[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10219-10241]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PERMANENT MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2002

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 440, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4019) to provide that the marriage penalty relief 
provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2001 shall be permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
440, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4019 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4019

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

     SECTION 1. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF PROVISIONS MADE PERMANENT.

       Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions 
     of such Act) shall not apply to title III of such Act 
     (relating to marriage penalty relief).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment printed in House Report 107-504, 
if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, 
which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House was privileged in a joint session to 
hear from the Prime Minister of Australia. It was, I hope, for most 
Members a rather refreshing presentation of the closeness of the two 
countries, because he provided us with a speech which pointed with 
pride and viewed with alarm.
  He talked about areas in which we have common purpose, and areas 
where the Australians, through the Prime Minister as the head of the 
government, had some concern about legislation that we might be 
passing.
  But I want to focus on one small statement that he made which I think 
has profound significance and which I had not quite heard it put the 
way the Prime Minister put it. He said that the best structure for 
social welfare is the family. And although we have discussed in many 
different ways the value and virtues of the family, the idea that from 
a societal point of view the ability to nurture the family structure as 
the best social welfare unit is, I think, what we are about today.
  In this system, or in any system, if you do not want something, if 
you

[[Page 10220]]

want to discourage it, you put up barriers. One of the cleanest 
barriers that you can put up to stop activity is to tax something. If 
it costs you more to do a particular behavior, you tend to do less of 
it. If we want to encourage a particular kind of behavior, we should 
reward it or create incentives for it, or, at the very least, make sure 
that in the way we engage in governmental interactivity in that area is 
to remain neutral.
  We are here today to take the tax structure, which historically has 
penalized marriage, which is the foundation for that family unit, and 
we have penalized it by virtue of the way in which the tax structure is 
arranged. Indeed, today we are half enlightened. That is, we have 
decided to suspend the penalty through the tax structure on marriage 
for a period of time.
  It is through no fault of the House that this has occurred, because 
the House passed permanent marriage relief reform. It is because of the 
constitutional necessity to have the House and the Senate agree on a 
structure to be sent to the President to become law. Under the arcane 
rules of the Senate, at the time that this was moved, it could only be 
done for 10 years.
  Notwithstanding the fact that 10 years seems a long way off, one of 
the things we ought to do at the first opportunity and at every 
opportunity is to correct that fundamental flaw, that if in fact we 
have decided that we ought not to penalize marriage, then we ought to 
make it permanent. And that is the sum and substance of the legislation 
that is before us today, to take a provision that is currently 
temporary in the law and make it permanent. If you are not going to 
incentivize marriage, at the very least make sure you do not punish it. 
That is what this vote and debate is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), and ask unanimous consent that he control the 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, last night I had a chance to meet with members of the 
medical community in a new part of my district and with senior 
advocates, and they asked me what Congress was going to do about 
prescription medicine because of the dire need in our community. They 
wanted to know what was going to happen with hospital and physician 
reimbursement rates, because there is a real critical need in that 
community. They wanted to know whether seniors were going to have 
greater choice in their options under Medicare. But they wanted to know 
whether the funds would be available in Congress to deal with these 
issues.
  I explained to them the budget problems that we are currently 
confronting, and they certainly understand the fact that we do not want 
to use Social Security funds in order to deal with these pressing 
needs. They understand the dilemma we are in, primarily because of the 
tax bill that we passed last year.
  I know that there are Members on both sides of the aisle that share 
our concern about acting this year on prescription medicines for 
seniors and protecting the Social Security system. So, quite frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why we are considering this bill at 
this time.
  The bill takes effect 10 years from now. If we learned anything 
during the debate last year, it is that we cannot even predict 1 year 
in the future, let alone 10 years in the future.
  Last year we thought we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. We are now told 
that under the unified budget that the deficit this year, not surplus, 
deficit, will be between $150 billion to $200 billion. We cannot 
predict 1 year into the future. How can we predict 10 years in the 
future?
  We do know that this legislation, when implemented, will cost another 
$25 billion a year and add to our deficits. We do know that at the time 
this legislation takes effect, the baby boomers will becoming eligible 
for Social Security and Medicare, putting greater stress on both Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear and that is that if you are going to 
go back this weekend and talk to your medical communities and your 
senior advocates and you are going to tell them how much you are in 
favor of prescription medicine coverage under Medicare and dealing with 
the other issues and that you are for fiscal responsibility, if you are 
going to do that, you cannot do that with a straight face and still 
vote for the legislation that is before us.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the legislation.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  Before I begin my remarks, I would just like to note that my good 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), has consistently 
voted ``no'' on efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and of 
course his justification for voting ``no'' again today, even though 
66,851 married couples benefit from elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty in his district in Maryland, is consistent. So I commend him on 
his consistency for opposition to eliminating the marriage tax penalty, 
and his excuse that we need to spend more money here in Washington is 
something we will hear from all the others in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity before this House today to 
bring H.R. 4019, the Permanent Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2002, before 
this House of Representatives. This is legislation which makes the 
marriage tax penalty relief provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Act of 2001 permanent. We have often known that legislation as 
the Bush tax cut.
  There are 36 million working married couples who are impacted by the 
marriage tax penalty and who will benefit from the permanency that is 
before us today. During the last several years as we have debated 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty, we have often asked a very 
fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under 
our Tax Code if one is married that one pays higher taxes than one 
would if he were single? Is it right that under our Tax Code that our 
society's most basic institution should suffer higher taxes just 
because a couple is married? And I am proud to say this House has 
addressed this issue, and last year we passed legislation to provide 
temporary relief eliminating the marriage tax penalty for a temporary 
period of time.
  Let us remember that the marriage tax penalty is a middle-class 
issue. Almost every Member of this House often gets up and talks about 
how they are an advocate for the middle class because that is the 
majority of Americans, and I would note it is the middle class that 
suffers the marriage tax penalty disproportionately more than others; 
and those who suffer the most are in the income levels between $20,000 
and $70,000. Again, the marriage tax penalty is a middle-class issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that 2 years ago we passed legislation 
providing for permanent marriage tax penalty relief. It passed with 282 
to 144 votes, and even 64 Democrats joined with every House Republican 
to provide marriage tax relief benefiting 36 million married working 
couples; and unfortunately because of an arcane Senate rule, it forced 
our efforts to provide temporary relief, and that is why we are here 
today, to make it permanent.
  Last year's tax law, which President Bush signed on June 6, 2001, 
eliminated the marriage tax penalty for 36 million couples in three 
different ways. There are different types of taxpayers out there. There 
are those who do not itemize, and those who do not itemize, they use 
something called the standard deduction; and what we did last year in 
legislation that became law under a temporary basis was double the 
standard deduction to twice that for joint filers to twice that for 
singles. That benefits 20 million American couples.

[[Page 10221]]

  Second, for those who do itemize, and those are middle-class couples 
who own a home or give money to their church or institution of faith, 
their synagogue, their temple, their mosque, charity as well as 
probably own a home, they itemize. And they benefit from the widening 
of the 15 percent tax bracket so they can earn twice as much income in 
the 15 percent bracket as a joint filer as a single filer; 20 million 
couples benefit from the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket.
  And, third, and we all care and are concerned about the working poor, 
we expanded the eligibility for the earned income credit for the 
working poor by eliminating the marriage penalty and the earned income 
credit, what some call the earned income tax credit.

                              {time}  1115

  That benefits 4 million married working couples who we consider 
working poor.
  Mr. Speaker, 36 million married working couples benefit from the 
marriage tax relief that is before us today. It should be made 
permanent.
  Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both 
spouses work, and there is no other reason. It is right and it is fair 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We believe the Tax Code should 
be marriage-neutral, and a couple living together as two singles should 
pay no more than a married couple, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the 
marriage tax penalty has been proven to exact a disproportionate toll 
on working women and lower income couples with children.
  Many times before this House I have introduced citizens of mine, 
couples from back home who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Recently I 
have introduced a couple from my district, Jose and Magdelene Castillo 
of Joliet, Illinois. They have a combined income of $82,000 a year. 
Jose makes $57,000, Magdelene makes $25,000. They have 2 children, 
Eduardo and Carolina. As a result of the legislation we passed, their 
marriage tax penalty of $1125 is eliminated with the temporary measure 
that we passed and was signed into law last year. That represented a 12 
percent reduction in taxes for the Castillo family.
  Now, $1125 is pennies, pocket change in Washington, D.C., but for 
real people, real Americans, real working married couples back home in 
Joliet, Illinois, $1125 is a lot of money. It is a sizeable amount of 
money to set aside each year in an education savings account for little 
Eduardo and Carolina. It is several months' worth of car payments; it 
is several months' worth of day care for Eduardo and Carolina while mom 
and dad are at work. The bottom line is, it is real money for real 
people.
  In Illinois, 1,149,196 married working couples benefit from the $2.9 
billion of marriage tax relief they will receive because of the Bush 
tax cut enacted into law last year.
  Congress needs to work together to ensure that this tax relief, this 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty, is permanent. It is a fairness 
issue. We must ensure that 36 million couples who benefit from the 
marriage tax penalty relief do not suffer a tax increase when this 
temporary provision expires. Again, $1125 in marriage tax penalty 
relief is real money for Jose and Magdelene Castillo, and I would note 
for the 36 million married working couples, the $42 billion tax 
increase that would occur when this provision expires is real money for 
those families as well.
  Let me make it very clear. A vote against making permanent the 
marriage tax penalty relief legislation, a vote ``no'' on the 
legislation before us today is a vote for a $42 billion tax increase on 
36 million married working couples.
  Let us do the right thing. Let us be fair. Let us do the just thing 
for these married working couples. We are going to hear excuses from 
the same people who have voted consistently against providing marriage 
tax relief that they would rather find a way to spend this money here 
in Washington rather than allowing good couples like Jose and Magdelene 
Castillo to keep their hard-earned dollars to take care of their 
family's needs by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  I ask for bipartisan support today, and I look forward to 
participating in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really do not understand why the gentleman is so concerned about 
the marriage penalty tax expiring. Most of the provisions have not even 
come into effect yet. The doubling of the standard deduction for 
couples will not take effect until 2005. The doubling of the 15 percent 
back for couples will not take effect until 2005. In fact, the only 
provision in the whole area that has taken effect is the earned income 
tax credit. So I do not know why we are spending so much time on the 
whole issue of extending it when it has not even taken effect yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from the State of Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the House Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I just want to say at the outset that the gentleman from 
Illinois's (Mr. Weller) attack on our colleague, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) with the suggestion that he has never supported 
correction of the marriage penalty is totally unjustified, and it is 
factually inaccurate. Indeed, in 1995, when the Republicans under Newt 
Gingrich had their much-ballyhooed ``Contract With America,'' the 
Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, including the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), proposed to include marriage penalty tax 
relief and implement all of the provisions of the Contract With America 
on this subject in the tax bill before the committee.
  It was the Republicans, on a party-line vote, because they had so 
many special interest provisions they loaded into that tax bill, who 
chose to reject marriage penalty tax relief. At every opportunity since 
then, Democrats have proposed more marriage penalty tax relief sooner 
than the Republicans have. So statements suggesting that there is some 
kind of party-line difference over marriage penalty tax relief are 
absolutely inaccurate.
  Indeed, there has been, generally, broad, bipartisan support for 
correcting the marriage penalty. What we have today has little to do 
with that. Indeed, some people have suggested that the Republican 
tactic of having a tax cut vote every week, more or less, is just a 
contrived, election year ploy. Others have suggested that no, it is 
really just the only subject, cutting taxes, that the Republican caucus 
can come to agreement on among themselves. And while both of those 
statements are probably true, I think that the real intention here in 
offering this proposal today as one element of a $4 trillion tax cut 
relates to the basic opposition to the preservation of Social Security 
and Medicare by the Republican Party here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House Republican leadership have 
never really believed in Social Security and Medicare. To use their 
language, they want to ``privatize'' Social Security. They have a plan 
to privatize Medicare and encourage people to get out of the 
traditional Medicare system. There is no way that we can maintain the 
long-term dependability of Social Security and Medicare so long as we 
add another $4 trillion of tax breaks, at the same time we are letting 
corporations flee America and escaping their responsibility to fund 
national security. There is no way we can have it all. I believe that 
the disinterest in having Medicare and Social Security as a publicly 
financed, publicly supported system in which every American can 
participate, that that lies at the heart of bills like the one we have 
here today.
  Now, I have had the good fortune to be married to a great woman for a 
little over 32 years. My parents have been married for over 56 years. 
Marriage is a great institution. But I recognize that not every family 
in America has been as fortunate as I have. Indeed, the reason that 
this current problem in the Tax Code exists is because a widow

[[Page 10222]]

from World War II came to the Congress decades ago and said that the 
law discriminates against me. I am having to pay more than my married 
friends, and my husband sacrificed his life in defense of this country. 
The bill that is before us today to make it permanent the way they have 
written it can just as easily be called the ``Widow Penalty Act.'' It 
can be called the ``Battered Woman Penalty Act.'' It can be called the 
``Single Person's Penalty Act,'' because it proposes to erect penalties 
in favor of marriage and against those who happen to be widows, who 
happen to be battered women who have left their husband and, for one 
reason or another, happen to be single.
  I believe that our tax laws should be neutral. This is not a neutral 
law. It tends to give more of its benefits to those who are married.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) indicated to the House that a couple in his 
district, the Castillos, would stand to lose $1,125. When, if ever, 
would that occur if we do not repeal the sunset?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, they do not even propose to actually 
implement the marriage penalty under their proposal for several 
additional years. Now, if we had taken the Democratic alternative that 
we advanced last year, that would have been more benefical to that 
family sooner than under their proposal.
  Mr. KLECZKA. But is it not true that they would stand to lose money 
in 2010 if we do not repeal the sunset?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There is nothing in 
today's bill that really helps them at all over the next several years.
  Mr. KLECZKA. So this is 2002. So we are talking about something that 
might happen and might not happen in 8 years from now?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is the specter. It is the ghost of 
relief. It is great for an election year, though. I think they have 
done a good job of having a good election year ploy.
  But my concern is that with this basic underlying proposal, there is 
some discrimination against single parents, against widows; that is 
what led to this inequity to the code now. We ought not to disfavor 
them any more than we would disfavor married people.
  Finally, it is a matter that the children of people--whether family, 
married, single parent, whatever--we are going to place a penalty on 
them, and it is a national debt that, if they can implement every one 
of these permanent proposals, will be $4 trillion higher than if we 
reject them, as we should.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Dunn), I would like to comment that this legislation actually makes the 
Tax Code marriage-neutral so that single people, widows, single people 
pay no more in taxes than a joint filer does under their obligation, 
and vice versa. That was the goal of this legislation when it passed 
and still is the goal of the legislation.
  I would also note that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Doggett) is 
being consistent. He voted ``no'' on providing marriage tax relief, 
even though there are 58,612 working married couples who suffer from 
the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn), one of the House's leading advocates for widows and working 
women in the Congress and who has been a proven leader in the effort to 
ensure that family businesses stay in the family and in business when 
the founder passes on with her efforts in eliminating the death tax.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code has many unfair and inexplicable 
provisions, but none is more harmful to young people wishing to marry 
and young families than the marriage penalty, the bill we are debating 
today.
  To increase the tax burden on a couple simply because they choose to 
marry is unjust. We ask for neutrality, to get in there and give extra 
credit to married people, or support single people ahead of married 
people, and this is the bill we are debating today.
  Last year we passed the bill that alleviates the marriage penalty, 
but the problem is that it returns in 2011. So now we need to make it 
permanent.
  I find it amusing, if not unex-
plainable, that the opponents of this bill are talking on the one hand 
about how we are impacting the deficit situation in the United States 
by the passage of the bill we are debating today and, on the other 
hand, being truthful by saying that this bill does not take effect 
until 2011. So you cannot have it both ways. We do not impact the 
financial situation of the United States by which we are all very 
concerned, but by the time this bill would go into effect, in fact, it 
would be January 1, 2011. Every number that we have puts us in the 
surplus position, whether it is in the Social Security Trust Fund or 
the national budget by that year.
  So double-counting the dollars that would provide for the extension 
permanently of the marriage penalty is political. It is not fair.
  The marriage penalty is discriminatory to working women. Right now, 
the Tax Code creates a disincentive for women to earn above a very low 
threshold. Women who make a salary that is on a par with their husbands 
are taxed in an extraordinary way, and the reason is that their 
additional salary upon marriage moves in to combine and thrust the 
young couple into a higher marginal rate. It is not a problem if there 
is a single wage earner, but in today's society we see 70 percent of 
young women, women with young children, in the workforce, so it has 
become increasingly a more and more common problem for all young 
people.
  According to conservative estimates, 36 million American couples 
right now are paying, on average, $1,700 more per year in taxes because 
they are married. In my district alone in the State of Washington, 
about 73,000 couples are adversely affected by the marriage penalty. 
This is wrong and we need to change it.

