[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13968-13973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4810, MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 545 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 545

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative Rangel or his designee, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 545 is a modified closed rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2000. For those Members who think they are 
experiencing deja vu, let me clear up any confusion. It is true that 
the House has already voted to provide relief from the marriage tax 
penalty. In fact, on February 10 of this very year, the House passed 
legislation that is identical to H.R. 4810 by a bipartisan vote of 268-
158. Prior to that, the House twice passed marriage tax relief as part 
of a larger tax bill which the President unfortunately vetoed. So this 
is actually the fourth time that the 106th Congress will debate and 
vote to provide tax fairness to married couples.
  It probably baffles the American people that it takes this much 
effort to correct such a blatant inequity in the tax code, but rest 
assured the Republican majority is determined to keep at it and give 
the President another chance to sign this bill into law. Today, we will 
consider the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act under a reconciliation 
process which we hope will

[[Page 13969]]

speed this legislation's path to the President's desk.
  Under the rule, the House will proceed with 1 hour of general debate 
on the bill which will be equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Even though 
the House has already thoroughly debated this issue and passed this 
legislation, the Committee on Rules decided to give the minority an 
opportunity to offer a substitute amendment which will be debated for 1 
hour. The substitute amendment which is printed in the Committee on 
Rules report may be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
or his designee. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
and the amendment are waived. Not only will the minority have the 
opportunity to offer a substitute but they also will have the option of 
offering a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. So I think 
we can all agree that this rule is quite fair in its generosity to the 
minority.
  Mr. Speaker, 'tis the season for holy matrimony and as wedding bells 
chime across the Nation this summer, many couples will celebrate their 
unions without suspecting that the Government has in store for them a 
tax on their marriage. If these newlyweds listen to the family-friendly 
rhetoric in Washington, they might think the Government is toasting to 
them as they create their new families. But instead of sending 
sentiments of congratulations and best wishes, the only thing the 
Government plans to deliver is a bigger tax bill. So let us hope these 
couples do not run out and cash the wedding checks that they receive 
from Grandpa Joe and Cousin Jane because they still have to pay Uncle 
Sam.
  That is right, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government sees marriage as 
an opportunity to increase taxes. Newlyweds may see their taxes rise by 
hundreds or even thousands of dollars based solely on the fact that 
they have walked down the aisle and said, ``I do.'' It is hard to 
understand why the decision to make a solemn commitment to another 
individual through the institution of marriage has anything to do with 
the rate at which one is taxed, but we should know by now that the 
Government has no qualms about taking every opportunity to make a grab 
for more of our hard-earned money. In fact, each year 42 million 
working Americans pay higher taxes simply because they are married. 
This policy is unfair and discriminatory, not to mention the fact that 
it undermines one of the most fundamental institutions of our society. 
And it makes little sense to add to the tax burden of newlyweds, 
especially when marriage is often a precursor to added financial 
responsibilities such as owning a home or having children.

