[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4948-4953]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, MARRIAGE PENALTY AND FAMILY TAX 
                           RELIEF ACT OF 2001

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 104 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 104

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the marriage penalty 
     by providing for adjustments to the standard deduction, 15-
     percent rate bracket, and earned income credit and to allow 
     the nonrefundable personal credits against regular and 
     minimum tax liability. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel of New 
     York or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); 
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.


Modification To Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Ms. 
                             Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, now printed 
in the bill and proposed to be considered as adopted in the pending 
resolution, be modified by the amendment that I have placed at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio:
       Page 11, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(3) Limitation based on amount of tax.--The credit 
     allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not 
     exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over

[[Page 4949]]

       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this 
     subparagraph (other than this section) and section 27 for the 
     taxable year.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means requested, House Resolution 104 is an 
appropriate and fair rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6, 
the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  After general debate, it will be in order to consider a substitute 
amendment offered by the minority which is printed in the Committee on 
Rules report and will be debatable for 1 hour. Finally, the rule 
permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
as well as the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers all across America are completing the 
dreaded annual ritual of filling out tax forms and writing checks to 
the government, thousands of newlywed couples across the Nation have 
had a rude awakening.
  By simply saying those magic words ``I do,'' newlyweds across our 
great Nation may be surprised and probably outraged to find that their 
tax bill has increased by hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars.
  Hopefully, these couples have not cashed and spent the wedding checks 
they received from Grandpa Joe and Aunt Lucy, because they still have 
to pay Uncle Sam.
  We should not really be surprised. After all, there is not much that 
the government does not tax. But it is hard to find a good reason to 
tax marriage and penalize the most fundamental institution in our 
society.
  Still, each year, 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes, not 
because their incomes have gone up, but simply because they are 
married. This is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.
  Mr. Speaker, most families find that, to make ends meet, both spouses 
have to work. Under our current Tax Code, working couples are pushed 
into a higher tax bracket because the income of the second wage earner, 
often the wife, is taxed at a much higher rate.
  Because of the marriage penalty, 21 million families pay an average 
of $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single and living 
alone or single and living together.
  Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much; 
and if one is married, one is unfairly singled out to pay even more. It 
is simply wrong and irresponsible to increase taxes on married couples, 
especially when marriage is often a precursor to added financial 
responsibility such as owning a home or having children.
  The Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act will bring 
fairness to the Tax Code by doubling the standard deduction for married 
couples, expanding the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income 
is taxed at a lower rate, and increasing the amount that low-income 
couples can earn and still be eligible for the earned income tax 
credit.
  But H.R. 6 does not just help out newlyweds. It also helps out our 
Nation's families as well by doubling the child tax credit from $500 to 
$1,000.
  H.R. 6 provides relief to all couples suffering from the marriage 
penalty tax, which means lower taxes for almost 59,000 couples in my 
