[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13975-13998]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 545, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 545, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4810 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4810

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage 
     Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000''.
       (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act 
     shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of 
     section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard 
     deduction) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under 
     subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
       (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows 
     through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with 
     respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be 
     applied''.
       (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET; 
                   REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax 
     tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest 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 the applicable percentage of the maximum 
     taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table 
     contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under 
     this subsection), and
       ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table 
     contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts 
     determined under clause (i).
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in 
     accordance with the following table:

    ``For taxable years                                  The applicable
      beginning in                                      percentage is--
      calendar year--                                                  

      2003.......................................................170.3 
      2004.......................................................173.8 
      2005.......................................................183.5 
      2006.......................................................184.3 
      2007.......................................................187.9 
      2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0. 

       ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h).
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' 
     before ``by increasing''.
       (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such 
     Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty 
     in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.
       (2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The 
     amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and 
     amounts) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting 
     ``Amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     earned'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the 
     phaseout amount determined

[[Page 13976]]

     under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $2,000.''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( 
     j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined--
       ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and 
     (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and
       ``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''.
       (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating 
     to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under 
     subparagraph (B) thereof)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment printed in House Report 106-726 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 Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.

                              {time}  1215

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on H.R. 4810.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We are here again moving this 
Congress to do the right thing for married couples by eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty in the Tax Code.
  This bill is identical to H.R. 6 that passed this House in February. 
Why are we here again? Because the blocking techniques of the Vice 
President, as President of the Senate and the minority leader in the 
other body, have prevented our bill from even being able to come up for 
a vote on the floor. And then they have the audacity to say we are a 
``do-nothing'' Congress. They are forcing us to come back again and 
pass this bill under reconciliation, which procedurally cannot be 
blocked from coming up on the floor of the Senate by their delaying 
tactics.
  I was somewhat surprised to see recent campaign ads touting Vice 
President Gore's support for fixing the marriage tax penalty in the 
year 2000, because it sure does not match the Clinton-Gore White House 
8-year ``do nothing'' record of stonewalled opposition to fixing this 
unfair tax. Since 1993, the Clinton-Gore White House has sent 25 
million married couples an expensive gift from the IRS: A bill for 
$1,400 a year. That is not exactly the traditional Happy Anniversary 
card.
  So here we are, at it again, trying to fix this once and for all. And 
this is a bipartisan bill, with 48 Democrats in the House voting with 
us in February on a bill that is the most complete and fairest way to 
get this job done. But despite this bipartisan support, I have a 
feeling we will still hear excuses from Democrats today as to why we 
cannot do it.
  For whatever reason, they may say we should not help stay-at-home 
moms and dads. And, yes, this bill does that. But their plan actually 
denies relief to these important parents. In fact, the Democrat plan 
leaves millions of married couples at the altar, and that is wrong. 
Raising a child is the single most important job in the world, and we 
are right to provide families with relief who have only one wage 
earner.
  Democrats will also complain that this is too much tax relief. Of 
course, they say that about almost every tax bill that we bring up. But 
again they are wrong. Fairness demands it because it is wrong to take 
money from the pockets of wage-earning Americans just because they are 
married. The money should not be coming to Washington in the first 
place.
  Then they might say, oh, we should wait; the timing is just not right 
to fix the marriage tax penalty. And they are wrong again. We should 
fix the marriage tax penalty right now. Married couples should not have 
to wait 1 day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this all comes down to a matter of principle. The 
fact that married couples pay more in taxes just because they are 
married is simply immoral, it is unfair, it is unjust, and today, once 
again, we are moving to overcome the blocking tactics of the Democrats 
in the other body and to fix the marriage tax penalty and return a 
small sense of decency to the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that they are not to 
characterize actions in the other body.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish we did not characterize the actions of the President of the 
United States. I thought that the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means was about to discuss tax policy with us, 
but he was not discussing principle, he was discussing politics. He was 
talking about the budgetary policies of the President and Vice 
President Gore.
  I think we should be reminded that the only reason that we can even 
deal with reforming and providing equity for some of these tax 
provisions is that because of the Clinton-Gore budget policies we are 
now able to think in terms of surpluses instead of just deficits.
  I would like to remind my colleague, too, that not one Republican 
ever voted for the Clinton-Gore 1993 budget. And when the vote was tied 
in the Senate, it took the Vice President to split that tie.
  Now, when it comes to whether we are doing this thing in an 
irresponsible way, I used to think that that is what the Republicans 
were trying to do. When they had this $792 billion tax cut, they did 
not talk about paying down the national debt, they did not talk about 
our responsibility to Social Security, they did not talk about Medicare 
or affordable prescription drugs for our aged, and I, at that time, 
thought it would be irresponsible for them to move forward and just get 
enough political votes to pass a bill. I have changed my mind. It 
really is not irresponsible. It may be political.
  But I have discovered that my Republican friends do not ask for these 
irresponsible cuts until first they find out that the President is 
going to veto it, and only then do they come out with not tax law but 
they come out with political statements. Whether we are talking about 
the minimum wage bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable 
prescription drugs, or whether we are talking about pension benefits, 
we can rest assured that when we Democrats try to work with them to 
remove the inequity to make the tax system more simple so that people 
can find it easier to file, they will find some way to entice the 
President to veto the bill.
  Do they come back and ask to override the veto? Never, never, never, 
never. All they want to say in Philadelphia is that they passed the 
bill and the President vetoed it. I hope that the American people 
realize that the Congress, as any business or any family, before we 
just deal with revenue losers, we ought to take a look at the total 
package and the total responsibility.
  I am so pleased that the President is willing to give my Republican 
friends a second chance by reconsidering getting a decent, affordable 
press description drug bill, and then he would consider reviewing once 
again the bill that they have sponsored in terms of removing the 
marriage penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Illinois

[[Page 13977]]

(Mr. Weller) will manage the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer).
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this 
legislation, he will deny about 30,000 married couples in the 15th 
district in New York relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is 
just not fair. We believe it is time to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the accomplishments of this Congress. I 
am proud that we are now in the process of balancing the budget for the 
4th year in a row. We locked away 100 percent of Social Security and 
stopped the raid on Social Security. We are on track to pay off the 
national debt by 2013, having already paid down the national debt by 
$350 billion. Just this past week we passed and sent to the Senate 
legislation providing prescription drug coverage available for all 
seniors under Medicare.
  I am proud of those accomplishments. And of course part of our agenda 
is not only to accomplish those accomplishments, but also to bring 
fairness to the Tax Code. We have often asked in the House Chambers, 
many of us, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million 
married working couples, on average, pay almost $1,400 more in higher 
taxes just because they are married. Now, is that right, is that fair, 
that if a couple chooses to participate in the most basic institution 
in our society, marriage, that they are going to pay higher taxes if 
they work?
  Unfortunately, under our Tax Code, that is true. If a husband and 
wife are both in the workforce, both the man and the woman are in the 
workforce, a two-income household, under our Tax Code they will file 
jointly and, because of that, they will pay a marriage tax penalty. 
That is just wrong. We have made this a priority, to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty suffered by 25 million married working couples.
  I was proud a year and a half ago, when we introduced a bipartisan 
bill, legislation sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), 
Republicans and Democrats, that 233 Members joined as cosponsors of our 
legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. And I was so proud 
in February when this House passed our legislation with a bipartisan 
vote, which included every House Republican as well as 48 Democrats who 
broke rank with their leadership and supported our efforts to wipe out 
the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples.
  In the well, Mr. Speaker, I have a photo of three constituents from 
Joliet, Illinois, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. When we first introduced 
our bill almost a year and a half ago to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, Shad and Michelle were newlyweds. Because of delays put forth 
by the other party, using every parliamentary procedure to block 
passage in the Senate of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, time has gone on, and now Michelle and Shad have a baby by the 
name of Ben.
  For Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers from 
Joliet, Illinois, the marriage tax penalty is real money. Michelle and 
Shad, their combined income is in the low $60,000 range, about $62,000. 
If they filed as single, chose not to marry, lived together and filed 
as single people, they would each pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. 
But because they chose to get married, Michelle and Shad Hallihan pay a 
marriage tax penalty.
  Of course, when we think about Joliet, Illinois, $1,400 is a year's 
tuition at our local community college, Joliet Junior College; it is 3 
months day care at a day care center for little Ben; and it is also a 
washer and dryer for their home. It is real money for real people.
  I would point out that Ben, who is growing very rapidly, by the time 
he is 18, if we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Michelle and 
Shad Hallihan, $1,400 over 18 years is over $25,000 that they can 
invest in a college fund for Ben for his future. It is real money for 
real people, and that is why we need to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  I am proud our bipartisan proposal, which is essentially identical to 
what we passed out of the House earlier this year in February. And of 
course now we are working to protect ourselves from a filibuster in the 
Senate, which is why we have to vote on it again today.
  We do several things. We help those who itemize and those who do not 
itemize. We help those who are poor working folks who utilize the 
earned-income tax credit. And we also protect parents from the AMT's 
impact on the child tax credit. We double the standard deduction for 
those who do not itemize to twice that of singles. That helps those who 
do not itemize their taxes.
  And for those who do itemize, I would point out that it is likely 
they, of course, own a home, so that they have a mortgage and property 
taxes that they use to deduct, as well as to give money to their church 
or synagogue or institutions of faith and charity. So they itemize 
their taxes. And the only way to provide marriage tax relief for those 
who itemize is to widen the 15 percent bracket. So that those who are 
in the 15 percent bracket as joint filers can earn twice as much as 
single filers in the 15 percent bracket.
  We provide marriage tax relief for those on earned-income tax credit, 
and again I would point out that we protect those who benefit from the 
child tax credit, the $500 per child tax credit from AMT.
  The bottom line is we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It 
is an issue of fairness for 25 million working couples, 50 million 
Americans; people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, parents of little 
Ben.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have realized they 
needed to respond and they are now offering an alternative, but I would 
point out that those who are middle class and homeowners are stuck with 
the marriage tax penalty. Under their proposal, middle class homeowners 
who itemize receive no marriage tax relief. They are left out because 
they think those individuals are rich, because they own a home. That is 
just wrong. We believe that suffering the marriage tax penalty is wrong 
no matter who the individual is. If couples are suffering the marriage 
tax penalty, it should be eliminated. That is the bottom line.
  Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a way that benefits every one of 
those 25 million couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. We have 
bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I favor a marriage penalty tax relief bill. 
That is why I say to my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, I 
am for the Democratic substitute, and I can face the thousands of 
voters in my district, whose numbers the Republicans like to cite for 
each of us in the House. We know our districts, and I know this bill 
that I am supporting; the Democratic substitute is the answer.
  They are desperately, on the Republican side, trying to escape the 
``do nothing'' label. It sticks and it sticks, and it will continue to 
be adhesive as long as they simply send bills that will be vetoed. They 
will never escape that label.
  Why will this bill of theirs be vetoed if it were to pass? First of 
all, half of the relief in their bill goes to those who do not pay a 
marriage penalty. So they attach the marriage penalty label, though 
more than half of the money does not apply to that situation.
  Secondly, many families with kids will not get the full relief that 
the bill promises because of the way they have shaped it.
  Thirdly, the lion's share, and this is important, of the money goes 
to the top quarter of the tax filers.
  Fourthly, look at the out-year projections. Assuming the AMT is 
eventually applied, and the chairman of the

[[Page 13978]]

committee has promised that, the 20-year cost of their bill is $700 
billion. $700 billion. That plays lightly with the future of my 
grandchildren and with the need to address Medicare and Social 
Security.
  So if this bill is not what it says it is, if it is tilted against 
low- and middle-income families, if it shortchanges millions of 
families with children, and if it could break the bank, why this bill?
  The answer is contained in the chairman's original speech. Pure 
politics. Philadelphia is what is on their mind.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said, here we go again; 
and I say, there they go again passing a bill that will be vetoed by 
the President of the United States.
  We can do better. The Democratic substitute does better, and that is 
why so many of us are going to vote for it and against the Republican 
bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, if he votes against 
this legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to 
deny 120,000 married taxpayers in the 12th District of Michigan relief 
from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. We need to work 
together to eliminate the marriage tax penalty as it affects everyone 
once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today this House can take another important step toward 
tax fairness for the American people.
  When couples stand at the altar to marry and each says ``I do,'' not 
contained in their vows is any acknowledge of an additional payment in 
taxes. And yet that is what we have, my colleagues, for average 
Americans, for working Americans, a penalty in our Tax Code, roughly 
$1,500 a year.
  Rather than talk about politics or political conventions or 
gamesmanship, Mr. Speaker, to the American people this is not a game. 
These are people who work hard, who play by the rules, who every week 
sit around their kitchen table trying to make ends meet; and they need 
to be able to keep $1,500 of their own money.
  Now, it is true my friends on the left, in a half-hearted way, offer 
a substitute. But again it points out, I guess, a legitimate 
difference, Mr. Speaker. My friends on the left honestly believe that 
the highest and best use of the money of the taxpayers of America is in 
the coffers of Washington, D.C., spent by Washington bureaucrats.
  And that is fine. They are certainly entitled to that point of view. 
And to the extent that they now join us in talking about debt relief 
and paying down the national debt, they now join us in talking about 
prescription drug benefits, they now join us in wanting to strengthen 
and save Social Security, we appreciate that.
  What we say, Mr. Speaker, is not for partisan purposes. In fact, we 
hold out the hand of bipartisanship with bipartisan sponsorship of this 
legislation. We invite our colleagues to join with us for real marriage 
penalty relief for America's working couples.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we do something more. We invite the President of 
the United States to join us. Because here is a chance to do something 
good for every working couple in America, to strike this blow for tax 
fairness.
  No, far from being irresponsible, this is one of the most responsible 
things we can do in a bipartisan fashion to reaffirm our belief in the 
institution of marriage, to reaffirm that we value the contribution of 
working families, to reaffirm that the money belongs to the people, not 
to the Washington bureaucrats.
  Join with us, my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, let us again pass this 
marriage tax penalty relief. The American people deserve a divorce from 
high taxes. They deserve to have a chance to hold on to more of their 
own money.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, just before I launch into my formal remarks here, when I 
was listening to the Republican leadership talk about tax equity and 
talking about the metamorphosis of their tax proposals over the last 6 
or 7 years, has there been a greater hoax perpetrated on this House 
than their argument that they were going to simplify the Tax Code, they 
were going to pull it out by its roots, they were going to 
fundamentally restructure the Tax Code of America? Well, under their 
sponsorship and stewardship, thanks to them, it is more complicated 
than ever.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an editorial about the marriage 
tax penalty. It was accurate in its analysis, but no one is going to 
pay much attention because we have moved beyond worrying about tax 
policy. The marriage penalty and the marriage bonus, the singles 
penalty and the singles bonus, all derived not from some nefarious 
scheme embedded in our Tax Code but from the fact that we have a 
progressive tax system.
  If two individuals, one working and one not, get married, their total 
tax payment under the current system goes down. They have a marriage 
bonus. They had a singles penalty.
  If two individuals get married, both working and both making about 
the same amount of money, they have a marriage penalty. They had a 
singles bonus. It stems from the progressive nature of our tax system.
  Putting that aside, we made a clear decision to get rid of the 
marriage penalty. That decision should be advanced on a broad 
bipartisan basis. However, that is not the choice here. The choice is 
to send the President a bill he will surely veto.
  The President has said he would sign a Republican version of the 
marriage tax cut if they would accept his version of a prescription 
drug benefit for senior citizens. The Republican leadership said, no 
thanks, because it does not fit the Philadelphia political agenda.
  But what is most annoying is the fact that the Republicans are using 
the alternative minimum tax to deny millions of Americans any relief 
under their bill. The promise of their bill is to cut taxes by about 
$250 billion, but that will result in an increase in the alternative 
minimum tax of $65 billion. That is why this bill is said to cost $180 
billion.
  Make no mistake, it is deliberate. The interaction between the 
regular tax system and the alternative minimum tax is well known. 
Taxpayers in a State like Massachusetts claiming State and local tax 
deductions will most certainly be denied the promised relief that we 
have been told under the Republican version of this bill because 
personal exemptions and State and local tax deductions are not 
deductible against the minimum tax.
  The Democratic substitute makes sure that everyone who is promised 
relief in the bill actually gets it. Our proposal is far superior, and 
the President will sign it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the previous speaker, elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty is not only an issue of tax fairness, it is an 
issue of tax simplification, and that if he chooses to vote against 
this legislation, he will vote to deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the 
2nd District of Massachusetts relief from the marriage tax penalty. 
That is not fair.
  I invite him to join the 48 Members of the Democratic party on the 
other side of the aisle who voted with Republicans to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) a very distinguished and senior member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, marriage is a cherished 
institution in America; and we ought to promote it, not discourage it. 
So we intend to do just that today.
  Right now married couples pay more in taxes than two singles living 
together. That is just wrong. Washington

