[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4953-4981]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           MARRIAGE PENALTY AND FAMILY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2001

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 104, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 104, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 6 is as follows:

                                 H.R. 6

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage 
     Tax Elimination Act of 2001''.
       (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

[[Page 4954]]

     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.

       (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, 2000, 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
      calendar year--                                              is--
      2001.........................................................170 
      2002.........................................................173 
      2003.........................................................178 
      2004.........................................................183 
      2005 and thereafter.........................................200. 
       ``(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) 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''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     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 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) of section 1(f )(3), 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 section 1(f )(3).''.
       (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating 
     to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(2) (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.

     SEC. 5. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST 
                   REGULAR AND MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 26 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation based 
     on tax liability; definition of tax liability) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate 
     amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable 
     year shall not exceed the sum of--
       ``(1) the taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable 
     year reduced by the foreign tax credit allowable under 
     section 27(a), and
       ``(2) the tax imposed for the taxable year by section 
     55(a).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h).
       (3) Section 904 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h) and by redesignating subsections (i), ( j), 
     and (k) as subsections (h), (i), and ( j), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is 
adopted, as modified by the order of the House of today.
  The text of H.R. 6, as amended, as modified, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 6

       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 
     Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001''.
       (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, 
     2001.

     SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET.

       (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, 2003, 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
      calendar year--                                              is--
      2004.........................................................172 
      2005.........................................................178 
      2006.........................................................183 
      2007.........................................................189 
      2008.........................................................195 
      2009 and thereafter.........................................200. 

       ``(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) Increase in Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption Amount 
     for Joint Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 55 of such Code 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Adjustment of exemption amount for joint returns.--
       ``(A) In general.--The dollar amount applicable under 
     paragraph (1)(A) for 2008 and each even-numbered calendar 
     year thereafter--
       ``(i) shall be $500 greater than the dollar amount 
     applicable under paragraph (1)(A) for the prior even-numbered 
     calendar year, and
       ``(ii) shall apply to taxable years beginning in such even-
     numbered calendar year and in the succeeding calendar year.
     In no event shall the dollar amount applicable under 
     paragraph (1)(A) exceed twice the dollar amount applicable 
     under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(B) Exemption amounts for 2005, 2006, and 2007.--The 
     dollar amount applicable under paragraph (1)(A) shall be--

[[Page 4955]]

       ``(i) $46,000 for taxable years beginning in 2005, and
       ``(ii) $46,500 for taxable years beginning in 2006 or 
     2007.''
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by 
     striking subparagraph (C), and by inserting after 
     subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) 50 percent of the dollar amount applicable under 
     paragraph (1)(A) in the case of a married individual who 
     files a separate return, and
       ``(D) $22,500 in the case of an estate or trust.''
       (B) Subparagraph (C) of section 55(d)(3) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (1)''.
       (C) The last sentence of section 55(d)(3) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(C)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``$165,000 or (ii) $22,500'' and inserting 
     ``the minimum amount of such income (as so determined) for 
     which the exemption amount under paragraph (1)(C) is zero, or 
     (ii) such exemption amount (determined without regard to this 
     paragraph)''.
       (d) 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''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
       (3) Subsection (c).--The amendments made by subsection (c) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.

     SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT; 
                   EARNED INCOME TO INCLUDE ONLY AMOUNTS 
                   INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME.

       (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 
     earned income amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be 110 percent of the otherwise applicable amount. If any 
     amount determined under the preceding sentence is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest 
     multiple of $10.''
       (b) Earned Income To Include Only Amounts Includible in 
     Gross Income.--Clause (i) of section 32(c)(2)(A) of such Code 
     (defining earned income) is amended by inserting ``, but only 
     if such amounts are includible in gross income for the 
     taxable year'' after ``other employee compensation''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 5. MODIFICATIONS TO CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Increase in Per Child Amount.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     child tax credit) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer an 
     amount equal to the per child amount.
       ``(2) Per child amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     per child amount shall be determined as follows:

    ``In the case of any
    taxable year                                          The per child
    beginning in--                                          amount is--
  2001 and 2002...............................................$600 ....

  2003........................................................ 700 ....

  2004........................................................ 800 ....

  2005........................................................ 900 ....

  2006 or thereafter.......................................1,000.''....

       (b) Credit Allowed Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 24 of such Code 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(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
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart 
     (other than this section) and section 27 for the taxable 
     year.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for section 24(b) of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows: ``Limita- 
     tions.--''.
       (B) The heading for section 24(b)(1) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows: ``Limitation based on adjusted 
     gross income.--''.
       (C) Section 24(d) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``section 26(a)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(3)'', and
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``aggregate amount of 
     credits allowed by this subpart'' and inserting ``amount of 
     credit allowed by this section''.
       (D) Paragraph (1) of section 26(a) of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``(other than section 24)'' after ``this 
     subpart''.
       (E) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and section 1400C'' and inserting ``and sections 
     24 and 1400C''.
       (F) Subparagraph (C) of section 25(e)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``, 24,'' after ``sections 23''.
       (G) Section 904(h) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(other than section 24)'' after ``chapter''.
       (H) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``and section 24'' after ``this section''.
       (c) Additional Credit for Families With 3 or More Children 
     Available to All Families.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of 
     such Code is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``In the case of a 
     taxpayer with three or more qualifying children for any 
     taxable year, the'' and inserting ``The'', and
       (2) in the subsection heading by striking ``With 3 or More 
     Children'' and inserting ``Paying Social Security Taxes''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2000.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

       The amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment printed 
in House Report 107-31, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be 
debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent 
and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to bring to the floor H.R. 6, the 
Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001, where 43 million 
taxpayers will receive tax relief under this measure in calendar year 
2002, and more than 60 million taxpayers when it is fully phased in.
  Let me also say that there are a number of people who have said that 
the Republicans, in moving these pieces of tax legislation to the 
floor, have been overly hurried, that we have not laid the groundwork 
in preparation for presenting these bills.
  As evidence of our long-term commitment and preparation for 
presenting H.R. 6 on the floor today, it is a pleasure to recognize the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) to explain to what extent Republicans 
have gone to make sure that the timing of the bill on the floor today 
is most appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's timing is absolutely perfect today. At 
6:22 this morning, I became a grandfather for the first time. Again, 
the gentleman's timing is impeccable for Justin and Lynnae, my son and 
daughter-in-law, and their new baby girl, Emerson Anne.
  This is obviously a great day. But how appropriate today that we are 
going to pass the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act and 
increase that child tax credit for Justin and Lynnae. They have a lot 
of challenges ahead, and this is going to mean more money in their 
pockets so that they can help Emerson Anne in her future, to help her 
grow and be prosperous and have a good education.
  It is a great day. Again, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's timing is 
impeccable.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my chairman for the timing of 
bringing this bill on the floor for the Member's grandchild that was 
born. I only wish this bill was at such good timing for the baby 
boomers who will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare soon.

[[Page 4956]]

  Unfortunately, at the time that they will become eligible, that is 
the time they expect to have their surplus. I hope it is there.
  One thing they hope to have locked into place will be this enormous 
tax cut, and I tell the Members, this tax cut just does not fit. So 
they have come a long way in understanding the needs that we have in 
providing relief for taxpayers, especially as it relates to the child 
care bill.
  As long as we give it in all of these doses, and at the end of the 
day we have a $3 trillion tax bill and will not have money to do the 
other things that we promised and that we want to do, I would suggest 
that some of the compassion that the President is talking about should 
be leaking down to the House floor so that we can work together.

                              {time}  1115

  We have not had an opportunity to do that, but I do hope that the 
time is still there for us to come together with a responsible tax cut, 
and I would suggest that if we can just put off the tax cut for a while 
and concentrate and do something now to stimulate the economy, instead 
of providing gifts for the wealthy, that our time would be better 
spent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding the 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6. American 
families are working longer and harder than ever, and more and more of 
their money is going to Washington. In fact, today's couples spend an 
average of 40 percent of their income in taxes; and if there is nothing 
else that we do in this body, we should strengthen families.
  I am pleased to stand before you today because this legislation 
represents an historic and long overdue step for families.
  H.R. 6 provides tax relief to families. This legislation provides 
relief on two fronts, by eliminating the marriage penalty and doubling 
the child tax credit.
  Last year, the House passed with strong bipartisan support the same 
proposal to eliminate the marriage penalty. This year I am confident we 
will finally be able to bring tax relief to American families.
  H.R. 6 will ensure that these couples are never again penalized just 
for being married, and it will make a promise to future couples that 
they will not be punished for making the decision to get married.
  H.R. 6 doubles the current child tax credit. The legislation also 
extends present law refundability of the tax credit. This is a huge win 
for families. It will allow parents to keep more of the money that they 
earned to invest in their future and to provide an education for their 
children and to spend less and less time working to send their money to 
Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for 
yielding the time to me.
  The whole basis upon which this tax cut, which is about $400 billion 
over the next 10 years, the whole basis of this tax cut is based upon 
the $5.6 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office says will be 
available over the next 10 years.
  The Congressional Budget Office, however, said one other thing, too. 
They also said in the same document, when they made this prediction 
about the $5.6 trillion, that there is only a 50 percent accuracy or 
probability that the 5-year projections of the $5.6 trillion will 
become true, and they cannot even make a prediction on the 10-year 
numbers.
  In other words, they are basically saying we are using the number of 
$5.6 trillion, but really do not rely upon the accuracy of it because 
we cannot really say it is going to happen. We do not know if it is 
going to happen. It may not happen.
  So the whole basis of this tax cut is based upon conjecture, and I 
have to say that after this tax cut passes, and then after we pass the 
estate tax repeal next week, we will be at about $1.7 trillion or $1.8 
trillion, and that does not even include the loss of interests on that 
money. So we are probably talking about $2 trillion, $2.5 trillion of 
the $5.7 trillion that may not exist.
  What is interesting is that we have had a lot of statistical studies 
on this. The top 1 percent of the taxpayers in America, those people 
that make $370,000 a year and above, actually the average is about $1.1 
million income per family, the top 1 percent, they are going to get 
about 40 percent of this total tax cut, this so-called phantom tax cut.
  This is a bad bill. The Democrats have a tax cut bill that is modest. 
It is actually very large. It is about $700 billion, but it fits within 
a budgetary framework. It takes into consideration in the event these 
numbers do not come into effect and are not accurate, and it pays down 
the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe very, very strongly that if this bill passes, 
the estate tax bill passes next week, you are going to see a reduction 
in Social Security benefits over the next 3 years or 4 years.
  We will not be able to do prescription drugs. All this talk the 
President has about education; that will not come to pass. And 
certainly Medicare is going to be in deep trouble, too.
  This is a bad bill. We should vote for the Democratic substitute, 
which is more modest. It does deal with the marriage penalty. We do 
want a tax cut, but we want to make sure it is modest, and that, 
obviously, it fits within fiscal discipline, which has given us the 
enormous growth we had over the last 10 years under Bill Clinton.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui), my colleague, because if we listened to his speech carefully, 
he did say after this tax cut passes. I appreciate his understanding of 
the fact that a vast majority of the Members of this House want to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal tax burden today on American 
families is an intolerable 34 percent of personal income, so it is 
especially appropriate today that we are debating a bill that would be 
getting rid of a tax that penalizes two pillars of our American family, 
and those are marriage and children.
  By alleviating the impact of the marriage penalty and doubling the 
per child tax credit, this bill will provide nearly $400 billion in 
family-friendly tax relief over the next 10 years.
  In my district in Washington State alone, 73,000 couples will be 
helped by this bill and 122,000 children by the bill that we will be 
passing today. The marriage penalty is a particularly strong attack on 
working women. Currently, the Tax Code creates a disincentive for women 
to go to work at all, or, if they do, to earn much above the very low 
threshold.
  Women who make a salary on a par with their husbands are taxed at an 
extraordinary rate, a marginal rate that is higher when you combine 
incomes. It pushes that rate up.
  This is not a problem for couples with a single breadwinner so much, 
but in today's society, where both the husband and wife work in most 
households, it is a huge problem. Conservative estimates put this 
problem at about 25 million American couples who are paying an average 
of $1,400 in additional taxes just because they are married. This is 
wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill represents real relief for couples in our society. As 
newlyweds start out on their new life, they should not face a punishing 
tax bill.

[[Page 4957]]

  The incentives are wrong. The tax is unfair. Mr. Speaker, we should 
honor marriage, not taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help couples and young families 
by supporting H.R. 6.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, and the winner is and the winner 
is. On November, the American people voted for investment in education 
for our children, health care for families, and prescription drugs for 
our seniors, but the Republicans keep coming with their tax cut for 
their rich friends. They have lost touch with the people and have no 
idea what their priorities are.
  As we debate the marriage penalty act today, vital programs that 
serve millions of Americans are being ignored.
  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 incurable diseases.
  Unfortunately for the American people, today on the House floor we 
are once again debating a tax bill that helps only a few and ignoring 
the real problem that we face as a Nation.
  Support fair marriage tax relief. Vote yes on the substitute and let 
us get back to the work that the people sent us here to do.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to identify some 
of the rich friends that are going to be helped in this particular 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 1 million taxpayers at the lower end of the 
income tax brackets will find their tax liability reduced to zero in 
2002. Tax relief in this bill is not just for young families. At least 
6 million families, the taxpayers who are 65 or older will benefit from 
this bill. It is a bill that benefits all married couples with 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
for yielding me the time.
  Today's vote, Mr. Speaker, is one of the key votes on tax equity that 
this Congress will make. Whether or not an individual Member may 
support our efforts to provide a proportional tax cut for every 
taxpayer, they have to concede that this bill makes our Tax Code fairer 
for dual-income couples and families with children. That is why I rise 
to urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in 
support of this legislation.
  On a fundamental level, increasing the child tax credit makes our tax 
system more fair. It especially helps middle-income and low-income 
families who can use the money to meet the priorities of their family 
budget.
  Since the 1950s, the ugly fact is we have shifted more and more of 
the tax burden of the Federal Government onto the backs of Americans 
working families.
  This legislation takes an important step forward in improving tax 
fairness and progressivity in our Tax Code.
  Here are the facts: This legislation takes 2 million working families 
completely off the tax rolls. This legislation provides benefits to 25 
million families through doubling the child tax credit. This 
legislation provides relief to 5 million families within the earned 
income tax credit.
  The tax relief debate that we have should not be a partisan debate, 
but rather a debate about how fairly to return a portion of our 
national surplus back to working families.
  American taxpayers have been overcharged by their government, and it 
is only fair that Congress ensure that they receive a refund.
  This legislation provides tax fairness, and everyone who professes to 
support tax fairness on the other side of the aisle should have an 
obligation to support it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, for yielding the time to me.
  You do the math, America. We think we will have a $5.6 trillion 
surplus over the next 10 years. We also think we can tell what the 
weather will be next week or tomorrow. That is about what it is when we 
talk about projections. We do not have the money.
  We, Democrats, do support a tax cut. Yes, we have a surplus, but 
Americans also want election reform so that every vote will count, 
education reform, prescription drugs, health care access, and, yes, to 
save our Social Security and Medicare plan.
  With this tax cut today that is before us and the trillion dollars we 
have already passed, we will not be able to address those needs that 
American people want.
  We want to do something about the marriage penalty, and the Democrats 
have a plan. But do you not think, America, that we ought to take care 
of the needs of Americans and see what the real numbers are and then 
offer a tax plan that will work?
  Support the Democratic alternative. The other will lead us into 
deficit.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, when a couple stands at the altar and says 
``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher taxes. Yet, 25 million 
American couples currently pay higher taxes simply because they are 
married.
  Let us be clear, it is just plain wrong to place a tax penalty on 
marriage. The legislation before us today will provide real relief to 
American couples, 47,000 of which are in my district in northern 
California.

