H5858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 Skelton Taylor (MS) Walsh H.R. 4810 (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code Smith (MI) Taylor (NC) Wamp Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- is amended by striking paragraph (2) and re- Smith (NJ) Terry Waters resentatives of the United States of America in designating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). Smith (TX) Thomas Watkins (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by Snyder Thompson (CA) Watt (NC) Congress assembled, Souder Thompson (MS) Watts (OK) SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. striking subsection (h). Spence Thornberry Waxman (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.— Spratt Thune Weiner the ‘‘Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconcili- (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of Stabenow Thurman Weldon (FL) ation Act of 2000’’. such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘except Stark Tiahrt Weldon (PA) (b) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—No amend- as provided in paragraph (8),’’ before ‘‘by in- Stearns Tierney Weller ment made by this Act shall be treated as a creasing’’. Stenholm Toomey Wexler change in a rate of tax for purposes of sec- (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section Strickland Towns Weygand Stump Traficant Whitfield tion 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 1 of such Code is amended by inserting Stupak Turner Wicker SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN ‘‘PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PER- Sununu Udall (CO) Wilson STANDARD DEDUCTION. CENT BRACKET;’’ before ‘‘ADJUSTMENTS’’. Sweeney Udall (NM) Wise (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— Talent Upton Wolf 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re- (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by Tancredo Velazquez Woolsey lating to standard deduction) is amended— paragraph (2), the amendments made by this Tanner Visclosky Wu (1) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ in subparagraph (A) section shall apply to taxable years begin- Tauscher Vitter Young (AK) and inserting ‘‘200 percent of the dollar Tauzin Walden Young (FL) ning after December 31, 2002. amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for (2) REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE NOES—1 the taxable year’’, TAX CREDITS.—The amendments made by Sanford (2) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara- subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years graph (B), beginning after December 31, 2001. NOT VOTING—15 (3) by striking ‘‘in the case of’’ and all that SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR Ackerman Doyle Owens follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘in EARNED INCOME CREDIT. Bachus Evans Slaughter any other case.’’, and (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section Campbell Forbes Smith (WA) (4) by striking subparagraph (D). 32(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re- Carson McNulty Vento (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.— Chenoweth-Hage Metcalf Wynn (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of lating to percentages and amounts) is amended— b 1213 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘(other than with’’ and all that follows through (1) by striking ‘‘AMOUNTS.—The earned’’ So (two-thirds having voted in favor ‘‘shall be applied’’ and inserting ‘‘(other than and inserting ‘‘AMOUNTS.— thereof) the rules were suspended and with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph the bill was passed. 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied’’. (B), the earned’’, and The result of the vote was announced (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such (2) by adding at the end the following new as above recorded. Code is amended by adding at the end the subparagraph: A motion to reconsider was laid on following flush sentence: ‘‘(B) JOINT RETURNS.—In the case of a joint ‘‘The preceding sentence shall not apply to return, the phaseout amount determined the table. under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by f the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments $2,000.’’. PERSONAL EXPLANATION made by this section shall apply to taxable (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Paragraph years beginning after December 31, 2000. (1)(B) of section 32( j) of such Code (relating Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15- to inflation adjustments) is amended to read was unavoidably absent on a matter of critical PERCENT BRACKET; REPEAL OF RE- as follows: importance and missed the following votes: DUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter- On approval of the journal, I would have CREDITS. mined under section 1(f )(3) for the calendar voted ``yea.'' (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f ) of section year in which the taxable year begins, On H.Res. 545, providing for consideration 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat- determined— of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Reconcili- ing to adjustments in tax tables so that in- ‘‘(i) in the case of amounts in subsections flation will not result in tax increases) is (b)(2)(A) and (i)(1), by substituting ‘calendar ation Act, introduced by the gentlelady from amended by adding at the end the following year 1995’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subpara- Ohio, Ms. PRYCE, I would have voted ``yea.'' new paragraph: graph (B) thereof, and On the bill, S. 1892, the Federal Land ‘‘(8) PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15- ‘‘(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in Transaction Facilitation Act, introduced by the PERCENT BRACKET.— subsection (b)(2)(B), by substituting ‘cal- gentleman from the other body from New ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to taxable endar year 2000’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in Mexico, Mr. DOMENICI, I would have voted years beginning after December 31, 2002, in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.’’. ``yea.'' prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)— (c) ROUNDING.—Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such On the bill, H.R. 4169, Naming the U.S. ‘‘(i) the maximum taxable income in the Code (relating to rounding) is amended by Post Office in Reno, Nevada as the Barbara lowest rate bracket in the table contained in striking ‘‘subsection (b)(2)’’ and inserting subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable in- F. Vucanovich Post Office, introduced by the ‘‘subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased come in the next higher taxable income under subparagraph (B) thereof)’’. gentleman from Nevada, Mr. GIBBONS, I would bracket in such table) shall be the applicable (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments have voted ``yea.'' percentage of the maximum taxable income made by this section shall apply to taxable f in the lowest rate bracket in the table con- years beginning after December 31, 2000. tained in subsection (c) (after any other ad- PERSONAL EXPLANATION justment under this subsection), and The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was un- ‘‘(ii) the comparable taxable income hour of debate on the bill, it shall be in able to be present for rollcall votes 386, 387, amounts in the table contained in subsection order to consider an amendment print- 388, and 389. Had I been present, I would (d) shall be 1⁄2 of the amounts determined ed in House Report 106–726 if offered by have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 386, 387, under clause (i). the gentleman from New York (Mr. ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For pur- RANGEL) or his designee, which shall be 388, and 389. poses of subparagraph (A), the applicable f considered read and shall be debatable percentage shall be determined in accord- for 1 hour equally divided and con- ance with the following table: MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF trolled by the proponent and an oppo- RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000 ‘‘For taxable years The applicable beginning in percentage is— nent. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant calendar year— The gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- to House Resolution 545, I call up the 2003 ...... 170.3 CHER) and the gentleman from New bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconcili- 2004 ...... 173.8 York (Mr. RANGEL) each will control 30 ation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of 2005 ...... 183.5 minutes of debate on the bill. the concurrent resolution on the budg- 2006 ...... 184.3 2007 ...... 187.9 et for fiscal year 2001, and ask for its 2008 and thereafter ...... 200.0. b 1215 immediate consideration. ‘‘(C) ROUNDING.—If any amount determined The Chair recognizes the gentleman The Clerk read the title of the bill. under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple from Texas (Mr. ARCHER). The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the GENERAL LEAVE ant to House Resolution 545, the bill is next lowest multiple of $50.’’. considered read for amendment. (b) REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask The text of H.R. 4810 is as follows: TAX CREDITS.— unanimous consent that all Members

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:58 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.006 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5859 may have 5 legislative days in which to riage tax penalty right now. Married system more simple so that people can revise and extend their remarks and to couples should not have to wait 1 day find it easier to file, they will find include extraneous material on H.R. longer to be treated fairly by the Tax some way to entice the President to 4810. Code. veto the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. So, Mr. Speaker, this all comes down Do they come back and ask to over- PEASE). Is there objection to the re- to a matter of principle. The fact that ride the veto? Never, never, never, quest of the gentleman from Texas? married couples pay more in taxes just never. All they want to say in Philadel- There was no objection. because they are married is simply im- phia is that they passed the bill and Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield moral, it is unfair, it is unjust, and the President vetoed it. I hope that the myself such time as I may consume. today, once again, we are moving to American people realize that the Con- Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We overcome the blocking tactics of the gress, as any business or any family, are here again moving this Congress to Democrats in the other body and to fix before we just deal with revenue losers, do the right thing for married couples the marriage tax penalty and return a we ought to take a look at the total by eliminating the marriage tax pen- small sense of decency to the Tax Code. package and the total responsibility. alty in the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of I am so pleased that the President is This bill is identical to H.R. 6 that my time. willing to give my Republican friends a passed this House in February. Why are ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE second chance by reconsidering getting we here again? Because the blocking The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mem- a decent, affordable press description techniques of the Vice President, as bers are reminded that they are not to drug bill, and then he would consider President of the Senate and the minor- characterize actions in the other body. reviewing once again the bill that they ity leader in the other body, have pre- The Chair recognizes the gentleman have sponsored in terms of removing vented our bill from even being able to from New York (Mr. RANGEL). the marriage penalty. come up for a vote on the floor. And Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of then they have the audacity to say we myself such time as I may consume. my time. are a ‘‘do-nothing’’ Congress. They are I wish we did not characterize the ac- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without forcing us to come back again and pass tions of the President of the United objection, the gentleman from Illinois this bill under reconciliation, which States. I thought that the distin- (Mr. WELLER) will manage the time of procedurally cannot be blocked from guished chairman of the Committee on the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- coming up on the floor of the Senate by Ways and Means was about to discuss CHER). their delaying tactics. tax policy with us, but he was not dis- There was no objection. I was somewhat surprised to see re- cussing principle, he was discussing The SPEAKER pro tempore. The cent campaign ads touting Vice Presi- politics. He was talking about the Chair recognizes the gentleman from dent GORE’S support for fixing the mar- budgetary policies of the President and Illinois (Mr. WELLER). riage tax penalty in the year 2000, be- Vice President GORE. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield cause it sure does not match the Clin- I think we should be reminded that myself such time as I may consume, ton-Gore White House 8-year ‘‘do noth- the only reason that we can even deal and I would say to the previous speaker ing’’ record of stonewalled opposition with reforming and providing equity that if he votes against this legisla- to fixing this unfair tax. Since 1993, the for some of these tax provisions is that tion, he will deny about 30,000 married Clinton-Gore White House has sent 25 because of the Clinton-Gore budget couples in the 15th district in New million married couples an expensive policies we are now able to think in York relief from the marriage tax pen- gift from the IRS: A bill for $1,400 a terms of surpluses instead of just defi- alty, and that is just not fair. We be- year. That is not exactly the tradi- cits. lieve it is time to eliminate the mar- tional Happy Anniversary card. I would like to remind my colleague, riage tax penalty once and for all. So here we are, at it again, trying to too, that not one Republican ever Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the ac- fix this once and for all. And this is a voted for the Clinton-Gore 1993 budget. complishments of this Congress. I am bipartisan bill, with 48 Democrats in And when the vote was tied in the Sen- proud that we are now in the process of the House voting with us in February ate, it took the Vice President to split balancing the budget for the 4th year on a bill that is the most complete and that tie. in a row. We locked away 100 percent of fairest way to get this job done. But Now, when it comes to whether we Social Security and stopped the raid on despite this bipartisan support, I have are doing this thing in an irresponsible Social Security. We are on track to pay a feeling we will still hear excuses from way, I used to think that that is what off the national debt by 2013, having al- Democrats today as to why we cannot the Republicans were trying to do. ready paid down the national debt by do it. When they had this $792 billion tax cut, $350 billion. Just this past week we For whatever reason, they may say they did not talk about paying down passed and sent to the Senate legisla- we should not help stay-at-home moms the national debt, they did not talk tion providing prescription drug cov- and dads. And, yes, this bill does that. about our responsibility to Social Se- erage available for all seniors under But their plan actually denies relief to curity, they did not talk about Medi- Medicare. these important parents. In fact, the care or affordable prescription drugs I am proud of those accomplish- Democrat plan leaves millions of mar- for our aged, and I, at that time, ments. And of course part of our agen- ried couples at the altar, and that is thought it would be irresponsible for da is not only to accomplish those ac- wrong. Raising a child is the single them to move forward and just get complishments, but also to bring fair- most important job in the world, and enough political votes to pass a bill. I ness to the Tax Code. We have often we are right to provide families with have changed my mind. It really is not asked in the House Chambers, many of relief who have only one wage earner. irresponsible. It may be political. us, is it right, is it fair that under our Democrats will also complain that But I have discovered that my Re- Tax Code 25 million married working this is too much tax relief. Of course, publican friends do not ask for these ir- couples, on average, pay almost $1,400 they say that about almost every tax responsible cuts until first they find more in higher taxes just because they bill that we bring up. But again they out that the President is going to veto are married. Now, is that right, is that are wrong. Fairness demands it because it, and only then do they come out fair, that if a couple chooses to partici- it is wrong to take money from the with not tax law but they come out pate in the most basic institution in pockets of wage-earning Americans with political statements. Whether we our society, marriage, that they are just because they are married. The are talking about the minimum wage going to pay higher taxes if they work? money should not be coming to Wash- bill, the Patients’ Bill of Rights, af- Unfortunately, under our Tax Code, ington in the first place. fordable prescription drugs, or whether that is true. If a husband and wife are Then they might say, oh, we should we are talking about pension benefits, both in the workforce, both the man wait; the timing is just not right to fix we can rest assured that when we and the woman are in the workforce, a the marriage tax penalty. And they are Democrats try to work with them to two-income household, under our Tax wrong again. We should fix the mar- remove the inequity to make the tax Code they will file jointly and, because

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:59 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.029 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 of that, they will pay a marriage tax child tax credit. We double the stand- nothing’’ label. It sticks and it sticks, penalty. That is just wrong. We have ard deduction for those who do not and it will continue to be adhesive as made this a priority, to eliminate the itemize to twice that of singles. That long as they simply send bills that will marriage tax penalty suffered by 25 helps those who do not itemize their be vetoed. They will never escape that million married working couples. taxes. label. I was proud a year and a half ago, And for those who do itemize, I would Why will this bill of theirs be vetoed when we introduced a bipartisan bill, point out that it is likely they, of if it were to pass? First of all, half of legislation sponsored by myself and the course, own a home, so that they have the relief in their bill goes to those gentleman from Indiana (Mr. a mortgage and property taxes that who do not pay a marriage penalty. So MCINTOSH) and the gentlewoman from they use to deduct, as well as to give they attach the marriage penalty label, Missouri (Ms. DANNER), Republicans money to their church or synagogue or though more than half of the money and Democrats, that 233 Members institutions of faith and charity. So does not apply to that situation. joined as cosponsors of our legislation they itemize their taxes. And the only Secondly, many families with kids to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. way to provide marriage tax relief for will not get the full relief that the bill And I was so proud in February when those who itemize is to widen the 15 promises because of the way they have this House passed our legislation with percent bracket. So that those who are shaped it. a bipartisan vote, which included every in the 15 percent bracket as joint filers Thirdly, the lion’s share, and this is House Republican as well as 48 Demo- can earn twice as much as single filers important, of the money goes to the crats who broke rank with their leader- in the 15 percent bracket. top quarter of the tax filers. ship and supported our efforts to wipe We provide marriage tax relief for Fourthly, look at the out-year pro- out the marriage tax penalty for 25 those on earned-income tax credit, and jections. Assuming the AMT is eventu- million married working couples. again I would point out that we protect ally applied, and the chairman of the In the well, Mr. Speaker, I have a those who benefit from the child tax committee has promised that, the 20- photo of three constituents from Jo- credit, the $500 per child tax credit year cost of their bill is $700 billion. liet, Illinois, Shad and Michelle from AMT. $700 billion. That plays lightly with the Hallihan. When we first introduced our The bottom line is we want to elimi- future of my grandchildren and with bill almost a year and a half ago to nate the marriage tax penalty. It is an the need to address Medicare and So- eliminate the marriage tax penalty, issue of fairness for 25 million working cial Security. Shad and Michelle were newlyweds. Be- couples, 50 million Americans; people So if this bill is not what it says it is, cause of delays put forth by the other like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, par- if it is tilted against low- and middle- party, using every parliamentary pro- ents of little Ben. income families, if it shortchanges mil- Now, my friends on the other side of cedure to block passage in the Senate lions of families with children, and if it the aisle have realized they needed to of our efforts to eliminate the mar- could break the bank, why this bill? respond and they are now offering an riage tax penalty, time has gone on, The answer is contained in the chair- alternative, but I would point out that and now Michelle and Shad have a baby man’s original speech. Pure politics. those who are middle class and home- by the name of Ben. Philadelphia is what is on their mind. For Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two owners are stuck with the marriage tax The chairman of the Ways and Means public school teachers from Joliet, Illi- penalty. Under their proposal, middle Committee said, here we go again; and nois, the marriage tax penalty is real class homeowners who itemize receive I say, there they go again passing a bill money. Michelle and Shad, their com- no marriage tax relief. They are left that will be vetoed by the President of bined income is in the low $60,000 out because they think those individ- the United States. range, about $62,000. If they filed as sin- uals are rich, because they own a We can do better. The Democratic gle, chose not to marry, lived together home. That is just wrong. We believe substitute does better, and that is why and filed as single people, they would that suffering the marriage tax penalty so many of us are going to vote for it each pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. is wrong no matter who the individual and against the Republican bill. But because they chose to get married, is. If couples are suffering the marriage Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield Michelle and Shad Hallihan pay a mar- tax penalty, it should be eliminated. myself such time as I may consume. riage tax penalty. That is the bottom line. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the pre- Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the Of course, when we think about Jo- vious speaker, if he votes against this marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate liet, Illinois, $1,400 is a year’s tuition legislation wiping out the marriage tax the marriage tax penalty in a way that at our local community college, Joliet penalty, he will vote to deny 120,000 benefits every one of those 25 million Junior College; it is 3 months day care married taxpayers in the 12th District couples who suffer the marriage tax at a day care center for little Ben; and of Michigan relief from the marriage penalty. We have bipartisan legisla- it is also a washer and dryer for their tax penalty. That is just not fair. We tion. home. It is real money for real people. need to work together to eliminate the Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of I would point out that Ben, who is marriage tax penalty as it affects ev- my time. growing very rapidly, by the time he is eryone once and for all. 18, if we eliminate the marriage tax b 1230 Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the penalty for Michelle and Shad Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hallihan, $1,400 over 18 years is over minutes to the gentleman from Michi- HAYWORTH) a distinguished member of $25,000 that they can invest in a college gan (Mr. LEVIN), the senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. fund for Ben for his future. It is real the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I money for real people, and that is why (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per- thank my colleague from Illinois for we need to eliminate the marriage tax mission to revise and extend his re- yielding me the time. penalty. marks.) Mr. Speaker, today this House can I am proud our bipartisan proposal, Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I favor a take another important step toward which is essentially identical to what marriage penalty tax relief bill. That is tax fairness for the American people. we passed out of the House earlier this why I say to my colleague on the Com- When couples stand at the altar to year in February. And of course now we mittee on Ways and Means, I am for marry and each says ‘‘I do,’’ not con- are working to protect ourselves from the Democratic substitute, and I can tained in their vows is any acknowl- a filibuster in the Senate, which is why face the thousands of voters in my dis- edge of an additional payment in taxes. we have to vote on it again today. trict, whose numbers the Republicans And yet that is what we have, my col- We do several things. We help those like to cite for each of us in the House. leagues, for average Americans, for who itemize and those who do not We know our districts, and I know this working Americans, a penalty in our itemize. We help those who are poor bill that I am supporting; the Demo- Tax Code, roughly $1,500 a year. working folks who utilize the earned- cratic substitute is the answer. Rather than talk about politics or income tax credit. And we also protect They are desperately, on the Repub- political conventions or gamesman- parents from the AMT’s impact on the lican side, trying to escape the ‘‘do ship, Mr. Speaker, to the American