district alone.
  Mr. Speaker, since earning the majority, Republicans have kept our 
promises and reached our goals of balancing the budget, paying down the 
debt, and protecting Social Security and Medicare; and there is no 
turning back.
  The fact is the government is currently taking in more money than it 
needs to operate. That is the very definition of a budget surplus. The 
surplus is big enough that we can give some of it back to the people 
who earned it because, if one is paying taxes today, one is just paying 
too much.
  What better place to start than by correcting the inequity in the Tax 
Code that affects 25 million married couples.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to either defend the marriage penalty or to 
eliminate it altogether. There should be no more excuses.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this fair and appropriate rule so 
that we can once again pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act and 
send it to the President who this time is waiting to sign it. It is 
long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats support tax relief for American families. Let 
me say that again so that everyone understands. Democrats want fair and 
meaningful tax relief for working American families.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Democrats want tax relief in the context of a real 
budget with real numbers. The budget passed by the House yesterday is, 
quite frankly, bogus. It is bogus because it uses phony numbers and 
faulty assumptions. It is bogus because it has been written to be 
rewritten.
  The Republican majority has used winks and wishes instead of the real 
numbers that would give the American public the real picture of what is 
really going on with the Federal budget.
  Here is the bottom line: Democrats do not want to go down the same 
path we found ourselves on 20 years ago after the last big tax cut 
endorsed by a Republican President.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have, for the past few months, 
waxed ever so eloquently that the surpluses now flowing into the 
Federal Treasury are merely signs that Americans are overtaxed. They 
say the money which is forecast to come rolling into the Treasury over 
the next 10 years belongs to taxpayers and should be returned to them.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats do not disagree that American families need 
tax relief, but we need to put that tax relief into context. The 
country ran up a $5 trillion debt because of the tax cut we passed in 
1981.
  The real story is that the national debt belongs to every man, woman, 
and child in this country. The real story is that those projected 
surpluses are just that, projections. We have no idea if they will ever 
materialize. Frankly, it seems more than a little foolhardy to base our 
economic security and prosperity on wishes and winks.
  We passed a bankruptcy reform bill a few weeks ago that says American 
consumers have to own up to their debts and cannot just erase them so 
they can go out and spend more money they do not have. Well, it seems 
to me that we need a little of that reform in this Chamber.
  Congress has spent the past 15 years struggling to get deficits under 
control; and now, finally, we are on the road to paying back those huge 
debts.
  Those are the same debts that have forced the Congress to ignore 
pressing national needs like infrastructure development and replacing 
or modernizing sewer systems, roads and highways, and our Nation's 
airports.
  We have been forced to put off modernizing our military, ensuring 
that every child has access to a good education, providing a real 
prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and shoring up Social 
Security and Medicare to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom 
generation.
  But now the Republicans want to ignore our debt and ignore our 
national needs just so they can give us another tax cut like the one 
they gave us 20 years ago.
  Yesterday, any number of times, Members on the other side of the 
aisle said their constituents want their money back. But, Mr. Speaker, 
we as a country have an obligation to pay off the debts we incurred 
because of a tax cut we enacted 20 years ago.
  The Reagan tax cuts were supposed to give Americans their money back. 
But look what those tax cuts got us. They got us high unemployment, 
high interest rates, and an economy that only began to recover when the 
Congress drastically cut spending on national priorities and raised 
taxes.