                              {time}  1130

  As newlyweds start out in their new life together, they should not 
face a punishing tax bill. I urge my colleagues to help young couples 
to put them on the road to success, to establish in their lives full 
usage of the American dream, to support the Permanent Marriage Penalty 
Relief Act that takes place in 2011, takes away all that discrimination 
against the marriage of two young people, both of whom are in the 
working world.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see my amendment from 1995 
suddenly appeared out here. When Newt Gingrich took over this place, 
there was a Contract on America. This was in it then, 1995. I proposed 
it in the Committee on Ways and Means, and every single Republican 
voted against it.
  Now we have a new day, and now we have all this money, or we did have 
all this money. We thought we had all this money. We set up a straw 
man. Last year we passed a bill that said, people are going to get this 
benefit, but then we get this and it is not permanent, so they voted 
last year for it; and now they come out here and they say, oh, oh, it 
is not permanent. Let us make it permanent, in the midst of fiscal 
chaos.
  Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves. All the times I heard 
people standing out here telling me about those liberals just spend and 
spend and spend, well, I am watching the Republicans just spend and 
spend and spend, but not on things people care about.
  The drug benefit is gone. There is not going to be any drug benefit 
worth anything at all. On Medicare, people in my district cannot get a 
doctor to accept a Medicare patient. But no, no, we have to add this 
marriage tax penalty out here. That is what is going to save America.
  This election is going to be a test of whether Americans can be 
fooled all the time by the folks that say, we are cutting your taxes 
and it will not hurt,

[[Page 10223]]

and you are not going to notice it. They may get a couple of bucks 
back, but if one's mother has to pay for her drugs and she is living on 
a Social Security benefit like mine is, 92 years old, $8,000 a year, 
who do Members think pays for her drugs? Do Members think she can pay 
for it? Of course she cannot, so her sons and her daughter are going to 
pay for it.
  They have, of course, this tax benefit, now that they are married. 
Let us see, there are two of us that are married and two are not. Two 
are paying the penalty and two are not. We are going to use our penalty 
that we get back, and we are going to go down and pay for my mother's 
drugs.
  The old people in this country would rather have the security of 
knowing they had a pharmaceutical benefit under Social Security. They 
would also like to know, and the children would like to know, that 
there is going to be a Social Security out there in 20 years. But they 
gave it all away. They gave it all away.
  Last week it was estate tax, and this week they have a new one: this 
is the marriage tax day. Next week, it will be retirement benefits. Do 
Members want me to predict every week? Because we are about to go home. 
In about 3 hours we will all be on planes, and everybody has to get 
their press release out before they get back to the district. So they 
send out, today I voted for removing the tax penalty on marriage. They 
then go home and bask in the warmth of that kind of baloney.
  When are they going to be honest with people that they have to pay 
for stuff? When are they going to be honest with them? Vote ``no.''
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I note the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) has 
been consistent in voting in opposition to eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty on this House floor, even though there are 53,387 working 
couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty in his Washington district.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois, for yielding time to me.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for 
a very curious revisionist history policy. I am always happy to hear 
differences of opinion that, indeed, do exist.
  Indeed, when I was in private life, I noted with interest Congresses 
long before I got here that had no compulsion whatsoever about dipping 
into Social Security and spending money that was not here, and spending 
and spending and spending. My friend chooses to lampoon that, but that, 
in essence, was the fact. As our second President, John Adams, told us, 
facts are stubborn things.
  The fact about this bill on the floor today is that we are acting 
prospectively, within the rules of the House, within the rules of 
revenue as they exist today. Would that we could change those rules. 
Would that we could point out to the American people an economic fact, 
which is when people have more of their own money to save, spend, and 
invest, revenues to the government actually increase.
  Would that our friends on the left would take that into account. But 
instead, they would rather talk about so many subjects under the sun, 
and electioneering, rather than the fact that if we fail to act today, 
if we fail to make this relief permanent, due not to a situation of our 
own making but another body in close proximity with an arcane rule that 
failed to allow us to make this permanent, we will be, in essence, 
putting a tax back on the backs of the American people in the year 
2011.
  I listened with interest as my friend, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott), readily dismissed the value of $1,000. I believe the 
average, once this is fully implemented, the average will be about 
$1,400 per married couple. Again, I guess this reflects a difference in 
our philosophy. I know it is easily lampooned, or perhaps, from time to 
time, we get jaundiced about the fact, and we talk about trillions and 
billions of dollars. But in a very real way, $1,400 is real money to a 
married couple with a family.
  As for the other subjects addressed, I would encourage my friends to 
stay tuned. We are going to work to bring forth a prescription drug 
benefit as part of Medicare in the days ahead. We welcome the chance to 
work together, but perhaps it is just a difference in opinion on the 
whole notion of taxation. For some in this Chamber, there is no higher 
and better use of people's money than in the coffers of the Federal 
Government. That is an opinion that Members will defend by a multitude 
of different methods.
  For others of us, there is a notion that if people hang onto their 
own money and save, spend, and invest it, revenues to the Federal 
Government will increase and we will be able to take care of that, but 
we will be truer to the American people from this sense: the money that 
is spent here does not belong to Washington; it belongs to the American 
people.
  With this legislation today, setting up permanency and neutrality in 
the Tax Code so that married couples are not penalized, the American 
people will be better off; American families will be better off. I ask 
my colleagues to join us in support of this measure.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I might just point out that when Ronald Reagan was 
President from 1981 to 1988, and George Bush, the first George Bush, 
was President from 1988 to 1992, they dipped into the Social Security 
trust fund; but it was not anywhere near what we are talking about now.
  What we are really talking about now is, on the 10-year projections 
under current spending and tax policy, we are going to dip into Social 
Security by the sum of $1.7 trillion. If we do the estate tax, which 
the Republicans want to extend, defense authorization, the farm bill, 
which has been completed, it will add $3.2 trillion in terms of dipping 
into the Social Security trust fund.
  We are going to break the bank for our senior citizens when it comes 
to the retirement benefits that they expect to get. The police 
officers, the firefighters that are paying payroll taxes right into 
that trust fund right now, they do not realize that it is going out in 
the form of estate tax payments, in the form of farm support payments, 
in the form of so-called marriage penalty.
  I have to say that I find it inexplicable today that we are spending 
3 hours today on this issue. I have to say that here at a time when 
Stanley Works in Connecticut, Ohio, is attempting to move offshore into 
Bermuda to save $30 million in taxes, when Neighbors Industries is 
talking about voting to go offshore into Bermuda to save millions of 
dollars in taxes, we are messing around with something that will not 
take effect until 2011.
  Does this not say something about the priorities and the values that 
we have here? I think the reason that is the case, if I might just say, 
is an article that was written on May 26 in The Washington Post, it was 
a Sunday Washington Post story by Kevin Phillips, who devised the 
Republican plan, the southern Republican plan for President Nixon back 
in 1967, he says in this article, and it really is interesting:

       The Republican House Ways and Means Committee has become a 
     virtual arm of the Washington lobbying community, routinely 
     arranging legislative favors that would make a madame blush.
       The President and his family have dynastically involved 
     themselves with the rise of Enron Corporation as an 
     inconvenient symbol of the recent excesses.

  That is what is going on. We should be dealing with tax shelters, 
some of these things that Americans really care about. Instead, we are 
talking about some tax law that may or may not come into effect in 
2011, and tap into the Social Security trust fund. This is an 
absolutely outrageous act we are committing today.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has been 
a consistent ``no'' vote on eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I 
respect his arguments in respect to opposition to the marriage tax 
penalty.

[[Page 10224]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, just so everyone here understands that this 
is probably one of the grossest forms of politics that is being engaged 
in, the gentleman from California just took to his feet and indicated 
that we should be spending our time on other factors. He mentioned, for 
example, the question of inversions.
  I just want all of the Members here to know that 1 week ago today, 
the Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on inversions. Is it not 
ironic that it was the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) who moved 
that the committee adjourn before the panel of experts was heard, 
before the Members had a chance to respond to questions?
  So here he is, complaining that we are not looking at inversions, 
when he was the one that moved to adjourn the committee. Now, that is 
politics.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just wanted to respond to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. I have to say the reason we asked that the meeting be adjourned, 
but the chairman did grant us, is because the drafter of the 
legislation that would have dealt with the problem of Stanley Works in 
Connecticut was the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). He was 
not allowed to testify. He was not allowed to testify on his own bill 
with his own level of expertise.
  We just thought that it was discourteous for the other side of the 
aisle, particularly the chairman, not to allow the gentleman who 
drafted the bill, who could testify with the level of expertise on this 
issue, to testify. That was the issue itself.
  If the gentleman could explain why he did not allow the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) to testify, we would like to know it. He 
never did explain why the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), a 
member of the House of Representatives, was denied the opportunity to 
testify.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  I would also respond to the chairman. I happen to be a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. One of the reasons we had to adjourn last 
week is because at the same time we had this hearing in one of the 
buildings across the street, the House was debating a very important 
piece of legislation from the same committee. That was a permanent 
repeal of the inheritance tax.
  Members remember the inheritance tax. That is where 2 percent of the 
public pays something when their estates are probated. It is for the 
very, very wealthy. Well, as I indicated to the chairman at the 
committee, and he is pretty powerful, but even though he has all his 
power, he cannot be in two places at once. So the committee chose to 
come to the House floor and debate that policy. That is what the debate 
was all about.
  But let us talk about the bill that is before us today. Through the 
miracle of C-SPAN, hundreds of thousands of people are watching their 
House of Representatives. We have hundreds of people in the gallery, 
Mr. Chairman, watching what we are doing.
  They are going to go home and the neighbors are going to say, Wow, 
you went to Washington. What did you see? Oh, I saw the Smithsonian, I 
saw the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and we had the honor of going to the 
House floor and listening to the debate.
  And the neighbors are going to say, what did you hear? Well, they 
were debating a bill that would address a problem that might or might 
not occur in 2011. The neighbors will say, hot damn, really? 2011?

                              {time}  1145

  Well, that is 9 years from now. Yes, they took it up today. Had to be 
done right away. Well, the question is why? I will tell you why. There 
is one big event between today and January 2011, and you know what it 
is. It is November 2002 elections. It is the elections. So we are 
gathered here today to promote our elections. And how about addressing 
the work and the needs of the people?


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will suspend.
  Members are reminded to not address their comments to the viewing 
audience or the gallery.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am addressing them through you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to say, and I am assuming 
what this neighbor will also say is, well, what did you hear about the 
deficit? Because last year I recall reading a newspaper. We are going 
to have surpluses for as far as the eye can see. What did they say 
about the $300 billion deficit of this year? And you are going to have 
to say back to them, nothing. They did not bring it up.
  Well, how about a drug program that our seniors are in dire need of, 
where in my State hundreds and thousands of seniors want Congress to 
act? No, they did not address that. They are talking about this bill 
that might be a problem in 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, let us separate the wheat from the chaff. What we are 
doing today is nothing but politics to benefit some of the Members of 
this House in November of 2002. Clear and simple, that is what it is 
all about. And the gentleman will say, well, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) voted against a marriage penalty consistently 
and 200,000 of his constituents will not get the relief.
  The fact of the matter is, and you heard the gentleman from the State 
of Washington (Mr. McDermott), he and I have been on this program to 
eliminate the marriage penalty since 1995, so I am glad the Republicans 
are joining us.
  But nevertheless, the fact of the matter is there are hundreds of 
thousands of people in my district who want a drug benefit today, who 
want us to address the war on terrorism and provide money for that. And 
they also want us to address the $300 billion deficit. So I encourage 
my colleagues to talk about those issues today so when your neighbors 
ask you what they did, they did not think about some problem that might 
occur in 2011.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the chairman for an additional 
minute, I will note that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) is 
right. He has consistently voted no on the House floor in opposition to 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty even though there are 133,000 
constituents who suffer the marriage tax penalty in his district.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know about separating the wheat 
from the chaff, but I do think we ought to separate the bull from the 
waste.
  Notice that when we come to the floor to argue the issue in front of 
us, they always want to argue a different issue. One week ago today the 
elimination of the estate tax was on the floor. They did not like us 
voting on it. The Record shows it passed. Today the marriage penalty 
will pass. Next week we will be introducing legislation to deal with 
prescription drugs. But about this Maloney baloney, understand this, we 
have had 17 full committee hearings and only once did we have a member 
panel. It is not the ordinary and customary thing that we do. That is 
baloney. We have had subcommittee hearings. We have had 68 subcommittee 
hearings and we have had 60 members testify at those subcommittee 
hearings. We are having a subcommittee hearing on inversions. We have 
invited the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). Let us see if he 
comes, as all the other Members have come to the subcommittee.
  The reason they wanted to disrupt the hearing was because they want 
to try to make a political point. The Maloney business is baloney.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page 10225]]