[[Page 13979]]

needs to stop penalizing the cornerstone of our society, the American 
family.
  This year my wife and I will celebrate 50 years of marriage. My 
wedding day was one of the happiest in my life. And back then, I have 
to tell my colleagues, I was not worried about having to hold the 
wedding reception at the IRS office.
  Today, in my district alone, 150,000 Texans are penalized for just 
being married. By repealing the marriage penalty, we are going to 
restore the American family tradition and the American dream.
  Republicans in the House have spent the past few years passing tax 
bills to eliminate the marriage penalty, but every time the Clinton-
Gore administration vetoed them all.
  Enough is enough. It is time to repeal the taxes on American values. 
Let us start by saying ``I do'' to repealing the tax on marriage.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to sign this legislation and, for 
once, put American families first.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), referenced an editorial in the Washington 
Post, and I include for the Record the editorial from July 11 entitled: 
``A Phony Issue.''

               [From the Washington Post, July 11, 2000]

                             A Phony Issue

       Congressional Republicans have scheduled votes this week on 
     a sizable 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. That suits the 
     sponsors perfectly, in that the vote is mainly intended as a 
     frame for the national nominating conventions that will be 
     held during next month's congressional recess.
       The Republicans seek to score political points as the tax-
     cut party. But on this one, the merits are on the president's 
     side, and our sense is that the politics may be as well. The 
     marriage penalty is a phony issue; 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. The president can be expected 
     to make good use of all those points; he has set his own 
     stage for that in advance.
       The tax code does not penalize married couples. To the 
     contrary, as a matter of long-standing policy it is tilted in 
     their favor. A married couple at a given income level owes 
     less income tax than a single taxpayer at the same level. The 
     so-called penalty arises when two single people, each with 
     income, marry. Their combined income is likely to move them 
     into a higher tax bracket. That's what the fight is about; 
     the issue is not the treatment of marriage but the 
     progressive nature of the income tax. The marriage issue is a 
     veil. If the sponsors succeed, you can bet their next target 
     will be the ``singles penalty'' that they themselves will 
     have helped to accentuate by lowering the taxes of married 
     couples relative to single payers. The widow's penalty, 
     they'll call it.
       The proposed cuts are not even confined to people paying a 
     ``penalty'' as the sponsors define it. About half of married 
     couples--those in which one spouse earns the bulk of the 
     income--receive a marriage ``bonus'' in that their taxes are 
     less than if both were single. But they too would benefit; 
     the sponsors hardly want to be accused of slighting the 
     ``traditional'' family in which the mom stays home. About 
     half the savings in the bill would go to such families.
       The cost of the legislation would be a quarter-trillion 
     dollars over 10 years. The president has said he would trade 
     the Republicans. This bill for his Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit, which carries a similar price tag. It's the wrong 
     trade; a drug benefit does not redeem the defects of this 
     bill. The politicians, including the president, say there's 
     plenty of money for both, but the budget surpluses to which 
     they point are projections only, and in some ways highly 
     artificial. Among much else, they assume that future 
     politicians will exercise precisely the kind of discipline 
     that these are prepared to abandon. An easing of fiscal 
     discipline would likely also cause the Federal Reserve to 
     tighten monetary discipline; this is a vote for higher 
     interest rates at one remove.
       The marriage penalty is little more than a slogan, a bumper 
     sticker masquerading as serious tax policy. The vote this 
     week is a political stunt that would mainly solve a non-
     problem while weakening the government's ability to fulfill 
     its long-term obligations. The right vote is emphatically no.

  Mr. Speaker, this editorial lays it out very clearly. And that is why 
we are here. We are all here about politics. This is not about any kind 
of policy.
  The editorial says that they know that they are going to send this 
bill to the President, he is going to veto it, and that ``that suits 
the sponsors perfectly, in that the vote is mainly intended as a frame 
for the national nominating conventions that will be held during next 
month's congressional recess.''
  Now, this bill was written for me. I came to Congress, I was 
divorced, and I married somebody who has a job. This bill gives me a 
great tax benefit because our combined income is up around $100,000 
because that is as high as it goes. If they have a combined income of 
$60,000, that is their wife makes 30 and they make 30, they will get 
$218.
  But my wife and I, because we make considerably more than that, we 
are all the way up to the maximum, we will get a benefit of $1,150. Oh, 
and we do not have any kids. That is important. If they have kids, they 
are going to lose this on the AMT.
  The Treasury says that by 2008, half the people in this country who 
are getting the benefit will lose it because if they have kids they 
lose it under the AMT.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, the reason I am going to vote against this bill, which would be 
in my particular financial interest, in my pocket, is this: I have a 
mother. I have a mother who is one of the 9 million widows in this 
country who lives on $8,000 a year. She is not getting anything from 
this. And this majority has consistently refused to deal with Social 
Security, which my mother lives on. That is her only income. They have 
refused to do anything about shoring up Medicare, which is the only 
health care system she has. And they will not give her a financial 
benefit for her prescription drugs.
  Now, the President has made a deal, I think a bad deal, but it is not 
a bad deal for my mother. He says, we will take the Republican plan if 
you will give my mother a real pharmaceutical benefit. The Republicans 
say, ``Nope, we ain't doing that.'' We are going to give your mother a 
little voucher and send her out there and let her look around for some 
insurance company like all the HMOs that have been pulling out of the 
State of Washington, and we are going to say, find one that will stand 
still long enough to give you a pharmaceutical benefit.
  That is not a real benefit. I want my mother to have the benefit the 
President has promised. So I am going to vote for the Democratic 
alternative and hope the Republicans come to their senses.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind my good friend and colleague from Washington State 
that it was a Republican Congress that for the first time locked away 
100 percent of Social Security and Medicare, stopping the raid. It was 
a Democrat Congress that raided the Social Security trust fund for 30 
years.
  I would also say to the previous speaker that if he votes against 
this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 
106,000 married taxpayers in the seventh district of Washington relief 
from the marriage tax penalty. That is not fair. I invite him to join 
the 48 Democrats earlier this year who broke with him and voted with 
the Republicans to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh), one of the leaders, a proven leader in the effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty, one of the chief sponsors of the 
Weller-McIntosh-Danner Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to commend the 
gentleman from Illinois for his tremendous leadership on this. His 
ceaseless efforts, particularly to shepherd it through the committee 
now twice, has been enormously important in making sure that this bill 
will come to the floor and that families will get their marriage 
penalty tax relief.
  When I ran for Congress, I pledged to Hoosiers in my district that I 
would fight for more freedom, to cut their

[[Page 13980]]

taxes and to strengthen their families as the centerpiece of our 
community. When I discovered that the Tax Code discriminates against 
marriage, I knew that by eliminating the marriage penalty, Congress 
could both cut taxes and strengthen the family. I made eliminating the 
marriage penalty my highest priority ever since.
  It is unbelievable to most Americans that our Tax Code punishes them 
because they are married and they choose to work. Two constituents of 
mine, Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce, both work in a factory in 
Indiana. They wanted to get married, but they learned from their H&R 
Block representative that they would give up a $900 tax refund and be 
penalized $1,800 if they decided to get married.
  Sharon Mallory wrote me a letter and said, ``Darryl and I would very 
much like to be married, and I must say it broke our hearts when we 
found out we can't afford it.'' Mr. Speaker, that letter broke my 
heart. I vowed to never stop fighting until this anti-family marriage 
penalty tax was eliminated. I have fought on the front lines for Darryl 
and Sharon and for 600,000 Hoosier families, 1.2 million Hoosiers, who 
will save over a billion dollars as a result of this marriage penalty 
relief and for 25 million Americans all over this country who want us 
to do the right thing.
  The alternative bill, Mr. Speaker, does not help stay-at-home moms. 
It does not help stay-at-home dads. It does not help homeowners who do 
not qualify for the alternative. It does not help Darryl and Sharon 
Mallory. With record surpluses, this is the best chance we have to 
provide real tax relief and to help families at the same time. Let us 
put partisanship aside.
  One of the things that I have noticed is that nobody stands up and 
says that it is a good idea to punish marriage and let us have a 
marriage penalty tax, but there are a lot of excuses for not doing it. 
Let me ask my colleagues on the other side to put aside partisanship 
and join us in getting this done. President Clinton has already 
indicated he could sign this bill. Of course he has got his conditions, 
but he said he could sign it. Vice President Gore is already 
campaigning on marriage penalty relief. So do not be left holding the 
bag here on the House floor. Join us in a bipartisan effort to do what 
is right for the American family and then we can be proud that we have 
helped to eliminate the marriage penalty for many Americans and reduce 
it for all families in this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the approximately 100,000 people who live in the Third 
Congressional District of Maryland that are affected by this bill are 
going to be somewhat perplexed by the debate that is taking place. 
About half of this 100,000 are currently paying a marriage penalty for 
being married. That is wrong. And they have their Congressman here 
today speaking up and saying that we should do something to help that 
approximately 50,000 that are paying a marriage penalty for being 
married. These are couples that have approximately the same income that 
are paying a penalty under our tax code for being married.
  The other half are receiving a bonus today. These are individuals 
that are actually paying less taxes by being married than they would if 
they were filing single returns. These are couples in which one spouse 
has a much higher income than the other spouse. If they were living 
together without the benefit of marriage, they would actually be paying 
more taxes. They have a marriage bonus. They are not calling me. They 
are not writing me asking me to provide more relief because they are 
married. They are already getting the bonus.
  The problem with the Republican bill is that it spends $182 billion 
and one-half of that is going to the people that are already receiving 
a marriage bonus. This is not the first tax bill that we are 
considering in this body. We have already been considering estate tax 
repeal that spends $69 billion over 10 years and then explodes in cost. 
And the list goes on and on and on.
  The problem is we cannot afford to continue to spend money to deal 
with a problem that spends much more than we need to to deal with the 
issue. We have seniors who need prescription medicine coverage under 
Medicare. We have schools that we need to reduce class size and 
modernize. There are other priorities that we need to deal with.
  This Congressman is interested in helping the people who pay a 
marriage penalty that live in my district. We can do that for one-half 
the cost of this bill. It is in the interest of all of my taxpayers, 
those that are paying a penalty, those that are receiving a bonus, that 
we do it right. The Democratic substitute is better targeted.
  We should be working together, Democrats and Republicans, to figure 
out how we can target the relief to those that are paying the penalty 
and, therefore, we can do other priorities in addition to just this 
one. That is what we should be doing. But unfortunately this is more 
about a political message than it is about helping the 50,000 plus 
people in the Third Congressional District of Maryland that are truly 
paying a marriage penalty and deserve some relief by this body and 
unfortunately will not get it because of our inability to work together 
on a bill that could be signed by the President.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
note my friend's comments about one-half of the relief going to those 
who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty. If they analyzed their own 
bill, what they do with the standard deduction provides a similar 
proportion of those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty some 
relief.
  I would also say to the previous speaker that if he votes against 
this legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he votes to 
deny 132,000 married taxpayers in the third district of Maryland relief 
from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I want to invite 
my friend from Maryland to join the 48 other Democrats who have broken 
with their leadership and are supporting efforts to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp), a senior and respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  I represent the middle part of Michigan. In my district alone, there 
are 106,000 people paying more taxes simply because they are married. 
The Vice President is trying to criticize the Congress as a ``do 
nothing for the people'' Congress. Yet he probably will not mention 
that this is the second time we have had to pass this bill because the 
President and some congressional Democrats think we are doing too much 
for 28 million American couples.
  Earlier this year, the President said he supported marriage penalty 
relief, but here we are today, 6 months later, again passing marriage 
penalty relief. Yet he continues to threaten American families with a 
veto. The President does not mention that his own proposal and the 
Democrat substitute, I might add, does not do one bit for a working 
couple who saved enough last year to buy a home. Why? Because those 
people itemize. They fill out a different tax form. To not help those 
people is simply not fair.
  I for one am proud that we are able to take this step forward and fix 
this glaring inequity. Let us strengthen families. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 4810.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, of course, our tax laws should not 
discriminate against marriage. And if ending such discrimination, if 
ending the marriage penalty were the true purpose of this initiative, 
it would have