[[Page 4950]]

  Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts of 20 years ago were nothing more than a 
game of three-card monte, and the tax cuts the Republican majority is 
rolling through the Congress in 2001 are just another version of the 
same scam.

                              {time}  1015

  As I have said before, if it looks to good to be true, it probably 
is. And these promises are just that: too good to be true.
  The Republican majority is incapable of seeing the truth in the 
budget numbers. Instead, they come out onto the floor day after day to 
say that Democrats only want to perpetuate big government, to make it 
grow, and fritter away the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. 
Where do they get this? This is not about big government, this is about 
responsible government. This is not about keeping anyone's money, this 
is about paying off the debt and investing for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats want tax relief, and we want tax relief in the 
context of fairness and in the context of real numbers. We want to 
provide real relief from the unfair marriage penalty for those couples 
who pay more taxes just because they are married, but we do not want to 
provide relief for those who already get a marriage bonus under the 
code, as the Republicans would do. We want to increase the child care 
tax credit and make sure that increase is meaningful for those families 
who need it most.
  If the Republican majority is so dedicated to returning money to the 
taxpayers, why is it most of the marriage penalty relief in their bill 
does not become available until the year 2004? Why is it their bill 
will not be fully effective until the year 2009? And why, Mr. Speaker, 
is it that the Republican bill does not make the child tax credit, 
something that would really help families, fully effective until 2006? 
One might think taxpayers, after hearing all this big talk in 
Washington about giving them back their money, might say, ``Show me the 
money.'' But for most American families there will not be any money to 
show.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to take off the blinders and deal straight 
with the taxpayers. Families who put off facing harsh realities often 
find themselves in serious financial consequences. The same holds true 
for the Congress. We need to face up to the fact that we cannot afford 
a $2.4 trillion tax cut that benefits primarily the wealthiest of 
Americans while simultaneously trying to save Social Security and 
Medicare, making sure every child gets a good education, modernizing 
our military forces, facing the crises in foreign countries, and giving 
seniors a real prescription drug benefit. We should not pretend, Mr. 
Speaker. That is not what we were elected to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I support providing relief to married couples who are 
penalized in the Tax Code simply because they are married. I support 
increasing a child tax credit and ensuring that it is available for 
lower-income working families. Undoubtedly many will vote for this bill 
today because they, too, support these changes in the Tax Code. But we 
continue to hope our Republican brethren will wake up and smell the 
coffee. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the authorizing committee, I 
just want to take this time to thank my colleagues in the minority, the 
minority leader, the Committee on Rules, and the members on the 
committee, for acceding to the unanimous consent request for that minor 
change in the legislation, because what it does do is draw to 
everyone's attention the fact that we have a number of professionals 
around here who labor long and hard, and they are almost always 
perfect.
  Their work consists of something like this: on page 4, first 
paragraph 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 section 63(c)4 
and 151(d)4(a) shall be applied.''
  And, Mr. Speaker, it all has to fit, and it all has to fit for 
hundreds of pages. They do it every time we bring a bill to the floor, 
with this exception. And I know they are chagrined, but I do want to 
thank everyone, because there are a number of professionals that allow 
us to appear on the floor and argue important issues such as this, but 
that the hard labor of making it fit is done by a number of 
professionals that we owe an ongoing debt of gratitude. And the fact 
they made a mistake, which really chagrins them, allows me to thank 
them for all those thousands of pages of no mistakes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time.
  I am flabbergasted I am getting 4 minutes on this. There should be a 
line of people stretching all the way down the steps asking the 
gentleman from Texas for 30 seconds or less so that every one of us can 
stand up here and say, please, let us not take another step in the 
direction of plunging off the cliff, in the direction of huge deficits, 
in the direction of invading Social Security and the Medicare Trust 
Funds in order to pass a series of tax cuts that we cannot afford.
  I support ending the marriage penalty. Someday I might support even 
greater efforts than those encompassed in the Democratic alternative. 
But there are three important points I need to make about this bill. 
The first is that over half of married couples do not pay a marriage 
penalty, they get a marriage bonus. Those who are insulting or 
degrading marriage by telling people that they will pay more taxes if 
they say ``I do'' should realize that, in fact, most who say ``I do'' 
are paying less.
  The second point I would make is that we do not have a budget 
resolution. We have one passed by the House, but not by the Senate. We 
ought to be making major tax decisions only after we see what Congress 
as a whole has adopted and what kind of tax relief we can afford.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this tax bill that comes before us today is 
part of an overall plan of excessive tax cuts, tax cuts aimed at those 
with the greatest means. Forty-three percent of the benefits go to the 
top 1 percent with an average income of $900,000. This wave of tax-
cutting has been the most significant event leading to the economic 
downturn or anemia that we have suffered since even before the 
President came into office and began talking down the economy in order 
to justify things.
  Second, this program provides no economic stimulus in an effort to 
get us out of this malaise. Seventy-nine percent of the benefits do not 
arrive until more than 5 years from now. That means that the bond 
market and the stock market are depressed because we have locked into 
law economic policies that are going to hurt this country, that are 
going to drive deficits and inflation; but at the same time, consumers 
will not have any more money in their pocket.
  Finally, I have to oppose this package of tax bills because of the 
millions of people it leaves out. The President of the United States 
stood up there and gave us an example of a waitress without a spouse, 
with two kids, and said that that was the reason to adopt his tax plan, 
to help that waitress supporting two kids and making $25,000. It 
appears as if the President's staff went through all of the restaurants 
and found one waitress that would benefit, because if that waitress was 
making $23,000 with two kids, she gets nothing under the President's 
plan. If that waitress had three kids, she gets nothing under the 
President's plan. And if that waitress is currently exactly as the 
President describes her, but she has some costs for child care, she 
gets nothing. Not even a one-cent insult tip is left on the table by 
the Republican series of tax bills for the very waitresses that the 
President of the United States asked us to think about.
  It is one thing to injure America's working poor and those who are 
struggling to get by by having a huge tax