  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we continue on what I call the fiscal 
irresponsibility rampage that the majority party is on. I want to say 
at the outset to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), I 
do not know what the exact numbers are, but let me tell the gentleman 
something, 100 percent of the people who live in my district will be 
adversely affected by the interest rates that he will drive up by his 
race towards deeper and deeper and deeper deficits. That is what will 
happen to everybody in his fiscal irresponsibility rampage that this 
committee is on and the Congress is pursuing.
  It is popular, of course, to get up here week after week and vote for 
tax cuts. Of course. It is easy. It is also irresponsible. As we have 
$314 billion in debt this year facing us and trillions of dollars in 
the years ahead, is it responsible fiscal leadership? It is absolutely 
not. Not with the record surpluses turning into deficits in less than 
one year of this administration. Not with the Federal Government 
expected to run a budget deficit of more than $300 billion spending 100 
percent of the Social Security surpluses; not with a House majority 
violating its repeated pledge not to raid the Social Security 
surpluses; and not with the Treasury Department's practically begging 
Congress to raise the debt limit before June 28, which they have 
refused to do.
  Do Democrats support marriage penalty relief? Of course we do. It is 
the fair and right thing to do. But why this bill and why now? There is 
only 2 weeks left before the 4th of July break and we have not 
considered one of the 13 must-pass appropriations bills.
  Furthermore, fully 70 percent of the marriage penalty provisions of 
this GOP bill will not take effect until 2006 and most till 2011, as 
the previous speaker said.
  Is this legislation more important than defense? Is it more important 
than homeland security? Is it more important than prescription drugs 
and a host of other pressing issues so we can affect 2011? I think any 
commonsense response to that is, of course it is not.
  The truth is this bill will cost more than $63 billion over the next 
decade. And every last cent, every last cent of that $63 billion comes 
out of the Social Security surplus. Worse yet, in the second decade of 
this century, when the baby boomers begin to retire in full force, the 
cost of this bill is estimated to be $330 billion out of Social 
Security revenues. The bill is nothing but an exercise in demagoguery. 
I urge the Members to vote no, to vote yes on the substitute, vote no 
on the bill.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I would prefer not to do this, 
but, on the other hand, I think it is very critical in terms of our 
decorum in this institution. The speaker before the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) made reference to a colleague of ours in what I 
believe to be a derogatory fashion, particularly right at the end of 
his remarks. I wonder if the remarks were an inappropriate violation of 
any rules in the House. I realize this may not be a timely request, but 
I think it is important we do put on the record the ruling of the 
Speaker, had it been a timely request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would affirm that remarks in 
debate should not descend to personalities.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate whether or not to impose a $42 
billion tax increase on 36 million couples, I was wondering how much 
time remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe some of the 
things being said here today. The other side keeps saying they support 
marriage penalty relief and yet they do not vote for it.
  I rise today in support of marriage. Marriage is a cornerstone of a 
strong family. There are many influences in today's culture that 
undermine marriages and there are a lot of those influences we cannot 
do anything about. But one thing we can keep trying to do is fix the 
Tax Code, and with the Senate's help, we can do that.
  The tax cuts we have passed last year remove many of the worst parts 
of the marriage penalty. We have doubled the standards deductions for 
marriage couples; we expanded the 15 percent tax bracket to twice the 
income of single people; but this marriage penalty relief is only 
temporary. Why? Because of an arcane Senate rule that prevented 
permanent tax cuts. That is not, is not it. Should we not help make 
marriages permanent, not temporary? Instead of this tax relief lasting 
through the diamond anniversaries of weddings, marriage penalty relief 
will sunset on the aluminum anniversary of this bill.
  In 2011, when the sunset of tax relief takes place, countless couples 
will face higher tax bills simply because they said I do. And you know 
what, that is just plain wrong. We need to fix that in this Congress.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, now I have really heard it all, that there 
is an intricate relationship between marriage repeal and keeping 
marriage permanent. You are darn right. There is a question of values. 
You are darn right.
  Last week I got up here and urged my colleagues to vote against the 
ill-thought-out repeal of the sunset on the estate tax. Here we are 
again. Besides being a colossal waste of time, these piecemeal votes to 
reveal bits and pieces of tax cuts that you have proposed reveal the 
deceit behind the administration's initial cost estimate.
  According to the official estimate from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, certainly no left-leaning group, no agency from the far left, 
no Democratic agency, today's bill would cost about $25 billion in 
2012. If that does sound ridiculous, it really is. It really is 
ridiculous, that we even put a budget together 10 years is ridiculous, 
and the American people know it is ridiculous. We cannot even project 
what is going to happen 10 months from now, let alone 10 years from 
now.
  Nearly two-thirds of the result of the provision of this bill, an 
expansion of the 15 percent rate bracket, that only benefits higher 
income couples. In the 10-year period, this is going to cost $330 
billion. If the cost of increased interest payments is added, it is 
going to rise to $460 billion.
  That is why I support the substitute. I think it is a critical 
substitute. I think it is an important substitute. What it does is it 
triggers, it triggers, if we cannot protect Social Security when it 
will not go into effect. You have made this card again a credit card 
for the Federal Government. And I say you are wrong in doing it and you 
need to put everything on the table. You cannot look at this in bits 
and pieces. This is wrong-sided legislation; and you are taking away 
the very foundation of our society, Social Security.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before recognizing our next distinguished speaker here, 
I would note that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) 
consistently voted no on eliminating the marriage tax penalty and what 
he considers a cost to Uncle Sam, to the Treasury, is actually higher 
taxes on working married couples. That is what this is all about, 
making permanent eliminating the marriage penalty.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. On your time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I voted for the substitute, so it is not a clear 
record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized and I would 
appreciate it if the Members in the Chamber are recognized by the Chair 
before they take the microphone.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

[[Page 10226]]


  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would have to imagine there must be some 
rules in mischaracterizing a colleague's voting record or a colleague's 
vote; and clearly there was because the Democratic substitute which the 
previous speaker voted for did have a marriage penalty tax relief 
package in it. It just had a pay-for in it. I would have to believe 
there is some rule in mischaracterizing a Member's position or vote, 
and I would like a ruling from the Chair on that.

                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise the 
Member that if a Member feels his record is not being reflected 
accurately, he may debate that on the floor, and the Chair would also 
appreciate it if Members would not grab the microphone and speak when 
they are not recognized.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I think that is understandable.
  Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, but I have to say, 
Members need to protect themselves when distortions are given.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that Members may 
engage in debate to correct the record.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, it is tough to come down here in the 
caldron of the Ways and Means. I have good friends on both sides and I 
appreciate their diligence, but we have been lobbied on this 
legislation, and we have been lobbied by married families that have 
been asking for a simple solution, some legal certainty.
  One of the things that frustrates me the most about this place as an 
institution is we do things sporadically every year, and we do not 
provide any certainty or we do not finish the job on legislation. The 
perfect example is the tax cut bill, because of the rules of the other 
body, having to sunset key components of the Tax Code.
  The death tax is one of them. I do not personally believe that 
government ought to redistribute wealth, and I think that is supported 
by the folks in my district. I think other people disagree, but that is 
what that does, is a redistribution of wealth; and it hurts people who 
want to get ahead. It destroys family farms and small businesses. This 
penalizes people for being married, and there is no certainty that this 
bill will maintain after 10 years.
  I just want to boil it down to the simple aspects, and I know there 
are other issues that we are all involved in, and I appreciate those, 
but I want to be able to go home and tell married couples that Uncle 
Sam does not take more money out of their check just because they are 
married. That is all I want to do, and I want to provide families some 
certainty that if they get married now or they get married 5 years from 
now or they get married 11 years from now or get married 12 years from 
now, Uncle Sam will not take more tax from them because they are 
married, and that is the simple premise.
  A person should not get penalized for saying, ``I do,'' and the chart 
states it. It may not be involved in all the other issues, but I ask 
support of the Republican bill.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguish 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time, and I thank him for his leadership, and I kind of want to go on 
some of what I have heard here this morning from the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, because I do think that this is about politics.
  I went home last week, and the first thing I was called upon to talk 
about was the repeal of the death tax. Somebody sent out a press 
release saying that I voted against the repeal of the death tax, and I 
did. What they failed to mention is that I did vote and offer the 
substitute to reform the death tax, that little thing that said 3 
million per person, 6 million per couple, taking care of 99.7 percent 
of the public and of those that would have to pay the estate tax.
  So my guess is, and I will correct the record so when the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) gets up and says whatever he is going to 
say, whether I voted or did not vote, I am sure that today when I go 
home, that there will probably be another press release, and that press 
release will say, Karen Thurman voted against the permanent repeal of 
the marriage tax penalty. I will get the phone call from the press, and 
I will have to say to them, well, yes, I did, but the fact of the 
matter is, we did have an alternative last year and again this year, 
and I was only trying to follow the rules that were put into place in 
Congress before I got here, because of the problems of deficits, when 
we did tax cuts, when we did spend the dollars and raise the deficits 
in this country, and that was something called pay-as-you-go.
  I think the American people remember pay-as-you-go. Guess what? In 
the substitute, we would have been given an opportunity to pay for this 
marriage tax penalty, but instead, we are going to go into Social 
Security.
  Is it not interesting that last night on this floor, in instructions 
to the conferees on the energy bill, what was the instruction? That we 
would not dip into Social Security. It passed. It passed. Yet, today, 
we come to the floor, with a marriage tax penalty, a $300 billion 
deficit and guess what we find. We know that this will go into the 
Social Security/Medicare trust funds at the time that we will have the 
largest retirement happen.
  I went back to my office, and I got the statistics in my district. 
There are 158,000 seniors 65 years and older that depend on Medicare, 
that depend on Social Security. They want a prescription drug benefit 
and guess what? My parents, those people that the gentleman is talking 
about, they want reduced classroom sizes. In my colleagues' budget, 
they knock it out. They want books for their children so they can help 
them with their homework. They want responsible tax relief.
  I think that if we were being honest with the American public, we 
could have had responsible tax relief for this country; but we are not 
doing that, and last night the Senate did not even give my colleagues 
the tax relief for their small businesses.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman from Florida is correct. I am not going to draw 
attention to her past opposition to eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty, but I would note that there are almost 84,000 married 
individual taxpayers in her district that do suffer the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the distinguished leader in the fight to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I have heard these arguments on the floor, and let me say to my 
colleagues in the room, that is absolutely not a waste of time. When my 
fellow Nevadans elected me to come to Congress, they entrusted me with 
a great responsibility of keeping their families safe, their economy 
strong, and their taxes low; and by supporting this bill, by passing 
the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act, we are going to fulfill 
those obligations.
  In making the elimination of the marriage penalty tax permanent, we 
will provide married couples across the Nation peace of mind to plan 
for their financial security for years to come. After all, why would we 
want our hardworking families to begin receiving additional financial 
security through this important tax relief only to turn around and 
strip them, as the Democrats would like to do, 10 years from the date 
and add to their tax burden.

[[Page 10227]]

  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives will once again show the 
American people that we are caring about the American family and that 
we are here taking care of the business that we were elected to do, and 
last year when the President signed the historic tax cut package into 
law, the people of Nevada knew that they would finally begin to be 
keeping more of their own money after having paid into the government 
more than it needed to operate; and by passing last year's tax relief 
package, Congress put hard-earned dollars back into the pockets of 
76,304 deserving married couples in Nevada's Second Congressional 
District alone, and Statewide nearly 150,000 Nevada couples sought 
relief from the onerous marriage penalty tax.
  If we fail to pass this bill today, we will be increasing their 
taxes.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many 
other speakers he might have.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have one, maybe two more.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), who has been a distinguished leader in the 
effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, failure to pass this bill will raise taxes 
on low- and middle-income taxpayers by $42 billion by 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, when a couple stands at the altar and says ``I do,'' 
they are not agreeing to higher taxes; yet without relief from the 
marriage penalty, 36 million American couples will pay higher taxes 
simply because they are married.
  Let us be clear. It is just plain wrong to tax marriage. 
Unfortunately, the marriage penalty relief passed last year will expire 
at the end of 2010 due to arcane Senate budget rules. The legislation 
before us today makes this relief permanent. If we fail to enact this 
legislation, married couples will face a massive tax increase of $42 
billion just in the year 2011 and 2012. We simply cannot allow this to 
happen.
  Under the leadership of President Bush, last year's tax bill provided 
married couples with significant tax relief by making sure that the 
standard deduction for a couple is twice that of a single taxpayer. And 
by allowing married couples to earn more of their income in the lower 
15 percent tax bracket, making sure that our Tax Code does not 
discourage marriage is not just good tax policy for the next few years, 
it is good tax policy, period. Now is the time to make tax relief for 
hard-working married couples permanent. I urge my colleagues to support 
this very important legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. MATSUI. I would imagine there are no other speakers except the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say I really do not understand why we are here 
today debating this issue. We should be taking up prescription drugs. 
We should perhaps even take up the President's three proposals that his 
Social Security Commission has come up with, because obviously we want 
to debate the whole issue of whether or not Social Security should be 
privatized or partially privatized.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has a piece of legislation on 
Social Security that privatizes the entire Social Security system over 
a period of years. We should be debating that issue now. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, has a privatization of 
Social Security bill. We should be discussing that.
  If not those things, which are very important to the American public, 
at least we should be discussing why at a time of war we are allowing 
U.S. corporations like Stanley Corporation to go offshore and save $30 
million in taxes because now they have become not a U.S. corporation 
but a foreign corporation in Bermuda; and we all know that all they are 
going to do is just open up a post office box, a mailbox perhaps, and 
then be able to save $30 million in taxes. And this is not going to 
help their employees. This is going to go into the pockets of the 
owners.
  So why not debate these issues? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what is 
happening here is the fact that my colleagues want a political issue, I 
think as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) mentioned, I think 
as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) mentioned, as a number of 
Members on our side of the aisle mentioned; and I have to say that this 
is really a strange debate because I hear my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle talk about all of the savings for the American 
public, and there are three components, and perhaps people do not know 
this, of the marriage penalty relief.
  One is doubling the standard deductions for couples; doubling the 15 
percent bracket for couples; and then the other is the earned income 
tax credit, which is not really a marriage penalty issue. The only one 
that is currently in effect is the earned income tax credit. The 
doubling of the 15 percent tax bracket does not take effect until the 
year 2005, and of course the doubling of the standard deduction for 
couples does not take effect until 2005, 3 years from now.
  So we are worried about extending these credits, and they have not 
even taken effect yet. So the irony of this is that we are debating 
something that is really not real. It is an illusion. It is a 
falsehood. It does not make any sense. And the real tragedy, however, 
is in spite of all these games, if in fact it did take effect, if in 
fact it did take effect in the year 2011, you would have a drain on the 
Social Security trust fund of $457 billion. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, 
this is a bill that should be defeated. We have a substitute we are 
going to offer that addresses these issues to preserve the Social 
Security trust fund. I urge a ``no'' on final passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let us get back to why we are here. We have 
heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side, basically all the excuses 
that have been previously used on why we should not eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty previously.

