha, take
those deductions for those children, take the HOPE credit, and let us
tell you what is going to come of it.
What is going to come of it is you are bumped into alternative
minimum tax and you will be hit with a bigger bill than you originally
would have had.
Now, let me offer some of my political DNA on this issue as a
Democrat. I have proposed getting rid, outright, of alternative minimum
tax. Just repealing it. That would force this institution and the other
body to speak specifically to the issue of the tax cuts that we have
seen here, reckless disregard for the future of this Nation's financial
security. We are going to need that money for the international
commitment that we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the war on
terror.
We will need to fix Social Security. We will need to fix Medicare for
generations to come. That is not irresponsible to have used those
surpluses during the Clinton-Rubin years to pay for the basic requests
of the American people.
This is not an issue that is 20 years off. The baby boomers begin to
retire in 2011. We are going to need the resources for that. And to the
question that was referenced earlier, the suggestion that we are
proposing a $206 billion tax increase, we are going to need $300
billion for the war in Iraq.
I will remind this body, General Shinseki said, You need tens of
thousands of more troops. He got fired for his wisdom. Lawrence
Lindsey, by the way, the architect of the President's economic
policies, said 200- to $300 million. He got fired because he had the
audacity to suggest the truth to our respective bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we bring this debate to a close on this legislation,
I really believe we need to bring it back into focus. We have had a lot
of peripheral issues that have been thrown out there, and this is
really what this legislation does. It is a simple extension of existing
law, existing law that eliminates the marriage tax penalty for 36
million married working couples.
The example of a couple in the district that I represent who are
those who face higher taxes if we fail to pass this legislation law is
a couple by the name of Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet,
Illinois. They have a little boy and a little girl, Eduardo and
Carolina. They are a hard working couple, and like 36 million married
working couples, they could pay higher taxes unless this legislation
becomes law.
In 2001 and 2003 we worked with President Bush and we succeeded in
essentially wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 36 million low
income and middle class married working couples. For the Castillo
family of Joliet, Illinois, it meant $1,125. Think about that. In
Joliet, Illinois, that is a couple semesters worth of tuition at the
community college. It pays several months of daycare. It is a down
payment on a home. It is money they can put in their retirement account
or their education savings account to help their children.
The Castillos, like millions of married working couples, could face
higher taxes. Now, it is estimated that if we fail to pass this
legislation into law that next year millions of couples will receive a
tax increase of about $300 million as a portion of that marriage tax
penalty if reimposed. And then in 2010 if we fail to make permanent the
elimination of the marriage tax penalty, they could see about a $1,000
increase in their taxes. And over that 10-year time, 36 million married
working couples could receive about $100 billion in higher taxes, just
because they are married, and that is what this is all about.
We hear a lot of rhetoric but this is pretty simple legislation. We
are doing a simple extension of existing law that is due to sunset this
year, and if we fail to extend it 36 million married working couples
will suffer higher taxes just because they are married.
So I urge my colleagues to join with us. Let us work in a bipartisan
fashion. Our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty enjoyed
bipartisan support. Let us focus on what this issue is, and that is
bringing fairness to the Tax Code. So I ask my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to think of the Castillo family when they vote to make
permanent today the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
I urge a no vote on the substitute which contains a $207 billion tax
increase on individuals and small business. I urge a no vote to reject
that and I ask for an aye vote to make permanent the elimination of the
marriage tax penalty. Who benefits? Thirty-six million hard working
married couples where both the husband and wife are in the workforce.
And it is just a common sense question. Why should they have to pay
higher taxes just because they are married? We have made a commitment
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us make it permanently
eliminated so it never comes back.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. No one
in this body believes that the ``marriage penalty'' is fair. No one
believes that if you are married, you should have to pay more taxes
than if you were single or filing separately.
But that is not the debate we are having today, regardless of what
the majority says. The trust is, we are debating whether Congress
should continue to finance tax cuts out of Social Security and
Medicare. The budget deficit this year is already more than half a
trillion dollars. A 10-year budget outlook once projected to have a
surplus of $5.6 trillion is now a deficit of more than $4 trillion. The
passage of this bill will only make matters worse.
Americans believe in responsibility. Our values tell us that when you
pass tax cuts, you have to pay for them. But this Republican marriage
penalty bill will cost $96 billion over the next 10 years--none of it
paid for. These are not the Democrats' numbers--they are from the non-
partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. And that is only the beginning,
with the majority expecting to take up more tax bills in the coming
weeks. All equally expensive--none of them paid for, threatening
economic growth, ballooning interest rates, and costing us jobs. This
is in addition to a Republican budget that rejects pay-as-you-go rules
that Alan Greenspan says are essential if we are to continue our
tentative economic recovery.
What became of the Republican Party that preached fiscal discipline
and responsibility? By contrast, the Democratic plan would provide more
than twice as much tax relief without threatening economic growth. It
would help middle-class families and ensure that tax relief from
marriage penalty is not reduced by the Alternative Minimum Tax, as it
is under the Republican bill. And above all, it would be paid for.
Reject this bill and support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of repealing the
penalty on people who choose to marry. It seems strange that the tax
code discriminates against married couples. It's even stranger that
there are many in this body who are opposed to fixing this problem.

[[Page H2437]]