[[Page 13981]]

already been law and married couples would have benefited from it for a 
number of years, at least 3. Indeed, last year we Democrats again came 
to this House, and we offered more marriage tax penalty relief than our 
Republican colleagues. They were much more concerned with loading up 
their trillion-dollar tax cut with special interest provisions like the 
chicken manure tax subsidy and so forth that was really the mainstay of 
their effort last year rather than helping married couples.
  Again this year, we offered to work with them in a bipartisan fashion 
to create true marriage tax penalty relief. They have rejected that. 
They have done so, I must say, with some rather unusual arguments in 
favor of their proposal. This indicates, I suppose, what sheltered 
lives some Republicans live. Why, they have told us that the Tax Code 
is encouraging people to live out of wedlock; that it is encouraging 
illegitimacy. I hate to expose them to a rude awakening about 
premarital relations in this country, but I just have a feeling that 
the fine print of the Tax Code is not the first thing that young people 
look to before they decide on their living arrangements or their 
relations with the opposite sex. I think if they continue arguing that, 
they will only demonstrate that they are even more out of touch with 
what is happening in this country than they do by their usual endeavors 
here most every day.
  Leave it to the House Republicans to take something we all agree 
with, that there should be no discrimination in our tax code, and turn 
it from a workable, bipartisan plan into a total political ploy. You 
will remember the first time they came out here, they just happened to 
package it up in a loving way on Valentine's Day to present to the 
American people. That is the kind of political grandstanding with 
little action behind it that has characterized this entire Congress.
  I think that the only illegitimacy associated with this bill is its 
mislabeling. It is not marriage tax penalty relief. Over half of the 
dollar benefit in this bill goes to people who do not incur a marriage 
tax penalty, people who gain tax advantages because they are married 
and filing a joint tax return. I have been extremely fortunate to be 
married to the same woman who has put up with me for over 31 years, my 
parents together over 55 years. I value the institution of marriage. 
But there are many folks that have not been as lucky. Some of them are 
widows or widowers. Some of them are victims of domestic violence. Some 
of them are single mothers that are trying to do as good a job as we 
tried to do for our family to rear their children. Why should our tax 
laws discriminate against those individuals? That is exactly what this 
bill does. Not every family has the good fortune to be married. Some 
choose to remain single for a variety of reasons. My feeling is that 
our tax code ought not to discriminate for or against someone depending 
on their marital status.
  This bill could also be called the Single Mothers Tax Penalty Act, or 
the Widow and Widowers Tax Penalty Act. The gentleman from Illinois 
seems to have so many statistics on those individuals that are going to 
benefit from this act, I wonder if he has statistics on how many will 
be discriminated against by a bill that accords over half of its 
benefits to people that do not suffer any marriage tax penalty. 
Unfortunately, instead of crafting bipartisan legislation, we have 
another political ploy that would produce more bad public policy.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Texas, the previous 
speaker, if he votes against this legislation, this bipartisan 
legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 
116,000 married taxpayers in the 10th District of Texas relief from the 
marriage tax penalty. By voting for the Democrat substitute, one votes 
to discriminate against those who itemize, particularly middle-class, 
married couples who own a home.
  I also want to extend an invitation to my friend from Texas to join 
the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership this spring and vote 
in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I thank him for just outstanding leadership, and all of the 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 35 counties in east Tennessee, 200,000 people are 
adversely affected by the marriage tax penalty. More than 110,000 
couples pay approximately $1,400 per year more in taxes simply because 
they are married. That is not right, and the fundamental issue here is 
whether or not we are going to reduce the tax burden on the middle-
class folks in this country.
  When I was born in 1957, if you add up the Federal, State, and local 
tax burden on my parents when I was born, it was not collectively, 
combined, more than 10 percent of every dollar that they made. Today, 
it is almost 50 percent.
  In my lifetime the level of taxation in this country has gone from 
less than a dime of a dollar to almost half of every dollar you make. 
At what point are we going to roll this back? The fundamental issue is, 
it is time in a budget surplus to roll some of the taxes back from the 
middle-class taxpayers in this country.
  If we do not do it now, with these record surpluses, my question is, 
when are we going to? If we do not sign the bill into law now, when 
will it happen? Because I would suggest if we do not do it now, it is 
not going to happen, and it is important that we continue to persist.
  I am grateful that some people do not make everything out to be 
partisan. This is not about Republicans and Democrats, this is just 
about regular folks saying some taxes, death taxes and the marriage tax 
penalty, are unfair, they should be eliminated, never should have been 
there to begin with. And if you are not going to wipe those taxes out 
at a time of unprecedented surpluses and a good economy, when are you 
going to do it? It is not going to happen.
  I believe in tax relief. I do not mind saying so. I also believe in 
tax fairness, in tax equity. There are 65 provisions in the Tax Code 
that penalize people just because they are married. Well, that is 
nonsensical. Our Tax Code is out of hand, to begin with. It is way too 
big and complex, it needs to be dramatically overhauled, and that will 
come, I hope, soon, but not between now and November.
  This is today. This is now. We can pass this conference report, after 
all the debate that has taken place; we can send it down the street 
with some bipartisan support, and the President can sign it into law. I 
call on him to do that.
  I call on all of our colleagues to come together and get some taxes, 
just one step at a time, off the back of middle-class America. Some 
people play class war with taxes. This is just regular people. These 
are the regular people you run into at the Food Lion in east Tennessee. 
Cut their taxes. Eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the speaker that was in the 
well and hope that the leadership of the House could come together with 
some type of package to present to the President that could be signed 
into law that would include a decent affordable drug package. There is 
an opportunity to do this.
  I also agree with the gentleman that the present Tax Code is in the 
shape that most tax writers, as well as other Members of Congress, 
should be ashamed of.
  The majority has been there for over half a dozen years. They talk a 
lot about pulling it up by the roots; but obviously, like with Social 
Security and Medicare, they have not been able to get enough discipline 
on their side to do anything about it. But that does not mean that 
something as important as a tax cut should be handled in the manner in 
which they are handling it.
  I think that we should try to do it in a bipartisan way, not to do it 
in a

[[Page 13982]]

piecemeal way, to agree to the cuts we are going to have, and to allow 
the other bills that we are talking about, whether they are the minimum 
wage bill, whether they are the Patients' Bill of Rights bill, whether 
it is pension bills, not just try to stack up on each and every decent 
piece of legislation a tax cut.
  I think there is plenty of room for us to work together on, so that 
at the end of the day we can say in a bipartisan way that we have come 
to a meeting of the mind. There will be enough for us to debate at the 
polls come November, but certainly on these important tax issues, we 
should have to agree that whether it is the Republican majority today, 
or the Democratic majority next year, we cannot get anything done 
unless we work together in a bipartisan way. Neither one of us will 
enjoy the substantial margins that would allow us just to work our 
will. We are going to have to work in a bipartisan way if we are going 
to get any progress now or next year, so why not begin to think about 
working together this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, of course, I want to once again remind my good friend 
from New York, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
that this legislation, when it passed the House earlier this year, it 
received bipartisan support. Forty-eight Democrat Members of the House 
joined every House Republican to vote yes to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty for 25 million married working couples.
  I would also point out to the previous speaker that if you vote 
against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a 
bipartisan way, you will vote to deny 60,000 married taxpayers in the 
15th District of New York relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is 
just not fair.
  Again, I want too extend an invitation to my friend from New York to 
join us in a bipartisan effort, join those 48 House Democrats who voted 
with Republicans, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a distinguished Member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his phenomenal leadership on this very 
important issue.
  We have heard a lot of debate today about saving Social Security and 
Medicare and prescription drug coverage; and it is interesting if you 
think for a moment, the President and Vice President have been in 
office for 8 years, and now in the last 3 months or 5 months of their 
term in office, they come up with all these plans to rescue Medicare, 
Social Security, add prescription drug coverage. Those are important 
issues, and the Republicans take them seriously. We on the Committee on 
Ways and Means have been working on these very, very important issues.
  Regrettably, when you talk bipartisan legislation, or at least when 
they claim it from the other side of the aisle, it is only bipartisan 
if it is their idea and their way. But the remarkable thing about this 
process on this floor is that after all of the baying at the moon about 
what a lousy idea this marriage tax penalty elimination is, we will be 
joined by numerous Democrats who recognize that the marriage penalty is 
in fact a penalty on marriage. Like estate tax relief, when we talked 
about it, we were derided for hour on hour on hour, and ultimately we 
had 95 brave soldiers join us in passing this very important piece of 
legislation.
  Taxing two hard-working Americans who are married is a shame. It is 
abomination. Now, they use those words in their press conferences, but 
I do not hear them uttering them on the floor today.
  Now, I just ask Americans who are watching today, hearing this debate 
and wondering what it is all about, there is a lot of rancor from one 
side and a lot of boasting on our side about the great importance of 
this bill; and I think at the end of the day, we win the debate. But 
more importantly, stay tuned, because the President will join us and 
support us and probably sell out his side of the aisle in order to make 
a deal on his legacy. And the Vice President, against tax cuts at the 
beginning of the year, now embraces $500 million of tax cuts.
  So I just suggest to everybody, wait around for a little while and 
sooner or the later the parade follows leadership on issues important 
to the American taxpayer.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is not bankrupting the 
system with this bill. We will have money for prescription drug 
coverage. We will have money for Social Security reform. In fact, we 
lockbox Social Security and protect it for now and into the future, 
instead of, as they were for 40 years, borrowing out of the money and 
using it to pay their bills, or actually not even paying their bills, 
putting us in deeper debt and deeper deficit. We are in a financial 
quagmire because of their leadership. Now we have been in charge for 6 
years, and finally advancing bills that are helping the American 
family.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and go to church this 
Sunday and explain your actions to your fellow parishioners, why you 
voted to continue to tax the sanctity of marriage. I am single, so I am 
not going to have a big argument from what I will save in my tax bill.
  But to those of you who feel compelled, go to church next Sunday and 
stand up in the choir and praise the Lord first, and secondly say but I 
voted against you who are married, because I think you should have an 
added burden. Not only are you trying to raise children, pay the 
mortgage, buy a new washer and dryer, but the Government thinks because 
you are married, we should take a few more bucks out of your pocket and 
then spend it in Washington, because you know Washington knows best.
  Save marriage, end the penalty, let Americans prosper.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that their 
remarks are to be directed to the Chair and not to other persons who 
may be viewing the proceedings of the House.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am not as much troubled by 
what I hear today, as by what I do not hear. What I do not hear is any 
of the participants reminding the American people that because of 
actions that Congress has taken during our lifetimes, our Nation is $5 
trillion deeper in debt than the day that any of us were born; that we 
are the beneficiaries of those expenditures; that our Nation won the 
Cold War; that it built the interstate highway system; that it built 
the intercostal canal system; that it did a lot of good things for all 
us. And now it is time, when we have the opportunity because of some 
small surpluses to pay the bills, we seem intent on doing those things 
not to pay them.
  In a search to give some Americans a break, we are going to see to it 
that all Americans continue to have $1 billion a day of their tax money 
squandered on paying interest on that debt; $1 billion a day.
  I hear my colleagues talking about this enormous surplus, as if 
somehow this building is awash in cash. Well, if it exists, why are you 
delaying the pay of the people who serve our Nation in crummy places 
like Bosnia and Korea, people who are at sea right now, under the sea, 
on the sea on aircraft carriers for 6 months at a time, why are you 
delaying their pay from September 29 of this year to October 1, making 
them go an extra weekend when they cannot buy baby formula or diapers?
  Do you know why? Because you are trying to disguise the true nature 
of the debt. You took that $2.5 billion pay period and you shifted it 
to the next fiscal year so it would look like the surplus is bigger 
than it really is.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we not as intent on paying down the debt that 
was incurred in our lifetime as we are in trying to score political 
advantage against each other come November 2?

[[Page 13983]]

The Nation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) fought for, 
the Nation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) fought for and so 
many Members of this body fought for is worth saving. If we do not pay 
our bills while we have this brief opportunity, the first time in 30 
years that we actually have a surplus, then we never will.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend from Mississippi, who I 
share many of his concerns on behalf of our friends, I would point out 
many of our military men and women suffer the marriage tax penalty, and 
invite him to join with us in a bipartisan efforts to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield the balance of my time to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a leading and 
respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, like 144,000 other taxpayers in the 3rd District of 
Georgia, I wear a wedding band.

                              {time}  1315

  It is a symbol of my marriage. But, due to the Tax Code, it is an 
excuse to raise more revenue, and that is not right.
  Under today's Tax Code, 25 billion married couples pay higher taxes 
as a result of saying, I do. Today's bill will change that. It will 
allow both wives and husbands to each take a full standard deduction, 
and it will broaden the lower tax bracket so that lower- and middle-
income couples will not be punished or pushed into a higher tax bracket 
when their incomes are combined.
  The Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act of 2000 will provide American 
families relief from the excessive taxation which has been caused by 
our government's excessive spending. Now that a balanced budget and 
reforms that the Federal Government has done in the past few years, we 
have a positive cash flow. It is time to reduce the tax burden on 
working Americans. Ending the unfair marriage penalty is an important 
step in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, my hope is that we will not stop there. American 
families are also paying far too much for gasoline, which is a 
necessity for most households. My hope is that we will look at 
repealing some of the Federal excise taxes which contribute to the high 
cost of gasoline.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering relief from the marriage 
penalty. I had hoped that we would have made the tax relief in this 
bill effective for the tax year 2000 instead of the year 2001 so 
families could get immediate relief. Hopefully, in the conference we 
will be able to accomplish the change in the effective date for the 
taxable year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the delay in implementation, this is a good bill 
that will correct an injustice in the Tax Code. I urge the House to 
pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this bill into law, 
and I call on Members of the House and Senate to resist the temptation 
to use tax relief for married couples as a pawn in some political game.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to help make our 
communities more livable--to make families safe, healthy and 
economically secure. Clearly, affording needed tax relief to America's 
working families is part of that effort. This bill, however, skews 
priorities: Rather than focusing on the working people who need help 
the most, the bill offers the most relief to those who already have 
lobbyists working for them.
  First of all, we ought to be making things easier for families, not 
more difficult. One big problem for them is that a growing number are 
being forced into the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally 
intended to ensure that very wealthy people paid at least some income 
tax. Just last week, I was confronted back home with a farmer who has 
10 children that he works hard to support. Taking the tax credits for 
his children triggers the AMT for him, and no one would confuse him 
with Bill Gates.
  This bill not only fails to solve the problem, it actually makes 
things worse. In every year, a larger percentage of families are shut 
out from the full benefits of the bill, exceeding 50 percent by 2010.
  It's not that hard to fix this. The Democratic alternative, which I 
support, would offer $89.1 billion in marriage penalty relief. It would 
fix the AMT problem, making sure that families actually get the tax 
relief they've been promised. It would direct an additional $10 billion 
to low- and moderate-income families. Even better, it would cost less 
than half of what the Republican bill does.
  With that additional revenue, we could address other pressing 
priorities. More than 11 million American children have no health 
insurance. Many of their grandparents pay staggering sums for the 
prescription drugs that prolong and improve their lives. We have 
children with special educational needs that Congress has promised to 
fund--but Congress can't find the money for them. Sadly, in my own 
state, one in five children suffers from hunger sometime during the 
year. I believe these issues deserve our attention just as much as 
adjusting the tax schedule.
  For that reason, I will vote for the alternative that offers the most 
direct and targeted tax advantages for American families. 
Unfortunately, the majority has rejected the opportunity for 
commonsense reform in favor of political theater. The bill the House 
will pass today will rightly be vetoed by the President. It is going 
nowhere--and it shouldn't go anywhere. At $182 billion, the cost of 
admission to this political sideshow is just too high.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, once again this House has before it 
legislation to eliminate the penalty on marriage that is found in the 
income tax code.
  Quite simply, marriage should not be taxed.
  As the financial pressures of families result in both spouses 
entering the labor force, an increasing number have become subject to 
the marriage penalty. A major reason why so many joint filers face this 
added burden is that the very first dollar earned by the lower-earning 
spouse is taxed at the marginal rate of the higher-earning spouse, not 
necessarily at the lower 15% rate faced by single filers. This problem 
was exacerbated in 1993, when the Clinton tax measure increased the 
number of tax brackets from three to five.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that over 20 million 
married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. 
This ``tax'' on marriage averages nearly $1,400 per couple. This $1,400 
could be used by families to save for college or retirement, make car 
payments, or pay for tutoring.
  Middle income families are hit the hardest by this penalty and they 
need this legislation for tax relief. I urge the House to pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811 and in 
strong support of the Rangel substitute. Unlike the underlying bill, 
the Rangel substitute alleviates the marriage penalty while preserving 
the necessary resources to enact other tax cuts for working families, 
to pay down the debt, and to protect Social Security and Medicare.
  About half of all married couples pay more in income taxes because 
they are married than they would if they were single. The other half 
pay either the same or less. The Rangel substitute provides $90 billion 
in targeted relief to couples who pay the marriage penalty. The 
Republican bill, by contrast, funnels more than half the $182 billion 
in tax benefits to couples who receive a marriage bonus and \2/3\ of 
the tax benefit to households earning more than $75,000 annually.
  With finite resources available, the Republican bill must be viewed 
in term of its opportunity costs. The more than $100 billion in this 
legislation that is unrelated to marriage penalty relief could be used 
to enact significant tax cuts for working families. Rather than 
increasing tax bonuses for higher income people, Congress should help 
families cope with their core pocketbook issues such as reducing the 
cost of college, increasing the affordability of health insurance, and 
encouraging savings for retirement. In my view, these areas, along with 
marriage penalty relief, should be the tax cut priorities.
  The current budget projections will accommodate significant tax cuts 
along with an aggressive plan to pay down the debt and to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare. Paying down the debt and in turn reducing 
interest rates is perhaps the most significant tax cut Congress could 
offer. Lower interest rates would cut mortgage payments on a $100,000 
house by $2,000 annually. Likewise, the cost of farm operating loans, 
car loans, and student loans would all be reduced.
  Finally, before allocating surplus for tax cuts, Congress should set 
aside sufficient resources to shore up the long-term future of Social 
Security and Medicare. The current surplus projections afford us a rare 
opportunity to strengthen these programs for the Baby Boom generation 
and beyond. We must also reserve

