THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. FOLEY), a distinguished Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER) for his phenomenal leadership on this very important issue.
We have heard a lot of debate today about saving Social Security and Medicare and prescription drug coverage; and it is interesting if you think for a moment, the President and Vice President have been in office for 8 years, and now in the last 3 months or 5 months of their term in office, they come up with all these plans to rescue Medicare, Social Security, add prescription drug coverage. Those are important issues,
[Page: H5865] GPO's PDF
Regrettably, when you talk bipartisan legislation, or at least when they claim it from the other side of the aisle, it is only bipartisan if it is their idea and their way. But the remarkable thing about this process on this floor is that after all of the baying at the moon about what a lousy idea this marriage tax penalty elimination is, we will be joined by numerous Democrats who recognize that the marriage penalty is in fact a penalty on marriage. Like estate tax relief, when we talked about it, we were derided for hour on hour on hour, and ultimately we had 95 brave soldiers join us in passing this very important piece of legislation.
Taxing two hard-working Americans who are married is a shame. It is abomination. Now, they use those words in their press conferences, but I do not hear them uttering them on the floor today.
Now, I just ask Americans who are watching today, hearing this debate and wondering what it is all about, there is a lot of rancor from one side and a lot of boasting on our side about the great importance of this bill; and I think at the end of the day, we win the debate. But more importantly, stay tuned, because the President will join us and support us and probably sell out his side of the aisle in order to make a deal on his legacy. And the Vice President, against tax cuts at the beginning of the year, now embraces $500 million of tax cuts.
So I just suggest to everybody, wait around for a little while and sooner or the later the parade follows leadership on issues important to the American taxpayer.
Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER) is not bankrupting the system with this bill. We will have money for prescription drug coverage. We will have money for Social Security reform. In fact, we lockbox Social Security and protect it for now and into the future, instead of, as they were for 40 years, borrowing out of the money and using it to pay their bills, or actually not even paying their bills, putting us in deeper debt and deeper deficit. We are in a financial quagmire because of their leadership. Now we have been in charge for 6 years, and finally advancing bills that are helping the American family.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and go to church this Sunday and explain your actions to your fellow parishioners, why you voted to continue to tax the sanctity of marriage. I am single, so I am not going to have a big argument from what I will save in my tax bill.
But to those of you who feel compelled, go to church next Sunday and stand up in the choir and praise the Lord first, and secondly say but I voted against you who are married, because I think you should have an added burden. Not only are you trying to raise children, pay the mortgage, buy a new washer and dryer, but the Government thinks because you are married, we should take a few more bucks out of your pocket and then spend it in Washington, because you know Washington knows best.
Save marriage, end the penalty, let Americans prosper.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that their remarks are to be directed to the Chair and not to other persons who may be viewing the proceedings of the House.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. TAYLOR).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am not as much troubled by what I hear today, as by what I do not hear. What I do not hear is any of the participants reminding the American people that because of actions that Congress has taken during our lifetimes, our Nation is $5 trillion deeper in debt than the day that any of us were born; that we are the beneficiaries of those expenditures; that our Nation won the Cold War; that it built the interstate highway system; that it built the intercostal canal system; that it did a lot of good things for all us. And now it is time, when we have the opportunity because of some small surpluses to pay the bills, we seem intent on doing those things not to pay them.
In a search to give some Americans a break, we are going to see to it that all Americans continue to have $1 billion a day of their tax money squandered on paying interest on that debt; $1 billion a day.
I hear my colleagues talking about this enormous surplus, as if somehow this building is awash in cash. Well, if it exists, why are you delaying the pay of the people who serve our Nation in crummy places like Bosnia and Korea, people who are at sea right now, under the sea, on the sea on aircraft carriers for 6 months at a time, why are you delaying their pay from September 29 of this year to October 1, making them go an extra weekend when they cannot buy baby formula or diapers?
Do you know why? Because you are trying to disguise the true nature of the debt. You took that $2.5 billion pay period and you shifted it to the next fiscal year so it would look like the surplus is bigger than it really is.