The President and the Congressional majority have worked hard to
enact marriage penalty relief. Because of demands from the other side,
this relief will end next year. That means an automatic tax increase in
an economy that is coming out of a recession. Mr. Speaker, we must pass
this legislation to permanently extend this relief.
As we attempt to eliminate this discrimination in the tax code, I
will continue my work to repeal the marriage penalty that affects many
couples on Social Security. Yes . . . there is also a ``marriage
penalty'' that occurs when Social Security benefits are taxed. As a
result, I have introduced legislation to increase the income threshold
for couples to double that of individuals to end this unequal treatment
in the tax code that discourages marriage among seniors.
Certainly our seniors should not have to worry about losing Social
Security benefits because they are married or want to marry.
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today we will be voting on
important legislation; legislation that will help roughly 21 million
young Americans financially. I am speaking about marriage penalty
relief. Thanks to the peculiarities of the tax code, when married
couples earn roughly the same salaries, they tend to pay more in taxes
than they would if both were single filers. Our previous action to
extend this tax relief benefit has encouraged marriage and saved the
average married couple $1,400 a year, allowing them to spend on items
that support their families.
This discrepancy financially penalizes couples for doing nothing more
than choosing to get married, which creates a strong disincentive for
people to build families. With a breakdown of the family and high
divorce rates, we need to strengthen marriage--not weaken it. As every
study shows, children fare best and have the most promising life
prospects when they are raised in intact families. Promoting marriage
has the potential to significantly decrease poverty and dependence,
increase child well-being and adult happiness, and to provide the
safest environment for women and children.
Mr. Speaker, letting the tax penalty relief expire would cost
families $1,400 a year. The federal government should not be picking
pockets of people just because they are married. If we do not extend
the marriage penalty tax relief today, Uncle Sam will not only once
again be taking a gift at the wedding reception instead of giving one,
but will also be contributing to the breakdown of our basic social
institution, marriage.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4181, an
Act that will make the marriage penalty tax relief permanent. This
unfair provision must be permanently stricken from the tax code so
individuals who enter into the sanctity of marriage re no longer
penalized when they file their taxes. Marriage is the highest form of
commitment between a man and a woman, and we should be encouraging this
union--not penalizing it.
Since the 1960's, this archaic standard has been penalizing married
couples for simply filing their tax returns as husband and wife.
Fortunately, in 2001 we successfully eliminated this unfair provision
by passing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
Because of this important legislation, over 42 million married couples
are now treated equally when they file their taxes. This tax cut has
spurred our economy's recovery and created thousands of jobs. By
putting taxpayer money back in the hands of the American people, we
reduce their economic burden and empower them to spend their money in a
manner they see fit.
We must pass this important legislation and continue to provide this
much needed relief to American families. We should never underestimate
the good that can be accomplished when families are able to keep more
of their money and make spending decisions based on their needs.
Congress needs to finish the job we started of promoting economic
responsibility and long-term economic growth by making these cuts
permanent. Let's do what is right for the American economy and
America's families.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4181,
to making permanent the repeal of the Marriage Penalty Tax that has
helped 30 million married Americans since 2001.
Married couples rely upon this tax relief for purchasing a new home,
saving for their children's college education, and setting up
retirement savings plans. Now, nor ever, do I see a reason why nearly
1.1 million married couples in New Jersey should be re-penalized and
forced to pay higher taxes simply because they decided to get married
and start a family. Allowing this tax benefit to expire would also be
counterproductive to the strength our economy continues to show.
Americans scored a major victory in 2001 when Congress and President
Bush addressed one of the most unjust provisions of the tax code by
reducing the Marriage Penalty Tax. Congress furthered our commitment
last year to reducing taxes under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003, where Congress accelerated the seven year
phase-in of the marriage penalty relief.
As a result, today, the standard deduction for married couples stands
at $9,500--twice the value that it is for a single individual, and the
upper limit on the 15 percent tax bracket for married filers is twice
the income limit for single filers. Under current law, each of these
tax benefits for married couples will be reduced next year and fully
expire in 2010, if we do not act to make the repeal permanent.
If Congress does not act, beginning in 2011, the standard deduction
for married couples will be reduced, forcing 30 million more couples to
pay more taxes.
The Marriage Penalty tax is inherently unfair. The Federal Government
should not force working couples, through an archaic tax code, to pay
higher taxes.
The Marriage Penalty Tax weakens the foundation of one of society's
most sacred institutions: marriage. We cannot turn back the clock after
making such great strides in providing this sensible, meaningful tax
relief. And quite frankly Mr. Speaker, families are counting on this
relief.
So today, I urge my colleagues to build on our ongoing efforts to
provide tax relief for all hard working Americans. Let's pass Marriage
Penalty Tax relief for the millions of working couples.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, fixing the ``marriage penalty'' and
increasing the earned income tax credit (EITC) for low-income families
are important and long-overdue steps toward tax fairness. I support
both measures but wish that Congress had made reducing the tax burden
for dual-income middle-class families and those most in need of tax
relief its top priority 3 years ago, instead of focusing tax relief
primarily on the wealthiest Americans.
Improving the fairness of our tax code is a laudable goal. The Bush
tax policies passed by Congress have added significantly to our
national deficit. Congress need not continue to exacerbate the budget
while providing reasonable tax relief. As this legislation is written,
over $100 billion will be added to our national deficit. The Democratic
Substitute, which I support, instead would pay for marriage penalty
relief and an increase in the EITC by reducing tax cuts available to
couples earning more than one million dollars a year. The Democratic
proposal provides a more responsible manner of providing tax fairness
that does not further burden future generations with more debt.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the fiscally
irresponsible and inadequate H.R. 4181, ``Make Permanent Marriage
Penalty Relief,'' and in support of the Democratic Substitute that
helps more families and is fiscally responsible.
The Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that is not paid
for. In fact, their plan would add $105 billion over the next 10 years
to the federal budget deficit.
In contrast, the Democratic substitute provides marriage penalty tax
relief to more Americans than the Republicans bill, but pays for it in
a fair manner by limiting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
The Democratic substitute provides more marriage penalty relief to 13
million families than the GOP bill by ensuring that tax relief from the
marriage penalty is not taken away or reduced by the alternative
minimum tax. The Republican bill denies full marriage penalty tax
relief to 13 million families next year, including more than 25 percent
of the middle-class families making $75,000 to $100,000, by failing to
fix the inequities caused by the current alternative minimum tax
system.
The Democratic substitute also provides immediate marriage tax
penalty relief to more Americans by increasing the value of the Earned
Income Tax Credit for more lower-income working couples. The
Republicans fail to give these families immediate relief in their bill.
Again, the Republican bill demonstrates the misguided priorities of
the Republican Party. Rather than ensuring that all hard working
families get marriage tax penalty relief, the Republicans have decided
to bankrupt this country to ensure that their fat cat rich elite donors
continue to get away with paying absurdly low taxes. The ultimate
losers are our children who will be left to pay the bill for the large
budget deficits that President Bush and our Republican colleagues in
Congress are planning to leave them.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute bill and
vote against the insufficient and unaffordable Republican proposal.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of making permanent the
marriage penalty tax relief Congress passed in 2003. I believe that we
should eliminate the tax penalty that some married couples incur
because, simply, it is the right thing to do.
The marriage penalty stems from provisions in the Tax Code that
impact married couples filing joint tax returns differently than if
they filed separate tax returns. In 2001, the marriage penalty hit
around 47 percent of married tax filers from all income brackets.

[[Page H2438]]

Without action, tax relief from the marriage penalty would lapse next
year as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While the majority of
the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible
and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision
providing couples complete relief from the marriage penalty in 2003 and
2004 had bipartisan agreement. The legislation before us today and the
substitute offered by Congressman Rangel will permanently extend relief
from the marriage penalty.
Every week I am back in Wisconsin talking to my constituents about
the challenges they are facing in today's economy. With rising costs
for college tuition, health care, and other necessities, we need to act
today to ensure that working families are not going to be faced with a
marriage penalty tax in 2005.
I also believe, however, that we must work to make sure these tax
cuts are paid for so that we do not increase the budget deficit. It is
unfair to Americans today, and especially the next generation, to
delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits facing our
Nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion this year
alone, will simply go away.
As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget
resolution that allows for extending marriage penalty tax relief while
still reducing the deficit. This approach requires tough choices,
prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping working
families. With the House-Senate conference committee still negotiating
the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain hopeful that we
will be able to provide married couples continued tax relief today
without raising the debt burden on our children's generation.
The substitute offered today by Representative Rangel is a more
responsible bill that will permanently repeal the marriage penalty tax
for millions of Americans while not increasing the budget deficit. By
providing a responsible offset to pay for this tax cut, we can benefit
all married tax filers without burdening our children with added debt
that they will have to pay off.
In addition, the Rangel substitute will benefit 13 million more
Americans by accounting for the alternative minimum tax. The AMT will
deny many married couples the tax relief intended under this bill
because they fall under a complex set of AMT tax provisions.
Mr. Speaker, extending relief from the marriage penalty now will help
millions of working families that otherwise would face a tax increase
in 2005. I believe we can and must provide this relief in a fiscally
responsible manner that will not burden future generations of
Americans. Our work is far from over in helping working families face
the challenges of today's economy, and we must come together in a
bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally responsible budget resolution.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.

Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR
MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED EARNED INCOME CREDIT FOR
MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 32(b)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as
follows:
``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return filed
by an eligible individual and such individual's spouse, the
phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be
increased by $3,000.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE
BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING
JOINT RETURNS.

SEC. 4. BENEFITS EXTENSION NOT TO INCREASE FEDERAL BUDGET
DEFICIT.

(a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j) Additional Tax on High Income Taxpayers.--The amount
determined under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d), as the
case may be, shall be increased by 3.6 percent of so much of
adjusted gross income as exceeds $1,000,000 in the case of
individuals to whom subsection (a) applies ($500,000 in any
other case).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF SUNSET APPLICABLE TO BENEFITS EXTENDED BY
THIS ACT.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments
made by sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act.

SEC. 6. BENEFITS OF ACT NOT DENIED BY REASON OF ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX.

(a) Minimum Tax.--The amount of the minimum tax imposed by
section 55 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
determined as if sections 1, 3, and 5 of this Act had not
been enacted.
(b) Credits.--In applying section 26(a)(1) of such Code,
the amount referred to in subparagraph (B) thereof shall be
reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of the reduction
in the taxpayer's regular tax liability by reason of sections
1, 3, and 5 of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller) for his persistence in trying to bring tax relief to working
people and married people who need it. Again, I would like to thank him
for the courtesy which he extended to me at the Committee on Rules
which allowed this substitute to be in order.
I would like to say at the outset that I do hope that Members of this
Congress would feel the ever growing jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rules as we find very important and complex bills, especially tax
bills, bypassing the Committee on Ways and Means and coming to this
floor.
If the Committee on Ways and Means had allowed the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller) to have brought this amendment which he has
championed over the years to the Committee on Ways and Means, perhaps
he would see that Republicans do not have the only way in which to
perfect a bill. Perhaps he would have seen that we would have followed
his lead in providing for the standard deductions in and making certain
that we would not have this so-called marriage penalties. But we would
have perfected it so that the earned income tax credit, which is so
important for low income people, would have gone into effect
immediately so that they would have been able to enjoy the same
benefits that their fellow taxpayers, albeit in the upper income tax
brackets, would have enjoyed.
Since last seeing this bill, I will have to admit that they have
improved it so that in 4 or 5 years these low income people would
receive some benefits, but

[[Page H2439]]

if we had had a chance to work together in committee with amendments
and, more importantly, with discussions, we would have been able to fix
this so that the low income people and the middle income people would
enjoy the benefits of the earned income tax credit.
Another thing which is far more serious is that they give with one
hand under the Weller bill, but by doing this and providing the
benefits, they kick the taxpayer up into another income category where
the monster of the alternative minimum tax grabs them and takes back
that money.
It would seem to me that if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
and I were working together, what he would want to do, at least for
this bill, recognizing the close to $1 trillion it would cost to
eliminate the alternative minimum tax altogether, that we would have
said, as we say in the substitute, that for purposes of this bill none
of the benefits received under this bill will be denied because of the
alternative minimum tax bill that would take it away.
Lastly, let me say this: Is this the time for us to be talking about
going further in debt?