                              {time}  1215

  It has always been let us do it another time. There is something in 
Washington that we need to spend it on. Let us get back to why we need 
to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  Let me give an example of a couple in Joliet, Illinois, who suffered 
the marriage tax penalty. A working couple from Joliet, Jose and 
Magdalene Castillo. They are both in the workforce, a son Eduardo, a 
daughter, Carolina. They have a combined income of $82,000; and prior 
to the Bush tax cut being signed into law last year, which included our 
efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, the Castillo family in 
Joliet, Illinois suffered a $1,125 marriage tax penalty.
  As we can see from the rhetoric today, there are those on the other 
side of the aisle who would much rather spend the Castillos' hard-
earned income, their $1,125 marriage penalty, here in Washington.
  What we are asking the House to do today is to make permanent the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty because if we fail to make 
permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, couples such as 
Jose and Magdalene Castillo will see a $1,125 increase in taxes because 
their marriage tax penalty will be restored. If we add that together 
with the other 36 million married working couples who have suffered the 
marriage tax penalty, it is a $42 billion tax increase. That is the 
question today. Do we increase taxes by $42 billion on 36 million 
married

[[Page 10228]]

working couples, or do we make permanent our efforts to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. Let us vote in a bipartisan way, and make 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4019. 
I am not against repealing the marriage tax, but I am strongly opposed 
to H.R. 4019 for two reasons: the funding source of the bill and the 
timing of its floor consideration.
  First and foremost, the surplus that was promised to the American 
people last year by President bush is gone, only to be substituted by 
the serious and foreseeable signs of a budget deficit in the near 
future. Currently, there is an estimated budget deficit of about $200 
billion--a drastic change from the surplus that was promised last year. 
Consequently, the safety net that was to guarantee Social Security and 
Medicare funding for our baby boomers in the next decade is becoming 
more of a wavering hope, instead of a secured promise.
  The estimated revenue cost of H.R. 4019 will be over $25 billion per 
year after 2011, essentially, costing over $330 billion in the next 
decade. Coupled with the approximate $200 billion budget deficit this 
year, the future saving for our Social Security is looking dim. 
Repealing the marriage tax is a good gesture, but it definitely should 
not supersede the future of Social Security for our baby boomers.
  Second, the timing of the floor consideration for this tax penalty is 
unreasonable and unnecessary considering that none of the marriage 
penalty tax breaks will fully phase-in until 2011. Why are we 
considering such an issue that will cost so much in the future but has 
no affect on Americans today, tomorrow or four years from now? We are 
not sure of what the fiscal situation of the federal government will be 
in the next decade, but we are cognizant of the responsibilities we 
have towards the American people and their retirement benefits. This is 
true fiscal irresponsibility to bring this bill to the floor today and 
reeks of election year policy-making for Republican back patting. For 
those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the passage of H.R. 4019.
  I am in favor of the Democratic substitute, which is offered by my 
esteemed colleague, Rep. Matsui. The substitute offers a permanent 
repeal of the marriage tax. However, the repeal will be initiated in 
2011 only if there will be another source of funding besides the Social 
Security surplus. That essentially means that we should be out of 
budget deficit before the marriage tax is repealed.
  The substitute and H.R. 4019 are very similar in that they both 
repeal the marriage tax in 2011. The only difference is that the 
substitute takes into consideration the baby boomers that will be in 
need of Social Security and Medicare in the next decade. Those 
individuals should not lose out on their benefits because of a 
political gesture by the House leadership during the election year of 
2002. This is not just fiscal irresponsibility; it is fiscal 
insincerity as we have told baby boomers that they will have their 
retirement needs met when the time arrives. Democrats are committed to 
keeping our word to the American people, so I cannot vote on a bill 
that will void the promise of surplus for these working Americans. 
Therefore, I am opposed to H.R. 4019 and in favor of the substitute.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it was one year ago that this House was 
considering the merits of President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut 
proposal. The House Leadership claimed that the sky was the limit for 
our budget surplus and that the ten-year projections would just 
continue to grow, and grow, and grow. At the time of the debate, I too, 
offered support for tax relief, but with the caveat that it should go 
to those who need it most--hardworking American familes--and that it 
should not curtail our ability to fund our nation's priorities or 
hinder our ability to address unforeseen events. I believed Congress 
had a duty to be fiscally responsible and move slow on tax cutting 
measures to make certain the projections came true. After all, it is 
virtually impossible to tell what our federal budget will look like one 
year from now--let alone ten.
  Sadly, the concerns I raised a year ago were warranted. Our $5.6 
trillion surplus has virtually vanished, and once again, we face large 
federal budget deficits. While the events on September 11 and the 
sluggish economy played a role in slicing the surplus, there is no 
doubt that the large Republican tax cut was the main culprit. It is 
evident that the priorities I talked about at the time will be much 
more difficult to address: it will be hard to shore up Social Security 
for the soon-to-be retiring baby boomers; it will be very difficult to 
pay down our national debt; it will be an enormous challenge to provide 
a prescription drug benefit under Medicare; it will be a real struggle 
to fund the growing needs of our educational system.
  With the new budget concerns and all of the problems that Congress 
has failed to fix, I found it irresponsible of the House to devote more 
time and energy considering H.R. 4019, or the Marriage Penalty Relief 
Act. This bill would permanently extend marriage penalty relief past 
the 2010 sunset date. Moreover, the cost of this bill would total about 
$330 billion in the ten-year period from 2013-2022--at a time when the 
nation's budgetary demands will increase because of the retirement of 
the baby boomers.
  I support the Matsui Substitute on Marriage Penalty Relief. This bill 
would permanently extend marriage penalty relief, but goes a necessary 
step further that adds a much-needed trigger mechanism to impose 
financial discipline: the repeal will only go forward if the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) certifies that permanent 
repeal will not result in a raid on the Social Security trust fund over 
the following ten year period. If, on the other hand, OMB determines 
the repeal will require a raid on the trust fund, the repeal would be 
put on hold.
  In the past, I have supported legislation that would fix the marriage 
penalty; it's a serious problem for thousands of married couples in 
Wisconsin and throughout America. However, I find myself hearing the 
same arguments the House Leadership made last year: that permanently 
extending marriage penalty relief will not take money away from the 
Social Security Trust Fund, will not debilitate our ability to meet our 
priorities, and will not limit our ability to meet unforeseen 
challenges head on. I respectfully disagree with this argument--again--
and believe that we should address the permanent extension of the 
Marriage Penalty Relief Act years from now when we have a clearer 
picture of what our budgetary challenges and what national challenges 
are.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4019, 
to make the good work we did in bringing relief from the Marriage 
Penalty Tax to 21 million married Americans last year, permanent.
  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, at any 
one of my weekend town meetings, and at the pancake breakfasts I attend 
on Sunday mornings. Americans scored a major victory last year when 
Congress and President Bush addressed one of the most unjust provisions 
of the tax code by reducing the Marriage Penalty Tax. We increased the 
basic deduction from $7,350 to $8,800 for married couples, and nearly 
one million married couples across New Jersey, and closer to home, 
72,000 married couples in my Congressional District, have benefited 
from our good work to provide relief from the Marriage Penalty Tax.
  Unfortunately, these provisions are scheduled to expire at the end of 
2010, because of a ``sunset'' provision that was included in the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. If H.R. 4019 is not 
enacted, then beginning in 2011, the standard deduction for married 
couples will be reduced, forcing 21 million married couples to pay more 
taxes. The Marriage Penalty Tax is inherently unfair. The Federal 
Government should not force working couples, through an unfair, archaic 
Tax Code, to pay higher taxes simply because they choose to be married. 
The Marriage Penalty Tax weakens the foundation of one of society's 
most sacred institutions: marriage. We cannot turn back the clock after 
making such great strides in providing this sensible, meaningful tax 
relief, and in the year 2011, force working couples to pay higher taxes 
simply because they choose to be married.
  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.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4019, a 
bill to permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty.
  Last year, the President promised we could have it all. He argued 
that the projected $5.6 trillion surplus was enough for a large tax 
cut, an increase in education spending, and a decent Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. It's no surprise to those of us who voted 
against his tax plan that such grandiose promises have proven wrong. 
Now, one year later, instead of large projected surpluses, our budget 
is in deficit. Republicans now say that we don't have the funds to 
implement last year's No Child Left Behind education bill. Republicans 
refuse to propose a Medicare prescription drug benefit worthy of 
America's seniors. But, they are perfectly willing to continue spending 
trillions of dollars on new tax cuts for the wealthy. When is the 
Republican leadership going to stop playing games with our priorities?

[[Page 10229]]

  The bill before us today will not take effect until 2011. At that 
point, it will cost over $25 billion per year. Over the following 
decade, it will cost over a quarter of a trillion dollars. This is at 
the same time when the retirement of the baby boom generation will 
begin putting enormous strains on Social Security and Medicare.
  The Republicans have already shown they're content to lead us into 
fiscal crisis today. This bill continues to make clear that they want 
us in financial crisis in the next decade as well. This doesn't have to 
be the case. I support the responsible and fiscally sound approach to 
marriage penalty relief being offered by my fellow Democrats. Our bill 
makes the marriage tax penalty fix permanent. But, our bill simply adds 
a protection for Social Security. It says if we don't have the money in 
future budgets to enact responsible tax cuts, we have the option to put 
them on hold. The Republicans' bill leaves the door open for future 
invasions of the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for forced tax cuts.
  We ought to be debating a prescription drug benefit and saving Social 
Security for future generations. Instead, we are forced week after week 
to vote on yet another Republican tax bill that favors their wealthy 
contributors.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the fiscally-flawed Republican 
Marriage Penalty Relief Act and support the fiscally-sound Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, our tax code should be designed fairly 
and it shouldn't pick winners and losers. But under the current system, 
married taxpayers are unfairly singled out.
  Over 65,000 couples in my district are affected by the marriage 
penalty each year. Marriage should be a time of happiness and joy, not 
punishment from the federal government. Couples should not be targeted 
for entering into the sacred vows of wedlock. Since last year's tax 
relief package, this House has taken several steps to ensure tax relief 
will not be pulled out from under hardworking Americans. Every person 
paying taxes deserves to know that a sudden and harsh tax increase 
isn't looming down the road.
  I am proud of the work this House has accomplished so far this year, 
especially to effort to provide continuing tax relief. We should 
continue our support for the American people by passing permanent 
repeal of the marriage penalty.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation.
  The elimination of the Marriage Penalty Tax has been a priority of 
mine since I first got elected to Congress. In 1997, as a Freshman 
Congressman, one of the first pieces of legislation I cosponsored was a 
bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax.
  When the Federal Government first levied income tax in 1913, all 
taxpayers filed individual tax returns and the rate schedules did not 
differentiate between singles and married couples. By basing a married 
couple's federal income tax entirely on the separate income of each 
spouse, the original tax code resulted in married couples with the same 
collective income paying different level of taxes.
  In 1969, Congress enacted legislation establishing a tax framework 
for married couples, similar to current law, that produced a ``marriage 
penalty'' and a ``marriage bonus.'' The ``marriage penalty'' results in 
some married couples paying more in taxes than they would as unmarried 
individuals filing separately. The ``marriage penalty'' is an archaic 
tax that punishes working families. While the tax code actually gives a 
``marriage bonus'' to couples with only one working partner, the 
``marriage penalty'' is applied to couples where both partners work. 
The average penalty is over $1100. That translates into mortgage 
payments, car payments or child care for East Texas families.
  Last year, on March 29, 2001, I voted for the Marriage Penalty and 
Family Tax Relief Act, which increased the standard deducation for 
married couples filing jointly to twice the basic standard deduction of 
single filers over a four-year period, beginning in 2005. However, as 
we all know, the version that was signed into law, as part of the 
overall tax cut package, re-establishes the marriage penalty in 2011. 
This is simply not acceptable to me or to the millions of couples who 
are hurt by the marriage penalty tax. I believe that passage of last 
year's tax bill was a good step toward eliminating the burden of the 
marriage penalty tax. However, the sunset is a setback for true, long-
term relief.
  Today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to vote once again 
on permanent repeal--making sure that the marriage penalty tax will not 
rear its ugly head again in 2011. I believe that, no matter what, we 
must make the marriage penalty tax repeal permanent. Doing so is good 
for working families--those where both parents are working to make ends 
meet.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, here we are: another day, another tax cut, 
another political maneuver by my Republican colleagues.
  I would be remiss if I failed to mention that we have already done 
this. Recall, if you will, April 18, when this body voted to make the 
last year's tax cut permanent. Though I voted against it, it passed by 
a vote of 229-198. Why are we taking a piecemeal approach and voting on 
it again? Do we not have anything better to do with our time? Yes, we 
have plenty to do, like providing a prescription drug benefit for our 
seniors, increasing the minimum wage so people can earn more than a 
measly $5.15 an hour and making sure patients are protected from 
insurance company bureaucrats.
  Let's discuss the substance of this bill, something my Republican 
colleagues obviously have not done. Last year, the President promised 
we would be able to maintain a balanced budget, shore-up Social 
Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit to seniors, 
and give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Well, as some of 
us in this body predicted, that has not materialized. That 
irresponsible tax cut was based on ten-year projections. The numbers 
used by the Republicans were grossly unrealistic. So, here we are, 
experiencing deficits instead of surpluses and the Republicans are 
telling us there are not sufficient resources for a decent prescription 
drug benefit.
  Don't get me wrong, I support, and Democrats support, responsible tax 
relief, including marriage penalty relief--as long as it is not funded 
out of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. So, I would ask my 
colleagues to do the responsible thing. Let us support the Rangel-
Matsui substitute. This substitute will permanently extend the marriage 
penalty relief, as long as there is a determination by the Office of 
Management and Budget that the Social Security Trust Fund will not be 
raided to do so.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since 1969, our tax laws have 
punished married couples when both spouses work. Each year more than 21 
million are penalized for no reason other than the decision to be 
joined in holy matrimony. They pay more in taxes than they would if 
they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong. 
The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working 
women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a 
working women's issue. I believe this penalty should be fixed but in a 
responsible way.
  A married couple generally is treated as one tax unit that must pay 
tax on the couple's total taxable income. Defining the married couple 
as a single tax unit under the Federal individual income tax tends to 
violate the goal of marriage neutrality. Marriage neutrality means that 
the tax system should not influence the choice of individuals with 
regard to their marital status. However, under the current Federal 
income tax system, some married couples pay more income tax than they 
would as two unmarried singles--a marriage tax pealty--while other 
married couples pay less income tax than they would as two unmarried 
singles--a marriage tax bonus.
  A ``marriage penalty'' exists when the combined tax liability of a 
married couple filing a joint return is greater than the sum of the tax 
liabilities of each individual computed as if they were not married.
  Last year, the President promised that we could have it all. He 
argued that the projected $5/6 trillion in surplus within 10 years was 
enough for a large tax cut, a decent Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, increases in education spending, and increases in defense 
spending. Now, instead of large projected surpluses, we are 
experiencing deficits for the foreseeable future. The current estimates 
for this year's unified budget deficit are between $150 and $200 
billion. It is a remarkable change from the $250 billion surplus that 
occurred in fiscal year 2000.
  The Republican bill will not have any impact until 2011. At that 
point, it will have a revenue cost of over $25 billion per year. It 
will cost over a quarter of a trillion dollars in the 10 years 
following the budget window, the time during which the baby boom 
generation will retire and strain our Social Security and Medicare 
resources. Democrats do support marriage penalty relief if it is not 
funded out of Social Security surpluses. However, this not the case. We 
are being told that there are not sufficient resources for a decent 
Medicare drug benefit or education spending. I do support the 
substitute offered by Democrats which affirms marriage and protects 
Social Security and Medicare.
  There is no need, other than politics, to bring this bill up now, 
especially when we have so much important work that needs to be