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:59 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.032 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5861 people this is not a game. These are penalty. It was accurate in its analysis, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the people who work hard, who play by the but no one is going to pay much atten- gentleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHN- rules, who every week sit around their tion because we have moved beyond SON) a very distinguished and senior kitchen table trying to make ends worrying about tax policy. The mar- member of the Committee on Ways and meet; and they need to be able to keep riage penalty and the marriage bonus, Means. $1,500 of their own money. the singles penalty and the singles (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked Now, it is true my friends on the left, bonus, all derived not from some nefar- and was given permission to revise and in a half-hearted way, offer a sub- ious scheme embedded in our Tax Code extend his remarks.) stitute. But again it points out, I but from the fact that we have a pro- Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. guess, a legitimate difference, Mr. gressive tax system. Speaker, marriage is a cherished insti- Speaker. My friends on the left hon- If two individuals, one working and tution in America; and we ought to estly believe that the highest and best one not, get married, their total tax promote it, not discourage it. So we in- use of the money of the taxpayers of payment under the current system tend to do just that today. America is in the coffers of Wash- goes down. They have a marriage Right now married couples pay more ington, D.C., spent by Washington bu- bonus. They had a singles penalty. in taxes than two singles living to- reaucrats. If two individuals get married, both gether. That is just wrong. Washington And that is fine. They are certainly working and both making about the needs to stop penalizing the corner- entitled to that point of view. And to same amount of money, they have a stone of our society, the American the extent that they now join us in marriage penalty. They had a singles family. talking about debt relief and paying bonus. It stems from the progressive This year my wife and I will cele- down the national debt, they now join nature of our tax system. brate 50 years of marriage. My wedding us in talking about prescription drug Putting that aside, we made a clear day was one of the happiest in my life. benefits, they now join us in wanting decision to get rid of the marriage pen- And back then, I have to tell my col- to strengthen and save Social Security, alty. That decision should be advanced leagues, I was not worried about hav- we appreciate that. on a broad bipartisan basis. However, ing to hold the wedding reception at What we say, Mr. Speaker, is not for that is not the choice here. The choice the IRS office. partisan purposes. In fact, we hold out is to send the President a bill he will Today, in my district alone, 150,000 the hand of bipartisanship with bipar- surely veto. Texans are penalized for just being tisan sponsorship of this legislation. The President has said he would sign married. By repealing the marriage We invite our colleagues to join with a Republican version of the marriage penalty, we are going to restore the us for real marriage penalty relief for tax cut if they would accept his version American family tradition and the America’s working couples. of a prescription drug benefit for senior American dream. And, Mr. Speaker, we do something citizens. The Republican leadership Republicans in the House have spent more. We invite the President of the said, no thanks, because it does not fit the past few years passing tax bills to United States to join us. Because here the Philadelphia political agenda. eliminate the marriage penalty, but is a chance to do something good for But what is most annoying is the fact every time the Clinton-Gore adminis- every working couple in America, to that the Republicans are using the al- tration vetoed them all. strike this blow for tax fairness. ternative minimum tax to deny mil- Enough is enough. It is time to re- No, far from being irresponsible, this lions of Americans any relief under peal the taxes on American values. Let is one of the most responsible things their bill. The promise of their bill is us start by saying ‘‘I do’’ to repealing we can do in a bipartisan fashion to re- to cut taxes by about $250 billion, but the tax on marriage. affirm our belief in the institution of that will result in an increase in the al- Mr. Speaker, the time has come to marriage, to reaffirm that we value the ternative minimum tax of $65 billion. sign this legislation and, for once, put contribution of working families, to re- That is why this bill is said to cost $180 American families first. affirm that the money belongs to the billion. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 people, not to the Washington bureau- Make no mistake, it is deliberate. minutes to the gentleman from Wash- crats. The interaction between the regular ington (Mr. MCDERMOTT), a distin- Join with us, my colleagues. Mr. tax system and the alternative min- guished member of the Committee on Speaker, let us again pass this mar- imum tax is well known. Taxpayers in Ways and Means. riage tax penalty relief. The American a State like Massachusetts claiming (Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was people deserve a divorce from high State and local tax deductions will given permission to revise and extend taxes. They deserve to have a chance to most certainly be denied the promised his remarks.) hold on to more of their own money. relief that we have been told under the Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 Republican version of this bill because colleague, the gentleman from Massa- minutes to the gentleman from Massa- personal exemptions and State and chusetts (Mr. NEAL), referenced an edi- chusetts (Mr. NEAL), a distinguished local tax deductions are not deductible torial in the Washington Post, and I in- member of the Committee on Ways and against the minimum tax. clude for the RECORD the editorial from Means. The Democratic substitute makes July 11 entitled: ‘‘A Phony Issue.’’ Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. sure that everyone who is promised re- [From the Washington Post, July 11, 2000] Speaker, I thank the gentleman from lief in the bill actually gets it. Our pro- A PHONY ISSUE New York (Mr. RANGEL) for yielding me posal is far superior, and the President Congressional Republicans have scheduled the time. will sign it. votes this week on a sizable tax cut mainly Mr. Speaker, just before I launch into Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the better off, which they misleadingly my formal remarks here, when I was myself such time as I may consume. describe as relief from a ‘‘marriage penalty.’’ listening to the Republican leadership Mr. Speaker, I say to the previous The president has rightly indicated that he talk about tax equity and talking speaker, elimination of the marriage will veto the bill as it is likely to be pre- about the metamorphosis of their tax tax penalty is not only an issue of tax sented to him. That suits the sponsors per- fectly, in that the vote is mainly intended as proposals over the last 6 or 7 years, has fairness, it is an issue of tax simplifica- a frame for the national nominating conven- there been a greater hoax perpetrated tion, and that if he chooses to vote tions that will be held during next month’s on this House than their argument that against this legislation, he will vote to congressional recess. they were going to simplify the Tax deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the The Republicans seek to score political Code, they were going to pull it out by 2nd District of Massachusetts relief points as the tax-cut party. But on this one, its roots, they were going to fundamen- from the marriage tax penalty. That is the merits are on the president’s side, and tally restructure the Tax Code of not fair. our sense is that the politics may be as well. I invite him to join the 48 Members of The marriage penalty is a phony issue; the America? Well, under their sponsorship cost of the bill is high; the bulk of the ben- and stewardship, thanks to them, it is the Democratic party on the other side efit would go to people already quite well off, more complicated than ever. of the aisle who voted with Repub- and there are better uses for the money—to Yesterday, the Washington Post ran licans to eliminate the marriage tax shore up Medicare, for example. The presi- an editorial about the marriage tax penalty once and for all. dent can be expected to make good use of all

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:14 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.034 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 those points; he has set his own stage for If they have kids, they are going to efforts, particularly to shepherd it that in advance. lose this on the AMT. through the committee now twice, has The tax code does not penalize married The Treasury says that by 2008, half been enormously important in making couples. To the contrary, as a matter of the people in this country who are get- sure that this bill will come to the long-standing policy it is tilted in their favor. A married couple at a given income ting the benefit will lose it because if floor and that families will get their level owes less income tax than a single tax- they have kids they lose it under the marriage penalty tax relief. payer at the same level. The so-called pen- AMT. When I ran for Congress, I pledged to Hoosiers in my district that I would alty arises when two single people, each with b 1245 income, marry. Their combined income is fight for more freedom, to cut their likely to move them into a higher tax brack- Now, the reason I am going to vote taxes and to strengthen their families et. That’s what the fight is about; the issue against this bill, which would be in my as the centerpiece of our community. is not the treatment of marriage but the pro- particular financial interest, in my When I discovered that the Tax Code gressive nature of the income tax. The mar- pocket, is this: I have a mother. I have discriminates against marriage, I knew riage issue is a veil. If the sponsors succeed, a mother who is one of the 9 million that by eliminating the marriage pen- you can bet their next target will be the ‘‘singles penalty’’ that they themselves will widows in this country who lives on alty, Congress could both cut taxes and have helped to accentuate by lowering the $8,000 a year. She is not getting any- strengthen the family. I made elimi- taxes of married couples relative to single thing from this. And this majority has nating the marriage penalty my high- payers. The widow’s penalty, they’ll call it. consistently refused to deal with Social est priority ever since. The proposed cuts are not even confined to Security, which my mother lives on. It is unbelievable to most Americans people paying a ‘‘penalty’’ as the sponsors That is her only income. They have re- that our Tax Code punishes them be- define it. About half of married couples— fused to do anything about shoring up cause they are married and they choose those in which one spouse earns the bulk of Medicare, which is the only health care to work. Two constituents of mine, the income—receive a marriage ‘‘bonus’’ in system she has. And they will not give Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce, that their taxes are less than if both were both work in a factory in Indiana. single. But they too would benefit; the spon- her a financial benefit for her prescrip- sors hardly want to be accused of slighting tion drugs. They wanted to get married, but they the ‘‘traditional’’ family in which the mom Now, the President has made a deal, learned from their H&R Block rep- stays home. About half the savings in the I think a bad deal, but it is not a bad resentative that they would give up a bill would go to such families. deal for my mother. He says, we will $900 tax refund and be penalized $1,800 The cost of the legislation would be a quar- take the Republican plan if you will if they decided to get married. ter-trillion dollars over 10 years. The presi- give my mother a real pharmaceutical Sharon Mallory wrote me a letter dent has said he would trade the Repub- and said, ‘‘Darryl and I would very licans. This bill for his Medicare prescription benefit. The Republicans say, ‘‘Nope, we ain’t doing that.’’ We are going to much like to be married, and I must drug benefit, which carries a similar price say it broke our hearts when we found tag. It’s the wrong trade; a drug benefit does give your mother a little voucher and not redeem the defects of this bill. The poli- send her out there and let her look out we can’t afford it.’’ Mr. Speaker, ticians, including the president, say there’s around for some insurance company that letter broke my heart. I vowed to plenty of money for both, but the budget sur- like all the HMOs that have been pull- never stop fighting until this anti-fam- pluses to which they point are projections ing out of the State of Washington, and ily marriage penalty tax was elimi- only, and in some ways highly artificial. we are going to say, find one that will nated. I have fought on the front lines Among much else, they assume that future stand still long enough to give you a for Darryl and Sharon and for 600,000 politicians will exercise precisely the kind of Hoosier families, 1.2 million Hoosiers, discipline that these are prepared to aban- pharmaceutical benefit. That is not a real benefit. I want my who will save over a billion dollars as don. An easing of fiscal discipline would like- a result of this marriage penalty relief ly also cause the Federal Reserve to tighten mother to have the benefit the Presi- monetary discipline; this is a vote for higher dent has promised. So I am going to and for 25 million Americans all over interest rates at one remove. vote for the Democratic alternative this country who want us to do the right thing. The marriage penalty is little more than a and hope the Republicans come to their slogan, a bumper sticker masquerading as se- The alternative bill, Mr. Speaker, senses. rious tax policy. The vote this week is a po- does not help stay-at-home moms. It Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield litical stunt that would mainly solve a non- does not help stay-at-home dads. It myself such time as I may consume. problem while weakening the government’s does not help homeowners who do not I would remind my good friend and ability to fulfill its long-term obligations. qualify for the alternative. It does not The right vote is emphatically no. colleague from Washington State that help Darryl and Sharon Mallory. With Mr. Speaker, this editorial lays it out it was a Republican Congress that for record surpluses, this is the best very clearly. And that is why we are the first time locked away 100 percent chance we have to provide real tax re- here. We are all here about politics. of Social Security and Medicare, stop- lief and to help families at the same This is not about any kind of policy. ping the raid. It was a Democrat Con- time. Let us put partisanship aside. The editorial says that they know gress that raided the Social Security One of the things that I have noticed that they are going to send this bill to trust fund for 30 years. is that nobody stands up and says that the President, he is going to veto it, I would also say to the previous it is a good idea to punish marriage and that ‘‘that suits the sponsors per- speaker that if he votes against this ef- and let us have a marriage penalty tax, fectly, in that the vote is mainly in- fort to eliminate the marriage tax pen- but there are a lot of excuses for not tended as a frame for the national alty, he will vote to deny 106,000 mar- doing it. Let me ask my colleagues on nominating conventions that will be ried taxpayers in the seventh district the other side to put aside partisanship held during next month’s congressional of Washington relief from the marriage and join us in getting this done. Presi- recess.’’ tax penalty. That is not fair. I invite dent Clinton has already indicated he Now, this bill was written for me. I him to join the 48 Democrats earlier could sign this bill. Of course he has came to Congress, I was divorced, and I this year who broke with him and got his conditions, but he said he could married somebody who has a job. This voted with the Republicans to elimi- sign it. Vice President Gore is already bill gives me a great tax benefit be- nate the marriage tax penalty. campaigning on marriage penalty re- cause our combined income is up Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the lief. So do not be left holding the bag around $100,000 because that is as high gentleman from Indiana (Mr. here on the House floor. Join us in a bi- as it goes. If they have a combined in- MCINTOSH), one of the leaders, a proven partisan effort to do what is right for come of $60,000, that is their wife leader in the effort to eliminate the the American family and then we can makes 30 and they make 30, they will marriage tax penalty, one of the chief be proud that we have helped to elimi- get $218. sponsors of the Weller-McIntosh-Dan- nate the marriage penalty for many But my wife and I, because we make ner Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Americans and reduce it for all fami- considerably more than that, we are all Mr. MCINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me lies in this country. the way up to the maximum, we will take a moment to commend the gen- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 get a benefit of $1,150. Oh, and we do tleman from Illinois for his tremen- minutes to the gentleman from Mary- not have any kids. That is important. dous leadership on this. His ceaseless land (Mr. CARDIN), a distinguished

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.008 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5863 member of the Committee on Ways and people in the Third Congressional Dis- criminate against marriage. And if Means. trict of Maryland that are truly paying ending such discrimination, if ending (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given a marriage penalty and deserve some the marriage penalty were the true permission to revise and extend his re- relief by this body and unfortunately purpose of this initiative, it would have marks.) will not get it because of our inability already been law and married couples Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me to work together on a bill that could be would have benefited from it for a thank the gentleman from New York signed by the President. number of years, at least 3. Indeed, last (Mr. RANGEL) for yielding me this time. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield year we Democrats again came to this Mr. Speaker, the approximately myself such time as I may consume. I House, and we offered more marriage 100,000 people who live in the Third note my friend’s comments about one- tax penalty relief than our Republican Congressional District of Maryland half of the relief going to those who do colleagues. They were much more con- that are affected by this bill are going not suffer the marriage tax penalty. If cerned with loading up their trillion- to be somewhat perplexed by the de- they analyzed their own bill, what they dollar tax cut with special interest pro- bate that is taking place. About half of do with the standard deduction pro- visions like the chicken manure tax this 100,000 are currently paying a mar- vides a similar proportion of those who subsidy and so forth that was really riage penalty for being married. That do not suffer the marriage tax penalty the mainstay of their effort last year is wrong. And they have their Con- some relief. rather than helping married couples. gressman here today speaking up and I would also say to the previous Again this year, we offered to work saying that we should do something to speaker that if he votes against this with them in a bipartisan fashion to help that approximately 50,000 that are legislation to eliminate the marriage create true marriage tax penalty relief. paying a marriage penalty for being tax penalty, he votes to deny 132,000 They have rejected that. They have married. These are couples that have married taxpayers in the third district done so, I must say, with some rather approximately the same income that of Maryland relief from the marriage unusual arguments in favor of their are paying a penalty under our tax tax penalty. That is just not fair. I proposal. This indicates, I suppose, code for being married. want to invite my friend from Mary- what sheltered lives some Republicans The other half are receiving a bonus land to join the 48 other Democrats live. Why, they have told us that the today. These are individuals that are who have broken with their leadership Tax Code is encouraging people to live actually paying less taxes by being and are supporting efforts to eliminate out of wedlock; that it is encouraging married than they would if they were the marriage tax penalty once and for illegitimacy. I hate to expose them to filing single returns. These are couples all. a rude awakening about premarital re- in which one spouse has a much higher Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the lations in this country, but I just have income than the other spouse. If they gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP), a feeling that the fine print of the Tax were living together without the ben- a senior and respected member of the Code is not the first thing that young efit of marriage, they would actually Committee on Ways and Means. people look to before they decide on (Mr. CAMP asked and was given per- be paying more taxes. They have a their living arrangements or their rela- mission to revise and extend his re- marriage bonus. They are not calling tions with the opposite sex. I think if marks.) they continue arguing that, they will me. They are not writing me asking me Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the only demonstrate that they are even to provide more relief because they are gentleman from Illinois for yielding me married. They are already getting the this time and for his leadership on this more out of touch with what is hap- bonus. issue. pening in this country than they do by The problem with the Republican bill I represent the middle part of Michi- their usual endeavors here most every is that it spends $182 billion and one- gan. In my district alone, there are day. half of that is going to the people that 106,000 people paying more taxes simply Leave it to the House Republicans to are already receiving a marriage bonus. because they are married. The Vice take something we all agree with, that This is not the first tax bill that we are President is trying to criticize the Con- there should be no discrimination in considering in this body. We have al- gress as a ‘‘do nothing for the people’’ our tax code, and turn it from a work- ready been considering estate tax re- Congress. Yet he probably will not able, bipartisan plan into a total polit- peal that spends $69 billion over 10 mention that this is the second time ical ploy. You will remember the first years and then explodes in cost. And we have had to pass this bill because time they came out here, they just the list goes on and on and on. the President and some congressional happened to package it up in a loving The problem is we cannot afford to Democrats think we are doing too way on Valentine’s Day to present to continue to spend money to deal with a much for 28 million American couples. the American people. That is the kind problem that spends much more than Earlier this year, the President said of political grandstanding with little we need to to deal with the issue. We he supported marriage penalty relief, action behind it that has characterized have seniors who need prescription but here we are today, 6 months later, this entire Congress. medicine coverage under Medicare. We again passing marriage penalty relief. I think that the only illegitimacy as- have schools that we need to reduce Yet he continues to threaten American sociated with this bill is its class size and modernize. There are families with a veto. The President mislabeling. It is not marriage tax pen- other priorities that we need to deal does not mention that his own proposal alty relief. Over half of the dollar ben- with. and the Democrat substitute, I might efit in this bill goes to people who do This Congressman is interested in add, does not do one bit for a working not incur a marriage tax penalty, peo- helping the people who pay a marriage couple who saved enough last year to ple who gain tax advantages because penalty that live in my district. We buy a home. Why? Because those peo- they are married and filing a joint tax can do that for one-half the cost of this ple itemize. They fill out a different return. I have been extremely fortu- bill. It is in the interest of all of my tax form. To not help those people is nate to be married to the same woman taxpayers, those that are paying a pen- simply not fair. who has put up with me for over 31 alty, those that are receiving a bonus, I for one am proud that we are able years, my parents together over 55 that we do it right. The Democratic to take this step forward and fix this years. I value the institution of mar- substitute is better targeted. glaring inequity. Let us strengthen riage. But there are many folks that We should be working together, families. I urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote on H.R. have not been as lucky. Some of them Democrats and Republicans, to figure 4810. are widows or widowers. Some of them out how we can target the relief to Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield are victims of domestic violence. Some those that are paying the penalty and, 31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from of them are single mothers that are therefore, we can do other priorities in Texas (Mr. DOGGETT), a distinguished trying to do as good a job as we tried addition to just this one. That is what member of the Committee on Ways and to do for our family to rear their chil- we should be doing. But unfortunately Means. dren. Why should our tax laws dis- this is more about a political message Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, of criminate against those individuals? than it is about helping the 50,000 plus course, our tax laws should not dis- That is exactly what this bill does. Not

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.038 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 every family has the good fortune to be from the middle-class taxpayers in this piecemeal way, to agree to the cuts we married. Some choose to remain single country. are going to have, and to allow the for a variety of reasons. My feeling is If we do not do it now, with these other bills that we are talking about, that our tax code ought not to dis- record surpluses, my question is, when whether they are the minimum wage criminate for or against someone de- are we going to? If we do not sign the bill, whether they are the Patients’ pending on their marital status. bill into law now, when will it happen? Bill of Rights bill, whether it is pen- This bill could also be called the Sin- Because I would suggest if we do not do sion bills, not just try to stack up on gle Mothers Tax Penalty Act, or the it now, it is not going to happen, and it each and every decent piece of legisla- Widow and Widowers Tax Penalty Act. is important that we continue to per- tion a tax cut. The gentleman from Illinois seems to sist. I think there is plenty of room for us have so many statistics on those indi- I am grateful that some people do not to work together on, so that at the end viduals that are going to benefit from make everything out to be partisan. of the day we can say in a bipartisan this act, I wonder if he has statistics This is not about Republicans and way that we have come to a meeting of on how many will be discriminated Democrats, this is just about regular the mind. There will be enough for us against by a bill that accords over half folks saying some taxes, death taxes to debate at the polls come November, of its benefits to people that do not suf- and the marriage tax penalty, are un- but certainly on these important tax fer any marriage tax penalty. Unfortu- fair, they should be eliminated, never issues, we should have to agree that nately, instead of crafting bipartisan should have been there to begin with. whether it is the Republican majority legislation, we have another political And if you are not going to wipe those today, or the Democratic majority ploy that would produce more bad pub- taxes out at a time of unprecedented next year, we cannot get anything done lic policy. surpluses and a good economy, when unless we work together in a bipartisan are you going to do it? It is not going b 1300 way. Neither one of us will enjoy the to happen. substantial margins that would allow Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield I believe in tax relief. I do not mind us just to work our will. We are going myself such time as I may consume. saying so. I also believe in tax fairness, to have to work in a bipartisan way if Mr. Speaker, I would say to my in tax equity. There are 65 provisions we are going to get any progress now or friend from Texas, the previous speak- in the Tax Code that penalize people next year, so why not begin to think er, if he votes against this legislation, just because they are married. Well, about working together this year. this bipartisan legislation to eliminate that is nonsensical. Our Tax Code is Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the marriage tax penalty, he will vote out of hand, to begin with. It is way my time. to deny 116,000 married taxpayers in too big and complex, it needs to be dra- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the 10th District of Texas relief from matically overhauled, and that will myself such time as I may consume. the marriage tax penalty. By voting for come, I hope, soon, but not between Mr. Speaker, of course, I want to the Democrat substitute, one votes to now and November. once again remind my good friend from discriminate against those who This is today. This is now. We can New York, the ranking member of the itemize, particularly middle-class, pass this conference report, after all Committee on Ways and Means, that married couples who own a home. the debate that has taken place; we can this legislation, when it passed the I also want to extend an invitation to send it down the street with some bi- House earlier this year, it received bi- my friend from Texas to join the 48 partisan support, and the President can partisan support. Forty-eight Demo- Democrats who broke with their lead- sign it into law. I call on him to do crat Members of the House joined every ership this spring and vote in a bipar- that. House Republican to vote yes to elimi- tisan way to eliminate the marriage I call on all of our colleagues to come nate the marriage tax penalty for 25 tax penalty. together and get some taxes, just one million married working couples. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my step at a time, off the back of middle- I would also point out to the previous friend, the gentleman from Tennessee class America. Some people play class speaker that if you vote against our ef- (Mr. WAMP). war with taxes. This is just regular fort to eliminate the marriage tax pen- (Mr. WAMP asked and was given per- people. These are the regular people alty in a bipartisan way, you will vote mission to revise and extend his re- you run into at the Food Lion in east to deny 60,000 married taxpayers in the marks.) Tennessee. Cut their taxes. Eliminate 15th District of New York relief from Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the the marriage tax penalty. the marriage tax penalty. That is just gentleman for yielding me time, and I Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield not fair. thank him for just outstanding leader- myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want too extend an invita- ship, and all of the cosponsors of this Mr. Speaker, I would like to join tion to my friend from New York to legislation. with the speaker that was in the well join us in a bipartisan effort, join those Mr. Speaker, in the 35 counties in and hope that the leadership of the 48 House Democrats who voted with east Tennessee, 200,000 people are ad- House could come together with some Republicans, to eliminate the marriage versely affected by the marriage tax type of package to present to the Presi- tax penalty. penalty. More than 110,000 couples pay dent that could be signed into law that Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my approximately $1,400 per year more in would include a decent affordable drug good friend, the gentleman from Flor- taxes simply because they are married. package. There is an opportunity to do ida (Mr. FOLEY), a distinguished Mem- That is not right, and the fundamental this. ber of the Committee on Ways and issue here is whether or not we are I also agree with the gentleman that Means. going to reduce the tax burden on the the present Tax Code is in the shape Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer my middle-class folks in this country. that most tax writers, as well as other congratulations to the gentleman from When I was born in 1957, if you add up Members of Congress, should be Illinois (Mr. WELLER) for his phe- the Federal, State, and local tax bur- ashamed of. nomenal leadership on this very impor- den on my parents when I was born, it The majority has been there for over tant issue. was not collectively, combined, more half a dozen years. They talk a lot We have heard a lot of debate today than 10 percent of every dollar that about pulling it up by the roots; but about saving Social Security and Medi- they made. Today, it is almost 50 per- obviously, like with Social Security care and prescription drug coverage; cent. and Medicare, they have not been able and it is interesting if you think for a In my lifetime the level of taxation to get enough discipline on their side moment, the President and Vice Presi- in this country has gone from less than to do anything about it. But that does dent have been in office for 8 years, and a dime of a dollar to almost half of not mean that something as important now in the last 3 months or 5 months of every dollar you make. At what point as a tax cut should be handled in the their term in office, they come up with are we going to roll this back? The fun- manner in which they are handling it. all these plans to rescue Medicare, So- damental issue is, it is time in a budget I think that we should try to do it in cial Security, add prescription drug surplus to roll some of the taxes back a bipartisan way, not to do it in a coverage. Those are important issues,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.048 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5865 and the Republicans take them seri- den. Not only are you trying to raise Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield ously. We on the Committee on Ways children, pay the mortgage, buy a new back the balance of my time. and Means have been working on these washer and dryer, but the Government Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield very, very important issues. thinks because you are married, we myself such time as I may consume. Regrettably, when you talk bipar- should take a few more bucks out of Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my tisan legislation, or at least when they your pocket and then spend it in Wash- good friend from Mississippi, who I claim it from the other side of the ington, because you know Washington share many of his concerns on behalf of aisle, it is only bipartisan if it is their knows best. our friends, I would point out many of idea and their way. But the remarkable Save marriage, end the penalty, let our military men and women suffer the thing about this process on this floor is Americans prosper. marriage tax penalty, and invite him that after all of the baying at the moon ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE to join with us in a bipartisan efforts about what a lousy idea this marriage The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. tax penalty elimination is, we will be PEASE). Members are reminded that Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield the bal- joined by numerous Democrats who their remarks are to be directed to the ance of my time to my good friend, the recognize that the marriage penalty is Chair and not to other persons who gentleman from Georgia (Mr. COLLINS), in fact a penalty on marriage. Like es- may be viewing the proceedings of the a leading and respected member of the tate tax relief, when we talked about House. Committee on Ways and Means. it, we were derided for hour on hour on Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. hour, and ultimately we had 95 brave 21⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from Mis- Mr. Speaker, like 144,000 other tax- soldiers join us in passing this very im- sissippi (Mr. TAYLOR). payers in the 3rd District of Georgia, I Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. portant piece of legislation. wear a wedding band. Taxing two hard-working Americans Speaker, I am not as much troubled by who are married is a shame. It is what I hear today, as by what I do not b 1315 abomination. Now, they use those hear. What I do not hear is any of the It is a symbol of my marriage. But, words in their press conferences, but I participants reminding the American due to the Tax Code, it is an excuse to do not hear them uttering them on the people that because of actions that raise more revenue, and that is not floor today. Congress has taken during our life- right. Now, I just ask Americans who are times, our Nation is $5 trillion deeper Under today’s Tax Code, 25 billion watching today, hearing this debate in debt than the day that any of us married couples pay higher taxes as a and wondering what it is all about, were born; that we are the beneficiaries result of saying, I do. Today’s bill will there is a lot of rancor from one side of those expenditures; that our Nation change that. It will allow both wives and a lot of boasting on our side about won the Cold War; that it built the and husbands to each take a full stand- the great importance of this bill; and I interstate highway system; that it ard deduction, and it will broaden the think at the end of the day, we win the built the intercostal canal system; that lower tax bracket so that lower- and debate. But more importantly, stay it did a lot of good things for all us. middle-income couples will not be pun- tuned, because the President will join And now it is time, when we have the ished or pushed into a higher tax us and support us and probably sell out opportunity because of some small sur- bracket when their incomes are com- his side of the aisle in order to make a pluses to pay the bills, we seem intent bined. deal on his legacy. And the Vice Presi- on doing those things not to pay them. The Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act dent, against tax cuts at the beginning In a search to give some Americans a of 2000 will provide American families of the year, now embraces $500 million break, we are going to see to it that all relief from the excessive taxation of tax cuts. Americans continue to have $1 billion a which has been caused by our govern- So I just suggest to everybody, wait day of their tax money squandered on ment’s excessive spending. Now that a around for a little while and sooner or paying interest on that debt; $1 billion balanced budget and reforms that the the later the parade follows leadership a day. Federal Government has done in the on issues important to the American I hear my colleagues talking about past few years, we have a positive cash taxpayer. this enormous surplus, as if somehow flow. It is time to reduce the tax bur- Now, the gentleman from Illinois this building is awash in cash. Well, if den on working Americans. Ending the (Mr. WELLER) is not bankrupting the it exists, why are you delaying the pay unfair marriage penalty is an impor- system with this bill. We will have of the people who serve our Nation in tant step in that direction. money for prescription drug coverage. crummy places like Bosnia and Korea, Mr. Speaker, my hope is that we will We will have money for Social Security people who are at sea right now, under not stop there. American families are reform. In fact, we lockbox Social Se- the sea, on the sea on aircraft carriers also paying far too much for gasoline, curity and protect it for now and into for 6 months at a time, why are you de- which is a necessity for most house- the future, instead of, as they were for laying their pay from September 29 of holds. My hope is that we will look at 40 years, borrowing out of the money this year to October 1, making them go repealing some of the Federal excise and using it to pay their bills, or actu- an extra weekend when they cannot taxes which contribute to the high cost ally not even paying their bills, put- buy baby formula or diapers? of gasoline. ting us in deeper debt and deeper def- Do you know why? Because you are But today, Mr. Speaker, we are con- icit. We are in a financial quagmire be- trying to disguise the true nature of sidering relief from the marriage pen- cause of their leadership. Now we have the debt. You took that $2.5 billion pay alty. I had hoped that we would have been in charge for 6 years, and finally period and you shifted it to the next made the tax relief in this bill effective advancing bills that are helping the fiscal year so it would look like the for the tax year 2000 instead of the year American family. surplus is bigger than it really is. 2001 so families could get immediate I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Speaker, why are we not as in- relief. Hopefully, in the conference we this bill and go to church this Sunday tent on paying down the debt that was will be able to accomplish the change and explain your actions to your fellow incurred in our lifetime as we are in in the effective date for the taxable parishioners, why you voted to con- trying to score political advantage year 2000. tinue to tax the sanctity of marriage. I against each other come November 2? Mr. Speaker, despite the delay in im- am single, so I am not going to have a The Nation that the gentleman from plementation, this is a good bill that big argument from what I will save in New York (Mr. RANGEL) fought for, the will correct an injustice in the Tax my tax bill. Nation that the gentleman from Texas Code. I urge the House to pass this leg- But to those of you who feel com- (Mr. ARCHER) fought for and so many islation. I urge the President to sign pelled, go to church next Sunday and Members of this body fought for is this bill into law, and I call on Mem- stand up in the choir and praise the worth saving. If we do not pay our bills bers of the House and Senate to resist Lord first, and secondly say but I voted while we have this brief opportunity, the temptation to use tax relief for against you who are married, because I the first time in 30 years that we actu- married couples as a pawn in some po- think you should have an added bur- ally have a surplus, then we never will. litical game.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.041 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to pay higher taxes than they would if they were It wasn't the right time because we had not Congress to help make our communities more single. This ``tax'' on marriage averages nearly yet adopted a budget resolution and so a tax livableÐto make families safe, healthy and $1,400 per couple. This $1,400 could be used billÐor a spending bill, for that matterÐshould economically secure. Clearly, affording needed by families to save for college or retirement, not have been considered then. Now, of tax relief to America's working families is part make car payments, or pay for tutoring. course, we have a budget resolution in place. of that effort. This bill, however, skews prior- Middle income families are hit the hardest So, today at least the time is right. ities: Rather than focusing on the working peo- by this penalty and they need this legislation But this still is not the best bill for the job ple who need help the most, the bill offers the for tax relief. I urge the House to pass this leg- because in some areas it does too little, and most relief to those who already have lobby- islation. in others it does too much. ists working for them. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in oppo- It does too little because it does not adjust First of all, we ought to be making things sition to H.R. 4811 and in strong support of the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it easier for families, not more difficult. One big the Rangel substitute. Unlike the underlying leaves many middle-income families unpro- problem for them is that a growing number are bill, the Rangel substitute alleviates the mar- tected from having most of the promised ben- being forced into the Alternative Minimum Tax, riage penalty while preserving the necessary efits of the bill taken away. The Democratic which was originally intended to ensure that resources to enact other tax cuts for working substitute would have adjusted the Alternative very wealthy people paid at least some in- families, to pay down the debt, and to protect Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I come tax. Just last week, I was confronted Social Security and Medicare. voted for that better bill. back home with a farmer who has 10 children About half of all married couples pay more The Republican leadership's bill does too that he works hard to support. Taking the tax in income taxes because they are married much in another area. Because it is not care- credits for his children triggers the AMT for than they would if they were single. The other fully targeted, it does not just apply to people him, and no one would confuse him with Bill half pay either the same or less. The Rangel who pay a penalty because they are married. Gates. substitute provides $90 billion in targeted relief Instead, a large part of the total benefits under This bill not only fails to solve the problem, to couples who pay the marriage penalty. The the bill would go to married people whose it actually makes things worse. In every year, Republican bill, by contrast, funnels more than taxes already are lower than they would be if a larger percentage of families are shut out half the $182 billion in tax benefits to couples they were single. In other words, if this bill from the full benefits of the bill, exceeding 50 who receive a marriage bonus and 2¤3 of the were to become law as it now stands a pri- percent by 2010. tax benefit to households earning more than mary result would not be to lessen marriage It's not that hard to fix this. The Democratic $75,000 annually. ``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bo- alternative, which I support, would offer $89.1 With finite resources available, the Repub- nuses.'' billion in marriage penalty relief. It would fix lican bill must be viewed in term of its oppor- And, by going beyond what's needed to end the AMT problem, making sure that families tunity costs. The more than $100 billion in this marriage ``penalties'' the billÐif it were to be- actually get the tax relief they've been prom- legislation that is unrelated to marriage penalty come lawÐwould go too far in reducing the ised. It would direct an additional $10 billion to relief could be used to enact significant tax surplus funds that will be needed to bolster low- and moderate-income families. Even bet- cuts for working families. Rather than increas- Social Security and Medicare. ter, it would cost less than half of what the Re- ing tax bonuses for higher income people, Those were and remain the reasons for my publican bill does. Congress should help families cope with their reluctance to vote for this bill. They are strong With that additional revenue, we could ad- core pocketbook issues such as reducing the reasons then and they are strong reasons dress other pressing priorities. More than 11 cost of college, increasing the affordability of today. million American children have no health in- health insurance, and encouraging savings for In fact, if voting for the bill today would surance. Many of their grandparents pay stag- retirement. In my view, these areas, along with mean that it would be law tomorrow, I would gering sums for the prescription drugs that marriage penalty relief, should be the tax cut vote against it. But that isn't the case, fortu- prolong and improve their lives. We have chil- priorities. nately. The Senate still has a chance to im- dren with special educational needs that Con- The current budget projections will accom- prove this bill. So, I will reluctantly vote for the gress has promised to fundÐbut Congress modate significant tax cuts along with an ag- bill because I favor eliminating the marriage can't find the money for them. Sadly, in my gressive plan to pay down the debt and to penalty. own state, one in five children suffers from strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Pay- I am prepared to give the Republican lead- hunger sometime during the year. I believe ing down the debt and in turn reducing interest ership one last chance to correct the bill's defi- these issues deserve our attention just as rates is perhaps the most significant tax cut ciencies rather than simply to insist on send- much as adjusting the tax schedule. Congress could offer. Lower interest rates ing it to the President for the promised veto. For that reason, I will vote for the alternative would cut mortgage payments on a $100,000 I hope that the Republican leadership will that offers the most direct and targeted tax ad- house by $2,000 annually. Likewise, the cost allow the bill to be improved to the point that vantages for American families. Unfortunately, of farm operating loans, car loans, and student it merits becoming lawÐmeaning that it will the majority has rejected the opportunity for loans would all be reduced. deserve the President's signature. commonsense reform in favor of political the- Finally, before allocating surplus for tax But if they miss that opportunity, and insist ater. The bill the House will pass today will cuts, Congress should set aside sufficient re- on sending to the President a bill that falls rightly be vetoed by the President. It is going sources to shore up the long-term future of short of being appropriate for signature into nowhereÐand it shouldn't go anywhere. At Social Security and Medicare. The current sur- law, I will vote to sustain a veto. $182 billion, the cost of admission to this polit- plus projections afford us a rare opportunity to Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in op- ical sideshow is just too high. strengthen these programs for the Baby Boom position of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Pen- Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, once again this generation and beyond. We must also reserve alty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is House has before it legislation to eliminate the adequate resources to enact a guaranteed yet another bill in a series of legislation penalty on marriage that is found in the in- drug benefit as part of the Medicare program brought to the floor to help America's wealthy. come tax code. so that seniors will not be forced to choose Yes, we have entered an era of budget sur- Quite simply, marriage should not be taxed. between their prescriptions and their food and pluses, but the surpluses must not be squan- As the financial pressures of families result shelter. dered on those who don't need itÐthe wealthi- in both spouses entering the labor force, an In sum, there are a host of priorities that de- est U.S. income-earners. I support targeted increasing number have become subject to serve our support, including marriage penalty marriage tax relief such as the Democrats the marriage penalty. A major reason why so relief. It is critical, however, that this relief be have provided in our substitute amendment many joint filers face this added burden is that targeted so that we may enact other tax cuts today. I also support increasing the earned in- the very first dollar earned by the lower-earn- for working families, pay down the debt, and come tax credit for the working poor who real- ing spouse is taxed at the marginal rate of the protect Social Security and Medicare. ly do need the tax break. The Democrats have higher-earning spouse, not necessarily at the Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when provided for this in the substitute bill as well. lower 15% rate faced by single filers. This we considered a basically identical bill in Feb- And the Democratic substitute makes sure problem was exacerbated in 1993, when the ruary, I voted for it, although I was very reluc- that nobody will be denied the relief because Clinton tax measure increased the number of tant to do so. of the AMT. The Republican bill does not. tax brackets from three to five. I was reluctant because that was not the The Republicans have brought the estate The Congressional Budget Office has esti- best time for this bill, and that was not the tax, marriage penalty tax, medical savings ac- mated that over 20 million married couples best bill for the job. counts, and the telephone excise tax to the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.023 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5867 floor for consideration, and next week they further by allowing people to withdraw money All of us present understand that the institu- plan to bring pension reform to the floor as from their MSA without any tax penalty if they tion of marriage is very important. I personally well. Not a single one of these provisions will maintain the deductible of $1,000 for individ- believe that it is sacred, and for this reason provide relief for middle and lower income uals and $2,000 for families. This isn't a health we should be very careful about what we do working families. This Congress has already proposal at allÐit's just more money for the as a legislative body, in an area that is after spent $471 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy rich. all a personal decision. We should be very and plans to spend another $54 billion on in- V. TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX sure that any legislative changes made to any creasing pensions for the wealthy next week. While this isn't a bill to directly help wealthy benefit for our citizens has the effect of sup- This Congress can be charged with recklessly Americans, its primary purpose is to help porting the institution of marriage in real and spending half a trillion dollars on the wealthi- wealthy corporations. This is just another fis- meaningful ways. est Americans and there may be more to cally irresponsible way for the Republicans to I would ask my colleagues to remember the come. This is an irresponsible use of the hard- reduce federal revenues for the vital programs struggle shared by them and their spouses earned tax funds lower and middle-income that the working families of this country rely when they first married. For this reason, I am earners contribute to their federal government. on. The leadership of the 106th Congress very supportive of Congressman's RANGEL's I. MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX doesn't care if it squanders another $20 billion substitute amendment to this bill. I applaud This bill should target tax relief for those in tax revenues by repealing the telephone ex- Congressman RANGEL's attempts to reach who need it most. Unfortunately, the GOP pro- cise tax. The GOP doesn't care if we have some middle ground on this issue with the posal actually helps wealthy Americans, not enough money to save Social Security and majority, and thank him for bringing before this simply those facing a tax penalty due to mar- Medicare for future generations or to give our body an opportunity to have a rational discus- seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit. riage by implementing a tax bracket change sion regarding the marriage tax policy of our The Democratic substitute bill targets those nation. As the bill is currently written, the tax favorable to those in the top brackets. There workers who need it most. The Democratic are nearly as many families that receive ``mar- penalty to the federal government should this substitute addresses the marriage penalty by bill become law would be $182 billion in lost riage bonus'' as receive marriage penalties in giving married couples a standard deduction the U.S. As much as half of the $182 billion government revenue. twice that of single people. In addition, low-in- Like the bill, the Rangel substitute would re- in tax relief in the GOP bill will go to families come married couples face a marriage penalty who receive the bonus and are not hurt by the duce the marriage tax penalty by increasing in the earned income tax credit. The Demo- the basic standard deduction for a married marriage penalty. This bill's costliest provision, cratic substitute would reduce those penalties expanding the 15% tax bracket, only benefits couple filing a joint income tax-return to twice by increasing the income level at which the the basic standard deduction for an unmarried taxpayers in the top quarter of the income dis- credit begins to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 tribution. This accounts for 65% of the plan's individual, and adjusts the Alternative Min- and by $2,500 in 2002 and thereafter. It would imum Tax in an attempt to ensure that the total cost, or nearly $100 billion. This bill's title also repeal the current reduction in the EITC implies that it helps those who are faced with benefits of the standard deduction change and refundable child credit by the amount of would not be nullified. However, an added a marriage penalty when it truthfully benefits the minimum tax. The Democratic substitute is the wealthy. benefit of the Rangel substitute is that it will the responsible way to address the marriage also reduce the marriage tax penalty by modi- II. ESTATE TAX penalty tax without pandering to the wealthiest fying the tax code in order to make more mar- The estate tax repealÐand the numerous 2% of U.S. earners. I urge my colleagues to ried couples eligible for the Earned Income other tax measures passed by the HouseÐ support the Democratic substitute and oppose Tax Credit beginning in 2001. Additionally, the should be scrutinized with a measure of fair- H.R. 4810. Rangel substitute will increase the income ness. It hardly seems fair to come to the floor Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, level at which the credit begins to phase out of the House week after week to provide hand I rise today to state my opposition to this bill by providing $2,000 in 2001 and $2,500 in over fist full of tax break dollars to the wealthi- being adopted in its current form. We should 2002 and subsequent years. I would add that est U.S. taxpayers, when we haven't even ad- offer relief from the tax burdens, which may be unlike the bill, the substitute does not provide dressed Medicare's solvency. The estate tax imposed by our nation's current marriage tax for an increase in the upper limit of the 15% bill is the most egregious of all of the tax bills policy only to those who are in need of help. tax bracket. I would hope that this body not that have come before the House for a vote. As founder and co-chair of the Congres- endorse a tax cut for the wealthy under the It spends the most amount of moneyÐ$105 sional Children's Caucus, I do share many of guise relief tax relief for newly married young billionÐon not just the wealthy, but the very the leadership's concerns regarding the pro- motion of stable and secure marriages in our couples. wealthy. Ninety percent of the tax cut benefits This body did not do all that it could have will to go to those in the top 1% income society. After all, the foundation of any civiliza- tion is the strength of its families. Therefore, I done to promote the stability of marriage groupÐthose earning $319,000 per year and among our nation's senior population with the with estates over $20 million. Clearly this is a believe that we should seriously consider passing legislation that will provide true relief passage, of what was called, the senior's pre- tax break for the rich. scription drug benefit bill that was passed prior III. PENSION REFORM for those pending marriages which are threat- ened by our nation's current marriage tax pol- to the July 4, break that legislation merely The Ways and Means Committee is sched- gave insurance companies more money. If the uled to markup the pension reform bill tomor- icy. For this reason I have joined my fellow marriages of our elderly poor are shattered row and it's expected to be on the floor some- Democratic colleagues in voicing opposition to due to the high cost of health care and in par- time next week. While many of my colleagues H.R. 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax elimi- ticular the financial stress created by the unfair would like to believe that this package of re- nation Reconciliation Act as it is written be- cost of prescription drugs then the security of forms will help to increase pension coverage cause it does less than what it is being pur- their marriages as well as their lives together for working Americans it will do exactly the op- ported to do. For example, it will not provide are threatened. We should take the oppor- posite. Trickle down economics didn't work for marriage penalty tax relief for the poor of our tunity presented to us through the consider- Reagan and it won't work for pensions. This society who face many hurdles to finding sta- ation of the Rangel substitute to make amends bill will directly help those executives who earn ble footings upon which to build lives for their for some of the lack of attention given to real $200,000 per year. This bill will purely benefit children and families. In addition to this con- life problems through the adopting of a mar- the rich when not one provision is included to cern, H.R. 4810 provides a tax break mostly to riage penalty relief bill that will provide real tax help increase pension coverage for low and the very wealthy. This fact alone taints the relief to real people. middle-income workers. image that many in this body would like to Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in oppo- IV. MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS project to Americans, that our actions have the sition to H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty The Republicans want to appear as though altruistic intent of only helping those young Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This bill is they are helping the average American worker people in our communities who are just start- the exact marriage penalty relief bill that was so they decided to include medical savings ac- ing out in life and who would like to marry. passed in February. So I must ask why are we counts (MSAs) in the Patients Bill of Rights. I would suggest to those Americans who ea- wasting valuable time debating legislation that The greatest savings from MSAs will help gerly await our actions in this matter pay close has already been considered and which the workers who have little or no health care ex- attention to what this body is actually attempt- president threatened to veto last February? It penditures. It allows people with low health ing to do. Our efforts today should not be is time that we provide tax relief for those cou- costs to avoid taxes through essentially a new based on tax cut slight-of-hand and short- ples that are truly penalized and then use the form of an IRA. And the Republicans go even sided actions on the issue of marriage. remaining time in this session to do what the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:14 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 9920 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.027 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 American public is asking for; providing pre- year, compared to a tax cut of only $149 for rate on their first $52,500 of taxable income, scription drug coverage, paying down the na- couples making less than $75,000 a year. which would be double the aforementioned tional debt and strengthening Social Security Perhaps the most egregious flaw in this bill current income amount for singles. and Medicare. is that makes no modifcation to the Alternative 2. Second, H.R. 4810 will help the Internal While I support tax relief for those couples Minimum Tax which places a floor on the total Revenue Code become more marriage-neu- who are penalized, I do not, support H.R. amount of deductions which couples may file tral. Currently, many married couples who file 4810 which would provide tax relief half of for each year. By not adjusting that figure, jointly pay more Federal income tax than they which will to go those couples who benefit many middle-class families with children will would as two unmarried singles. The Internal from a marriage bonus rather than a marriage not receive a dime from the sham ``benefits'' Revenue Code should not be a consideration penalty under the current tax code. Further, contained in this bill. I believe that it is those when individuals discuss their future marital this bill would cost $182.3 billion over the next very families with children who most deserve status. ten years and would give the lion's share of its a marriage tax benefit. Therefore, for these reasons, and many oth- tax cuts to higher-income families. The aver- H.R. 4810 proposes to remove $50.7 billion ers, this Member urges his colleagues to sup- age tax cut for families with incomes less than over five years and $182.3 billion over ten port the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination $50,000 would be about $149 per year, while years from the federal budget. We are already Reconciliation Act. families with incomes over $75,000 would get scrounging for funds in an effort to pay down The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. an average tax cut of nearly $1,000 per year. the national debt and shore up the Social Se- PEASE). The time for general debate on That is why I oppose H.R. 4810 and support curity and Medicare funds. Where will this put the bill has expired. the substitute offered by Representative Ran- us in ten years when today's middle-aged AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE gel, which is fairer and more fiscally respon- married couples are ready to retire? OFFERED BY MR. RANGEL sible. Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer The substitute would do a better job of fixing rises today to express his support for H.R. an amendment in the nature of a sub- the marriage penalty, and cost less than half 4810, the Marriage Penalty Tax Elimination stitute. as much as H.R. 4810. It would assure that Reconciliation Act. This bill will have a positive The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- the Alternative Minimum tax (AMT) does not effect, in particular, on middle and lower in- ignate the amendment in the nature of deny the tax relief the bill promises. The AMT come married couples. a substitute. ensures that everyone pays at least a min- At the outset, this Member would like to The text of the amendment in the na- imum tax. Under H.R. 4810, many married thank the distinguished Chairman of the ture of a substitute is as follows: couples with children will not get the adver- House Ways and Means Committee from Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute tised tax relief because they fall under a com- Texas [Mr. ARCHER], for introducing this legis- offered by Mr. RANGEL: lation. Strike all after the enacting clause and in- plex set of AMT rules. When this bill was sert the following: drafted behind closed doors, it ignored the ef- It is important to note that H.R. 4810 has the same provisions as H.R. 6, which passed SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. fect of the AMT. As a result, by 2008, nearly This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marriage half of the American families with two children on the floor of the House on February 10, Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of would be under the minimum tax and receive 2000, by a vote of 268±158, with this Mem- 2000’’. nothing or less than what H.R. 4810 promised. ber's support. However, the Senate has been SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN Like the bill, the substitute would reduce the unable to reach the 60 vote threshold on a STANDARD DEDUCTION. marriage tax penalty by increasing the basic cloture vote to close debate on marriage pen- (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section standard deduction for a married couple filing alty legislation. As a result, the House is now 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re- lating to standard deduction) is amended— a joint income tax return to twice the basic considering the marriage tax penalty as the first reconciliation bill, a status which will allow (1) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ in subparagraph (A) standard deduction for an unmarried indi- and inserting ‘‘twice the dollar amount in ef- vidual. The substitute also would reduce the debate and amendments to be limited in the fect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable marriage tax penalty by modifying the tax Senate. year’’, code in order to make more married couples While there are many reasons to support (2) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara- eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit H.R. 4810, this Member will enumerate two graph (B), (EITC) beginning in 2001. It would increase specific reasons. First, H.R. 4810 takes a sig- (3) by striking ‘‘in the case of’’ and all that the income level at which the credit begins to nificant step toward eliminating the current follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘in any other case.’’, and phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. Second, H.R. 4810 follows the principle (4) by striking subparagraph (D). 2002 and thereafter. (b) INCREASE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN DE- that the Federal income tax code should be Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do TERMINING MINIMUM TAX.—Subparagraph (E) what is right for the American people and op- marriage-neutral. of section 56(b)(1) of such Code is amended by pose H.R. 4810 and support the substitute 1. First, this legislation, H.R. 4810, will help adding at the end the following new sen- that provides genuine relief for our citizens eliminate the marriage penalty in the Internal tence: ‘‘The preceding sentence shall not who are truly penalized. Revenue Code in the following significant apply to so much of the standard deduction Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, with great re- ways: under subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(2) as gret, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4810. STANDARD DEDUCTION exceeds the amount which be such deduction It will increase the standard deduction for but for the amendment made by section 2(a) The regret is not only because I must oppose of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Rec- this bill, but because my friends on the other married couples who file jointly to double the onciliation Act of 2000. side of aisle are unwilling to enact true and standard deduction for singles beginning in (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.— meaningful reform that benefits all American 2001. For example, in 2000, the standard de- (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) of citizens. Instead, we are being presented with duction equals $4,400 for single taxpayers but such Code is amended by striking ‘‘(other proposed legislation that will assist couples $7,350 for married couples who file jointly. If than with’’ and all that follows through making more than $75,000 a year at the ex- this legislation was effective in 2000, the ‘‘shall be applied’’ and inserting ‘‘(other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and pense of strengthening future financing of So- standard deduction for married couples who file jointly would be $8,800 which would be 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied’’. cial Security and Medicare and modernizing (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Medicare by including affordable prescription double the standard deduction for single tax- Code is amended by adding at the end the drug coverage. payers. following flush sentence: On the surface, this bill appears to be a THE 15 PERCENT TAX BRACKET ‘‘The preceding sentence shall not apply to blessing for all married couples but there will It will increase the amount of married cou- the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).’’. be millions of unhappy tax payers next April ples' income (who file jointly) subject to the (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 15th when they learn that they will not benefit lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate to twice made by this section shall apply to taxable from the promises being made today. that of single taxpayers beginning in 2003, years beginning after December 31, 2000. Who will benefit? Two-thirds of the actual phased in over six years. Under the current SEC. 3. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR benefits in this package will go to the 30% of tax law, the 15 percent bracket covers tax- EARNED INCOME CREDIT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section married couples making more than $75,000 a payers with income up to $26,250 for singles 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re- year. Review of the bill by financial analysts and $43,850 for married couples who file joint- lating to credit for earned income) is amend- indicate that the average tax cut for couples ly. If this legislation was effective in 2000, ed by adding at the end the following new receiving more than $75,000 would be $994 a married couples would pay the 15 percent tax paragraph:

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.030 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5869 ‘‘(3) REDUCTION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY.— Mr. WELLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a joint re- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minutes to the gentleman from Texas turn, the phaseout amount under this sec- Chair recognizes the gentleman from (Mr. STENHOLM). tion shall be such amount (determined with- Illinois (Mr. WELLER). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was out regard to this paragraph) increased by given permission to revise and extend $2,500 ($2,000 in the case of taxable years be- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield ginning during 2001). myself such time as I may consume. his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise ‘‘(B) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case I would like to briefly respond to my in support of the Democratic sub- of any taxable year beginning in a calendar good friend from New York, and I re- stitute and in opposition to the base year after 2002, the $2,500 amount contained spect his efforts to offer a proposal ad- bill we have before us concerning tax in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an dressing the marriage tax penalty, and amount equal to the product of— relief. ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, and I would point out that even though he I think what stuns me the most is ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment deter- means well, his proposal falls short. how time and time again, the majority mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar Unfortunately, under the Democratic party proves its preference for clinging year in which the taxable year begins, deter- alternative, there is a very large group to a political sound bite that they hope mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2001’ who suffer from the marriage tax pen- will translate into Election Day results for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) alty who are left out, essentially dis- thereof. rather than actually seizing golden op- criminated against under the Demo- portunities to accomplish something If any increase determined under the pre- cratic alternative, and they are those good for the American people. ceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such who itemize their taxes. I would point increase shall be rounded to the next lowest How much more clear could it be multiple of $50.’’ out that those who primarily itemize that the vast majority of this body, as (b) REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE their taxes are middle-class families, well as the Senate and the President, TAX CREDITS.— middle-class married couples who are eager to bring about genuine mar- (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code itemize their taxes because they give riage tax relief for the average Amer- is amended by striking paragraph (2) and re- money to charity, their church or their ican family? We could come to the designating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). synagogue, their temple, institutions floor this afternoon and in very short (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by of faith and charity, or they own a striking subsection (h). order develop the compromise that (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments home. So if we think about it, we think would bring meaningful support and made by this section shall apply to taxable about our constituents back home, tax equity to millions of Americans. years beginning after December 31, 2000. married couples who, of course, suffer Sadly, we choose instead to continue a The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- the marriage tax penalty and whether charade. ant to House Resolution 545, the gen- or not they own a home and, of course, The other thing that amazes me is tleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) I have thousands of married couples the level of inconsistency reflected and a Member opposed each will con- who suffer the marriage tax penalty from one message of the day to the trol 30 minutes. and own a home. Under the Democrat next. On one day, this House loves to The Chair recognizes the gentleman proposal, they would be left out. They congratulate itself on its commitment from New York (Mr. RANGEL). would still have to tough out suffering to debt reduction. The next day it is Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the marriage tax penalty. tax relief for small businesses. Another myself such time as I may consume. Let us remember, what is the average day, we swear our support for Social As I have pointed out earlier, there marriage tax penalty? The average Security and Medicare, while doing comes a time that we should be talking marriage tax penalty is $1,400. Here in nothing about Social Security and about legislation that does not just Washington, $1,400 is a drop in the Medicare. Then, we promise a huge tax pass the House, but is signed into law. bucket; it is nothing to those who want cut not only for middle- and low-in- What we have done is to recognize that to spend money here in Washington. come married couples, but we also there is an inequity that exists when But for families back home in Illinois sneak in wider tax brackets to benefit certain couples pay more taxes than and the Southside of Chicago and the on this folks. they would pay if they were not mar- south suburbs where I have the privi- Now, I think most of these things are ried, and that is why we double the lege of representing, it is real money. worthy, and, in fact, should be among standard deduction to take care of this Fourteen hundred dollars is a year’s our highest priorities. But it is just not inequity. tuition at our community college, it is possible to have 10 different number We too would like to give more dra- 3 months of day care at our local child one priorities. The blue dogs looked at the whole matic tax cuts, but not just to give $200 care center, it is a washer and a dryer. picture and realistically balanced each billion out at a time, but to take a Frankly, for someone who just had a look and to see that the tax cuts are concern with the other, rather than baby such as Michelle and Shad targeted, that they are fair and that pandering to the ‘‘cause du jour.’’ We Hallihan, two public schoolteachers they are equitable, but at the same do not live in the political fairy land from Joliet, if they are able to set that time that we have fulfilled our respon- which believes in a Budgetary God- full marriage tax penalty every year, sibility to the Social Security, the mother who can wave her magic wand that is $25,000 that they could set aside Medicare system, and that we pay and grant all of our expensive wishes. for their little child, Ben. down some part of our Federal debt. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the This is so important when we think of The bottom line is, if we want to help Democratic substitute on the floor the trillions of dollars that we are still those who suffer the marriage tax pen- today. It would accomplish what the in debt and the billions of dollars that alty, we should help those who itemize name implies: genuine tax relief for we pay every year in interest. taxes, such as those who give to char- couples who have been penalized by vir- Mr. Speaker, it would just seem to ity, those who give to their church or tue of marriage. It corrects the flaw in me that if we could come together and their synagogue, as well as those who the Republican bill, the AMT problem compromise, to make certain we take own a home. which would deny relief to nearly half care of the problem without trying to So clearly, I rise in opposition to the of middle-income American families make political statements, that the Democrat alternative. The bipartisan with two children by the time the bill House of Representatives will be in bet- effort which was supported by every would be fully phased in. It also en- ter shape not as Republicans, not House Republican, as well as 48 Demo- dorses the idea that lower-income, Democrats, but as lawmakers that are crats who broke ranks with their lead- married couples deserve relief by ad- able to say that in the House, the peo- ership, and again, I want to extend an justing their earned income tax credit. ple govern. invitation to those who did not support Just as importantly, the Democratic Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of us this spring to join with us in an even substitute ensures that we will have re- my time. greater bipartisan effort to eliminate sources for other priorities, such as The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the the marriage tax penalty. debt reduction, strengthening Social gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER) Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of Security and Medicare, estate tax re- claim the time in opposition? my time. lief, prescription drug coverage, and

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.009 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 providing relief to our rural hospitals. tax relief for those people who own a York (Mr. RANGEL), for yielding time The Democratic alternative and mo- home, but who would not have a mort- to me. I do not think I will need 4 min- tion to recommit will guarantee that gage against it. utes, but I appreciate the courtesy. estate tax relief does not come at the Basically, what the Democrats are Mr. Speaker, I have 61,000 good rea- expense of raiding the Medicare trust saying is that we will support your sons to reform the marriage penalty. fund or taking away resources needed plan, if you will shift the marriage pen- That happens to be the number, 61,000, for Medicare prescription drug cov- alty from some families and impose it of couples in my district being stuck erage. on other families. with the marriage penalty today. What Mr. Speaker, we have the oppor- Now, this bill is not just about tax they will tell us is that taxing mar- tunity to actually accomplish good relief, it is also about tax fairness. The riage is not just unfair, it is irrational, today. Will we choose that path, or will Republican plan says, let us do this. so why on Earth would any couple be we continue to choose rhetoric over so- Let us treat all families basically the forced to pay a penalty for getting lutions? Vote for the Democratic sub- same, if they have the same level of in- married? stitute and strongly oppose the base come. But if we listen closely to what they bill. Mr. Speaker, this Republican tax are saying to us, they are saying some- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield package started out as part of our thing besides, do not tax my marriage. myself such time as I may consume. budget. We said that we wanted to bal- They are saying, yes, we want a tax I would say to my good friend from ance the budget and pay down the na- cut, but once we get it we do not want Texas that if he chooses to vote tional debt. That was opposed by the to have to spend it paying for our par- against our effort to eliminate the Democrat leadership. We said we want- ents’ prescription medicine. marriage tax penalty, he will vote to ed to set aside 100 percent of Social Se- They are right. That is why we have deny 114,000 married taxpayers in the curity in a lockbox. That was opposed offered an alternative. We are cutting 17th district of Texas, many of whom by the Democrat leadership. We passed the marriage penalty for the middle- are ranchers and farmers, relief from a prescription drug plan, $40 billion for class couples, I think a better alter- the marriage tax penalty, and that is seniors, also opposed by the Demo- native than what the Republicans have just not fair. I would extend an invita- cratic leadership, and now we have a offered, because it is fair, it is more eq- tion to my good friend from Texas. tax plan, a tax relief plan for all Amer- uitable, it deals with the concerns of Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will ican families, and that is opposed by working men and women in this coun- the gentleman yield? the democratic leadership as well. try, working couples. Mr. WELLER, Not this time, Mr. Mr. Speaker, 90,000 families in my But we are saying, let us just not Speaker. district, and the gentleman from Illi- stop there. Let us invest in providing Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the nois (Mr. WELLER) does not have to tell an affordable prescription drug benefit gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER) me how many, because I know, are through Medicare. If we do this right, is going to use my name and my dis- going to get an average of $1,400 in tax and the offer has been made by the trict, I would ask the gentleman to relief from this bill, and they need it. I President, if we do this right, we can yield. urge us to support the Republican plan, provide tax relief for married couples Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I extend I urge us to oppose the Democrat sub- and affordable medicine that older an invitation to the gentleman from stitute for tax relief light. Americans deserve. Even more, we can Texas to join us in a bipartisan effort Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield do it without busting the budget. We and to join the 48 Democrats who al- such time as he may consume to the can do it within the confines of fiscal ready voted for this legislation. gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM) responsibility. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask to give him an opportunity at least to Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that unanimous consent that I be allowed to respond to the accusations made by the the tax relief that we provide goes to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER). the couples who have earned it, not to Texas (Mr. STENHOLM). Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in re- the big drug companies who want it. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The sponse to the gentleman from Illinois I urge my colleagues to vote for the time is controlled by the gentleman (Mr. WELLER), my good friend, it may substitute and vote against passage of from Illinois (Mr. WELLER). The Chair be true, and I assume the gentleman’s this bill. When we get into conference, will be glad to extend an opportunity numbers are correct, but I also have as we will, as we get into a final discus- shortly. 116,000 Social Security recipients in my sion of this issue as well as other tax Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 district. In all due respect, the Repub- issues, as well as the prescription medi- minutes to the gentleman from Mon- lican tax bill and the entire other tax cine, prescription drug bill, we will be tana (Mr. HILL), my good friend, and a package will jeopardize the future of able to facilitate the needs of both of leader in the effort to eliminate the Social Security and Medicare. And just those very important constituencies marriage tax penalty. as the gentleman in his own district, that we represent, and we will be able Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I he has 92,000 senior citizens that he is to do it within the confines of a bal- thank the gentleman for yielding me willing to put at risk for this continued anced budget, reducing our national this time. charade that we have today. debt, getting the debt gone so we can I am sure if my colleagues or the With all due respect, we have to have have some fiscal solvency in our na- public is listening in on this debate, a balanced package, and we cannot do tional life, as well as making sure that they are kind of confused, because Re- all of those things which the gen- Medicare and social security are sol- publicans and Democrats are both com- tleman from Illinois and others con- vent at the same time, and providing ing to the floor and they are saying tend we can do. We must map some pri- tax relief for the people who need it in they want to provide marriage tax re- ority choices, and I resent the fact that this country. lief and both are saying that it is un- the gentleman from Illinois would Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield fair. imply that what I am voting for today myself such time as I may consume. I Folks, what we need to understand is does not eliminate the marriage tax would remind my good friend, the mi- that the Democratic leadership plan penalty in the 17th district because it nority whip, that the balanced budget could best be labeled ‘‘Marriage Pen- does, and the gentleman from Illinois we are working on this year not only alty Tax Relief Light.’’ The reason for (Mr. WELLER) knows it. locks away 100 percent for social secu- that is that the Democrat leadership rity, but it pays off the national debt b plan wants to create new discrimina- 1330 before 2013, the same year the Presi- tions in the code. They want to, for ex- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 dent has set as a goal, and also sets ample, discriminate against stay-at- minutes to the gentleman from Michi- aside $40 billion for prescription drug home moms or stay-at-home dads, or gan (Mr. BONIOR), the distinguished mi- coverage under Medicare, legislation they want to discriminate against the nority whip. we passed just a few short weeks ago. people who own a home, but might Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank I would also note to my good friend, have a mortgage against it, but provide my friend, the gentleman from New the gentleman from Michigan, that if

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.052 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5871 he chooses to vote against our bipar- more involved? Should we not be en- or their food because we are going to tisan efforts to eliminate the marriage couraging parents to take more time to spend it on giving a tax cut in the es- tax penalty, he will vote to deny 122,000 stay at home and be with their kids? tate tax repeal bill that will benefit married taxpayers in the Tenth Dis- Another thing that I want to address only the 2 percent richest families in trict in Michigan relief from the mar- head-on, and we heard this from one of America. riage penalty. the previous speakers, is that, oh, we We are now talking about doing a That is just not fair. Let us work to- are better off using this money for marriage tax penalty relief that will gether. I would extend an invitation to something else. benefit in many cases families that are join with the 48 Democrats who broke I heard that argument in 1997 when not even being penalized. About half of with their leadership and voted in a bi- we passed the $500 per child tax credit the benefits of this bill go to families partisan way to eliminate the marriage and the capital gains relief. We passed that are not even being penalized, so- tax penalty. those, and all the naysayers said, well, called penalized, under the marriage Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my the money will be gone. We will not see penalty because they are families good friend, the gentleman from Flor- that money anymore. We could better where there are two income earners, ida (Mr. WELDON), a family advocate use it to spend on this or that. and one of the income earners happens and leader in the effort to eliminate What happened? Well, revenue into to be very high earning and the other the marriage penalty. the Treasury went up. Indeed, those very low earning, but because this is a Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speak- same arguments went on in 1980 when bill that gives an across-the-board cut er, I thank the gentleman for yielding Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. The to anyone who is married, even those time to me, and I commend him for same arguments went on in 1960 when who are benefiting from the Tax Code, solid work on this issue. Jack Kennedy lowered taxes. Every and that includes that working family Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong time we lower taxes, revenue into the where there is one very high-earning support for the Republican bill and in Treasury goes up, it does not go down. spouse and the other a low-earning opposition to the Democratic sub- It is not a zero sum game. spouse, we are still going to give them stitute. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is im- The parents who get that money are a benefit, when in fact what we are try- moral to have a Tax Code that discour- going to spend that money. They are ing to do is make sure there is no so- ages people from getting married. It is going to create jobs, stimulate the called penalty for any couple that de- immoral to have a Tax Code that en- economy. We pass this tax package and cides to get married as compared to courages people to live out of wedlock. it will be the best way for us to make two people who stay single to live to- I saw it firsthand in my medical sure that Medicare is solvent and that gether. practice where I had couples coming in we can have a prescription drug plan, How unfortunate that what we are to see me as patients who were living because revenue into the Treasury will planning to do is to provide tax cuts outside the bonds of marriage, and go up, it will not go down. It is not a and not help seniors, unfortunate that when I would ask them why, the reason zero sum game. we are looking to do tax cuts that ben- I heard most often was because their Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 efit mostly wealthy folks and not help taxes would go up. minutes to the gentleman from Cali- seniors, trying to do this and not pro- It particularly disturbed me to see it fornia (Mr. BECERRA), a distinguished tect young people who are trying to go in senior citizens, who knew that they member of the Committee on Ways and on to school and perhaps make it on to were setting a bad example for their Means. college; do these tax cuts that help children and their grandchildren, and Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank mostly wealthy individuals, and not they would most often cite to me that the gentleman from New York for help shore up our Armed Forces, where their taxes would go up $1,000 to $1,400 yielding me the time. we have Armed Forces personnel, some if they were to get married. Our tax re- Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We of our men and women in uniform, who lief package provides that necessary passed a bill that would cost us, once are on food stamp programs because we relief so we would not have a Tax Code fully phased in, $50 billion a year to cannot give them enough money. Why do we not start to do the right encouraging people to live outside of provide relief to 2 percent of taxpayers things first, get rid of those things that wedlock. when we cut the estate tax. The 2 per- we need to do first, work on passing The Democratic substitute will pro- cent of the taxpayers happen to rep- legislation that deals with the impor- vide about $210 worth of marriage tax resent the 2 percent wealthiest tax- tant parts of getting our seniors their penalty relief to those same couples, payers in America, and 98 percent of all benefits, getting our men and women and it does not get the job done, in my American families would not partici- in the Armed Forces the monies they opinion. We will not relieve this im- pate in any of that tax cut. That will need in their salaries, and then we go moral feature of our Tax Code with cost about $50 billion once it is fully on to do the tax cuts that will benefit their substitute, so that is why I am phased in. all people, not just the wealthy? encouraging people to vote against it. This bill, which purports to provide Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield I would like to address head-on two relief for married couples, would cost myself such time as I may consume. of the big complaints that we are hear- about $30 billion per year as well once I would say to my good friend, the ing today, one of which is that when we it is fully phased in. When we start gentleman from California, that if he expand the 15 percent tax bracket for adding it up, we start to realize that if chooses to vote against our bipartisan married couples filing jointly so that we do do all of these things, we will not effort to eliminate the marriage tax they do not suffer a marriage penalty, have money to do some other things. penalty, he will vote to deny 88,000 we provide tax relief to some married Like what? Well, we are fighting on married taxpayers in the 30th District couples where the mother stays home this floor these days to try to figure in California relief from the marriage and takes care of the kids. out a way to provide seniors with a tax penalty. That is just not fair. I say, what is wrong with that? Is way to pay for not an estate tax, when Let us work together. I invite my that not a middle-class tax cut? Did we have a massive estate and we are friend from California to join the 48 President Clinton not campaign in 1992 trying to avoid taxes on it, but trying Democrats who broke with their lead- on welfare reform, balancing the budg- to help them pay for basic coverage for ership and supported our bipartisan ef- et, and a middle-class tax cut? What is drugs that they need, prescription forts to eliminate the marriage tax wrong with providing those same fami- drugs that they need, just to continue penalty. lies with a stay-at-home mom or stay- a healthy lifestyle as seniors. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 31⁄2 at-home dad some relief from their We cannot get there. We have not minutes to my good friend, the gentle- taxes? done that yet. Yet, we will not have woman from Wyoming (Mrs. CUBIN), Do not all the psychologists tell us the money to pay for the cost of help- who has been a real leader on behalf of that one of the best things to make ing seniors afford prescription drugs so families. sure kids do well in school and we have they do not have to make the decision Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a a lower incidence of juvenile delin- between their prescription drugs or good day. This is a good day for Ameri- quency is to have parents that are their rent or their prescription drugs cans because we are moving one day

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.055 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 closer to eliminating the marriage tax Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield 30 licans bill, not this large, skewed to penalty. It is a good day for working seconds to the gentleman from Mis- the wealthy bill. women. sissippi (Mr. TAYLOR). Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to I am a working woman. Many work- Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. support the proposal of the gentleman ing women have a large portion of their Speaker, since I believe the previous from New York (Mr. RANGEL). salaries eaten up by this unfair tax speaker made at least one reference to- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield that is placed upon them only because wards me, I would like to point out myself such time as I may consume. they are married. that the Constitution of the United Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my good friend, the gentlewoman from Garth Brooks is one of my favorite States says that no money shall be California (Ms. SANCHEZ) that while she entertainers of all time. The reason I drawn from the Treasury except by an claims that the Democrat proposal pro- started liking him was because he sings appropriation by Congress. The Presi- vides more marriage tax relief than the a song called ‘‘Shameless.’’ I cannot dents cannot spend money that we do bipartisan proposal, I would point out help but think of Garth Brooks when I not allow them to. according to the Joint Committee on am sitting here listening to this debate If this Congress truly believes in re- Taxation that the bipartisan proposal today, because it seem to me that the ducing the debt, then we can put a line provides $51 billion of marriage tax re- speakers on the other side are shame- in the budget saying x number of dol- lief over 5 years, while the Democrat less. lars will go towards reducing the American debt. That is what I am for. provides only $38 billion; 38 is less than One on the other side said, ‘‘We 51. It is simple math. should not be passing this tax cut be- I hope Members will join me. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the cause we should be reducing the debt.’’ myself such time as I may consume. previous speaker, the gentlewoman The others are not quite so shameless Mr. Speaker, this whole concept from California (Ms. SANCHEZ) to note because they say, ‘‘We should not be about if we do not give the money back that if she chooses to vote against our passing this tax cut. We know better to the taxpayers that it is going to be effort to eliminate the marriage tax how to spend your money, so let us spent by the Congress, I do not know penalty, she will vote to deny 101,000 spend the money. We will spend it on what is in the water on the other side married taxpayers in the 46th District other programs.’’ of the aisle, but the Republicans hap- of California relief from the marriage The truth is, if there is money in pen to be in charge of the Congress. It tax penalty. That is just not fair. I Washington, it will be spent. So our is almost like a serial killer saying, want to extend that invitation for her choice is not whether or not we pay stop me before I kill again. to join the 48 House Democrats who down the debt or cut taxes. After the If they cannot control themselves in broke ranks with their leadership in President vetoed the $792 billion tax terms of this spending, then let the order to join in a bipartisan effort to package last year that we passed, with- whole world know it before November, wipe out the marriage tax penalty. in 48 hours every single penny of that but do not say, we are going to waste Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the was spent. the taxpayers’ money. It will not be gentleman from New York (Mr. GIL- So let us get honest, it is not between ‘‘we,’’ it may be ‘‘thee.’’ MAN), the chairman of the Committee paying the debt and tax cuts, it is be- on International Relations. b tween giving people’s money back to 1345 (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given them, and it is their money, they know Mr. Speaker, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to permission to revise and extend his re- how to spend it best, or our arrogance, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. marks.) saying we know how to spend their SANCHEZ). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank money for them better than they do. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Over the past several weeks I have to thank the gentleman from New WELLER) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise had the pleasure of attending weddings York (Mr. RANGEL), my colleague and today in strong support of H.R. 4810, in my hometown of Casper, Wyoming. the ranking member of the committee the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination In both cases, as in the case with al- for yielding me time that he has given Reconciliation Act. most every young married couple these to me. Mr. Speaker, I have a record in sup- This legislation increases the stand- days, both the bride and the groom ard deduction for married couples to were starting bright futures in our Na- port of reducing the tax burden for American families, one that I am very twice that of single filers. Moreover, it tion’s work force. It is very satisfying expands the 15 percent tax bracket to to me to know that, along with my col- proud of here in this Congress. Today, I rise in support of Mr. RANGEL’s Mar- twice that for single taxpayers, phas- leagues in the 106th Congress, I would ing the increase in over a 6-year period. have the opportunity to ensure that riage Tax Penalty Relief Proposal. The Rangel proposal provides greater In all, the bill provides over a 10-year these young, ambitious, and hard- marriage penalty tax relief and yet it period more than $182 billion in tax re- working couples would not have to maintains our budget discipline. For lief. shoulder an additional tax burden just example, the proposal doubles the Mr. Speaker, this measure also pro- because they took the marriage vows. standard deduction for couples. It ex- vides an increase to the earned income Unfortunately, I cannot say the same pands the Earned Income Tax Credit so tax credit, EITC, for working poor fam- for the 45,000 married couples in my vital to people who live in the area I ilies, by raising by $2,000 the amount of home State of Wyoming, or the 25 mil- represent. income a couple filing jointly may earn lion married couples across the United It mitigates the harmful effects of before the EITC benefits begin to phase States that are currently subjected to the alternative minimum tax so that out. that tax every year. families with children will actually re- Currently, the Tax Code punishes Marriage is a sacred institution, it is ceive these benefits. married couples where both partners not a taxable institution. Today we Under the Rangel proposal, a family work by driving them into a higher tax will have the opportunity to vote on a with two children will receive almost bracket. Moreover, by prohibiting mar- measure that will level the playing $300 a year in tax relief. ried couples from filing combined re- field for hard-working husbands and Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the fi- turns whereby each spouse is taxed wives. nancial markets and my colleagues on using the same rate applicable to an This legislation also includes specific Wall Street tell me that the Repub- unmarried individual, this Tax Code provisions to assist our Nation’s lowest lican bill will devour one-fourth of the penalizes marriage and encourages cou- income families. Washington should projected on-budget surplus, monies ples to live together without any for- not be in the business of penalizing that we really need to direct at Social mal legal commitment to each other. families but in providing them with Security, prescription drug coverage, The CBO further found that most se- more freedom, more choice, and more Medicare, and, most importantly, to verely affected by the penalty were opportunity. I urge my colleagues to pay down the debt. those couples with near equal salaries vote against the substitute and for the Marriage penalty relief needs to be and those receiving the earned income bill. addressed, but not with the Repub- tax credit.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:19 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.058 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5873 This portion of the current Tax Code The Democratic substitute does, per- not suffer the marriage tax penalty, simply does not make sense. It discour- haps that is something my colleagues the Democratic alternative, one half of ages marriages. It is unfair to female might want to pick up in their bill. the relief it provides goes to those who taxpayers and disproportionately af- Second of all, the underlying bill do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, fects the working and middle-class pop- goes far beyond the efforts to address so same goes. ulations who are struggling to make the marriage tax penalty, because we Mr. Speaker, I would also point out ends meet. For these reasons, this mar- know from studies, nonpartisan stud- to my good friend, the gentleman from riage tax needs to be repealed and, ac- ies, that about 48 percent of Americans Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) that if he chooses cordingly, I urge our colleagues to sup- suffer from a marriage tax penalty, to vote against this bipartisan effort to port this timely, appropriate legisla- about 42 percent get a marriage bonus, eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he tion. and the underlying bill does not just will vote to deny 122,000 married tax- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield try to address the marriage tax pen- payers in the 25th district of Texas re- myself such time as I may consume. alty, it gives an additional bonus to lief from the marriage tax penalty, and Mr. Speaker, the Republicans con- those who are already getting a bonus that is just not fair. sistently use this word bipartisan, bi- under the Tax Code. I want to extend an invitation to my partisan, bipartisan. To be bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, why is that under the good friend from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) it would mean that they have some manacle of the marriage tax penalty; to join the 48 Democrats who broke type of an agreement with the Demo- that should be addressed, but the other with their leadership and supported our crats, and certainly that would include side does not want to do it, instead bipartisan effort to eliminate the mar- the President of the United States. they come up and say, oh, we want to riage tax penalty earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, to say that we have take care of them too. That is not ad- Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the some Democrats and not enough to dressing what the underlying bill is; gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. LEWIS), override a veto hardly seems to be a Democrats, in our bill, try to fix that. a good friend and distinguished mem- truly bipartisan effort. Finally, the President has put a pret- ber of the Committee on Ways and It reminds me of the story that some- ty good offer on the table. He said if we Means. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speak- one who asks what was the recipe of want to have a marriage tax penalty er, where did we get the marriage pen- this very delicious horse and rabbit bill, he would be willing to work with alty tax? Where have we had the tax stew, and they said it was equal part us on that, but let us have a prescrip- burden placed on our shoulders in this rabbit and equal part horse; that is, tion drug plan under Medicare for sen- country, where the average family pays you put in one horse and you put in one ior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I just spent a week back 40 percent of their income in local, rabbit, and that is not exactly equal. in my district having senior citizen State and Federal taxes, a big chunk Neither is having a handful of Demo- town hall meetings. I heard time and that of the Federal taxes, where did we crats something that my colleagues time again about the rising costs of get all of these taxes? can call bipartisan. pharmaceuticals, the rising demand for When I came here to Congress in 1994, If my colleagues want to be bipar- prescription drugs among senior citi- the Democrats had control of the Con- tisan, let us sit down with the leader- zens and the fact that they cannot pay gress. In 1995, Republicans won the ma- ship of your side and our side and the for it. And the Republicans have fought jority. And since 1995, we have not President of the United States and get tooth and nail against bringing a bill. passed one tax increase, not one. We something that is not a political state- When they finally did bring a bill to have cut taxes, but we have not passed ment but something that we can go the floor, it was a bill that would sub- a tax increase. home so proud that we have something sidize insurance companies to do some- Where did we get all of these taxes signed into law that brings relief and thing they did not want to do, quite that are burdening and pressing down not something that makes people in frankly, under your standard, in fact, on the American people today? One of Philadelphia feel good. exceeding your standard of, quote, un- the worst taxes is the marriage penalty Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the quote, bipartisanship, there was bipar- tax. Where did we get them? distinguished gentleman from Texas tisan opposition to the Republican bill Mr. Speaker, the Democrats con- (Mr. BENTSEN). that they put on the floor. trolled, our friends on the left, con- (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given The President has laid an offer on the trolled this House for 40 years. And permission to revise and extend his re- table. Mr. ROTH, the gentleman from also when I got here, we had a debt of marks.) Delaware, in the other body, has put a $51⁄2 trillion, and the spending was Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, we are bill on the floor that is like the Presi- going up. The deficits were $200 billion. not legislating today, we are dent’s bill and the Democratic bill to I think they have never seen a tax choreographing for the upcoming Re- try and address this, but the Repub- that they did not like. I do not think publican National Convention in Phila- lican leadership in the House does not they had ever seen an opportunity to delphia. If we were legislating today, want to have anything to do with it be- spend more money that they did not we would be doing as my colleague, the cause they do not want to legislate. like. They love taxes. They love big gentleman from New York (Mr. RAN- They want to go to Philadelphia, spending, and every time we try to do GEL) just said, we would be sitting have a convention, say, look what the any tax cuts in this House, it is always down in a bipartisan fashion and trying Democrats will not let us do, even a battle. It is always a fight. They to figure out a way in which we could though we are in the majority. If you never want to cut taxes. Why? Because, fix H.R. 4810, the bill before us today, give us a President and give us com- friends, there is not enough money in that could get a true bipartisan vote plete control of the Congress, look at this world, I think, for them to spend. for it, and would address some of the what we will do. There is not enough projects for flaws in the underlying bill. We have already seen what my col- them to think up to spend the tax- For instance, the underlying bill does leagues cannot do and what my col- payers’ money. Mr. Speaker, it is time nothing about the alternative min- leagues do not want to do, and that is to start cutting taxes. imum tax, and the gentleman knows what this debate is about today. I remember also in 1995 when we very well that there are many Amer- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield wanted to balance a budget, they ican families who actually do suffer a myself such time as I may consume. fought us every inch of the way. I re- marriage tax penalty but also have Mr. Speaker, I would remind my good member in 1995, when we wanted to cut children, two or more children, I have friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. taxes, they fought us every inch of the two children, I assume I would be sub- BENTSEN) that not only does our bal- way, fought us all the way up until fi- ject to this at some point, that they anced budget this year provide $40 bil- nally in 1997, the President finally would hit the AMT, and they would not lion for prescription drugs and that we signed into law a Balanced Budget Act get any benefit, if any at all, of what is passed it 2 weeks ago, but also point that cut taxes. Actually, we balanced proposed in H.R. 4810, but the bill does out when he talks about a portion of the budget. You know what? We have not take care of it. the relief here going to those who do been paying down debt. We paid down