{time} 1500

The billions of dollars that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
says Democrats would ask us to pay is not billions of dollars in
increase. It would just make certain that the benefits during time of
war of those people who God has blessed with receiving incomes of over
$1 million will say, hold it, it is a time of war, it is a time of
sacrifice; if anybody deserves a tax cut, let it be the people that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has championed, let it be the
married people who struggle every day, let it be not only the middle
income people but the lower income people and not the people that
receive over a million bucks.
So what I am suggesting is this. Let us take the theme that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has championed, albeit his couple
have changed dramatically since he first brought this up, but that just
shows that we have to respond more speedily to decent legislation, and
let us take the substitute that has been perfected and say this. If the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the majority wants to make
certain that we expand the 15 percent tax bracket and we increase the
standard deduction, count us in. If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller) really wants the earned income tax credit to lock into place
for all people when this becomes effective and not wait 4 years, we
support the substitute and we support the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller).
If the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) wants to make certain
that once the benefits are received by these married people, the
monster of the AMT that we refuse to touch, not because we believe it
is good legislation but because we just do not want to go into debt
another trillion dollars, let us say when we get the courage to deal
with the deficit we will do it, but for purposes of this bill and the
people who look like or suffer the pain of the portrait of the people
we see on the floor every year, we will make certain that the benefits
will not be harmed by the AMT.
I think this is the time for us and the generations to follow to be
careful how further we go into deficit. We do not know how much the war
is going to cost, but we do know how much this bill would cost, and
this bill does not increase taxes. It rearranges the benefits so that
the people making less than $1 million would say, thank you, Mr.
Weller; thank you, Mr. Rangel; thank you for bringing Democrats and
Republicans together to do the right thing. We tried to do this in the
substitute. We hope we can get my colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by, of course, thanking my good friend the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for these thoughtful and friendly
comments, and as we begin this debate on the substitute he is offering,
and of course, my criticism that I will have of course is being made in
friendly terms, as he knows.
Let me just explain why I urge my colleagues in the House to, in a
bipartisan way, oppose the Rangel substitute to H.R. 4181.
As my good friend from New York noted, it includes a $207 billion tax
increase on individuals, on families and particularly on small
business. To summarize the Rangel substitute, it reverses the tax
relief that benefits many families that was included in the Bush tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003. It creates a new tax on families and small
business, and it even makes the existing alternative minimum tax,
something that we all despise, even more complicated.
The Rangel proposal, the Rangel alternative, creates a new tax on
families and small business. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates
that the substitute authored by my friend from New York raises taxes by
$207 billion by creating a new tax on a group that is defined as the
rich, but if we look at the fine print of that definition, the vast
majority of the so-called rich are people on Main Street, entrepreneurs
and small business people, the people who employ a lot of workers in
Morris, Illinois, where I live.
As I noted, it increases taxes on entrepreneurs and reverses the
President's tax relief by raising the rate, and it makes the AMT even
more complex. Although we share a bipartisan goal of fixing the AMT
impacting the 2003 tax cut, we provided for AMT relief, and I expect in
the next few weeks the House is going to vote on an extension of that
which provides broad AMT relief for millions of families who would
otherwise suffer the AMT.
I would note under the Rangel substitute the Tax Code is made even
more complicated by requiring families, believe this or not, to do
three sets of tax calculations. People have got to figure out their
taxes three times to determine whether or not they avoid the AMT under
my good friend's proposal.
Republicans are working to address the AMT and I would note the AMT,
the alternative minimum tax, was made much worse in 1993 with what has
been called the Clinton tax increase. No Republican supported what was
then the biggest tax hike in the history of our Nation but most
Democrats did, but the AMT was made much more complicated and actually
of greater burden, targeted at middle class families. We are working to
solve that burden, and this House will be voting on AMT relief sometime
in the near future. We are working closely with the Bush administration
towards that goal, and we believe that proposal will protect 11 million
families who otherwise would pay the alternative minimum tax.
So I ask bipartisan opposition to my good friend's proposal, which
again is a $207 billion tax increase on individuals and small business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hope that the constant question that would remain on the floor is
that the substitute does not increase the deficit by one penny and that
the Republican bill increases the deficit by $104 billion. That is the
difference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Ways and Means, for the purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with this debate is that there is a big
monster in the closet that people do not want to discuss, and that is
the growing national deficit, which is going to make it impossible for
us to ever do the type of investments in our education, in our housing,
health care for seniors and others that we need to do. It certainly
will stop us from doing things the right way in places like
Afghanistan, Iraq, around the world where the United States must stand
up to defend the rights of others and protect Americans, and certainly
we are not doing the right thing for at least some 13 million Americans
under this particular bill when it comes to the so-called marriage
penalty relief because they will

[[Page H2440]]

get a benefit, because what is not being said, because of that big
monster in the closet is that a lot of these folks, 10 million
directly, outright, will lose any type of relief from this legislation
because they will fall into another tax category.
So my colleagues take care of what is called the marriage penalty,
but they dump them into what is called the alternative minimum tax,
such that if a family makes about 72,000 in a year and has two kids
and, in filling out the tax form does the standard deductions, that
family thinks all of the sudden it may get some relief out of the
marriage penalty legislation, like what we have today, will finally get
nothing, and that is the reality for 10 million families in America.
For another 3 million families, they will get less than what this
bill promises, and the big monster in that closet is going to come out
because if we have a $521 billion deficit for this current year and
over a $7 trillion national debt collectively, which amounts to more
than 24,000 for each man, woman and child in this country that each and
every one of us owes and sooner or later will pay, either through
higher taxes or reduced services in education, health care, housing,
national defense, then we are going to see the real consequences come.
So this debate should be about doing marriage penalty relief
responsibly at a time of deficits. This should be about doing marriage
penalty relief responsibly at a time when we are asking men and women
to sacrifice their lives every single day in places like Afghanistan
and Iraq, and this should be a debate about doing this responsibly and
in a bipartisan fashion so that we could craft legislation that would
take care of the 13 million American families that are going to be
deceived and believe that they are going to get something from this and
get either nothing or very little whatsoever, at a cost of over $100
billion.
So, Mr. Speaker, there could be bipartisanship here. We should move
forward in taking care of marriage penalty for any family under the Tax
Code, and for that reason I would hope that Members would consider
voting for this substitute because it goes in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate the Democrat
proposal to raise taxes by $207 billion, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, today this body has one very important decision to make.
Do we really want to raise taxes on married couples by bringing back
the unfair marriage penalty to our Tax Code? Do we really want to tax
the institution that represents the greatest social welfare program in
the history of our Nation; in other words, the American family? Do we
really want to start rolling back the tax relief that was responsible
for making the U.S. the fastest growing economy in the world last year,
the tax relief that has helped bring about the highest rate of home
ownership in the history of our Nation, the tax relief that has helped
create over three-quarters of a million new jobs and the tax relief
that has actually brought in more tax revenue to our U.S. Treasury?
That is right, tax relief by promoting economic growth has brought more
tax revenue into the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, the answer should be a resounding no. If we choose to
revive the marriage penalty, 30 million married couples will face an
average tax increase of $369 next year. The same number of couples will
see a tax increase of more than $700, starting in 2011. I mean, that is
a rental payment or two for an apartment, a home computer for a son or
a daughter. It is weeks of child care. At a time when tax relief is
fueling our economic recovery, now is not the time to raise taxes on
families or reinstitute unjust penalties on married couples who are
working hard to realize the American dream.
I urge all of my colleagues to defeat the marriage penalty, defeat
this substitute and support H.R. 4181.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The previous speaker was very animated on the fact that we ought not
to bring back the marriage penalty. Is it not wonderful that 435 people
agree on that? That is not a dispute in this debate. All of us want to
give relief. All of us want to make it permanent. Some of us believe,
however, there is a free lunch and we want to pass it along to our
children and grandchildren. To that extent, it will be a free lunch for
us but not for them.
Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty bill that the House Republicans put
on the floor today is divorced from the fiscal reality that confronts
this Nation. Just think, in 3\1/2\ years the Republican Party has
turned a projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years,
according to President Bush that is what we had when he spoke to the
joint session of Congress, and they have turned it into a deficit of $4
trillion in less than 4 years. This year alone the Federal Government
is expected to run a record deficit of half a trillion dollars. That
figure does not even include the $50- to $75 billion that virtually
everyone agrees will be needed for our war efforts.
So what do our Republican friends propose here today? A tax bill that
will cost an estimated $105 billion over the next decade. Now it is
$200 billion, and then guess what, they take $100 billion back. That is
called a shell game where I come from. Not one nickel of that 105 net
is paid for, not one nickel. That is right, with a fiscal crisis
looming House Republicans would drive us deeper into debt because, as
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) said in March, ``We don't believe that you should have to
pay for tax cuts.''
They are for free, supply-side, free lunch. Somebody will pay, and it
will be our children and grandchildren. My Republican friends do not
but our children and grandchildren will surely do so.
Make no mistake, Democrats strongly support marriage penalty relief
because married couples should not have to pay more in taxes than they
would if unmarried.