                              {time}  1100

  I think we all know that despite all of our glowing talk about a 
robust economy, many families find that it is hard to make ends meet. 
Both spouses must work. Under the current Tax Code, working couples are 
pushed into a higher tax bracket because the income of the second wage 
earner, often the wife, is tacked a much higher rate.
  Because of the marriage penalty, 21 million families pay an average 
of $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single or just 
living together. What kind of message does that send?
  The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will bring fairness to the Tax 
Code by doubling the standard deduction for married couples, expanding 
the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income is taxed at a lower 
rate, and increasing the amount that low-income couples can earn and 
still be eligible for the earned income tax credit. This fix will mean 
lower taxes for 25 million American couples, and that is 59,000 couples 
in my district alone.
  But my Democrat colleagues will claim that we are doing too much, 
though I am not sure there is such a thing as too much fairness, Mr. 
Speaker. Still, they will want to differentiate between married couples 
and penalize some couples for their vows, but not others.
  Under the Democrat's plan, the Government does not have to give these 
families as much money back, so the Government can keep and spend more. 
They may claim that this is a more responsible approach; but, Mr. 
Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that the Government is 
experiencing a budget surplus. We have already taken the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds off the table and made a commitment 
to paying down the debt, and we still have money left over. If we 
cannot afford to fix this glaring inequity in our Tax Code today, then 
when would my Democrat friends suggest that we do it, and how is it 
responsible to let this penalty on marriage continue when the 
Government is swimming in surplus cash?
  I do not claim to understand the logic, but this rule will give the 
Democrats the opportunity to make their case and offer their 
substitute.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that will give the Marriage Tax 
Penalty Relief Act the momentum it needs to move through the Senate and 
to the President's desk, so that he has another opportunity to do the 
right thing and give working families this needed break. There is 
absolutely no reason to continue this unfair policy, no more excuses.
  It is time to either defend the marriage tax or eliminate it. I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule and the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief 
Reconciliation Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half hour. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree the marriage tax is unfair. It punishes 
people for getting married just when they are thinking of starting a 
family, and it really needs to be abolished. The question is how to 
abolish it.
  There is a Democratic bill; there is a Republican bill. The central 
difference between the two bills is who is benefited.
  The Republican bill will benefit the richest 25 percent of Americans, 
including a lot of people who do not even pay the marriage penalty in 
the first place. The Democratic bill benefits working families who 
really need it, working families with children who are trying to save 
for a home, who are trying to put their children through school, who 
are trying to make ends meet. They should not have to pay additional 
taxes just because they are married; and unless they are very rich, the 
Republican bill just does not work for them.
  The reason the Republican bill will not work, Mr. Speaker, is because 
it increases the standard deduction without adjusting the alternative 
minimum tax. That means that millions of families would see no net 
reduction under the marriage penalty whatsoever under the Republican 
bill.
  In yesterday's Washington Post, in the editorial, Mr. Speaker, it 
said, ``The cost of the bill is high: The bulk of the benefit would go 
to people already quite well off, and there are better uses for the 
money, to shore up Medicare, for example.''
  By the year 2008, the year that the Republican bill finally goes into 
effect, 47 percent of American families with two children would get no 
relief whatsoever. The tax will have a new name, but it will cost a 
lot. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the American families need.
  Millions of low- and moderate-income families, especially those with 
children, need help; and the Republican bill just does not do it.
  The Democratic bill will, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic bill will focus 
its efforts on low- and moderate-income taxpayers by increasing the 
standard deduction for married couples until it is twice the size of 
the single people's deduction. It will also reduce the marriage penalty 
in the Earned Income Tax Credit and change the alternative minimum tax 
so that all of the promised tax cuts actually do take effect. It will 
mean real help to working families who need it.
  Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's editorial in the Washington Post, the 
title was ``A Phony Issue.'' It says ``Congressional Republicans 
scheduled a vote

[[Page 13970]]

this week on a sizable tax cut, mainly for the better off, which they 
misleadingly describe as relief from the marriage penalty. The 
President has rightly indicated that he will veto this bill as it is 
likely to be presented to him. That suits the sponsors perfectly, and 
that vote is mainly intended as a frame for the national,'' well, that 
is something else. But I think the Washington Post says it much better 
than anyone else.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Republican bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Columbus for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that my friend from south Boston, the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, and we 
are going to do our darnedest to see that he stays right in that spot, 
just as my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), will 
remain in his very important key spot as ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means as we move into the 107th Congress.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object.
  Mr. DREIER. To object? I am happy to yield, if the gentleman wants to 
debate the issue.
  But the fact is my friend from south Boston has talked about the 
Democratic bill, and I am proud to talk about the bipartisan bill, 
because what we have done here on this marriage penalty issue is we 
have put together a very strong bipartisan package, and there is 
recognition on both sides of the aisle that this issue needs to be 
addressed.
  Republicans and Democrats alike voted strongly for this bill when we 
brought it up in February, and I suspect that later today when we cast 
the vote on this, we once again will see strong bipartisanship. So I am 
happy to have the leadership on the other side talk about their 
Democratic bills, and we on the Republican side are proud to embrace 
bipartisanship, because we know that that in fact is the best way to 
get things done for the American people.
  Even in an election year, even in a election year there are some very 
basic principles that the American people share, and fairness happens 
to be one of them. That is what this is all about, is trying to bring 
about a modicum of equity; and we are doing it specifically to address 
the concern of those who are most impacted.
  If you look at the cost for women, minorities, they are penalized 
greatly because of this marriage tax; and if you look at the cost, it 
is about $1,400 on average for those who are in that middle- and lower-
income area.
  So it seems to me that we have got a strong effort that has been put 
together here by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others on 
the Committee on Ways and Means who have been championing this issue 
for a long period of time.
  It is all about equity and fairness. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? 
That is exactly what this rule is about too. The rule is a very fair 
one. It is a very equitable one. It allows my very good friend from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) to offer his substitute motion. As was the case in 
the beginning when we took the majority in 1994, we are going to 
guarantee the motion to recommit.
  So my Democratic colleagues will have two bites at the apple, and we 
will have one bite for the bipartisan package that we are moving 
forward here. It seems to me it is extraordinarily fair. We have turned 
ourselves inside out to accommodate the minority, and I know some of my 
Republican colleagues may not be too ecstatic about that, but we have 
done that; and I believe that in this instance, it is the right thing 
to do.
  At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans alike will join in 
support of the measure, so I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike 
will overwhelmingly support this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not disagree with the chairman. This 
is a fair rule; it is just not a fair bill. We get two bites at the 
apple, but they get five bites at the money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spoil the reputation of the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules by complimenting him on this floor 
too often, but it is strange and unusual that we would get a fair and 
equitable rule like this, and I would just like to rise to the occasion 
to compliment him.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we have given this 
identical rule. It is not out of character at all. We gave you this 
rule in February, so you know we are just continuing a long pattern of 
providing you with a great opportunity.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to strike 
that from the Record. This is the second time you have been fair.
  Mr. Speaker, this gives us an opportunity to take a problem that we 
recognize as a serious problem of equity, and that is if two people 
filing separately can get a better tax break than someone that is 
married, then it is not the fair thing to do.
  Why have we not taken care of this a long time ago? Why did we not 
follow former Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly from Connecticut as she 
led the fight to do it? One of the reasons was that it is difficult to 
be equitable when you do not have the funds to do it.
  To talk about 3 or 4 years ago patching up something that the Tax 
Code was really unfair about and paying $100 billion in lost revenue 
was something unheard of. But now that the Clinton-Gore team's economic 
policy has clicked in and we find every day an increase in the revenue 
that we expect, it makes a lot of sense that we can come together, 
Republicans and Democrats, and see what we can do to repair an inequity 
in the law.
  That is the problem. We do not come together, we do not discuss 
anything, and the Republican majority is so bent on making political 
statements that they are not concerned at all with what the President 
signs. All they are concerned with is that they are able to pass the 
bill in the House.
  They learned a lot from their mistakes in the past, and that is 
putting together these tremendous irresponsible tax cuts of some $800 
billion without even thinking about our Social Security system; paying 
down the national debt; repairing Medicare; and one of the things we 
are so concerned about, and that is allowing our older people who have 
access to health care but do not have access to the money to pay for 
the prescription drugs that are so important for their health.
  All we are saying is why can we not deal with the Government's budget 
the way we do our own? We just cannot take the irresponsible, close-to-
$1 trillion tax cut, and cut it up and say we are going to deliver it 
in small pieces. No. What we should do is to find out have we taken 
care of Social Security, are we working together to deal with the 
Medicare problem, do we have some kind of a bill that we can assure the 
people of the United States that, when we leave here, there would be an 
affordable drug program? Are we paying down the national debt? Then are 
we doing the things that we are sent here to Congress to do?
  Already we have passed close to $500 billion in tax cuts. All at one 
time? Oh, no. The public relations divisions of the Republican Party 
have taken care of that. It does not come out of the tax writing 
committee; it comes out of the Speaker's office, out of the Committee 
on Rules. But if you want to talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
they talk

[[Page 13971]]

about tax cuts; you want to talk about minimum wage, they talk about 
tax cuts; you want to talk reforming pensions, they talk about tax 
cuts.

                              {time}  1115

  So here we are with the marriage penalty, both of us wanting to bring 
equity, but they enlarged the tax bracket for the 15 percent bracket, 
which causes us to lose another $100 billion in revenues and, worse 
than that, after 10 years, there is an explosion of the revenues that 
we lose. Should we give a tax cut? Yes, but not in these pieces that we 
come here with. We should have a comprehensive program that would do 
all of the things that we wanted to do. Why is it that every time our 
Republican colleagues steal a good idea from us, every time we agree 
with our colleagues that we should be working together, they have to 
pile on it an irresponsible tax cut to such an extent that it promises 
a veto.
  So here we are again. We have a substitute, by any standard, that is 
fair. No one can challenge that what we do is take care of the inequity 
as it relates to the penalty.
  In addition to that, we make certain that we make adjustments in the 
alternative minimum tax so that no one loses a benefit that is in the 
lower income, unlike the Republican bill. We make certain with the tax 
credits, the refundable tax credits, that the lower income people get a 
better break with that. So we do not concentrate, as our Republican 
colleagues do, on those that God has already blessed and they are still 
trying to give them additional fiscal blessings through the tax system.
  Let us try to work together, not as Republican leaderships with 
Democrat minorities, but as representatives that truly represent the 
interests of the people of this country. When we do this, we will see 
that the President will join in and we will not have just House-passed 
bills, but we will have bills that will be accepted by the Senate and 
signed into law by the President of the United States.
  The President has said, if you want to deal with this subject, put 
the drug issue as relates to affordable prescription drugs on your 
calendar, deal with it in a real way, the way we are going to do it, 
and we can do business.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's instruction about what we should be 
doing as a Congress, but I am not sure where he has been, because he 
says we have not addressed Social Security. Well, have we? Of course we 
have. We have a lockbox. We have locked away the Social Security Trust 
Fund for the first time. Have we addressed Medicare? Yes, we have done 
the same thing. We have locked away those funds for the first time. 
Have we addressed prescription drugs for our seniors? Yes, we did. We 
voted on it just about a week ago.
  So, Mr. Speaker now, once again, we will give the President his 
chance to sign the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) who has worked so hard on this legislation.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the accomplishments of this 
Congress. We balanced the budget, the first time in 28 years; we are 
now balancing it for the 4th year in a row. We stopped the raid on 
Social Security just this past week. Sometimes I think my friends on 
the other side of the aisle have amnesia, because we have already 
passed prescription drugs, provided prescription drugs for our seniors, 
we are paying off the national debt with a plan we have adopted by the 
year 2013, already paying down the debt by $350 billion; and we are 
also working to make our Tax Code more fair, particularly more fair for 
working and middle class families.
  We have often asked in this House, many of us, a pretty basic, 
fundamental question. That is, is it right, is it fair that under our 
Tax Code, married working couples pay higher taxes because they are 
married? Do we think it is right that 25 million married working 
couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they 
are married, compared to identical couples with identical incomes who 
live together outside of marriage. That is wrong.
  We are fortunate that in February this House passed legislation with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, legislation that was initiated by 
myself and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), a Democrat, a bipartisan bill 
that had 233 cosponsors. It passed this House in February with the 
support not only of every House Republican, but 48 Democrats broke 
ranks with their leadership and voted to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty for 25 million married working couples.
  Unfortunately, in the Senate, the Democratic leadership has used 
every parliamentary procedure possible to block this legislation. We 
are now forced to move through the reconciliation process so that the 
majority can rule in the Senate.
  The bottom line is, we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It 
is wrong, it is unfair.
  Let me introduce Shad and Michelle Hallihan. This is a photo of them 
when we introduced the bill a year-and-a-half ago to wipe out the 
marriage tax penalty. Shad and Michelle are two Joliet township high 
school teachers, they suffer the marriage tax penalty because they are 
both in the workforce and, of course, the marriage tax penalty of 
$1,400 that they suffer is a lot of money in Joliet, Illinois, the 
south suburbs of Chicago. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 for Michelle and Shad 
Hallihan, that is a year's tuition at our local community college, 
Joliet Junior College, which is our Nation's oldest. It is also 3 
months of day care for a child.
  That is why I think it is important to introduce a new photo of Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan. Since they were married at the time that we 
introduced the legislation, they have since had a baby, and if Al Gore 
and my friends on the other side of the aisle had their way, the child 
will probably be grown and out of college by the time we eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Shad and Michelle have a little boy by the name of Ben. Little Ben 
has brought a lot of joy to their life, but because of the marriage tax 
penalty, there is $1,400 that goes out of the pocketbooks of Shad and 
Michelle and comes to Washington, money that they can use to take care 
of little Ben and $1,400. That is about 3,000 diapers. That is a lot of 
diapers for little Ben. Over 18 years, that $1,400 a year, if they just 
set that full amount in a college fund, that is over $25,000 that Shad 
and Michelle can invest in little Ben and little Ben's future for 
college. So the marriage tax penalty is real money for real people.
  Shad and Michelle, the way they suffer the marriage tax penalty is 
the marriage tax penalty occurs when you have a husband and wife who 
are both in the workforce, they combine their income when they are 
married, file jointly, and when they combine their income, that means 
they are pushed into a higher tax bracket. If Shad and Michelle had 
chosen to stay single and just live together, they each, because of 
their income, would file in the 15 percent tax bracket. But they chose 
to participate in the most basic institution in our society which is 
marriage, and Shad and Michelle, because they are married, now pay in 
the 28 percent tax bracket. They suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  We believe it is wrong. We want to help Michelle and Shad Hallihan as 
well as little Ben to make sure he has a future and they have the 
resources for this.
  Mr. Speaker, under our bipartisan proposal, we do several things. We 
help those who do not itemize their taxes by doubling the standard 
deduction for joint filers at twice that of singles, and that helps 
about 9 million couples of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty. 
Those are the nonitemizers. Well, the rest, subtracting 9 from 25, that 
leaves 18 million couples who itemize their taxes who suffer the 
marriage tax penalty and they are people who are average folks, middle 
class, but they probably own a house. So if you own a home, you 
probably itemize your taxes,

[[Page 13972]]

and the only way you can receive marriage tax relief is if we provide 
marriage tax relief as part of our proposal.
  We do that by widening the most basic bracket, the 15 percent bracket 
so you can earn twice as much in the 15 percent bracket if you are a 
joint filer as a single person, and that is how we help Michelle and 
Shad Hallihan as well as little Ben prepare for his future by widening 
the 15 percent bracket.
  I would also point out in our legislation that we provide marriage 
tax relief for those who participate in the earned income tax credit, 
ensuring that they also participate and receive marriage tax relief. We 
also protect those who use the child tax credit for the alternative 
minimum tax. So we help both itemizers as well as nonitemizers, poor 
working families, and protect those from the AMT.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. 
I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly 
the 48 who joined with us, and I invite more Democrats to join with us 
in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  I would point out that under the Democratic proposal, Michelle and 
Shad Hallihan would not receive any relief. If one itemizes their 
taxes, they would receive no relief under the Democratic proposal. If 
one is a homeowner and middle class and itemize your taxes, you receive 
no marriage tax relief under the Democratic proposal. Democrats say 
they do not want to help special interests, so I guess they say if you 
are middle class and you own a home and you itemize your taxes, you are 
stuck and you are still going to suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan proposal that helps those who 
itemize, primarily homeowners; we help those who do not itemize, we 
help those on earned income tax credit, and we help those who may 
suffer the alternative minimum tax. It is a good bipartisan proposal. I 
urge adoption of this rule, and I invite strong bipartisan support of 
our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that they 
are not to characterize actions in the other body.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to engage the gentlewoman 
from Ohio. When I make the remark on behalf of the minority that we 
would like to see Social Security and Medicare taken care of and the 
gentlewoman asked the rhetorical question, where have I been. We in the 
minority, we on the Democratic side do not really believe it is taken 
care of when the gentlewoman says that the Republican plan is to do 
something next year. I mean the Republicans have been in the majority 
now for half a dozen years, and they have not come close to sharing 
with us where we are going to go to pull the Tax Code up by the roots, 
to reform Social Security and privatize it, to reform the Medicare 
system.
  So what I am saying is that our Republican colleagues are pretty good 
on supporting the ideas we come up with, but in terms of the record, if 
what they are saying is that they have taken care of Social Security, 
the rest of the country does not know it.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Once again, I do appreciate the instruction from my friend in the 
minority, but in the 6 short years that the Republicans have been in 
charge of this place, we have done more to shore up Social Security and 
Medicare and provide relief for seniors than in the 40 years preceding 
when the Democrats controlled the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the 
bill.
  America is supposed to be family oriented, family friendly. Who is 
kidding whom here today? America's tax policy penalizes achievement and 
penalizes marriage. America's tax policy promotes dependency and 
promotes promiscuity. America's tax policy actually subsidizes 
illegitimacy.
  In addition to killing jobs, IRS commissioner after commissioner made 
the statement, and many Members have quoted it, the Tax Code is used as 
a behavior modification economic program, and I agree; behavior 
modification through and by a Tax Code of devious and manipulative 
machinations that should have no place in our country. If the founders 
wanted a Tax Code to modify behavior, they would have hired Sigmund 
Freud to write this thing.
  Now, as far as what has been done in the last 6 years, there have 
been some significant reforms. The Republicans have included 
significant tax reforms, wage attachments have gone from 3.1 million in 
1997 to 540,000 in 1999. Property liens have gone from 680,000 under 
the old plan to 160,000 under the new reformed plan. And listen to 
this, America: property seizures before the IRS reform bill passed here 
in this Congress through the leadership of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, property 
seizures in 1997 were 10,037; 10,037 Americans lost their homes, their 
farms. In 1999, after the reform, 161.
  Now, how could we make the claim that nothing is happening? I think 
it is out of hand. The Tax Code is out of control. In fact, I think the 
IRS is so screwed up, they could not find their posterior from some 
hole in the ground.
  Finally, we should throw the income Tax Code out and, yes, tear it up 
by its roots, with a simple final retail sales tax, with the proper 
exemptions to save, and those people on the bottom end of the ladder 
and those seniors.

                              {time}  1130

  Let me close by saying this, and why I support this bill. Congress 
should promote marriage. Congress should reward marriage. Congress 
should promote family. Congress should reward family. A Congress that 
overtaxes married couples does not reward nor promote family nor 
marriages.
  I yield back the fact that we have in fact placed in the Tax Code 
mechanisms that seem to reward all that is wrong and penalize all that 
is right. I think the American people see it, the American people know 
it.
  I am very comfortable voting for the rule. I will vote for this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think, yes, the Washington Post editorial said it all 
titled ``A Phony Issue.'' Again I will quote: ``Congressional 
Republicans have scheduled votes this week on a sizeable tax cut mainly 
for the better off, which they misleadingly describe as relief from a 
marriage penalty. The President has rightly indicated that he will veto 
the bill as it is likely to be presented to him.''
  As I said before, Mr. Speaker, by the year 2008, the year that the 
Republican bill fully goes into effect, 47 percent of American families 
with two children would get no relief whatsoever. The tax will have a 
new name, but many of the people it is intended to help it will not 
help.
  This is not a bill that really helps all the people and does not 
change the tax brackets for the very rich so they get an added bonus 
under the so-called marriage penalty tax. I urge Members to vote for 
the rule and vote for the Rangel substitute.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
support this rule, the customary rule provided for tax legislation. The 
House has already passed virtually identical legislation to eliminate 
this marriage tax penalty. All we are doing today is using the 
reconciliation process to speed this legislation to the President's 
desk so we can give him a second chance to sign it.
  Mr. Speaker, our society values marriage as a fundamental institution 
that strengthens our moral fiber. Marriage teaches us about love, 
family, commitment, and honor. How can we promote

[[Page 13973]]

these ideals if we continue to allow the government to impose an 
unfair, discriminatory, and immoral tax penalty on individuals solely 
because they are married?
  Today we have another chance to send a strong message, which is the 
right message, to hard-working families by voting to end the marriage 
tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) who has been a 
champion of this legislation comes to the floor constantly with his 
charts of Shad and Michelle, and anybody who follows this legislation 
probably has come to know them as household names.
  When he started, Shad and Michelle were just getting married. Now 
Shad and Michelle have a son. Let us get this signed into law before 
Shad and Michelle are grandparents. I urge a yes vote on the rule and 
on the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair announces that he will reduce to 5 minutes votes by 
electronic device, if ordered, on two motions to suspend the rules on 
which further proceedings de novo were postponed yesterday which will 
immediately follow the vote on House Resolution 545.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407, 
nays 16, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               YEAS--407

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--16

     Conyers
     Doggett
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Miller, George
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Sabo
     Udall (CO)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Campbell
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McNulty
     Owens
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1155

  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PAUL, REYES and DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from 
``nay to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________