[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15204-15209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 4810, MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 553

       Resolved, That upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting any Senate amendments to 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, 
     it shall be in order to consider in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee 
     to take from the Speaker's table the bill, with any Senate 
     amendments thereto, to disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
     to request a conference with the Senate thereon or agree to 
     any request of the Senate for a conference thereon. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. House Resolution 550 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the distinguished ranking Member, my good friend, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 553 provides for consideration of a motion to go 
to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty 
Elimination Reconciliation Act. The motion will be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority Member on 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  As my colleagues will recall, the House passed H.R. 4810 last week by 
a bipartisan vote of 269 to 159. This vote marked the second time that 
the House passed this legislation and the fourth time that it has voted 
to provide marriage tax penalty relief in this 106th Congress.
  The will of the House is clear, and it is time that we finish the job 
and get this bill to the President for his signature. We are almost 
there. In fact, the Senate just passed its own version of the marriage 
tax penalty relief act by a bipartisan vote of 60 to 39. This 
resolution will allow the House to quickly respond to the Senate's 
actions by going to conference where the two bodies will negotiate a 
final marriage tax penalty elimination act that we can send to the 
President, and in doing so, we will give him the chance to make good on 
the words he spoke during his State of the Union speech.
  During that speech, the President told the American people that we 
can make ``vital investments in health care, education, support for 
working families and still offer tax cuts to help pay for college, for 
retirement, to care for aging parents and to reduce the marriage 
penalty. We can do these things without forsaking the path of fiscal 
discipline that got us to this point.''
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has helped the President meet his challenge. We 
have passed legislation to preserve Social Security for future 
generations, to provide affordable drug coverage to seniors through 
Medicare, to restore our national defense, to invest in education and 
to pay down the debt.
  We have done all of these things in the context of a balanced budget, 
and we are still swimming in surplus cash.

                              {time}  1715

  Meanwhile, 25 million American couples suffer under the unfair 
financial burden imposed by the marriage penalty. On average, they pay 
$1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single; skip the 
whole marriage thing and just live together. What kind of message is 
that for the government to send? Where is the logic in taxing marriage, 
one of the most fundamental institutions in our entire society?
  Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is real money to American families. Families can 
use this income to pay for health care, invest in a child's education 
or plan for their retirement. Sound familiar? These are all the things 
the President says that government should finance before it provides 
tax relief.
  Well, why do we not just cut out the middleman, the government, and 
let the American people make the decisions about what their needs are 
and where their money should be spent? Let us stop crippling them 
financially so they have to lean on the crutch of government.
  Eliminating the marriage penalty will help these families, especially 
the middle class and minorities, whom the marriage penalty hits the 
very hardest.
  Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the Republicans and many Democrats 
in Washington actually agree that the marriage penalty is bad policy. 
If we in Congress can agree that the marriage tax should be abolished 
then there is no reason to delay any longer in reversing this inequity 
in the Tax Code. That is why the House Republican leadership is moving 
quickly to get this bill to conference and to the President so that he 
can sign it.
  Today, with the passage of this resolution, we have the opportunity 
to show that we can come together in a bipartisan way to achieve 
something for the American people that will make a real difference in 
their lives. We can end this tax that robs hundreds, if not thousands, 
of dollars from some 25 million families each year, and let them keep 
their money to spend as they see fit on their priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why at this time of peace and 
prosperity and budget surpluses that we cannot provide this tax equity 
and relief. It is time to end the delays, the excuses and the political 
trade-offs. It is time to get the job done.
  I hope my colleagues will join me today in moving this issue forward 
and I hope the President will be true to his word and take the 
opportunity to sign this legislation when we put it on his desk. I urge 
a yes vote on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of changing the marriage tax is a very 
important one, but thus far my Republican colleagues have turned it 
into a political prop. Millions of Americans pay taxes in the higher 
income bracket after they get married than they did when they were 
single, but Democrats believe we should do something to alleviate that 
tax burden, especially on working families with children who are 
struggling to pay their bills, who are struggling to educate these 
children, and to keep them safe.
  So far, my Republican colleagues have charted out a series of bills 
that do a lot more to help the rich get richer than they do help 
working families get shoes on their kids. Meanwhile, my Republican 
colleagues have rejected Democratic bills that would actually help 
middle-income working families by increasing the standard deduction for 
married couples until it is twice that of a single person. Our bills 
would also change the alternative minimum tax so that all promised 
taxes would actually take effect. That way working families would get 
the help they need rather than a lot of posturing just before a 
convention.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill would be better named the Philadelphia 
Story, because it is a lot more about the Republican Convention in 
Philadelphia than it is about helping working

[[Page 15205]]

American people, and this is a part of the pattern. Almost a year ago 
my Republican colleagues tried to enact a trillion dollar package of 
tax cuts, primarily for the rich, that would have endangered Social 
Security and do just about nothing for the everyday Americans.
  Now they are foisting that package on us once again, Mr. Speaker, and 
this time it is in increments; but if one reassembles it, if one puts 
it all together, the result is the same.
  According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Republican plan gives 
the richest 1 percent of Americans an average of a tax cut of $23,119. 
Meanwhile, it gives families with incomes of $30,000 only $131. That 
does not sound like equity to me, Mr. Speaker.
  I think it is time my Republican colleagues stop writing bills to 
make the rich richer and started writing bills to help everyone else. 
This conference is a great place to start.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my distinguished colleague, a gentleman who 
has put so much time and effort in this Marriage Penalty Relief Act, a 
gentleman who has brought two people and made them household names to 
the American public, Shad and Michelle, and we will hear about them 
now.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce), my good friend, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), for the opportunity to address this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty. I rise in strong support of the House and Senate going to 
conference and sending to the President this week legislation that 
wipes out what I consider to be the most unfair tax of all.
  We have often asked from the well of the House a pretty simple, basic 
question. That is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 
million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are 
married? Is it right, is it fair, that 25 million married working 
couples pay on average $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are 
married? And today, the only way to avoid that marriage tax penalty 
when both the man and the women that are in the workforce is either not 
get married or get divorced.
  It is wrong that under our Tax Code one pays higher taxes just 
because they are married.
  I was so proud of this House just this past week when we passed and 
sent to the Senate legislation which wiped out the American tax penalty 
for 25 million couples. This afternoon, the Senate by a vote of 61 to 
38, an overwhelming vote, including Democrats joining with Republicans, 
voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Of course, the bills are a 
little bit different. We have to work out the differences. The bottom 
line is we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Let me give an example of a couple from the district that I represent 
in the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs who suffer the 
marriage tax penalty. This is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They are two 
public school teachers. They live just outside Joliet, Illinois. Shad 
teaches at Joliet High School. Michelle teaches at Manhattan Junior 
High. They suffer about $1,000 in marriage tax penalty. Their combined 
income is about $62,000. They are homeowners, and I would point out 
that since we introduced the bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty 
a year and a half ago Shad and Michelle have since had a little baby. 
If the Democrats have their way, this child will probably be out of 
college before we eliminate the marriage tax penalty because there is 
always an excuse not to do it today.
  The bottom line is, for Michelle and Shad Hallihan and for their new 
little baby Ben, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is real 
money. In the Joliet area, $1,400 is 3 months of day care at a local 
child care center for little Ben. $1,400 is 3,000 diapers for little 
Ben. $1,400 is one year's tuition at a community college called Joliet 
Junior College in Joliet, Illinois. It is a washer and dryer for their 
home.
  Our legislation that passed the House of Representatives will help 
people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. The Democrats talk about their 
alternative. It would leave Michelle and Shad Hallihan out. They would 
still be stuck with the marriage tax penalty.
  Under our legislation, which passed the House of Representatives with 
the vote of every Republican and also 48 Democrats who broke with their 
leadership to support the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, we 
helped couples, two public school teachers like Shad and Michelle 
Hallihan.
  As I pointed out earlier, Shad and Michelle are homeowners. They also 
have a baby and, of course, they give money to church and charity. So 
that means they itemize their taxes. Under our proposal, we double the 
standard deduction to twice that for single people, under our proposal. 
That helps those who do not itemize, but if we are going to help people 
like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, we have to help itemizers. That means 
we need to widen the tax bracket so in the 15 percent bracket two joint 
filers, a couple with two incomes, have to be able to earn twice as 
much as what a single person can earn in that tax bracket.
  Under our proposal, in the 15 percent tax bracket, we widen it so 
that two- earner households can earn twice as much. That will help Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan.
  I would point out that the proposal that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) talked about would not help those who 
itemize. And think about it. Most middle-class families who itemize 
their taxes itemize because they own a home or they give money to 
church and charity.
  We as Members of Congress can all think of our neighbors back home, 
middle-class working families who pursue the American dream; they buy a 
home and because of their mortgage interest costs and because of their 
property taxes, they itemize their taxes.
  The Democrats say if one itemizes their taxes, they are rich so they 
should continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  Now, Michelle and Shad make $62,000 a year. Back in the south suburbs 
of Chicago, that is kind of a middle-class working family. Under the 
Democrat definition of rich, they are rich making $62,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make the Tax Code more fair. When I am in 
the south side of Chicago at a steel workers hall in the Tenth Ward or 
a legion post in Joliet or at a local iron workers hall in La Salle or 
a Chamber of Commerce function or coffee shop, people tell me theirs 
taxes are too high but they also point out that the Tax Code is unfair. 
That is why we should help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. Let 
us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us go to conference.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the strong bipartisan votes for marriage tax penalty 
relief in both bodies demonstrate the will of Congress and the people 
that we represent. It is time to see if the President will join us by 
enacting this legislation. It is time to do the right thing. I urge a 
yes vote on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ARCHER. Pursuant to House Resolution 553, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to a conference with the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
553, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

[[Page 15206]]


  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal to say about this. This is a 
customary motion to go to conference with the Senate. I understand that 
the minority has a motion to instruct which is debatable for 1 hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we did debate this issue when the bill was 
before us and the chairman is correct, we do have a motion to instruct 
that we would like to offer at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 553, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
the bill H.R. 4810.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Cardin moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4810 be instructed, 
     to the maximum extent permitted within the scope of 
     conference--
       (1) to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief 
     provided to middle and low income taxpayers,
       (2) to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to 
     taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current 
     law, and
       (3) to resolve the differences in effective dates and 
     phase-in amounts in a way which takes into account fiscal 
     responsibility.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct makes it very clear that the 
conferees should try to resolve the differences between the two bodies 
so that the maximum amount of relief goes to those who need the relief, 
those that are of low- and middle income, rather than going to the 
higher income taxpayers.
  Secondly, it points out what we believe to be a major problem with 
the legislation that was passed by this body, and that is the 
legislation that was passed by this body cost about $180 billion, of 
which about 50 percent of that relief went to individuals who actually 
had a marriage bonus; that is, their taxes were actually less as a 
result of them being married. They were able to take advantage of lower 
rates because the husband and wife filed a joint return. That happens 
frequently, where one of the spouses has the majority of the income.
  What we are suggesting to the conferees is that we agree that we 
should try to deal with those that have the penalty; therefore, we 
should minimize the amount of tax relief that goes to those who are 
already receiving a bonus. Let us put the relief to those that are 
actually paying the penalty rather than putting the relief to those who 
are already getting a bonus for being married.
  Lastly, we would point out that we have to resolve the effective 
dates and phase-in amounts in a way that takes into account fiscal 
responsibility. I would hope that all of us would agree that that is 
one of the issues that we would hope our conferees would resolve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct that has been presented by the 
minority I am sure is taken in good faith, but I would say to the 
minority that it is the responsibility of our conferees to defend the 
House bill. When we go into conference with the Senate, that is what it 
is about, and we will measure up to our responsibility to defend the 
House bill.
  The motion to instruct goes beyond that. It is primarily general in 
its content; it will bring about nothing in the conference, but it will 
attempt to prevent us from being able to accelerate the day when the 
marriage penalty relief will take effect, which many of us would like 
to consider. We believe that having to wait a full 6 years before it is 
fully vested is perhaps too long a period of time, and we may well want 
to consider accelerating that relief. But if this motion to instruct 
were binding, which it is not, it would prevent us from doing that. I 
cannot embrace it because I would be embracing something that would, on 
paper, at least, appear to limit our ability to do what is in the best 
interests of the people in this conference.
  So I must reluctantly oppose this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what the motion to instruct says. 
In regards to the effective dates and phase-in amounts, we suggest that 
it be done in a fiscally responsible way. I do not know why any Member 
of this body would oppose the conference committee acting in a fiscally 
responsible way. That is part of our responsibility here.
  However, the main point of the motion to instruct, the main point is, 
yes, we want to help those people who are being penalized because they 
are married. Because they have a basically equivalent or similar 
income, they are paying a higher tax rate than they would if they were 
two individuals. Approximately half of our married couples are affected 
by the marriage penalty; about 50 percent fall into that category.
  The problem is that the legislation that passed this body provides an 
equal amount of relief to every person who is married, regardless of 
whether they are in the penalty position or the bonus position. So the 
motion to instruct simply says to the conferees, target the relief to 
those that are penalized by their marital status. Use the tax relief in 
the most cost-effective way.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would agree with this motion 
to instruct. If we are able to do that, then I think we can have a 
strong bipartisan vote and get a bill not only that will come out of 
conference and will pass this body and the other body, but will also be 
signed by the President. It is for those reasons that this motion to 
instruct is offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply explain to the Members that this motion to instruct is 
actually an oxymoron, because on the one hand it says, within the scope 
of conference, limit the marriage bonus; and yet there is no difference 
between the Senate and the House bill in that regard. It is not 
possible for us to change what they call the marriage bonus.
  But I happen to be unabashedly proud that within this legislation, in 
both the Senate and the House bill, and within the scope of conference 
it cannot be changed, a provision that helps stay-at-home moms and 
dads. They need economic help and relief as they rear their children. I 
do not walk away from that. That is a very positive part of both the 
Senate bill and the House bill, which the minority would like to undo 
and take away.
  So this cannot be changed in conference within the scope of 
conference, and the minority understands that. I do not know why they 
put that the way they did in this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just point out that the other body gave a more generous 
provision in regards to the bonuses; and, therefore, it is within the 
scope of the conference.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think the key point here, and what we are trying 
to

[[Page 15207]]

do by this motion to instruct, is target the relief to those who pay 
the penalty and to try to work out a bill that could be signed into law 
that will provide relief to our taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time; however, I do not 
know whether the gentleman from Texas has any other speakers or not.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland 
that I would be prepared to yield back as well; however, I have a very 
strong request from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has 
been a big sponsor of this legislation to be able to speak, so I hope 
the gentleman from Maryland would indulge us in that regard.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was going to yield time for closing to the 
gentleman from Illinois from our side; but instead, I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield up to 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly address my friend from 
Maryland's motion to instruct. He talks about our legislation as to 
whether or not it should be fiscally responsible. It is fiscally 
responsible. We use that surplus tax revenue and use that to bring 
fairness to the Tax Code.
  He says that we should delay implementation of the marriage tax 
relief, and I believe that would hurt those low-income and moderate-
income and middle-income families that we want to help, so we do not 
want to delay that. So I am concerned about that idea.
  Then he also talks about those who do not suffer the marriage tax 
penalty, whether or not they should receive any relief. The chairman 
pointed out the stay-at-home moms, people like my sister, Pat, who took 
a few years out of the workforce to be home with her children, so she 
could be home with the kids before they were old enough to go to 
school. I admire people who do that, and we do not mind helping them.
  I would also point out in the Democrat alternative that the House 
voted down just this past week, they provided a similar proportion of 
relief to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty. So I would 
point out their proposal did the same thing.
  Last, they talk about low- and moderate-income families. The bottom 
line is, their proposal would not help low- and moderate-income 
families who happen to be homeowners. We believe if you are a homeowner 
and itemize your taxes, you should receive relief as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I have often come to the floor of this House, along with 
many of my colleagues, and asked a very basic and fundamental question, 
and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code a married 
working couple, a husband and wife with two incomes, pay higher taxes 
under our Tax Code just because they are married; higher taxes than an 
identical working couple who choose not to marry, who choose to live 
together outside of marriage, who actually save money by not 
participating in marriage. I think it is wrong that 25 million married 
working couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just 
because they are married.
  I have with me a photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are two 
public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They suffer the marriage 
tax penalty. Their income is about $62,000 a year, their salary as 
teachers. Shad is at Joliet High School, and Michelle is at Manhattan 
Junior High. They are at similar incomes, but if they chose to stay 
single and just live together, they would save about $1,000 in taxes; 
but they chose to get married. Under our Tax Code, they pay higher 
taxes.
  I would point out that under our legislation, the only way we can 
eliminate that $1,000 marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle 
Hallihan of the Joliet area is if we help those who itemize their 
taxes, because Michelle and Shad Hallihan, of course they have a little 
baby, Ben, who is in his first year, but they also happen to be 
homeowners. Like most middle-class families who itemize their taxes, 
they are homeowners. Because their combined property taxes and mortgage 
interest are more than the standard deduction, they itemize.
  Mr. Speaker, the only way we can help those who happen to be 
homeowners, those who give to their institutions of faith and charity, 
marriage tax relief, is if we widen the tax bracket.
  Under our legislation, we double the standard deduction for those who 
do not itemize, wiping out the marriage tax penalty for, I think, about 
9 million couples.
  But in order to help all 25 million married working couples who 
suffer the marriage tax penalty, we have to help those who itemize as 
well. Under our legislation, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so 
people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan can earn twice as much and stay 
in the 15 percent tax bracket, the lowest bracket. Under our 
legislation, we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for people like 
Michelle and Shad Hallihan who make about $62,000 a year.
  Think about it: $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, that is a 
washer and a dryer. In Joliet, Illinois, for people like them, that is 
3 months of day care for little Ben at a local day care center; it is a 
year's tuition at Joliet Junior College if Shad and Michelle would like 
to go back to school.
  The bottom line is, in this Congress, we want to help our schools, we 
want to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, we want to pay down 
the national debt, and we are making tremendous progress on that 
agenda; but we also want to make the Tax Code more fair, so that if a 
husband and wife choose to get married and choose to both be in the 
workforce, they do not pay higher taxes.
  Our legislation accomplishes that goal, and we have come so far in 
this campaign to eliminate the marriage tax penalty over the last 
several years. We have an opportunity, with a strong bipartisan vote, 
and I would point out that the legislation we passed out of the House 
this past week was supported by every House Republican, and I was 
pleased to say that 48 Democrats broke with their leadership and joined 
to make it a strong bipartisan vote to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. That was a great accomplishment for this House, that Democrats 
and Republicans came together.
  My hope is that by the end of this week when we send to the President 
legislation that wipes out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million 
married working couples, that the President will join with us. I hope 
we can make it a bipartisan effort. I urge a bipartisan ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland for his leadership, and I thank the chairman 
for his leadership, along with the ranking member, on the issues that 
really bear on both our investment in this Nation and a return of the 
American public's investment in the Federal Government back to them.
  It saddens me to come to the floor of the House to have to argue 
against some of the very attractive pictures of young families with 
children, and that is not the direction that any of us are going. My 
district is a district that is enormously diverse and really has a 
large number of young families buying new homes and raising their 
children. I am very proud of the 18th Congressional District and some 
of the prosperity that we have gained and some of the opportunities for 
young families to get their first home.

                              {time}  1745

  So I do not believe that any of us who believe that the present 
marriage penalty tax format is misdirected can be accused of not 
working to support the needs of young families and those married 
couples who work so hard for what they have.
  But I just came from a hearing, I say to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin), from discussing the issues of mental health resources for 
special needs children. We were actually in a meeting trying to find 
out how we could get more resources from this Federal Government, with 
the budget

[[Page 15208]]

caps that we have, with the appropriations fight we are in, and trying 
to share the few dollars that we have, and trying to help those 
children with special needs, those broken minds where those parents are 
struggling to get the resources.
  We could not find them. We determined that community health centers, 
mental health centers, they are only in about 30 cities in our country, 
and we were struggling, what do we do with a parent who comes and says, 
I have two suicidal children, not one but two?
  That is why this motion to instruct conferees is the right kind of 
compromise. I resent accusations that those of us who want to seek an 
opportunity to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief provided 
to middle- and low-income families are against giving relief to married 
couples, or those of us who say that this effort that is being proposed 
by Republicans is too costly.
  We do not have enough money for Medicare and social security, we do 
not have enough money to be able to provide, and when I say we do not 
have enough money, we are not pushing the Medicare benefit for 
prescription drugs, which would allow senior citizens to be able to get 
prescription drugs. We cannot do all of that and be able to provide for 
those very needy families and middle-income families.
  So this motion to instruct to minimize the additional marriage 
bonuses, to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to 
taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current law, it 
makes a lot of sense.
  We have to balance the resources of the Federal government, and who 
in the world wants to again see the tragedies of a Columbine because 
some youngster is struggling with a mental health need which we did not 
see? Who wants to have children who are not immunized in this Nation? 
Who wants to go into communities where in fact those young married 
couples cannot even get affordable housing because they are priced out 
of the market?
  The $800 or the $200 that they are getting out of the proposal that 
really goes to high-income married couples, to the greater degree, and 
has a huge result at the end in terms of how much it is going to cost 
us, is not the answer.
  So I am supporting this motion to instruct conferees that can resolve 
the difference in effective dates and phase-in amounts in a way that 
takes into account fiscal responsibility. Yes, we should give marriage 
tax penalty relief. I want to do that. But I want to balance it, that 
the relief goes to low-income and middle-income, and I want those 
families who come to me and say, my children need special services in 
their schools, they need a mental health counselor, a school counselor, 
a nurse, they need not be like Kip Kinkel, who killed his parents; who, 
when was in his classroom in Seattle, was crying out. He was using 
profane words, and rather than getting him mental health services or 
special needs services, he was sent to the principal for using bad 
language. I understand that, because there was no resources that he 
could access. What a tragedy. School violence is built up a lot around 
the turmoil of our children.
  So I would hope that we take this opportunity not to accuse those of 
us who support this motion to instruct conferees as being against 
giving the marriage tax penalty relief. I believe this is the right 
direction to go.
  Mr. ARCHER. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what this motion to recommit does. 
It is very simple. One, it says maximize relief to low- and middle-
income people. It does not says 100 percent, exclusive, it says to 
maximize.
  Second, it says minimize the relief to those achieving a bonus. It 
does not say zero or no relief, it says give the relief to those who 
had the penalty.
  Third, it says be fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a chance for us to work in a bipartisan way. I 
would urge my colleagues to accept this motion to instruct so the 
conferees can work in a bipartisan way, bring a bill out that can pass 
this body and the other body and be signed by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, following this 15-minute vote on the 
motion to instruct, proceedings will resume on H.R. 4866, a motion to 
suspend on which the yeas and nays are ordered, as a 5-minute vote.
  We will have a 17-minute vote on the motion to instruct, followed by 
a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203, 
nays 222, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 408]

                               YEAS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     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
     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
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     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
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--222

     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
     Chenoweth-Hage
     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

[[Page 15209]]


     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     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
     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
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     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
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Horn
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Porter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1812

  Messrs. EWING, BONILLA, TANCREDO and GOODLATTE changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. RUSH and Mrs. McCARTHY of New 
York changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees:
  Messrs. ARCHER, ARMEY and RANGEL.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________