{time} 1515

That is fair. We are for that principle. Everybody is for that
principle on this floor.
As a result, Members have a choice today. They can vote for the
fiscally irresponsible Republican bill, or they can vote for the
superior Democratic substitute, every penny of which is paid for and
will give marriage relief to all Americans. The Democratic substitute
is fiscally responsible, and it ensures the benefits of the bill are
not nullified by the alternative minimum tax, that shell game of which
I talked.
I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is not playing a
shell game, but we have this AMT. It is a fancy phrase, but it simply
means if an individual is below a certain degree of obligation, they
make a certain income, we are going to take more. So what they say is,
we are going to give you $200; but, guess what, we are taking $100
back. We do not do that.
That is why they talk about 205. But it is paid for, and as the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) must admit, it does not add a
single nickel to the deficit or the debt. Perhaps when he rises to
speak, he will deny that. I hope not, because it is the fact.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic
substitute, vote for marriage penalty relief, and vote for fiscal
responsibility. The failure to pay for tax cuts not only threatens our
economic future but also is an immoral abdication of our responsibility
to our children and future generations.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are learning a new definition today, ``pay for,'' which means
``tax increase.'' Again, the Democrat substitutes proposes a $207
billion tax increase on individuals and small businesses, those who
create jobs all across America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding
me this time, and I think there are things both sides of the aisle can
agree to. Certainly this side agrees to fiscal

[[Page H2441]]

responsibility. I hope we can move ahead and have a balanced budget.
But there are two ways to get to the balanced budget. We can increase
taxes and continue on this splurge of increased spending from the
Federal Government and the growth of Federal Government and making
promises when we do not know where the money is coming from. We can
either raise taxes to accomplish that, or we can slow down on this
splurge of spending increases that this Chamber and the Senate and the
White House for the last 20 years have proceeded on.
We are now facing that decision. Do we try to reduce spending to
accommodate a balanced budget so that we do not pass on to future
generations, or do we increase taxes? And let me just suggest to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), with his hand on the microphone,
that our taxes on business today are 18 percent higher than our
competitors in other nations. So to simply say we want to accommodate
government's increased spending by taxing our citizens and our
businesses more, like the Democrats did in their alternative budget
proposals with increased taxes and increased spending, like the
Democrats are doing in this substitute, adding another 200 to add to
taxes that will go essentially to married families, we cannot continue
to put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage by simply saying we
want more money in Washington, therefore we are going to increase
taxes.
Let us move ahead with the Republican proposal that has the marriage
penalty relief. And I will make this commitment. If we do not stick to
our guns on holding the line on spending, like we did in the House
budget, then I will simply vote against those bills that increase
spending.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I think my time has run.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) if the Speaker will let me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Michigan has expired.
Mr. HOYER. If my friend will yield, I was wondering who is in charge
of this splurge of spending that the gentleman is concerned about?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask the gentleman to abide
by the rules.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) is recognized.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to mention that the last time I looked the majority party is in control
of both the House and the Senate and controls any spending bills that
come out of this Congress. Of course, they first are sent over to us by
the White House, meaning the President as well. So in terms of who
controls the spending and who is splurging, the minority party would
love to have control of both the House and White House, but at this
stage that is in the hands of the majority party, so the gentleman
should take his concerns directly to his leadership of his party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I can tell the gentleman who I think is in
charge of spending and taxing in this administration and in this
Congress; it is Harry Houdini. Because if Harry Houdini was a Member of
Congress, he could not have come up with a better ``now you see it, now
you don't'' tax gimmick. That is what we are doing today.
My Republican colleagues want to pass what they claim is a $96
billion tax cut for married couples today, but then the AMT denies $99
billion in promised marriage penalty relief tomorrow. ``Here today,
gone tomorrow.''
We have just heard the gentleman from Illinois state that 36 million
families deserve this tax relief today, but the AMT is raising taxes on
41 million taxpayers by the year 2010. In 2001, we promised taxpayers
real relief. At that time 1.8 million were paying the AMT. This year, 3
million of them pay the AMT. By the year 2010, 41 million of them will
pay the AMT.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle rush to give the deepest
tax cuts to people making over $1 million, then sit idly by while taxes
are skyrocketing for 70 percent of people making between $75,000 and
$100,000: our cops, our firefighters, our nurses, and our teachers.
The American people do not have to listen to this debate and take a
side. They get it. All they have to do is listen to their accountants.
I got a call from a constituent in Northport, New York, today. He told
me this story. He is newly married. He now has two children. He and his
wife both work as educators. They are exactly the kind of family we
want to help, but here is the effect of the Houdini tax policy on him.
He went to his accountant in April. They figured out his taxes. And
just when he thought it was safe to mail in his tax form, presto, the
AMT. His deductions for property taxes, disallowed; his deduction for
business exemptions and child exemptions, disallowed.
Congratulations. Only in Washington do we turn a tax cut into a
$6,000 tax increase for that middle class teacher.
Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our constituents to be honest and
accountable. We have to get away from these Houdini policies of making
tax cuts appear and disappear. We have to get away from this stealth
and secret tax on the middle class. We have to give meaningful tax
relief to the American people. That is what the Rangel substitute does,
and that is why I will support it today.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
note that we continue to debate the Democrat proposal to raise taxes by
$207 billion on individuals and small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time to debate this important issue because I really
think ending the marriage penalty is one of the most important
accomplishments that we have had in the last couple of Congresses.
We should be encouraging marriage, not discouraging marriage. Married
couples should not receive an extra gift at their wedding from Uncle
Sam with an extra tax bill. All we are trying to do is keep it neutral,
neither discourage or encourage, but certainly not penalize them. If we
do not pass this amendment, if we do not reject the Rangel amendment,
we will be having a tax increase on married couples coming up next year
of $300 or more and even higher in outer years.
Yes, we heard the minority whip say that Democrats support marriage
penalty relief. In fact, 72 Democrats did join nearly every Republican
in voting for permanent extension. So it is fair to say that
essentially all the Republican side and some Democrats do see this. But
when it comes to actually coming to the point of saying we support
families, we lose too many Members on this important issue.
Now is not the time to have a gigantic tax increase. Our families
should not only not be penalized for being married but we should be
doing what we can to grow this economy and grow jobs. At a time when we
are just beginning to get the economy coming back and growing those
jobs, we should not pass a tax increase bill, which this amendment
would be, which would devastate small businesses and their job
creation. It would be a back-door sneak attack on them. Now is not the
time to abandon hard-working Americans and hard-working small
businesses that are creating jobs for American families.
The debate really comes down to who should be looked to to come up
with solutions for this country. Do we look for government, or do we
look for families? We heard a lot of talk on the other side about the
deficit of the Federal Government. We have not heard a lot of talk
about the budgets of families, which their amendment would increase the
cost to them.
We also hear how weak an argument they have against what we are
trying to do here by bringing up the AMT. The gentleman from New York
said that we needed to be honest and accountable. Well, let us be
honest and accountable about the AMT and why increasing numbers of
Americans are facing that burden. It is because under Clinton and a
Democratic Congress, where we passed AMT without an index, each and
every year we bring in more and more hard-working families