[[Page 10230]]

completed. The marriage penalty relief promised by last year's tax cut 
will not even arrive for several years. Additionally, fully 70 percent 
of the marriage penalty provisions does not take effect until after 
2006. Reducing the marriage penalty is the right thing to do, but it 
must be part of a responsible budget framework that ensures sufficient 
resources for vital programs. Before we pass legislation that drains 
Federal revenue in future years, we must look at the need to address 
the serious problems facing the country now, such as Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4019 
the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  This bill provides that the various provisions pertaining to marriage 
penalty relief in last year's comprehensive tax reduction legislation 
be made permanent. At the time of passage, these provisions were set to 
``sunset'' after a period of 10 years in order to comply with 
procedural rules in the Senate.
  The marriage penalty statute punished married couples where both 
partners work by driving them into a higher tax bracket. It taxed the 
income of the second wage earner at a much higher rate than if they 
were taxed as an individual. Since this second earner was usually the 
wife, the marriage penalty was unfairly biased against female 
taxpayers.
  The Congressional Budget Office 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 never made sense. It discouraged 
marriage, was unfair to female taxpayers, and disproportionately 
affected the working and middle-class populations who are struggling to 
make ends meet. For these reasons, it needed to be repealed, and today 
that repeal should be made permanent.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of making permanent 
the marriage penalty tax relief bill passed last year. I strongly 
believe that we should eliminate the tax penalty that some married 
couples incur because it is simply the right thing to do. Yet, it must 
be done in a fiscally responsible way that will not put our country 
further into the red.
  That is why I support the alternative legislation being offered by 
Representative Matsui, which will allow the marriage penalty tax relief 
bill passed last year to become permanent in 2010 as long as the 
extension does not raid the Social Security trust fund. In 2010, the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget will determine if 
permanent repeal of the marriage tax will not result in a raid on the 
Social Security. If, on the other hand, OMB determines the repeal will 
raid the trust fund, the repeal will be put on hold. This alternative 
bill to H.R. 4019 is a fiscally responsible approach to eliminating the 
marriage penalty because of the inclusion of the Social Security 
trigger mechanism.
  Moreover, the alternative offers permanent relief from the marriage 
tax penalty while also providing the Federal Government added 
flexibility. As we have seen all too clearly in these past 9 months, 
the Government needs the ability to revisit economic forecasts before 
moving forward with policies that may seriously cripple our ability to 
respond to new problems. Lastly, the alternative bill before the House 
today sends the right message to the American people: that we are 
serious about returning to the practice of fiscal responsibility and 
protecting Social Security.
  In comparison, H.R. 4019, sends the wrong message because it is so 
clearly fiscally irresponsible. It will cost nearly a half a trillion 
dollars over 10 years and will not have an impact until 2011, the same 
time that the baby boom generation will retire, and strain our Social 
Security and Medicare resources. Even Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board, Alan Greenspan, testified before the Senate Budget Committee in 
January 2002, warning Congress ``the fiscal pressures that will almost 
surely arise after 2010 will be formidable.''
  Last year we passed a budget that boasted a 10-year unified surplus 
totaling $5.6 trillion. The administration and House leadership claimed 
that an expensive tax cut plan and other costly initiatives were 
eminently affordable and there would be enough of the budget surplus to 
eliminate most or all of the national debt. Thus, Congress passed a tax 
cut costing over $1.3 trillion. Unfortunately, the budget situation has 
changed dramatically since last year; large budget surpluses have been 
replaced by large and growing budget deficits due to the war on 
terrorism, increased homeland security, and the large tax cut. This 
year's deficit will be nearly $314 billion and over the next 10 years, 
the non-Social Security deficit will total $2.6 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, tax relief is a bipartisan issue. My colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle recognize the need for providing tax relief to the 
hundreds and thousands of struggling families across our country. But 
making this tax cut permanent is not the result of bipartisanship. The 
large tax cut passed last year has already derailed the opportunity we 
had to reduce our large national debt and prepare for our future 
obligations--for aging population and children's futures.
  After decades of deficit spending, it is our responsibility to reduce 
the debt future generations will inherit. We must not keep digging a 
deeper hole for our children to climb out of in the future, rather, we 
must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems 
or needs they face. I cannot, in good faith, support legislation that 
will put our country further into deficit spending and pass a legacy of 
debt onto my two little boys.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this fiscally 
irresponsible tax cut. Making the tax cut permanent without 
consideration for our Nation's fiscal situation will only further 
exacerbate our country's poor fiscal health. We must shore up Social 
Security and Medicare and reduce the national debt before passing such 
an expensive tax cut that we cannot afford. I did not come to Congress 
to saddle my two boys with a debt burden they did not create.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last year the administration and 
Republican leadership brought forth a tax cut and budget proposal. I 
opposed that proposal for its unrealistic assumptions and potential for 
leading us down a fiscally dangerous path. A year later we are 
witnessing the deficits and raiding of Social Security and Medicare 
that were all but inevitable.
  Now, with the reality of deficits staring us in the face, the 
Republican leadership brings to the floor another in a series of bills 
that repeal the sunset provision of a part of their tax cut package. 
Reducing the marriage penalty is the right thing to do, but it must be 
part of a responsible budget framework.
  H.R. 4019 will cost nearly half a trillion dollars over the next two 
decades. The Republican leadership offers no plan to take these funds 
from anywhere but the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  I support the Democratic substitute amendment, which would 
permanently extend marriage penalty relief if the Office of Management 
and Budget certifies that the repeal will not result in funds being 
taken from Social Security.
  Congress must adhere to budget policies that will return fiscal 
responsibility to the Federal Government. The American people expect us 
to produce a responsible budget and honor our commitments--a task that 
only becomes more unlikely with the bill before us today.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4019, the 
Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act. This important measure will 
permanently repeal the marriage penalty which effects millions of 
married couples across our Nation.
  I would like to recognize the leadership of Congressman Weller, and I 
want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do my part to ensure 
that the marriage penalty is permanently removed from the Tax Code. It 
has truly been an honor to work with him.
  Let me begin by saying that, 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 and an unfair burden on the American family.
  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 you 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 were to file as single individuals.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 25 million 
married couples suffer under this burden.
  The legislation that is before us will erase this grave injustice 
from our current Tax Code. It is important that these 25 million 
American families know that this relief is permanent so they may use 
their hard earned money to build better futures.
  For me, this bill strikes to the heart of middle-income tax relief. 
In my district in Michigan, there are over 53,000 families who would 
benefit from this relief. These are the people who are the backbone of 
our communities, these are the people who need tax relief the most and 
we must make sure America knows

[[Page 10231]]

this much deserved tax relief will not be lost because of a sunset 
date.
  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 
on this issue--and the time has arrived to act decisively to 
permanently eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 4019, the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act, of 
which he is a cosponsor. This legislation would make permanent the 
various provisions in the tax cut law enacted last year that reduced 
the so-called ``marriage penalty.'' Without the passage of H.R. 4019, 
the marriage penalty relief provisions, which are currently set to be 
implemented beginning in 2005, will expire at the end of 2010.
  At the outset, this Member would like to thank both the main sponsor 
of H.R. 4019, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), 
and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman fro California (Mr. Thomas) for their 
instrumental role in bringing H.R. 4019 to the House floor today.
  This member supports the passage of H.R. 4019 because this 
legislation will at long last permanently reduce the current marriage 
penalty inherent in the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus 
H.R. 4019 will make a major step toward meeting the principle that the 
Federal income Tax Code should be marriage neutral. It would be a sad 
situation if the Internal Revenue Code is a factor for consideration 
when individuals discuss their future marital status.
  Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his 
colleagues to support the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4019, a 
bill to make the marriage tax cut permanent. This is prudent and fair 
legislation that strengthens our most basic institution, the 
institution of marriage, which we should encourage rather than 
discourage under the United States Tax Code.
  I have always cosponsored and voted to repeal the marriage penalty. I 
have also voted to override the former President's veto. It simply did 
not make sense that our tax laws made it more expensive to be married 
than single. For more than 30 years, our tax laws punished married 
couples when both spouses worked. In my district alone, more than 
60,000 families have been adversely affected by the marriage penalty. 
More than 600,000 families have been punished by the marriage tax in my 
State of Indiana as a whole.
  With my strong support, Congress finally enacted legislation to 
gradually reduce the tax penalty until fully repealed in the year 2009. 
Unfortunately, however, the effect of last year's tax cuts results in 
sunsetting marriage penalty relief and returning to the full tax rate 
in 2010 and beyond. This would clearly present a shocking and unwelcome 
burden to married couples, forcing significant changes in planning how 
family income is spent on their children's college education and 
student loans, mortgage payments for their home, and retirement 
savings.
  I support this legislation not only because it provides fairness to 
married couples, but also because it strengthens the institution of 
marriage from an IRS standpoint. This bill encourages stable two-
parent, marriage-bound households. Whether it is in a church or in a 
courtroom, couples usually have to pay some kind of fee for the 
marriage ceremony. But while it may cost money to get married, is 
should not cost money to stay married.
  Rather, we need to support policies that encourage strong and healthy 
families that are so absolutely critical for vibrant societies. The 
pressures on working families are significant enough without this 
disincentive on the tax books. Therefore, I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to support this legislation repealing the marriage tax 
sunset and making it permanent for every current and future married 
couple in America.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


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

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. 
     Matsui:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF PROVISIONS MADE PERMANENT.

       Except as provided in section 2, title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 
     sunset of provisions of Act) shall not apply to title III of 
     such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief).

     SEC. 2. TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON NOT RAIDING SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       Section 1 shall not take effect unless, during calendar 
     year 2010, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget certifies that there will be sufficient non-social 
     security surpluses during the 10-fiscal year period beginning 
     with fiscal year 2011 so that, during such 10-fiscal year 
     period, the provisions of section 1 would not result in a 
     raid on the social security trust funds (or increase the size 
     of a raid on such funds). For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, such funds shall be treated as raided during any 
     year for which there is a deficit in the non-social security 
     portion of the Federal budget.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 440, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say we will concede for the moment 
the fact if the other side wants to extend this legislation, we will 
extend it with them. We will take the bill from the other side of the 
aisle, their legislation, and say we will extend it. However, we would 
just put a provision in there that they should accept because last 
night when we had the motion to instruct, they did the same thing when 
it came to energy taxes, and that is 1 year before the proposal is to 
be extended, that is 2010, a full 8 years from now, we are talking 
about some 8 years from now, in 2010, the director of the Office of 
Management and Budget would have to certify that over the next 10 
years, none of the funds to pay for marriage penalty relief would come 
out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, that way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
could have it both ways. They could say that they have extended the 
marriage penalty relief for all Americans, and take care of all those 
people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) showed the picture 
of, and at the same time they will protect the Social Security trust 
fund. Seven times in the last 3 years my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle voted for a so-called lockbox to preserve the Social 
Security surplus so it could not be used for tax cuts or spending.
  And so it is a very simple amendment, something that I believe that 
they support, something that certainly we support because we think one 
of the most important aspects senior citizens have is a guaranteed 
benefit at the end of the day, a Social Security benefit that frankly 
is actually only worth about $860 a month for the average senior 
citizen; but for many, it is the only thing they have.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote against my 
substitute, then they are basically the police officer who is defending 
us, the firefighter who is protecting us, the teacher who is teaching 
our children, as they pay their payroll taxes into the Social Security 
trust fund, that that money is not necessarily going to go to them when 
they retire. We all know this.
  Right now there are 60 million Americans that are receiving Social 
Security benefits. In the next 15 years, we are going to add 40 million 
more to a total of 100 million people because the baby boom population 
in the year 2012 will begin to retire. We need to protect those funds 
for our senior population. We should not be using them for estate tax 
relief, spending programs, or anything else.
  My amendment will make Members really fess up. Do they really want to 
protect Social Security, or are they just kidding people? Do they want 
to make sure that senior citizens are protected in their old age, or 
are they just doing a bait-and-switch? That is what this issue is all 
about, Mr. Speaker.
  Our bill will let them have their relief in 2011. We will continue 
the marriage penalty relief, but only if it does not come out of the 
Social Security trust fund to do damage to the retirement benefits of 
our senior citizens.

[[Page 10232]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, golly, if any Members listened to the first hour, they 
would think our friends on the other side of the aisle were in 
opposition to what we wanted to do. That it was a sham, a farce.
  And then, lo and behold, their substitute takes the majority's bill. 
Now at this point I am running through my knowledge of quotes that 
might perhaps put this in perspective, and the only one that comes to 
mind is the Yogi Berra quote, ``When you come to a fork in the road, 
take it.''
  Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an hour of debate about how 
horrible this side of the aisle and those who really do want to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty on the other side of the aisle are 
in trying to offer permanent repeal.
  If I understand what the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) is 
offering is permanent repeal. He is offering the underlying bill. So if 
the gentleman from California did not understand the context in which I 
referred to his argument about the fact that the gentleman from 
Connecticut was not allowed to appear in front of the full committee, 
in which I said there had been 17 full committee hearings, and only one 
had Members in front of it, is baloney. I said it was the * * * 
baloney; and if the gentleman does not understand the use of that 
phrase, let me explain it. Apparently the argument that the Democrats 
have been making for the last hour is baloney.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I demand that the 
words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) be taken down. I 
think the gentleman has used a Member's name in a way that is 
diminishing to the Member, and is putting the colleague up to contempt 
and ridicule. If I may have a ruling, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) in his parliamentary inquiry demand that the gentleman's words 
be taken down?
  Mr. MATSUI. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will suspend. The Clerk will 
transcribe and report the words.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, rather than delay the process, since a 
number of Members really want to go home and rather than trying to get 
the Parliamentarians to attempt to divine sentence structure, the 
gentleman from California would ask unanimous consent to remove the 
statement and put in its place that the argument from the gentleman 
from California about the way in which the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Maloney) was treated is phony baloney.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling from the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Is there objection to the gentleman's unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from the 
Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
words so that we can go forward.
  Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from the 
Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to transcribe the words.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in a further attempt to expedite the 
process, the gentleman from California asks unanimous consent to strike 
the words.
  Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in a further attempt to expedite the process 
in which the gentleman from California's comments about the committee's 
failure to allow a Member to offer testimony at full committee when 
that is the extreme exception to the rule rather than the general rule 
and the argument that we denied it because of the gentleman, that that 
argument that the gentleman was making was in fact not accurate or 
factual, which is in a colloquial way sometimes referred to as baloney, 
the gentleman from California is willing to strike that structure which 
has been presented if it offends the gentleman because I want to move 
on with the debate. The gentleman's argument, notwithstanding that, is 
still phony; but if he is so upset with that reference that we continue 
to delay the proceedings of the floor, the gentleman from California 
would ask unanimous consent that that be struck.
  Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read the gentleman's words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       So if the gentleman from California did not understand the 
     context in which I referred to his argument about the fact 
     that the gentleman from Connecticut was not allowed to appear 
     in front of the full committee, in which I said there had 
     been 17 full committee hearings, and only one had Members in 
     front of it, is baloney. I said it was the ``Maloney 
     Baloney''; and if the gentleman does not understand the use 
     of that phrase let me explain it. Apparently the argument 
     that the Democrats have been making for the last hour is 
     baloney.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is aware that the gentleman from 
California was using the word ``baloney'' to characterize only the 
rationale offered by his opposition, but the Chair nevertheless finds 
that the use of another Member's surname as though an adjective for a 
word of ridicule is not in order.
  Without objection, the offending word is stricken.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) may proceed in order.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, clearly, based upon the Chair's ruling, the 
fact that the argument had been made about the denial of a Member to 
appear before the committee is without substance. Perhaps if someone 
has a thesaurus and they look up synonyms for ``without substance,'' 
they may find a word referring to a particular lunch meat.
  The fundamental point we are making here is we spent an hour with 
their bemoaning the fact that we want to make the marriage penalty 
permanent, they now want to take an hour on their substitute which 
makes the marriage penalty permanent. One would think that if they were 
in opposition with all those vehement phrases in the first hour to 
making the marriage penalty permanent, they would have a substitute 
that would do something other than making the marriage penalty 
permanent.
  But I have to let my colleagues realize here that what we are 
engaging in on the floor with the offering of the Democrat substitute 
could probably generally be referred to as political baloney.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a previous 
ruling the Chair made today concerning the question that was asked as 
to whether a Member on either side might mischaracterize the other 
Member's voting record on this floor should be settled in debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that 
particularly my colleague from Illinois and others who might wish to 
engage me in debate on what I am about to say, I will gladly yield for 
purposes of debate and would hope that they would be generous with some 
time if they take most of my time, because I rise in strong support of 
providing marriage penalty relief

[[Page 10233]]

and protecting the Social Security surplus. The only way you do both 
today is you vote for the Matsui amendment. If you are for marriage tax 
penalty relief, and I am, it is the same bill you have got. But if you 
are also concerned about the future of Social Security, the only way 
you do that is to vote for the substitute. It is kind of like last week 
I was for eliminating the estate tax on every estate up to $6 million 
effective immediately. But you said no, and you won and you lost and 
none of the small businesses get anything and again you are going to 
win on political points today if you prevail with 218 votes. In the 
end, nobody is going to get anything except our young people.
  I want to provide relief to the 57,000 couples in the 17th district 
who pay a marriage penalty. I am for it. But I also care about the 
67,000 households in my district who depend upon Social Security and 
the 253,000 workers paying into the Social Security system now who are 
counting on us to make sure we can afford to meet our promises to them 
when they retire. I also am very concerned and care about the 250,000 
children under the age of 18 who will face a crushing debt burden and 
higher taxes if we do not take action now to deal with Social Security 
and Medicare. I wish my colleague from California had brought that up 
last year instead of what got us into the debt position that we are in 
today.
  I do not know of any parent who would want us to give them a benefit 
today at the expense of leaving their children to pay the bill for a 
massive national debt and a legacy of deficit spending. I do not 
understand the philosophy of folks who do not have a problem with 
leaving our children and grandchildren with a large debt just so we can 
have a tax cut or more spending today.
  The government is on the verge of a financial crisis. The Treasury 
Department has told us that if we do not increase the debt limit in the 
next 2 weeks, the government may be forced to default on our debt. The 
Senate has acted. The House refuses to pay for that which you insist on 
coming to the floor and arguing again today for. Reducing the amount of 
revenue so that we default on our obligations, that is what you are 
for. Instead of figuring out how we are going to stop the tide of rocky 
red ink and stop spending Social Security surplus dollars, the majority 
leadership continues to bring to the floor legislation that will 
continue to add more debt and increased borrowing from the Social 
Security surplus. And let me say since somebody will stand up here and 
say spending, for the record, in the 12 years I was here with 
Republicans in the White House, the Reagan-Bush years, only 1 year did 
the Congress, the big-spending, liberal Democratic Congress we hear so 
much about, ever spend more than the President asked us to spend.

                              {time}  1245

  In the 8 years of the Clinton administration, with majority 
Republican leadership in this body, you will find we spent, Congress, 
notice I say ``we,'' I am part of you, we spent more. It is time for 
you, us, to get honest with our debate and stop this politicizing and 
sending out the press releases that you send in to my district.
  Let me repeat, if you really want to do away with the marriage tax 
penalty and protect Social Security today, there is only one honest 
vote you can cast, and that is to vote for the Matsui substitute. It is 
the only one that says we can only do these things that feel good, 
sound good, make good press releases if you pay for it.
  Yesterday we voted on the energy bill, an energy bill that is a great 
bill. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) did a great job. Yesterday we voted unanimously 
to pay for it. We voted to pay for it. Some were saying, well, we 
really did not mean it. Some of us meant it.
  I would like to get the tone of the debate back now. As I said in the 
beginning, I am willing to engage in debate. I wish somebody would 
stand up on this side and say what is it that I have said that is not 
true, what is it about the fact when I state very clearly if you want 
to do away with the marriage tax penalty, exactly like everybody on 
this side, all of my friends, it is the same bill.
  It is the same marriage tax penalty bill. But what it does not do, it 
does not increase the deficit on the Social Security system in the 
second 10 years that your amendment, pure like you want it voted on, 
does. That is the issue.
  I wish you had the same courage now to stand up and say we are going 
to borrow the $750 billion in order to give you that tax cut, and we 
are going to send the bill to your grandchildren. That is what you are 
doing. That is exactly what you are doing.
  Why are we doing this? What is it that makes this such a great 
political issue? I do not understand.
  Vote for the Matsui amendment, vote down the base bill; and then let 
us get civility back in the House and start working together, before we 
undo a lot of good things for our grandchildren.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's desire to let us get back 
together, to let us lower the political rhetoric. We are doing some 
kind of game here, and what they are engaged in is serious legislative 
business.
  I ask anyone to read the substitute. First of all, their bill has no 
effect until 2010, calendar year 2010. That is 8 budget years from now. 
We do not have to worry about what kind of obligation our children are 
going to have if we make prudent spending decisions, if we stimulate 
this economy to allow entrepreneurship to prevail so the economy can 
grow.
  We have eight budget seasons to create an environment to bootstrap 
ourselves out of the situation that the tragic events of September 11 
of last year put us in, the position we are in. So to say that now we 
have to shut off all possibility for 8 or 10 years down the road, 
basically tells me they have no faith in the American people and they 
have no intention to engage in prudent fiscal policy over those 8 
years.
  Now, let us talk about taking rhetoric out of the debate. If you find 
out what it is that the structure of the substitute does is, it takes 
the congressional control over the purse strings, jealously guarded by 
the Congress over the years, and blithely says the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget would certify, would take the decision 
out of the people's House and take it down to the executive branch. I 
think that is fundamentally wrong. It undermines a key provision of the 
Constitution.
  But what is that the Director of the Office of Management and the 
Budget is supposed to determine? This is where the politics comes in. I 
know sometimes we use jargon, and especially budgetary jargon, and it 
gets confusing about what we really mean.
  Let me read. It says that ``during such 10-year fiscal period, the 
provisions of section 1 would not result in a raid on Social Security 
trust funds or increase the size of a raid on such funds.''
  Now, I would say that the fundamental political motivation of this 
substitute is to focus on how they describe the decision that the 
Director in the Office of Management and Budget would make. He or she 
would decide whether or not there was a, quote-unquote, ``raid'' on the 
Social Security trust fund.
  If you believe that is technical jargon that is used to determine a 
budgetary consequence, okay. If you believe ``raid'' carries pretty 
heavy political power and that the determination of a raid does not 
create an attitude, does not get you into a negative frame of mind, 
then I guess you do not understand how much this is a political 
exercise.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, my friend, and his fundamental 
concern about our resources. I believe he is absolutely honest in his 
attempts to make sure that we live within our budget. I agree with him. 
I am willing to join hands with him. But what I want to do is unleash 
entrepreneurship, to hold the fiscal discipline in place. We can work 
our way out of this problem. But I just have a little trouble

[[Page 10234]]

with the technical term to determine whether or not his substitute has 
validity, and it is the term ``raid.'' I think the term ``raid'' in and 
of itself is a political statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control the time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), so he may be able to characterize 
his own comments, rather than have someone else do it for him.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means is leaving the floor, but I see he is 
coming back now.
  I would just ask the chairman respectfully if the criticism that you 
just made of the Matsui amendment would not be equally applied to your 
bill on the floor, because it is the same language?
  Now, as far as the word ``raid'' is concerned, I would be perfectly 
willing to change that. We could say ``steal,'' we could say anything; 
but that does not help.
  But I want to yield to the gentleman. Is not the criticism that you 
made of the Matsui amendment equally applied to the bill that you are 
touting on the floor today?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will tell the gentleman it does not, because what we do is simply 
put in place the current tax structure on a permanent basis. If I might 
very briefly continue, and I will try to get time on this side if the 
gentleman does not have it, if you have indicated you agree you want to 
make the tax permanent, and I want to make the tax permanent, if we 
make the tax permanent, is it not incumbent on us to make sure we 
follow fiscal discipline over the next 8 budget years and make sure we 
move tax measures that can empower the business sector and individuals 
so that we can grow the economy so that we do not have to worry about 
the consequences that the gentleman is concerned about?
  I think it is the idea of fiscal conservatism and the idea of trying 
to grow the economy that some of my friend from Texas' friends are 
worried about actually having to do. You would rather create a false 
crisis than to grow ourselves out of it. That is my opinion.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for that comment. It is interesting how you can stand here on the floor 
and look me in the eye and say that the criticism of the exact language 
is not the same.
  Now, you make an argument on a separate issue, and this is the one 
that I take to the floor to oppose, because I think making tax cuts or 
spending increases permanent is not fiscally responsible.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think making tax cuts or spending increases permanent 
in the climate which we are now under, in which we have seen a $5.6 
trillion surplus evaporate and we are now into a $300 billion deficit, 
I do not believe it is fiscally responsible on our grandchildren to 
have votes like this day after day after day. I do not. I respectfully 
differ.
  And on the spending, one thing that really grates on me, when we 
attempted to have a vote on a substitute budget this year that would 
have made this argument in the budget, you on the majority side denied 
us the opportunity to have that debate on the floor of the House during 
the budget. That is what grates on me.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman chafes under the rules of the House because he is now a 
minority. I understand that. I was 16 years in the minority, and we are 
operating under far more liberal rules of the House. I understand how 
it grates on him.
  But I will tell the gentleman that the structure that the gentleman 
had when he was in the majority was far less liberal than ours. If the 
gentleman will carefully review what I said, which is good practice for 
everyone, my complaint was about the use of the term ``raid'' and the 
fact that the structure that triggered the review was the Office of 
Management and Budget. That does not appear in the underlying bill.
  As far as I know, one of the best motivations to make sure people do 
the right thing is to have a goal; and if we make marriage tax relief 
permanent, we have a goal to make sure that the responsibility of not 
pushing this off on to our children is one that we would match by 
fiscal conservatism and stimulation of the economy.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to follow the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm). We have a lot in common. I think what gripes him 
and what gripes me is not simply being in the minority, but your fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  For the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to rise and call 
himself a fiscal conservative, when under this majority we have seen 
the surplus essentially evaporate, other than Social Security, and the 
Social Security surplus threatened, to call that fiscal conservatism? 
You essentially are the fiscal radicals.
  I favor marriage tax relief and have voted for it, so I would say to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), do not get up here and say 
otherwise. And so have most Democrats. The issue is whether we can 
combine that relief with fiscal responsibility. We say we can do both, 
and essentially what you do is to throw away the future. You go through 
the roof and, then you say ``if Congress,'' ``if Congress,'' ``if.''
  We have seen your record of fiscal irresponsibility. You do not want 
to vote on the debt ceiling separately. You are doing everything you 
can to avoid it, and at the same time you are passing bills that make 
the debt worse, worse, worse. So this is not a question of marriage tax 
relief. Indeed, the bill that originally passed here, half of the money 
had nothing to do with marriage tax relief, while our bill focused in 
on this, as it did with the estate tax.
  What your bill does is in the second 10 years essentially costs $330 
billion, plus debt service, which raises it to $460 billion. It used to 
be said around here that millions matter. What Democrats are saying is 
that billions and tens of billions matter. You are simply being 
reckless with the future of our children and our grandchildren, and we 
are emphatic in saying let us take another look before that happens. 
That is fiscal integrity, that is fiscal responsibility; and I am proud 
to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui).
  The fact there has been some histrionics on the other side, I would 
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), I think shows the 
value of your amendment.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the basics of this debate of 
whether or not we eliminate the marriage tax penalty or do we impose a 
$42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples, I would 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the 
distinguished deputy majority whip.
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me time.
  I am here to talk about what happens to working families in 2011 if 
we do not