Mr. Speaker, why are we not as intent on paying down the debt that was incurred in our lifetime as we are in trying to score political advantage against each other come November 2? The Nation that the gentleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL) fought for, the Nation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) fought for and so many Members of this body fought for is worth saving. If we do not pay our bills while we have this brief opportunity, the first time in 30 years that we actually have a surplus, then we never will.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend from Mississippi, who I share many of his concerns on behalf of our friends, I would point out many of our military men and women suffer the marriage tax penalty, and invite him to join with us in a bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. COLLINS), a leading and respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, like 144,000 other taxpayers in the 3rd District of Georgia, I wear a wedding band.
[Time: 13:15]
It is a symbol of my marriage. But, due to the Tax Code, it is an excuse to raise more revenue, and that is not right.
Under today's Tax Code, 25 billion married couples pay higher taxes as a result of saying, I do. Today's bill will change that. It will allow both wives and husbands to each take a full standard deduction, and it will broaden the lower tax bracket so that lower- and middle-income couples will not be punished or pushed into a higher tax bracket when their incomes are combined.
The Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act of 2000 will provide American families relief from the excessive taxation which has been caused by our government's excessive spending. Now that a balanced budget and reforms that the Federal Government has done in the past few years, we have a positive cash flow. It is time to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. Ending the unfair marriage penalty is an important step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, my hope is that we will not stop there. American families are also paying far too much for gasoline, which is a necessity for most households. My hope is that we will look at repealing some of the Federal excise taxes which contribute to the high cost of gasoline.
But today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering relief from the marriage penalty. I had hoped that we would have made the tax relief in this bill effective for the tax year 2000 instead of the year 2001 so families could get immediate relief. Hopefully, in the conference we will be able to accomplish the change in the effective date for the taxable year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, despite the delay in implementation, this is a good bill that will correct an injustice in the Tax Code. I urge the House to pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this bill into law, and I call on Members of the House and Senate to resist the temptation to use tax relief for married couples as a pawn in some political game.
[Page: H5866] GPO's PDF
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to help make our communities more livable--to make families safe, healthy and economically secure. Clearly, affording needed tax relief to America's working families is part of that effort. This bill, however, skews priorities: Rather than focusing on the working people who need help the most, the bill offers the most relief to those who already have lobbyists working for them.
First of all, we ought to be making things easier for families, not more difficult. One big problem for them is that a growing number are being forced into the Alternative Minimum Tax , which was originally intended to ensure that very wealthy people paid at least some income tax . Just last week, I was confronted back home with a farmer who has 10 children that he works hard to support. Taking the tax credits for his children triggers the AMT for him, and no one would confuse him with Bill Gates.
This bill not only fails to solve the problem, it actually makes things worse. In every year, a larger percentage of families are shut out from the full benefits of the bill, exceeding 50 percent by 2010.
It's not that hard to fix this. The Democratic alternative, which I support, would offer $89.1 billion in marriage penalty relief. It would fix the AMT problem, making sure that families actually get the tax relief they've been promised. It would direct an additional $10 billion to low- and moderate-income families. Even better, it would cost less than half of what the Republican bill does.
With that additional revenue, we could address other pressing priorities. More than 11 million American children have no health insurance. Many of their grandparents pay staggering sums for the prescription drugs that prolong and improve their lives. We have children with special educational needs that Congress has promised to fund--but Congress can't find the money for them. Sadly, in my own state, one in five children suffers from hunger sometime during the year. I believe these issues deserve our attention just as much as adjusting the tax schedule.
For that reason, I will vote for the alternative that offers the most direct and targeted tax advantages for American families. Unfortunately, the majority has rejected the opportunity for commonsense reform in favor of political theater. The bill the House will pass today will rightly be vetoed by the President. It is going nowhere--and it shouldn't go anywhere. At $182 billion, the cost of admission to this political sideshow is just too high.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, once again this House has before it legislation to eliminate the penalty on marriage that is found in the income tax code.
Quite simply, marriage should not be taxed.
As the financial pressures of families result in both spouses entering the labor force, an increasing number have become subject to the marriage penalty. A major reason why so many joint filers face this added burden is that the very first dollar earned by the lower-earning spouse is taxed at the marginal rate of the higher-earning spouse, not necessarily at the lower 15% rate faced by single filers. This problem was exacerbated in 1993, when the Clinton tax measure increased the number of tax brackets from three to five.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that over 20 million married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. This ``tax'' on marriage averages nearly $1,400 per couple. This $1,400 could be used by families to save for college or retirement, make car payments, or pay for tutoring.