[[Page 4951]]

plan that will ruin the economy and not give them a penny, but it is 
another thing to insult them and say that they do not pay taxes when, 
in fact, every waitress is paying FICA taxes and not getting any tax 
relief. Taxpayers deserve tax relief, and under this plan they get 
nothing.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my friend, the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on this proposal. I would 
point out that the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) suggested 
that the President was somehow responsible for the flattening out of 
the economy in the last 6 months of last year. I think 60 days into a 
Presidency is a little quick to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak in favor of this rule. We have passed 
marriage penalty relief in the House before, and it has been passed in 
the Senate before, and it has come out of conference before, and it has 
gone to the White House before. The difference is this relief will be 
signed into law if we do our job well here now and in the next few 
weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a budget in the House. We will not vote on the 
final tax package until the Senate approves its budget next week, and 
this will be part of it. Government has traditionally taxed what it 
wanted to discourage, and subsidized what it wanted to encourage. For 
too long in America we have been subsidizing the wrong things and 
taxing the wrong things. We have been discouraging things we should 
have been encouraging, and encouraging things we should have been 
discouraging.
  This change in the Tax Code once again puts a premium on marriage and 
families as a foundation of our society. I hope there is still a bonus 
left for marriage in the Tax Code, and believe there will be when we 
pass this bill, because families and marriage is something that should 
be honored. If we subsidize families, that is a good thing and not a 
bad thing. If we help with things like the child tax credit, where we 
are moving today to double the tax credit on income tax returns, that 
has a positive impact on American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule. I strongly support the 
bill. It will pass the House, I predict, handily today, and this time 
it will be signed into law by the President of the United States.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the 
work the Committee on Rules has done to structure the debate. In many 
ways the Federal Tax Code is illogical, immoral and unfair. This is the 
case with the marriage penalty, most certainly. Currently the Tax Code 
is structured so a married couple pays higher taxes on their income 
than an unmarried couple earning the same income and filing separate 
returns.
  Mr. Speaker, under this Tax Code many couples are punished for being 
married, including many in my congressional district in Indiana. 
Cameron Gardner and his wife Lindsey are an example of over 38,000 
Hoosier families in my district who suffer under the marriage penalty. 
Cameron works for a local company in Anderson, and Lindsey is a student 
at Ball State University. They have a 1-year-old daughter. Eliminating 
the marriage penalty would allow Cameron and Lindsey to keep about 
$1,400 more a year to help pay bills and take care of their daughter. 
It does not include the benefits that would accrue from the President's 
increased child tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, families should be encouraged today. I stand in strong 
support of this rule. I stand in strong support of this bill. It is 
time to end the illogical, immoral and unfair marriage penalty; and I 
believe in my heart Congress will do so today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who campaigned on the platform of providing 
tax relief to working families in central Florida, I am especially 
proud today to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation 
to fully eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Why do I support this legislation? Because it will make a meaningful 
difference in the lives of approximately 60,000 working families in 
central Florida, who will receive an average tax break of $1,400 per 
year. $1,400 per year will have a positive impact on the lives of 
working families back home.