[[Page H2442]]

in the middle class to do this perversive tax. It comes, if we are to
be honest and accountable, from the tax policy that they are now
proposing in this Rangel substitute, and it must be rejected.
Look at how far they are searching for excuses to come out against
eliminating the marriage penalty. The gentleman from California says
that this would certainly stop us from doing the right thing in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, I am not sure what marriage penalty relief
has to do with preventing us from doing the right thing in Afghanistan
and Iraq. I do not know if it is the confusion about what the right
thing in Afghanistan or Iraq should be, but certainly I think our
fighting men and women are doing a wonderful thing of extending freedom
and keeping us safe here at home.
This bill will do nothing to prevent the full commitment we have and
will give our troops for that. But those troops are hoping to come back
to an America that values the families that bore them, that values the
families that they are creating themselves, and America cannot at this
point in time back away from helping American families, from helping
the small businesses that create jobs for those families, and I
encourage my colleagues to reject the Rangel amendment and vote to keep
marriage penalty relief and not allow a tax increase on hard-working
American families.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
Let us be straight about what is happening here. This is a $207
billion tax cut for people who make less than $1 million a year, the
kind of people that need the tax cut. This is a tax increase, in order
to pay for the bill, a tax increase of $207 billion for those people
who make more than $1 million a year.
This is very simple math. We are not being irresponsible with this
substitute. We all support getting rid of the marriage penalty. We all
want to encourage marriage through the Tax Code. We do not want to
penalize anybody for getting married. But to sit here and say that this
is somehow a tax increase on middle America, on average Americans, is
not telling the whole story.
This is a tax cut for people who are married and make less than $1
million a year. These are the people who are paying increased property
tax and who are experiencing tuitions that have gone up by 15 percent,
increased sales taxes, and health care costs that have gone up by 15 to
20 percent a year. These are the people we are trying to help here, and
the Democrats are in support of that.
But we do not want to go out and borrow money and put it on the next
generation. You borrow money, you have to pay interest on it. This is
revenue neutral, so that when we have the challenges we need to face
down the pike with Afghanistan, with Iraq, making sure our troops have
the proper equipment, then we will be able to answer that call.

{time} 1530

We are asking millionaires to give back only $30,000 of their Bush
tax cut. They are still going to get $100,000. They are still going to
get $100,000 back from the Bush tax cut. When are we going to ask the
top 1 percent in this country to start making sacrifices? When? Now is
the time with this substitute bill to say that we are not going to push
it onto the next generation and we are finally, since this country had
the greatest tragedy it has ever had in its history, finally we are
going to ask the top 1 percent to sacrifice a little bit to help move
the whole society along.
Really the only problem that I see right now with this substitute is
that you need a job to be able to qualify to get it, because there are
no jobs in this country. The previous speaker said the economy is
growing. Where? If you have stocks, you may be doing okay. In Ohio, we
lost 200,000 jobs, most of them manufacturing, and 2 million jobs
nationwide. This is Herbert Hoover's economy.
Let us be responsible. Let us ask the top 1 percent, people making
over $1 million a year, to pay their fair share. Only $30,000 of the
Bush tax cut do they need to give back and they are going to give it
back to average families who have seen increases in a variety of other
tax structures, with their cities, with their counties, with their
school districts, with their mental health levies. Those are the people
we want to help.
I urge passage of this substitute. It is the right way to go about it
by not pushing it off on our kids.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the Democrat proposal to
increase taxes on individuals, families and small business by $207
billion, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Burns).
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, there are still Members in this body that do
not understand what marriage penalty relief is about. They only
understand tax and spending increases, for any reason regardless of
whether any particular tax may be unfair or inefficient or damaging to
our economy or destructive to our Nation's families and their moral
fiber.
Let us take a quick look. Marriage penalty relief is not about how
much is paid, but it is about how it is paid. There is absolutely no
reason that any married man and woman in this country should pay more
in taxes than similar individuals who are not married. A wife and a
husband that make minimum wage should not pay a nickel more in tax than
two unmarried people making minimum wage. A husband and wife making $1
million a year should not pay a nickel more in tax than two unmarried
people making $1 million a year.
Americans of both parties were united behind this concept. Leave it
to our liberal opponents to seek a way to destroy national consensus
and attempt to convince Americans that inequality is not only
acceptable but it is justified as long as it is against someone else
and, in this case, married couples. If those who oppose eliminating the
marriage penalty want to raise taxes on families, be honest. Come
forward with a bill to raise the tax rate on middle and upper income
households. We will have that debate and vote. But any proposal must
ensure that all taxes paid by Americans are paid equally, instead of
once again penalizing good citizens for being married.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute and
support the underlying bill.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Democratic substitute. I believe strongly that we must provide as much
permanent marriage penalty relief as possible, which is why I will be
voting today for H.R. 4181, the permanent extension of the marriage
penalty bill. However, I believe that the Democratic substitute will do
an even better job of providing real marriage penalty relief for middle
class families.
For increasing numbers of families, April 15 is becoming April Fool's
Day thanks to the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, more families
are finding out that the joke is on them when they realize that they
will not receive many of the promised tax cuts. The alternative minimum
tax was originally designed to make sure that wealthy taxpayers did not
completely avoid paying taxes. However, the AMT was not indexed for
inflation nor does it allow many popular deductions, including marriage
penalty relief. So it is increasingly impacting middle class families
whose incomes have risen over the years, particularly two-parent
working families with children.
I am from Long Island where the voice of our business community, the
Long Island Association, has declared the AMT to be the number one
threat to Long Island's taxpayers. The problem with the Republican bill
is that it does not protect marriage penalty relief from the AMT. The
AMT hits Long Islanders particularly hard, as State and local income
taxes, property taxes and other personal deductions are added back in
for the purpose of calculating the AMT. In a sense, Long Island is
being double-crossed and double-taxed. In fact, more Long Islanders pay
the AMT than taxpayers in any other region of the country.
I find it deeply disingenuous to promise marriage penalty relief to
millions of Americans who we know will not reap the benefits of it.
When many

[[Page H2443]]

families who think they are getting marriage penalty relief instead
have to pay the AMT, I believe that they will be outraged that we had
the opportunity to act, which we do, but we did not.
The Democratic substitute provides more marriage penalty relief to 13
million families than the Republican bill by ensuring that tax relief
from the marriage penalty is not taken away or reduced by the AMT. The
Republican bill denies the full marriage penalty tax relief to 13
million families next year, including more than 25 percent of the
middle class families making between $75,000 and $100,000.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate the Democrat
proposal to increase taxes by $207 billion on individuals, families and
small business, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Gerlach), one of our leaders in the effort to permanently
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. GERLACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge opposition to the Rangel substitute here
today. It is unbelievable that just as the economy in our Nation is
starting to turn around, seeing increasing jobs, lowering the
unemployment rate, higher rates of home ownership, that we are going to
be asked through this amendment, through this substitute, to raise
taxes on our job creators. According to the Joint Committee on
Taxation, this substitute will hit approximately 200,000 individual
returns, 75 percent of those returns having small business income,
income that can be used to plow back into those small businesses, plow
back into increasing the number of jobs at that small business, plow
back into that small business for better equipment, better technology,
a larger physical facility to handle the operations of that small
business. That would be cut. That would be adversely impacted by this
substitute.
The substitute also reverses the effects of the President's 2001 and
2003 tax relief. At a minimum, affected families and small businesses
will pay a marginal tax rate of 38.6 percent.
Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to stifle economic growth in this
Nation through higher taxes. Now is the time to continue economic
growth through lower taxes. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the Rangel substitute.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding me this time.
I say now is the time to get back the money we gave to all those rich
folks when we gave them the tax cut because we really need it. We could
use it to pay for some of the equipment that the folks in the armed
services need right now.
But let me speak more specifically to the legislation that we are
here to talk about. I rise in support of the Rangel substitute
amendment, which not only makes permanent marriage penalty relief for
millions of hardworking families eligible for the earned income tax
credit but also provides that relief immediately, not 3 years from now
like the Republican bill.
In 2001, the marriage penalty relief that was enacted was phased in
over a long period of time. Last year, the economic stimulus
legislation that was enacted accelerated the phase-in of the 2001
marriage penalty relief provisions except for the marriage penalty
relief in the earned income tax credit. I ask, why not? Why was
immediate relief for the most needy neglected and not accelerated like
the other marriage penalty provisions?
The earned income tax credit assists lower and middle income earners.
In Cleveland, Ohio, more than 80,000 individuals filed for the credit.
In the State of Ohio, more than 700,000 individuals took advantage of
the credit. Nationwide, about 18 million Americans utilized the credit.
These hardworking Americans should not be penalized because they are
married and they should be provided relief immediately, not 3 years
from now. We should accelerate their relief just like the other
marriage penalty provisions. Those eligible for the earned income tax
credit are in the most need and we should make sure that they get
relief as soon as possible.
An in-depth study on the earned income tax credit was conducted by an
Ohio think tank and Ohioans were asked what they would do with the
extra money they would receive through the earned income tax credit.
They provided the following responses: ``I would spend it on the kids
and on visits to the doctor. I have health insurance but my youngest
has to see a foot specialist and the shoes are not covered by
insurance. They cost $140.''
As I said, I rise in support of the Rangel substitute and would ask
all of my colleagues to consider it the best thing for us to do.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me this time.
In 1993 and 1997, we both reduced the deficit and in 1997 balanced
the budget by cutting taxes for working families and middle class
families who were trying to meet their obligations to their children
and their families. We did not make a choice between tax cuts and
deficit reduction. We did both effectively, resulting in 22 million
more Americans having jobs, half the poverty rate in this country cut,
incomes at all levels going up and the ability of families to send
their kids to college being achieved and realized.
Today we have two proposals but also two different visions, both
providing tax relief. One, I believe, the Democratic alternative, more
equitably, more fairly and more progressively and being paid for, that
does not literally in my view provide a head fake to future generations
who will be left the obligation to pay for this tax cut.
I note in the Republican proposal that they do finally have in 2008
the earned income tax credit extension. My view is if it is good in
2008, let us do what the Democratic proposal does and bring that tax
cut forward to 2005. Because if it is good in 2008 and if it is a good
enough tax cut in 2008, let us extend to working families that tax cut
in 2005. It always surprises me, they never use the opportunity to be
progressive and to be fair.
Second, the notion that there will be 10 million families earning
$75,000 to $200,000 who will get no tax cut under this proposal. In my
view, we can cut taxes for middle class families and reduce the
deficit, which will be good for the economy, producing jobs, and good
for American families. There is a right way to do it and a wrong way.
That is the wrong way. Our Democratic proposal and Democratic agenda
has a right way without making choices; that is, to give a tax cut to
working families while reducing the deficit.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) as well for his leadership and
encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to just simply
be fair. The Rangel amendment and substitute is simply clear and simply
fair. It makes this legislation effective for millions of lower and
middle class Americans, families, the working poor, who can also have
the benefit as married couples and families under this legislation and
particularly as it relates to the earned income tax credit.

{time} 1545

Allow me to just share with you a young lady by the name of Nicole
Goodwin. Yes, Mr. Speaker, she is an American. She is an Iraq war
combat veteran who is homeless with her daughter. Say, for example,
that she would get a job, as she is looking from one homeless shelter
to another. This legislation would not benefit this working mom, this
family, this individual, who may ultimately marry and be part of the
working community, but not part of the millionaire community.
It seems that it is important when we talk about tax relief, inasmuch
as we have already given to the top 1 percent an enormous tax cut that
puts us trillions of dollars in debt, that it is only fair that as we
come to the floor of the House with this benefit that is

[[Page H2444]]

now being given and will be made permanent by the Rangel substitute,
but as well that we be allowed to extend it to millions and millions of
working families, to the working poor.
I cannot imagine that we would allow an Iraq war veteran, a combat
veteran, to suffer under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate today that this body must be consumed
by debate on legislation that has no real hope of passing through the
Senate, never mind the fact that it will not help real Americans. This
Marriage Penalty bill is being used by Members of this body as
distraction from the real issues at hand. Currently, our nation is
engaged in a war that does not have an end in sight. In this body alone
we still have massive transportation legislation that has not been
resolved and we have yet to even approve a complete budget. Yet, we
must be present here to debate legislation that is not realistic nor
does it serve a true purpose in its current form. Members of this body
who support the original legislation of H.R. 4181 seek to deflect
attention away from the fact that to average Americans the economy is
lagging, jobs are not abundant, and irresponsible tax cuts have hurt
not helped them. However, the majority party continues to repeat the
mantra that tax cuts for the rich will lead to a real economic
recovery. The facts do not bear out their repeated statements. Average
Americans are not the ones receiving massive tax cuts; instead they
themselves and their children after them will be the ones paying off an
ever increasing national debt. The original form of this legislation
continues this skewed pattern of benefiting the rich over lower and
middle class Americans. This legislation if passed in its original form
will leave middle class couples in the cold when it comes to tax relief
and furthermore it has no legitimate offsets to pay for its expense.
This irresponsible legislation will only grow the deficit and make
greater the burden on average Americans.
This is why I am in full support of the Rangel substitute which
offers a responsible way to extend relief from the marriage penalty.
Under the Rangel substitute, the marriage penalty provisions related to
the standard deductions, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) phase-out
increase, and 15% bracket would be made permanent, just as in the
original legislation of H.R. 4181. However, the Rangel substitute takes
the next step towards fiscal responsibility that the original
legislation ignores. First, the substitute accelerates the increase for
those eligible for EITC, so that they will not have to wait until 2008
to get the full benefit of this legislation. Second, it makes this
legislation effective for millions of lower and middle class Americans
who are ignored in the original legislation. $100 billion of promised
relief is taken back in the form of the alternative minimum tax in H.R.
4181. Additionally, three million families will only receive a partial
benefit from this legislation. Those who only receive a partial benefit
will disproportionately be couples with children because the minimum
tax does not allow a deduction for dependent deductions. Now I ask,
does this sound like legislation that truly benefits American married
couples?
Too many average Americans are not seeing a benefit; instead they are
being fed a steady diet of misinformation and irresponsible policies.
The Rangel substitute addresses all these loopholes that allow so many
Americans to fall through the cracks and not receive real tax relief.
The strongest argument for the Rangel substitute is fiscal
responsibility. The Rangel substitute would ensure that this
legislation does not increase the national deficit as it would in its
original form. The cost of this tax relief will be offset by adjusting
the tax rate for married couples making over a million dollars a year.
No doubt, this provision will draw the ire of the majority party, no
doubt that they will assail us for daring to make adjustments to their
tax cuts. But, I ask what other responsible options are we left with?
Should we pass this legislation in its original form and just accept
soaring deficits? Should we deny this legislation and leave married
couples to lose the tax relief that they have earned? These are the
meager alternatives left to us if we do not take the fiscally
responsible action of adjusting the tax rate for the richest Americans.
I can not understand how some in this body can possibly compare
America's millionaires to American working class families as if their
situation was one in the same. Clearly, that is not true; America's
working class families are the ones in need of tax relief. America's
millionaires can stand to pass on more tax relief for the sake of
fiscal responsibility.
The difference between the original legislation and the Rangel
substitute is that the latter is actually effective and furthermore
it's responsible. In these trying times for our nation we can not
afford anymore misguided policies.
Extending tax relief for married couples is an admirable goal, but
creating irresponsible legislation is not.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the House Republican leadership.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak in general of the marriage tax penalty
relief bill which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has worked
so hard for so many years to pass in Congress.
The amendment offered here by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) might have some merits, but I also am aware there are so many
people who are opposed to this legislation on the other side of the
aisle, that sometimes you wonder if these amendments are not being
offered in the clever way to derail the legislation itself. It is
probably not the case, with the sponsor and many of the people who are
supporting it.
I am absolutely not yielding to my friend, but let me say, as I just
said, it is probably not the case. That is what I just said. I said
that often many times these amendments are offered in an attempt to
derail the legislation. However, when the record is written, I will
have a chance to show my friend from New York, whom I respect
immensely, that I said that is probably not the intent there. And let
me say this to my friend from New York, that I also have said that the
gentleman has consistently worked for legislation like this. So it
certainly is very, I guess, expected that the gentleman would use this
opportunity. I would use it too, if I were the gentleman in his
position.
Having said that, let me say again, I will be happy to yield to the
gentleman, and I do know it is not his intent to derail something.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I would be happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because
I misunderstood him. If his final argument is that my intent is just as
honest as that of the underlying sponsor of this legislation, then I
apologize to the gentleman for misunderstanding what he was saying.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this: I
think the gentleman has been a great champion of tax relief in many
respects, and certainly I have a lot of admiration for him.
My support today is for the marriage tax penalty relief. But I would
love to see us pass this legislation in its entirety one time and have
our colleagues in the other body finish the work that this House so
many times has passed and that we cannot get through.
So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go on record saying I do support the
efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) on marriage tax
penalty. I think it is so very important for middle-class America, and
I support it today.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken today on both sides
of the aisle supports tax relief for married couples. In fact, I know
of no one who is going to come here and say to you they are prepared to
vote against marriage penalty relief for married couples in this
country.
But at a time when we are facing as a result of policies in this
government the largest deficit in the Nation's history, some $521
billion, and at a time when there is a double whammy of having to fight
a war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no sense of when we are going to
have an opportunity to bring our troops home and at what cost, we have
to move on legislation like this in a responsible fashion.
This legislation will cost over $100 billion. We do not have $100
billion to pull out of the Federal Treasury's pocket to pay for this
bill. That means the deficit of the Nation will increase that much
more.
As I mentioned at the inception of this debate, we have a $7
trillion-plus national debt. I guess you could continue spending, the
credit card looks good, but at some point we have to pay. And if we are
not going to pay, that means our children will pay.