Middle income families are hit the hardest by this penalty and they need this legislation for tax relief. I urge the House to pass this legislation.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811 and in strong support of the Rangel substitute. Unlike the underlying bill, the Rangel substitute alleviates the marriage penalty while preserving the necessary resources to enact other tax cuts for working families, to pay down the debt, and to protect Social Security and Medicare.
About half of all married couples pay more in income taxes because they are married than they would if they were single. The other half pay either the same or less. The Rangel substitute provides $90 billion in targeted relief to couples who pay the marriage penalty. The Republican bill, by contrast, funnels more than half the $182 billion in tax benefits to couples who receive a marriage bonus and 2/3 of the tax benefit to households earning more than $75,000 annually.
With finite resources available, the Republican bill must be viewed in term of its opportunity costs. The more than $100 billion in this legislation that is unrelated to marriage penalty relief could be used to enact significant tax cuts for working families. Rather than increasing tax bonuses for higher income people, Congress should help families cope with their core pocketbook issues such as reducing the cost of college, increasing the affordability of health insurance, and encouraging savings for retirement. In my view, these areas, along with marriage penalty relief, should be the tax cut priorities.
The current budget projections will accommodate significant tax cuts along with an aggressive plan to pay down the debt and to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Paying down the debt and in turn reducing interest rates is perhaps the most significant tax cut Congress could offer. Lower interest rates would cut mortgage payments on a $100,000 house by $2,000 annually. Likewise, the cost of farm operating loans, car loans, and student loans would all be reduced.
Finally, before allocating surplus for tax cuts, Congress should set aside sufficient resources to shore up the long-term future of Social Security and Medicare. The current surplus projections afford us a rare opportunity to strengthen these programs for the Baby Boom generation and beyond. We must also reserve adequate resources to enact a guaranteed drug benefit as part of the Medicare program so that seniors will not be forced to choose between their prescriptions and their food and shelter.
In sum, there are a host of priorities that deserve our support, including marriage penalty relief. It is critical, however, that this relief be targeted so that we may enact other tax cuts for working families, pay down the debt, and protect Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered a basically identical bill in February, I voted for it, although I was very reluctant to do so.
I was reluctant because that was not the best time for this bill, and that was not the best bill for the job.
It wasn't the right time because we had not yet adopted a budget resolution and so a tax bill--or a spending bill, for that matter--should not have been considered then. Now, of course, we have a budget resolution in place. So, today at least the time is right.
But this still is not the best bill for the job because in some areas it does too little, and in others it does too much.
It does too little because it does not adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax. That means it leaves many middle-income families unprotected from having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill.
The Republican leadership's bill does too much in another area. Because it is not carefully targeted, it does not just apply to people who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of the total benefits under the bill would go to married people whose taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In other words, if this bill were to become law as it now stands a primary result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase marriage ``bonuses.''
And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the bill--if it were to become law--would go too far in reducing the surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and Medicare.
Those were and remain the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They are strong reasons then and they are strong reasons today.
In fact, if voting for the bill today would mean that it would be law tomorrow, I would vote against it. But that isn't the case, fortunately. The Senate still has a chance to improve this bill. So, I will reluctantly vote for the bill because I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.
I am prepared to give the Republican leadership one last chance to correct the bill's deficiencies rather than simply to insist on sending it to the President for the promised veto. I hope that the Republican leadership will allow the bill to be improved to the point that it merits becoming law--meaning that it will deserve the President's signature.
But if they miss that opportunity, and insist on sending to the President a bill that falls short of being appropriate for signature into law, I will vote to sustain a veto.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is yet another bill in a series of legislation brought to the floor to help America's wealthy. Yes, we have entered an era of budget surpluses, but the surpluses must not be squandered on those who don't need it--the wealthiest U.S. income-earners. I support targeted marriage tax relief such as the Democrats have provided in our substitute amendment today. I also support increasing the earned income tax credit for the working poor who really do need the tax break. The Democrats have provided for this in the substitute bill as well. And the Democratic substitute makes sure that nobody will be denied the relief because of the AMT. The Republican bill does not.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents