[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17156-17157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
         PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--(H. DOC. NO. 106-291)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 4810, the ``Marriage 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000,'' because it is poorly targeted 
and one part of a costly and regressive tax plan that reverses the 
principle of fiscal responsibility that has contributed to the longest 
economic expansion in history.
  My Administration supports marriage penalty relief and has offered a 
targeted and fiscally responsible proposal in our fiscal year 2001 
budget to provide it. However, I must oppose H.R. 4810. Combined with 
the numerous other tax bills approved by the Congress this year and 
supported by the congressional majority for next year, it would drain 
away the projected surplus that the American people have worked so hard 
to create. Even by the Congressional Budget Office's more optimistic 
projection, this tax plan would plunge America back into deficit and 
would leave nothing for lengthening the life of Social Security or 
Medicare; nothing for voluntary and affordable Medicare prescription 
drug benefits; nothing for education and school construction. Moreover, 
the congressional majority's tax plan would make it impossible for us 
to get America out of debt by 2012.
  H.R. 4810 would cost more than $280 billion over 10 years if its 
provisions were permanent, making it significantly more expensive than 
either of the bills originally approved by the House and the Senate. It 
is poorly targeted toward delivering marriage penalty relief--only 
about 40 percent of the cost of H.R. 4810 actually would reduce 
marriage penalties. It also provides little tax relief to those 
families that need it most, while devoting a large fraction of its 
benefits to families with higher incomes.
  Taking into account H.R. 4810, the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts 
passed by the House Ways and Means Committee this year provide about as 
much benefit to the top 1 percent of Americans as to the bottom 80 
percent combined. Families in the top 1 percent get an average tax 
break of over $16,000, while a middle-class family gets only $220 on 
average. But if interest rates went up because of the congressional 
majority's plan by even one-third of one percent, then mortgage 
payments for a family with a $100,000 mortgage would go up by $270, 
leaving them worse off than if they had no tax cut at all.
  We should have tax cuts this year, but they should be the right ones, 
targeted to working families to help our economy grow--not tax breaks 
that will help only a few while putting our prosperity at risk. I have 
proposed a program of targeted tax cuts that will give a middle-class 
American family substantially more benefits than the Republican plan at 
less than half the cost. Including our carefully targeted marriage 
penalty relief, two-thirds of the relief will go to the middle 60 
percent of American families. Our tax cuts will also help to send our 
children to college, with a tax deduction or 28 percent tax credit for 
up to $10,000 in college tuition a year; help to care for family 
members who need long-term care, through a $3,000 long-term care tax 
credit; help to pay for child care and to ease the burden on working 
families with three or more children; and help to fund desperately 
needed school construction.
  And because our plan will cost substantially less than the tax cuts 
passed by the Congress, we'll still have the resources we need to 
provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit; to extend the life of 
Social Security and Medicare; and to pay off the debt by 2012--so that 
we can keep interest rates low, keep our economy growing, and provide 
lower home mortgage, car, and college loan payments for the American 
people.
  This surplus comes from the hard work and ingenuity of the American 
people. We owe it to them to make the best use of it--for all of them, 
and for our children's future.
  Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 
4810 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the 
Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its 
becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to 
withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power 
to ``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to 
avoid litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4810 to the House of 
Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I 
have vetoed the measure.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
                                       The White House, August 5, 2000.

[[Page 17157]]



                              {time}  1845

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Consistent with the action 
of Speaker Foley on January 23, 1990, when in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry the House treated the President's return of an 
enrolled bill with a purported pocket veto of H.R. 2712 of the 101st 
Congress as a ``return veto'' within the meaning of Article 1, Section 
7, clause 2 of the Constitution, the Chair, without objection, orders 
the objections of the President to be spread at large upon the Journal 
and orders the message to be printed as a House document.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the veto 
message of the President, together with the accompanying bill, H.R. 
4810, be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________