[[Page 10235]]

go ahead and act now, act in a way that responsibly assures that we do 
the right thing for the children of those families.
  My good friend from Texas talked a couple of times about what we are 
doing for our grandchildren. What do we do for these grandchildren if 
we accept the figures that we are hearing on the floor today? Mr. 
Speaker, $460 billion of tax increases for families where moms and dads 
are both working over 10 years, $460 billion taken away from those 
families where 2 people every day get up, go to work, do their very 
best to provide for their families, and we decide that we want to 
reinstate a marriage penalty on January 1, 2011. That is not 
acceptable; it is not something this Congress should be considering. 
What we have a chance to do today is to really be sure that this relief 
becomes permanent.
  The fact is that when you get married, you should not have to have a 
penalty in the Tax Code. If anything, there should be a bonus in the 
Tax Code. You get more of what you encourage, you get less of what you 
discourage. A marriage penalty works against the very things that we 
want to encourage: families working together, people going to jobs 
every day to try to create a better life for their families. We do not 
want to have a $42 billion annual tax increase that goes into effect 
January 1, 2011 because people are married.
  If we are going to think about penalties in the Tax Code, it should 
be somewhere besides here. We need to move forward with this 
legislation today and we need to make it certain that one of the 
biggest tax increases in history for working married couples will not 
be January 1, 2011. The way to do that is to make the marriage penalty 
relief permanent, to do it now, to let couples begin to plan what they 
can do with their financial resources in the future for the advantage 
of children and grandchildren.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is not that I necessarily 
disagree with what my Republican colleagues want to do in 2011 and for 
the decade after that, but let me remind my colleagues, we are in the 
year 2002. We do not need to fight this battle now. Why do we not wait 
until 2009 or 2010 so we can see what is happening with our budget 
then? But what we are seeing is that they would rather fight a battle 
today for something that may happen 10 years from now instead of 
dealing with the problems we have today.
  We are in a war on terrorism. Our budget deficits are exploding for 
the next 8 years, as we would expect. Yet, they want to take time on 
the floor to say we want to make sure you can tax-plan for 10 years 
from now. I wish I could tax-plan for next year or the year after.
  The battle should be on how we are going to deal with the deficit 
right now; how we are going to deal with the tax cut that was passed 
last year before September 11; how September 11 and the increase that 
all of us support to fight the war on terrorism, how we are going to 
deal with an economy that did not come back or has not come back like 
some of us wanted it to or hoped it would do, or whatever we could do, 
maybe some other tax cuts, but they need to be more immediate, than to 
argue today over something that is going to happen 10 years from now. 
That is why I think it is so ludicrous to be up here saying we are 
going to take care of you in 2011 but, by the way, for the next 9 
years, we are going to have deficits out of the gazoo.
  The Democratic substitute, all it says, it has the same things that 
the Republicans do for 10 years from now, again, which is somewhat 
silly, but it says, okay, we will do this 10 years from now, but we are 
going to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are safeguarded. 
That is all it says. That is why it seems we ought to as a House agree 
we want to take care of our seniors. There are those of us who 10 years 
from now may be eligible for Social Security, but I know a lot of my 
constituents will be, and I want to make sure that they have Social 
Security and Medicare there instead of having the trust fund continue 
to be drained away by excessive deficits that we expect.
  Now, I hope it does not happen in the next 3 or 4 years, but unless 
we address today and not fight battles that are 9 years away, we will 
not address it and we will have the budget deficits as far as the eye 
can see, and that is for the next 9 years, Mr. Speaker.
  That is why the Democratic substitute is very simple. We will give 
you the tax cut. You can tax-plan for 10 years from now if you can, but 
we are going to make sure that if it impacts Social Security and 
Medicare, that it does not touch it, that the trust funds will be 
there.
  That is why I think it is so strange that we are having a battle for 
10 years from now. Even if we are doing it in 2013 to 2022, if the baby 
boomers are aging into Medicare and Social Security, this legislation 
could cost $330 billion. Where are we going to get that if we have a 
$250 billion deficit for this year and for as far as the eye can see?
  I just think, again, we are fighting a battle for political purposes 
and not really dealing with the reality at hand, with the war on 
terrorism or an economy that is not in good shape. We need to do 
something today instead of 10 years from now.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the real issue here of 
whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million 
married working couples, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  The House, once again, is revisiting that long debate about whether 
working families pay too little in taxes or they pay too much. Only the 
Democrats see cutting taxes as a spending program. Deficits are caused 
by spending too much money, not by raising too little taxes.
  So before I explain why this awful substitute must be defeated, we 
ought to tell the people where we stand and what this debate is really 
about.
  Over the last few weeks, Republicans have voted to lower the tax 
burden on American families. We extended the adoption tax credit to 
help more vulnerable children in our society find homes where they are 
safe and loved. The House permanently eliminated the hated death tax, 
which destroys so many small businesses and farms. In the weeks to 
come, we will strengthen retirement security by allowing workers to 
expand their retirement savings through 401(k)s and IRAs, and we will 
raise the child tax credit to $1,000 so parents can keep more of the 
money that they earn to support their families.
  All of these measures passed the House with strong bipartisan 
majorities, but the Democrat leadership's continuing devotion to big 
government causes them to reflexively oppose anything that lets people 
keep more of the money that they earn. That is why they are demonizing 
the President's tax cut.
  I have seen a lot of Democrat substitutes, and this one is so true to 
form, it raises taxes $42 billion on over 30 million families. There is 
rarely a week that passes around here in which the Democrat leadership 
does not attempt to raise taxes in one way or another. Last week, they 
even voted to revive the death tax. But the remarkable thing is that my 
friends are also proposing to weaken the Constitution.
  Our Constitution clearly states that tax increases such as this one 
that they propose in their substitute must begin in the House of 
Representatives. Our Founding Fathers rightly structured our system 
this way so that voters could hold the people who raise their taxes 
accountable. The Democrat substitute would empower unelected government 
bureaucrats to raise taxes on married couples based upon their 
predictions about the government's balance sheet or the needs of the 
government. Their substitute tries to pull an end run around our 
Constitution. Their substitute erodes the ability of voters to hold 
accountable those seeking to grab more of their hard-earned wages.

[[Page 10236]]

  Members should defend the Constitution and reject higher taxes by 
defeating this substitute. Vote ``no'' on the substitute and vote 
``yes'' to support marriage penalty relief.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  What are we doing today? As is often the case, I think most people 
watching this are probably pretty confused. What are we doing today? 
Well, we have a bill from the majority today before us that would cost, 
during its first 10 years in effect, about $460 billion. But, it will 
not take effect for the next 7 years, so none of the benefits that are 
claimed under this marriage penalty protection take effect until 2011. 
So nothing goes to anybody today. But we are planning today to commit 
$460 billion starting in 2011, even when today we know we have a $100 
billion deficit in today's, this year's, budget, and we know that every 
single dime out of the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare 
trust fund today, this year, is being used to pay for things that we do 
not have money to pay for yet because we have a $100 billion deficit.
  What else are we doing today? Well, Democrats today stood up and 
introduced their prescription drug plan for seniors under Medicare, one 
that would provide seniors, every senior, not just certain seniors, 
every senior, a prescription drug policy under Medicare. Where are our 
priorities? What should we be doing?
  The American people want us to take care of the fear of terrorism. 
Let us invest money there. The American people say it is about time 
that seniors did not have to choose between their rent and their 
medicine, between their food and their medicine. Let us give them this 
prescription drug program that they need. It would cost less than this 
particular bill. Let us give seniors security, knowing that we are 
going to protect and strengthen Social Security into the future, which 
we could do if we did not pass this bill. But no, we are not doing 
that. We are committing monies into the future knowing that right now, 
today, we are already in deficit spending.
  Where is the accountability? A year ago the President said, I can 
pass a tax cut bill and not touch a dime out of Social Security or 
Medicare trust fund money. Today, we are using every single cent of it, 
and now we want to commit even more of it. Where are we going? Where 
are our priorities? How do we explain this to the American people? We 
must be accountable. We must have fiscal discipline. We cannot continue 
to say that we will let the national debt, which is close to $6 
trillion, grow.
  We had a plan 3 years ago that would actually have eliminated that 
debt. Today, under the President's budget, it grows. And now, with this 
it grows even further. How can we talk about families and the marriage 
penalty relief when, in fact, what we are doing with this bill is 
actually causing family penalty, not relief. Why? Because we take out 
one of these things, one of these things that too often Americans use 
and use unwisely. With the government credit card you can say, I can 
give you marriage penalty relief, not today, in about 7 years, and it 
is going to cost us half a trillion dollars, but that is okay, I have 
this. Who pays? We are mortgaging our children's future, because they 
will have to pay for it. We are mortgaging our seniors' lives, because 
we can give them prescription drugs, and we are mortgaging seniors 
today because they can say, I have Social Security, but I want to make 
sure my children have it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities straight and support this bill 
and vote for the substitute.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the basic issue here of 
whether or not we have a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married 
working couples, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  Returning to the debate on the floor today, it is very interesting to 
listen to the gentleman from California, my friend, because he seems to 
be of two minds. He stood here on the floor bemoaning making permanent 
marriage penalty relief, alleging all sorts of fiscal problems, and yet 
he said to support the substitute offered by the other gentleman from 
California. So there is an inherent disconnection right there.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. No, not right now. I want to make my point.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain the disconnect.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on the gentleman's own time he can get the 
time to explain the disconnect.
  Here is the point I would like to make today, and this is the point 
that I think we all need to keep in mind. If, in fact, they are 
offering marriage relief, we say welcome. But there is a problem here 
in what they have done.
  Article I, section 7 of the Constitution reads, ``All bills for 
raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' What 
the substitute does is empower the director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to make a determination.
  So let us get this straight. We are going to take and ignore the 
powers given to this House to make the czar of revenue the director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, and that person will decide when 
and if tax relief will be enacted or put into practice. It defies the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a couple of major issues here today 
that involve the notion of trust and what is sacred. The marriage vow 
is sacred, and I believe that, and writings in the Constitution are 
likewise. We dare not mortgage the rights of elected people in a free 
society, elected representatives, described in this document of limited 
and enumerated powers, for a gimmick empowering a bureaucrat in the 
executive branch to decide on taxation. Yes, on marriage penalty 
relief; no on a clever, but flawed, substitute.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
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 time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the previous speaker, by the way, in employing 
the logic he did as he pulled out the copy of the Constitution, I would 
bet Members anything he voted for the line-item veto. So where Congress 
is in charge of spending by the Constitution, I will bet he voted to 
give that power to the President of the United States. I would be 
willing to bet anything he voted for that.
  Mr. Speaker, today we vote on whether or not to repeal the sunset 
provision of the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act. Now, marriage penalty 
tax relief is important; but just as important is, how do we pay for 
it? Time and again, the House has been prohibited from voting on ways 
to pay for tax relief provisions that do not steal from Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds. The Matsui substitute is a responsible 
approach to providing marriage penalty relief by guaranteeing 
certification that the Social Security trust fund is not to be raided 
for this purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats simply want to pay for this tax relief act 
by implementing provisions of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, 
sponsored by myself and that old meatgrinder, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). Taxpayers around the country want Congress 
to act swiftly to stop these corporations from shelving their 
patriotism to save a few bucks.
  That is what we should be debating on this floor, these companies 
that are moving to Bermuda. But constituent calls have fallen on deaf 
ears because we cannot readily get that piece of legislation to the 
floor. The Neal-Maloney Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act would 
immediately and permanently shut down the exodus of American 
corporations who are moving to Bermuda,

[[Page 10237]]

in this time where we are all feeling good about patriotism in this 
Nation, so they can avoid paying U.S. corporate income taxes.
  Hardworking American families are, yes, entitled to tax relief; but I 
am sure these families do not want to burden their children by placing 
our trust funds and budget at risk. Let us pay for the Marriage Penalty 
Relief Act. Let us stop the procedural games. Let us get a vote in this 
institution on the Neal-Maloney Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act that 
would stop corporate expatriates.
  I will hold Members to the same offer and opportunity I provided a 
couple of weeks ago in my assessment of that vote: put that legislation 
on this floor and it will get 300 votes. We deserve a vote on that 
bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the debate on the issue 
before us on whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 
million married working couples, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just review exactly where we are, where 
we are going, and why we are here.
  If I understand the way the thing is arranged right now on the 
substitute, to begin with, I think it is a truism, and I have not heard 
anybody in this House defend the marriage penalty. It is a tax that 
taxes people that are married, where there are two wage-earners in a 
household, more than they would be taxed if they were single. Everyone 
in this House agrees that that is wrong, and we corrected the 
situation.
  But because of a peculiarity in the rules of the Senate, we were only 
able to do it for 10 years, so we did it for 10 years. Ten years is 
better than nothing. Now we want to make it permanent. I would say that 
many Democrats are going to vote with the Republicans in making it 
permanent. They are not going to turn this over to the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  The previous speaker, I think, made a very interesting observation. I 
am surprised it has not been made many times, at least from this side. 
Yes, a lot of us did vote for the line-item veto, but the court said 
that the line-item veto given to the President is unconstitutional 
because it is giving legislative authority to the executive branch.
  Whoa, wait a minute. Is that not what we are doing here? Are we not 
giving the Office of Management and Budget the opportunity to give a 
huge tax increase simply by a guess that it will make in the year 2010 
that the Congress may be spending a little bit of the surplus, or that 
the surplus may be called into play in order to bring fairness to the 
Tax Code?
  I think it is also important to realize that we will not have a 
surplus after 2017, so we need to get together in a bipartisan way and 
solve the problems of Social Security so that it will be there after 
2017, and we will not have to be too concerned about what the question 
of the surplus is, because that is going to go away.
  But returning to the issue here, we are trying to erase a scheduled 
tax increase in 2010 that the Congress can enact simply by increasing 
spending and not having to vote to increase taxes. Vote against the 
substitute; vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad people are concerned about the Constitution of 
the United States. I wish we were concerned about it in a lot of other 
cases, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support repeal of the sunset 
provision of the Marriage Penalty Relief Act. Mr. Speaker, a recent 
study found that over 728,000 married couples in Georgia, 52,000 in the 
district I represent, are adversely affected by the marriage penalty. 
Today we have the ability to remove this burden and repeal one of the 
most unfair provisions of our Tax Code. The family is the basic unit of 
society. As the family goes, so does our society go.
  The Bible says, he who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains 
favor from the Lord. Marriage is a good thing. It is awful that our 
current laws encourage cohabitation without marriage. Untold numbers of 
men and women should not be encouraged to make this choice. At best, 
our laws should support marriage and the family; at the least, our laws 
should be neutral.
  Today I ask my colleagues to embrace marriage, embrace the family 
unit, and create another reason for everyone to find their good thing. 
Remove the financial hassle associated with matrimony, permanently 
repeal the marriage penalty, and fully encourage the institution of 
marriage and the strengthening of our family units.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the basic debate we have 
before us of whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 
million married working couples, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the Democrats' 
substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that anybody who is going to acknowledge the 
need for some level of fiscal responsibility, that is something that I 
think we all respect and know that we have some need for that. The 
question is, does this, the Democrat substitute, really give us any 
fiscal responsibility, or is it, rather, a fig leaf or an excuse? I am 
afraid it is more of a fig leaf and an excuse.
  The substitute stipulates that the marriage penalty is going to be 
reimposed, this unfair prejudice against married people will be 
reimposed, unless there is a non-Social Security surplus.
  Now, there are a couple of problems with that. The first problem is, 
who is it who is going to make that determination? Who is going to 
guess whether there are going to be non-Social Security surpluses, 
particularly for a period of 10 years? That is going to be the Office 
of Management and Budget. Let us see, that is the executive branch, or 
at least it is a bureaucrat, as opposed to the Congress. That is flatly 
unconstitutional.
  So the first problem on the face of this is that it is an amendment 
that is going to be putting into place some particular procedure which 
just flat out is inconsistent with the Constitution. But, 
unfortunately, the inconsistencies go even further and the problems go 
further, because we are asking some bureaucrat to be able to say to 
Congress that, I am going to guarantee you that for 10 years, not just 
1 year but 10 years, that there will be no budgets; that you will not 
go on a tax-and-spend spree. I think that is asking an awful lot. That 
is like asking somebody to roll a seven on a single dice.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue our debate on whether or not 
to raise taxes by $42 million on 36 million working couples, I am 
pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the 
gentleman from California, asked, what are our priorities, and asked us 
to focus on fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility.
  Yes, our priorities include making sure that Social Security is 
secure for all generations and that we preserve Medicare and add 
prescription drug coverage. In so doing, I would remind the gentleman 
that we are the only people who have put forth in the past a budget to 
keep that fiscal responsibility.
  But my responsibilities also include, and my priorities include, 
families and keeping them strong as the bulwark of America. When we do 
that, the big fear that I have is that my children, when they come to 
me later on and they decide that they have found someone they want to 
spend the rest of their life with, because I have taught them about 
fiscal responsibility, they will say to me, dad, I can save $1,400 if 
we just live together and do not get married, and we can use this 
$1,400 a year on all kinds of good and wonderful