[[Page 13984]]

adequate resources to enact a guaranteed drug benefit as part of the 
Medicare program so that seniors will not be forced to choose between 
their prescriptions and their food and shelter.
  In sum, there are a host of priorities that deserve our support, 
including marriage penalty relief. It is critical, however, that this 
relief be targeted so that we may enact other tax cuts for working 
families, pay down the debt, and protect Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered a basically 
identical bill in February, I voted for it, although I was very 
reluctant to do so.
  I was reluctant because that was not the best time for this bill, and 
that was not the best bill for the job.
  It wasn't the right time because we had not yet adopted a budget 
resolution and so a tax bill--or a spending bill, for that matter--
should not have been considered then. Now, of course, we have a budget 
resolution in place. So, today at least the time is right.
  But this still is not the best bill for the job because in some areas 
it does too little, and in others it does too much.
  It does too little because it does not adjust the Alternative Minimum 
Tax. That means it leaves many middle-income families unprotected from 
having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The 
Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax, 
which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill.
  The Republican leadership's bill does too much in another area. 
Because it is not carefully targeted, it does not just apply to people 
who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of 
the total benefits under the bill would go to married people whose 
taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In 
other words, if this bill were to become law as it now stands a primary 
result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase 
marriage ``bonuses.''
  And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the 
bill--if it were to become law--would go too far in reducing the 
surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and 
Medicare.
  Those were and remain the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this 
bill. They are strong reasons then and they are strong reasons today.
  In fact, if voting for the bill today would mean that it would be law 
tomorrow, I would vote against it. But that isn't the case, 
fortunately. The Senate still has a chance to improve this bill. So, I 
will reluctantly vote for the bill because I favor eliminating the 
marriage penalty.
  I am prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to 
correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending 
it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican 
leadership will allow the bill to be improved to the point that it 
merits becoming law--meaning that it will deserve the President's 
signature.
  But if they miss that opportunity, and insist on sending to the 
President a bill that falls short of being appropriate for signature 
into law, I will vote to sustain a veto.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4810, the 
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is yet 
another bill in a series of legislation brought to the floor to help 
America's wealthy. Yes, we have entered an era of budget surpluses, but 
the surpluses must not be squandered on those who don't need it--the 
wealthiest U.S. income-earners. I support targeted marriage tax relief 
such as the Democrats have provided in our substitute amendment today. 
I also support increasing the earned income tax credit for the working 
poor who really do need the tax break. The Democrats have provided for 
this in the substitute bill as well. And the Democratic substitute 
makes sure that nobody will be denied the relief because of the AMT. 
The Republican bill does not.
  The Republicans have brought the estate tax, marriage penalty tax, 
medical savings accounts, and the telephone excise tax to the floor for 
consideration, and next week they plan to bring pension reform to the 
floor as well. Not a single one of these provisions will provide relief 
for middle and lower income working families. This Congress has already 
spent $471 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy and plans to spend 
another $54 billion on increasing pensions for the wealthy next week. 
This Congress can be charged with recklessly spending half a trillion 
dollars on the wealthiest Americans and there may be more to come. This 
is an irresponsible use of the hard-earned tax funds lower and middle-
income earners contribute to their federal government.


                        I. Marriage Penalty Tax

  This bill should target tax relief for those who need it most. 
Unfortunately, the GOP proposal actually helps wealthy Americans, not 
simply those facing a tax penalty due to marriage by implementing a tax 
bracket change favorable to those in the top brackets. There are nearly 
as many families that receive ``marriage bonus'' as receive marriage 
penalties in the U.S. As much as half of the $182 billion in tax relief 
in the GOP bill will go to families who receive the bonus and are not 
hurt by the marriage penalty. This bill's costliest provision, 
expanding the 15% tax bracket, only benefits taxpayers in the top 
quarter of the income distribution. This accounts for 65% of the plan's 
total cost, or nearly $100 billion. This bill's title implies that it 
helps those who are faced with a marriage penalty when it truthfully 
benefits the wealthy.


                             ii. estate tax

  The estate tax repeal--and the numerous other tax measures passed by 
the House--should be scrutinized with a measure of fairness. It hardly 
seems fair to come to the floor of the House week after week to provide 
hand over fist full of tax break dollars to the wealthiest U.S. 
taxpayers, when we haven't even addressed Medicare's solvency. The 
estate tax bill is the most egregious of all of the tax bills that have 
come before the House for a vote. It spends the most amount of money--
$105 billion--on not just the wealthy, but the very wealthy. Ninety 
percent of the tax cut benefits will to go to those in the top 1% 
income group--those earning $319,000 per year and with estates over $20 
million. Clearly this is a tax break for the rich.


                          iii. pension reform

  The Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to markup the pension 
reform bill tomorrow and it's expected to be on the floor sometime next 
week. While many of my colleagues would like to believe that this 
package of reforms will help to increase pension coverage for working 
Americans it will do exactly the opposite. Trickle down economics 
didn't work for Reagan and it won't work for pensions. This bill will 
directly help those executives who earn $200,000 per year. This bill 
will purely benefit the rich when not one provision is included to help 
increase pension coverage for low and middle-income workers.


                      iv. medical savings accounts

  The Republicans want to appear as though they are helping the average 
American worker so they decided to include medical savings accounts 
(MSAs) in the Patients Bill of Rights. The greatest savings from MSAs 
will help workers who have little or no health care expenditures. It 
allows people with low health costs to avoid taxes through essentially 
a new form of an IRA. And the Republicans go even further by allowing 
people to withdraw money from their MSA without any tax penalty if they 
maintain the deductible of $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for 
families. This isn't a health proposal at all--it's just more money for 
the rich.


                        v. telephone excise tax

  While this isn't a bill to directly help wealthy Americans, its 
primary purpose is to help wealthy corporations. This is just another 
fiscally irresponsible way for the Republicans to reduce federal 
revenues for the vital programs that the working families of this 
country rely on. The leadership of the 106th Congress doesn't care if 
it squanders another $20 billion in tax revenues by repealing the 
telephone excise tax. The GOP doesn't care if we have enough money to 
save Social Security and Medicare for future generations or to give our 
seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  The Democratic substitute bill targets those workers who need it 
most. The Democratic substitute addresses the marriage penalty by 
giving married couples a standard deduction twice that of single 
people. In addition, low-income married couples face a marriage penalty 
in the earned income tax credit. The Democratic substitute would reduce 
those penalties by increasing the income level at which the credit 
begins to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002 and 
thereafter. It would also repeal the current reduction in the EITC and 
refundable child credit by the amount of the minimum tax. The 
Democratic substitute is the responsible way to address the marriage 
penalty tax without pandering to the wealthiest 2% of U.S. earners. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and oppose H.R. 
4810.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my 
opposition to this bill being adopted in its current form. We should 
offer relief from the tax burdens, which may be imposed by our nation's 
current marriage tax policy only to those who are in need of help.
  As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I do 
share many of the leadership's concerns regarding the promotion of 
stable and secure marriages in our society. After all, the foundation 
of any civilization is the strength of its families. Therefore, I 
believe that we should seriously consider passing legislation that will 
provide true relief

[[Page 13985]]

for those pending marriages which are threatened by our nation's 
current marriage tax policy.
  For this reason I have joined my fellow Democratic colleagues in 
voicing opposition to H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax elimination 
Reconciliation Act as it is written because it does less than what it 
is being purported to do. For example, it will not provide marriage 
penalty tax relief for the poor of our society who face many hurdles to 
finding stable footings upon which to build lives for their children 
and families. In addition to this concern, H.R. 4810 provides a tax 
break mostly to the very wealthy. This fact alone taints the image that 
many in this body would like to project to Americans, that our actions 
have the altruistic intent of only helping those young people in our 
communities who are just starting out in life and who would like to 
marry.
  I would suggest to those Americans who eagerly await our actions in 
this matter pay close attention to what this body is actually 
attempting to do. Our efforts today should not be based on tax cut 
slight-of-hand and short-sided actions on the issue of marriage.
  All of us present understand that the institution of marriage is very 
important. I personally believe that it is sacred, and for this reason 
we should be very careful about what we do as a legislative body, in an 
area that is after all a personal decision. We should be very sure that 
any legislative changes made to any benefit for our citizens has the 
effect of supporting the institution of marriage in real and meaningful 
ways.
  I would ask my colleagues to remember the struggle shared by them and 
their spouses when they first married. For this reason, I am very 
supportive of Congressman's Rangel's substitute amendment to this bill. 
I applaud Congressman Rangel's attempts to reach some middle ground on 
this issue with the majority, and thank him for bringing before this 
body an opportunity to have a rational discussion regarding the 
marriage tax policy of our nation. As the bill is currently written, 
the tax penalty to the federal government should this bill become law 
would be $182 billion in lost government revenue.
  Like the bill, the Rangel substitute would reduce the marriage tax 
penalty by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple 
filing a joint income tax-return to twice the basic standard deduction 
for an unmarried individual, and adjusts the Alternative Minimum Tax in 
an attempt to ensure that the benefits of the standard deduction change 
would not be nullified. However, an added benefit of the Rangel 
substitute is that it will also reduce the marriage tax penalty by 
modifying the tax code in order to make more married couples eligible 
for the Earned Income Tax Credit beginning in 2001. Additionally, the 
Rangel substitute will increase the income level at which the credit 
begins to phase out by providing $2,000 in 2001 and $2,500 in 2002 and 
subsequent years. I would add that unlike the bill, the substitute does 
not provide for an increase in the upper limit of the 15% tax bracket. 
I would hope that this body not endorse a tax cut for the wealthy under 
the guise relief tax relief for newly married young couples.
  This body did not do all that it could have done to promote the 
stability of marriage among our nation's senior population with the 
passage, of what was called, the senior's prescription drug benefit 
bill that was passed prior to the July 4, break that legislation merely 
gave insurance companies more money. If the marriages of our elderly 
poor are shattered due to the high cost of health care and in 
particular the financial stress created by the unfair cost of 
prescription drugs then the security of their marriages as well as 
their lives together are threatened. We should take the opportunity 
presented to us through the consideration of the Rangel substitute to 
make amends for some of the lack of attention given to real life 
problems through the adopting of a marriage penalty relief bill that 
will provide real tax relief to real people.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4810, the 
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This bill is 
the exact marriage penalty relief bill that was passed in February. So 
I must ask why are we wasting valuable time debating legislation that 
has already been considered and which the president threatened to veto 
last February? It is time that we provide tax relief for those couples 
that are truly penalized and then use the remaining time in this 
session to do what the American public is asking for; providing 
prescription drug coverage, paying down the national debt and 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
  While I support tax relief for those couples who are penalized, I do 
not, support H.R. 4810 which would provide tax relief half of which 
will to go those couples who benefit from a marriage bonus rather than 
a marriage penalty under the current tax code. Further, this bill would 
cost $182.3 billion over the next ten years and would give the lion's 
share of its tax cuts to higher-income families. The average tax cut 
for families with incomes less than $50,000 would be about $149 per 
year, while families with incomes over $75,000 would get an average tax 
cut of nearly $1,000 per year. That is why I oppose H.R. 4810 and 
support the substitute offered by Representative Rangel, which is 
fairer and more fiscally responsible.
  The substitute would do a better job of fixing the marriage penalty, 
and cost less than half as much as H.R. 4810. It would assure that the 
Alternative Minimum tax (AMT) does not deny the tax relief the bill 
promises. The AMT ensures that everyone pays at least a minimum tax. 
Under H.R. 4810, many married couples with children will not get the 
advertised tax relief because they fall under a complex set of AMT 
rules. When this bill was drafted behind closed doors, it ignored the 
effect of the AMT. As a result, by 2008, nearly half of the American 
families with two children would be under the minimum tax and receive 
nothing or less than what H.R. 4810 promised.
  Like the bill, the substitute would reduce the marriage tax penalty 
by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing 
a joint income tax return to twice the basic standard deduction for an 
unmarried individual. The substitute also would reduce the marriage tax 
penalty by modifying the tax code in order to make more married couples 
eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) beginning in 2001. It 
would increase the income level at which the credit begins to phase out 
by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002 and thereafter.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the 
American people and oppose H.R. 4810 and support the substitute that 
provides genuine relief for our citizens who are truly penalized.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, with great regret, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 4810. The regret is not only because I must oppose 
this bill, but because my friends on the other side of aisle are 
unwilling to enact true and meaningful reform that benefits all 
American citizens. Instead, we are being presented with proposed 
legislation that will assist couples making more than $75,000 a year at 
the expense of strengthening future financing of Social Security and 
Medicare and modernizing Medicare by including affordable prescription 
drug coverage.
  On the surface, this bill appears to be a blessing for all married 
couples but there will be millions of unhappy tax payers next April 
15th when they learn that they will not benefit from the promises being 
made today.
  Who will benefit? Two-thirds of the actual benefits in this package 
will go to the 30% of married couples making more than $75,000 a year. 
Review of the bill by financial analysts indicate that the average tax 
cut for couples receiving more than $75,000 would be $994 a year, 
compared to a tax cut of only $149 for couples making less than $75,000 
a year.
  Perhaps the most egregious flaw in this bill is that makes no 
modifcation to the Alternative Minimum Tax which places a floor on the 
total amount of deductions which couples may file for each year. By not 
adjusting that figure, many middle-class families with children will 
not receive a dime from the sham ``benefits'' contained in this bill. I 
believe that it is those very families with children who most deserve a 
marriage tax benefit.
  H.R. 4810 proposes to remove $50.7 billion over five years and $182.3 
billion over ten years from the federal budget. We are already 
scrounging for funds in an effort to pay down the national debt and 
shore up the Social Security and Medicare funds. Where will this put us 
in ten years when today's middle-aged married couples are ready to 
retire?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination 
Reconciliation Act. This bill will have a positive effect, in 
particular, on middle and lower income married couples.
  At the outset, this Member would like to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas [Mr. Archer], 
for introducing this legislation.
  It is important to note that H.R. 4810 has the same provisions as 
H.R. 6, which passed on the floor of the House on February 10, 2000, by 
a vote of 268-158, with this Member's support. However, the Senate has 
been unable to reach the 60 vote threshold on a cloture vote to close 
debate on marriage penalty legislation. As a result, the House is now 
considering the marriage tax penalty as the first reconciliation bill, 
a status which will allow debate and amendments to be limited in the 
Senate.
  While there are many reasons to support H.R. 4810, this Member will 
enumerate two

[[Page 13986]]

specific reasons. First, H.R. 4810 takes a significant step toward 
eliminating the current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. 
Second, H.R. 4810 follows the principle that the Federal income tax 
code should be marriage-neutral.
  1. First, this legislation, H.R. 4810, will help eliminate the 
marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code in the following 
significant ways:


                           standard deduction

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


                       the 15 percent tax bracket

  It will increase the amount of married couples' income (who file 
jointly) subject to the lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate to twice 
that of single taxpayers beginning in 2003, phased in over six years. 
Under the current tax law, the 15 percent bracket covers taxpayers with 
income up to $26,250 for singles and $43,850 for married couples who 
file jointly. If this legislation was effective in 2000, married 
couples would pay the 15 percent tax rate on their first $52,500 of 
taxable income, which would be double the aforementioned current income 
amount for singles.
  2. Second, H.R. 4810 will help the Internal Revenue Code become more 
marriage-neutral. Currently, many married couples who file jointly pay 
more Federal income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. The 
Internal Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals 
discuss their future marital status.
  Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his 
colleagues to support the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination 
Reconciliation Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time for general debate on 
the bill has expired.


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

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
     Rangel:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard 
     deduction) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under 
     subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
       (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Increase Allowed as Deduction in Determining Minimum 
     Tax.--Subparagraph (E) of section 56(b)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to so much of the 
     standard deduction under subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(2) 
     as exceeds the amount which be such deduction but for the 
     amendment made by section 2(a) of the Marriage Tax Penalty 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows 
     through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with 
     respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be 
     applied''.
       (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. 3. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 32 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for earned 
     income) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Reduction of marriage penalty.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a joint return, the 
     phaseout amount under this section shall be such amount 
     (determined without regard to this paragraph) increased by 
     $2,500 ($2,000 in the case of taxable years beginning during 
     2001).
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2002, the $2,500 
     amount contained in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to the product of--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, and
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is 
     not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $50.''
       (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 545, 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.
  As I have pointed out earlier, there comes a time that we should be 
talking about legislation that does not just pass the House, but is 
signed into law. What we have done is to recognize that there is an 
inequity that exists when certain couples pay more taxes than they 
would pay if they were not married, and that is why we double the 
standard deduction to take care of this inequity.
  We too would like to give more dramatic tax cuts, but not just to 
give $200 billion out at a time, but to take a look and to see that the 
tax cuts are targeted, that they are fair and that they are equitable, 
but at the same time that we have fulfilled our responsibility to the 
Social Security, the Medicare system, and that we pay down some part of 
our Federal debt. This is so important when we think of the trillions 
of dollars that we are still in debt and the billions of dollars that 
we pay every year in interest.
  Mr. Speaker, it would just seem to me that if we could come together 
and compromise, to make certain we take care of the problem without 
trying to make political statements, that the House of Representatives 
will be in better shape not as Republicans, not Democrats, but as 
lawmakers that are able to say that in the House, the people govern.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. WELLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to briefly respond to my good friend from New York, and 
I respect his efforts to offer a proposal addressing the marriage tax 
penalty, and I would point out that even though he means well, his 
proposal falls short.
  Unfortunately, under the Democratic alternative, there is a very 
large group who suffer from the marriage tax penalty who are left out, 
essentially discriminated against under the Democratic alternative, and 
they are those who itemize their taxes. I would point out that those 
who primarily itemize their taxes are middle-class families, middle-
class married couples who itemize their taxes because they give money 
to charity, their church or their synagogue, their temple, institutions 
of faith and charity, or they own a home. So if we think about it, we 
think about our constituents back home, married couples who, of course, 
suffer the marriage tax penalty and whether or not they own a home and, 
of course, I have thousands of married couples who suffer the marriage 
tax penalty and own a home. Under the Democrat proposal, they would be 
left out. They

[[Page 13987]]

would still have to tough out suffering the marriage tax penalty.
  Let us remember, what is the average marriage tax penalty? The 
average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. Here in Washington, $1,400 is a 
drop in the bucket; it is nothing to those who want to spend money here 
in Washington. But for families back home in Illinois and the Southside 
of Chicago and the south suburbs where I have the privilege of 
representing, it is real money. Fourteen hundred dollars is a year's 
tuition at our community college, it is 3 months of day care at our 
local child care center, it is a washer and a dryer. Frankly, for 
someone who just had a baby such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two 
public schoolteachers from Joliet, if they are able to set that full 
marriage tax penalty every year, that is $25,000 that they could set 
aside for their little child, Ben.
  The bottom line is, if we want to help those who suffer the marriage 
tax penalty, we should help those who itemize taxes, such as those who 
give to charity, those who give to their church or their synagogue, as 
well as those who own a home.
  So clearly, I rise in opposition to the Democrat alternative. The 
bipartisan effort which was supported by every House Republican, as 
well as 48 Democrats who broke ranks with their leadership, and again, 
I want to extend an invitation to those who did not support us this 
spring to join with us in an even greater bipartisan effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic 
substitute and in opposition to the base bill we have before us 
concerning tax relief.
  I think what stuns me the most is how time and time again, the 
majority party proves its preference for clinging to a political sound 
bite that they hope will translate into Election Day results rather 
than actually seizing golden opportunities to accomplish something good 
for the American people.
  How much more clear could it be that the vast majority of this body, 
as well as the Senate and the President, are eager to bring about 
genuine marriage tax relief for the average American family? We could 
come to the floor this afternoon and in very short order develop the 
compromise that would bring meaningful support and tax equity to 
millions of Americans. Sadly, we choose instead to continue a charade.
  The other thing that amazes me is the level of inconsistency 
reflected from one message of the day to the next. On one day, this 
House loves to congratulate itself on its commitment to debt reduction. 
The next day it is tax relief for small businesses. Another day, we 
swear our support for Social Security and Medicare, while doing nothing 
about Social Security and Medicare. Then, we promise a huge tax cut not 
only for middle- and low-income married couples, but we also sneak in 
wider tax brackets to benefit on this folks.
  Now, I think most of these things are worthy, and, in fact, should be 
among our highest priorities. But it is just not possible to have 10 
different number one priorities.
  The blue dogs looked at the whole picture and realistically balanced 
each concern with the other, rather than pandering to the ``cause du 
jour.'' We do not live in the political fairy land which believes in a 
Budgetary Godmother who can wave her magic wand and grant all of our 
expensive wishes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Democratic substitute on the floor 
today. It would accomplish what the name implies: genuine tax relief 
for couples who have been penalized by virtue of marriage. It corrects 
the flaw in the Republican bill, the AMT problem which would deny 
relief to nearly half of middle-income American families with two 
children by the time the bill would be fully phased in. It also 
endorses the idea that lower-income, married couples deserve relief by 
adjusting their earned income tax credit. Just as importantly, the 
Democratic substitute ensures that we will have resources for other 
priorities, such as debt reduction, strengthening Social Security and 
Medicare, estate tax relief, prescription drug coverage, and providing 
relief to our rural hospitals. The Democratic alternative and motion to 
recommit will guarantee that estate tax relief does not come at the 
expense of raiding the Medicare trust fund or taking away resources 
needed for Medicare prescription drug coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to actually accomplish good 
today. Will we choose that path, or will we continue to choose rhetoric 
over solutions? Vote for the Democratic substitute and strongly oppose 
the base bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my good friend from Texas that if he chooses to vote 
against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote 
to deny 114,000 married taxpayers in the 17th district of Texas, many 
of whom are ranchers and farmers, relief from the marriage tax penalty, 
and that is just not fair. I would extend an invitation to my good 
friend from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER, Not this time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) is going to use my name and my district, I would ask the 
gentleman to yield.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I extend an invitation to the gentleman from 
Texas to join us in a bipartisan effort and to join the 48 Democrats 
who already voted for this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller). The Chair will be glad to extend an opportunity 
shortly.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill), my good friend, and a leader in the effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I am sure if my colleagues or the public is listening in on this 
debate, they are kind of confused, because Republicans and Democrats 
are both coming to the floor and they are saying they want to provide 
marriage tax relief and both are saying that it is unfair.
  Folks, what we need to understand is that the Democratic leadership 
plan could best be labeled ``Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Light.'' The 
reason for that is that the Democrat leadership plan wants to create 
new discriminations in the code. They want to, for example, 
discriminate against stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home dads, or they 
want to discriminate against the people who own a home, but might have 
a mortgage against it, but provide tax relief for those people who own 
a home, but who would not have a mortgage against it.
  Basically, what the Democrats are saying is that we will support your 
plan, if you will shift the marriage penalty from some families and 
impose it on other families.
  Now, this bill is not just about tax relief, it is also about tax 
fairness. The Republican plan says, let us do this. Let us treat all 
families basically the same, if they have the same level of income.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican tax package started out as part of our 
budget. We said that we wanted to balance the budget and pay down the 
national debt. That was opposed by the Democrat leadership. We said we 
wanted to set aside 100 percent of Social Security in a lockbox. That 
was opposed by the Democrat leadership. We passed a prescription drug 
plan, $40 billion for seniors, also opposed by the Democratic 
leadership, and now we have a tax plan, a tax relief plan for all 
American families, and that is opposed by the democratic leadership as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, 90,000 families in my district, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) does not have to tell

[[Page 13988]]

me how many, because I know, are going to get an average of $1,400 in 
tax relief from this bill, and they need it. I urge us to support the 
Republican plan, I urge us to oppose the Democrat substitute for tax 
relief light.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to give him an opportunity at least 
to respond to the accusations made by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller), my good friend, it may be true, and I assume the 
gentleman's numbers are correct, but I also have 116,000 Social 
Security recipients in my district. In all due respect, the Republican 
tax bill and the entire other tax package will jeopardize the future of 
Social Security and Medicare. And just as the gentleman in his own 
district, he has 92,000 senior citizens that he is willing to put at 
risk for this continued charade that we have today.
  With all due respect, we have to have a balanced package, and we 
cannot do all of those things which the gentleman from Illinois and 
others contend we can do. We must map some priority choices, and I 
resent the fact that the gentleman from Illinois would imply that what 
I am voting for today does not eliminate the marriage tax penalty in 
the 17th district because it does, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) knows it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding time to me. I do not think I will need 
4 minutes, but I appreciate the courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I have 61,000 good reasons to reform the marriage 
penalty. That happens to be the number, 61,000, of couples in my 
district being stuck with the marriage penalty today. What they will 
tell us is that taxing marriage is not just unfair, it is irrational, 
so why on Earth would any couple be forced to pay a penalty for getting 
married?
  But if we listen closely to what they are saying to us, they are 
saying something besides, do not tax my marriage. They are saying, yes, 
we want a tax cut, but once we get it we do not want to have to spend 
it paying for our parents' prescription medicine.
  They are right. That is why we have offered an alternative. We are 
cutting the marriage penalty for the middle-class couples, I think a 
better alternative than what the Republicans have offered, because it 
is fair, it is more equitable, it deals with the concerns of working 
men and women in this country, working couples.
  But we are saying, let us just not stop there. Let us invest in 
providing an affordable prescription drug benefit through Medicare. If 
we do this right, and the offer has been made by the President, if we 
do this right, we can provide tax relief for married couples and 
affordable medicine that older Americans deserve. Even more, we can do 
it without busting the budget. We can do it within the confines of 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that the tax relief that we provide 
goes to the couples who have earned it, not to the big drug companies 
who want it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and vote against 
passage of this bill. When we get into conference, as we will, as we 
get into a final discussion of this issue as well as other tax issues, 
as well as the prescription medicine, prescription drug bill, we will 
be able to facilitate the needs of both of those very important 
constituencies that we represent, and we will be able to do it within 
the confines of a balanced budget, reducing our national debt, getting 
the debt gone so we can have some fiscal solvency in our national life, 
as well as making sure that Medicare and social security are solvent at 
the same time, and providing tax relief for the people who need it in 
this country.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would remind my good friend, the minority whip, that the balanced 
budget we are working on this year not only locks away 100 percent for 
social security, but it pays off the national debt before 2013, the 
same year the President has set as a goal, and also sets aside $40 
billion for prescription drug coverage under Medicare, legislation we 
passed just a few short weeks ago.
  I would also note to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, 
that if he chooses to vote against our bipartisan efforts to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 122,000 married 
taxpayers in the Tenth District in Michigan relief from the marriage 
penalty.
  That is just not fair. Let us work together. I would extend an 
invitation to join with the 48 Democrats who broke with their 
leadership and voted in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), a family advocate and leader in the effort to 
eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I commend him for solid work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for the Republican bill 
and in opposition to the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I believe 
it is immoral to have a Tax Code that discourages people from getting 
married. It is immoral to have a Tax Code that encourages people to 
live out of wedlock.
  I saw it firsthand in my medical practice where I had couples coming 
in to see me as patients who were living outside the bonds of marriage, 
and when I would ask them why, the reason I heard most often was 
because their taxes would go up.
  It particularly disturbed me to see it in senior citizens, who knew 
that they were setting a bad example for their children and their 
grandchildren, and they would most often cite to me that their taxes 
would go up $1,000 to $1,400 if they were to get married. Our tax 
relief package provides that necessary relief so we would not have a 
Tax Code encouraging people to live outside of wedlock.
  The Democratic substitute will provide about $210 worth of marriage 
tax penalty relief to those same couples, and it does not get the job 
done, in my opinion. We will not relieve this immoral feature of our 
Tax Code with their substitute, so that is why I am encouraging people 
to vote against it.
  I would like to address head-on two of the big complaints that we are 
hearing today, one of which is that when we expand the 15 percent tax 
bracket for married couples filing jointly so that they do not suffer a 
marriage penalty, we provide tax relief to some married couples where 
the mother stays home and takes care of the kids.
  I say, what is wrong with that? Is that not a middle-class tax cut? 
Did President Clinton not campaign in 1992 on welfare reform, balancing 
the budget, and a middle-class tax cut? What is wrong with providing 
those same families with a stay-at-home mom or stay-at-home dad some 
relief from their taxes?
  Do not all the psychologists tell us that one of the best things to 
make sure kids do well in school and we have a lower incidence of 
juvenile delinquency is to have parents that are more involved? Should 
we not be encouraging parents to take more time to stay at home and be 
with their kids?
  Another thing that I want to address head-on, and we heard this from 
one of the previous speakers, is that, oh, we are better off using this 
money for something else.
  I heard that argument in 1997 when we passed the $500 per child tax 
credit and the capital gains relief. We passed those, and all the 
naysayers said, well, the money will be gone. We will not see that 
money anymore. We could better use it to spend on this or that.
  What happened? Well, revenue into the Treasury went up. Indeed, those 
same arguments went on in 1980 when Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. The 
same arguments went on in 1960 when Jack Kennedy lowered taxes. Every 
time we lower taxes, revenue into the Treasury goes up, it does not go 
down. It is not a zero sum game.

[[Page 13989]]

  The parents who get that money are going to spend that money. They 
are going to create jobs, stimulate the economy. We pass this tax 
package and it will be the best way for us to make sure that Medicare 
is solvent and that we can have a prescription drug plan, because 
revenue into the Treasury will go up, it will not go down. It is not a 
zero sum game.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We passed a bill that would cost us, 
once fully phased in, $50 billion a year to provide relief to 2 percent 
of taxpayers when we cut the estate tax. The 2 percent of the taxpayers 
happen to represent the 2 percent wealthiest taxpayers in America, and 
98 percent of all American families would not participate in any of 
that tax cut. That will cost about $50 billion once it is fully phased 
in.
  This bill, which purports to provide relief for married couples, 
would cost about $30 billion per year as well once it is fully phased 
in. When we start adding it up, we start to realize that if we do do 
all of these things, we will not have money to do some other things.
  Like what? Well, we are fighting on this floor these days to try to 
figure out a way to provide seniors with a way to pay for not an estate 
tax, when we have a massive estate and we are trying to avoid taxes on 
it, but trying to help them pay for basic coverage for drugs that they 
need, prescription drugs that they need, just to continue a healthy 
lifestyle as seniors.
  We cannot get there. We have not done that yet. Yet, we will not have 
the money to pay for the cost of helping seniors afford prescription 
drugs so they do not have to make the decision between their 
prescription drugs or their rent or their prescription drugs or their 
food because we are going to spend it on giving a tax cut in the estate 
tax repeal bill that will benefit only the 2 percent richest families 
in America.
  We are now talking about doing a marriage tax penalty relief that 
will benefit in many cases families that are not even being penalized. 
About half of the benefits of this bill go to families that are not 
even being penalized, so-called penalized, under the marriage penalty 
because they are families where there are two income earners, and one 
of the income earners happens to be very high earning and the other 
very low earning, but because this is a bill that gives an across-the-
board cut to anyone who is married, even those who are benefiting from 
the Tax Code, and that includes that working family where there is one 
very high-earning spouse and the other a low-earning spouse, we are 
still going to give them a benefit, when in fact what we are trying to 
do is make sure there is no so-called penalty for any couple that 
decides to get married as compared to two people who stay single to 
live together.
  How unfortunate that what we are planning to do is to provide tax 
cuts and not help seniors, unfortunate that we are looking to do tax 
cuts that benefit mostly wealthy folks and not help seniors, trying to 
do this and not protect young people who are trying to go on to school 
and perhaps make it on to college; do these tax cuts that help mostly 
wealthy individuals, and not help shore up our Armed Forces, where we 
have Armed Forces personnel, some of our men and women in uniform, who 
are on food stamp programs because we cannot give them enough money.
  Why do we not start to do the right things first, get rid of those 
things that we need to do first, work on passing legislation that deals 
with the important parts of getting our seniors their benefits, getting 
our men and women in the Armed Forces the monies they need in their 
salaries, and then we go on to do the tax cuts that will benefit all 
people, not just the wealthy?
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from California, that if 
he chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 88,000 married taxpayers in 
the 30th District in California relief from the marriage tax penalty. 
That is just not fair.
  Let us work together. I invite my friend from California to join the 
48 Democrats who broke with their leadership and supported our 
bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who has been a real leader 
on behalf of families.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a good day. This is a good day for 
Americans because we are moving one day closer to eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty. It is a good day for working women.
  I am a working woman. Many working women have a large portion of 
their salaries eaten up by this unfair tax that is placed upon them 
only because they are married.
  Garth Brooks is one of my favorite entertainers of all time. The 
reason I started liking him was because he sings a song called 
``Shameless.'' I cannot help but think of Garth Brooks when I am 
sitting here listening to this debate today, because it seem to me that 
the speakers on the other side are shameless.
  One on the other side said, ``We should not be passing this tax cut 
because we should be reducing the debt.'' The others are not quite so 
shameless because they say, ``We should not be passing this tax cut. We 
know better how to spend your money, so let us spend the money. We will 
spend it on other programs.''
  The truth is, if there is money in Washington, it will be spent. So 
our choice is not whether or not we pay down the debt or cut taxes. 
After the President vetoed the $792 billion tax package last year that 
we passed, within 48 hours every single penny of that was spent.
  So let us get honest, it is not between paying the debt and tax cuts, 
it is between giving people's money back to them, and it is their 
money, they know how to spend it best, or our arrogance, saying we know 
how to spend their money for them better than they do.
  Over the past several weeks I have had the pleasure of attending 
weddings in my hometown of Casper, Wyoming. In both cases, as in the 
case with almost every young married couple these days, both the bride 
and the groom were starting bright futures in our Nation's work force. 
It is very satisfying to me to know that, along with my colleagues in 
the 106th Congress, I would have the opportunity to ensure that these 
young, ambitious, and hard-working couples would not have to shoulder 
an additional tax burden just because they took the marriage vows.
  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the 45,000 married couples 
in my home State of Wyoming, or the 25 million married couples across 
the United States that are currently subjected to that tax every year.
  Marriage is a sacred institution, it is not a taxable institution. 
Today we will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that will level 
the playing field for hard-working husbands and wives.
  This legislation also includes specific provisions to assist our 
Nation's lowest income families. Washington should not be in the 
business of penalizing families but in providing them with more 
freedom, more choice, and more opportunity. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the substitute and for the bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since I believe the previous 
speaker made at least one reference towards me, I would like to point 
out that the Constitution of the United States says that no money shall 
be drawn from the Treasury except by an appropriation by Congress. The 
Presidents cannot spend money that we do not allow them to.
  If this Congress truly believes in reducing the debt, then we can put 
a line

[[Page 13990]]

in the budget saying x number of dollars will go towards reducing the 
American debt. That is what I am for. I hope Members will join me.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole concept about if we do not give the money 
back to the taxpayers that it is going to be spent by the Congress, I 
do not know what is in the water on the other side of the aisle, but 
the Republicans happen to be in charge of the Congress. It is almost 
like a serial killer saying, stop me before I kill again.
  If they cannot control themselves in terms of this spending, then let 
the whole world know it before November, but do not say, we are going 
to waste the taxpayers' money. It will not be ``we,'' it may be 
``thee.''

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), my colleague and the ranking member of the committee for 
yielding me time that he has given to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a record in support of reducing the tax burden 
for American families, one that I am very proud of here in this 
Congress. Today, I rise in support of Mr. Rangel's Marriage Tax Penalty 
Relief Proposal.
  The Rangel proposal provides greater marriage penalty tax relief and 
yet it maintains our budget discipline. For example, the proposal 
doubles the standard deduction for couples. It expands the Earned 
Income Tax Credit so vital to people who live in the area I represent.
  It mitigates the harmful effects of the alternative minimum tax so 
that families with children will actually receive these benefits.
  Under the Rangel proposal, a family with two children will receive 
almost $300 a year in tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the financial markets and my colleagues 
on Wall Street tell me that the Republican bill will devour one-fourth 
of the projected on-budget surplus, monies that we really need to 
direct at Social Security, prescription drug coverage, Medicare, and, 
most importantly, to pay down the debt.
  Marriage penalty relief needs to be addressed, but not with the 
Republicans bill, not this large, skewed to the wealthy bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the proposal of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez) that while she claims that the Democrat 
proposal provides more marriage tax relief than the bipartisan 
proposal, I would point out according to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation that the bipartisan proposal provides $51 billion of marriage 
tax relief over 5 years, while the Democrat provides only $38 billion; 
38 is less than 51. It is simple math.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the previous speaker, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez) to note that if she chooses to vote 
against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, she will vote 
to deny 101,000 married taxpayers in the 46th District of California 
relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I want to 
extend that invitation for her to join the 48 House Democrats who broke 
ranks with their leadership in order to join in a bipartisan effort to 
wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Reconciliation Act.
  This legislation increases the standard deduction for married couples 
to twice that of single filers. Moreover, it expands the 15 percent tax 
bracket to twice that for single taxpayers, phasing the increase in 
over a 6-year period. In all, the bill provides over a 10-year period 
more than $182 billion in tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure also provides an increase to the earned 
income tax credit, EITC, for working poor families, by raising by 
$2,000 the amount of income a couple filing jointly may earn before the 
EITC benefits begin to phase out.
  Currently, the Tax Code punishes married couples where both partners 
work by driving them into a higher tax bracket. Moreover, by 
prohibiting married couples from filing combined returns whereby each 
spouse is taxed using the same rate applicable to an unmarried 
individual, this Tax Code penalizes marriage and encourages couples to 
live together without any formal legal commitment to each other.
  The CBO further found that most severely affected by the penalty were 
those couples with near equal salaries and those receiving the earned 
income tax credit.
  This portion of the current Tax Code simply does not make sense. It 
discourages marriages. It is unfair to female taxpayers and 
disproportionately affects the working and middle-class populations who 
are struggling to make ends meet. For these reasons, this marriage tax 
needs to be repealed and, accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support 
this timely, appropriate legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans consistently use this word bipartisan, 
bipartisan, bipartisan. To be bipartisan, it would mean that they have 
some type of an agreement with the Democrats, and certainly that would 
include the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, to say that we have some Democrats and not enough to 
override a veto hardly seems to be a truly bipartisan effort.
  It reminds me of the story that someone who asks what was the recipe 
of this very delicious horse and rabbit stew, and they said it was 
equal part rabbit and equal part horse; that is, you put in one horse 
and you put in one rabbit, and that is not exactly equal. Neither is 
having a handful of Democrats something that my colleagues can call 
bipartisan.
  If my colleagues want to be bipartisan, let us sit down with the 
leadership of your side and our side and the President of the United 
States and get something that is not a political statement but 
something that we can go home so proud that we have something signed 
into law that brings relief and not something that makes people in 
Philadelphia feel good.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, we are not legislating today, we are 
choreographing for the upcoming Republican National Convention in 
Philadelphia. If we were legislating today, we would be doing as my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) just said, we would 
be sitting down in a bipartisan fashion and trying to figure out a way 
in which we could fix H.R. 4810, the bill before us today, that could 
get a true bipartisan vote for it, and would address some of the flaws 
in the underlying bill.
  For instance, the underlying bill does nothing about the alternative 
minimum tax, and the gentleman knows very well that there are many 
American families who actually do suffer a marriage tax penalty but 
also have children, two or more children, I have two children, I assume 
I would be subject to this at some point, that they would hit the AMT, 
and they would not get any benefit, if any at all, of what is proposed 
in H.R. 4810, but the bill does not take care of it.
  The Democratic substitute does, perhaps that is something my 
colleagues might want to pick up in their bill.
  Second of all, the underlying bill goes far beyond the efforts to 
address the marriage tax penalty, because we know from studies, 
nonpartisan studies, that about 48 percent of Americans suffer from a 
marriage tax penalty, about 42 percent get a marriage bonus, and the 
underlying bill does not just try to address the marriage tax penalty, 
it gives an additional bonus to

[[Page 13991]]