[[Page H2445]]

At a time when we are this year, as a result of the administration's
request, underfunding the President's own No Child Left Behind Act for
education some $8 billion to $10 billion, at a time when we are
underfunding the IDEA legislation, which is for special education needs
of our kids throughout this country, by more than $2 billion this year,
at a time when we are failing to help 44 million Americans have access
to health insurance, at a time when we see men and women every day
sacrificing their life in places like Afghanistan and Iraq for us, here
we are talking about giving $100 billion in tax cuts, when we are not
willing to pay for them.
The Democrat substitute simply says, let us give that tax relief, but
let us pay for it. We do so by taking the top one-fifth of 1 percent of
the richest Americans in this country, one-fifth of 1 percent, and
saying to them, you are going to get about $136,000 in tax cuts from
the 2001 and 2003 tax bills that were passed. Take $100,000 instead of
$136,000. That will help us take care of the millions of families, tens
of millions of families that will otherwise face this marriage tax
penalty.
Sacrifice a little bit the way the young men or women in Afghanistan
are doing today or Iraq are doing today, or the working family making
$40,000 or $50,000 is doing today. You will still get $100,000. That is
more in relative terms and in absolute terms in the tax cut than any
other income group in America.
One-fifth of 1 percent of the richest families in America would help
cover the cost. That way we do not add another $100 billion to the
national debt. Cannot do that? I guess that is considered responsible.
Some of us believe we owe it to the people of this country to spend,
but spend responsibly; to enact legislation, but do it responsibly.
That is what I think the Democratic substitute does.
It simply says, let us not try to hoodwink you, let us not do tax
policy in the back room with a big black monster back there you cannot
see. Let us do it so people can understand transparently, clearly. Big
print, not fine print, is what we are trying to say.
Let us give marriage tax relief to all families, but do it
responsibly without adding to the debt that will have to be paid by the
children of the people that will receive some of that relief. Do not
take it from Peter to give it to Paul. Let us do it the right way.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 11\3/4\
minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to my friend
from New York's substitute proposal that he is offering, which, again,
is a $207 billion tax increase on individuals, on families, and on
small business.
The issue of the AMT has been raised today, and that is another issue
which concerns all of us. But I would note that in 1993 when President
Clinton called for a tax increase, the biggest tax increase in the
history of our Nation, Democrats controlled the Congress, and at that
time they increased taxes, increased the rates; but they failed to
index it for inflation. That has created the problem that we are facing
when it comes to the AMT.
In the next few weeks, this House will be taking up legislation,
broad AMT reforms, which will help prevent 11 million of those families
that my good friend from New York has identified as needing help. We
will be voting on that sometime, very, very soon. But today we are
talking about the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I would note in directing my attention directly to the
Rangel substitute that it does several things. It reverses President
Bush's tax relief, and that means higher taxes, as I said earlier; it
creates new taxes on families, individuals, and small businesses; and
it makes the alternative minimum tax even more complicated.
Again, under my good friend from New York's proposal, you would have
to essentially figure out your taxes three times before you could
determine what your tax would be under this proposal. The Tax Code
would become much more complicated and taxes would go up $207 billion.
So I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the Rangel
substitute. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is a good friend
of mine. We work together on a lot of things. But I disagree with him
on the substitute that he has offered.
But let us talk about what the real issue is before the House today,
and that is, do we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty
permanently? If we fail to do anything, the marriage tax penalty will
come back for millions of American families.
I remember all the years we have talked about eliminating the
marriage tax penalty. I have a couple that I used as an example, a
young couple who I had met when they just got married, Shad and
Michelle Hallihan.
When we were working early on to eliminate the marriage tax penalty,
twice we passed legislation to eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax
penalty, and unfortunately it fell victim to President Clinton's
vetoes. He wanted to spend the money, rather than give it back to
married couples; so he vetoed that bill.
In the case of Shad and Michelle, what really was the problem was
they both work, they are both school teachers, so they have two
incomes. Under the Tax Code in the old days, before President Bush's
tax cut was put in place, they paid higher taxes. In fact, the average
married couple at the time we introduced the original legislation to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty paid about $1,400.
Well, after our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty was
vetoed twice by President Clinton, time marched on and the Hallihans
had a son. In fact, that little boy is about ready to start grade
school now. Over that little boy's lifetime, we have been working to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
If you think about it, Will County, Illinois, where the Hallihans
live, $1,400 for them is tuition at Joliet Junior Community College,
several months of daycare at a local community college. So the
Hallihans are a good example of a married couple with a young child who
suffer the marriage tax penalty.
Well, this past year, with the help of President Bush, President Bush
in 2001, President Bush in 2003, we were successful in enacting into
law legislation that essentially wiped out the marriage tax penalty for
36 million married working couples.
Another example of a couple from the district I represent, Jose and
Magdalena Castillo, Joliet, they are construction workers, they work in
the construction field, they have two children, Carolina and Eduardo,
and they work hard. But they suffered the marriage tax penalty too, and
thanks to the legislation that the President signed into law, after it
was twice vetoed by President Clinton, the Castillos have an extra
$1,125 when their marriage tax penalty was eliminated.
Of course, they have two children. That $1,125 is money they could
set aside in an education savings account, in a health savings account,
to help with health care or college tuition needs. It is money they can
use to put a down payment on a car. Or they could also put it in their
individual retirement accounts for their later years some day when the
kids are out of school, out of college, and they are empty-nesters and
are ready to retire.
But the bottom line is that Shad and Michelle Hallihan and Jose and
Magdalena Castillo represent the 36 million married working couples who
will suffer higher taxes, unless we make permanent the elimination of
the marriage tax penalty.
We do have two alternatives here. My good friend from New York has
offered one in which the code word ``pay for'' is used. Just to explain
congressional terms, pay for means tax increase. My friend's proposal
has a $207 billion tax increase on families and individuals and small
businesses, those who create jobs in America.
The Republican proposal, which I hope has bipartisan support, does
not include a tax increase on families or small business. What we do is
provide a simple extension of the existing marriage tax penalty relief
that if we fail to pass into law would result in a tax increase on
married couples, like Jose and Magdalena Castillo and Shad and Michelle
Hallihan.
If we fail to extend this marriage tax relief, couples such as the
Castillos would see a $300 marriage tax penalty reimposed, a portion of
that previous penalty they had. If we fail to make it

[[Page H2446]]

permanent, 35 million couples like the Castillos would see a tax
increase of more than $700 starting in 2011.