                              {time}  1130

  When combined with the across-the-board rate cuts already approved by 
this House, this legislation will mean up to $560 for the average 
family of four this year. These are dollars which families can use to 
pay off credit card debts or cope with high energy costs, especially 
important in my home State of California.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on the 
Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 today. But I support 
marriage penalty relief because it does not make sense for married 
people to pay more taxes just because they are married.
  That being said, we in Congress have a lot of tough choices we have 
to make. The Republican budget we passed yesterday and the tax cut we 
are working on today make it clear that their priorities are cutting 
taxes for the few instead of supporting programs that benefit the many.
  In fact, opposing this today, my wife will tell me, wait a minute. 
You are taking away our tax cut for Members of Congress, because my 
wife teaches school. I said, yes, but it is still wrong. We should not 
have it for people who have higher incomes.
  I support repealing the marriage penalty, but our Democratic proposal 
actually goes further than H.R. 6 to address marriage penalty 
corrections. But I also support a prescription drug benefit for 
seniors, investing in our schools, shoring up Social Security, and 
making sure the United States is strong as can be.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to heed the warning signs of our economy. We 
should not charge forward with huge tax cuts, because we need to look 
at the current numbers and what the projections were for last year.
  They say a fool and his money are soon parted. We owe the American 
people more than to be foolish with their money.
  Americans have worked hard for the last 8 years to achieve the 
surpluses we are now

[[Page 4958]]

enjoying. Instead of heeding the economic warning signs, we are 
charging forward with a huge tax cut that, even Alan Greenspan has 
argued, will do very little to spur the economy. Like a gambler who 
bets the farm on one hand, this Congress is risking it all--with no 
guarantee that they'll cash in.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on the 
Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, life has its lessons. One of the lessons I learned early 
on was I went to a used car salesman, and he showed me a car. That body 
of that car looked like it was in excellent condition. He turned on the 
radio, and the music of the radio, the stereo just reverberated around 
me; and I fell in love with the car.
  But there was one thing that I forgot to do was open up the hood to 
the car to see the engine and drive the car to make sure that it 
functioned and did what it said it was to do.
  I say to the American people, you have got to and we have got to look 
under the hood, inside the engine of what is being proposed here in 
these tax cuts.
  We are being told that everything can happen. We can save Social 
Security, Medicare; that we can make these the surpluses based upon 10 
years out. No, I say to my colleagues, we have to make choices. Those 
choices have to be based upon a discipline and well-thought-out 
process.
  We cannot do this without a budget because we do have other 
priorities. Those priorities include Medicare, Medicaid. They include 
education. They include a prescription drug plan. We must have all of 
those things if we are going to have a true car.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan support in this 
House for correcting the marriage tax penalty. Indeed, this is a 
measure that could have been approved the week after President Bush's 
inauguration. In fact, there is such broad bipartisan support, it could 
have been approved last year. Or it could have been approved back in 
1995 when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) offered it in 
the Committee on Ways and Means to implement the Republican contract on 
America by correcting the marriage tax penalty.
  But our Republican colleagues at that time had higher priorities: 
they preferred tax relief for corporations rather than couples; and 
they rejected his proposal. Last year they had a higher priority than 
relief for married couples, which was to try and win an election by 
preserving this as a campaign issue instead of coming together to agree 
on genuine marriage tax penalty relief.
  Married couples in this country should and could have had this 
penalty corrected years ago. Yet, today, we find ourselves together, 
not in bipartisan agreement, but in disagreement, because once again 
our Republican colleagues offer a proposal that offers more relief to 
those who have no marriage tax penalty than those that do.
  Any Member of this body, who believes that President Bush got it 
right in his campaign last year with his proposal for marriage tax 
penalty correction, needs to vote against the Republican proposal. They 
brought, as their principal witness to our Committee on Ways and Means, 
a gentleman who testified that President Bush's proposal on marriage 
penalty relief was worse than doing nothing at all. Yes, that is 
correct, as difficult as it is to believe. The Republican witness came 
and said President Bush had it all wrong last year in the campaign and 
that we ought to reject his proposal.
  I actually happen to think that the President came a lot closer to 
getting it right on this issue than the House Republicans with their 
old proposal that they have revised here, which is designed to shower 
benefits on those who have no penalty instead of focusing relief on 
those who have a legitimate complaint.
  Let us be sure we understand what this bill does in that regard. 
Anyone in this House who believes we should not discriminate against 
single people ought to vote against this proposal, because that is 
exactly what it does by focusing more relief on those who incur no 
marriage penalty than those who do.
  In fact, under this proposal, if someone has the misfortune to become 
a widow or a widower, on their income after this bill passes, that 
individual may well face a tax increase. I guess you might call it a 
``death tax'' or the ``single's discrimination tax''. On the same 
amount of earnings that say a retired couple might have, a surviving 
spouse will face a higher rate filing individually--a single's tax 
discrimination. The same applies to the abused spouse who separates 
from her husband. The same applies to any single individual out there, 
who is penalized under this bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, lest someone be confused by the last speaker, I will 
place into the Record a Statement of Administration Policy. It says, 
``The Administration supports the House's action on H.R. 6 as another 
positive step on the way to passage of the President's tax relief 
plan.''
  The administration stands squarely in support of the legislation in 
the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy as follows:
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2001.
     H.R. 6--Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001 
         (Rep. Weller (R) Illinois and 225 cosponsors)
       The Administration supports the House's action on H.R. 6 as 
     another positive step on the way to passage of the 
     President's tax relief plan. H.R. 6 is consistent with the 
     objectives of the President's tax plan, which lowers the tax 
     burden on families and restores fairness by, among other 
     things, reducing tax rates, expanding the child credit, and 
     significantly reducing the marriage penalty. The 
     Administration looks forward to working with Congress as the 
     legislative process continues to achieve a result that best 
     embodies the objectives of the President's plan.


                         Pay-As-You-Go Scoring

       Any law that would reduce receipts is subject to the pay-
     as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.R. 6 or any substitute 
     amendment in lieu thereof, that would also reduce revenues, 
     will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement. The 
     Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any 
     unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current 
     law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the 
     President's objectives.

  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and his friends. The gentleman from Illinois 
is a member of the committee who probably more than any Member of this 
House has been identified with the long and difficult process of 
reaching the floor today and the passage of the Marriage Penalty and 
Family Tax Relief Act.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) for his leadership in the committee in working to 
move this legislation quickly to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan today, 
an opportunity for Democrats, Republicans to join together to help the 
American family.
  What is the bottom line? We have legislation today before us that 
wipes out the marriage tax penalty for the vast majority of those who 
suffer it and also increases the child tax credit, helping families 
with children, two good things that deserve strong bipartisan support.
  I want to invite my Democratic friends to join with House Republicans 
in doing this and would point out that, last year, we passed 
legislation which wiped out the marriage tax penalty. In fact, last 
year, we passed it twice. Unfortunately, it fell victim to President 
Clinton's veto. But I would note that 51 Democrats joined with us in 
our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  This year, our legislation has 230 cosponsors, 15 Democrats. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has been a leader in working to 
eliminate the

[[Page 4959]]

marriage tax penalty. I want to thank him for his effort in working to 
build bipartisan support for effort to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  What is the bottom line? Is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax 
Code, 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in 
higher taxes just because they are married? Is that right? Is that 
fair? Of course not.
  While twice we have sent legislation to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, I believe the third time will be the charm because we have a 
President that says he will sign this legislation into law this time.
  Let me introduce a couple that many in this House have gotten to know 
as I have discussed the marriage tax penalty over the last several 
years, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public schoolteachers from Will 
County, the Joliet area in Will County.
  Their combined income is about $65,000. Their marriage tax penalty is 
a little between $900 to a $1,000 a year, a little bit less than 
average. But they suffer the marriage tax penalty because they chose to 
get married. They have two incomes. They file jointly. It pushes them 
into a higher tax bracket, creating the marriage tax penalty.
  Our legislation will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and 
Michelle Hallihan. Only the bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, will eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, because they are 
homeowners. They itemize their taxes. The alternative will not.
  So clearly, if we want to help couples, middle-class couples like 
Shad and Michelle Hallihan, we should eliminate the marriage tax 
penalties.
  Since we have been working on this legislation to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty, Shad and Michelle have had a baby. They got 
married at the time we introduced the bill 3 years ago. They now have a 
child, little Ben. So they qualify for the child tax credit. It is $500 
today.
  Under our legislation, not only do we eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, but they get the benefit from 
the child tax credit increase. This year it is $500. With the passage 
of this legislation into law, this year it will be a $600 increase in 
the child tax credit, which means Shad and Michelle will see as a 
result of this legislation somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 in tax 
relief by eliminating the marriage tax penalty by providing for a 
bigger child tax credit.
  Let us vote from a bipartisan way. I invite Democrats to join with 
us. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us help families 
with children.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and I ask unanimous consent that 
he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I just pause because I was so moved by the 
last presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) while I regain my composure.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give the 
distinguished ranking member an opportunity to gain his composure.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the motivation behind the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for introducing this legislation, but I 
strongly disagree with the solution that he proposes.
  Today's problem was yesterday's solution. The reason we are doing 
this was because, back in 1969, so many single people complained that 
they were getting unfairly treated by the Tax Code, and so we tried to 
fix it. In fact, we did fix it pretty much.
  I have a Congressional Budget Office study that shows that only 37 
percent of married couples actually get penalized, and their penalty is 
$24 billion. Sixty percent of married couples actually get a bonus for 
having gotten married, and that bonus totals $72 billion. So there is 
actually about a $50 billion net bonus going to people for having 
gotten married.
  What we are doing to try to fix a problem is to make it worse. The 
cost of fixing it falls on the children of these very nice people who 
are getting married.
  I cannot imagine somebody not getting married because of some tax 
penalty. What happened to love and romance, for crying out loud.
  The fact is this is wrong. I do not even agree with the Democratic 
substitute. We ought to do the right thing and simplify the Tax Code 
and not do this kind of stuff.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for all the work he has 
done in this particular area.
  I want to continue to respond. The prior speaker prior to my 
colleague said he wanted to help the American family. Which American 
family? I am talking about working families.
  Do Shad and Michelle Hallihan know that they are getting no help for 
affordable housing? Do they know they are getting no help for child 
care? Do they know they are getting no help for health care? Do they 
know their parents will not be able to get a prescription drug benefit? 
Do they know how many schools we can fix with $24 billion? Do they know 
how many lives we can change with $24 billion if they only wait on a 
tax cut on the marriage tax penalty?
  What else are Shad and Michelle Hallihan getting? They are teachers. 
They work for a school system. They get health care. What about all 
those other families out there who do not get health care, who do not 
have an opportunity to have a vacation and take their children 
somewhere?
  This benefit may deal with a marriage tax penalty; but it deals with 
none of the other things like housing, child care, health care, 
prescription drug benefit, or Social Security. Wake up America. We do 
not want this.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the 
previous speaker, that if she votes against this bipartisan effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that 88,000 taxpayers in the 11th 
District of Ohio will continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty, and 
over 71,000 children will not be eligible for the increase in the 
doubling tax credit.
  Let us be fair. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and 
increase the child tax credit.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for yielding me this time.
  And, Mr. Speaker, in response to my two colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who previously spoke, we would be very happy to ask them 
to join us in marginal rate reductions, because that helps every 
taxpayer. We have a simple disagreement: Should families control their 
money, or the government? And I think that addresses that.
  My colleagues, I bring yet another family to the well of this House. 
For our purposes today, we will call them the ``Taxpayer'' family. They 
will be especially helped by this tax relief plan because this is a 
growing family with five children. Let us say that John and Wendy 
Taxpayer both work.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I do not have the time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I cannot see the photo.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I am very happy to show it to the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. If you could just tilt it a little bit. Thank you.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Let us say John and Wendy Taxpayer both work.
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you very much.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, do I control the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) controls the time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much.

[[Page 4960]]

  Mr. Speaker, let us say that John Taxpayer earns $30,000 a year with 
his teaching job at Madison Elementary School. Wendy makes $32,000 a 
year working to help older Americans as a home health care assistant. 
Together they pay a $732 marriage penalty, paying more in taxes just 
because they are married. That is wrong.
  This bill ends that marriage tax penalty so that John and Wendy can 
keep that $732 of their money each year to help pay for all the 
clothes, food, and other items that we all know goes into raising a 
family. And that $732 over time is going to add up to big savings.
  But then here comes the real help. This year we will also increase 
the child credit by $100 to the Taxpayer family. That means that John 
and Wendy will have an additional $500 to help all those little growing 
Taxpayers. And once the bill is fully phased in, the Taxpayers would 
get an additional $2,500 to continue to help with their growing family. 
The AMT relief we include in this bill will ensure that the Taxpayer 
family gets the full benefits of the doubling of the child credit.
  My colleagues, that is what this debate is about, not budgets and not 
rich versus poor, not anything else. This is about families. This is 
real tax relief for American families who need it now more than ever. 
Stand up for families; stand up for reduction of the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here on day three of George the 
Second's runaway railway train. Last week we cut taxes, and yesterday 
we passed a budget out of here in a big hurry, and now here is day 
three.
  There are some attractive pieces to this bill. As somebody mentioned, 
I proposed it five years ago, and the Republicans in the Ways and Means 
turned it down because they had other things that were more important. 
But what is amazing about what is going on here is that last week we 
passed out of here $1.35 trillion tax cut packages. Therefore, out of 
the $1.6 trillion, we only have $300 billion left, and we have the 
estate tax, we have the charitable deduction, and we have the AMT fix. 
This train is running backwards because they are loading up the gift 
things in the front and not telling people what is coming in the back.
  I sit on the Committee on the Budget as well as the Committee on Ways 
and Means, and there is no reasonable budget out there. This is a 
reckless train that we are on.
  Now, I have been to several hearings, and the Governor from 
Wisconsin, who is now the head of HHS, came to testify at both those 
committees. He did not have one single answer to what he was going to 
do about Medicare. He says they are $654 billion in the hole over the 
next 10 years, but did not offer a single answer as to how he was going 
to deal with that. The last thing we ought to be doing is running a big 
tax train out of here.
  Then we had deja vu. In comes the Secretary of the Treasury. We asked 
him about Medicare solvency, and he did not have any single answer. But 
then we had a guy from the Treasury who really made sense. His name was 
Weinberger. He came in last week and he told us with a straight face 
that families know they will get $100 in April of 2002. That will have 
a positive psychological effect in terms of spending and, therefore, a 
positive impact on the economy.
  Now, if we think about that, what he is saying is this--it is 
acceptable to encourage people to spend what they do not have. I mean, 
we are saying, it is coming, they will be getting their $100, so please 
run out and spend it right now to gin up this economy and increase 
their personal debt. That at least is consistent with this 
administration's philosophy on this railroad; let us run it out of here 
and never look at what we are going to have to pay down the road.
  This is based on estimates. We have talked about this and talked 
about this. If anyone would get CBO to reestimate where we are going to 
be in 10 years on the basis of what has gone on in the last 6 months, 
we would have a totally different figure that we would be dealing with 
today. But, boy, the engineer is in the cab, and he is pulling back on 
the throttle, and here we go, choo-choo-choo right down the road, no 
matter what is on the road.
  I say vote for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I support marriage penalty relief and child credits 
targeted to help the working poor. I cosponsored marriage penalty 
relief legislation in the 105th Congress when the Republican majority 
unanimously voted it down. I introduced it again in the 106th Congress, 
and now again in the current session.
  While there are some attractive components to this bill, I have 
serious concerns with the size of President Bush's tax cut. Our 
Republican colleagues are trying to rush all the components of 
President Bush's tax plan through the House, and I will not support 
each individual component as we watch its price tag soar.
  The cost of this bill and the one passed earlier on marginal rate 
reductions is already up to $1.35 billion, and ballooning. This amount 
does not include the repeal of the estate tax, charitable deduction, 
the AMT fix, and the list goes on. At this rate, the Republicans will 
continue to push up the price tag to $3 trillion. This must end. It is 
simply irresponsible.
  I sit on the Budget Committee, and I promise you, there simply is not 
a responsible budget. Any tax cut must be designed within the framework 
of balanced priorities. There is none. The Republican Budget Resolution 
invades the Medicare surplus to fund the huge tax cut. They do not set 
aside adequate levels of funding for a meaningful drug benefit. There 
is no additional money left to shore up Social Security or education.
  The list is endless. This is completely reckless!
  I have been to several hearings, and it is the same theme over and 
over again: Where is the money?
  I have heard testimony from Secretary Thompson at two committees--at 
neither could he answer a single question about how we are going to 
meet our financial obligations for the Medicare program.
  The last thing we should be doing is a $1.6 trillion tax cut when 
alarms are sounding on Medicare's long-term situation. The program 
needs an infusion of money, but the Administration does not seem to 
know how to achieve that. Of course not--the administration is trying 
to ram another tax cut down our throats before considering the budget.
  It was deja vu all over again with testimony from Secretary O'Neill 
regarding Medicare's solvency. All we heard about is the ``crisis'' the 
program faces and the need to address it. When asked how, there are no 
answers.
  Today, we are being asked to vote on a second, backloaded tax bill. 
Last week, Mr. Weinberger from Treasury told us with a straight face 
that families who know that they will get $100 next April, in 2002, 
will have a positive psychological effect in terms of spending, and 
therefore a positive impact on the economy.
  I suppose Mr. Weinberger is saying that it is acceptable to encourage 
people to spend what they don't have, and increase their personal debt. 
At least that is consistent with the Administration's apparent 
philosophy that paying down our national debt is not a priority--not if 
they are trying to pass a huge tax cut without the context of a 
responsible framework.
  Let us not forget, these tax cuts are based on projections, not 
guarantees. Current projections are exactly that--projections. If the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) were to recalculate their estimates 
in today's economy, they would slash their projections of budget 
surpluses.
  Based on their own track record, CBO concludes that estimated 
surpluses could be off in one direction or the other, on average by 
$412 billion in 2006. Any responsible fiscal plan must anticipate 
inevitable errors in these projections. But the Bush proposal simply 
ignores these concerns.
  The budget must maintain a reserve for inevitable errors in these 
projections. It must pay down the debt, shore up resources for Medicare 
and Social Security, and allow for other initiatives, such as 
education, prescription drugs and the uninsured.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note for my colleague from Washington State that the two provisions of 
the President's tax plan that this House has already passed will 
provide this year for the average family of four $600 in tax relief, 
almost $400 from the rate reduction and, for two children, $200 in 
additional family tax credits.

[[Page 4961]]

  I would also note that while my good friend takes credit for some 
ideas, the marriage tax penalty, his proposal, was phased in over 10 
years when he offered it. I would also note that we incorporated his 
idea, though we do it immediately, into this bill. So I hope he will 
join with us and make it a bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and would note in doing so that this simply 
reinforces the fact that this is a bipartisan proposal. I congratulate 
him on his good work. He has been a leader on the Democratic side of 
the aisle with regard to this bill.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), my good friend and colleague, who has been a champion of this 
tax relief for several years. It is truly an honor and a privilege for 
me to join with him in cosponsoring this legislation.
  I want to also recognize his leadership and thank him for giving me 
the opportunity to do my part to ensure that one day the marriage 
penalty is taken out of our Federal Tax Code. It has truly been an 
honor to work with him.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying fundamentally the marriage 
penalty is an issue of tax fairness. Married couples on average pay 
$1,400 more in taxes simply because they are married. This is an unfair 
burden on our Nation's married couples. Marriage is a sacred 
institution, and our Tax Code should not discourage it by making 
married couples pay more. We need to change the Tax Code so it no 
longer discriminates against those who are wed.
  As most of my colleagues know, the marriage penalty occurs when a 
couple filing a joint return experiences a greater tax liability than 
would occur if each of the two people filed as single individuals. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 25 million couples 
suffer under this unfair burden. The legislation that is before us will 
fix the grave injustice of our current Tax Code that results in married 
couples paying higher taxes than they would if they remained single. It 
also doubles the child tax credit to $1,000 over 6 years.
  This bill strikes to the heart of middle-income tax relief. These are 
the people who are the backbone of our communities. These are the 
people who need tax relief the most. With a record budget surplus, the 
time is long overdue for Congress to remove the marriage penalty from 
the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill achieves that goal, and I know that 
all of us present here today who support the measure will not stop 
working until this legislation is signed into law. My constituents have 
spoken to me very overwhelmingly on this issue, and the time has 
arrived to act decisively to eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I strongly support marriage penalty 
relief and tax benefit for families. That is why I support the 
Democratic substitute. It provides married couples and families 
significant tax relief, but it does it in a way that is good for all 
Americans and allows us to prepare for our future. H.R. 6 may seem 
small today, but we cannot ignore the fact that it is only part of a $3 
trillion Republican tax plan. That is a lot of money, especially when 
it is based on an unreliable surplus projection. There are no 
assurances, no guarantees. What if we are wrong?
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican $3 trillion plan puts at risk our ability 
to prepare for our future. What we should be doing today is paying down 
the national debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, and taking care 
of all of the basic needs of all of our citizens. The Republican tax 
plan is not right for America. It tends to move us in the wrong 
direction. And I say, Mr. Speaker, this plan is not fair, and it is not 
just.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against it and vote 
for the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who 
spoke on behalf of the Democratic substitute, that the proposal he 
speaks in favor of would deny help for almost 60,000 children in his 
district in Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a lot of 
married people in Georgia. As my colleagues know, I am from Texas, and 
I want to divorce the 1.7 million married Texans from the government-
imposed, IRS-enforced marriage penalty tax. It is just plain wrong for 
the Federal Government to penalize people who choose to get married. 
When two people stand before God and exchange their vows, it should be 
a celebration for them, not the IRS.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said that America is the land of the free 
and the home of the brave, and this is true fact. Young couples have to 
be brave to get married because the Federal Government is going to free 
them from their hard-earned money when they say ``I do.''
  I do not think any Member would disagree that we should encourage, 
not discourage, the greatest institution on earth, marriage. Let us 
vote today to give married couples a well-deserved honeymoon, the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good example of where we could have found 
common ground with the Republicans to get marriage penalty relief for 
the American people. But once again, the proposal that they offer is 
excessive.
  I would highlight to my colleagues that their proposal is more 
generous than the one that President Bush proposed. It is excessive in 
that it goes way beyond his proposal, which perhaps we even on this 
side of the aisle could have lived with. But when it comes to taxes 
these days, the Republican Party is like parents with twins who have 
just entered their teenage years. They know college is coming in a few 
years, and they should be saving to pay college expenses, but they 
refuse to.
  Mr. Speaker, by providing excessive tax relief, the Republican Party 
is denying the looming problems that result from the retirement of the 
baby boomers in just a few years. This bill represents missed 
opportunities once again. It could have contained more tax 
simplification than it does, which we should be doing, and it could 
have offered far more relief on the alternative minimum tax. But AMT 
relief and simplification are not part of the current political agenda 
in this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some good points to this legislation: The 
child credit, the earned income tax credit, and they do touch upon some 
relief with AMT.