those who are already getting a bonus under the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, why is that under the manacle of the marriage tax 
penalty; that should be addressed, but the other side does not want to 
do it, instead they come up and say, oh, we want to take care of them 
too. That is not addressing what the underlying bill is; Democrats, in 
our bill, try to fix that.
  Finally, the President has put a pretty good offer on the table. He 
said if we want to have a marriage tax penalty bill, he would be 
willing to work with us on that, but let us have a prescription drug 
plan under Medicare for senior citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I just spent a week back in my district having senior 
citizen town hall meetings. I heard time and time again about the 
rising costs of pharmaceuticals, the rising demand for prescription 
drugs among senior citizens and the fact that they cannot pay for it. 
And the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against bringing a bill. 
When they finally did bring a bill to the floor, it was a bill that 
would subsidize insurance companies to do something they did not want 
to do, quite frankly, under your standard, in fact, exceeding your 
standard of, quote, unquote, bipartisanship, there was bipartisan 
opposition to the Republican bill that they put on the floor.
  The President has laid an offer on the table. Mr. Roth, the gentleman 
from Delaware, in the other body, has put a bill on the floor that is 
like the President's bill and the Democratic bill to try and address 
this, but the Republican leadership in the House does not want to have 
anything to do with it because they do not want to legislate.
  They want to go to Philadelphia, have a convention, say, look what 
the Democrats will not let us do, even though we are in the majority. 
If you give us a President and give us complete control of the 
Congress, look at what we will do.
  We have already seen what my colleagues cannot do and what my 
colleagues do not want to do, and that is what this debate is about 
today.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my good friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen) that not only does our balanced budget this year provide 
$40 billion for prescription drugs and that we passed it 2 weeks ago, 
but also point out when he talks about a portion of the relief here 
going to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, the 
Democratic alternative, one half of the relief it provides goes to 
those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, so same goes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) that if he chooses to vote against this 
bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote 
to deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the 25th district of Texas relief 
from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair.
  I want to extend an invitation to my good friend from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) to join the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership and 
supported our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty 
earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Lewis), a good friend and distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, where did we get the marriage 
penalty tax? Where have we had the tax burden placed on our shoulders 
in this country, where the average family pays 40 percent of their 
income in local, State and Federal taxes, a big chunk that of the 
Federal taxes, where did we get all of these taxes?
  When I came here to Congress in 1994, the Democrats had control of 
the Congress. In 1995, Republicans won the majority. And since 1995, we 
have not passed one tax increase, not one. We have cut taxes, but we 
have not passed a tax increase.
  Where did we get all of these taxes that are burdening and pressing 
down on the American people today? One of the worst taxes is the 
marriage penalty tax. Where did we get them?
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats controlled, our friends on the left, 
controlled this House for 40 years. And also when I got here, we had a 
debt of $5\1/2\ trillion, and the spending was going up. The deficits 
were $200 billion.
  I think they have never seen a tax that they did not like. I do not 
think they had ever seen an opportunity to spend more money that they 
did not like. They love taxes. They love big spending, and every time 
we try to do any tax cuts in this House, it is always a battle. It is 
always a fight. They never want to cut taxes. Why? Because, friends, 
there is not enough money in this world, I think, for them to spend.
  There is not enough projects for them to think up to spend the 
taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, it is time to start cutting taxes.
  I remember also in 1995 when we wanted to balance a budget, they 
fought us every inch of the way. I remember in 1995, when we wanted to 
cut taxes, they fought us every inch of the way, fought us all the way 
up until finally in 1997, the President finally signed into law a 
Balanced Budget Act that cut taxes. Actually, we balanced the budget. 
You know what? We have been paying down debt. We paid down $140 billion 
since 1997 in paying down the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, they said it could not be done. They said we could not 
balance the budget. They said we could not cut taxes, but it has been 
done. We have walled off Social Security.
  Medicare was going to go bankrupt in 2 years, in 2 years, from 1995. 
We reformed Medicare. Finally, in 1997, the President signed it into 
law, and Medicare now is safe for 25 years, 25 years into the future.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, well I hope the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), 
when he is doing all that research about the Republican majority, would 
just check the records and find out that they have so tried to protect 
the vested special interests that they have added 1,543 pages to the 
Internal Revenue Code. That is not exactly pulling it up by the roots.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the action of the Republican 
leadership reminds me of a quote from Marie Antoinette, ``Let them eat 
cake.''
  The American people are crying out to us to improve health care, 
education, housing, and Medicare; but this Republican Leadership keeps 
giving them what I call reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the working 
people and the poor people to give tax breaks to their friends.
  As we debate the Marriage Penalty Act today, programs that serve 
millions of Americans are being ignored. The Older Americans Act, which 
provide meals, transportation, and service to our most vulnerable 
seniors, have yet to be reauthorized. The Ryan White Care Act, which 
provides counseling and medical treatments to those poorest children 
suffering with AIDS, has yet to be reauthorized. The Patients' Bill of 
Rights, which would finally give the American public some control over 
their health care, died in conference.
  Tonight, thousands of American war heroes will go to bed on the 
streets, millions of American children will go to bed hungry, and 
millions of Americans will go to bed wondering how much longer their 
bodies can fight against AIDS, cancer, diabetes, lupus, and hundreds of 
other curable diseases.
  As I speak, delegates to the International AIDS Conference are 
deciding how to deal with the 4.2 million South Africans infected with 
HIV while this Congress sticks its head in the sand. Unfortunately for 
those people, today on this House floor we are once again debating a 
tax bill that helps only a few and ignore the real problems we are 
facing as a Nation.
  I can only hope that my colleagues do not suffer the same fate as 
Marie Antoinette. Maybe I hope they do.
  Support fair marriage tax relief. Vote yes on the substitute, and let 
us get back to working for the people that sent us here to do it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 13992]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) 
that, if she chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty, that she would be voting against 6 million 
senior citizens who benefit from the legislation to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. But specifically, she would be voting to deny 
89,000 married taxpayers in the 3rd District of Florida relief from the 
marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I invite her to join with 
us in a bipartisan effort, rather, to join with the 48 House Democrats 
who broke with their leadership and voted in an effort, in a bipartisan 
way, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for his efforts in championing this issue in this Congress and 
really fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer. The gentleman 
should be commended for his efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to reject the substitute very simply because it 
is bad for the people I represent. Very often, there are those here who 
underestimate the people of this great country. They underestimate that 
the people of this country work hard, that they are out there toiling 
in the fields or working back home where I am proud to represent in 
Staten Island and Brooklyn every day, 5, 6, 7 days a week. When they 
send that check to Uncle Sam, it is okay to send a little bit back.
  So for those who underestimate the American people, it is 
understandable how they are here justifying keeping more money here in 
Washington.
  I and others who will vote for this legislation have a very simple 
principle, I think, in mind; and that is the people that we represent 
work too hard to be taken for granted, that when we have the 
opportunity to do so, like give them some of their money back, we 
should take advantage of it.
  So when I go back home this weekend and I see the cop who is married 
to the fireman or the cop married to the teacher or the nurse married 
to the small business owner, and they ask me, How did it go this week?, 
I can say, Do you know what, we voted for legislation that will give 
you almost $1,000 or $1,500 more in your family's pocketbook. That 
means that you, you the people of this country will have the freedom to 
choose what to do with their money.
  Folks right now are contemplating going on vacation. Some are saying, 
what if we had a few more bucks, we can go away for a week or 2 weeks 
this summer. Some of them cannot do it. Maybe with this money they can. 
They are going to send off their child to kindergarten this September 
or to college. They are contemplating, where are we going to get the 
money from for Johnny or Lisa's education. Well, with this money, they 
can do it. Or they are contemplating buying some new clothes for their 
kids. Right now they cannot do it. With this money, they can.
  There are those who are doing work on their house. They say, we would 
really like to put an extension on the back or put a deck on the 
backyard or perhaps get a swimming pool. Right now, they cannot do it. 
With this, they can.
  So I feel very confident in knowing that the American people who have 
worked so hard to achieve this surplus, that too many in Washington are 
taking credit for, those individuals, the people that I represent, I 
can go back home, the constituents of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), he can go back home, and say, Do you know what folks, you have 
earned this.
  Let us vote for true marriage tax penalty relief.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it could be that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella) is reading an entirely different bill than the Republicans 
have been really pushing, because any editorial people who understand 
the bill have called it a fraud.
  Certainly this is not a question of giving the taxpayers back their 
money. We have a responsibility to pay down the Federal debt. When one 
does that, that is giving back money. To protect the Social Security 
system, that is a responsibility we have. God knows, if one goes to the 
town hall meetings and sees the people that work so hard to make this 
country as great as it is, and they cannot even afford to get 
prescription drugs, that is our responsibility.
  So just because one wants to help the rich, one cannot hide behind it 
and say it is their money. America has an interest in making certain 
that all of our citizens are protected, and not just the wealthy few.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, since I came to Congress, I have been 
fighting to eliminate the marriage penalty. But we need to do it in a 
way that eliminates the marriage penalty's impact on the AMT. We need 
to do it in a way that provides the earned income tax credit for low-
income married couples.
  We need real marriage penalty relief. In fact, the Democratic 
substitute does more for those who deserve and need real marriage 
penalty relief than does the more expensive Republican plan. It is more 
generous, the Democratic substitute is, to those who pay a marriage 
penalty, and somewhat less generous to those who are getting a marriage 
bonus, actually paying less taxes because they are a married couple.
  I want to reduce taxes on married couples now. The Democratic 
substitute has one tremendous advantage over the Republican bill. It 
will be signed into law. It is real legislation. In contrast, the 
Republican bill is a good press release for some. They know it will 
never be signed into law. It will never save a single married couple a 
single penny.
  What we need to do is pass the Democratic substitute now. Then we can 
come back in September. By then, hopefully, that estate tax repeal bill 
will have been killed; and we will know at that point that we can 
afford to provide an additional increment of tax cuts to married 
couples while at the same time protecting Social Security and Medicare, 
paying down the debt, and providing a real prescription drug benefit 
for our seniors.
  I hope the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) would join me in 
voting for the motion to recommit to protect the 92,571 seniors in his 
district that urgently need real pharmaceutical coverage. These seniors 
deserve his help. Join with us, not in providing those seniors with 
some phony plan that invites them to pay an arm and a leg for a phony 
Medigap policy. Join with us in providing the seniors of the 
gentleman's district and mine with real pharmaceutical drug efforts.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
that 6 million senior citizens will benefit from our bipartisan efforts 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I also note that, if he chooses 
to vote against our bipartisan efforts to eliminate marriage tax 
penalty, that he will deny 123,000 married taxpayers, including seniors 
in the 24th district of California relief from the marriage tax 
penalty. That is just not fair.
  I invite the gentleman from California to join with us, join the 48 
House Democrats who broke from their leadership and voted in a 
bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the base bill, 
H.R. 4810, and in opposition to the substitute that discriminates 
against many married folks, homeowners, and charities alike, and offer 
my congratulations to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for 
fighting this great fight.
  In fact, this is one of the reasons why I ran for this office, 
because I really feel strongly that this Tax Code is unfair. It is 
voluminous. We cannot understand it. It needs to be reformed. It needs 
to be reduced to something that is simple and fair.
  Let us talk about fairness, because that is what this base bill does. 
Now,

[[Page 13993]]

let us remember what the marriage penalty does. It taxes working 
families. It taxes when both parents have to work to support their 
families. That is fundamentally unfair that married people have to pay 
more in taxes than if they were single.
  So what do we do? This bill treats all married folks equally. That is 
part of what fairness in tax codes are, not discriminating against some 
in favor of others, but treating them all fairly. That is what this 
legislation does in creating the standard deduction, doubling it for 
married folks, and increasing the gap in the 15 percent.
  We are helping the people in most need, like good friends of mine 
that I grew up with, both work in not-good-paying jobs. They certainly 
are not the wealthy folks that we hear demagogued on the other side of 
the aisle, but just hard-working folks that work hard to have a good 
house in a decent neighborhood, supply a house and a roof for their 
children. Yet they will pay as much as $1,400 more in taxes. Working 
class pay about $1,100 more in taxes.
  Now, that is money that they can use to spend quality time with their 
children, to take vacations that they do not take now because both are 
working so hard. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
fair bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, life is about choices and 
priorities. Like a lot of Democrats, and I am not one of those 48 and I 
am proud of it, that supported the Republican plan, I do support 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty. But there is a reasonable way to 
do it. That is one choice we can make. That is a priority. It is not 
the only priority we have on this floor.
  Sometimes I think the majority forgets that these days are not days 
in an end. We have to look at the whole picture. But one cannot have it 
both ways. One cannot increase the defense spending like they want to 
do, provide veterans benefits that we all want to do, to provide health 
care, do what we need to do about education, providing smaller class 
sizes and actually buildings that are safe, provide prescription drugs 
for our seniors and not a fake plan that just gives them an insurance 
policy, and really safeguard Medicare for the next generation. One 
cannot do all that and still promise the world in tax cuts.
  One cannot do it without going back to the deficit spending that they 
all say they are against. One could go back to that spending that says 
we are going to spend $200 billion more a year than what we are doing, 
than what we are taking in.
  That is what is wrong with the Republican plan for marriage tax 
penalty. We need to eliminate it. We need to eliminate it on a 
reasonable basis. But we need to make sure we continue our priorities 
as not just tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
  Now that we have a budget in balance and actually a surplus, we need 
to make sure we take care of what the American people want us to do. 
Those same people that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) said 
a while ago have a few bucks in their pocket, they want to take maybe 
an extra vacation. I will tell my colleagues what they would rather 
have is prescription drugs for their parent than maybe have that money 
in their pocket, because those are the choices we are making on this 
floor today.
  We need to make sure that we provide education for those children 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) wants to take care of, 
veterans health care, prescription drugs for seniors. Maybe they ought 
to listen to their Senator from Delaware who wants to make it part of 
Medicare. Medicare providers need assistance, Mr. Speaker. Life is 
about choices and priorities, and hopefully we will make the right one 
today.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to my good friend from Texas that if he chooses to vote against 
this bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will 
be voting to deny 92,000 married taxpayers in the 29th District of 
Texas relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair.
  And I want to extend an invitation to my good friend to join us and 
join those 48 House Democrats who broke with their leadership to vote 
in a bipartisan way to give marriage tax relief
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his great leadership on this issue.
  I have been listening to the debate here over the last several 
minutes and it occurred to me we are hearing a lot of argument from the 
other side as to how we cannot do this because we have to pay down debt 
and we have to protect Social Security and Medicare and we have to keep 
the budget balanced, and I thought to myself, I was not here in the 
last 40 years but when the other side controlled this Congress, there 
was not any of those things that were accomplished.
  We are now paying down debt, we have balanced the budget, we have 
walled off Social Security, and we intend to do it for Medicare. Those 
are all things that are happening as a result of the leadership of the 
Republican Congress.
  I might also add that the marriage penalty when you listen to people 
talk on this side about the rich, all those rich people out there, I do 
not know who they are talking about. I grew up in a small town in South 
Dakota of 650 people. I do not have any rich friends out there. We have 
a lot of people who are farmers or schoolteachers or small business 
people, and they need help paying for their kids' college education, 
paying the mortgage, all those expenses that are associated with their 
daily living. These people are not rich.
  I want to give an example of that. I had a guy come into my office. 
He was making $46,000 a year and his wife was making $21,000 a year. 
They had two kids and were in their mid-30s. This year they paid $1,950 
more in taxes because they were married. That is flat wrong. One thing 
the people in South Dakota know, in those small towns and rural areas, 
those people who are not rich that I grew up with, they know what is 
unfair. This thing is unfair.
  We are talking today about eliminating unfairness in the Tax Code and 
restoring some level of common sense so that people are treated equally 
under the Tax Code, so that those people who work hard in this country, 
those working families, are not penalized because they are married. We 
believe in fairness in South Dakota, and we believe in the institution 
of marriage in South Dakota.
  The Democrat plan is not fair and it penalizes homeowners by allowing 
people who are itemizing not to benefit from this. We need to pass this 
legislation on behalf of the 75,000 couples in South Dakota who would 
benefit from it, and I urge the House to pass this and send it on.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just came from the Department of Health 
and Human Services building, where the Secretary was celebrating the 
35th anniversary of Medicare, and it was a great moment to talk about 
when Medicare was signed. But one of the things that Secretary Shalala 
said, and most dramatically, was how we had to revise Medicare, make 
sure it was solvent, make sure it was there for our seniors and make 
sure there was a prescription drug benefit.
  The problem with the Republican proposal is it is not necessarily 
such a bad idea, but it costs too much and it is a needless waste of 
the surplus that could be used for other things, most importantly to 
expand Medicare, to make sure that Social Security is available, to 
make sure we have a prescription drug plan.
  What the Democrats are saying with the substitute is we are in favor 
of a marriage tax penalty change, we want to make sure people are not 
penalized, but let us do it in a targeted fiscally sound way. Let us 
make sure whatever

