[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 32 (Monday, August 14, 2000)]
[Pages 1793-1794]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the 
``Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000''

August 5, 2000

To the House of Representatives:

    I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 4810, the 
``Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000,'' because it is poorly 
targeted and one part of a costly and regressive tax plan that reverses 
the principle of fiscal responsibility that has contributed to the 
longest economic expansion in history.
    My Administration supports marriage penalty relief and has offered a 
targeted and fiscally responsible proposal in our fiscal year 2001 
budget to provide it. However, I must oppose H.R. 4810. Combined with 
the numerous other tax bills approved by the Congress this year and 
supported by the congressional majority for next year, it would drain 
away the projected surplus that the American people have worked so hard 
to create. Even by the Congressional Budget Office's more optimistic 
projection, this tax plan would plunge America back into deficit and 
would leave nothing for lengthening the life of Social Security or 
Medicare; nothing for voluntary and affordable Medicare prescription 
drug benefits; nothing for education and school construction. Moreover, 
the congressional majority's tax plan would make it impossible for us to 
get America out of debt by 2012.

[[Page 1794]]

    H.R. 4810 would cost more than $280 billion over 10 years if its 
provisions were permanent, making it significantly more expensive than 
either of the bills originally approved by the House and the Senate. It 
is poorly targeted toward delivering marriage penalty relief--only about 
40 percent of the cost of H.R. 4810 actually would reduce marriage 
penalties. It also provides little tax relief to those families that 
need it most, while devoting a large fraction of its benefits to 
families with higher incomes.
    Taking into account H.R. 4810, the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts 
passed by the House Ways and Means Committee this year provide about as 
much benefit to the top 1 percent of Americans as to the bottom 80 
percent combined. Families in the top 1 percent get an average tax break 
of over $16,000, while a middle-class family gets only $220 on average. 
But if interest rates went up because of the congressional majority's 
plan by even one-third of one percent, then mortgage payments for a 
family with a $100,000 mortgage would go up by $270, leaving them worse 
off than if they had no tax cut at all.
    We should have tax cuts this year, but they should be the right 
ones, targeted to working families to help our economy grow--not tax 
breaks that will help only a few while putting our prosperity at risk. I 
have proposed a program of targeted tax cuts that will give a middle-
class American family substantially more benefits than the Republican 
plan at less than half the cost. Including our carefully targeted 
marriage penalty relief, two-thirds of the relief will go to the middle 
60 percent of American families. Our tax cuts will also help to send our 
children to college, with a tax deduction or 28 percent tax credit for 
up to $10,000 in college tuition a year; help to care for family members 
who need long-term care, through a $3,000 long-term care tax credit; 
help to pay for child care and to ease the burden on working families 
with three or more children; and help to fund desperately needed school 
construction.
    And because our plan will cost substantially less than the tax cuts 
passed by the Congress, we'll still have the resources we need to 
provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit; to extend the life of 
Social Security and Medicare; and to pay off the debt by 2012--so that 
we can keep interest rates low, keep our economy growing, and provide 
lower home mortgage, car, and college loan payments for the American 
people.
    This surplus comes from the hard work and ingenuity of the American 
people. We owe it to them to make the best use of it--for all of them, 
and for our children's future.
    Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of 
H.R. 4810 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the 
Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its 
becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to 
withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to 
``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid 
litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4810 to the House of Representatives 
with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the 
measure.
                                            William J. Clinton
 The White House,
 August 5, 2000.