                              {time}  1200

  The problem with this legislation is, once again, it is excessive. 
What we do here is we cut taxes and then we do a budget, rather than 
the other way around.
  Let me speak specifically, if I can, for just a moment about 
alternative minimum tax, and I hope people are paying attention to what 
is about to happen.
  This bill makes the alternative minimum tax worse by, listen to this, 
$292 billion. That is not much of a fix. There are currently 1.5 
million taxpayers who are categorized according

[[Page 4962]]

to AMT. Under the current law, that number increases to 20.7 million in 
2011. With some people having incomes of only $50,000 a year, get 
ready, they are about to pay alternative minimum tax. Because of this 
entire tax proposal, 15 million more Americans are going to be forced 
into alternative minimum tax. If this bill goes through and is signed 
by the President, there is going to be no revenue left to fix 
alternative minimum tax.
  The Democratic alternative is a sound piece of legislation. It is 
certainly much more fiscally responsible than the bill that we are 
going to vote on in a few moments. Our legislation is superior in that 
it addresses the looming problem of AMT. Get past sloganeering. Get 
down to policy. Fix alternative minimum tax.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who discussed the consequences of 
alternative minimum tax. Of course, the alternative minimum tax was 
increased with the 1993 tax increase that President Clinton and the 
Democratic majority enacted back in 1993. I would note that their 
proposal provides actually less AMT relief than our proposal that we 
are offering today. I would note that in the marriage penalty relief 
that is in H.R. 6 that taxpayers are held harmless. They do not see the 
consequences of AMT, the alternative minimum tax, under our proposal. 
So that is a good thing and a step forward. Of course, I would note 
that in my friend's district that almost 100,000 children would be 
denied relief and help under the proposal which he supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), the dean of the Illinois Delegation and a senior member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill brought forth today 
reducing the marriage tax penalty and reducing taxes on families with 
children. This bill is the second installment on a tax relief plan put 
forward by President Bush to let overtaxed Americans keep their money. 
We are running enormous surpluses that are more likely to grow than 
shrink in the coming years if we do not act.
  President Bush has a responsible program of tax relief refunding 
these surpluses to the people who pay the bills. The marriage tax 
penalty should never have been allowed to creep into the Tax Code in 
the first place. It violates sound tax policy and runs counter to 
bedrock American traditions. It has a tremendous negative impact on the 
people of my district. More than 70,000 couples pay an average marriage 
tax penalty of $1,400 per year in the eighth district of Illinois. That 
is nearly $100 million per year that families could spend in our 
district on education if they chose to do so.
  This bill also doubles the per child tax credit as President Bush 
recommends. According to the Heritage Foundation, families in my 
district have nearly 125,000 children that would benefit from this 
increased tax credit. That is equal to $62.5 million per year that 
families can spend on health care, clothing, and their education. This 
is obviously important for reducing the tax burden on families, but it 
also reduces marginal tax rates for affected families. Because of the 
various phase-outs and other provisions in the Tax Code, a relatively 
low-income family with children can easily find themselves paying 
marginal tax rates that are higher than those paid by the richest 
Americans. Doubling the child tax credit eliminates this terribly 
unfair situation.
  It is urgent that we move quickly to convince taxpayers that we mean 
business. Consumer confidence will improve when people gain confidence 
that we will give them a pay hike by cutting their taxes.
  I am also pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means is marking up 
a bill today to repeal the death tax. We still have more work to do to 
pass the President's charitable-giving tax reform, including two 
proposals I have advanced for years to allow nonitemizers to deduct 
their charitable contributions and to allow charitable IRA rollovers; 
and we must continue to work to pass fundamental pension reform.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, and I would also say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), who will mention, I hope, the number of people 
in my district who will benefit from the marriage penalty relief, I 
would hope that our substitute would also be supported because our 
substitute will provide more relief to those who have a marriage 
penalty problem until the year 2004. The Republican bill that is on the 
floor does not provide any help in regards to the rate problems until 
the year 2004. That is one of the problems that I have with the 
Republican bill, and why I am going to vote against it because it is 
back-loaded. That means in order to get everything to fit together, 
most of the relief is provided in the second 5 years, not in the first 
5 years.
  In the first 5 years, under the Republican bill, only 28 percent of 
the relief is provided. The rest is in the outyears. Because they phase 
it in over such a long period of time in order to provide all of their 
promises that cannot possibly be lived up to, they back-load the cost 
of the bill. In fact, when this bill is put in with the rest of the 
bills that are being offered, and I have a little chart here, it shows 
how impossible it is for everything to fit together.
  We have already passed the first bill here and now we are doing the 
second one, and there is hardly any money left over for the estate tax 
relief and the health care and the debt service.
  Remember yesterday we had a $1.6 trillion budget for tax relief. 
Well, when all of this is added up, if debt service is counted, it is 
going to be $3 trillion. That is why those of us, particularly on this 
side of the aisle, are concerned that all of this cannot be done and 
still protect Social Security and still protect Medicare and be able to 
expand Medicare to include prescription medicines and pay down our 
national debt, which should be our first priority, and to invest in 
education, which both Democrats and Republicans have been talking 
about.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is correct. We missed an 
opportunity today to have a bipartisan bill that could have enjoyed, I 
think, very broad support, to fix the marriage penalty problem, because 
there is a legitimate need to fix the marriage penalty problem. For 
those who are worried about that, as I am, and want to do something 
about it to the number of people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) will mention in my district, I urge support for the substitute 
that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) very 
shortly.
  Once again, that will provide more relief, more relief to those 
people who have a marriage penalty until the year 2004, because the 
Republican bill, the underlying bill, because they are trying to put, 
as my chairman likes to say, 15 pounds of sugar into a 10-pound bag, 
they had to cut back on how they implement the bill.
  So let us be fiscally responsible. Let us be able to pay down the 
national debt. Let us be able to deal with Social Security and Medicare 
and the other priorities. Support the Democratic substitute. Oppose the 
Republican bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), that his argument in favor of the Democrat 
substitute indicates that he will vote to deny over 100,000 children in 
his district the help that is provided in the bipartisan bill that is 
before us.

[[Page 4963]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), who is one of the key bipartisan supporters of H.R. 6 
before us today.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at this from a 
different perspective. Our labor is taxed. Our savings are taxed. Our 
investments are taxed. Our profits are taxed in America. Our sweat, our 
thrift, our future, all taxed in America and being addressed, quite 
frankly, pretty well by the Republicans. If we think about it, even 
business taxes, a tax on business, is passed on to us to pay.
  Now, if that is not enough to tax your lower intestinal tract at the 
very lowest of levels, Mr. Speaker, even our sex is taxed in America. 
That being marital sex. Think about it. Marital sex in America is 
taxed. Responsible, legally married couples' sex is taxed while casual 
promiscuous sex in America goes literally untaxed and is incentivized 
and rewarded. A family friendly Congress does not penalize married 
couples right to the point.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), commend 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and I want to commend the 
Republican Party that if we are to be family friendly we should start 
right at the base of it all and get down to the testosterone, Mr. 
Speaker.
  It is time to treat married couples at least as well as we treat 
casual sex participants in the United States of America. I commend the 
chairman again, and I urge an aye vote for the bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be quite as erudite as our last 
speaker but I will attempt to at least engage in a fair debate on why 
this is an important bill.
  I am delighted actually that the other side of the aisle is actually 
talking tax relief. I remember being accused last year of being 
reckless with the budget of the United States when we had proposed 
somewhere in the nature of $600 billion of tax relief and, lo and 
behold, this year the Democratic substitute is well over $900 billion. 
So at least we are heading in the right direction.
  How anybody could stand on this floor and defend the current tax 
structure that is punitive to families is beyond me.
  Now I am single, and I certainly do not want to spread the tax burden 
on to single people after we pass this bill and I want to make certain 
we do not do that, but I would suggest that 51,000 families in my 
district are suffering a penalty under the marriage tax as it is 
structured. Twenty-five million couples in America pay an average of 
$1,400 more in taxes simply because they file as married couples. This 
bill provides relief and it provides important relief.
  Now, a lot of people are babbling around this place about the fact 
that the bills that we have passed are not front-loaded that they do 
not provide immediate relief. Well, I beg to differ. This bill provides 
immediate relief. This bill provides substantial relief and this bill 
finally clarifies what is an erroneous provision in the Tax Code.
  It is bipartisan. It was mentioned earlier today that 51 Democrats 
voted for our approach last year, and I believe it will even grow this 
year. It is pretty hard to go home to communities, to districts around 
America, to the 435 districts around this country, and suggest on a 
Sunday at church or a temple or synagogue that one believes in keeping 
this kind of onerous burden.
  I encourage those who feel so compelled that they can go to their 
communities this weekend and inform them of the fact that they chose 
not to relieve the burden on families.
  I am delighted that the Democrats offer a substitute because at least 
they recognize there is a problem. I do not support the approach. I 
support ours, but I am delighted that they are advancing a number of 
proposals.
  I heard once again on this floor that we are to be criticized because 
we did tax bills before budgets.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting on this floor kind of listening to 
the debate today, and I first of all would like to bring to the 
attention of this body a couple of things that I think are interesting 
going on around the country, and particularly in my home State of 
Florida. This year they are facing deficits. They have some real 
critical issues going on there. It has been interesting, as I have read 
some of the comments over the last couple of weeks, that there are now 
those in the majority, in the Florida legislature, being Republicans, 
who are now concerned about a vote that they took last year, which was 
to do a tax cut.

                              {time}  1215

  Now they are in about a $1 billion deficit and cannot meet their own 
expense needs. I think that is something we should be thinking about 
and heeding, which is I think what the Democrats are saying. We do not 
have to rush so quickly to do everything at the 1.6 or the $3 trillion 
that is looking like we are going to spend on tax cuts, but we could 
take it in a little bit smaller direction. We can still give the relief 
that we have been asked to do in a bipartisan fashion, which is what 
was offered last year and continues to be offered, but has never been 
acted upon.
  I also have heard on this floor from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), who I know has worked very long and hard on this piece of 
legislation, about the families in each one of our districts that will 
not be helped if we do not support this. Well, there are also the 
numbers that are not talked about, and that is of the people that will 
not be helped.
  Mr. Speaker, in Florida, in Florida, there are 1 million children 
that will not receive this tax relief. That is a lot of children. I do 
not know how many families might get tax relief, but I know how many 
children will Florida are not going to see any of these dollars. And I 
can say in Georgia, it is probably about 700,000 children that will not 
receive this tax relief, and in Maryland.
  So let us be honest about this. Let us be fiscally responsible. Let 
us keep this country in the right direction.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune), who has been a real leader in the effort to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help families by expanding tax 
credits.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time, for his hard work on the subject, and for the 
hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in leading the 
effort in allowing the American families to keep more of what they 
earn.
  The marriage penalty is not about politics. This is not a political 
issue. It is not about rich versus poor. The marriage penalty is about 
fairness to American families. There are 75,000 couples in South Dakota 
who pay higher taxes because they chose to get married. That is wrong.
  I am going to give my colleagues a specific example in my State of 
how this works. I have people come into my office all the time and they 
bring in their tax forms. There was a young couple that came in in 
1999, a two-earner couple, they have two children, they made $67,000 
between them and they paid $1,953 more in Federal income taxes because 
they were married. The Tax Code punishes married couples in this 
country, and that is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we realize the impact 
this has, not just in the general term, and we hear the numbers thrown 
out, but in very specific terms, how it affects families across 
America. I talked to another lady in South Dakota who was talking about 
a young couple, they were not married, they had four kids

[[Page 4964]]

between them. She said, well, why do you guys not get married? She 
said, well, because today, when we get our taxes back, we get $4,000 
back in our tax return. If we got married, we would only get $1,500 
back.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for the Tax Code to affect people's 
decisions; it is wrong to penalize married couples for choosing to get 
married. We need to do what is right for the American family; we need 
to do what is right for America. We need to make the Tax Code fair 
again to American married couples. We need to eliminate the marriage 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
strong support for marriage penalty tax reform. Americans should not 
have to pay additional taxes simply because they have made the decision 
to get married. Unfortunately, the marriage penalty tax relief as 
proposed by the President provides little relief to families with 
incomes under $30,000; and much of the benefit that is designed for 
middle-income families does not even start to take effect until after 
2004.
  The Democratic alternative offers relief to all married couples with 
an income tax liability starting next year. The Democratic plan also 
protects transfers that are supposed to be made to the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the week I was with the President in 
my district in Kansas City as he outlined the details of his tax 
proposal; and as I listened, I found myself thinking that most of the 
workers in the small business facility where we gathered would benefit 
more from the provisions of the Democratic alternative tax plan, 
lowering payroll taxes and providing relief within the next year, 
rather than waiting for the complicated credit system in the 
President's plan.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a very important issue has been brought to the House 
floor this morning, and one that certainly has to be addressed by both 
Republicans and Democrats.
  We do have an alternative, and we soon will be able to debate that, 
that not only provides a better way to take care of this very serious 
problem, but fits into an actual budget that no matter what the surplus 
actually turns out to be, we can have some assurances that this relief 
will be there.
  What the majority is doing is not bringing to us the full tax bill 
that they are talking about, because they know that the various parts 
of this tax bill just does not fit into the $1.6 trillion tax cut that 
the President wants. It is almost like trying to get a big size 12 foot 
into a size 6 shoe. It just does not fit.
  If we take a look at the illustration that has been shown before on 
the House floor and think that this pie represents $1.6 trillion, $958 
billion in rate reduction has already been spent. Today we are talking 
about $399 billion that is going to be in the marriage penalty and 
child credit bill. If we really think they are sincere about $1.6 
trillion, then that just leaves $243 billion to be left for the rest of 
the tax cut. So we are not saying that we are closing out today, that 
this is it, that they have done what the compassionate, conservative 
President wants, because we know that we soon will be discussing how we 
can give estate tax relief.
  Now, this is going to be really a giant-sized foot getting into a 
size 6 shoe when this comes to the floor next week. Because even though 
they may estimate that it will be $2 billion or $3 billion to take care 
of this problem, those that are looking for estate tax relief should 
really take a hard look and find out when is that relief expected. I 
suspect it will not be for a long, long time.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to give an estimate as to 
in the long run what would it cost. They say $663 billion over 10 
years. Now, the Republicans have a tendency that when joint committees 
agree with them, they wave it around; but when joint committees 
disagree with them, they attempt to ignore it. In any event, it is 
going to be really educational to see how they attempt to swallow the 
cost of estate tax repeal as opposed to what we have attempted to do in 
our bill, H.R. 1264, and that is to make certain that we give relief, 
except for the .06 people who are extremely wealthy that should be 
paying some taxes on those estates.
  But even if we assume that they can wedge in some kind of way relief 
for estate tax, we have so many other things that cannot fit into this. 
They talk about fixing the alternative minimum tax. Some of us that 
come from high-income States have been able to deduct this from our 
Federal taxes, and this will no longer be able to be done, and that 
costs us $292 billion if we tried to bring some equity to those people 
from high-income States.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say, in recognition that we have a bipartisan proposal before us today, 
supported by Democrats and Republicans, that it is a great opportunity 
to work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 25 million couples 
and help millions of children throughout America by increasing and 
doubling the child tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the most junior member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, who, by the way, is a newlywed himself, to close on our 
side.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. First of all, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend and colleague, for 
taking the lead on this issue, not only through this Congress, but 
through the past Congresses. The American people and all married people 
in this country owe him a debt of gratitude once this becomes law. So 
our thanks to the gentleman for his effort on this.
  Mr. Speaker, we are hearing all of these excuses on the floor of 
Congress today as to why we should not do this. What is the excuse? 
Well, I am hearing this excuse that it would be fiscally irresponsible 
for us to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to spend this money 
on tax cuts. That is essentially the opposition that we are hearing 
from the other side.
  Well, it really comes down to a philosophy, a difference of opinion. 
It is not the Federal Government's money in the first place to afford 
to spend this money on tax cuts. This is a surplus which came to 
Washington because taxpayers overpaid their taxes. That is what a tax 
surplus is.
  On top of it, it has fit very well within our budget, which pays down 
the debt, which stops the raid on Medicare and Social Security; and on 
top of that, as taxpayers continue to overpay their taxes, we are 
taking a look at the problems in the Tax Code, and we are looking at 
this great problem. Is it right for the American economy, for the 
Federal Government, to tax people because they get married? No, it is 
not right. We should not be doing this. It is a horrible disincentive 
built into our Tax Code that penalizes the greatest institution of our 
culture: marriage.
  That is why it is important that we vote for this bill. That is why 
it is important that since we tried to pass this before and it was 
vetoed by the past President, we have an amazing opportunity, on a 
bipartisan basis, with Democrats and Republicans joining together, as 
have the authors of this bill, to pass this and tell the American 
people, you are no longer going to be penalized for getting married.
  I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support changing the tax laws 
so that people will not pay higher income taxes just because they are 
married. And I also support increasing the child credit, to assist 
families who are struggling to make better lives for their children.
  So, reluctantly, I am voting to pass this bill.
  I do so without illusions. I recognize that the bill is very far from 
perfect. I wish it were better. And it would have been better if a 
majority of our colleagues had joined me in voting for