[[Page 13994]]

the surplus is, we do not spend a trillion dollars on different kinds 
of tax relief that is mainly going to the wealthy, and break it down in 
little parts like we are doing with this bill today, but rather make 
sure what we do first is to make sure that Social Security and Medicare 
are available and that Medicare is updated to include prescription 
drugs.
  Now, what I am afraid is happening here today is that if we do not 
pass this substitute, and if we do not pass the motion to recommit that 
says that we are going to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit, 
then what will happen is that nothing is ever going to pass. The 
President already said he will not sign this Republican bill, that it 
spends too much money.
  Well, the bottom line is if we want to get anything done here and we 
want to have this be a ``do something'' Congress rather than a ``do-
nothing'' Congress, then why not go along with what the President has 
proposed. Basically what the President is saying, and what the motion 
to recommit says, is we will take even the proposal of the marriage tax 
penalty the Republicans put forth, even though it spends too much 
money, but we will even go along with it as long as we can have the 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
  If the Republicans really want to get something done and not have 
this be a ``do-nothing'' Congress, they should go along with the 
substitute, go along with the motion to recommit, and then we will 
accomplish something.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to my good friend from New Jersey that if he chooses to vote 
against our bipartisan effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, 
that he will be voting to deny 128,000 married taxpayers in the Sixth 
District of New Jersey relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that 
is just not fair.
  And I want to invite my good friend to join those 48 House Democrats 
who broke with their leadership and vote in a bipartisan way to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the base bill.
  As one of my constituents said in a town meeting last month, 
``Marriage is penalty enough, we don't need the government penalizing 
marriage with this special marriage penalty tax.'' And yet the Internal 
Revenue Service pushes many couples, simply for being married, into a 
higher tax bracket, and generally this is targeted on the income of the 
second wage earner, typically the wife, at a much higher rate than if 
she were taxed only as an individual.
  I want to give my colleagues an example. A young woman was in my 
office on Friday. In terms of her own tax return, it means several 
thousand dollars of additional taxes if she makes the decision to get 
married. Now, if we go with the substitute motion, then we discriminate 
against those who itemize. She owns a house. As a result of the 
payments, those are deductible, so she itemizes. Those who make a 
payment toward their church or synagogue as a contribution, those are 
tax deductible. So we would be discriminating against those 
individuals.
  Let us treat everyone fairly. That is what the Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act does. It provides relief from the marriage tax penalty, 
a penalty that is keeping many parents from doing all they want for 
their children, a penalty that, frankly, is keeping many young couples 
from getting married because they would be pushed into that higher 
bracket.
  Many times both parents have to work full time, when one of them may 
prefer to work part time and spend more time with the children. This 
bill will help. As I say, the average penalty, right now, is $1,400 a 
year more in taxes than if they were single. Over a decade, as she 
pointed out to me, this young fiance, that money could go toward a 
family car, a college education, a downpayment on a home.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Rangel 
substitute, which will assist more than 60,000 married families in my 
district.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be relief from the marriage tax 
penalty, but the way it's being done in this bill is wrong. Working 
Americans should not have to pay extra just because they want to get 
married. The 25 million American couples who are affected by this 
unfair tax should be able to use the money saved to purchase a new 
home, or for child care. Right now, if this bill were to pass, American 
married families would still be taxed at the same rate they were taxed 
before. The Rangel substitute fixes the flaws in this bill and enables 
America's married families to truly see their taxes reduced.
  In my district alone this substitute will help well over 60,000 
married families. It is my hope we will get past all of the politics 
and come together to provide a bill that truly provides fairness and 
equity to our American families.
  I want to extend an invitation to my Republican friends on the other 
side of the aisle to join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a fair and sensible way. Vote for 
the Rangel substitute and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, my last Republican colleague said that 
marriage in itself is a penalty. I am married 22 years now, and it is 
not a penalty.
  My colleagues, the Democrats have a real plan to eliminate the unfair 
marriage tax penalty within a budget that continues to pay down our 
debt, that protects Social Security and Medicare, and allows for a 
prescription drug benefit that is so important to seniors today who are 
being choked by the cost of prescription drugs today.
  Our plan eliminates the marriage penalty, and it rewards work by 
strengthening the earned income tax credit. It fixes the marriage 
penalty, it keeps us on a course of fiscal discipline, that course that 
has brought us the most successful and the most dynamic economy in 
history. It is a responsible tax proposal and tax relief that the 
American public supports.
  I support marriage penalty tax relief for the families of 
Connecticut. That is what our plan does and it does not risk our fiscal 
discipline. It provides $76.4 billion in marriage tax penalty relief 
and an additional $12.7 billion for working families who need the help 
that is provided by the earned income tax. It is a plan that ends the 
penalty on marriage, it rewards work, and it allows our economic boom 
to continue.
  The Republican plan is too big. It is skewed toward the wealthiest 
Americans. As part of the $800 billion Republican tax cut, it threatens 
Social Security and Medicare, it does not allow us to continue to pay 
down the debt that has brought interest rates down in this country, and 
it does not allow us to offer a prescription drug benefit through 
Medicare, which is the way in which it should go. It is not fair. It 
provides nearly two-thirds of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans 
and only about 41 cents a day in tax relief to families making less 
than $50,000 a year.
  It is not tax fairness. Support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains in debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has used his 
entire allotment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. He has.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
would inform the previous speaker that if she chooses to vote against 
our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, she will 
be voting to deny 110,000 married taxpayers in the third district of 
Connecticut relief from the marriage tax penalty.
  I want to extend to my friend from Connecticut an invitation to join 
with us and to join with those 48 House Democrats who broke with their 
leadership to vote in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 545, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill

[[Page 13995]]

and on the 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 228, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               AYES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Waters

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska and Mr. CANNON changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KANJORSKI and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 4810) 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 insert the following new section:

     SEC. 5. TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUG BENEFIT AND NO ON-BUDGET DEFICIT.

       Subsection (f) of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (as amended by section 3 of this Act) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Limitation on tax reductions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The benefits of paragraph (8) (and the 
     benefits of sections 2 and 4 of the Marriage Tax Penalty 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000) shall be allowed for 
     taxable years beginning in any calendar year only if the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies (before the close of such 
     calendar year) that each of the conditions specified in 
     subparagraph (B) are met with respect to such calendar year.
       ``(B) Conditions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     conditions specified in this subparagraph for any calendar 
     year are the following:
       ``(i) No on-budget deficit.--Allowing the tax benefits 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) to be effective for taxable 
     years beginning in the calendar year, when added to the cost 
     of the coverage described in clause (ii), would not create or 
     increase an on-budget deficit (determined by excluding the 
     receipts and disbursements of part A of the medicare program) 
     for the fiscal year beginning in such calendar year.
       ``(ii) Prescription drug coverage.--Coverage for outpatient 
     prescription drugs is provided for Medicare beneficiaries 
     under the Medicare Program on a voluntary basis at all times 
     during the calendar year with--

       ``(I) the premium for such coverage being not more than $25 
     per month (adjusted for cost increases after 2003) with low-
     income assistance for Medicare beneficiaries having incomes 
     below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level and phasing 
     out for such beneficiaries having incomes between 135 percent 
     and 150 percent of the Federal poverty level,
       ``(II) no deductible required before such coverage is 
     provided,
       ``(III) the amount of the benefit being at least 50 percent 
     of prescription drug expenses not in excess of the coverage 
     limit (as defined in subparagraph (C)),
       ``(IV) a $4,000 limitation (adjusted for cost increases 
     after 2003) on out-of-pocket prescription drug expenses of 
     electing Medicare beneficiaries, and

[[Page 13996]]

       ``(V) all Medicare beneficiaries entitled to receive the 
     discounts (otherwise available to large prescription drug 
     purchasers) on their purchases of prescription drugs.

       ``(C) Coverage limit.--The coverage limit is $2,000 for 
     calendar years 2003 and 2004, $3,000 for calendar years 2005 
     and 2006, $4,000 for calendar years 2007 and 2008, and $5,000 
     for calendar year 2009 and thereafter (with adjustments for 
     cost increases).
       ``(D) Transition rule.--For calendar years 2001 and 2002, 
     the conditions specified in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be 
     treated as met if the Secretary of the Treasury certifies 
     that coverage described in such subparagraph will be 
     available as of January 1, 2003.''

  Mr. RANGEL (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 New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk today about 
bipartisanship. We do have unanimity on trying to remove an inequity 
that exists in the Tax Code. And we are fortunate that because the 
economy has been kinder to us that we can do something about it.
  Bipartisanship to me means that the majority has to work with the 
minority and work with the President of the United States and not 
legislate and pass laws that they know that are going to be vetoed, 
but, rather, see how we can come together as Democrats and Republicans 
and do what is not best for our respective conventions but what is good 
for the people of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, to explain this more fully, I yield to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, to 
close out the motion to recommit with a suggestion that would allow us 
to make law and not politics.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that today's debate on this 
bill is a chance for us to begin to talk about a compromise that will 
achieve a lot of the ends that our friends have on the other side of 
the aisle and a lot of the ends and goals that people on our side of 
the aisle have.
  Our discomfort with their version of the bill is not about the fact 
that they are trying to deal with the marriage penalty. I think the 
vast majority of Members believe that we need to do something to fix 
this problem of the marriage penalty. We think there is a way to do 
this that costs a good deal less than the bill that they are presenting 
today. We say that with all respect and humility. We think there is a 
way to work our way to a common conclusion that will really attack this 
problem of the marriage penalty and cost about half, maybe a little 
less than half of what their bill costs.
  We think that is important because at the end of this year, we are 
likely to be talking about a number of tax measures, some of which we 
have already voted on, others which we will vote on in the next weeks. 
The President sent to us, when he did his reestimate of the budget, 
this pie chart. This pie chart sets out $500 billion of the surplus in 
a reserve to frankly be decided by the next Congress and Congresses 
after that. We think that makes sense. But this budget also puts money 
into Medicare solvency and debt reduction, money into a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit plan, a lot like the one we presented 2 weeks 
ago, and $263 billion for targeted tax cuts.
  If we do as much as they are asking to do today for the marriage 
penalty alone, it means other good tax cut ideas that there is a lot of 
support for will fall by the wayside. So we believe it is important 
that we try to work together to come to a series of ideas for tax cuts 
that we all can support that will fit within this budgetary $263 
billion. Now, we further think their bill today is not giving the 
relief on the marriage penalty that we really need and that we hope 
that we can offer to people.
  Finally, the President said 2 weeks ago that he understands the 
requirement and the desire on the part of Republicans to do something 
about the marriage penalty. He said he is more than happy to sit down 
and try to work out a marriage penalty reduction that he would sign 
this year. I think the same holds true of other tax cut ideas that have 
been presented. But in return for that, he wants to also be able to sit 
down to be able to get a Medicare prescription drug benefit plan that 
we all can agree with as part of settling these important issues.
  Let me finally say that if you are suffering from the marriage 
penalty, you want relief now, this year, not next year. You do not want 
just a veto of a bill that results in nothing. If you are on Medicare 
prescription drugs, and you are having trouble paying for your 
prescriptions, you want relief now, this year, not next year.
  My mother is 92 years old. She is doing great by the grace of God, 
but every time I go home, she says, What are you all doing on that 
Medicare prescription drug plan? I may not be alive next year.
  I want to be able to tell her, We're going to get something done this 
year.
  Let us work together. Vote for this motion to recommit. Let us work 
together to get this done for the American people.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend, the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the 
minority leader, I want to just say this, and that is today we are here 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. That is our goal today.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, they have offered reasons 
to vote against eliminating the marriage tax penalty, and let me give 
one pretty basic good reason to vote against the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit, as designed by my friends on the Democratic 
side of the aisle, is designed to enact zero marriage penalty relief. 
The Joint Tax Committee, which is a bipartisan committee, has scored 
this as providing zero marriage tax relief.
  With all due respect, I would point out that just 2 weeks ago this 
House enacted a good plan, a $40 billion plan, to provide prescription 
drug coverage for every senior who wants to have that coverage. That is 
a great accomplishment. My hope is we could do it in a bipartisan way. 
So my recommendation, of course, and I rise in opposition, is to vote 
to reject the motion to recommit.
  Let us talk about the real issue that is before us today, and that 
issue is a basic goal of this Congress, and that is to bring about tax 
fairness. I represent a very diverse district, city, suburbs and 
country on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs.
  As I talk with my constituents, they often talk about their taxes. 
They complain not only are their taxes too high, but they are unfair 
and they are too complicated. They often ask a pretty basic question, 
and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, that a 
married working couple, husband and wife, a two-income household, pay 
higher taxes just because they are married?
  Mr. Speaker, they often ask the question, is it right, is it fair, 
that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay on 
average $1,400 more in higher taxes? Often I have come to this well, 
and I have talked about who benefits from our effort to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty.
  The district I represent, 60,000 seniors, as well as working 
families, will benefit. I also want to introduce Shad and Michelle 
Hallihan. Many of you have seen Shad and Michelle Hallihan in their 
wedding photo. Well, that was about the time we introduced the 
legislation, and because of the delay in enacting this into law, Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan have since had a baby, and little Ben is now 
their pride and joy.
  I would point out that for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is real 
money.

[[Page 13997]]

In Joliet, Illinois, for two public school teachers by the name of Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is a year's tuition at a community 
college, 3 months of day care, it is a washer and a dryer, and, 
frankly, if we enact this into law over the next 17 years, they will be 
able to set aside almost $25,000 if they put that marriage tax penalty 
into little Ben's college fund. It is real money for real people.
  I would point out that the Democratic motion to recommit denies 
marriage tax relief for good people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. 
But our bipartisan proposal, identical to the proposal that received 
overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this year, will help working 
married couples like Michelle and Shad.
  We help those who do not itemize by doubling the standard deduction 
to twice that for joint filers for single filers. We help those who 
itemize, people who own homes and give money to church and charity, by 
widening the 15 percent tax bracket. We help the working poor by 
providing marriage tax relief for those who participate in the earned 
income tax credit, and we also protect those who need the child tax 
credit from the alternative minimum tax.
  The bottom line is we help every one of the 25 million married 
working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. And what is it all 
about? Today it is all about fairness, fairness for these 25 million 
married working couplings.
  I want to extend an invitation to my friend on the other side of the 
aisle. February, when we passed this legislation, 48 House Democrats 
joined with every Member of the House to pass this legislation with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. I want to extend that invitation again 
today, to vote no on this motion to recommit, which provides zero 
marriage tax relief, and to vote yes on a bipartisan proposal that 
will.
  We all know the President has changed his mind before. My hope is the 
President will join with us in a bipartisan proposal to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty by signing this legislation into law when he 
receives it within the next 2 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members, please vote no on the motion to recommit, 
please vote aye on our efforts, our bipartisan efforts, to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty once and for all.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit 
the bill.
  I oppose the Republican so-called Marriage Penalty Relief Act because 
it fails to appropriately address the problem for which it is named. 
Instead of addressing the needs of families who pay an actual tax 
penalty for being married, this bill provides broad tax relief to a 
host of families who are actually already enjoying a marriage bonus. It 
makes no sense to squander $182 billion of our limited federal 
resources throwing money away in this manner. There are far more 
important federal priorities.
  It is because of these other priorities that I rise in support of the 
Democratic motion to recommit. Under our motion to recommit, we would 
begrudgingly accept the Republican Marriage Penalty legislation, but 
the tax reductions would be prohibited from going into effect until a 
real Medicare prescription drug benefit was enacted.
  Seniors are in vital need of a Medicare prescription drug benefit and 
the Republican sham bill passed here in the House of Representatives 
last month is no solution. Seniors aren't looking for the opportunity 
to be overcharged and under-provided for in another private insurance 
plan as would happen under the Republican bill.
  Seniors want a drug benefit that is treated just like all of the rest 
of their benefits--as part of the Medicare program. They want a benefit 
that cannot be taken away, that will not vary if you live in a rural or 
urban area, that will not change if you live on the West Coast or in 
the mid-Atlantic states. It must offer a guaranteed benefit package and 
have an affordable premium and cost-sharing structure.
  In order to achieve the standard of a real drug benefit, the Medicare 
bill must include: A voluntary outpatient prescription drug benefit; a 
premium of not more that $25 (adjusted for cost increases), with low-
income assistance; no deductible for those benefits; the benefit must 
cover 50% of the cost up to $2,000 growing to $5,000 over time; a 
$4,000 out-of-pocket spending limit after which all costs would be 
covered by the government, and all Medicare beneficiaries would receive 
volume discounts.
  Because providing seniors with a Medicare prescription drug benefit 
is such a vital national priority and because the Republican-led 
Congress clearly has no interest in passing a bill that meets the 
standards described above, we are willing to go along with this bloated 
marriage penalty tax bill.
  Unfortunatley, I know that our motion to recommit will fail. 
Republicans would much rather continue pouring money into the pockets 
of their wealthy benefactors than address the real needs of America's 
seniors and their families.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The Chair announces that he will reduce to 5 minutes a vote by 
electronic device, if ordered, on one motion to suspend the rules on 
which further proceedings de novo were postponed yesterday, which will 
immediately follow the vote on passage of H.R. 4810.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 391]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers

[[Page 13998]]


     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1524

  Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes 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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 159, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 392]

                               AYES--269

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1532

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________