{time} 1600

Overall, over the next decade, if we fail to extend and make
permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, married couples
will pay nearly $105 billion in higher taxes.
This is what this is all about. It is a simple choice today. I urge
my colleagues to do the right thing, and the right thing is to oppose a
$207 billion tax increase on families and individuals and small
business by voting ``no'' on the substitute of my good friend from New
York (Mr. Rangel) and voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4181, legislation that
makes permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
We do it in three ways. We extend the doubling of the standard
deduction so that married couples can have a standard deduction twice
that of singles that helps those who do not itemize. We also make
permanent the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket so middle class
married couples who are both in the work force make twice as much when
they file jointly and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket as a single,
and we also help the working poor, those who benefit from the earned
income credit, a program that was created by Ronald Reagan to help the
working poor make ends meet.
My good colleague from Texas said that somehow this proposal would
not help this returning Iraqi war veteran and, with all due respect,
she is wrong because under our legislation we make permanent the earned
income credit which my friend says that she qualifies for. So she
benefits as well.
The bottom line is low income and middle class married couples
benefit in a significant way when we make permanent the elimination of
the marriage tax penalty. Again, my good friend is offering a tax
increase of $207 billion. It is a bad idea at this time. We need to
keep the economy moving forward. Let us help families by permanently
eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote, an aye vote on H.R. 4181, and a no
vote on the Rangel substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
607, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on
the further amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 226, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 136]

YEAS--189

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--226

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Bonilla
Bonner
Cardin
DeMint
Gephardt
Granger
Hastings (FL)
Kilpatrick
Nussle
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Ryun (KS)
Smith (NJ)
Tauzin
Thompson (CA)
Toomey
Waters
Wexler

{time} 1627

Messrs. GREENWOOD, RENZI, GRAVES and YOUNG of Alaska, changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 136 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to speak out
of order.)

[[Page H2447]]

Recognizing The Passing Of Former Colleague Alphonzo Bell, Jr. And
Celebrating the Birth of the Rohrabacher Triplets

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention of
the House by way of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I
joining together to make an announcement regarding our colleagues.
I get the side of it that is less than totally positive, while my
colleague will take the other side.
I am here to announce to the House, or bring to their attention, the
passing of former colleague Alphonzo Bell, Jr., who this last Sunday
passed away at the age of 89.
Congressman Bell was known while he was in the House by Members of
the House as a guy who covered the whole gamut. Some called him a
liberal, some called him a moderate, some called him a conservative. He
reflects the mix that we have here today. A fabulous Member of the
House who passed away at a wonderful, ripe age.
Mr. Speaker, let me yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, our congressional family is
renewed. I am pleased to announce that we have new family members to
bring to your attention. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) is thrilled to announce and, of course, his wife, Rhonda,
is pleased to announce, the arrival last night of a baby girl, Annika
Brigit Rohrabacher; and a baby boy, Christian August Rohrabacher; and a
baby girl, Tristen Francis Rohrabacher. All three of the babies are
doing well. They have a healthy birth weight and they are expected to
go home soon.
I am told that after they had their Apgar tests they were instantly
communicating with each other, these three, signaling each other trying
to figure a way out of the nursery to head to the beach because they
understand the Rohrabacher family motto is fighting for freedom and
having fun, and they are already into it.
The Rohrabacher family is very much proud of this, as we should be.
Congratulations to this newest congressional family of five.

{time} 1630

Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
Mr. STENHOLM. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Stenholm moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4181 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 4 TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON AVAILABLE DEBT LIMIT.

No provision of this Act shall take effect unless the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies that, upon enactment, the
public debt limit set forth in subsection (b) of section 3101
of title 31, United States Code, is sufficient to allow for
the increased borrowing required as a result of this Act over
the next 10 years.

Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic but this is a very straightforward
motion. It simply says to this body that if Members want to take credit
for cutting taxes we need to take the responsibility for the increased
debt as well. Or I would put it in light of the last announcement, the
three new little Rohrabachers I am concerned about today and I do not
want us to add $95 billion additional debt to the three new little
Rohrabachers that we just applauded.
This debate is not about whether or not we should end the marriage
tax penalty. Every Member of this body supports marriage penalty
relief. The debate is whether we should do so with borrowed money,
adding more debt on top of our $7.1 trillion national debt, or paying
as we go.
PAYGO worked in the nineties, 1990 and 1997. I believe it will work
today if we can just start enforcing it. I do not believe we should pay
for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is
why I supported the Rangel substitute, which would provide for a full
and permanent elimination of the marriage penalty without increasing
the deficit. Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how
to make things fit within a budget just like families across the
country do every day. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems
to have forgotten that common sense principle.
Since the Republican leadership refuses to pay for tax cuts by
cutting spending or replacing the revenues, every dime of this bill
will be added to the debt we leave for our children and grandchildren.
I believe that at a time when our national debt is approaching $8
trillion and our Nation faces tremendous expenses for our troops
overseas it is irresponsible to pass legislation that would put our
Nation even deeper in debt. But if my Republican colleagues believe
that deficits do not matter, they should have no problem borrowing the
money openly and honestly to pay for it.
I hope that all of the Members who have come to the floor today to
brag about this bill will come to the floor with the same enthusiasm
when it comes time to increase the national debt limit. But instead of
taking the responsibility for the consequences of their economic
policies, the Republican leadership is going to great lengths to avoid
even having a discussion of the debt limit.
The budget resolution that this body may consider next week would
increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. All this motion does is
ask the House to acknowledge that every dime of tax cuts would be added
to our national debt. Perhaps if we take responsibility for the impact
that our votes have on the national debt we will think twice before we
vote to place more debt on our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, as bad as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) talked about the gigantic size of the debt, that is not the
worst part of it. A tax cut today with borrowed money is a tax increase
tomorrow in the form of interest on the debt. One cannot have it both
ways.
If that is not bad enough, that is still not the worst of it. The
worst of it is this: This country ran up a $370-plus billion deficit
last year. You know who financed it? Seventy percent of it was financed
by foreign interests. Beijing, the Central Bank of China, has increased
their holdings of American paper 105 percent since 2001. Now the Asians
own almost $1 trillion worth of our paper. Every dime you borrow, 70
percent of it is being bought by Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Caribbean nations.
I have got the list of people we are in hock to all around the world.
Sooner or later, I am telling you, sooner or later, you keep on doing
this and this bill, nobody disagrees with the substance of it, you just
will not pay for it. Sooner or later when they do not see the world as
we see it, we are going to be in deep trouble. They will have control
of the financial markets. They will have control of Wall Street because
all they will have to do is call the amount of paper that they hold and
we are in trouble.
I would say this bill is just a symptom of a far greater, more
serious problem that is every bit as important to this country as any
national security matter that I know of.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I am a strong believer in pay-as-
you-go legislation. It worked in 1990 when, in a bipartisan way, we
passed it in this House. It worked in 1997 when, in a bipartisan way,
you could not have done it without Democratic votes. I wished we were
doing that. But since we are not going to even allow us to pay for the
tax cut that is on the table today, we are going to brag about all the

[[Page H2448]]

things about it, it seems the least we can do is step up and
acknowledge we are going to borrow it and say to the American people we
are going to borrow $95 billion on our children's and grandchildren's
future. That is all this amendment does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if this were a debate on the budget and the decision
before the House was to bind every spending measure and every tax
measure to a PAYGO rule, the debate might be more appropriate. But to
assign to one particular tax cut, and only one, a rule that is not
applied to any other decision in this House, whether spending or tax
cuts, seems to me to point out that somebody does not like making sure
that married people pay no more tax than any other two taxpayers.
It took us a long time to reach this point. It seems to me the
gentleman's points will be well taken during a debate on the budget.
There are a lot of people anxious to find out whether or not they are
going to be able to continue the current marriage tax structure that we
have.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and Rhonda
Rohrabacher have diapers to change. Let us not leave them in suspense.
Vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on the underlying bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote on the
question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199,
nays 220, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 137]

YEAS--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--220

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bonner
Cardin
DeMint
Hastings (FL)
Kilpatrick
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Smith (NJ)
Tancredo
Tauzin
Thompson (CA)
Toomey
Waters
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes to vote.

{time} 1659

Mr. QUINN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 323,
noes 95, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 138]

AYES--323

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello

[[Page H2449]]

Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--95

Abercrombie
Andrews
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Hill
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Majette
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--15

Bonner
Cardin
DeMint
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Kilpatrick
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Smith (NJ)
Tauzin
Thompson (CA)
Toomey
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1708

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the marriage
penalty relief provided under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________