[[Page 4965]]

the Rangel substitute or for the motion to recommit. But that did not 
happen, and I am voting for the bill because the Republican leadership 
has made it clear that they will not allow the House to pass a better 
one.
  As was made clear in the debate, the bill does far more than is 
needed to deal with the problem of the so-called ``marriage penalty''--
in fact, many of the married couples covered by the bill already pay 
lower income taxes then they would if they were single. But it does 
respond to the problem faced by those people who do pay a ``marriage 
penalty.'' And, the bill does not do all that should be done regarding 
the child credit. For starters, it is slow, so that the full increase 
does not take effect until 2006. And, while it does allow the credit to 
offset the alternative minimum tax, it does not make the credit fully 
refundable. That is something that we should be doing--and something 
that I will work to achieve in the future. But, I have concluded that 
the bill is enough of an improvement on the current law that I can 
support it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in 
voting to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty that makes many 
couples pay more in taxes than they would if they were not married. I 
have been pushing for marriage tax relief since I was elected 2 years 
ago. In the last Congress, I was proud to be one of the Democrats to 
cross party lines and vote for this measure when it passed the House of 
Representatives. Unfortunately, the bill was vetoed by President 
Clinton and did not become law.
  Today we have another chance to correct this inequity in our Tax 
Code. Since President Bush is likely to sign this bill, we can now 
solve this problem. All of us know the problem. Under present tax law, 
a couple may pay more taxes than they would as two single people 
because the rate brackets and standard deductions for joint filers are 
not twice as large as those for single filers. According to a study by 
the Treasury Department, about 48 percent of couples pay a marriage 
penalty.
  When a couple chooses to get married, its almost as if the tax 
collector is joining them at the altar as they take their vows. Couples 
I hear from in my central New Jersey congressional district tell me all 
the time: The marriage penalty is unfair, and it should be corrected. 
This bill gets the job done. H.R. 6 provides true tax relief to New 
Jersey families. It increases the child tax credit and fixes the 
``marriage penalty'' by: increasing the standard deduction, expanding 
the 15 percent tax bracket, doubling the earned income tax credit for 
low-income families and adjusting the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
  It's a good proposal that all of us should support. Before voting for 
H.R. 6, I will first vote for the substitute amendment by 
Representative Rangel, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means 
Committee. The Rangel substitute not only eliminates the marriage 
penalty, it makes bigger and quicker tax cuts than H.R. 6. It cuts 
everybody's taxes by lowering the tax rate on the first $20,000 of 
income (for a couple) from 15 percent to 12 percent. It expands the 
income eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC) by $800, 
increases by $2,500 the income level at which the credit begins to 
phase out for a married couple with children, and simplifies the 
calculations to determine the earned income credit. It makes all of the 
tax cuts being considered by Congress more real for more people--
especially in states with high income tax rates, like New Jersey--by 
adjusting the alternative minimum tax so it does not take away with one 
hand what these tax bills purport to give with the other hand. The 
Rangel substitute makes more of these tax cuts take effect this year, 
to help people hurt by the slowing economy and to rebuild consumer and 
investor confidence. All in all, the Rangel substitute cuts taxes by 
$585 billion over 10 years, compared to H.R. 6's $399 billion.
  Our tax code should not penalize marriage. We must come together in a 
bipartisan way to address this problem. I will continue to work in a 
bipartisan way to see that marriage tax relief becomes law.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, most of the talk on tax relief this year 
has focused on how cutting taxes would stimulate the economy . . . and 
that it would. But let's not lose focus of the other important issue 
here, the issue of tax fairness. The marriage tax, is most simply 
stated, unfair. A couple's wedding day should never be an excuse for 
the government to siphon off more money from taxpayers. Our tax laws 
should never discourage couples from marrying by making it financially 
undesirable.
  H.R. 6 is a step in the right direction on the road to tax fairness. 
The bill corrects the glaring inequity in our tax code that 
discriminates against married couples. In my home State of West 
Virginia, over 137,000 married couples will no longer be burdened by 
the marriage tax. Now, 137,000 couples may not sound like a lot of 
people to my colleague from California or Texas or Florida; but in a 
state where the total population is 1.8 million, that's a lot of people 
who will now see meaningful tax relief.
  Married life and raising children are never easy tasks. They require 
constant work, stewardship, compromise, loyalty and responsibility. 
Today, Congress has an opportunity to make it a little bit easier on 
married couples and parents. Today, we have the opportunity to remove 
needless financial burdens, allowing Americans to focus more on where 
our country's future lies: in our homes, with our children. Let's do 
the common sense thing. Let's do the fair thing. Let's do the right 
thing and end this inequity and repeal the marriage tax penalty.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must oppose H.R. 6, the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 2001. The marriage penalty is an unfair 
burden on many working families and I strongly support legislation to 
eliminate it. However, the Republican bill that is on the House floor 
today costs far too much and does far too little for Wisconsin 
families.
  Half of the relief from the legislation would benefit tax filers that 
currently pay no marriage penalty. Also concerning is that families 
that need relief the most . . . families making less than $27,000 . . . 
would not benefit from the changes to the refundable child tax credit. 
The relief promised by the bill will not arrive for several years, 
providing no stimulus to the economy. Fully 70 percent of the bill 
would not take effect until after 2006. Finally, this bill will cost 
$400 billion over the next 10 years. Combined with the tax cut passed 
in the House earlier this month, the total cost for these tax cuts is 
already at $1.8 trillion, including interest. The overall size of these 
tax cuts jeopardizes the fiscal health of this nation.
  I was absent from the House today due to a death in my family. 
However, had I been in Washington, I would have supported the 
Democratic substitute. I believe this substitute targets immediate tax 
relief to average working families and individuals in Wisconsin in a 
fiscally responsible way. This substitute would create a 12 percent tax 
bracket for the first $20,000 of taxable income for married couples and 
$10,000 for single people. This bracket is phased in beginning in 2001 
and is fully effective in 2003, offering immediate relief to those who 
need it most. Also, the substitute would increase the standard 
deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice the standard 
education for single filers. This provision would take effect beginning 
with the 2001 tax year. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6 and 
support responsible tax relief for working families provided in the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard-
working families in my Congressional district to support H.R. 6, the 
Marriage Penalty and Tax Relief Act. I am here today to ask for 
fairness and common sense to protect families and secure our children's 
future.
  The Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001 (H.R. 6) will 
provide roughly $400 billion over 10 years in tax relief to families by 
increasing the child-care tax credit and fixing the marriage penalty 
tax. In addition, this legislation also increases the standard 
deduction, expands the 15 percent tax bracket, doubles the earned 
income tax credit for low-income families and adjusts the alternative 
minimum tax.
  Twenty-five million couples pay the marriage tax penalty each year to 
the tune of $1,400, including over 60,000 couples in my congressional 
district alone. It is unfair that married couples should shoulder this 
burden, simply because they chose to say ``I do.'' This legislation is 
critical to simplifying the tax code more simple, and making it more 
fair.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6 and finally 
ending the marriage tax penalty. I am also pleased that the House will 
continue its work on reviewing President Bush's tax plans when we 
consider the repeal of the estate tax in the coming week.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important 
legislation to repeal the marriage penalty and provide greater relief 
through the child tax credit.
  And, I want to thank my friend from Illinois, Jerry Weller, for 
holding steadfast to this legislation, and Speaker Hastert for standing 
firmly on the side of the American family by bringing this bill to the 
floor today.
  As I travel around Florida's fourth district, I speak to a lot of 
couples who are concerned about how much they pay in taxes, in 
particular for the unfair marriage penalty. In fact, nearly 57,000 
couples in my district pay an average of $1,400 more per year than if 
they were filing their taxes as single people.
  A lot of attention is paid to the young couples--just married and 
trying to start a family--and the hardship they suffer as a result of 
the marriage penalty. But, I met a wonderful

[[Page 4966]]

couple in my district last year, a widow and widower, both in their 
sixties, that had made a conscious decision not to marry because they 
were very aware of the effect it would have on their limited retirement 
incomes. It's just commonsense to let these people marry without 
concern about how their wallets would be impacted.
  These couples were so pleased when Congress passed relief for married 
couples. And, they were outraged when President Clinton vetoed this 
fair legislation. That's why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
H.R. 6, which will finally give these married couples the relief they 
deserve. This bill not only puts married couples back on equal footing 
with single taxpayers by expanding the 15 percent tax bracket and 
doubling the standard deduction, but also doubles the child tax credit. 
The bill helps all families keep a little bit more of their hard-earned 
money in their households.
  With passage of this legislation, the House is letting the average 
family of four keep $1,600 to pay their own bills and debts, save for a 
rainy day, or send their kids to the little league, ballet lessons, and 
tutors that they want to be able to afford. It seems the least we can 
do to let these families keep the dollars they earn. They've done with 
a little less when dollars were short in their households, due in part 
to the fact that they overpaid in taxes to the government. It's time we 
put America's families first and pay back some of the money these 
families have overpaid to the government.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispel any notion that the 
tax bill before is here to help families. The total sum of the tax 
package is so large--$2.5 trillion and counting--that it cuts into 
vital spending programs that benefit families across the Nation.
  Today's bill is one more tax bill to make the American public believe 
that this Congress is going to right the wrongs of the Tax Code and 
spur the economy out of a recession, while simultaneously maintaining 
fiscal discipline and addressing the vital spending needs of our 
Nation. This tax bill is nothing more than an excuse for why Congress 
will be forced to privatize Social Security and Medicare when the baby 
boomers begin to retire; why we can't give a worthwhile Medicare 
prescription drug benefit to our seniors today; and why we need to cut 
vital child care programs.
  The tax cut before us today clearly demonstrates a lack of commitment 
to our children when it forces cuts in other programs that directly 
help children. Republicans reduce funds for the Child Care Development 
Block Grant (CCDBG) by $200 million in 2002 and freeze funds after 2002 
in order to pay for their tax package. The child care provided through 
the CCDBG is a critical component to assist poor families' move from 
welfare to work. At the moment, the block grant only has enough money 
to serve 12 percent of the eligible children. We need more funding in 
this program, not less. As Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson said, 
``welfare reform does not come cheap.''
  The Republicans let Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
Supplemental Grants expire in 2001. Even worse, the Republican budget 
encourages States to divert the remaining Federal funds to pay for 
State income tax credits for charitable contributions. These funds 
would otherwise provide critical welfare-to-work services. The 
Democrats' tax package is moderate in cost, allowing an increase to at 
least $2 billion in 2002 in title XX Social Services Block Grant 
Funding.
  Families who earn less than $27,000 will not see any of the benefit 
from the promised increase in the child tax credit. Furthermore, many 
families who earn more than $27,000 may not see a benefit in the child 
tax credit. In fact, 31.2 million taxpayers (24 percent of taxpayers) 
will get no income tax cut from the GOP tax plan. The bill promises a 
$1,000 family credit but nobody is honest enough to tell the American 
people that many families won't see the child credit doubled because 
the child will be over 16 years old when the credit takes effect in 
2006. Families with children over the age of 11 are being promised an 
additional $500 but won't actually see it unless they have additional 
children.
  Let's be honest about the bill before us--it will not affect the 
economy anytime soon. Most of the provisions in this bill don't take 
effect until 2006 and some don't take full effect until 2009. The U.S. 
economy is facing a recession today. That being the case, why are we 
offering tax breaks 5, and even 8 years from now? It's quite obvious. 
The GOP tax plan is too expensive to fit it in today's budget. My 
Republican colleagues have been tasked with fitting a size 12 foot into 
a size 6 shoe.
  This legislation is one of several that will be combined to create 
excessive tax cuts that will provide a disproportionate amount of 
benefits to the wealthiest in our society. Later today, the Ways and 
Means Committee will mark up a bill to repeal the estate tax that is 
clearly designed to help the most affluent few in the United States.
  The Rangel substitute bill on the floor today is the responsible 
choice for family tax relief. The bill is honest, fair, fiscally 
responsible, and encourages economic prosperity. The Rangel substitute 
spends a fraction of the comprehensive Bush tax proposal, leaving room 
to pay down the debt and for other critical spending needs such as 
education and a Medicare prescription drug benefit. A lower national 
debt means lower interest costs leaving us in better fiscal shape to 
meet the demands of a retiring baby boom generation. The Rangel 
substitute benefits all families by giving all families a rate 
reduction; doubling the standard deduction for married couples to twice 
that of single individuals; adjusting and simplifying the earned income 
credit so lower-income families will see tax relief. Finally, the 
substitute fixes the alternative minimum tax (AMT) so when it appears 
that a family will receive tax relief, they won't be denied the relief 
due to the AMT.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the equitable and responsible Rangel 
substitute and oppose the ``voodoo'' economics tax plan before us. It 
didn't work in the 80's and it won't work in the new millennium.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start by thanking Chairman 
Thomas for moving the next installment of President Bush's tax relief 
plan so quickly.
  Today, we are helping to fulfill a promise made to the American 
people and delivering $400 billion in relief to families suffering the 
marriage penalty and families struggling to raise children.
  We need to provide urgent relief to families suffering from the 
unfair marriage tax penalty.
  About 25 million married couples currently pay an average of $1,400 
more in taxes than they would as single taxpayers. In my own 
congressional district alone, 80,000 married couples pay higher taxes 
simply because they are married. That is wrong.
  Consider what $1,400 a year would mean to a family struggling to make 
car or mortgage payments, to buy groceries and clothes for their kids, 
or to save for their child's college education. If opponents of this 
measure don't believe marriage penalty tax relief will make a real 
difference in the lives of real families, then frankly--they are 
severely out of touch.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support real relief for real 
families, right now. Support this important measure today and put money 
back in the pockets of American families.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the 
``Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001.'' With this 
important legislation today we are fulfilling our pledge to finally 
begin easing the tax burden on every American family. H.R. 6 will 
eliminate the marriage penalty and raise the child tax credit. This 
bill is an essential part of restoring fairness to our tax system and 
helping Idaho families.
  Many married couples today have to pay a tax penalty of more than 
$1,400 per year. For young people on limited incomes this is often an 
insurmountable barrier to marriage. The Marriage Penalty and Family Tax 
Relief Act will increase the deduction for a jointly filed return to 
twice the level of a single deduction. Millions of people who are 
considering marriage will no longer have to worry about paying the 
taxman on their wedding day.
  This bill also reaffirms our commitment to families with children. We 
will double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. America's 
children deserve to have their parent's income spent on their welfare, 
not stolen by the government and grudgingly returned. This bill will 
give the families of more than 79,000 children in Idaho's first 
district the money they need to meet the rising costs of raising a 
family in this country.
  The Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act is an important and 
needed first step. It will lift children out of poverty, encourage 
family formation, and stimulate our economy. I urge this house to send 
the surplus home to America's families, and pass H.R. 6.]]
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 6, 
the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001.
  H.R. 6 will provide $399 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years 
for almost 50 million American taxpayers and their families. First, 
H.R. 6 will increase the standard deduction and expand the lowest 15 
percent income tax bracket for married couples who file a joint tax 
return, increasing the current basic deduction from $7,350 to $8,800. 
And for families, H.R. 6 increases the child tax credit from $500 to 
$600 this year and will increase it to $1,000 over the next 5 years.
  The Marriage Penalty Tax is inherently unfair. The Federal Government 
should not force

[[Page 4967]]

working couples, through an unfair, archaic Tax Code, to pay higher 
taxes simply because they choose to be married. And worse yet, the 
Marriage Penalty Tax impacts the second wage earner in a family the 
hardest, which in most cases, is usually a woman. This flaw in our Tax 
Code is wrong. By passing H.R. 6, Congress will right this wrong, once 
and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I want the 72,000 married couples in my District alone 
to know that they will no longer be forced to pay more taxes. I can 
think of no more unfair and ridiculous part of the current Tax Code 
than the marriage tax penalty.
  And as I travel across New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, I am 
constantly reminded of the need for prompt tax relief. I hear it when I 
get my coffee and paper in the morning, at my local barbershop or at 
any one of my weekend town meetings or the pancake breakfasts I attend 
on Sunday mornings.
  Mr. Speaker, not only do Americans want tax relief, our economy needs 
one. Congress is off to a terrific start in providing the kind of tax 
relief that will help stimulate our economy. By passing H.R. 3, the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001, on March 8, we acted to 
give Americans the first across-the-board income tax cut in two 
decades.
  So today, I urge my colleagues to build on our ongoing efforts to 
provide tax relief for all hard working Americans. Let's pass Marriage 
Penalty Tax relief for the millions of working couples who should not 
be penalized by the IRS just because they are married. And let's 
strengthen our families by making sure that parents receive a break 
from the IRS to help care for their children. It's difficult to make 
ends meet, especially when working to feed, clothe and educate a young 
family--let's double the child credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and 
make it easier for parents to provide for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief 
Act of 2001 and let's help strengthen both our families and our 
economy.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, 
the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act. I urge my colleagues to 
support this worthy, long overdue, legislation.
  This bill provides approximately $400 billion of tax relief to 
families. It doubles the highly successful child tax credit enacted in 
1997 and applies that credit to the alternative minimum tax. Moreover, 
it also increases both the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax 
bracket for married couples to double that of single filers. Finally, 
it increases the income amount eligible for the earned income tax 
credit (EITC), making additional families eligible for this credit.
  The 106th Congress visited this issue last year, and passed repeal 
legislation by wide margins. Regrettably, the then-President vetoed our 
legislation because he opposed expanding the 15 percent bracket. We now 
have an opportunity to correct this mistake, and help those couples 
with combined incomes of $40,000-$60,000, who by no means are wealthy.
  The current Tax Code punishes married couples where both partners 
work by driving them into a higher tax bracket. The marriage penalty 
taxes the income of the second wage earner at a much higher rate than 
if they were taxed as an individual. Since this second earner is 
usually the wife, the marriage penalty is unfairly biased against 
female taxpayers.
  Moreover, by prohibiting married couples from filing combined returns 
whereby each spouse is taxed using the same rate applicable to an 
unmarried individual, the Tax Code penalizes marriage and encourages 
couples to live together without any formal legal commitment to each 
other.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 42 percent of 
married couples incurred a marriage penalty in 1996, and that more than 
21 million couples paid an average of $1,400 in additional taxes. The 
CBO further found that those most severely affected by the penalty were 
those couples with near equal salaries and those receiving the earned 
income tax credit.
  This aspect of the Tax Code simply does not make sense. It 
discourages marriage, is unfair to female taxpayers, and 
disproportionately affects the working- and middle-class populations 
who are struggling to make ends meet. For all of these reasons, it 
needs to be repealed.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of marriage penalty 
tax relief. I strongly believe that we should reduce the marriage tax 
penalty that couples incur and relieve millions of married couples from 
an unfair tax burden.
  Reducing the marriage penalty is the right thing to do. It must be 
part of a tax plan, however, that is fair and fiscally responsible.
  We must consider it as part of a responsible budget framework that 
would give priority to using the emerging budget surplus to address our 
existing obligations, such as investing in education and defense, 
providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, shoring up Social 
Security and Medicare, and paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt.
  That is why I support the measure to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty offered today by Representative Rangel. It would do a better 
job of fixing the marriage penalty and cost significantly less than 
H.R. 6.
  H.R. 6, if passed, would bring the total cost of the Republican tax 
cut to $1.4 trillion and even though the President claims to spend only 
$1.6 trillion on tax cuts. The remaining Republican tax promises and 
the increased payment on the national debt could easily reach $2.9 
trillion.
  More importantly, the surplus projections on which these tax cuts are 
based are already outdated given the recent slowdown in the economy. 
Furthermore, the tax cuts are so backloaded that families will not 
benefit, if at all, for at least 3 years. In fact, 74 percent of the 
tax relief wouldn't occur until 2007 or beyond under H.R. 6, and it's 
based on projected budget surpluses that may not occur in that time.
  The Republican numbers just don't add up, and the surplus estimates 
they are using are completely unreliable. There is no way the House 
leadership can keep all of its remaining tax cut promises without 
putting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds at risk.
  The bulk of the tax relief provided in the Republican bill is not 
marriage penalty relief, but instead, is a widening of tax brackets 
that benefit higher income individuals. In fact, half of the relief 
goes to those who do not pay any marriage penalty today; instead those 
couples receive a marriage ``bonus.''
  Another concern of mine is that H.R. 6 discriminates against single 
taxpayers. It provides tax relief for those who choose to marry, but 
does nothing for those who are and remain single.
  I find the Rangel substitute to be more responsible and fair. The 
substitute, like the bill, would reduce the marriage tax penalty by 
increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filling a 
joint income tax return to twice the basic standard for an unmarried 
individual.
  The substitute would also reduce the marriage penalty by modifying 
the Tax Code in order to make more married couples eligible for the 
earned income tax credit (EITC). It would increase the income level at 
which the credit begins to phase out by $2,500. A family with one child 
will get $272 and a family with two or more children will get $320 
beginning in 2002.
  H.R. 6 does not provide the same relief for those working families 
with children as the alternative does. I realize H.R. 6 proposes an 
increase in the current $500 per child tax credit to $1,000 per child.
  This credit, however, is only refundable for a family with three of 
more children. Therefore, a family who has two children and income less 
than $27,000 would get no tax relief from the child credit at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the 
American people and support marriage tax penalty relief offered by 
Representative Rangel. This substitute provides genuine relief for 
citizens who are truly penalized by the current tax structure. I know 
this kind of tax relief is supported by many of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and I was sincerely looking forward to have the 
opportunity to vote today on a bipartisan tax relief bill. But given 
the backwarding of tax relief in H.R. 6 or the speculative notion of 
budget surpluses occurring 8, 9, or 10 years from now. I cannot in good 
conscience gamble with my two young boys' future and risk embarking on 
an economic course that could return us to the days of budget deficits.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
bill before us.
  It is immoral to tax marriage, but that is what our current tax law 
does. Americans should not be forced to pay higher taxes just because 
they get married. For years the Republican lead Congress has struggled 
to repeal this immoral tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton would not 
allow us to repeal this tax. I am pleased that President Bush has 
proposed and pledged to sign into law, legislation to repeal this tax.
  Some in Washington believe that the federal government is entitled to 
this money. I disagree. Every dollar that comes into Washington comes 
out of someone's pocket. This bill recognizes this and focuses on 
getting rid of this tax that unfairly penalizes one segment of the 
American people--those who get married. This bill will provide marriage 
tax relief to 53,000 couples in my Congressional District.
  The bill before us also doubles the child tax credit to let parents 
keep more of what they

[[Page 4968]]

earn. It is expensive raising children today. Unfortunately, the child 
deduction in the tax code has not kept pace with inflation. Today this 
deduction amounts to less than half of what it would be if it had kept 
pace with inflation since the 1950s. We begin to further address this 
erosion, by doubling the per child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This 
will provide tax relief to the parents of 84,000 children in my 
Congressional District.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act. I 
would also like to commend the excellent work of Ways and Means 
Chairman Bill Thomas for reporting this important legislation.
  The marriage penalty represents one of the more onerous aspects of 
our overly-complex tax code. It results in more than 21 million married 
couples incurring an average additional tax liability of $1400, just 
for being married. In the 11th District of Virginia, which I represent, 
it affects over 66,000 couples. It is troublesome glitches such as this 
that confuse taxpayers--that make them question whether the federal 
government is really there to help them, or whether it merely exists to 
exert its power in capricious and arbitrary ways. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
you, if we cannot afford to fix problems such as this when we are 
enjoying surpluses, when can we do it? When can we take the necessary 
steps to make our tax code fairer, to do away with the unintended 
consequences of past actions? I say that we can do it now.
  H.R. 6 is a clear reflection of what our priorities should be. We 
should encourage couples however we can. We should send the message 
that staying at home to raise your children has real value. We should 
say that we realize staying married is not an easy task. There are 
pressures and difficulties which too frequently rend asunder what God 
has joined--and most often these pressures are financial. We should 
wisely use the power entrusted in us by the American people to reduce 
this financial strain that causes many families to break apart. We 
should use that power to give them more of their own money to help 
raise their children. Mr. Speaker, how do we have any hope of stemming 
the flow of divorce, broken homes, and childhood violence if we do not 
support marriage and strong families at every turn?
  This bill will fix the marriage penalty. It will help more couples 
keep one spouse at home to help raise the children if they choose to do 
so. It will help with the expenses of raising a family by doubling the 
child tax credit to $1000 per child. In the 11th District alone, that 
will help the parents of over 120,000 children buy clothes for school, 
buy the gasoline to get them there, pay the heating bill to keep them 
warm, and buy the food to make them strong. It will send a message to 
couples, young, and old, that we support them. Mr. Speaker, it is time 
to divorce ourselves from this unfair tax. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 6 and 
against an unfair tax.
  The issue before us is the marriage penalty tax. But clearly the 
deeper issue here is fairness--and from whatever angle you view the 
marriage penalty tax it is unfair. It is unfair to impose different tax 
burdens on couples of equal income simply because one of those couples 
chose to get married and begin a life together.
  Isn't it enough that we tax their wages, their automobile, their 
gasoline and nearly everything else they will purchase or acquire? Must 
we also ask couples to write a check simply because they say, ``I do'' 
to each other?
  This tax is bad public policy and I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the bill that will once and for all eliminate the marriage 
penalty tax.
  This bill not only benefits married couples; it benefits families 
with children as well. H.R. 6 doubles the child tax credit from $500 to 
$1,000 and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), allowing 
families in Connecticut's Second District to keep more of their hard-
earned income. That's more money for a mortgage payment, a new home 
computer, an electric bill or shoes and clothing.
  When I came to Congress, I pledged to work toward the elimination of 
the marriage penalty tax. I made a promise. And I am proud to join my 
colleagues in keeping this promise and providing a long overdue element 
of fairness to the way that our nation taxes married families.
  The institution of marriage represents important values to our 
culture. We need to support our values, not tax them. It's time to end 
this tax and support America's families.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
legislation.
  I have consistently supported efforts to fix the marriage penalty, 
and I support increasing the size of the child tax credit as well. In 
the past, I have cosponsored legislation to fix the marriage penalty, 
and I voted in favor of the 1997 legislation which created the child 
tax credit. But I cannot support this legislation today.
  The concerns that I have about this legislation are threefold.
  First, I am disturbed that a bill that will cost $400 billion over 
ten years does little or nothing--especially in the short term--to help 
many low- and moderate-income couples. While the bill would provide 
partial refundability for the child tax credit--promising aid to lower-
income families--the provision's interaction with the earned income tax 
credit would provide no benefit to families with, for example, two 
children until their income exceeds $27,000. And while the bill would 
provide marriage penalty relief to families that don't itemize their 
deductions--predominantly low- and moderate-income families--that 
provision doesn't take effect until 2004 and is not fully phased in 
until 2009.
  Second, I am concerned that this bill is only one part of a series of 
tax cuts that, when taken as a whole, will seriously reduce the federal 
government's ability to carry out its existing obligations and address 
the pressing problems that confront our country--obligations like 
keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent and problems like 
improving education, providing affordable health insurance for the 
uninsured, and ensuring that prescription drug prices are affordable 
for all Americans. I consider the piecemeal consideration of this 
series of tax cuts to be a disingenuous attempt to conceal the true 
size of the total package--and to hide the important trade-off implicit 
in enacting the President's package of tax cuts and addressing other 
federal priorities like improving education, ensuring all Americans' 
access to affordable health care, and caring for our senior citizens. 
Moreover, the fact that so many of these tax cuts are phased in over 
the next 10 years tends to conceal their true cost--which will only be 
evident ten years from now. At that point, the government is 
projected--even under the most optimistic estimates--to begin running 
deficits again. And lest anyone paint those deficits as the result of 
an irresponsible, freespending Congress, I should note that those 
deficits will be produced almost exclusively by a doubling in Social 
Security and Medicare caseloads. I believe we should use most of any 
anticipated surpluses to prepare for that imminent challenge.
  Finally, I am puzzled by the President's characterization of his $1.6 
trillion package of tax cuts as essential for jump-starting the slowing 
national economy. Most of the $1.35 trillion in tax relief considered 
so far would not be phased in until after 2006. The tax relief provided 
by this bill in 2001 is miniscule. I don't consider that timely 
intervention in terms of getting the economy back on track this year.
  Consequently, I must oppose this legislation, and I will support a 
smaller, more responsible package of tax cuts that provide more of 
their tax relief to low- and moderate-income families. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, ever since coming here to 
Congress, enacting common-sense tax relief for the people I represent 
back in Oregon has been one of my biggest priorities. So, it should 
hardly be surprising that I am going to vote for H.R. 6 today--just as 
I voted for it last year--and just as I'll continue to vote for any 
bill that effectively ends the marriage penalty.
  The sole purpose of this bill is to ease the federal income tax 
burden on married couples and low-income families with children. By 
easing this burden, we're making sure that families will have more 
money to save up for a mortgage down payment or additional income to 
set aside for college expenses.
  I do want to talk about a troubling aspect of our tax code that is 
going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later, and that's 
reforming the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. Originally adopted in 
1969 to ensure the wealthy pay their fare share of taxes, the AMT 
hasn't been indexed for inflation since the early 1990s. And as incomes 
and deductions have risen in recent years, middle class families are 
more often than not receiving a love letter from the IRS after they've 
filed their returns notifying them that they owe the AMT.
  Now H.R. 6 does include some AMT relief--specifically, it wouldn't 
cancel out the gains of the bill for married couples. But the problem 
is that the minimum tax requires a different set of calculations and 
disallows many deductions--including deductions for state and local 
taxes paid. For Oregonians, who pay some of the highest income taxes in 
the nation, that means that more and more families over the next decade 
are going to receive a notice from the IRS saying that they own money--
and not receive much of the relief we're promising to give them right 
now.

[[Page 4969]]

  That's a big problem for me, and it's going to be a big problem for 
tens of millions of middle class Americans. For example, as of 2006, a 
family of four in Oregon with a combined income of $72,747 will be 
liable for the AMT--while the same size family in Texas, which has no 
income tax, will only be liable if their income exceeds $146,307.
  So while I am in favor of reforming the marriage penalty here today, 
I strongly urge my colleagues to keep the AMT in mind when or if we 
conference this legislation with the Senate. I understand the Senate 
Finance Committee chairman has indicated that he intends to include 
comprehensive AMT adjustments in the tax reform legislation his 
Committee will write. We can work together to ensure our tax code is a 
fair one.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act, 
of which this Member is once again an original cosponsor. This bill 
will have a positive effect, in particular, on middle- and lower-income 
married couples as H.R. 6 not only provides tax relief to married 
couples, but also expands the per-child tax credit.
  This Member would like to thank both the main sponsor of the marriage 
tax penalty relief portions of H.R. 6, the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for 
their instrumental role in bringing H.R. 6 to the House Floor. This 
Member appreciates the efforts of these distinguished colleagues as 
this Member has been an enthusiastic and active proponent of reducing 
and eliminating the marriage tax penalty as soon as possible.
  While there are many reasons to support the marriage tax penalty 
relief provisions of H.R. 6, this Member will specifically address the 
following two reasons.
  First, H.R. 6 takes a significant step toward eliminating the current 
marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code, as H.R. 6 would double 
the standard deduction, expand the 15 percent bracket so that it is 
equal to twice that of singles and at the same time this bill would 
hold down costs by phasing in that change between 2004 and 2009, and 
provide relief from the alternative minimum tax so that a married 
couple who gets the tax cut would not be hit subsequently with a tax 
increase.
  Second, H.R. 6 takes a step toward reaching the overall goal that the 
Federal income tax code should be marriage neutral. Currently, many 
married couples pay more Federal income tax than they would as two 
unmarried singles. Generally, the more evenly divided the earned income 
of the two spouses, the more likely they are to have a structural 
marriage tax penalty. Hence, married couples where each spouse earns 
approximately 50% of the total earned income have the largest marriage 
tax penalties. However, the Internal Revenue Code should not be a 
consideration when individuals discuss their future marital status. The 
goal for marriage penalty tax relief is that the individual income tax 
should not influence the choice of individuals with regard to their 
marital status--that is a guiding principle for this Member in voting 
for marriage tax penalty relief.
  Additionally, and quite importantly, H.R. 6 provides additional 
family tax relief by expanding the per-child tax credit. Specifically, 
H.R. 6 would gradually double the child tax credit to $1,000 per child 
under age 17 by 2006. The tax credit would be raised from $500 to $600 
effective this year, which would give families a quick tax break in the 
current 2001 tax year (i.e., retroactive increase to January 1, 2001). 
Also, H.R. 6 would retain the current income eligibility limits for the 
child tax credit. This Member supports the expansion of the child tax 
credit to give more relief to lower-income couples and to those couples 
with a stay-at-home spouse. Finally, as in current law, the measure 
would continue to allow the child tax credit to be refundable to 
families with three or more children that receive the Earned Income Tax 
Credit (EITC).
  Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his 
colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief 
Act.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, every year more than 58,000 
couples in Michigan's eighth district pay the federal government's 
penalty for saying ``I do.'' Until we remove this tax on marriage, 
families across Michigan and the country will continue to pay more in 
taxes than they should. The elimination of the marriage penalty will 
allow hardworking families to keep more of their own money to provide 
for their needs.
  The average penalty paid by Michigan families is $1,400 every year. 
This is real money that can make a real difference in the lives of 
working, two-income families. Let me share with you a few examples of 
what $1,400 means to families in Michigan.
  Seventeen hours of college credit at Lansing Community College; 
nearly 10 months of electrical utility bills; 100 packages of size 2 
Huggies Diapers; 3 months of child care; a well-deserved family summer 
vacation.
  Today's vote reduces the burden on two-income families and is an 
important step toward our goal of removing all tax penalties on 
marriage and the family found in the federal tax code. I strongly 
support the efforts to remove this penalty and urge adoption of the 
Marriage Penalty and Tax Relief Act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress debated further tax cuts 
under the guise of fixing the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' 
Ultimately, like yesterday's discussions about the budget, today's 
debate is about priorities: more tax benefits for those who need help 
the least, versus tax relief for all working Americans and fixing 
serious flaws in our tax system.
  Only a small portion of the legislation proposed today would go to 
taxpayers that actually pay the ``marriage penalty.''
  It does not address the growing problem posed by the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT). The AMT was passed to ensure the wealthy did not 
avoid paying their fair share of taxes. According to the Wall Street 
Journal, if the Bush proposal is fully implemented, an Oregon family of 
four with an income of $72,747 will be forced into the AMT. I assure 
you that such a family is not wealthy. If we are to ensure that all 
Americans are able to enjoy tax relief, no matter what bill we pass, 
Congress must address the alternative minimum tax.
  The Republican proposal puts the financial health of our country at-
risk. Passing tax cuts based on dubious surplus estimates, threatening 
the strong fiscal health of our country by sending us back into the era 
of big deficits.
  The Democratic alternative fixes the ``marriage penalty'' and 
provides immediate rate reductions in order to stimulate our economy. 
It also addresses the AMT. The cost of the Democratic proposal is 
consistent with our goals of protecting the nation's fiscal health. 
Additionally, the Democratic alternative provides relief to low income 
families whose tax problem is the payroll tax. I support this 
alternative.
  I remain convinced that Congress can work together to pass reasonable 
tax reform without putting our fiscal health at risk. Hopefully the 
American public will be heard during the next phase of the legislative 
process.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation 
designed to bring fairness to the tax code by removing the penalty many 
married couples now face when paying Federal income tax. Correcting the 
marriage penalty is a commonsense answer to a quirk in the tax code 
that costs American families an average of $1,100 a year in additional 
Federal tax. As one part of a larger tax cut proposal, I believe that 
eliminating the marriage penalty is perhaps the single most effective 
way that Congress can provide balanced and fair relief.
  As an original cosponsor of this bill, I have met with many married 
couples throughout my district who do not understand why their tax 
burden is higher simply because they file jointly. By passing this 
bill, Congress will remove the inequity faced by many of these families 
and provide real tax relief to thousands of people throughout east 
Texas.
  Our efforts to provide tax relief also reflect the values of our 
fellow citizens. At the very least, Congress must be neutral in our 
treatment of the institution of marriage and remove any obstacles that 
discourage marriage. Congress regularly uses legislation to discourage 
one kind of behavior and encourage another, all the while being careful 
to balance the interests of our divergent country. By passing a law 
that will end the practice of penalizing marriage, Congress is making a 
sound decision that will produce incalculable benefits.
  Today, along with eliminating the marriage penalty, Congress is 
considering a provision to double the child tax credit from $500 to 
$1,000 for each child under the age of 17. Mr. Speaker, the original 
law providing for this credit was one of the first votes I made as a 
Member of this body--it is also one of my proudest. By doubling the 
child credit, Congress is building on the sound economic policy of the 
previous administration. Along with the earned income tax credit 
(EITC), the child tax credit is one of the best tools working families 
have to lower their tax burden. Designed for working and middle class 
families, the child credit is the counterpoint in our efforts to 
eliminate the marriage penalty.
  I do have only one disagreement with today's effort to double the 
child tax credit--it is not phased-in fast enough. Although the credit 
will double, the phase-in is over too long a period--5 years. I believe 
the phase-in should be faster, particularly given indications that our

[[Page 4970]]

economy is slowing. Enacting this provision over the next 2 years, 
rather than the proposed 5-year phase-in, would provide a quicker 
stimulus and greater infusion of tax dollars back in the pockets of 
taxpayers. Therefore, I also support legislation that would instruct 
Congress to provide more of the proposed tax benefits during this 
fiscal year. I support long-term tax relief, but it is a mistake for 
Congress to pass only long-term tax measures when the need for economic 
stimulus is urgent. Congress will have the opportunity to address this 
concern throughout the tax writing process, and I sincerely hope, that 
as with today's debate, a bipartisan agreement can be reached to 
provide substantial tax relief this year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for 
general debate has expired.