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.059 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 $140 billion since 1997 in paying down back to working for the people that can go away for a week or 2 weeks this the debt. sent us here to do it. summer. Some of them cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, they said it could not Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield Maybe with this money they can. They be done. They said we could not bal- myself such time as I may consume. are going to send off their child to kin- ance the budget. They said we could Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gen- dergarten this September or to college. not cut taxes, but it has been done. We tlewoman from Florida (Ms. BROWN) They are contemplating, where are we have walled off Social Security. that, if she chooses to vote against our going to get the money from for John- Medicare was going to go bankrupt in bipartisan effort to eliminate the mar- ny or Lisa’s education. Well, with this 2 years, in 2 years, from 1995. We re- riage tax penalty, that she would be money, they can do it. Or they are con- formed Medicare. Finally, in 1997, the voting against 6 million senior citizens templating buying some new clothes President signed it into law, and Medi- who benefit from the legislation to for their kids. Right now they cannot care now is safe for 25 years, 25 years eliminate the marriage tax penalty. do it. With this money, they can. into the future. But specifically, she would be voting to There are those who are doing work b 1400 deny 89,000 married taxpayers in the on their house. They say, we would Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3rd District of Florida relief from the really like to put an extension on the myself such time as I may consume. marriage tax penalty. That is just not back or put a deck on the backyard or Mr. Speaker, well I hope the gen- fair. I invite her to join with us in a bi- perhaps get a swimming pool. Right tleman from Kentucky (Mr. LEWIS), partisan effort, rather, to join with the now, they cannot do it. With this, they when he is doing all that research 48 House Democrats who broke with can. about the Republican majority, would their leadership and voted in an effort, So I feel very confident in knowing just check the records and find out in a bipartisan way, to eliminate the that the American people who have that they have so tried to protect the marriage tax penalty. worked so hard to achieve this surplus, vested special interests that they have Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the that too many in Washington are tak- added 1,543 pages to the Internal Rev- gentleman from New York (Mr. ing credit for, those individuals, the enue Code. That is not exactly pulling FOSSELLA). people that I represent, I can go back it up by the roots. (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given home, the constituents of the gen- Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the permission to revise and extend his re- tleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER), he gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. marks.) can go back home, and say, Do you Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I BROWN). know what folks, you have earned this. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, thank the gentleman from Illinois for Let us vote for true marriage tax the action of the Republican leadership yielding me this time. I commend the penalty relief. reminds me of a quote from Marie An- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield toinette, ‘‘Let them eat cake.’’ for his efforts in championing this myself such time as I may consume. The American people are crying out issue in this Congress and really fight- Mr. Speaker, it could be that the gen- to us to improve health care, edu- ing on behalf of the American tax- tleman from New York (Mr. FOSSELLA) cation, housing, and Medicare; but this payer. The gentleman should be com- is reading an entirely different bill Republican Leadership keeps giving mended for his efforts. than the Republicans have been really them what I call reverse Robin Hood, Mr. Speaker, I rise to reject the sub- pushing, because any editorial people robbing from the working people and stitute very simply because it is bad who understand the bill have called it the poor people to give tax breaks to for the people I represent. Very often, a fraud. their friends. there are those here who underesti- Certainly this is not a question of As we debate the Marriage Penalty mate the people of this great country. giving the taxpayers back their money. Act today, programs that serve mil- They underestimate that the people of We have a responsibility to pay down lions of Americans are being ignored. this country work hard, that they are the Federal debt. When one does that, The Older Americans Act, which pro- out there toiling in the fields or work- that is giving back money. To protect vide meals, transportation, and service ing back home where I am proud to the Social Security system, that is a to our most vulnerable seniors, have represent in Staten Island and Brook- responsibility we have. God knows, if yet to be reauthorized. The Ryan White lyn every day, 5, 6, 7 days a week. When one goes to the town hall meetings and Care Act, which provides counseling they send that check to Uncle Sam, it sees the people that work so hard to and medical treatments to those poor- is okay to send a little bit back. make this country as great as it is, and est children suffering with AIDS, has So for those who underestimate the they cannot even afford to get prescrip- yet to be reauthorized. The Patients’ American people, it is understandable tion drugs, that is our responsibility. Bill of Rights, which would finally give how they are here justifying keeping So just because one wants to help the the American public some control over more money here in Washington. rich, one cannot hide behind it and say their health care, died in conference. I and others who will vote for this it is their money. America has an in- Tonight, thousands of American war legislation have a very simple prin- terest in making certain that all of our heroes will go to bed on the streets, ciple, I think, in mind; and that is the citizens are protected, and not just the millions of American children will go people that we represent work too hard wealthy few. to bed hungry, and millions of Ameri- to be taken for granted, that when we Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the cans will go to bed wondering how have the opportunity to do so, like give gentleman from California (Mr. SHER- much longer their bodies can fight them some of their money back, we MAN). against AIDS, cancer, diabetes, lupus, should take advantage of it. Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, since I and hundreds of other curable diseases. So when I go back home this week- came to Congress, I have been fighting As I speak, delegates to the Inter- end and I see the cop who is married to to eliminate the marriage penalty. But national AIDS Conference are deciding the fireman or the cop married to the we need to do it in a way that elimi- how to deal with the 4.2 million South teacher or the nurse married to the nates the marriage penalty’s impact on Africans infected with HIV while this small business owner, and they ask me, the AMT. We need to do it in a way Congress sticks its head in the sand. How did it go this week?, I can say, Do that provides the earned income tax Unfortunately for those people, today you know what, we voted for legisla- credit for low-income married couples. on this House floor we are once again tion that will give you almost $1,000 or We need real marriage penalty relief. debating a tax bill that helps only a $1,500 more in your family’s pocket- In fact, the Democratic substitute does few and ignore the real problems we book. That means that you, you the more for those who deserve and need are facing as a Nation. people of this country will have the real marriage penalty relief than does I can only hope that my colleagues freedom to choose what to do with the more expensive Republican plan. It do not suffer the same fate as Marie their money. is more generous, the Democratic sub- Antoinette. Maybe I hope they do. Folks right now are contemplating stitute is, to those who pay a marriage Support fair marriage tax relief. Vote going on vacation. Some are saying, penalty, and somewhat less generous to yes on the substitute, and let us get what if we had a few more bucks, we those who are getting a marriage

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.061 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5875 bonus, actually paying less taxes be- penalty does. It taxes working families. we need to make sure we continue our cause they are a married couple. It taxes when both parents have to priorities as not just tax cuts, tax cuts, I want to reduce taxes on married work to support their families. That is tax cuts. couples now. The Democratic sub- fundamentally unfair that married peo- Now that we have a budget in bal- stitute has one tremendous advantage ple have to pay more in taxes than if ance and actually a surplus, we need to over the Republican bill. It will be they were single. make sure we take care of what the signed into law. It is real legislation. So what do we do? This bill treats all American people want us to do. Those In contrast, the Republican bill is a married folks equally. That is part of same people that the gentleman from good press release for some. They know what fairness in tax codes are, not dis- New York (Mr. FOSSELLA) said a while it will never be signed into law. It will criminating against some in favor of ago have a few bucks in their pocket, never save a single married couple a others, but treating them all fairly. they want to take maybe an extra va- single penny. That is what this legislation does in cation. I will tell my colleagues what What we need to do is pass the Demo- creating the standard deduction, dou- they would rather have is prescription cratic substitute now. Then we can bling it for married folks, and increas- drugs for their parent than maybe have come back in September. By then, ing the gap in the 15 percent. that money in their pocket, because hopefully, that estate tax repeal bill We are helping the people in most those are the choices we are making on will have been killed; and we will know need, like good friends of mine that I this floor today. at that point that we can afford to pro- grew up with, both work in not-good- We need to make sure that we pro- vide an additional increment of tax paying jobs. They certainly are not the vide education for those children that cuts to married couples while at the wealthy folks that we hear the gentleman from New York (Mr. same time protecting Social Security demagogued on the other side of the FOSSELLA) wants to take care of, vet- and Medicare, paying down the debt, aisle, but just hard-working folks that erans health care, prescription drugs and providing a real prescription drug work hard to have a good house in a de- for seniors. Maybe they ought to listen benefit for our seniors. cent neighborhood, supply a house and to their Senator from Delaware who I hope the gentleman from Illinois a roof for their children. Yet they will wants to make it part of Medicare. (Mr. WELLER) would join me in voting pay as much as $1,400 more in taxes. Medicare providers need assistance, for the motion to recommit to protect Working class pay about $1,100 more in Mr. Speaker. Life is about choices and the 92,571 seniors in his district that taxes. priorities, and hopefully we will make urgently need real pharmaceutical cov- Now, that is money that they can use the right one today. erage. These seniors deserve his help. to spend quality time with their chil- b 1415 Join with us, not in providing those dren, to take vacations that they do seniors with some phony plan that in- not take now because both are working Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield vites them to pay an arm and a leg for so hard. I encourage my colleagues to myself such time as I may consume to a phony Medigap policy. Join with us vote in favor of this fair bill. say to my good friend from Texas that in providing the seniors of the gentle- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 if he chooses to vote against this bipar- man’s district and mine with real phar- minutes to the gentleman from Texas tisan effort to eliminate the marriage maceutical drug efforts. (Mr. GREEN). tax penalty, he will be voting to deny Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was 92,000 married taxpayers in the 29th myself such time as I may consume. given permission to revise and extend District of Texas relief from the mar- Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman his remarks.) riage tax penalty, and that is just not from California (Mr. SHERMAN) that 6 Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, fair. million senior citizens will benefit life is about choices and priorities. And I want to extend an invitation to from our bipartisan efforts to elimi- Like a lot of Democrats, and I am not my good friend to join us and join nate the marriage tax penalty. I also one of those 48 and I am proud of it, those 48 House Democrats who broke note that, if he chooses to vote against that supported the Republican plan, I with their leadership to vote in a bipar- our bipartisan efforts to eliminate do support eliminating the marriage tisan way to give marriage tax relief marriage tax penalty, that he will deny tax penalty. But there is a reasonable Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 123,000 married taxpayers, including way to do it. That is one choice we can gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. seniors in the 24th district of California make. That is a priority. It is not the THUNE). relief from the marriage tax penalty. only priority we have on this floor. Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank That is just not fair. Sometimes I think the majority for- the gentleman for yielding me this I invite the gentleman from Cali- gets that these days are not days in an time and for his great leadership on fornia to join with us, join the 48 House end. We have to look at the whole pic- this issue. Democrats who broke from their lead- ture. But one cannot have it both ways. I have been listening to the debate ership and voted in a bipartisan effort One cannot increase the defense spend- here over the last several minutes and to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. ing like they want to do, provide vet- it occurred to me we are hearing a lot Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 erans benefits that we all want to do, of argument from the other side as to minutes to the gentleman from Ne- to provide health care, do what we need how we cannot do this because we have braska (Mr. TERRY). to do about education, providing small- to pay down debt and we have to pro- Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise er class sizes and actually buildings tect Social Security and Medicare and today in support of the base bill, H.R. that are safe, provide prescription we have to keep the budget balanced, 4810, and in opposition to the sub- drugs for our seniors and not a fake and I thought to myself, I was not here stitute that discriminates against plan that just gives them an insurance in the last 40 years but when the other many married folks, homeowners, and policy, and really safeguard Medicare side controlled this Congress, there was charities alike, and offer my congratu- for the next generation. One cannot do not any of those things that were ac- lations to the gentleman from Illinois all that and still promise the world in complished. (Mr. WELLER) for fighting this great tax cuts. We are now paying down debt, we fight. One cannot do it without going back have balanced the budget, we have In fact, this is one of the reasons why to the deficit spending that they all walled off Social Security, and we in- I ran for this office, because I really say they are against. One could go tend to do it for Medicare. Those are feel strongly that this Tax Code is un- back to that spending that says we are all things that are happening as a re- fair. It is voluminous. We cannot un- going to spend $200 billion more a year sult of the leadership of the Republican derstand it. It needs to be reformed. It than what we are doing, than what we Congress. needs to be reduced to something that are taking in. I might also add that the marriage is simple and fair. That is what is wrong with the Re- penalty when you listen to people talk Let us talk about fairness, because publican plan for marriage tax penalty. on this side about the rich, all those that is what this base bill does. Now, We need to eliminate it. We need to rich people out there, I do not know let us remember what the marriage eliminate it on a reasonable basis. But who they are talking about. I grew up