[[Page 10238]]

things, because I have taught them to be fiscally responsible.
  That is not a question I want to have. We have to take care of Social 
Security and Medicare. We should not be doing that on the backs of 
American families. This is not about whether we are spending Social 
Security; this is about whether we value and put a priority on families 
as the basis of our American life. I would encourage Members to oppose 
the substitute and support eliminating permanently the marriage penalty 
on American families.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate some numbers here before 
the last speaker closes, if I may.
  At this time, we have tapped into the Social Security trust fund, in 
other words, money that is payroll tax, money that people think is 
going into a trust account to pay for their retirement benefits, by 
$1.7 trillion. That includes debt service, and it includes spending 
programs that we will have over the next 2 or 3 months.
  If we extend the tax cut, if we pay for the defense bill, the farm 
bill, the President's Medicare proposal in terms of his prescription 
drug proposal, we could add to that another $1.5 trillion, and make a 
total of $3.2 trillion.
  If in fact we do those things, and I think most people will agree we 
are going to have to do many of these things, we are going to make it 
impossible to solve the Social Security problem in America. We are 
going to make it impossible to make sure that we continue benefits for 
our senior citizens.
  It is my hope that good judgment and common sense will finally come 
to us in this institution. If in fact we are going to deal with 
something 8 years down the road, at least we ought to have the common 
sense, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that it does not further invade and 
raid the Medicare and Social Security trust fund.
  The only way we are going to be able to do that on this bill, Mr. 
Speaker, is if in fact we support my substitute, which basically says 
that we will let this marriage penalty relief go into effect in 2011; 
however, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must 
certify that no funds over that 10-year period will invade the Social 
Security trust fund, as we are doing now.
  It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we vote for this substitute and turn 
down final passage of the bill if my substitute fails.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, which I believe is 5 
minutes, to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to start being honest with 
the American people. Last June I was among a majority of this House 
that voted for the largest tax cut in the history of this country. The 
official estimate at that time of the surplus were that we could 
anticipate over $5 trillion in surpluses over the decade. We spent half 
of that on the tax cut. Here we are just one year later and the balance 
of that surplus is gone. In fact, the projections are that we have 
deficits as far as the eye can see. The question that we should be 
debating on this floor today is not how many additional tax cuts can we 
give, but the issue we should be debating is who is going to pay the 
bills.
  We all have stood united with our President, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, in a commitment to fund whatever is necessary to win 
this war on terrorism and to protect the security of the homeland. But 
my Republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge that we should not only 
vote to spend the money for the war, but that we should be willing to 
pay the bills for this war. Instead, they bring a new tax cut on the 
floor every week. You would think that September 11 has never happened. 
We have called to the young men and women in uniform serving in far-off 
places to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, 
but we, we in this Congress have refused to tell the American people 
that they too must be ready to share in the sacrifice by at least being 
willing to pay the bills.
  Instead, the Republican majority has said to America's younger 
generations, we will leave the bills to you.
  We should not ask the young men and women in uniform to go fight this 
war and then come home in their income-earning years and to have to be 
stuck paying the bill for the war they fought. Nor should we be telling 
the next generations of seniors that we are going to use their 
retirement funds, the Social Security trust funds, to pay for this war.
  Never in the history of our Nation have we cut taxes in the midst of 
war. The way we are headed, this Republican administration will have 
the largest increase in spending of any administration in our history 
and will have the largest increase in debt. And somebody owes it to the 
American people to tell them why and to tell them that sacrifice goes 
beyond the duties of those young men and women in uniform to the 
American people.
  If we really believe in protecting those young men and women fighting 
in far-off places, if we really believe in supporting the FBI and the 
CIA and the law enforcement community that is fighting this war on 
terrorism, we should be willing to pay the bill.
  I will be happy to give additional tax relief to any American family 
just as soon as we can tell those American families that it will not be 
done with money borrowed from your seniors' retirement funds and it 
will not be done with money borrowed from the public, because today 
that is exactly what our Republican friends propose.
  If we really believe in the great cause to which we are now engaged, 
let us be honest with the American people and tell them that the 
surplus is gone, that the bill collector is at the door, and this 
generation must be willing to make the same sacrifices made by the 
greatest generation during the Second World War.
  The bill I am voting for today will give tax cuts whenever the 
official estimate of our Congressional Budget Office says that we can 
do it without borrowing money on the credit card of the next 
generation. A vote for the Democratic substitute is the only honest 
vote and it is the only way to really stand with the troops fighting 
for this Nation in far-off places today.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state that to begin with, I rise in opposition to 
the Democratic substitute and I would note, as the previous speaker 
noted, that the right to raise taxes is being handed off to an 
unelected bureaucrat by the Democratic substitute. And under our 
Constitution, under the Constitution, all revenue and spending 
initiatives must originate right here in this House of Representatives. 
And previously when the line-item veto was passed by this Congress and 
proposed and then passed into law by the Congress, the Supreme Court 
ruled that at that time the Congress was handing off legislative power 
to the executive branch and overturned that initiative by the Congress. 
That is very similar to what our Democratic friends are doing.
  Today they are actually giving an unelected public servant or 
bureaucrat the right to raise taxes. What that would entail would be a 
$42 billion tax increase. And what could trigger that tax increase on 
36 million married working couples is an uncontrollable urge by 
Congress to spend. There are some in this House who like to spend. They 
are usually the ones who argue against eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty. And if they could force a spending increase without even 
having to vote on it under this measure, they would also cause an 
automatic tax increase on 36 million married working couples. That 
alone is primary reason to vote no on the Democrat substitute.
  Let me give you an example of a couple here who really illustrate why 
we need to make permanent our effort to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. When we worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty over the 
last several years, we asked a very basic question, that is, is it 
right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code that a married working 
couple, husband and wife, both in the

[[Page 10239]]

workforce, who are married, pay higher taxes than an identical couple 
who live together outside of a marriage? We have decided that is wrong, 
and I think we agree it is wrong for our Tax Code to punish our 
society's most basic institution, which is marriage.
  The example I have is a young couple from Joliet, Illinois, Jose and 
Magdalene Castillo. They have a young son, Eduardo, a young daughter, 
Carolina. He makes about $57,000. She makes about $25,000. They have a 
combined income of $82,000. And prior to the Bush tax cut being signed 
into law last year, which included our effort to eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty, the Castillo family paid $1,125 more in higher taxes just 
because they are married. In Joliet, Illinois, in the area I represent, 
$1,125 is a lot of money. To some here in Congress it is chump change. 
We are talking millions and billions and trillions most of the time 
here. But for couples and families like the Castillos, $1,125 is 
several months' worth of car payments. It is several months' worth of 
daycare for Eduardo and Carolina when mom and dad are at work. It is 
money that can be set aside for their college education. That is the 
choice we have to make today. Because if we fail to make the marriage 
tax penalty elimination permanent, Jose and Magdalene Castillo will 
once again have to pay $1,125 more in higher taxes. And for them, that 
was 12 percent of their tax bill. So just the marriage tax penalty 
elimination in the Bush tax cut alone lowers the Castillo family's tax 
burden by 12 percent. That is money they can spend to take care of 
their own family's needs, rather than spending here in Washington.
  Every time we brought this effort to eliminate this marriage tax 
penalty on the floor, there have been those on the other side of the 
aisle who come up with excuse after excuse of why we should wait, why 
we should delay, and why we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty 
right now. They are always for it but let us do it later.
  Well, today we will have the opportunity to make permanent the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty. That is the question. Do we 
impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working 
couples.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for some time. 
Again, I find it so fascinating that so many would be opposed to giving 
the American people some of their money back to buy their kids school 
clothes or help put food on the table or help pay the car insurance. 
All of these things are very important to people and I think it should 
be important to Members of Congress.
  It is interesting, just some facts behind the eliminating the 
marriage tax. A vote against this bill is a vote to raise taxes on over 
20 million married couples. A vote against this bill is a vote to raise 
taxes on over 3.9 million married Americans of African descent, African 
American couples. And the marriage penalty, this penalty that you have 
worked very hard to eliminate, this penalty hits middle income married 
couples the hardest. I think it is important that we eliminate this.
  As we know, we get taxed every time we turn around. We get taxed when 
we turn on our lights. We get taxed when we put gas in our cars. We get 
taxed when we eat lunch. We get taxed when we eat brunch. Moms are 
taxed when they are taking their kids to Little League ballgames, when 
they get in their car and they stop at the local 7-Eleven to get fuel 
or to get oil. Dads are taxed when they try to save a few bucks for 
retirement in order to provide for the families. And grandma and 
grandpa are taxed for having the audacity to die. They get taxed. So we 
get taxed from the time we get up in the morning, late at night when we 
go to bed and we kiss our wife good night, and we think that is free, 
but it is not, because of this unfair, arcane marriage tax.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for fighting to 
eliminate this tax. Love and marriage goes together like a horse and a 
carriage. Marriage and taxes go together like a mosquito at a picnic. 
So we need to eliminate this tax. Again, I commend the gentleman.
  My wife thinks it is taxing enough to be married to me, and she says 
she thinks it is unfair that there is such a thing as a marriage tax. 
And I appreciate very much the gentleman working hard to eliminate this 
tax. It is the right thing to do. And I hope that Members of Congress 
will give married couples in America a break and allow them to keep 
another $1,400, $1,500 per year to do what they need to do with it, not 
what their Member of Congress in Washington, DC thinks needs to be done 
with it.
  Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time from the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), I think he summarized it very well. That is what 
this vote is all about.
  A vote for the Democratic substitute is a vote for an automatic tax 
increase that Congress has hands off of. We spend too much. We trigger 
a tax increase without having to vote on it is what the Democrats are 
proposing. That would be a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million 
married working couples. Hard-working couples like Jose and Magdalene 
Castillo who it would cost at least $1,125 more in higher taxes if we 
allow the marriage tax penalty to come back.
  That is the debate today. Do we make permanent our efforts to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty or do we raise taxes on the married 
couples. What the Democrats are proposing is an automatic tax increase 
on 36 million married working couples. So I urge a no vote on the 
Democrat substitute. I also urge a no vote if the Democrats offer a 
motion to recommit, and I ask for a bipartisan aye vote in favor of 
permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty on final passage.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat 
substitute and in strong support of the underlying bill.
  Last May 26th, I voted with 239 of my colleagues to scrap the 
marriage penalty once and for all. We didn't vote to phase it out over 
10 years and then bring it back; we voted to get rid of it. Why? 
Because, above all, our tax code must be fair.
  Is it fair to tax marriage? Is it fair for me to tell my 
communications director that when he gets married next weekend, aside 
from paying for the invitations, caterer, photographer, music, and 
reception hall, he's going to have to pay an additional $1400 in taxes 
if we do not make this tax cut permanent? What kind of message are we 
sending to the American people when we can afford pork barrel projects 
like tattoo removal programs, but are not willing to invest in 
marriage? Well, how's this for bringing home pork: if we strike down 
this substitute and vote for the underlying bill, $81.2 million will 
return home to the 58,000 couples in the Second District of Nebraska. 
That way, they can spend their money the way they want.
  I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle that tax cuts cost 
money. Who does it cost? It certainly costs 175,000 couples in my state 
of Nebraska, who every year pay the marriage penalty. But it doesn't 
cost the Federal Government anything, because for something to cost you 
money, you actually have to have it first. What the Democrat substitute 
is really saying is, ``Without the marriage penalty, tax and spenders 
in Washington will have less money to spend.''
  If we do not continue to work to make provisions of President Bush's 
tax cut permanent--like we did last week with the death tax, like we're 
doing now with the marriage penalty, like we'll do next week with 
retirement benefits--the American taxpayers will experience the single 
greatest tax increase in U.S. history: more than $380 billion from 2011 
to 2012. How can Democrats possibly justify that?
  Mr. Speaker, this tax is unfair, unnecessary, and irresponsible. It 
defies American morals, it defies logic, and it flies in the face of 
family values. It is everything that is wrong with government. Vote 
against this substitute and make a pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-
common sense vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
440, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by

[[Page 10240]]

the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MATSUI. 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 198, 
nays 213, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               YEAS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     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.
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     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
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     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
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     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
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Filner
       

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Blagojevich
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Burton
     Clayton
     Combest
     Cox
     Deutsch
     Forbes
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     McInnis
     Owens
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Quinn
     Smith (TX)
     Traficant

                              {time}  1407

  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed her vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. WATERS changed her 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on 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.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, does the 
minority have the right to offer a motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, prior to the final passage of the bill.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MATSUI: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271, 
noes 142, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               AYES--271

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)

[[Page 10241]]


     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--142

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Burton
     Clayton
     Combest
     Deutsch
     English
     Forbes
     Hall (OH)
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Jones (OH)
     Lowey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     Owens
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Quinn
     Smith (TX)
     Traficant

                              {time}  1425

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

                          ____________________