                              {time}  1030

  For example, a married couple with two children, a $1,400 tax savings 
translates into $117 worth of groceries in the refrigerator every month 
that otherwise would not be there.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and vote yes 
on H.R. 6 when it comes to the floor in a little while. This is the 
type of legislation that we came to Congress for.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the power to 
tax is the power to destroy. When one considers this fact, it is a 
travesty that married couples are taxed at a higher rate than the rest 
of society. We can all agree that marriage is a sacred institution. 
What message are we sending to young couples as they get married? 
Because of an unfair Tax Code, when a bride and groom walk down the 
aisle they lose money with each step they take.
  Nearly 62,000 families in my district are adversely affected by the 
marriage tax penalty. I have spoken to many of them on this subject and 
they agree that it is wrong. They are right; it is wrong. Today I want 
to be able to tell them we are doing something about this. It is time 
to put common sense back into our Tax Code.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end the marriage 
tax penalty because saying ``I do'' should not mean that one is saying 
I do to an additional $1,400.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to allow married couples to keep more of 
their money. The breakdown of the family has had a devastating effect 
on our society. Instead of having families stay together, our current 
Tax Code is forcing families apart.
  H.R. 6 is legislation that will lighten the tax burden once and for 
all on all married couples. It is time to shore up family life by 
allowing husbands and wives to keep more of what they earn. H.R. 6 will 
do just that.
  The marriage penalty not only punishes our most sacred institution, 
marriage, but it also indirectly hurts women. When the marriage penalty 
first appeared in the Tax Code in 1969, most families had one 
breadwinner and the tax provision was actually designed to give a tax 
cut, a so-called marriage bonus, to all of our one-income families. The 
tax policy failed to envision the growing number of women that would 
eventually go into the workforce. Today, in nearly 75 percent of all 
families, both the husband and wife work outside the home. When two 
working spouses combine their income, the wages of the secondary earner 
are usually taxed at a higher marginal rate.
  Since it is often the wife who is the secondary earner in the family, 
the marriage penalty, in my view, creates an extremely unfair bias 
against them. The beauty of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that we 
do not penalize those families who choose to have one spouse stay at 
home with their families. H.R. 6 eliminates the homemaker penalty for 
families in which one

[[Page 4952]]

spouse decides to work part time or not at all. In other words, Mr. 
Speaker, this legislation benefits all married couples.
  In my district, there will be 60,392 married couples who will benefit 
from this legislation. In the State of Alabama, 424,956 married couples 
will benefit from this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. It is a good rule. It is high time 
we have done this. We have done it before. It is time to go ahead and 
get it signed into law.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns).
  Mr. KERNS. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Congress will vote on 
sweeping legislation that will help preserve families and fairness in 
our Tax Code. This legislation will reverse a system that is currently 
penalizing millions of men and women simply because they have chosen to 
marry.
  This marriage tax penalty affects persons of all races, ages, and 
incomes. I am fortunate to represent Indiana's Seventh Congressional 
District. The seventh district encompasses most of west central Indiana 
and is the very essence of middle America. Our residents are hard-
working men and women who instill in their children the values that 
their parents instilled in them.
  These Hoosier values include honoring the family. A recent study 
found that nearly 60,000 married couples in Indiana's seventh district 
pay a marriage penalty. Through this penalty we are telling families 
that it would be better for the mother and father not to be married.
  Our government, in effect, is giving incentives for a split in the 
family. This is wrong. With taxes now at their highest in this Nation's 
peacetime history and many families paying more in taxes than they 
spend on basic essentials such as food clothing and housing, it is 
imperative that we allow families to keep more of their hard-earned 
dollars and to save and spend as they choose.
  This bipartisan legislation will provide $220 billion in marriage tax 
penalty relief. By working with the executive branch, we have enhanced 
the President's proposal and will, in fact, provide twice as much in 
marriage tax penalty relief.
  The freshman class of the 107th Congress has been very instrumental 
in working to make today's vote possible. All these Members represent 
different regions of the United States and we have come together in 
agreement and a change that must occur.
  The marriage tax issue is not a Republican issue; it is not a 
Democrat issue. This is about families and fairness. I am proud to join 
my colleagues here today and the others who make up the 230 cosponsors 
of this legislation in correcting the marriage tax penalty. I am 
confident today that we will make good on our promise to American 
families.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that the time has come once and 
for all to eliminate this tax on marriage. If one is paying taxes 
today, they are paying too much. And just because they are married, 
they should not have to pay more. I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule, pass the marriage tax penalty and Family Relief Tax Act so we can 
send it to the President, who is waiting to sign it. This legislation 
is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which an electronic vote, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 171, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               YEAS--249

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley

[[Page 4953]]


     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baldwin
     Everett
     Gordon
     Johnson (CT)
     Lampson
     Leach
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Sisisky
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1059

  Mr. BLUMENAUER and Mr. LARSEN of Washington changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SANDLIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________