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

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
     Reduction Act of 2001''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) 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.

  TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTIONS; EXPANSION OF EARNED 
                        INCOME CREDIT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 101. INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE REDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) 12 Percent Rate Bracket.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2000--
       ``(A) the rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and 
     (d) on taxable income not over the initial bracket amount 
     shall be 12 percent, and
       ``(B) the 15 percent rate of tax shall apply only to 
     taxable income over the initial bracket amount.
       ``(2) Initial bracket amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the initial bracket amount is--
       ``(i) $20,000 in the case of subsection (a),
       ``(ii) 80 percent of the dollar amount in clause (i) in the 
     case of subsection (b), and
       ``(iii) 50 percent of the dollar amount in clause (i) in 
     the case of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(B) Phasein.--The initial bracket amount is--
       ``(i) \1/4\ the amount otherwise applicable under 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of taxable years beginning 
     during 2001, and
       ``(ii) \1/2\ such amount otherwise applicable under 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of taxable years beginning 
     during 2002.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in a calendar year after 2003, the $20,000 amount 
     under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     subsection (f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2002' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding rules.--If any amount after adjustment under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.
       ``(4) Adjustment of tables.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     tables prescribed under subsection (f) carry out this 
     subsection.''
       (b) Adjustment in Computation of Alternative Minimum Tax.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 55(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) the sum of--
       ``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year, plus
       ``(B) in the case of an individual, 3 percent of so much of 
     the individual's taxable income for the taxable year as is 
     taxed at 12 percent.''
       (c) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Section 32 is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Subclause (II) of section 
     1(g)(7)(B)(ii) is amended by striking ``15 percent'' and 
     inserting ``12 percent''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
       (f) Protection of Social Security and Medicare.--The 
     amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.

     SEC. 102. MODIFICATIONS TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Increases in Percentages and Amounts Used to Determine 
     Credit; Marriage Penalty Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 32 is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Percentages and Amounts.--
       ``(1) Percentages.--The credit percentage, the initial 
     phaseout percentage, and the final phaseout percentage shall 
     be determined as follows:

 
                                                The initial   The final
   ``In the case of an eligible     The credit    phaseout     phaseout
         individual with:           percentage   percentage   percentage
                                       is:          is:          is:
 
1 qualifying child...............           34        15.98        18.98
2 or more qualifying children....           40        21.06        24.06
No qualifying children...........         7.65         7.65        7.65.
 

       ``(2) Amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The earned income amount and the initial 
     phaseout amount shall be determined as follows:

 
                                                 The earned  The initial
 ``In the case of an eligible individual with:     income      phaseout
                                                 amount is:   amount is:
 
1 qualifying child............................       $8,140      $13,470
2 or more qualifying children.................      $10,820      $13,470
No qualifying children........................       $4,900      $6,130.
 

     In the case of a joint return where there is at least 1 
     qualifying child, the initial phaseout amount shall be $2,500 
     greater than the amount otherwise applicable under the 
     preceding sentence.
       ``(B) Final phaseout amount.--The final phaseout amount is 
     $26,000 ($28,500 in the case of a joint return).''
       (2) Modification of computation of phaseout.--Paragraph (2) 
     of section 32(a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Phaseout of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     allowable to a taxpayer under paragraph (1) for any taxable 
     year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of--
       ``(A) the initial phaseout percentage of so much of the 
     total income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the 
     taxpayer for the taxable year as exceeds the initial phaseout 
     amount but does not exceed the final phaseout amount, plus
       ``(B) the final phaseout percentage of so much of the total 
     income (or, if greater, the earned income) of the taxpayer 
     for the taxable year as exceeds the final phaseout amount.''
       (3) Total income.--Paragraph (5) of section 32(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Total income.--The term `total income' means adjusted 
     gross income determined without regard to--
       ``(A) the deductions referred to in paragraphs (6), (7), 
     (9), (10), (15), (16), and (17) of section 62(a),
       ``(B) the deduction allowed by section 162(l), and
       ``(C) the deduction allowed by section 164(f).''
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (j) of section 32 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(j) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2002, each of the dollar amounts in 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) 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.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any dollar amount, after being 
     increased under paragraph (1), is not a multiple of $10, such 
     dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 
     $10.''
       (B) Subparagraph (C) of section 32(c)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``modified adjusted gross income'' and inserting 
     ``total income''.
       (C) Paragraph (2) of section 32(f) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Requirements for tables.--
       ``(A) In general.--The provisions of subsection (a)(1) and 
     the provisions of subsection (a)(2) shall be reflected in 
     separate tables prescribed under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Subsection (a)(1) table.--The tables prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) to reflect the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
     shall have income brackets of not greater than $50 each for 
     earned income between $0 and the earned income amount.
       ``(C) Subsection (a)(2) table.--The tables prescribed under 
     paragraph (1) to reflect the provisions of subsection (a)(2) 
     shall have income brackets of not greater than $50 each for 
     total income (or, if greater, the earned income) above the 
     initial phaseout threshold.''

[[Page 4971]]

       (b) Repeal of Denial of Credit Where Investment Income.--
     Section 32 is amended by striking subsection (i).
       (c) Earned Income To Include Only Amounts Includible in 
     Gross Income.--
       (1) In general.--Section 32(c)(2)(A)(i) (defining earned 
     income) is amended by inserting ``, but only if such amounts 
     are includible in gross income for the taxable year'' after 
     ``other employee compensation''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 32(c)(2)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking 
     the period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ``, and'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vi) the requirement under subparagraph (A)(i) that an 
     amount be includible in gross income shall not apply if such 
     amount is exempt from tax under section 7873 or is derived 
     directly from restricted and allotted land under the Act of 
     February 8, 1887 (commonly known as the Indian General 
     Allotment Act) (25 U.S.C. 331 et seq.) or from land held 
     under Acts or treaties containing an exception provision 
     similar to the Indian General Allotment Act.''
       (d) Modification of Joint Return Requirement.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 32 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Married Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the taxpayer is married at the close 
     of the taxable year, the credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) only if the taxpayer and his spouse file a 
     joint return for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Marital status.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree 
     of divorce or of separate maintenance shall not be considered 
     as married.
       ``(3) Certain married individuals living apart.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), if--
       ``(A) an individual--
       ``(i) is married and files a separate return, and
       ``(ii) has a qualifying child who is a son, daughter, 
     stepson, or stepdaughter of such individual, and
       ``(B) during the last 6 months of such taxable year, such 
     individual and such individual's spouse do not have the same 
     principal place of abode,

     such individual shall not be considered as married.''
       (e) Expansion of Mathematical Error Authority.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6213(g) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (L) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (L) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) the entry on the return claiming the credit under 
     section 32 with respect to a child if, according to the 
     Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders established 
     under section 453(h) of the Social Security Act, the taxpayer 
     is a noncustodial parent of such child.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

                   TITLE II--MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF

     SEC. 201. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

       (a) Standard Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating 
     to standard deduction) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under 
     subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
       (C) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
       (D) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (2) Increase allowed as deduction in determining minimum 
     tax.--Subparagraph (E) of section 56(b)(1) 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 would be such deduction but for the amendment 
     made by section 201(a)(1) of the Tax Reduction Act of 2001.
       (3) Technical Amendments.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) 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''.
       (B) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 104, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious time in our Nation's economic 
history, because for the first time in many, many years, we expect to 
have a surplus; but we do not know the exact amount that surplus is 
going to be. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided that they are 
going to have tax reductions in the budget based on the fact they 
expect $5.6 trillion. We all know from the Congressional Budget Office 
that these figures that we are relying on, 50 percent of the time they 
are wrong, and the question is, what happens if they are wrong this 
time? We hope that they will not be.
  It seems as though, if this tax cut is locked into place and the 
surplus is not there, then the funds will not be there for Social 
Security, for Medicare, for prescription drugs relief, for education 
where the President wants to leave no child behind; and we were hoping 
that if we could find some kind of a trigger mechanism or some way to 
have a tax cut that we know that we can afford this year, or maybe for 
the next 5 years and then after that, take a look and see where we are 
in terms of our economy, where are we in terms of the programs, then 
not just Democrats, but even this compassionate Republican President 
would want to see supported.

                              {time}  1230

  So it just seems to me that if we are concerned about education and 
making certain our kids are going to be productive, concerned about our 
old folks getting decent health care, concerned about our men and women 
in the military, improving the quality of their lives, the question has 
to be: Where will the money come from?
  Of course, if we find out that we do not have the funds, there are 
only two things that we can do: ask for another substantial tax 
increase, or cut out the programs, the funding for the programs.
  We do know that there are many people on the other side of the aisle 
that believe the Social Security System never should have been created, 
that Medicare is not working, that the best that we should do for 
education is to give them a voucher.
  We know that health care to some people, they believe that there 
should not be a Patients' Bill of Rights. But by the same token, most 
Americans disagree with that theory, and we should not use reduction of 
taxes and an increase in spending for defense as an excuse to wipe out 
domestic spending.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it might be that the best thing that we should be 
thinking about doing is instructing the Congress or the conferees to 
recommit this bill, and to have them come back to see whether we can do 
something right now to spur the economy; whether we can get $60 billion 
out there in the taxpayers' hands; whether we can really stimulate the 
economy now, instead of just letting the rich get richer 5 years from 
now.
  We know that this tax cut has nothing to do with the stimulation of 
the economy, because the President thought about it in the good years. 
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore had a great economy going. Now that we are 
bad-mouthing the economy, now that it is sputtering, now that it is 
looking like it needs a shot in the arm, maybe what we ought to do, not 
as Republicans and as Democrats, but as Members of the House of 
Representatives, is to set aside this bill and tell the conferees, let 
us get something out to the taxpayers this year. Let us get it to the 
hard-working low-income people, the moderate-income people, and make 
certain that there is a vehicle out there that we can use.
  I am certain that staff will have prepared at the end of this debate 
a vehicle that we can join together and use to get that money out 
there, stimulate the economy now, and then we can take a deep breath 
and take a look and see what an equitable tax cut might be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. THOMAS. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 4972]]

  Mr. Speaker, I guess I am just a little confused. My understanding is 
that the substitute that has been offered to this particular bill, H.R. 
6, is identical to the substitute that was offered to the bill on 
marginal rate reductions, H.R. 3, just a short time ago.
  But in listening carefully to my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his arguments, it sounded to me as if he 
really wanted a tax package; not the one offered as a substitute, but 
one that was, in fact, a stimulus for the economy.
  It seems to me that if he would turn into paper the words that he 
offered, he would not have presented exactly the same substitute that 
had been presented 1\1/2\ weeks and 2 weeks ago; that, in fact, if he 
does want something that he professes, all he needs to do is offer a 
substitute that, in fact, does that.
  At some point we begin to wonder whether that argument is rhetoric, 
just as the Lexus muffler is no longer in front of us. It seems as 
though it is an argument of the day, but we would think that if it is 
the argument of the day, they would offer a substitute to the motion in 
front of us that at least conformed to the argument of the day. But, in 
fact, we have in front of us that same old substitute, that same old 
substitute that is less generous.
  The Democrats have talked about the various pieces that we have been 
passing. In fact, if we add them up, it is pretty obvious that the tax 
package that is contained in the budget that was passed yesterday is 
clearly more generous than what the Democrats are offering. In fact, in 
this substitute there really is not even any child credit, which is a 
major portion of the bill we are discussing and supports the 
President's proposal of doubling it from $500 to $1,000. And we make 
retroactive in this bill the first $100 increase, from $500 to $600, to 
occur in this year, the 2001 tax year.
  Some of our friends on the other side are continuing to argue that we 
do not have a budget in place. We, in fact, passed a budget. All the 
pieces fit. That argument is no longer relevant, unless, of course, 
they want to argue that it is not a budget yet until the House and 
Senate sit down and agree. Then Members may want to move to the 
argument that the ink on the paper of the agreement is not yet dry. 
Then they may want to offer another argument.
  The fact of the matter is they will offer argument after argument. 
That budget that was passed yesterday addresses the President's 
concerns about Social Security, talks about modernizing Medicare, 
provides dollars for modernizing Medicare with prescription drugs. And, 
please, President Bush has already established himself as the education 
President. His bold and far-reaching proposals of placing more dollars 
in the hands of teachers and parents to make sure that no child will be 
left behind clearly indicates that education is on the front burner of 
this Presidency.
  So I guess if we are going to argue against what is offered here 
today, a final adjustment on the marriage penalty contained in the Tax 
Code and a doubling of the credit available to hard-working taxpayers 
with children, that at the very least, if we are going to make 
arguments against the bill and offer substitutes, what we ought to do 
is have the arguments and the substitutes match.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman has talked quite a 
bit about details and very little about how this all would fit 
together. The main reason is this: The $1.6 trillion Bush 
administration tax package was a risky proposition in the first place, 
that including debt service was going to use up 75 percent, 75 percent 
of the non-Social Security and Medicare surplus.
  Now, with the dip in the stock market, that proposal becomes even 
more risky. So the decision seemed clever at first to break it up into 
pieces, but the public can add. When we add it all together, it is a 
very, very risky proposition. It is not fiscally responsible.
  Now we have a second piece in front of us today, the marriage penalty 
provision, plus. It is much larger than Mr. Bush proposed before he 
became President. Half of the so-called marriage penalty provision goes 
to people who do not have a marriage penalty provision in their income 
tax returns.
  Why are we doing this? I do not know. Maybe we have kind of a Pied 
Piper syndrome here. I am not sure who always is calling the tune, but 
I think if it succeeds, it would lead those following it over the 
cliff. The trouble is it would lead this Nation's economy over the 
cliff.
  There has been some talk about bipartisanship. Whatever the vote is 
on this or any other piece, when we put them all together, there is not 
bipartisan support. The bipartisan support is almost zero. Indeed, it 
is a partisan effort.
  There has been some reference to stimulus. We are going to have a 
stimulus provision on the motion to recommit. What is the impact of 
this majority proposal here this year? It is an asterisk, which means 
close to zero. Talk about a stimulus, there is not any real stimulus. 
If there is any tax proposal that can stimulate the Nation's economy, 
this is not it, nor is it the entire package.
  So in a word, I suggest this: Add it all together, I say to the 
citizens of this country, and when we do, we will come to the 
conclusion that this proposal is one that puts the Nation's economy at 
risk.
  We fought hard for a decade for fiscal discipline. It led to lower 
interest rates. Let us not put that in jeopardy. Vote yes on the 
substitute and no on the basic bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and I ask unanimous consent that 
he control the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, of course I would note that this bipartisan bill, 
combined with the rate reduction that we already passed out of this 
House of Representatives, put almost $600 in the pockets of the average 
family of four this year, if we include the child tax credit, which is 
retroactive, plus the rate reduction.
  This is a bipartisan bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer), has been a partner in this effort to eliminate the tax 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois, for yielding time to me, and I rise in support of the 
bipartisan bill, the underlying bill reported out by the committee.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that an increased 
tax should not be Uncle Sam's wedding present to a newly married 
couple. We need to value the institution of marriage. We need to value 
the children. We need to recognize that doubling the tax credit for 
children in this country really also is sensitive to the fact of how 
difficult it is today in America to raise our children and to get them 
to schools and in braces, to make sure that we afford to raise them the 
proper way.
  This is a value that I voted for when the Democratic President vetoed 
it, and I will vote for it again today. I will vote for it as the 
father of four children. I will vote for it because, from my farmers' 
market to my supermarkets, this is one of the most important tax breaks 
that my constituents in Indiana talk to me about all the time, the 
marriage penalty and helping with the tax credit to raise their 
children.
  This bill is not perfect. It needs reform. It needs refinement. It 
needs modification. It needs all of this because it is higher than even 
what President Bush has proposed. I have said that reducing the 
national debt is important. I do not think we can dig a big hole and 
get back into the fiscally

[[Page 4973]]

irresponsible days that we had 5 and 6 years ago there.
  Excuse the pun, but we should also marry this bill up to estate tax 
reform; not straight-out repeal, but reform of the estate taxes. We 
should also help with an AMT fix, with the marriage penalty and child 
tax credits, which all together would not threaten our economy, which 
would help us pull down the debt. That would fit in about a $1 trillion 
tax cut.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for his leadership in putting forth a very responsible 
Democratic alternative this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly Democrats strongly support marriage penalty 
relief and tax benefits for families with children, but that relief 
should be provided within the context of an overall tax plan that is 
fiscally responsible and is fair.
  The Democratic alternative increases the standard deduction for 
married couples to twice the amount for single people. It also 
substantially increases the earned income tax credit for married 
couples, and lowers the 15 percent tax bracket to 12 percent for a 
married couple's first $20,000 of taxable income. This helps everyone, 
everyone. It is fair, and it is balanced.
  The Republican plan, however, uses the need for marriage penalty tax 
relief as an excuse, as an excuse to expand the 15 percent bracket and 
cut taxes for married couples in the 28 percent bracket. As a result, 
80 percent of the marriage penalty relief in this bill goes to one-
third of the wealthiest married couples.
  If we want to change the tax rates, then we should face that issue 
head on and have an honest debate about that. If we are here to address 
the issue of concern raised by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana 
about the need for eliminating the marriage penalty, then we should do 
that, and the Democratic alternative does just precisely that.
  How much is enough? When will President Bush and the Republican 
leadership stop asking American families who are most in need to 
sacrifice in order to provide a tax cut at the highest end?

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are debating yet another tax bill 
proposed by the Republicans that is seriously flawed.
  The Republican proposal provides the most benefits to those who need 
them least. It gives short shrift to those who need relief the most. 
And as predicted, the Republican leadership is attempting to go well 
beyond the already huge tax cut proposed by President Bush with more 
tax cuts on the way.
  Again, Democrats strongly support marriage tax penalty relief and tax 
benefits for families with children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), my good friend, who spoke on behalf of the partisan Democratic 
alternative, that by voting for the partisan Democratic alternative 
against the bipartisan H.R. 6 that she would vote to deny 54,000 kids 
in the eighth district in California increased child tax credit relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a leader on behalf of families.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. What this bill does very clearly, first, is double the child tax 
credit from $500 to $1,000, increases standard deductions for married 
folks, joint filers, twice that of single filers; expands the 15 
percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single 
filers; and increases the earned income tax credit; protects child tax 
credit from the alternative minimum tax.
  What is this bill really about? I say it is truly about family 
values. I know that expression has been abused over the years, but it 
is about the value of the institution of marriage; something that 
transcends faith and transcends culture.
  We are saying let us not tax that institution because there are 
enough pressures on that institution already. Let us make it fair. Let 
us give them the opportunities.
  One of the leading causes of a breakdown of the family is financial 
pressure, and we want to relieve that. That is what this bill does.
  We had from the far left a welfare system that did not recognize the 
value of the family and said, Dad, you are not welcome here.
  We truly need to recognize the value of the institution of marriage. 
Because why? It is about children. It is about their future, making 
sure that we can do everything to recognize the importance of its 
institution and its impact on children. That is the reason I recommend 
that you oppose this partisan bill and support the bipartisan bill H.R. 
6.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership. I thank the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the debate is so limited that we are not 
able to express our concerns for the American people in longer debate. 
Today I will announce that I am going to vote for a marriage penalty 
tax relief.
  Frankly, the kind of relief that if Americans were given the 
information that the media holds back from you, you would understand 
that we are trying to work in a manner that responds to the needs of 
working families.
  In fact, I am also supportive of a $60 billion tax cut right now, 
this year, that keeps us in line with the fact that we cannot guarantee 
that we will have a $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years.
  I want you to have tax relief now, and so what we are supporting is 
to ensure that in my State of Texas, if you will, that we will not have 
769,000 numbers of families with children who will get no tax cut.
  Unlike the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my good friend, he 
is voting for a tax cut where 362,000 of his constituents in Illinois 
will not get a tax cut.
  We want a marriage penalty that responds to the needs of the American 
people. One that creates a 12 percent rate bracket for the first 20,000 
of taxable income, equivalent to 41,000 of total income for a couple 
with two children.
  We want to simplify the earned income tax credit and increase it for 
working families. We want the dollars to go in your pocket, unlike the 
$128 billion tax cut that I am told we received in the State of Texas 2 
years ago.
  When I go throughout any district and I ask my constituents, did they 
receive a tax cut, did they get a refund, no one can document receiving 
any fungible dollars that they could utilize to support their family. 
Some people say that they thought they got a tax credit on their 
property taxes, which really does not show up.
  So what the Democrats are saying with the alternative is it could 
actually get reported in the newspapers today Sheila Jackson-Lee will 
vote for a marriage penalty tax relief bill. I believe in this bill 
because it is fiscally responsible, and it answers the concerns of the 
American people and working families.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend, I would say that not only will the 
bipartisan bill which she spoke against provide 5 million low-income 
working Americans receiving the earned income tax credit, significantly 
more relief, in fact, $400 a year, but that the proposal which the 
gentlewoman is in support of, the partisan Democratic substitute, that 
proposal would actually deny tax relief to millions of children 
throughout America, including her own district.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

[[Page 4974]]

  Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership on this issue.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6. As the cochair of the 
Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I begin by saying that I am not 
opposed to providing true marriage penalty relief for all Americans. I 
support responsible tax cuts for all taxpayers.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and many of my Democratic 
colleagues of mine who have stated so forcefully today, the Democratic 
alternative is the only bill on the floor that provides true relief. 
Americans need a tax cut, and I am in favor of that. But we must have a 
tax cut that is responsible, a targeted tax cut that really will 
provide true tax relief during these difficult economic times.
  As with the bills that my Republican colleagues brought before the 
105th and 106th Congress and now in the 107th Congress, H.R. 6 is 
poorly targeted, too broad and too expensive.
  This bill will result in spending of the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds and a cut in domestic spending. This plan reverses the 
course that we have been on for several years and does not leave 
adequate money to continue paying down the national debt.
  H.R. 6 is a bill tilted towards the wealthy people of this country 
and threatens all the priorities important to hard-working families.
  It raids Medicare trust funds, and it is too back-loaded that it does 
nothing to help our economy today.
  This bill will crowd out the priorities vital to millions of seniors, 
military families, women and children. It cuts services like COPS on 
the beat and after-school programs that are so vital for the public 
schools and for safety of our children.
  This bill provides, Mr. Speaker, no benefits to American families who 
need help with child care and housing. I support the Democratic 
alternative, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that gives 
true marriage penalty relief.
  Mr. WELLER, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that we have a bipartisan bill before us 
today that is being offered as an amendment, a partisan Democratic 
substitute for the bipartisan bill. I would note that the bipartisan 
bill will benefit 25 million married working couples who pay higher 
taxes just because they are married.
  In fact, the bipartisan bill which received the support of every 
House Republican last year and 51 Democrats who broke with their 
leadership to support real marriage tax relief will help eliminate 
almost the entire marriage tax penalty for almost everyone that suffers 
it. That is pretty fair.
  I would also note that the partisan Democratic substitute fails to 
help children. In fact, they fail to address the need to increase the 
child tax credit. And we work with the President and his proposal to 
double the child tax credit, doubling it to $1,000. It is currently 
$500. It will provide immediate relief this year, an additional $100, 
so it will be an additional $600 tax credit this year.
  I would point out in combination with the rate reduction, as well as 
the child tax credit this will put an additional $600 in the average 
family's pockets this year.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that if there are any Members who 
believe that President Bush had this marriage penalty tax solution 
correct last year during his campaign, they need to vote against this 
proposal, because this bill rejects the Bush solution to this marriage 
penalty problem.
  Indeed, the only witness that the Republicans brought forward on this 
issue said President Bush's approach was worse than doing nothing. Now 
after I said that earlier in the debate, a piece of paper was advanced 
that the Administration has endorsed today's proposal. I have not seen 
that yet, but certainly this would not be the first campaign promise 
that the President has chosen to reverse himself on this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize that the better approach is not 
to place an additional penalty on single individuals, whether a widow, 
a single mom or simply some person that chooses to live as a single 
individual. Our tax system ought to be based on equity and be designed 
so as not to discriminate based on marital status. This particular 
Republican proposal discriminates instead of following the approach 
that President Bush recommended last year.
  One of the issues that has not gotten as much attention in this 
debate as I think it needs is the question of what stimulus, if any, 
comes out of this tax package.
  Members will recall that the Bush tax proposal was not developed 
during hard times, at least not economic hard times, they were 
developed during campaign hard times, when he feared Steve Forbes' 
challenge in the Republican primary.
  The economy was doing well. His campaign was faltering a little bit. 
So he tried to come up with an approach that would stimulate the 
financial statements of the wealthiest people in our society and to 
out-Steve Forbes, Steve Forbes. I think that that is what his overall 
tax proposal was designed to do last year.
  Now we face more challenging economic times, and it would seem to me 
that we ought to focus tax relief in ways that might help with our 
economic slowdown.
  We do not know how long or how deep this Bush economic slowdown will 
be, since he began talking down the economy, but we can be certain that 
there is no economic stimulus to turn the economy around found in 
today's piece of legislation.
  Like their estate tax proposal, this tax package has a better chance 
of resurrecting the dead than of resurrecting the economy.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one might think the only thing before us today is the 
marriage penalty and the child credit. I think to legislators we can 
take a look and clearly we would see that the Democratic substitute 
that is before us today is more equitable. It is fairer, and it takes 
care of the problems that we have been talking about.
  Let no one believe that by voting for the substitute that they are 
not voting for not only equitable relief, but they are voting for a 
child credit that is going to reach the kids that come from families 
that make less than $30,000, which is not true of the majority's 
program.

  But even more importantly than that is the different pieces of the 
tax bill that is coming to the floor, not as a comprehensive tax 
program within a budget that we know what to expect, but each week that 
we come here, we are asked to vote on different pieces. It is this that 
we do not know how much can we digest since already before the next 
week is out they would have completed the $1.6 trillion and start 
moving towards the $2 trillion tax package that they really have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, who is 
the final speaker on our side.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against the 
Republican tax bill and for the bill sponsored by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) and our ranking member on the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  I take this position for several reasons. First, I ask Members to 
consider the real differences between these two tax cut proposals. The 
Republican bill

[[Page 4975]]

increases the child credit, but only for some families. Their child 
credit does not fully phase in until the year 2006, which means that 
some families will not see any relief because their children will turn 
16 before then, and they will be too old to be eligible for the tax 
cut.
  Millions of families of all income levels will be disappointed 
because Republicans give people nothing in the marriage penalty relief 
until the year 2004, and they will not get the full tax cut that the 
Republicans promise until 2009.
  What does all of this delay and all of these gimmicks really say to 
the American people? That despite all of the rhetoric about cutting 
taxes to help with the immediate economic downturn, I do not think my 
friends on the other side are serious. They are not serious about 
providing relief this year when it is most needed. Their tax bill does 
not help people for another 3 to 5 years; in some instances, 8 years. 
This delayed phase-in is the direct result of a larger tax plan that 
spends the entire available surplus that is not even there yet that may 
never materialize.
  Well, this is not right and it is not fair. I ask Members to consider 
our bill, which is responsible, balanced and fair. Our bill doubles the 
standard deduction for married couples so they get relief this year. 
Our bill recognizes that we are in a period of economic uncertainty, so 
we give people immediate tax relief which we think will help them get 
through the uncertainty of the time we are in.
  But the most important reason to vote against the Republican bill is 
that it is part of a much larger tax plan that leaves no room for the 
other important priorities of the American people.
  After today, this House will have already passed $1.8 trillion in tax 
cuts when we include the interest. If Republicans continue with their 
plans and put forward, as they are apparently planning, the estate tax 
and their other tax bills, then the additional tax breaks that they 
have said they will pass as part of the President's plan, which is a 
floor, will cost about $3 trillion once the smoke clears.
  The Republican tax cut package raids the Medicare trust fund as early 
as 2005. It does nothing to help the economy because it is so back-
loaded. It crowds out other priorities vital to millions of seniors, 
military families, and women and children. It results in a budget that 
cuts existing services like Cops on the Beat and after-school programs 
to make our public schools safe for our children.
  Most damaging, the Republican tax plan could bring back the high 
deficits, high interest rates, and slow growth that we saw at the end 
of the last Bush administration.
  We have to keep in our mind that the goal is to keep the economy 
moving, to keep unemployment down, to keep growth going up. One of the 
best ways to do that is to keep interest rates down.
  So I argue to the Members, think about the effect on the economy and 
what the Republican tax cut does not do, what it crowds out our ability 
to do for the ordinary families in this country who pay interest costs 
on house payments and car payments and furniture payments every month.
  Married families and children would be better off with our plan. We 
provide sensible tax relief for all taxpayers. We focus relief on those 
in the middle and those trying to get in the middle who need our help 
the most.
  Plus, we give people a country free of debt by 2008; a Medicare 
prescription drug program for all seniors who want it; a Social 
Security and a Medicare trust fund extended to 2050 in the one case and 
2040 respectively, at least 11 to 12 years added solvency of the 
Medicare and Social Security trust funds; more quality teachers; more 
Cops on the Beat; and school buildings in repair and enlarged and 
rehabilitated.
  We give people lower interest rates. For an average family of four, 1 
percent off interest rates means $1,500 a year in savings on a car 
payment and on house payments. If one adds a reasonable tax cut, about 
$700 a year, one is going to wind up putting more money in the pockets 
of a typical family than the larger tax cut that would likely keep 
interest rates a point higher.
  So I urge Members to consider this argument when they cast their vote 
on these two bills. Consider the actual real-life consequences of the 
decision we are making on the floor today. Consider what happens if 
these surpluses do not materialize. Consider what happens if the 
projections turn out to be wrong.
  What if we find ourselves in debt again, as we did in the 1980s, as 
far as the eye can see? We have been there. We have run this 
experiment. We ran it for 15 years, from 1981 to 1995. It did not work.
  We should be more humble about our thoughts about economics. We 
should be more reticent to take this risky river boat gamble to go out 
into the deficits when we could keep the surpluses.
  It is time to keep interest rates down, unemployment down, inflation 
down. This is a 20-year decision of this body. It is easy to make this 
decision. It is hard to correct it. It took us 15 years to 20 years to 
get over the last mistake. Why would we want to do that again?
  I urge Members to examine their conscience, examine the facts. Vote 
against this Republican bill. Vote for the more sensible common sense 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that the bipartisan plan before us, H.R. 6, 
combined with the rate reduction we passed earlier this year, will put 
$600 in the pockets of the average family of four this year. I also 
note in the minority leader's district that his partisan Democratic 
alternative would deny relief to 102,000 children in his own district, 
the Third District of Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Watts), the distinguished House Republican Conference Chairman.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois, my friend, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me set something straight at the outset. I think it 
is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about today 
is not the government's money, but the American people's money. One of 
these days, it is going to register to the 535 Members of Congress that 
vote on these issues that it is not Washington's money, it is the 
people's money.
  I think it is time to put partisanship aside and enact a plan that 
will protect families, strengthen the economy, and secure our 
children's future. H.R. 6 is a common sense plan to strengthen families 
and secure our children's future. It stops the unfair tax that simply 
penalizes two people for saying ``I do.'' I think it is wrong. I think 
it is unfair.
  The problem that we have is, and I would make the point, families are 
working longer and harder than ever; yet Washington continues to take 
more and more. The marriage penalty requires more time at work, and 
that means less time at home with the family and with the kids.
  Should two people pay higher taxes just because they are married? 
Should families spend 50 percent of their income in Federal, State and 
local taxes? Should families pay more in taxes than for food, clothing, 
and shelter combined? Should not parents be allowed to spend their own 
money to meet the needs of their own children?
  On behalf of hard-working families, what we are doing today is asking 
for fairness and common sense to protect families and to secure our 
children's future.
  The average family of four will save $560 this year through our tax 
plan, H.R. 6, and the rate reduction plan that we have already passed. 
All Americans will benefit because giving people money back, that 
creates job security and a strong economy.
  Nearly 25 million couples will save money from repeal of the marriage 
penalty, 53,000 couples in the Fourth District of Oklahoma, the 
district that I represent. More than 81 million children will qualify 
for the $1,000 per-child tax credit; 81,000 kids in the Fourth District 
of Oklahoma will qualify for that.
  At least 4 million African American married couples will benefit 
immediately from repeal of the marriage tax

[[Page 4976]]

penalty. This means more money for college, for groceries, for house 
payments, for car payments, for car insurance, maybe to buy a new 
washer and dryer, new appliance.
  It is time that we enact common sense legislation today to strengthen 
families and secure our children's future and stop taxing people for 
simply saying ``I do.'' That is unfair. It is wrong.
  I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole idea that Democrats do not understand that 
what surplus we are talking about is not the government's money, but it 
is the people's money, we understand that. We understand even further 
that whatever surpluses we are talking about is the hard-working people 
that pay the Social Security tax and the payroll tax that give us what 
is the so-called surplus.
  There is no surplus there. The fact that under the Clinton-Gore 
administration we have been able to get a better cash flow does not 
mean that there is a surplus. We owe $3.4 trillion. We pay debt service 
on that money.
  It is safe to say that, when we work together and try to reduce our 
national debt, that that is the true way to say that we are giving back 
their money by reducing the national debt.
  In addition to that, it is abundantly clear that many on the other 
side do not believe we should have a Social Security system. I cannot 
argue with you if that is what you believe. You do not believe in 
Medicare. You do not believe in providing for affordable prescription 
drugs.
  What we are saying is that, yes, those are the people's programs. We 
are here as Democrats; and hopefully we can convince some Republicans 
to work together and not just say it is the people's money. It is the 
people's country. It is the people's debt. It is the people's Social 
Security program. It is the people's Medicare program. It is the 
people's children that need education to make them productive. All of 
these things belong to the people.
  We should not take a river boat gamble on what is going to happen 6, 
7 years from now and put people in jeopardy for their kids and those 
people today that will soon become eligible for Social Security and 
Medicare benefits.
  We have to agree that you are coming our way as it relates to child 
credits and things like that, but you are giving us a little piece at a 
time. Already we are up to a trillion dollars, and we have to stop you 
before you hurt somebody. Because we know that piece by piece you will 
never be able to get this off of the ground.
  Even the President is against the things that you are going to come 
up with. Well, how do I know? Well, first of all, it is because I go 
over and I talk with the President from time to time. He is a very 
likable chap. He likes Democrats. He likes Republicans.
  He told us, which I assume he shared with you, that he does not want 
the tax cut lower than $1.6 trillion, like Democrats want it, nor does 
he want it higher than $1.6 trillion like some Republicans want it. He 
wants it just like this. He thinks that this just fits.
  I am telling the President, get your troops in order and try to get 
some of that compassion or conservatism on the other side of the aisle; 
because, Mr. President, this just does not fit.
  Already we have got $950 billion that has already passed the House, 
$399 billion we are trying to defeat today, $267 billion they say is 
going to come up next week. We have health related, education related. 
We have got research and development, which is going to cost us $50 
billion. We have the alternative minimum tax fix, $292 billion.
  When we get finished with all of this and add debt service to it, 
$556 billion, Mr. President, the Republicans will be giving you a $3 
trillion tax burden which you say is too big.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, let the Democrats join in and say we are going to stop 
this majority in the House. We have a substitute that is more in line 
with what you are thinking about, Mr. President, and the people will 
have an opportunity, including Republicans, to work in a bipartisan way 
to vote for the substitute and to stop the majority's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, then what can we do? Then we can really come together, 
sit down as Republicans and Democrats, and see whether we can agree to 
a bill that does not pass on the partisan vote, but a total bill taking 
in consideration all of the things.
  Mr. President, in order to make it easier, we Democrats have come up 
with a bill that we really believe Republicans should consider. It is 
H.R. 1264, and it would allow for us to look at the entire budget that 
we have and to divide it into one-third for the tax cut, one-third in 
order to reduce the debt, and one-third for the programs that the 
American people and even the President of the United States support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have one remaining speaker on behalf of 
our legislation. Has the minority concluded?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has no time remaining. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, before us that 
eliminates the marriage tax penalty, as well as doubles the child tax 
credit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the House majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) in particular for his fine work on 
this legislation. I also want to personally thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) for speaking one more time on this bill, because 
his having done so punctuates a fact that we oftentimes try to disguise 
in this body, and the gentleman from New York has made that fact 
profoundly clear to all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a partisan debate. Mr. Speaker, that is as it 
should be, because, indeed, this body is almost wholly divided between 
two very distinct and two very separate political parties, parties that 
do, in fact, congregate around different visions of America, and to a 
large extent what you see in this debate today is a conflict of 
visions.
  My colleagues who congregate on my side of the aisle have a vision of 
America that is based on our profound belief that America is made great 
and America is built, its economy is built, by real people at home in 
America earning and spending their own money on behalf of their own 
best interests and on behalf of their families.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party on the other side of the aisle tend 
to congregate around the belief that America is built great by big 
government. This is not a new debate. We have it every time we put a 
tax bill on the floor; and the foundation issue is do we give people 
part of their money back and hold taxes down so that the greatness of 
America can continue to be built at home by people who actually earn 
the money themselves, or are we going to keep it here in town so that 
people in Washington can spend it on their behalf and build programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we have seen demonstrated time 
and time again that whenever Washington has the good grace to leave 
people more of their own money in what we call take-home pay, America 
does well with that.
  I was a young economics student in 1961 and 1962, and this lesson was 
brought home to me by President Kennedy, and the Democrats do not like 
us to mention this fact, but he taught us this lesson in economics in 
the early 1960s. When President Kennedy faced an economic recession, he 
said, cut taxes and let America grow the economy back with their own 
money. And bless our hearts, we did; and he was right.
  Mr. Speaker, the animosity towards growing America at home through

[[Page 4977]]

your own money is so heartfelt on the other side of the aisle that 
today they even resent us citing this great lesson from this great 
President, because indeed the idea is bigger than the man, and this 
idea is not the idea around which they congregate.
  And so we come again to the early 1980s, Mr. Speaker, and Ronald 
Reagan did the same thing, and America did grow. It is a fact that 
revenue to the United States Government doubled in the 1980s after the 
American economy began to grow again in consequence to the Reagan tax 
cuts.
  The deficits that we experienced in the 1980s were not because the 
American people were not doing their part; we did our part. We sent 
Washington twice as much money by the end of that decade. The problem 
is that Washington did not do its part. It did not control its 
gluttony. Washington has had an addiction that we are trying to cure, 
and that is an addiction for other people's money. Throughout the 
entire decade of the 1980s, spending in this town grew by $1.56 for 
every $1 that we sent this town.
  If you want to stop the deficits, that is where you stop it. You stop 
that spending growing out of control, and that is what we did when we 
took over in 1994, and that is why we have the surpluses we have today; 
because we stopped the spending gluttony of this town.
  Mr. Speaker, now we come to another time where America is once again 
concerned about their economic stability, their future. The American 
people are saying that we need relief. We need encouragement in a Tax 
Code. Give us some more of our own money back. Take a little less away. 
We have good things that we want to do with it. And this bill that we 
bring to the floor today speaks to the heart of the American dream. The 
idea that we will say to our young men and women in this country, Go 
ahead, fall in love, get married, and you will not be penalized for it 
should never be an idea that is resisted by anybody.
  Now, I do not have a reputation for being much of a romantic fellow 
around here, but I have enough romance in my soul to realize this: If 
young people fall in love and get married, the Federal Government 
should applaud them, not tax them. And once you are married, and once 
you retain some take-home pay that is commensurate with what you did 
before you were married, go ahead and have those precious babies and 
spend on them. I hope you spend a lot on them.
  On behalf of my grandson, for example, I happen to be a big fan of 
Blues Clues toys. I think every baby ought to be able to play with 
Blues Clues toys. There are many things we can do for our babies, and 
we ought to have a little more take-home pay, so we increase the child 
tax credit so those families can enjoy those things. That should be 
applauded in this Chamber, especially by those of us that are at the 
age of myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who have 
the great joy of grandchildren in our lives. Far better for them than 
it was for our kids. And we should applaud this.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important move. This is an important change 
in the Tax Code. Not only does it have the ability to encourage the 
American family to work harder, do more, but it allows them to take a 
larger share of their own paycheck home and do the most important thing 
they will ever do in their life, raise their children.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been 
throughout this entire discussion, from the inception going back to the 
campaign, on shifting sand. First it was no tax reductions. We cannot 
afford that. I always laugh when I hear the government cannot afford 
that. How much will it cost the government to give tax reductions?
  Then it was you have the wrong kind of tax reductions. But they 
continued to move on this matter. Then it was it is not your tax cuts 
we want, it is our tax cuts that we want. And then finally, you have 
got to do this on a bipartisan fashion. You cannot do it on a 
bipartisan fashion if one party wants no tax cut and the other party 
wants a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, but even then we try to accommodate. What can be more 
bipartisan than a bill that was passed just a year ago with more than 
50 votes from the other side of the aisle? That looks like a generous 
bipartisan effort.
  This is an important thing that we do, and we are working hard for 
it. We can talk about the growth of the American economy through the 
efforts of the American family, and we can talk about the prosperity 
and happiness of the American family by having more of their own pay as 
take-home pay, and we can talk about resolving fundamental inequities 
and inanities in the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say we should be embarrassed to have a Tax Code 
on our books that says to our sons and daughters, if you should fall in 
love, and if you should wed, we will punish you. Again, let me applaud 
the gentleman from Illinois and the Committee on Ways and Means. It is 
time to put an end to that, and we will do that with this vote.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 104, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the 
amendment 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.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, 
nays 231, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               YEAS--196

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

                               NAYS--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis

[[Page 4978]]


     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     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--5

     Baldwin
     Lampson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. CALVERT, BERRY, COOKSEY and KANJORSKI changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHOWS and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
1 minute.)


Expression of Sympathy at the Passing of Norman Sisisky, Member of the 
                        House of Representatives

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty of reporting to the 
House the passing this morning of our friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  For 18 years, Norman represented Virginia's 4th Congressional 
District with distinction in a manner that was highly effective for the 
interests of his constituents, for our State of Virginia, and for the 
Nation. His wit and his charm and his gracious manner endeared him to 
the Members of the House and to the Virginians who have been well 
served by his representations, first as a member of the Virginia House 
of Delegates and more recently as a Member of this body. His many 
legislative contributions on matters ranging from national security 
policy to economic advancements to educational improvements have made 
his State and our Nation a better place.
  I have personally known Norman for many years and have been glad to 
name him among my personal friends. We began our public service 
together in the Virginia General Assembly and were elected for the 
first time to this House in the same year.
  I wish to express my deepest sympathy to his family and to his many 
friends. In the passing of Norman Sisisky, we have lost a dear friend; 
and this Nation has lost a valuable public servant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer sympathy to Norman's 
family. Everyone was Norman's friend on both sides of the aisle. There 
will be a resolution that we will offer from both sides of the aisle 
after the last vote for an hour, and anyone who would like to speak at 
that time will have the opportunity immediately after the last vote. 
But our hearts and prayers go out to Norman's family, his staff, and 
his friends.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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, in its present form.
  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. 6 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules of special 
     application) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 6428. REFUND OF 2000 INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, each individual shall be treated as having made a 
     payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such 
     individual's first taxable year beginning in 2000 in an 
     amount equal to 100 percent of the amount of such 
     individual's net Federal tax liability for such taxable year.
       ``(b) Maximum Payment.--The amount treated as paid by 
     reason of this section shall not exceed $300 ($600 in the 
     case of a married couple filing a joint return.
       ``(c) Net Federal Tax Liability.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `net Federal tax liability' 
     means the amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of 
     subchapter A (other than the credits allowable subpart C 
     thereof, relating to refundable credits).
       ``(2) Families with children.--In the case of a taxpayer 
     with 1 or more qualifying children (as defined in section 32) 
     for the taxpayer's first taxable year beginning in 2000, such 
     taxpayer's net Federal tax liability for such year shall be 
     the amount determined under paragraph (1) increased by 7.65 
     percent of the taxpayer's taxable earned income for such 
     year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
     `taxable earned income' means earned income as defined in 
     section 32 but only to the extent includible in gross income.
       ``(d) Date Payment Deemed Made.--The payment provided by 
     this section shall be deemed made on the later of--
       ``(1) the date prescribed by law (determined without 
     extensions) for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
     for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) the date on which the taxpayer files his return of 
     tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year.
       ``(e) Certain Persons Not Eligible.--This section shall not 
     apply to--
       ``(1) any estate or trust, and
       ``(2) any nonresident alien individual.
       ``(f) Withholding Credit Certificates in Lieu of Payments 
     in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that the amount treated as 
     paid under this section would (but for this subsection) 
     exceed the taxpayer's net income tax liability for the 
     taxable year--
       ``(A) the amount of such excess shall not be treated as 
     paid under this section, and
       ``(B) the Secretary shall issue to the taxpayer a 
     withholding credit certificate in the amount of such excess.
       ``(2) Utilization of withholding credit certificate.--A 
     withholding credit certificate issued under paragraph (1) may 
     be furnished by the individual to such individual's employer.
       ``(3) Furnished to employer.--If a withholding credit 
     certificate issued under paragraph (1) is furnished by an 
     individual to such individual's employer, the amount of the 
     certificate shall operate as a reduction in

[[Page 4979]]

     the liability for employment taxes that would otherwise be 
     withheld from the individual's wages.
       ``(4) Net income tax liability.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `net income tax liability' means net 
     Federal tax liability determined without regard to subsection 
     (c)(2).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 65 of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6428. Refund of 2000 individual income taxes.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
       (d) Protection of Social Security and Medicare.--The 
     amounts transferred to any trust fund under the Social 
     Security Act shall be determined as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.
       (e) Compliance With Budget Rules.--The aggregate amount of 
     refunds and withholding credit certificates provided by this 
     Act before October 1, 2001, shall not exceed $15,000,000,000. 
     The Secretary of the Treasury may implement the limitation of 
     the preceding sentence by providing pro rata reductions or 
     otherwise. The limitations of this subsection shall cease to 
     apply at such time as the congressional budget resolution for 
     fiscal year 2001 is adjusted to permit full payments 
     authorized under this section.

  Mr. THOMAS (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 California?
  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 
to recommit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to put money in people's pockets today. We 
should not start next year or 5 years from now or 10 years from now. We 
need to pass a tax rebate that would give people now $300 per person, 
$600 per family. This would give the American economy an immediate $47 
billion stimulus this year.
  We have spent the last few weeks debating and passing tax bills that 
give more relief than is prudent and most of which will not affect the 
average taxpayer for 7 to 10 years. In fact, the bill before us today 
provides only $50 million in stimulus this year, $50 million to rebate 
that we want to propose would establish almost $50 billion in economic 
stimulus. That is almost 1,000 more economic stimulus, 1,000 times the 
economic power, the spending and saving power this year.
  We must support a tax package that includes sensible rate reductions 
for everyone that will not threaten our fiscal footing and allows us to 
pay down all of our national debt, a tax package that will include 
targeted marriage penalty relief, a tax package that does not threaten 
Social Security and Medicare. Pass this motion to recommit. Do it 
today.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the early warning signs are all around us. 
Manufacturing has lost 230,000 jobs in the last 3 months alone. The 
stock market has lost about $5 trillion in value in the last year. We 
must act to stimulate the economy now.
  The Progressive Caucus proposed a $300 dividend for every American 
this year. We must act now. According to economists, the $300 dividend 
is about enough to counteract the effect of a stock market decline. 
This motion would pay that dividend now and stimulate the economy. The 
majority's bill gives people only pennies this year. It does not 
stimulate the economy, because it will not give more than 80 percent of 
the tax cut until 2005.
  The choice is clear. Americans get pennies under the majority's bill 
or $300 under the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1400

  They get economic slowdown under the majority's tax bill, or a 
stimulus and restore prosperity under the motion to recommit.
  Vote yes on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are not just here dealing with the child 
credit or removing the marriage penalty. I think that is a bipartisan 
issue that we all have worked on, and we could have worked on 
effectively had the other side seen fit to attempt to come up with 
something that is bipartisan.
  Instead of this, they have, in a very bipartisan way, brought before 
this floor a $953 billion tax cut all geared toward the top 1 percent, 
at least half of it, of the taxpayers.
  The President, who asked for this $1.6 trillion tax cut, he asked for 
this during the time that we had the prosperous Clinton and Gore years. 
Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not hear the President of the United States 
talking in such a compassionate way as he did during the campaign about 
leaving no child behind. We do not hear him talking about the viability 
of the Social Security System or Medicare. We do not hear him talking 
about prescription drugs. He is going around in different communities 
talking about the sputtering economy and how the stock market is 
falling, and how he needs this $1.6 trillion to give it a jolt in the 
arm.
  Most of us know, who write the bills, that they have not shared with 
the President that he will not be getting any part of this $1.6 
trillion until the next 5 years. And if he is really serious about 
wanting to do something now, do not depend on the high-rollers to go 
out and buy that refrigerator or that washing machine, but let it be to 
the American people who work every day and try to send their kids to 
school, that are struggling to pay the mortgage. Give them the money 
now, and they will be able to give this economy the shot in its arm to 
bring it back to what we did have when we had sound fiscal policy under 
President Clinton and under Vice President Gore.
  All we are saying with this motion to recommit is do not give up on 
the tax cut, but take a deep breath, go back to the committee, and see 
whether or not we can get $60 billion in the economy now, this year, in 
the pockets of the people to spend.
  Then let us try to come together once again as Republicans and 
Democrats and try to work out something that is not as extreme as the 
$1.6 billion; that does not totally repeal the estate tax for the rich, 
but really gets out there for the working poor, the moderate-income 
people, and give a fair tax break to everybody.
  We have not given up on Republicans on this side, and we have not 
given up on our President. The motion to recommit really means let us 
go back and let us see whether we work out something now to stimulate 
this economy, and to make certain that the American people have 
confidence not only in the economy, but have confidence in this 
Congress.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, because I have the unfortunate habit of 
actually reading their motions to recommit.
  So, first of all, I would call the attention of my colleagues to the 
fact that the motion to recommit says, ``Strike all after the enacting 
clause.'' That means, number one, no marriage penalty relief and no 
child tax credit. But what they are offering instead is the idea that 
we can have an immediate stimulus.
  Okay, let us talk about that trade-off. Keep reading, Mr. Speaker. By 
the time we get to page 5, after we go to page 4 of the motion to 
recommit, on which there is a kind of a homemade attempt to make this 
motion in order, with handwriting in the margin and the rest, but when 
we get through with that, we actually get to the heart of the proposal.

[[Page 4980]]

  The gentleman from New York said we get an immediate stimulus of $50 
billion. Now, remember, with the ``Strike out all after the enacting 
clause'' we have given up the marriage penalty and the child credit.
  But if we read what the motion to recommit actually does, it says, 
``In fiscal year 2001, no more than $15 billion.'' No matter how 
impassioned they say now, $35 billion comes out of next year, 2002. 
Fair enough. In 2001 and in 2002, we get the $50 billion stimulus.
  Hang on. This House has already passed H.R. 3, and we are going to 
pass H.R. 6. Let us take a look at what those two provisions do in 
fiscal year 2001 and 2002.
  Quite ironically, when we combine H.R. 3 and H.R. 6 and look at the 
effect in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, we get a $54.6 billion permanent 
tax reduction.
  Here is the choice: Vote for the motion to recommit, and we do not 
get marriage penalty relief, we do not get the child credit doubling, 
we do not get permanent marginal relief, but we do get $50 billion of 
one-time money.
  If we vote against the motion to recommit, we get marriage penalty 
relief, we double the child tax credit, we get permanent marginal rate 
relief, and we get $54.6 billion worth of relief.
  I think this motion to recommit is easy. If Members vote for them, 
they get $50 billion. Vote for us and Members get $54.6 billion plus 
marriage penalty relief, child credit, and permanent rate reduction.
  This one is easy. Vote no on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion to recommit.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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. A vote on final passage, if ordered, will be 
a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 240, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 74]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     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)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--240

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     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--8

     Baldwin
     Hutchinson
     Lampson
     Ney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Sisisky
     Stupak

                              {time}  1425

  Mr. DeLAY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK and Messrs. MORAN of Virginia, GEORGE MILLER of 
California, and McNULTY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote 
No. 74, the motion to recommit, because I was stuck in elevator number 
7A over in the Rayburn building.
  Had I been here, I would like to inform the House I would have voted 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
  Stated against:
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, today I had an urgent matter to attend to. As a 
result I missed rollcall vote No. 74. Please excuse my absence from 
this vote. If I were present, I would have voted ``no''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote on passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 282, 
nays 144, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 75]

                               YEAS--282

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker

[[Page 4981]]


     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--144

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baldwin
     Gilman
     Hutchinson
     Lampson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Sisisky

                              {time}  1438

  Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Stated for:
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably delayed by 
official business during the vote on final passage for H.R. 6. 
Accordingly, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 75. If I had been 
present I would have voted ``yea''.
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     reduce the marriage penalty by providing for adjustments to 
     the standard deduction, the 15-percent rate bracket, and the 
     earned income credit, to increase the child credit, and for 
     other purposes.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________