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:14 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.103 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 in a small town in South Dakota of 650 curity and Medicare are available and ment toward their church or synagogue people. I do not have any rich friends that Medicare is updated to include as a contribution, those are tax deduct- out there. We have a lot of people who prescription drugs. ible. So we would be discriminating are farmers or schoolteachers or small Now, what I am afraid is happening against those individuals. business people, and they need help here today is that if we do not pass this Let us treat everyone fairly. That is paying for their kids’ college edu- substitute, and if we do not pass the what the Marriage Tax Elimination cation, paying the mortgage, all those motion to recommit that says that we Act does. It provides relief from the expenses that are associated with their are going to have a Medicare prescrip- marriage tax penalty, a penalty that is daily living. These people are not rich. tion drug benefit, then what will hap- keeping many parents from doing all I want to give an example of that. I pen is that nothing is ever going to they want for their children, a penalty had a guy come into my office. He was pass. The President already said he will that, frankly, is keeping many young making $46,000 a year and his wife was not sign this Republican bill, that it couples from getting married because making $21,000 a year. They had two spends too much money. they would be pushed into that higher kids and were in their mid-30s. This Well, the bottom line is if we want to bracket. year they paid $1,950 more in taxes be- get anything done here and we want to Many times both parents have to cause they were married. That is flat have this be a ‘‘do something’’ Con- work full time, when one of them may wrong. One thing the people in South gress rather than a ‘‘do-nothing’’ Con- prefer to work part time and spend Dakota know, in those small towns and gress, then why not go along with what more time with the children. This bill rural areas, those people who are not the President has proposed. Basically will help. As I say, the average penalty, rich that I grew up with, they know what the President is saying, and what right now, is $1,400 a year more in taxes what is unfair. This thing is unfair. the motion to recommit says, is we than if they were single. Over a decade, We are talking today about elimi- will take even the proposal of the mar- as she pointed out to me, this young fi- nating unfairness in the Tax Code and riage tax penalty the Republicans put ance, that money could go toward a restoring some level of common sense forth, even though it spends too much family car, a college education, a so that people are treated equally money, but we will even go along with downpayment on a home. under the Tax Code, so that those peo- it as long as we can have the prescrip- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield ple who work hard in this country, tion drug benefit under Medicare. such time as he may consume to the those working families, are not penal- If the Republicans really want to get gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DAVIS). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was ized because they are married. We be- something done and not have this be a given permission to revise and extend lieve in fairness in South Dakota, and ‘‘do-nothing’’ Congress, they should go his remarks.) we believe in the institution of mar- along with the substitute, go along Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I riage in South Dakota. with the motion to recommit, and then rise in favor of the Rangel substitute, The Democrat plan is not fair and it we will accomplish something. which will assist more than 60,000 mar- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield penalizes homeowners by allowing peo- ried families in my district. ple who are itemizing not to benefit myself such time as I may consume to Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be relief from this. We need to pass this legisla- say to my good friend from New Jersey from the marriage tax penalty, but the way it's tion on behalf of the 75,000 couples in that if he chooses to vote against our being done in this bill is wrong. Working Amer- South Dakota who would benefit from bipartisan effort to wipe out the mar- icans should not have to pay extra just be- it, and I urge the House to pass this riage tax penalty, that he will be vot- cause they want to get married. The 25 million and send it on. ing to deny 128,000 married taxpayers American couples who are affected by this un- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 in the Sixth District of New Jersey re- fair tax should be able to use the money minutes to the gentleman from New lief from the marriage tax penalty, and saved to purchase a new home, or for child Jersey (Mr. PALLONE). that is just not fair. care. Right now, if this bill were to pass, Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just And I want to invite my good friend American married families would still be taxed came from the Department of Health to join those 48 House Democrats who at the same rate they were taxed before. The and Human Services building, where broke with their leadership and vote in Rangel substitute fixes the flaws in this bill the Secretary was celebrating the 35th a bipartisan way to eliminate the mar- and enables America's married families to anniversary of Medicare, and it was a riage tax penalty. truly see their taxes reduced. great moment to talk about when Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the In my district alone this substitute will help Medicare was signed. But one of the gentleman from California (Mr. well over 60,000 married families. It is my things that Secretary Shalala said, and ROYCE). hope we will get past all of the politics and most dramatically, was how we had to Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the come together to provide a bill that truly pro- revise Medicare, make sure it was sol- gentleman for yielding me this time, vides fairness and equity to our American fam- vent, make sure it was there for our and I rise in support of the base bill. ilies. seniors and make sure there was a pre- As one of my constituents said in a I want to extend an invitation to my Repub- scription drug benefit. town meeting last month, ‘‘Marriage is lican friends on the other side of the aisle to The problem with the Republican penalty enough, we don’t need the gov- join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to proposal is it is not necessarily such a ernment penalizing marriage with this eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a fair and bad idea, but it costs too much and it special marriage penalty tax.’’ And yet sensible way. Vote for the Rangel substitute is a needless waste of the surplus that the Internal Revenue Service pushes and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. could be used for other things, most many couples, simply for being mar- Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield importantly to expand Medicare, to ried, into a higher tax bracket, and the balance of my time to the gentle- make sure that Social Security is generally this is targeted on the in- woman from Connecticut (Ms. available, to make sure we have a pre- come of the second wage earner, typi- DELAURO). scription drug plan. cally the wife, at a much higher rate Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, my last What the Democrats are saying with than if she were taxed only as an indi- Republican colleague said that mar- the substitute is we are in favor of a vidual. riage in itself is a penalty. I am mar- marriage tax penalty change, we want I want to give my colleagues an ex- ried 22 years now, and it is not a pen- to make sure people are not penalized, ample. A young woman was in my of- alty. but let us do it in a targeted fiscally fice on Friday. In terms of her own tax My colleagues, the Democrats have a sound way. Let us make sure whatever return, it means several thousand dol- real plan to eliminate the unfair mar- the surplus is, we do not spend a tril- lars of additional taxes if she makes riage tax penalty within a budget that lion dollars on different kinds of tax re- the decision to get married. Now, if we continues to pay down our debt, that lief that is mainly going to the go with the substitute motion, then we protects Social Security and Medicare, wealthy, and break it down in little discriminate against those who and allows for a prescription drug ben- parts like we are doing with this bill itemize. She owns a house. As a result efit that is so important to seniors today, but rather make sure what we of the payments, those are deductible, today who are being choked by the cost do first is to make sure that Social Se- so she itemizes. Those who make a pay- of prescription drugs today.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.065 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5877 Our plan eliminates the marriage A recorded vote was ordered. Fossella Lazio Ryan (WI) Fowler Leach Ryun (KS) penalty, and it rewards work by The vote was taken by electronic de- Franks (NJ) Lewis (CA) Salmon strengthening the earned income tax vice, and there were—ayes 198, noes 228, Frelinghuysen Lewis (KY) Sanford credit. It fixes the marriage penalty, it not voting 8, as follows: Gallegly Linder Saxton Ganske LoBiondo Scarborough keeps us on a course of fiscal dis- [Roll No. 390] cipline, that course that has brought us Gekas Lucas (KY) Schaffer AYES—198 Gibbons Lucas (OK) Sensenbrenner the most successful and the most dy- Gilchrest Manzullo Sessions Abercrombie Gutierrez Neal Gillmor Martinez Shadegg namic economy in history. It is a re- Ackerman Hall (OH) Oberstar Gilman McCollum Shaw sponsible tax proposal and tax relief Allen Hall (TX) Obey Goode McCrery Shays Andrews Hastings (FL) Olver that the American public supports. Goodlatte McHugh Sherwood Baca Hill (IN) Ortiz I support marriage penalty tax relief Goodling McInnis Shimkus Baird Hilliard Owens for the families of Connecticut. That is Goss McIntosh Shuster Baldacci Hinchey Pallone Graham McKeon Simpson what our plan does and it does not risk Baldwin Hinojosa Pascrell Granger Metcalf Skeen Barrett (WI) Hoeffel Pastor our fiscal discipline. It provides $76.4 Green (WI) Mica Smith (MI) Becerra Holden Payne billion in marriage tax penalty relief Greenwood Miller (FL) Smith (NJ) Bentsen Holt Pelosi and an additional $12.7 billion for work- Gutknecht Miller, Gary Smith (TX) Berkley Hooley Peterson (MN) Hansen Moran (KS) Souder ing families who need the help that is Berman Hoyer Phelps Hastings (WA) Morella Spence Bishop Inslee Pickett provided by the earned income tax. It Hayes Murtha Stearns Blagojevich Jackson (IL) Pomeroy is a plan that ends the penalty on mar- Hayworth Myrick Stump Blumenauer Jackson-Lee Price (NC) Hefley Nethercutt Sununu riage, it rewards work, and it allows Bonior (TX) Rahall Herger Ney Sweeney our economic boom to continue. Borski Jefferson Rangel Hill (MT) Northup Talent The Republican plan is too big. It is Boswell John Reyes Hilleary Norwood Tancredo Boucher Johnson, E. B. Rivers skewed toward the wealthiest Ameri- Hobson Nussle Tauzin Boyd Jones (OH) Rodriguez cans. As part of the $800 billion Repub- Hoekstra Ose Taylor (NC) Brady (PA) Kanjorski Roemer Horn Oxley Terry lican tax cut, it threatens Social Secu- Brown (FL) Kaptur Rothman Hostettler Packard Thomas Brown (OH) Kennedy Roybal-Allard rity and Medicare, it does not allow us Houghton Paul Thornberry Capps Kildee Rush to continue to pay down the debt that Hulshof Pease Thune Capuano Kilpatrick Sabo has brought interest rates down in this Hunter Peterson (PA) Tiahrt Cardin Kind (WI) Sanchez Hutchinson Petri Toomey country, and it does not allow us to Clay Kleczka Sanders Hyde Pickering Traficant Clayton Klink Sandlin offer a prescription drug benefit Isakson Pitts Upton Clement Kucinich Sawyer through Medicare, which is the way in Istook Pombo Visclosky Clyburn LaFalce Schakowsky Jenkins Porter Vitter which it should go. It is not fair. It pro- Condit Lampson Scott Johnson (CT) Portman Walden vides nearly two-thirds of its benefits Conyers Lantos Serrano Johnson, Sam Pryce (OH) Walsh Costello Larson Sherman to the wealthiest Americans and only Jones (NC) Quinn Wamp Coyne Lee Shows about 41 cents a day in tax relief to Kasich Radanovich Watkins Cramer Levin Sisisky Kelly Ramstad Watts (OK) families making less than $50,000 a Crowley Lewis (GA) Skelton King (NY) Regula Weldon (FL) year. Cummings Lipinski Slaughter Kingston Reynolds Weldon (PA) Davis (FL) Lofgren Snyder It is not tax fairness. Support the Knollenberg Riley Weller Davis (IL) Lowey Spratt Democratic alternative. Kolbe Rogan Whitfield DeFazio Luther Stabenow Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how Kuykendall Rogers Wicker DeGette Maloney (CT) Stark LaHood Rohrabacher Wilson much time remains in debate? Delahunt Maloney (NY) Stenholm Largent Ros-Lehtinen Wolf The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DeLauro Markey Strickland Latham Roukema Young (AK) Deutsch Mascara Stupak PEASE). The gentleman from Illinois LaTourette Royce Young (FL) (Mr. WELLER) has 30 seconds remain- Dicks Matsui Tanner Dingell McCarthy (MO) Tauscher NOT VOTING—8 ing. Dixon McCarthy (NY) Taylor (MS) Campbell Forbes Vento Mr. WELLER. The gentleman from Doggett McDermott Thompson (CA) Carson McNulty Waters New York (Mr. RANGEL) has used his Dooley McGovern Thompson (MS) Chenoweth-Hage Smith (WA) entire allotment? Doyle McIntyre Thurman The SPEAKER pro tempore. He has. Edwards McKinney Tierney b 1450 Engel Meehan Towns Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield Eshoo Meek (FL) Turner Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska and Mr. myself the balance of my time, and I Etheridge Meeks (NY) Udall (CO) CANNON changed their vote from would inform the previous speaker that Evans Menendez Udall (NM) ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ if she chooses to vote against our bi- Farr Millender- Velazquez Fattah McDonald Watt (NC) Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. partisan effort to eliminate the mar- Filner Miller, George Waxman KANJORSKI and Mr. MOLLOHAN riage tax penalty, she will be voting to Ford Minge Weiner changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ deny 110,000 married taxpayers in the Frank (MA) Mink Wexler So the amendment in the nature of a third district of Connecticut relief Frost Moakley Weygand Gejdenson Mollohan Wise substitute was rejected. from the marriage tax penalty. Gephardt Moore Woolsey The result of the vote was announced I want to extend to my friend from Gonzalez Moran (VA) Wu as above recorded. Gordon Nadler Wynn Connecticut an invitation to join with The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. us and to join with those 48 House Green (TX) Napolitano PEASE). The question is on the engross- Democrats who broke with their lead- NOES—228 ment and third reading of the bill. ership to vote in a bipartisan way to Aderholt Bonilla Crane The bill was ordered to be engrossed eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Archer Bono Cubin and read a third time, and was read the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Armey Brady (TX) Cunningham ant to House Resolution 545, the pre- Bachus Bryant Danner third time. Baker Burr Davis (VA) MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. RANGEL vious question is ordered on the bill Ballenger Burton Deal and on the amendment offered by the Barcia Buyer DeLay Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a gentleman from New York (Mr. RAN- Barr Callahan DeMint motion to recommit. GEL). Barrett (NE) Calvert Diaz-Balart The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the Bartlett Camp Dickey The question is on the amendment in Barton Canady Doolittle gentleman opposed to the bill? the nature of a substitute offered by Bass Cannon Dreier Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bateman Castle Duncan am. RANGEL). Bereuter Chabot Dunn The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Berry Chambliss Ehlers The question was taken; and the Biggert Coble Ehrlich Clerk will report the motion to recom- Speaker pro tempore announced that Bilbray Coburn Emerson mit. the noes appeared to have it. Bilirakis Collins English The Clerk read as follows: Bliley Combest Everett RECORDED VOTE Mr. RANGEL moves to recommit the Blunt Cook Ewing Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand Boehlert Cooksey Fletcher bill (H.R. 4810) to the Committee on a recorded vote. Boehner Cox Foley Ways and Means with instructions to

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.068 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 report the same back to the House New York (Mr. RANGEL) is recognized will fall by the wayside. So we believe forthwith with the following amend- for 5 minutes in support of his motion. it is important that we try to work to- ment: Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there has gether to come to a series of ideas for At the end of the bill insert the following been a lot of talk today about biparti- tax cuts that we all can support that new section: sanship. We do have unanimity on try- will fit within this budgetary $263 bil- SEC. 5. TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON MEDI- ing to remove an inequity that exists lion. Now, we further think their bill CARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BEN- EFIT AND NO ON-BUDGET DEFICIT. in the Tax Code. And we are fortunate today is not giving the relief on the Subsection (f) of section 1 of the Internal that because the economy has been marriage penalty that we really need Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section kinder to us that we can do something and that we hope that we can offer to 3 of this Act) is amended by adding at the about it. people. end the following new paragraph: Bipartisanship to me means that the Finally, the President said 2 weeks ‘‘(9) LIMITATION ON TAX REDUCTIONS.— majority has to work with the minor- ago that he understands the require- ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The benefits of para- ity and work with the President of the ment and the desire on the part of Re- graph (8) (and the benefits of sections 2 and United States and not legislate and publicans to do something about the 4 of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Rec- onciliation Act of 2000) shall be allowed for pass laws that they know that are marriage penalty. He said he is more taxable years beginning in any calendar year going to be vetoed, but, rather, see how than happy to sit down and try to work only if the Secretary of the Treasury cer- we can come together as Democrats out a marriage penalty reduction that tifies (before the close of such calendar year) and Republicans and do what is not he would sign this year. I think the that each of the conditions specified in sub- best for our respective conventions but same holds true of other tax cut ideas paragraph (B) are met with respect to such what is good for the people of the that have been presented. But in return calendar year. United States of America. for that, he wants to also be able to sit ‘‘(B) CONDITIONS.—For purposes of subpara- Mr. Speaker, to explain this more down to be able to get a Medicare pre- graph (A), the conditions specified in this subparagraph for any calendar year are the fully, I yield to the gentleman from scription drug benefit plan that we all following: Missouri (Mr. GEPHARDT), the distin- can agree with as part of settling these ‘‘(i) NOON-BUDGET DEFICIT.—Allowing the guished minority leader, to close out important issues. tax benefits referred to in subparagraph (A) the motion to recommit with a sugges- Let me finally say that if you are to be effective for taxable years beginning in tion that would allow us to make law suffering from the marriage penalty, the calendar year, when added to the cost of and not politics. you want relief now, this year, not next the coverage described in clause (ii), would (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was year. You do not want just a veto of a not create or increase an on-budget deficit given permission to revise and extend bill that results in nothing. If you are (determined by excluding the receipts and his remarks.) on Medicare prescription drugs, and disbursements of part A of the medicare pro- gram) for the fiscal year beginning in such Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it you are having trouble paying for your calendar year. seems to me that today’s debate on prescriptions, you want relief now, this ‘‘(ii) PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE.—Cov- this bill is a chance for us to begin to year, not next year. erage for outpatient prescription drugs is talk about a compromise that will My mother is 92 years old. She is provided for Medicare beneficiaries under the achieve a lot of the ends that our doing great by the grace of God, but Medicare Program on a voluntary basis at friends have on the other side of the every time I go home, she says, What all times during the calendar year with— aisle and a lot of the ends and goals are you all doing on that Medicare pre- ‘‘(I) the premium for such coverage being that people on our side of the aisle scription drug plan? I may not be alive not more than $25 per month (adjusted for have. next year. cost increases after 2003) with low-income as- I want to be able to tell her, We’re sistance for Medicare beneficiaries having Our discomfort with their version of incomes below 135 percent of the Federal the bill is not about the fact that they going to get something done this year. poverty level and phasing out for such bene- are trying to deal with the marriage Let us work together. Vote for this ficiaries having incomes between 135 percent penalty. I think the vast majority of motion to recommit. Let us work to- and 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, Members believe that we need to do gether to get this done for the Amer- ‘‘(II) no deductible required before such something to fix this problem of the ican people. coverage is provided, marriage penalty. We think there is a b 1500 ‘‘(III) the amount of the benefit being at way to do this that costs a good deal least 50 percent of prescription drug expenses The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. less than the bill that they are pre- not in excess of the coverage limit (as de- PEASE). Does the gentleman from Illi- senting today. We say that with all re- fined in subparagraph (C)), nois (Mr. WELLER) claim the time in ‘‘(IV) a $4,000 limitation (adjusted for cost spect and humility. We think there is a opposition to the motion to recommit? increases after 2003) on out-of-pocket pre- way to work our way to a common con- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in scription drug expenses of electing Medicare clusion that will really attack this opposition. beneficiaries, and problem of the marriage penalty and ‘‘(V) all Medicare beneficiaries entitled to The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen- cost about half, maybe a little less tleman is recognized for 5 minutes. receive the discounts (otherwise available to than half of what their bill costs. large prescription drug purchasers) on their Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, with all purchases of prescription drugs. We think that is important because due respect to my good friend, the ‘‘(C) COVERAGE LIMIT.—The coverage limit at the end of this year, we are likely to ranking member of the Committee on is $2,000 for calendar years 2003 and 2004, be talking about a number of tax meas- Ways and Means, as well as the minor- $3,000 for calendar years 2005 and 2006, $4,000 ures, some of which we have already ity leader, I want to just say this, and for calendar years 2007 and 2008, and $5,000 for voted on, others which we will vote on that is today we are here to eliminate calendar year 2009 and thereafter (with ad- in the next weeks. The President sent the marriage tax penalty. That is our justments for cost increases). to us, when he did his reestimate of the goal today. ‘‘(D) TRANSITION RULE.—For calendar years budget, this pie chart. This pie chart 2001 and 2002, the conditions specified in sub- My friends on the other side of the paragraph (B)(ii) shall be treated as met if sets out $500 billion of the surplus in a aisle, they have offered reasons to vote the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that reserve to frankly be decided by the against eliminating the marriage tax coverage described in such subparagraph will next Congress and Congresses after penalty, and let me give one pretty be available as of January 1, 2003.’’ that. We think that makes sense. But basic good reason to vote against the Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). this budget also puts money into Medi- motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent care solvency and debt reduction, The motion to recommit, as designed that the motion to recommit be consid- money into a Medicare prescription by my friends on the Democratic side ered as read and printed in the RECORD. drug benefit plan, a lot like the one we of the aisle, is designed to enact zero The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there presented 2 weeks ago, and $263 billion marriage penalty relief. The Joint Tax objection to the request of the gen- for targeted tax cuts. Committee, which is a bipartisan com- tleman from New York? If we do as much as they are asking mittee, has scored this as providing There was no objection. to do today for the marriage penalty zero marriage tax relief. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- alone, it means other good tax cut With all due respect, I would point ant to the rule, the gentleman from ideas that there is a lot of support for out that just 2 weeks ago this House

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.012 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5879 enacted a good plan, a $40 billion plan, protect those who need the child tax growing to $5,000 over time; a $4,000 out-of- to provide prescription drug coverage credit from the alternative minimum pocket spending limit after which all costs for every senior who wants to have tax. would be covered by the government, and all that coverage. That is a great accom- The bottom line is we help every one Medicare beneficiaries would receive volume plishment. My hope is we could do it in of the 25 million married working cou- discounts. a bipartisan way. So my recommenda- ples who suffer the marriage tax pen- Because providing seniors with a Medicare tion, of course, and I rise in opposition, alty. And what is it all about? Today it prescription drug benefit is such a vital na- is to vote to reject the motion to re- is all about fairness, fairness for these tional priority and because the Republican-led commit. 25 million married working couplings. Congress clearly has no interest in passing a Let us talk about the real issue that I want to extend an invitation to my bill that meets the standards described above, is before us today, and that issue is a friend on the other side of the aisle. we are willing to go along with this bloated basic goal of this Congress, and that is February, when we passed this legisla- marriage penalty tax bill. to bring about tax fairness. I represent tion, 48 House Democrats joined with Unfortunatley, I know that our motion to re- a very diverse district, city, suburbs every Member of the House to pass this commit will fail. Republicans would much rath- and country on the south side of Chi- legislation with overwhelming bipar- er continue pouring money into the pockets of cago and the south suburbs. tisan support. I want to extend that in- their wealthy benefactors than address the As I talk with my constituents, they vitation again today, to vote no on this real needs of America's seniors and their fami- often talk about their taxes. They com- motion to recommit, which provides lies. plain not only are their taxes too high, zero marriage tax relief, and to vote The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without but they are unfair and they are too yes on a bipartisan proposal that will. objection, the previous question is or- complicated. They often ask a pretty We all know the President has dered on the motion to recommit. basic question, and that is, is it right, changed his mind before. My hope is There was no objection. is it fair, that under our Tax Code, that the President will join with us in a bi- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The a married working couple, husband and partisan proposal to eliminate the mar- question is on the motion to recommit. wife, a two-income household, pay riage tax penalty by signing this legis- The question was taken; and the higher taxes just because they are mar- lation into law when he receives it Speaker pro tempore announced that ried? within the next 2 weeks. the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Speaker, they often ask the ques- Mr. Speaker, I ask Members, please RECORDED VOTE tion, is it right, is it fair, that under vote no on the motion to recommit, Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand our Tax Code 25 million married work- please vote aye on our efforts, our bi- a recorded vote. ing couples pay on average $1,400 more partisan efforts, to eliminate the mar- A recorded vote was ordered. in higher taxes? Often I have come to riage tax penalty once and for all. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- this well, and I have talked about who Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of ant to clause 9 of rule XX, the chair benefits from our effort to eliminate the motion to recommit the bill. will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum the marriage tax penalty. I oppose the Republican so-called Marriage time for any electronic vote on the The district I represent, 60,000 sen- Penalty Relief Act because it fails to appro- question of passage. iors, as well as working families, will priately address the problem for which it is The Chair announces that he will re- benefit. I also want to introduce Shad named. Instead of addressing the needs of duce to 5 minutes a vote by electronic and Michelle Hallihan. Many of you families who pay an actual tax penalty for device, if ordered, on one motion to have seen Shad and Michelle Hallihan being married, this bill provides broad tax re- suspend the rules on which further pro- in their wedding photo. Well, that was lief to a host of families who are actually al- ceedings de novo were postponed yes- about the time we introduced the legis- ready enjoying a marriage bonus. It makes no terday, which will immediately follow lation, and because of the delay in en- sense to squander $182 billion of our limited the vote on passage of H.R. 4810. acting this into law, Shad and Michelle federal resources throwing money away in this The vote was taken by electronic de- Hallihan have since had a baby, and lit- manner. There are far more important federal vice, and there were—ayes 197, noes 230, tle Ben is now their pride and joy. priorities. not voting 7, as follows: I would point out that for Shad and It is because of these other priorities that I Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is real money. rise in support of the Democratic motion to re- [Roll No. 391] In Joliet, Illinois, for two public school commit. Under our motion to recommit, we AYES—197 teachers by the name of Shad and would begrudgingly accept the Republican Abercrombie Crowley Hinchey Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is a year’s tui- Marriage Penalty legislation, but the tax reduc- Ackerman Cummings Hinojosa Allen Danner Hoeffel tion at a community college, 3 months tions would be prohibited from going into ef- Andrews Davis (FL) Holden of day care, it is a washer and a dryer, fect until a real Medicare prescription drug Baca Davis (IL) Holt and, frankly, if we enact this into law benefit was enacted. Baird DeFazio Hooley Baldacci DeGette Hoyer over the next 17 years, they will be able Seniors are in vital need of a Medicare pre- Baldwin Delahunt Jackson (IL) to set aside almost $25,000 if they put scription drug benefit and the Republican Barrett (WI) DeLauro Jackson-Lee that marriage tax penalty into little sham bill passed here in the House of Rep- Becerra Deutsch (TX) Ben’s college fund. It is real money for resentatives last month is no solution. Seniors Bentsen Dicks Jefferson Berkley Dingell John real people. aren't looking for the opportunity to be over- Berman Dixon Johnson, E. B. I would point out that the Demo- charged and under-provided for in another pri- Berry Doggett Jones (OH) cratic motion to recommit denies mar- vate insurance plan as would happen under Bishop Dooley Kanjorski riage tax relief for good people like Blagojevich Doyle Kaptur the Republican bill. Blumenauer Edwards Kennedy Shad and Michelle Hallihan. But our Seniors want a drug benefit that is treated Bonior Engel Kildee bipartisan proposal, identical to the just like all of the rest of their benefitsÐas part Borski Eshoo Kilpatrick proposal that received overwhelming of the Medicare program. They want a benefit Boswell Etheridge Kind (WI) Boucher Evans Kleczka bipartisan support earlier this year, that cannot be taken away, that will not vary Boyd Farr Klink will help working married couples like if you live in a rural or urban area, that will not Brady (PA) Fattah Kucinich Michelle and Shad. change if you live on the West Coast or in the Brown (FL) Filner LaFalce We help those who do not itemize by Brown (OH) Ford Lampson mid-Atlantic states. It must offer a guaranteed Capps Frank (MA) Lantos doubling the standard deduction to benefit package and have an affordable pre- Capuano Frost Larson twice that for joint filers for single fil- mium and cost-sharing structure. Cardin Gejdenson Lee ers. We help those who itemize, people In order to achieve the standard of a real Clay Gephardt Levin Clayton Gonzalez Lewis (GA) who own homes and give money to drug benefit, the Medicare bill must include: A Clement Gordon Lipinski church and charity, by widening the 15 voluntary outpatient prescription drug benefit; Clyburn Green (TX) Lofgren percent tax bracket. We help the work- a premium of not more that $25 (adjusted for Condit Gutierrez Lowey ing poor by providing marriage tax re- cost increases), with low-income assistance; Conyers Hall (OH) Lucas (KY) Costello Hall (TX) Luther lief for those who participate in the no deductible for those benefits; the benefit Coyne Hastings (FL) Maloney (CT) earned income tax credit, and we also must cover 50% of the cost up to $2,000 Cramer Hilliard Maloney (NY)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:27 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12JY7.073 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 H5880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 12, 2000 Markey Pallone Snyder Sweeney Tiahrt Weldon (FL) McCollum Radanovich Stabenow Mascara Pascrell Spratt Talent Toomey Weldon (PA) McCrery Ramstad Stearns Matsui Pastor Stabenow Tancredo Traficant Weller McHugh Regula Stump McCarthy (MO) Payne Stark Tauzin Upton Whitfield McInnis Reynolds Stupak McCarthy (NY) Pelosi Strickland Taylor (MS) Vitter Wicker McIntosh Riley Sununu McDermott Phelps Stupak Taylor (NC) Walden Wilson McIntyre Roemer Sweeney McGovern Pickett Tanner Terry Walsh Wolf McKeon Rogan Talent McIntyre Pomeroy Tauscher Thomas Wamp Young (AK) McKinney Rogers Tancredo Thompson (CA) Thornberry Watkins Young (FL) Tauscher McKinney Price (NC) Metcalf Rohrabacher Meehan Rahall Thompson (MS) Thune Watts (OK) Tauzin Mica Ros-Lehtinen Meek (FL) Rangel Thurman Taylor (NC) Miller (FL) Roukema Meeks (NY) Reyes Tierney NOT VOTING—7 Terry Miller, Gary Royce Menendez Rivers Towns Campbell Forbes Vento Thomas Mink Ryan (WI) Millender- Rodriguez Turner Carson McNulty Thompson (MS) McDonald Roemer Udall (CO) Chenoweth-Hage Smith (WA) Moore Ryun (KS) Thornberry Miller, George Rothman Udall (NM) Moran (KS) Salmon Thune Morella Sandlin Minge Roybal-Allard Velazquez b Tiahrt Mink Rush Visclosky 1524 Myrick Sanford Toomey Moakley Sanchez Waters Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote Nethercutt Saxton Traficant Mollohan Sanders Watt (NC) Ney Scarborough Udall (CO) Moore Sandlin Waxman from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ Northup Schaffer Upton Moran (VA) Sawyer Weiner So the motion to recommit was re- Norwood Sensenbrenner Vitter Nadler Schakowsky Wexler jected. Nussle Sessions Walden Napolitano Scott Weygand The result of the vote was announced Ose Shadegg Walsh Neal Serrano Wise Wamp as above recorded. Oxley Shaw Oberstar Sherman Woolsey Packard Shays Watkins Wu Watts (OK) Obey Shows The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pascrell Sherwood Olver Sisisky Wynn Weldon (FL) PEASE). The question is on the passage Paul Shimkus Ortiz Skelton Weldon (PA) Pease Shows Owens Slaughter of the bill. Weller The question was taken; and the Peterson (PA) Shuster Whitfield Petri Simpson NOES—230 Speaker pro tempore announced that Wicker Phelps Sisisky Wilson Aderholt Frelinghuysen McKeon the noes appeared to have it. Pickering Skeen Wise Archer Gallegly Metcalf RECORDED VOTE Pickett Skelton Wolf Armey Ganske Mica Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand Pitts Smith (MI) Wu Bachus Gekas Miller (FL) Pombo Smith (NJ) Young (AK) Baker Gibbons Miller, Gary a recorded vote. Porter Smith (TX) Young (FL) Ballenger Gilchrest Moran (KS) A recorded vote was ordered. Portman Souder Barcia Gillmor Morella Pryce (OH) Spence Barr Gilman Murtha The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a Quinn Spratt Barrett (NE) Goode Myrick 5-minute vote. Bartlett Goodlatte Nethercutt The vote was taken by electronic de- NOES—159 Barton Goodling Ney vice, and there were—ayes 269, noes 159, Bass Goss Northup Abercrombie Gutierrez Napolitano Bateman Graham Norwood not voting 7, as follows: Ackerman Hall (OH) Neal Bereuter Granger Nussle [Roll No. 392] Allen Hastings (FL) Oberstar Biggert Green (WI) Ose AYES—269 Andrews Hill (IN) Obey Bilbray Greenwood Oxley Baca Hilliard Olver Bilirakis Gutknecht Packard Aderholt Costello Hastings (WA) Baldacci Hinchey Ortiz Bliley Hansen Paul Archer Cox Hayes Baldwin Hinojosa Owens Blunt Hastings (WA) Pease Armey Cramer Hayworth Barrett (WI) Hoeffel Pallone Boehlert Hayes Peterson (MN) Bachus Crane Hefley Becerra Holden Pastor Boehner Hayworth Peterson (PA) Baird Cubin Herger Bentsen Hoyer Bonilla Hefley Petri Baker Cunningham Hill (MT) Payne Berman Jackson (IL) Bono Herger Pickering Ballenger Danner Hilleary Pelosi Brady (TX) Hill (IN) Pitts Barcia Davis (VA) Hobson Berry Jackson-Lee Peterson (MN) Bryant Hill (MT) Pombo Barr Deal Hoekstra Blumenauer (TX) Pomeroy Burr Hilleary Porter Barrett (NE) DeLay Holt Bonior Jefferson Price (NC) Burton Hobson Portman Bartlett DeMint Hooley Borski Johnson, E. B. Rahall Buyer Hoekstra Pryce (OH) Barton Diaz-Balart Horn Boucher Jones (OH) Rangel Callahan Horn Quinn Bass Dickey Hostettler Boyd Kanjorski Reyes Calvert Hostettler Radanovich Bateman Doolittle Houghton Brady (PA) Kaptur Rivers Camp Houghton Ramstad Bereuter Doyle Hulshof Brown (FL) Kennedy Rodriguez Canady Hulshof Regula Berkley Dreier Hunter Brown (OH) Kildee Rothman Cannon Hunter Reynolds Biggert Duncan Hutchinson Capuano Kilpatrick Roybal-Allard Castle Hutchinson Riley Bilbray Dunn Hyde Cardin Kind (WI) Rush Chabot Hyde Rogan Bilirakis Ehlers Inslee Clay Kleczka Sabo Bishop Chambliss Inslee Rogers Ehrlich Isakson Clayton Klink Sanchez Coble Isakson Rohrabacher Blagojevich Emerson Istook Conyers Kucinich Sanders Coburn Istook Ros-Lehtinen Bliley English Jenkins Coyne LaFalce Sawyer Collins Jenkins Roukema Blunt Etheridge John Crowley Lampson Combest Johnson (CT) Royce Boehlert Everett Johnson (CT) Schakowsky Cummings Lantos Scott Cook Johnson, Sam Ryan (WI) Boehner Ewing Johnson, Sam Davis (FL) Larson Serrano Cooksey Jones (NC) Ryun (KS) Bonilla Fletcher Jones (NC) Davis (IL) Lee Sherman Cox Kasich Sabo Bono Foley Kasich DeFazio Levin Slaughter Crane Kelly Salmon Boswell Fossella Kelly DeGette Lewis (GA) Cubin Brady (TX) Snyder King (NY) Sanford Fowler King (NY) Delahunt Lofgren Cunningham Kingston Saxton Bryant Franks (NJ) Kingston Stark DeLauro Lowey Davis (VA) Knollenberg Scarborough Burr Frelinghuysen Knollenberg Stenholm Deutsch Luther Deal Kolbe Schaffer Burton Gallegly Kolbe Strickland Dicks Maloney (NY) DeLay Kuykendall Sensenbrenner Buyer Ganske Kuykendall Tanner Dingell Markey DeMint LaHood Sessions Callahan Gekas LaHood Dixon Matsui Taylor (MS) Diaz-Balart Largent Shadegg Calvert Gibbons Largent Doggett McCarthy (MO) Thompson (CA) Dickey Latham Shaw Camp Gilchrest Latham Thurman Doolittle LaTourette Shays Canady Gillmor LaTourette Dooley McDermott Edwards McGovern Tierney Dreier Lazio Sherwood Cannon Gilman Lazio Towns Duncan Leach Shimkus Capps Goode Leach Engel Meehan Turner Dunn Lewis (CA) Shuster Castle Goodlatte Lewis (CA) Eshoo Meek (FL) Udall (NM) Ehlers Lewis (KY) Simpson Chabot Goodling Lewis (KY) Evans Meeks (NY) Velazquez Ehrlich Linder Skeen Chambliss Gordon Linder Farr Menendez Emerson LoBiondo Smith (MI) Clement Goss Lipinski Fattah Millender- Visclosky English Lucas (OK) Smith (NJ) Clyburn Graham LoBiondo Filner McDonald Waters Everett Manzullo Smith (TX) Coble Granger Lucas (KY) Ford Miller, George Watt (NC) Ewing Martinez Souder Coburn Green (WI) Lucas (OK) Frank (MA) Minge Waxman Fletcher McCollum Spence Collins Greenwood Maloney (CT) Frost Moakley Weiner Foley McCrery Stearns Combest Gutknecht Manzullo Gejdenson Mollohan Wexler Fossella McHugh Stenholm Condit Hall (TX) Martinez Gephardt Moran (VA) Weygand Fowler McInnis Stump Cook Hansen Mascara Gonzalez Murtha Woolsey Franks (NJ) McIntosh Sununu Cooksey Hastert McCarthy (NY) Green (TX) Nadler Wynn

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:19 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.013 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1 July 12, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5881 NOT VOTING—7 Hill (IN) McIntyre Sawyer b 1540 Hill (MT) McKeon Saxton Campbell Forbes Vento Hilleary McKinney Scarborough So (two-thirds having voted in favor Carson McNulty Hilliard Meehan Schaffer Chenoweth-Hage Smith (WA) thereof) the rules were suspended and Hinchey Meek (FL) Schakowsky the bill was passed. b Hinojosa Meeks (NY) Scott 1532 Hobson Menendez Sensenbrenner The result of the vote was announced So the bill was passed. Hoeffel Metcalf Serrano as above recorded. Hoekstra Mica Sessions A motion to reconsider was laid on The result of the vote was announced Shadegg Holden Millender- the table. as above recorded. Holt McDonald Shaw A motion to reconsider was laid on Hooley Miller (FL) Shays Stated for: the table. Hostettler Miller, Gary Sherman Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 393, Houghton Miller, George Sherwood I was unavoidably absent on the work of my f Hoyer Minge Shimkus Shows Subcommittee on Government Management Hulshof Mink Shuster Hunter Moakley and thus could not name the Baltimore Post SAMUEL H. LACY, SR. POST Simpson Hutchinson Mollohan Office in the honor of Samuel H. Lacy, Senior. OFFICE BUILDING Sisisky Hyde Moore Skeen Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Inslee Moran (KS) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The un- Skelton Moran (VA) f finished business is the question de Isakson Slaughter Istook Morella novo of suspending the rules and pass- Smith (MI) COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIRMAN Jackson (IL) Murtha Smith (NJ) ing the bill, H.R. 4447. Jackson-Lee Myrick Smith (TX) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANS- The Clerk read the title of the bill. (TX) Nadler Snyder PORTATION AND INFRASTRUC- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Jefferson Napolitano Souder TURE Jenkins Neal question is on the motion offered by Spence John Nethercutt Spratt The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- the gentleman from New York (Mr. Johnson (CT) Ney Stabenow fore the House the following commu- MCHUGH) that the House suspend the Johnson, E. B. Northup Stark nication from the chairman of the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4447. Johnson, Sam Norwood Stearns Jones (NC) Nussle Stenholm Committee on Transportation and In- The question was taken. Jones (OH) Oberstar Strickland frastructure; which was read and, with- RECORDED VOTE Kanjorski Obey Stump out objection, referred to the Com- Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand Kaptur Olver Stupak Kasich Ortiz Sununu mittee on Appropriations and ordered a recorded vote. Kelly Ose Sweeney to be printed: A recorded vote was ordered. Kennedy Owens Talent COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a Kildee Packard Tancredo INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSE OF REP- 5-minute vote. Kilpatrick Pallone Tanner RESENTATIVES, Kind (WI) Pascrell Tauscher Washington, DC, June 22, 2000. The vote was taken by electronic de- King (NY) Pastor Tauzin Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, vice, and there were—ayes 412, noes 0, Kingston Paul Taylor (MS) Speaker of the House, not voting 22, as follows: Kleczka Payne Taylor (NC) Klink Pease Thomas Washington, DC. [Roll No. 393] Knollenberg Pelosi Thompson (CA) DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed are copies of AYES—412 Kolbe Peterson (MN) Thompson (MS) resolutions adopted on June 21, 2000 by the Kucinich Peterson (PA) Thornberry Committee on Transportation and Infra- Abercrombie Buyer Edwards Thune Ackerman Calvert Ehlers Kuykendall Petri structure. Copies of the resolutions are being LaFalce Phelps Thurman Aderholt Camp Ehrlich Tiahrt transmitted to the Department of the Army. Allen Canady Emerson LaHood Pickering With kind regards, I am Lampson Pickett Tierney Andrews Cannon Engel Toomey Sincerely, Lantos Pitts Archer Capps English Towns BUD SHUSTER, Largent Pombo Baca Capuano Eshoo Traficant Larson Pomeroy Chairman. Bachus Cardin Etheridge Turner Latham Porter Enclosures. Baird Castle Evans Udall (CO) LaTourette Portman Baker Chabot Everett Udall (NM) DOCKET 2635: ILLINOIS RIVER AT BEARDSTOWN, Baldacci Chambliss Farr Lazio Price (NC) Upton ILLINOIS Baldwin Clayton Fattah Leach Pryce (OH) Velazquez Ballenger Clement Filner Lee Quinn Resolved by the Committee on Transportation Visclosky and Infrastructure of the United States House Barcia Clyburn Fletcher Levin Radanovich Vitter Barr Coble Foley Lewis (GA) Rahall Walden of Representatives, That the Secretary of the Barrett (NE) Coburn Ford Lewis (KY) Ramstad Walsh Army is requested to review the report of the Barrett (WI) Collins Fossella Linder Regula Wamp Chief of Engineers on the Sid Simpson Flood Bartlett Combest Fowler Lipinski Reyes Waters Control Project, published as House Docu- Barton Condit Frank (MA) LoBiondo Reynolds Watkins ment 332, 81st Congress, 1st Session, and Bass Conyers Franks (NJ) Lofgren Riley Watt (NC) other pertinent reports to determine wheth- Bateman Cooksey Frelinghuysen Lowey Rivers Watts (OK) er any modifications of the recommenda- Becerra Costello Frost Lucas (KY) Rodriguez Waxman Bentsen Cox Gallegly Lucas (OK) Roemer Weiner tions contained therein are advisable to ad- Bereuter Coyne Ganske Luther Rogan Weldon (FL) dress flood damage reduction, navigation, Berkley Cramer Gejdenson Maloney (CT) Rogers Weldon (PA) recreation, and related water resource needs Berman Crane Gekas Maloney (NY) Rohrabacher Weller on the Illinois River at Beardstown, Illinois. Berry Cubin Gephardt Manzullo Ros-Lehtinen Wexler Biggert Cummings Gibbons Markey Rothman Weygand DOCKET 2637: DUCK CREEK, OHIO Bilbray Cunningham Gilchrest Martinez Roukema Whitfield Bilirakis Danner Gillmor Mascara Roybal-Allard Wicker Resolved by the Committee on Transportation Bishop Davis (FL) Gilman Matsui Royce Wilson and Infrastructure of the United States House Blagojevich Davis (IL) Gonzalez McCarthy (MO) Rush Wise of Representatives, That the Secretary of the Bliley Davis (VA) Goode McCarthy (NY) Ryan (WI) Wolf Army is requested to review the report of the Blumenauer Deal Goodlatte McCollum Ryun (KS) Woolsey Blunt DeFazio Goodling Chief of Engineers on the Comprehensive McCrery Sabo Wu Flood Control Plan for Ohio and Lower Mis- Boehlert DeGette Gordon McDermott Salmon Wynn Boehner Delahunt Goss McGovern Sanchez Young (AK) sissippi Rivers published as House Document Bonilla DeLauro Graham McHugh Sanders Young (FL) 1, 75th Congress, 1st Session, and other perti- Bonior DeLay Granger McInnis Sandlin nent reports to determine whether any modi- Bono DeMint Green (TX) McIntosh Sanford fications to the recommendations contained Borski Deutsch Greenwood therein are advisable to address flood dam- Boswell Diaz-Balart Gutierrez NOT VOTING—22 Boucher Dickey Gutknecht age reduction, environmental restoration Boyd Dicks Hall (OH) Armey Dooley McNulty and protection, and for other purposes in the Brady (PA) Dingell Hall (TX) Callahan Duncan Oxley Duck Creek watershed in Guernsey, Monroe, Brady (TX) Dixon Hastings (FL) Campbell Ewing Rangel Noble, and Washington Counties, Ohio. Brown (FL) Doggett Hastings (WA) Carson Forbes Smith (WA) Brown (OH) Doolittle Hayes Chenoweth-Hage Green (WI) Terry DOCKET 2638: DENVER COUNTY REACH, COLORADO Bryant Doyle Hayworth Clay Hansen Vento Burr Dreier Hefley Cook Horn Resolved by the Committee on Transportation Burton Dunn Herger Crowley Lewis (CA) and Infrastructure of the United States House

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:19 Jul 13, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12JY7.015 pfrm02 PsN: H12PT1