Summary:

All articles in House section

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - February 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H291-H330] MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000 Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 419, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the bill is considered read for amendment. The text of H.R. 6 is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999''. (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section 2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES. (a) General Rule.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the following: ``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and [[Page H292]] ``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $7,725, plus 28% of the excess over $51,500............................ $28,277, plus 31% of the excess over $124,900.......................... $70,313, plus 36% of the excess over $260,500.......................... $180,401, plus 39.6% of the excess over $566,300....................... ``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $5,182.50, plus 28% of the excess over $34,550......................... $20,470.50, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150........................ $37,598, plus 36% of the excess over $144,400.......................... $87,548, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150........................ ``(c) Other Individuals.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than an individual to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $3,862.50, plus 28% of the excess over $25,750......................... $14,138.50, plus 31% of the excess over $62,450........................ $35,156.50, plus 36% of the excess over $130,250....................... $90,200.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150..................... ``(d) Estates and Trusts.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every estate, and ``(2) every trust, taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $262.50, plus 28% of the excess over $1,750............................ $906.50, plus 31% of the excess over $4,050............................ $1,573, plus 36% of the excess over $6,200............................. $2,383, plus 39.6% of the excess over $8,450.''........................ (b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for 2000.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended-- (1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``1999'', (2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting ``1998'', and (3) by striking paragraph (7). (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking ``1992'' and inserting ``1998'' each place it appears: (A) Section 25A(h). (B) Section 32(j)(1)(B). (C) Section 41(e)(5)(C). (D) Section 59(j)(2)(B). (E) Section 63(c)(4)(B). (F) Section 68(b)(2)(B). (G) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii). (H) Section 151(d)(4). (I) Section 220(g)(2). (J) Section 221(g)(1)(B). (K) Section 512(d)(2)(B). (L) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii). (M) Section 685(c)(3)(B). (N) Section 877(a)(2). (O) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). (P) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B). (Q) Section 2503(b)(2)(B). (R) Section 2631(c)(1)(B). (S) Section 4001(e)(1)(B). (T) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii). (U) Section 6039F(d). (V) Section 6323(i)(4)(B). (W) Section 6601(j)(3)(B). (X) Section 7430(c)(1). (2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by striking ``1987'' and inserting ``1998''. (3) Subparagraph (B) of section 132(f)(6) is amended by inserting before the period ``, determined by substituting `calendar year 1992' for `calendar year 1998' in subparagraph (B) thereof ''. (4) Sections 468B(b)(1), 511(b)(1), 641(a), 641(d)(2)(A), and 685(d) are each amended by striking ``section 1(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 1(d)''. (5) Sections 1(f)(2) and 904(b)(3)(E)(ii) are each amended by striking ``(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``or (d)''. (6) Paragraph (1) of section 1(f) is amended by striking ``(d), and (e)'' and inserting ``and (d)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating to standard deduction) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-- ``(A) $8,600 in the case of-- ``(i) a joint return, or ``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), ``(B) $6,350 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or ``(C) $4,300 in any other case.'' (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended to read as follows: ``(4) Adjustments for inflation.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1999, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.'' (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(5) is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$700''. (3) Subsection (f) of section 63 is amended by striking ``$600'' each place it appears and inserting ``$850'' and by striking ``$750'' in paragraph (3) and inserting ``$1,050''. (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)(4) of section 63 (as it applies to subsections (c)(5)(A) and (f) of such section)'' and inserting ``section 63(c)(4)''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted. The text of H.R. 6, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000''. (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard deduction) is amended-- (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'', (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and (4) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''. (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET; REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.-- ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)-- ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts determined under clause (i). ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table: ``For taxable years be- ginning in The applicable calendar year-- percentage is-- 2003.......................................................170.3 2004.......................................................173.8 2005.......................................................183.5 2006.......................................................184.3 2007.......................................................187.9 2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0. ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''. (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.-- (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (h). (c) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' before ``by increasing''. (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''. [[Page H293]] (d) Effective Dates.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002. (2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001. SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and amounts) is amended-- (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting ``Amounts.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the earned'', and (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $2,000.''. (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended to read as follows: ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined-- ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and ``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''. (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under subparagraph (B) thereof)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 106-495 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). General Leave Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to open the debate on our side, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when a man and a woman exchange the vows of marriage, they traditionally promise to their spouse that they will be there for richer or for poorer. Unfortunately, for too many years, our government has wanted to make these married couples poorer. Over 25 million married couples have to pay extra taxes, just because they are married. Well, today we have the opportunity to give a Valentine's Day gift to these 50 million, hard-working American families. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act is another piece of our common sense agenda that enjoys strong support of Americans around this country. This is because most Americans understand that it is ridiculous for our government to penalize married people. This is not just about tax cuts; it is about fairness. I know of a young couple in my home State of Illinois, Peggy and Patrick Allgeier. Peggy is an elementary school teacher and Patrick is an assistant football coach at a small college. These fine young people have committed their lives to teaching. They have committed their lives to helping young people. Last July, in a wedding ceremony, they committed their lives to each other; but they also committed about $1,500 of their salary back to the Federal Government because they decided to get married. Because of that wedding, Peggy and Patrick now face the risk of being penalized by our Tax Code. This is absurd. We should be helping young married couples, not forcing them to pay extra taxes. Some have argued that the marriage penalty is no big deal. They think that if Americans itemize, they should be penalized. They think that if an American owns a house, he or she ought to be penalized. They say that if an American scrapes and saves to obtain the American dream, they ought to be penalized. Well, I think these people are wrong. In my district alone, over 65,000 couples are hit by the marriage penalty tax every year. These couples pay an average of $1,400 in extra taxes simply because they are married. We need a fairer Tax Code. We need a Tax Code that does not punish married couples. We need a Tax Code that recognizes that working families need help. They need to buy braces for the kids; they need to be able to pay the insurance on the car and the home. They need to do the things that every American, whether one itemizes on one's income tax or not, needs to do. They do not need the Federal Government picking their pocket and taking money out of their home account just because they are married. I encourage all of my colleagues here to vote yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill today. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle said this is an extreme bill. It is an extreme practice to do this, extreme tax cuts. Well, folks, I think it is extreme too. I think it is an extremely good idea, and we ought to do it as extremely quickly as possible because the American people think that they need to have the marriage penalty relief. They think that this is extremely fair, and they would like to have it passed today. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the Speaker that this is a serious problem that we face. The President of the United States agrees, and God knows if the majority wanted to take care of this and not want a political issue that was going to be vetoed, they would have reached out to the Democrats, they would have reached out to the President, they would have had hearings, and we would have targeted the relief. Why did they pile on so many tax cuts that were totally unrelated to the marriage penalty? Why did they make certain that the President was going to veto this because they completely ignored the budget process? They have so violated their own budget rules that in order for this issue to come to the floor, they have to waive the regular rules, just to bring it on the floor. They have no budget to deal with Social Security, no budget to deal with Medicare, no budget to deal with the national debt; but they intend to take this $1.8 trillion tax cut and feed it to the House piece by piece. It would seem to me that it is not too late for us to decide what issues are important enough for us to work together on. We voted for the rule. We supported the rule because it gives us an opportunity to get a bill that the President will sign, a bill that really deals with the penalty and not with just a broad tax cut. The President said he will veto this because there is no provisions made for anything that deals with the budget. So I know that the Republicans want to have a political gimmick for Valentine's Day, and that is what this is all about; but it is not too late for us to work together. It is not too late for us to take care of the marriage penalty. It is not too late for us to take care of Social Security, Medicare, affordable drugs, to do something for education. Let us all work together. There are enough things for us to argue about come November; but I think the American people would want us to start working together, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, no one discussed this bill with me or any of the members of the committee that are not in the majority party. We have had no hearings, the President's bill was never discussed. Our input was never asked for. It is not too late for beginning to get something productive in this year, this last year of the session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is launching into a debate to do the right thing, to correct the terrible wrong in [[Page H294]] the Tax Code that is called the marriage penalty that penalizes Americans simply because they got married. That is truly wrong, and we should all be proud to have the opportunity to correct this injustice. Indeed, the fundamental principle of doing what is right has driven the Republican agenda since we got into the majority in 1995. We have worked to fix what was wrong and to do what was right. It was right to make Congress live under the laws that apply to everyone else, and we did that. It was right to balance the budget so that we do not leave greater debt to our children and their children, and we did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare so that older Americans could have more confidence that their bills will be paid, and we did that. It was right to give families the child tax credit so that today, every family gets $500 per child. For a family with 2 children, that is $1,000 a year. We did that, and it was right. It was right to give tax breaks for higher education, and it was right to eliminate the capital gains tax on the sale of houses. It was right to fix the broken welfare system so Americans could discover independence, the freedom of work, and the power of responsibility. We did that. It was right to reform the IRS, to shift the burden of proof to the government, and to do so much more; and we did that. It was right to expand educational opportunity for schoolchildren and give more flexibility to parents and to teachers, and we did that. {time} 1215 It was right to stop the raid on social security on the trust fund and to protect every dime of the social security surplus from being spent on other programs, and we did that. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is right to fix the marriage tax penalty. I hope all of my colleagues will stand with American families today and fix this once and for all, and not simply use the crutch of every excuse that can be manufactured. For my entire career in Congress I have fought for the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, last year President Clinton vetoed our marriage penalty relief. It would have helped 25 million couples, but it was vetoed. Just 2 weeks ago the President stood in this room, right here, and told the Nation that he would finally join with us to fix the marriage tax penalty, and he got resounding applause. So today we are back at it again. I hope President Clinton and Vice President Gore this time will embrace this good bipartisan bill, because there are 26 Democrat cosponsors. The American people support it, Representatives and Senators from both parties support it, and there is no excuse why it should not be done now. Despite all this support, I have a feeling we are still hearing excuses from the Democrats why we cannot do it, for whatever reason. They may say that we should not also help stay-at-home moms and dads. They call this the marriage bonus. Their plan actually denies relief to child-caring parents. That is wrong. So we do help, and that is right. Raising a child is the single most important job in the world. Those who forego careers and outside work activities to stay and rear those children need help, too. We are right to provide families with that relief. Even President Clinton says we should help these parents. He said it not long ago in his State of the Union Address here in this Chamber. Why do the Democrat leaders not agree? Why do they fight us on this? Democrats also complain that this is too much tax relief, but again, they are wrong. Fixing the marriage penalty takes less than 1 penny out of every dollar of Federal revenues. Is that too much to fix this wrong, one penny? Their position is extreme. Then they say the timing is not right. Wrong again. We should fix the marriage penalty right now. Married couples should not have to wait one day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code. Then they say, oh, it helps the wealthy. They mean those who itemize. Their plan only takes care of those who take the standard deduction. We think the marriage penalty should be fixed for those who itemize, too, and want to deduct the interest on their home mortgages and the taxes on their houses, because almost half of the people that are helped by this are in that category, and they are in the 15 percent bracket. Almost 25 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes each year, $1,400 each year just because they are married. The Tax Code is tough enough on Americans as it is, but it should not create this penalty. Let us work together and give millions of married couples the fairness they deserve. We do that. Our plan is fair. It is right. It is broad-based. It helps lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and all married couples. It comes down to a matter of principle. The fact that married couples pay more in taxes just because they are married is simply immoral. It is unfair. It is not right. It is unjust. It should be corrected. All of our colleagues should join me in voting for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking Democrat, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Democrats favor relief on the marriage penalty. In fact, when the President spoke, more Democrats stood up quicker than the Republicans stood up during the State of the Union message. The President, in his budget that he gave us last week, has relief for the marriage penalty. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle in a couple of hours will be able to vote on the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which will deal with the problem of the marriage penalty. The problem with this bill, talking about extreme, is that this bill really is not a marriage penalty relief bill. It is in name only. It is kind of like the Trojan horse. It does not really exist. The Republicans will have to admit, maybe they will not want to talk about it, but over half the relief in this bill of $182 billion, one-half of the bill of the gentleman from New York, $182 billion, that goes to people who do not even have a marriage penalty. So how can Members call this really a marriage penalty bill? There are a lot of problems with this bill, because we did not have a hearing, we did not have discussions. Nobody talked to the President or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or any Democrat on this piece of legislation. It was just kind of put together at the last minute. All of a sudden, we are voting for it a week later on the floor of the House of Representatives. But bear in mind, this is unbelievable but it is true, somebody who makes $50,000 a year will get major relief from the marriage penalty of $149 a year, about $10 a month. But if you make $100,000 a year, you are going to get about $1,000 a month. That is what is extreme. It is not about the marriage penalty, this is about tax relief and redistribution to wealthy Americans. In addition, it is going to create a lot more complexity in the code, because people who make $50,000 then will have to file what is known as the alternative minimum tax. But the real problem with this bill is we have no budget. Because we have no budget, what is going to happen is these little tax bills that are moving through the House right now, $180 billion here, $200 billion there, all of a sudden it is going to affect our ability to fix Medicare and social security, the two most pressing problems in America today. It would be wonderful if the Republicans would have come to the floor today with a social security relief package, but they have spent most of their time playing the blame game. If we just had a bill to deal with social security first, because that is what we need to do. Social security and Medicare should be dealt with before we deal with tax provisions, because we are using, we are using the so-called budget surplus that may or may not be there. I urge a strong no vote on this extreme bill that is in name only called the marriage penalty, and vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which really deals with the problems of average, middle-class Americans that are suffering from the marriage penalty. [[Page H295]] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) claims time on the majority side. There was no objection. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the marriage penalty. Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for the marriage penalty over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on that income. They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately, the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a higher bracket. That is the penalty. The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the 7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We were overtaxing them. We understand that the rewards that come with working can be abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the demands of work and family. I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific Northwest. Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits, whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or going out into the work force. Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones. We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign this bill. The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan, because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer couples than our bill does. I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the President will be very wise and sign this fair bill. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible, that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the Republicans are peddling does not meet that test. First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter. Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an additional $47 billion a year. Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security and Medicare relief. They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us what is the rest of their plan. {time} 1230 The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this bill fails on all accounts. Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6. I am proud today that we are able to step forward and fix a glaring inequity in our Tax Code. Twenty-five million American couples pay more in taxes simply because they walk to the altar and say, I do. At an average of $1,400 a couple, the marriage penalty makes it much tougher for families, for millions of families, to make their car payments or save that little bit extra for college down the road. In my district in Michigan alone, there are 106,000 people paying higher taxes just because they are married. I was pleased to see the President agree with us and call for marriage penalty relief this year. His plan is a good start, but it is really not enough. I think it is better to hit the marriage [[Page H296]] penalty head on instead of the President's approach, which picks and chooses which families get relief and which families do not. The President's proposal would not mean a dime for a working couple earning $30,000 each, who scrimped and saved to buy their home last year. Why would they not benefit from the President's plan? Because they itemize their taxes and fill out longer forms. That just does not make any sense at all. Our proposal on the other hand helps everyone who faces a marriage penalty, whether they happen to own their home or not, whether they itemize or not. If they pay the penalty, our legislation will help them. I believe that American families are overtaxed. American families today pay twice the taxes they did just in 1985, and over 38 percent of the typical family's income goes to taxes. The $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that we see really means that taxpayers have made a substantial overpayment. Let us make a start at returning some of that overpayment and fixing one of the strangest and most inequitable features of our Tax Code. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a distinguished Member of the House. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing nearly $1 trillion of the surplus. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break. True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off.'' Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple hundred billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress, $200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt. I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain it. I am sure the gentleman cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples, especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets. We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone on the other side of the aisle. We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts. Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly penalized simply because they say, I do. Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for it, but today we have heard the excuses. Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western Pennsylvania? Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform, vote for the bill. Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow married couples to spend the money they earn. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing real marriage penalty relief to middle class families. I also rise in opposition to a Republican tax scheme which goes far beyond the marriage penalty. Their irresponsibility jeopardizes Social Security and leaves nothing to strengthen Medicare. Marriage penalty relief is the right thing to do. Married couples should not find themselves penalized because both need to work. The Tax Code has penalized marriage for too long and any tax cut proposal should attack this problem. That means acting within the framework of a balanced budget that will pay down the debt, protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and make needed investments in education. These are the priorities of the American people. Hardworking Americans, Democrats, independents, and even Republicans have sent us this message loud and clear. The only people who do not seem to be listening are the Republican leaders in this Congress. If they were listening, they would hear the families out, those who say do the right thing. Instead, Republicans come to this floor with a massive tax bill that not only squanders the surplus, it fails to provide true marriage penalty relief. In fact, over 70 percent of the tax relief in their bill goes to the wealthiest Americans, most of whom do not even pay a marriage penalty. Meanwhile, families that need relief the most would receive less than 41 cents a day. Democrats support real marriage penalty relief that targets those who need it most. Our plan provides more tax relief to low- and moderate-income Americans who work hard for their paycheck each and every day and deserve to keep more of their money. It would ensure that more working families can take advantage of the earned income tax credit. One hundred thousand of my constituents in my district, those on Social Security, will be hurt by this Republican bill, and the Democratic alternative would cover both those who are suffering from the marriage penalty and those who are on Social Security. We should not be fooled by the numbers that are being brought up on the other side. The Democratic proposal would cover both. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. [[Page H297]] Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I am surprised by this debate today. We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families have a safe and prosperous country to live in. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best possibility for beginning in life. The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk to those families, and I doubt they would agree. Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend Democrats for nothing. Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is so unfair to use political labels like tax and spend. We are very anxious to work with the majority to get a budget and to get this thing done right, but if they just want a political issue they have it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get Medicare and Social Security in my district. Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit. What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it, and suddenly it comes here. In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a tax break to the businesses. Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what, Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country, will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.'' Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we are going to do with Medicare. To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election year. {time} 1245 Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement 100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate priority? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is about 2 years too late, is it not? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down to the serious work here? The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, all politicians in America promote family values. They are good political buzz words. But the truth is, in America, family values happen to mean higher taxes for married people, period. But it does not stop there. Our Tax Code is so screwed up, it also rewards dependency, subsidizes illegitimacy, promotes sexual promiscuity, denies and inhibits achievement and work, while all the time supposedly promoting family values. It has become so perverse in America, even marital sex is overtaxed by our policies. It is no wonder the American people are taxed off. It is no wonder America has so many common law homes and marriages and unwed mothers and kids on our street without guidance, nor stability. I am going to vote for this bill. I want to yield back all the broken homes in America that have been the result of all of the family value rhetoric we hear from Washington politicians. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic leader, for yielding me the time. Well, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to give away surplus revenue before the surpluses even materialize. I support marriage penalty tax relief. I will save the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend on the other side of the aisle, the time and trouble of citing the statistics in my district. There are 51,222 married couples in my district, and they would get relief under the Rangel substitute which I intend to support. But I would also point out that more than twice as many people, 112,262 constituents in my district receive Social [[Page H298]] Security and Medicare benefits; and they will not get protection under the Republican bill. We have had 30 years of deficit spending. There is enough blame to go around for all of that and the tremendous national debt that has resulted. Now we have an era of surpluses, and we are going to decide what to do with the extra money. But what is the size of the surplus? I am amused by all these guesstimates. Six months ago, the CBO said that it was going to be a trillion dollars, and we all started to divvy up that money. Then a few weeks ago, because of this robust economy that we are experiencing, they revised that figure and said it was going to be almost double that, $1.9 trillion. We all got excited about that until I picked up the New York Times and read an article by Bob Reischauer called the ``Amazing Vanishing Budget Surplus.'' As I went through his article, which I thought was pretty well thought out, and he took away the Social Security portion of that surplus, which is the bulk of the surplus, and moderately revised down some of the over-optimistic assumptions. He concluded that our 10-year budget surplus could actually be as low as $100 billion. Now, I can understand people thinking that it will be more than that, and I am among that number. But do we really think it is going to be 20 times that? We all say that we are in favor of saving Social Security, saving Medicare, providing prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying down the national debt. We all say that. But if we do that, what, if any, money will be left? I think Bob Reischauer's projection is low. But what if he is right? Let us take that as an example. This one bill, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), this one bill would put us $82 billion in deficit. Just this one bill! So I support the Rangel substitute. I will vote against this irresponsible bill, and I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I know how many married couples are in my district. I am going to protect them and the seniors. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I appreciate his efforts to bring marriage penalty relief to the floor today. He has been a real champion on this issue. I also commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for moving it through the Committee on Ways and Means. Let me just start by saying that we have a non-Social Security budget surplus projected that is over $2 trillion. The marriage penalty we are talking about today is about one dime out of the dollar of that non- Social Security budget surplus. To say that we cannot take care of paying down the debt, to say that we cannot take care of Social Security and Medicare in that context is just not right. We can. We can do that, and we can take care of this unfairness in the Tax Code. This is a good bill because 25 million couples out there pay, on average, about $1,400 on average more than people who are in their situation but not married. That is just unfair. That may not be much money by Washington standards; but in my district, that is a lot of money. That means about 63,000 couples in the second district of Ohio have more money to save for their own retirement, more money to save for their kids' education, more money to make a down payment on a car or a home. Frankly, it is just not fair. This is their money. This part of the code has to be changed. I have heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle say today, well, our bill is more targeted. We want to target it more. Well, if you target it, two things happen. Number one, people who deserve the benefit, who deserve to get outside of the marriage penalty do not get it. This includes, yes, people who itemize, people who own their own homes. Yes, it includes stay-at-home moms. It even includes some folks that they say they would like to help. Because if they target it and be too specific and refine it too much, they are going to miss some people who need the help. The second thing that happens is in order to target it and refine it the way that Democrats would like to do they add enormous complexity to the Tax Code. Now, I hope all of us will focus on that today. We are doing this, not only in a way that provides relief to people who are being penalized by this unfair part of our Tax Code, but we are doing it in a way that is as simple as possible so we are not adding tremendous complexity to the Tax Code. My colleagues have to add that complexity if they try to target and try to social engineer too much with this proposal. So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us ask the couples in our districts, do they want to get outside of this unfair marriage penalty. The answer will be a resounding yes. We have an opportunity to do it today. Let us join together and pass real marriage penalty relief, and I urge everyone to vote yes on final passage. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important issue, and I am glad that the House is considering the legislation today. Most of us have supported marriage penalty relief for many, many years. That being said, however, I do not think that the current version of H.R. 6 is helpful. The President's budget addresses the problem in a more fiscally responsible fashion, and I commend him for making his proposal. It would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the 15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage penalty for most families across the country. Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families that need it most in the country. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that was repo

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - February 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H291-H330] MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000 Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 419, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the bill is considered read for amendment. The text of H.R. 6 is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999''. (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section 2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES. (a) General Rule.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the following: ``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and [[Page H292]] ``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $7,725, plus 28% of the excess over $51,500............................ $28,277, plus 31% of the excess over $124,900.......................... $70,313, plus 36% of the excess over $260,500.......................... $180,401, plus 39.6% of the excess over $566,300....................... ``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $5,182.50, plus 28% of the excess over $34,550......................... $20,470.50, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150........................ $37,598, plus 36% of the excess over $144,400.......................... $87,548, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150........................ ``(c) Other Individuals.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than an individual to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $3,862.50, plus 28% of the excess over $25,750......................... $14,138.50, plus 31% of the excess over $62,450........................ $35,156.50, plus 36% of the excess over $130,250....................... $90,200.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150..................... ``(d) Estates and Trusts.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every estate, and ``(2) every trust, taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $262.50, plus 28% of the excess over $1,750............................ $906.50, plus 31% of the excess over $4,050............................ $1,573, plus 36% of the excess over $6,200............................. $2,383, plus 39.6% of the excess over $8,450.''........................ (b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for 2000.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended-- (1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``1999'', (2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting ``1998'', and (3) by striking paragraph (7). (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking ``1992'' and inserting ``1998'' each place it appears: (A) Section 25A(h). (B) Section 32(j)(1)(B). (C) Section 41(e)(5)(C). (D) Section 59(j)(2)(B). (E) Section 63(c)(4)(B). (F) Section 68(b)(2)(B). (G) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii). (H) Section 151(d)(4). (I) Section 220(g)(2). (J) Section 221(g)(1)(B). (K) Section 512(d)(2)(B). (L) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii). (M) Section 685(c)(3)(B). (N) Section 877(a)(2). (O) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). (P) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B). (Q) Section 2503(b)(2)(B). (R) Section 2631(c)(1)(B). (S) Section 4001(e)(1)(B). (T) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii). (U) Section 6039F(d). (V) Section 6323(i)(4)(B). (W) Section 6601(j)(3)(B). (X) Section 7430(c)(1). (2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by striking ``1987'' and inserting ``1998''. (3) Subparagraph (B) of section 132(f)(6) is amended by inserting before the period ``, determined by substituting `calendar year 1992' for `calendar year 1998' in subparagraph (B) thereof ''. (4) Sections 468B(b)(1), 511(b)(1), 641(a), 641(d)(2)(A), and 685(d) are each amended by striking ``section 1(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 1(d)''. (5) Sections 1(f)(2) and 904(b)(3)(E)(ii) are each amended by striking ``(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``or (d)''. (6) Paragraph (1) of section 1(f) is amended by striking ``(d), and (e)'' and inserting ``and (d)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating to standard deduction) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-- ``(A) $8,600 in the case of-- ``(i) a joint return, or ``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), ``(B) $6,350 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or ``(C) $4,300 in any other case.'' (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended to read as follows: ``(4) Adjustments for inflation.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1999, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.'' (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(5) is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$700''. (3) Subsection (f) of section 63 is amended by striking ``$600'' each place it appears and inserting ``$850'' and by striking ``$750'' in paragraph (3) and inserting ``$1,050''. (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)(4) of section 63 (as it applies to subsections (c)(5)(A) and (f) of such section)'' and inserting ``section 63(c)(4)''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted. The text of H.R. 6, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000''. (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard deduction) is amended-- (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'', (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and (4) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''. (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET; REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.-- ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)-- ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts determined under clause (i). ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table: ``For taxable years be- ginning in The applicable calendar year-- percentage is-- 2003.......................................................170.3 2004.......................................................173.8 2005.......................................................183.5 2006.......................................................184.3 2007.......................................................187.9 2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0. ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''. (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.-- (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (h). (c) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' before ``by increasing''. (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''. [[Page H293]] (d) Effective Dates.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002. (2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001. SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and amounts) is amended-- (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting ``Amounts.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the earned'', and (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $2,000.''. (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended to read as follows: ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined-- ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and ``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''. (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under subparagraph (B) thereof)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 106-495 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). General Leave Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to open the debate on our side, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when a man and a woman exchange the vows of marriage, they traditionally promise to their spouse that they will be there for richer or for poorer. Unfortunately, for too many years, our government has wanted to make these married couples poorer. Over 25 million married couples have to pay extra taxes, just because they are married. Well, today we have the opportunity to give a Valentine's Day gift to these 50 million, hard-working American families. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act is another piece of our common sense agenda that enjoys strong support of Americans around this country. This is because most Americans understand that it is ridiculous for our government to penalize married people. This is not just about tax cuts; it is about fairness. I know of a young couple in my home State of Illinois, Peggy and Patrick Allgeier. Peggy is an elementary school teacher and Patrick is an assistant football coach at a small college. These fine young people have committed their lives to teaching. They have committed their lives to helping young people. Last July, in a wedding ceremony, they committed their lives to each other; but they also committed about $1,500 of their salary back to the Federal Government because they decided to get married. Because of that wedding, Peggy and Patrick now face the risk of being penalized by our Tax Code. This is absurd. We should be helping young married couples, not forcing them to pay extra taxes. Some have argued that the marriage penalty is no big deal. They think that if Americans itemize, they should be penalized. They think that if an American owns a house, he or she ought to be penalized. They say that if an American scrapes and saves to obtain the American dream, they ought to be penalized. Well, I think these people are wrong. In my district alone, over 65,000 couples are hit by the marriage penalty tax every year. These couples pay an average of $1,400 in extra taxes simply because they are married. We need a fairer Tax Code. We need a Tax Code that does not punish married couples. We need a Tax Code that recognizes that working families need help. They need to buy braces for the kids; they need to be able to pay the insurance on the car and the home. They need to do the things that every American, whether one itemizes on one's income tax or not, needs to do. They do not need the Federal Government picking their pocket and taking money out of their home account just because they are married. I encourage all of my colleagues here to vote yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill today. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle said this is an extreme bill. It is an extreme practice to do this, extreme tax cuts. Well, folks, I think it is extreme too. I think it is an extremely good idea, and we ought to do it as extremely quickly as possible because the American people think that they need to have the marriage penalty relief. They think that this is extremely fair, and they would like to have it passed today. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the Speaker that this is a serious problem that we face. The President of the United States agrees, and God knows if the majority wanted to take care of this and not want a political issue that was going to be vetoed, they would have reached out to the Democrats, they would have reached out to the President, they would have had hearings, and we would have targeted the relief. Why did they pile on so many tax cuts that were totally unrelated to the marriage penalty? Why did they make certain that the President was going to veto this because they completely ignored the budget process? They have so violated their own budget rules that in order for this issue to come to the floor, they have to waive the regular rules, just to bring it on the floor. They have no budget to deal with Social Security, no budget to deal with Medicare, no budget to deal with the national debt; but they intend to take this $1.8 trillion tax cut and feed it to the House piece by piece. It would seem to me that it is not too late for us to decide what issues are important enough for us to work together on. We voted for the rule. We supported the rule because it gives us an opportunity to get a bill that the President will sign, a bill that really deals with the penalty and not with just a broad tax cut. The President said he will veto this because there is no provisions made for anything that deals with the budget. So I know that the Republicans want to have a political gimmick for Valentine's Day, and that is what this is all about; but it is not too late for us to work together. It is not too late for us to take care of the marriage penalty. It is not too late for us to take care of Social Security, Medicare, affordable drugs, to do something for education. Let us all work together. There are enough things for us to argue about come November; but I think the American people would want us to start working together, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, no one discussed this bill with me or any of the members of the committee that are not in the majority party. We have had no hearings, the President's bill was never discussed. Our input was never asked for. It is not too late for beginning to get something productive in this year, this last year of the session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is launching into a debate to do the right thing, to correct the terrible wrong in [[Page H294]] the Tax Code that is called the marriage penalty that penalizes Americans simply because they got married. That is truly wrong, and we should all be proud to have the opportunity to correct this injustice. Indeed, the fundamental principle of doing what is right has driven the Republican agenda since we got into the majority in 1995. We have worked to fix what was wrong and to do what was right. It was right to make Congress live under the laws that apply to everyone else, and we did that. It was right to balance the budget so that we do not leave greater debt to our children and their children, and we did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare so that older Americans could have more confidence that their bills will be paid, and we did that. It was right to give families the child tax credit so that today, every family gets $500 per child. For a family with 2 children, that is $1,000 a year. We did that, and it was right. It was right to give tax breaks for higher education, and it was right to eliminate the capital gains tax on the sale of houses. It was right to fix the broken welfare system so Americans could discover independence, the freedom of work, and the power of responsibility. We did that. It was right to reform the IRS, to shift the burden of proof to the government, and to do so much more; and we did that. It was right to expand educational opportunity for schoolchildren and give more flexibility to parents and to teachers, and we did that. {time} 1215 It was right to stop the raid on social security on the trust fund and to protect every dime of the social security surplus from being spent on other programs, and we did that. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is right to fix the marriage tax penalty. I hope all of my colleagues will stand with American families today and fix this once and for all, and not simply use the crutch of every excuse that can be manufactured. For my entire career in Congress I have fought for the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, last year President Clinton vetoed our marriage penalty relief. It would have helped 25 million couples, but it was vetoed. Just 2 weeks ago the President stood in this room, right here, and told the Nation that he would finally join with us to fix the marriage tax penalty, and he got resounding applause. So today we are back at it again. I hope President Clinton and Vice President Gore this time will embrace this good bipartisan bill, because there are 26 Democrat cosponsors. The American people support it, Representatives and Senators from both parties support it, and there is no excuse why it should not be done now. Despite all this support, I have a feeling we are still hearing excuses from the Democrats why we cannot do it, for whatever reason. They may say that we should not also help stay-at-home moms and dads. They call this the marriage bonus. Their plan actually denies relief to child-caring parents. That is wrong. So we do help, and that is right. Raising a child is the single most important job in the world. Those who forego careers and outside work activities to stay and rear those children need help, too. We are right to provide families with that relief. Even President Clinton says we should help these parents. He said it not long ago in his State of the Union Address here in this Chamber. Why do the Democrat leaders not agree? Why do they fight us on this? Democrats also complain that this is too much tax relief, but again, they are wrong. Fixing the marriage penalty takes less than 1 penny out of every dollar of Federal revenues. Is that too much to fix this wrong, one penny? Their position is extreme. Then they say the timing is not right. Wrong again. We should fix the marriage penalty right now. Married couples should not have to wait one day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code. Then they say, oh, it helps the wealthy. They mean those who itemize. Their plan only takes care of those who take the standard deduction. We think the marriage penalty should be fixed for those who itemize, too, and want to deduct the interest on their home mortgages and the taxes on their houses, because almost half of the people that are helped by this are in that category, and they are in the 15 percent bracket. Almost 25 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes each year, $1,400 each year just because they are married. The Tax Code is tough enough on Americans as it is, but it should not create this penalty. Let us work together and give millions of married couples the fairness they deserve. We do that. Our plan is fair. It is right. It is broad-based. It helps lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and all married couples. It comes down to a matter of principle. The fact that married couples pay more in taxes just because they are married is simply immoral. It is unfair. It is not right. It is unjust. It should be corrected. All of our colleagues should join me in voting for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking Democrat, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Democrats favor relief on the marriage penalty. In fact, when the President spoke, more Democrats stood up quicker than the Republicans stood up during the State of the Union message. The President, in his budget that he gave us last week, has relief for the marriage penalty. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle in a couple of hours will be able to vote on the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which will deal with the problem of the marriage penalty. The problem with this bill, talking about extreme, is that this bill really is not a marriage penalty relief bill. It is in name only. It is kind of like the Trojan horse. It does not really exist. The Republicans will have to admit, maybe they will not want to talk about it, but over half the relief in this bill of $182 billion, one-half of the bill of the gentleman from New York, $182 billion, that goes to people who do not even have a marriage penalty. So how can Members call this really a marriage penalty bill? There are a lot of problems with this bill, because we did not have a hearing, we did not have discussions. Nobody talked to the President or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or any Democrat on this piece of legislation. It was just kind of put together at the last minute. All of a sudden, we are voting for it a week later on the floor of the House of Representatives. But bear in mind, this is unbelievable but it is true, somebody who makes $50,000 a year will get major relief from the marriage penalty of $149 a year, about $10 a month. But if you make $100,000 a year, you are going to get about $1,000 a month. That is what is extreme. It is not about the marriage penalty, this is about tax relief and redistribution to wealthy Americans. In addition, it is going to create a lot more complexity in the code, because people who make $50,000 then will have to file what is known as the alternative minimum tax. But the real problem with this bill is we have no budget. Because we have no budget, what is going to happen is these little tax bills that are moving through the House right now, $180 billion here, $200 billion there, all of a sudden it is going to affect our ability to fix Medicare and social security, the two most pressing problems in America today. It would be wonderful if the Republicans would have come to the floor today with a social security relief package, but they have spent most of their time playing the blame game. If we just had a bill to deal with social security first, because that is what we need to do. Social security and Medicare should be dealt with before we deal with tax provisions, because we are using, we are using the so-called budget surplus that may or may not be there. I urge a strong no vote on this extreme bill that is in name only called the marriage penalty, and vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which really deals with the problems of average, middle-class Americans that are suffering from the marriage penalty. [[Page H295]] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) claims time on the majority side. There was no objection. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the marriage penalty. Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for the marriage penalty over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on that income. They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately, the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a higher bracket. That is the penalty. The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the 7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We were overtaxing them. We understand that the rewards that come with working can be abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the demands of work and family. I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific Northwest. Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits, whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or going out into the work force. Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones. We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign this bill. The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan, because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer couples than our bill does. I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the President will be very wise and sign this fair bill. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible, that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the Republicans are peddling does not meet that test. First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter. Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an additional $47 billion a year. Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security and Medicare relief. They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us what is the rest of their plan. {time} 1230 The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this bill fails on all accounts. Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6. I am proud today that we are able to step forward and fix a glaring inequity in our Tax Code. Twenty-five million American couples pay more in taxes simply because they walk to the altar and say, I do. At an average of $1,400 a couple, the marriage penalty makes it much tougher for families, for millions of families, to make their car payments or save that little bit extra for college down the road. In my district in Michigan alone, there are 106,000 people paying higher taxes just because they are married. I was pleased to see the President agree with us and call for marriage penalty relief this year. His plan is a good start, but it is really not enough. I think it is better to hit the marriage [[Page H296]] penalty head on instead of the President's approach, which picks and chooses which families get relief and which families do not. The President's proposal would not mean a dime for a working couple earning $30,000 each, who scrimped and saved to buy their home last year. Why would they not benefit from the President's plan? Because they itemize their taxes and fill out longer forms. That just does not make any sense at all. Our proposal on the other hand helps everyone who faces a marriage penalty, whether they happen to own their home or not, whether they itemize or not. If they pay the penalty, our legislation will help them. I believe that American families are overtaxed. American families today pay twice the taxes they did just in 1985, and over 38 percent of the typical family's income goes to taxes. The $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that we see really means that taxpayers have made a substantial overpayment. Let us make a start at returning some of that overpayment and fixing one of the strangest and most inequitable features of our Tax Code. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a distinguished Member of the House. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing nearly $1 trillion of the surplus. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break. True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off.'' Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple hundred billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress, $200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt. I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain it. I am sure the gentleman cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples, especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets. We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone on the other side of the aisle. We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts. Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly penalized simply because they say, I do. Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for it, but today we have heard the excuses. Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western Pennsylvania? Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform, vote for the bill. Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow married couples to spend the money they earn. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing real marriage penalty relief to middle class families. I also rise in opposition to a Republican tax scheme which goes far beyond the marriage penalty. Their irresponsibility jeopardizes Social Security and leaves nothing to strengthen Medicare. Marriage penalty relief is the right thing to do. Married couples should not find themselves penalized because both need to work. The Tax Code has penalized marriage for too long and any tax cut proposal should attack this problem. That means acting within the framework of a balanced budget that will pay down the debt, protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and make needed investments in education. These are the priorities of the American people. Hardworking Americans, Democrats, independents, and even Republicans have sent us this message loud and clear. The only people who do not seem to be listening are the Republican leaders in this Congress. If they were listening, they would hear the families out, those who say do the right thing. Instead, Republicans come to this floor with a massive tax bill that not only squanders the surplus, it fails to provide true marriage penalty relief. In fact, over 70 percent of the tax relief in their bill goes to the wealthiest Americans, most of whom do not even pay a marriage penalty. Meanwhile, families that need relief the most would receive less than 41 cents a day. Democrats support real marriage penalty relief that targets those who need it most. Our plan provides more tax relief to low- and moderate-income Americans who work hard for their paycheck each and every day and deserve to keep more of their money. It would ensure that more working families can take advantage of the earned income tax credit. One hundred thousand of my constituents in my district, those on Social Security, will be hurt by this Republican bill, and the Democratic alternative would cover both those who are suffering from the marriage penalty and those who are on Social Security. We should not be fooled by the numbers that are being brought up on the other side. The Democratic proposal would cover both. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. [[Page H297]] Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I am surprised by this debate today. We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families have a safe and prosperous country to live in. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best possibility for beginning in life. The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk to those families, and I doubt they would agree. Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend Democrats for nothing. Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is so unfair to use political labels like tax and spend. We are very anxious to work with the majority to get a budget and to get this thing done right, but if they just want a political issue they have it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get Medicare and Social Security in my district. Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit. What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it, and suddenly it comes here. In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a tax break to the businesses. Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what, Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country, will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.'' Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we are going to do with Medicare. To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election year. {time} 1245 Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement 100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate priority? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is about 2 years too late, is it not? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down to the serious work here? The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, all politicians in America promote family values. They are good political buzz words. But the truth is, in America, family values happen to mean higher taxes for married people, period. But it does not stop there. Our Tax Code is so screwed up, it also rewards dependency, subsidizes illegitimacy, promotes sexual promiscuity, denies and inhibits achievement and work, while all the time supposedly promoting family values. It has become so perverse in America, even marital sex is overtaxed by our policies. It is no wonder the American people are taxed off. It is no wonder America has so many common law homes and marriages and unwed mothers and kids on our street without guidance, nor stability. I am going to vote for this bill. I want to yield back all the broken homes in America that have been the result of all of the family value rhetoric we hear from Washington politicians. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic leader, for yielding me the time. Well, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to give away surplus revenue before the surpluses even materialize. I support marriage penalty tax relief. I will save the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend on the other side of the aisle, the time and trouble of citing the statistics in my district. There are 51,222 married couples in my district, and they would get relief under the Rangel substitute which I intend to support. But I would also point out that more than twice as many people, 112,262 constituents in my district receive Social [[Page H298]] Security and Medicare benefits; and they will not get protection under the Republican bill. We have had 30 years of deficit spending. There is enough blame to go around for all of that and the tremendous national debt that has resulted. Now we have an era of surpluses, and we are going to decide what to do with the extra money. But what is the size of the surplus? I am amused by all these guesstimates. Six months ago, the CBO said that it was going to be a trillion dollars, and we all started to divvy up that money. Then a few weeks ago, because of this robust economy that we are experiencing, they revised that figure and said it was going to be almost double that, $1.9 trillion. We all got excited about that until I picked up the New York Times and read an article by Bob Reischauer called the ``Amazing Vanishing Budget Surplus.'' As I went through his article, which I thought was pretty well thought out, and he took away the Social Security portion of that surplus, which is the bulk of the surplus, and moderately revised down some of the over-optimistic assumptions. He concluded that our 10-year budget surplus could actually be as low as $100 billion. Now, I can understand people thinking that it will be more than that, and I am among that number. But do we really think it is going to be 20 times that? We all say that we are in favor of saving Social Security, saving Medicare, providing prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying down the national debt. We all say that. But if we do that, what, if any, money will be left? I think Bob Reischauer's projection is low. But what if he is right? Let us take that as an example. This one bill, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), this one bill would put us $82 billion in deficit. Just this one bill! So I support the Rangel substitute. I will vote against this irresponsible bill, and I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I know how many married couples are in my district. I am going to protect them and the seniors. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I appreciate his efforts to bring marriage penalty relief to the floor today. He has been a real champion on this issue. I also commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for moving it through the Committee on Ways and Means. Let me just start by saying that we have a non-Social Security budget surplus projected that is over $2 trillion. The marriage penalty we are talking about today is about one dime out of the dollar of that non- Social Security budget surplus. To say that we cannot take care of paying down the debt, to say that we cannot take care of Social Security and Medicare in that context is just not right. We can. We can do that, and we can take care of this unfairness in the Tax Code. This is a good bill because 25 million couples out there pay, on average, about $1,400 on average more than people who are in their situation but not married. That is just unfair. That may not be much money by Washington standards; but in my district, that is a lot of money. That means about 63,000 couples in the second district of Ohio have more money to save for their own retirement, more money to save for their kids' education, more money to make a down payment on a car or a home. Frankly, it is just not fair. This is their money. This part of the code has to be changed. I have heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle say today, well, our bill is more targeted. We want to target it more. Well, if you target it, two things happen. Number one, people who deserve the benefit, who deserve to get outside of the marriage penalty do not get it. This includes, yes, people who itemize, people who own their own homes. Yes, it includes stay-at-home moms. It even includes some folks that they say they would like to help. Because if they target it and be too specific and refine it too much, they are going to miss some people who need the help. The second thing that happens is in order to target it and refine it the way that Democrats would like to do they add enormous complexity to the Tax Code. Now, I hope all of us will focus on that today. We are doing this, not only in a way that provides relief to people who are being penalized by this unfair part of our Tax Code, but we are doing it in a way that is as simple as possible so we are not adding tremendous complexity to the Tax Code. My colleagues have to add that complexity if they try to target and try to social engineer too much with this proposal. So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us ask the couples in our districts, do they want to get outside of this unfair marriage penalty. The answer will be a resounding yes. We have an opportunity to do it today. Let us join together and pass real marriage penalty relief, and I urge everyone to vote yes on final passage. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important issue, and I am glad that the House is considering the legislation today. Most of us have supported marriage penalty relief for many, many years. That being said, however, I do not think that the current version of H.R. 6 is helpful. The President's budget addresses the problem in a more fiscally responsible fashion, and I commend him for making his proposal. It would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the 15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage penalty for most families across the country. Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families that need it most in the country. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that

Summary:

All articles in House section

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - February 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H291-H330] MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000 Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 419, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the bill is considered read for amendment. The text of H.R. 6 is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999''. (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section 2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES. (a) General Rule.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the following: ``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and [[Page H292]] ``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $7,725, plus 28% of the excess over $51,500............................ $28,277, plus 31% of the excess over $124,900.......................... $70,313, plus 36% of the excess over $260,500.......................... $180,401, plus 39.6% of the excess over $566,300....................... ``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $5,182.50, plus 28% of the excess over $34,550......................... $20,470.50, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150........................ $37,598, plus 36% of the excess over $144,400.......................... $87,548, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150........................ ``(c) Other Individuals.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than an individual to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $3,862.50, plus 28% of the excess over $25,750......................... $14,138.50, plus 31% of the excess over $62,450........................ $35,156.50, plus 36% of the excess over $130,250....................... $90,200.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150..................... ``(d) Estates and Trusts.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every estate, and ``(2) every trust, taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $262.50, plus 28% of the excess over $1,750............................ $906.50, plus 31% of the excess over $4,050............................ $1,573, plus 36% of the excess over $6,200............................. $2,383, plus 39.6% of the excess over $8,450.''........................ (b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for 2000.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended-- (1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``1999'', (2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting ``1998'', and (3) by striking paragraph (7). (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking ``1992'' and inserting ``1998'' each place it appears: (A) Section 25A(h). (B) Section 32(j)(1)(B). (C) Section 41(e)(5)(C). (D) Section 59(j)(2)(B). (E) Section 63(c)(4)(B). (F) Section 68(b)(2)(B). (G) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii). (H) Section 151(d)(4). (I) Section 220(g)(2). (J) Section 221(g)(1)(B). (K) Section 512(d)(2)(B). (L) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii). (M) Section 685(c)(3)(B). (N) Section 877(a)(2). (O) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). (P) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B). (Q) Section 2503(b)(2)(B). (R) Section 2631(c)(1)(B). (S) Section 4001(e)(1)(B). (T) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii). (U) Section 6039F(d). (V) Section 6323(i)(4)(B). (W) Section 6601(j)(3)(B). (X) Section 7430(c)(1). (2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by striking ``1987'' and inserting ``1998''. (3) Subparagraph (B) of section 132(f)(6) is amended by inserting before the period ``, determined by substituting `calendar year 1992' for `calendar year 1998' in subparagraph (B) thereof ''. (4) Sections 468B(b)(1), 511(b)(1), 641(a), 641(d)(2)(A), and 685(d) are each amended by striking ``section 1(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 1(d)''. (5) Sections 1(f)(2) and 904(b)(3)(E)(ii) are each amended by striking ``(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``or (d)''. (6) Paragraph (1) of section 1(f) is amended by striking ``(d), and (e)'' and inserting ``and (d)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating to standard deduction) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-- ``(A) $8,600 in the case of-- ``(i) a joint return, or ``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), ``(B) $6,350 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or ``(C) $4,300 in any other case.'' (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended to read as follows: ``(4) Adjustments for inflation.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1999, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.'' (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(5) is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$700''. (3) Subsection (f) of section 63 is amended by striking ``$600'' each place it appears and inserting ``$850'' and by striking ``$750'' in paragraph (3) and inserting ``$1,050''. (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)(4) of section 63 (as it applies to subsections (c)(5)(A) and (f) of such section)'' and inserting ``section 63(c)(4)''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted. The text of H.R. 6, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000''. (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard deduction) is amended-- (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'', (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and (4) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''. (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET; REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.-- ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)-- ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts determined under clause (i). ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table: ``For taxable years be- ginning in The applicable calendar year-- percentage is-- 2003.......................................................170.3 2004.......................................................173.8 2005.......................................................183.5 2006.......................................................184.3 2007.......................................................187.9 2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0. ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''. (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.-- (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (h). (c) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' before ``by increasing''. (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''. [[Page H293]] (d) Effective Dates.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002. (2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001. SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and amounts) is amended-- (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting ``Amounts.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the earned'', and (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $2,000.''. (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended to read as follows: ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined-- ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and ``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''. (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under subparagraph (B) thereof)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 106-495 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). General Leave Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to open the debate on our side, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when a man and a woman exchange the vows of marriage, they traditionally promise to their spouse that they will be there for richer or for poorer. Unfortunately, for too many years, our government has wanted to make these married couples poorer. Over 25 million married couples have to pay extra taxes, just because they are married. Well, today we have the opportunity to give a Valentine's Day gift to these 50 million, hard-working American families. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act is another piece of our common sense agenda that enjoys strong support of Americans around this country. This is because most Americans understand that it is ridiculous for our government to penalize married people. This is not just about tax cuts; it is about fairness. I know of a young couple in my home State of Illinois, Peggy and Patrick Allgeier. Peggy is an elementary school teacher and Patrick is an assistant football coach at a small college. These fine young people have committed their lives to teaching. They have committed their lives to helping young people. Last July, in a wedding ceremony, they committed their lives to each other; but they also committed about $1,500 of their salary back to the Federal Government because they decided to get married. Because of that wedding, Peggy and Patrick now face the risk of being penalized by our Tax Code. This is absurd. We should be helping young married couples, not forcing them to pay extra taxes. Some have argued that the marriage penalty is no big deal. They think that if Americans itemize, they should be penalized. They think that if an American owns a house, he or she ought to be penalized. They say that if an American scrapes and saves to obtain the American dream, they ought to be penalized. Well, I think these people are wrong. In my district alone, over 65,000 couples are hit by the marriage penalty tax every year. These couples pay an average of $1,400 in extra taxes simply because they are married. We need a fairer Tax Code. We need a Tax Code that does not punish married couples. We need a Tax Code that recognizes that working families need help. They need to buy braces for the kids; they need to be able to pay the insurance on the car and the home. They need to do the things that every American, whether one itemizes on one's income tax or not, needs to do. They do not need the Federal Government picking their pocket and taking money out of their home account just because they are married. I encourage all of my colleagues here to vote yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill today. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle said this is an extreme bill. It is an extreme practice to do this, extreme tax cuts. Well, folks, I think it is extreme too. I think it is an extremely good idea, and we ought to do it as extremely quickly as possible because the American people think that they need to have the marriage penalty relief. They think that this is extremely fair, and they would like to have it passed today. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the Speaker that this is a serious problem that we face. The President of the United States agrees, and God knows if the majority wanted to take care of this and not want a political issue that was going to be vetoed, they would have reached out to the Democrats, they would have reached out to the President, they would have had hearings, and we would have targeted the relief. Why did they pile on so many tax cuts that were totally unrelated to the marriage penalty? Why did they make certain that the President was going to veto this because they completely ignored the budget process? They have so violated their own budget rules that in order for this issue to come to the floor, they have to waive the regular rules, just to bring it on the floor. They have no budget to deal with Social Security, no budget to deal with Medicare, no budget to deal with the national debt; but they intend to take this $1.8 trillion tax cut and feed it to the House piece by piece. It would seem to me that it is not too late for us to decide what issues are important enough for us to work together on. We voted for the rule. We supported the rule because it gives us an opportunity to get a bill that the President will sign, a bill that really deals with the penalty and not with just a broad tax cut. The President said he will veto this because there is no provisions made for anything that deals with the budget. So I know that the Republicans want to have a political gimmick for Valentine's Day, and that is what this is all about; but it is not too late for us to work together. It is not too late for us to take care of the marriage penalty. It is not too late for us to take care of Social Security, Medicare, affordable drugs, to do something for education. Let us all work together. There are enough things for us to argue about come November; but I think the American people would want us to start working together, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, no one discussed this bill with me or any of the members of the committee that are not in the majority party. We have had no hearings, the President's bill was never discussed. Our input was never asked for. It is not too late for beginning to get something productive in this year, this last year of the session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is launching into a debate to do the right thing, to correct the terrible wrong in [[Page H294]] the Tax Code that is called the marriage penalty that penalizes Americans simply because they got married. That is truly wrong, and we should all be proud to have the opportunity to correct this injustice. Indeed, the fundamental principle of doing what is right has driven the Republican agenda since we got into the majority in 1995. We have worked to fix what was wrong and to do what was right. It was right to make Congress live under the laws that apply to everyone else, and we did that. It was right to balance the budget so that we do not leave greater debt to our children and their children, and we did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare so that older Americans could have more confidence that their bills will be paid, and we did that. It was right to give families the child tax credit so that today, every family gets $500 per child. For a family with 2 children, that is $1,000 a year. We did that, and it was right. It was right to give tax breaks for higher education, and it was right to eliminate the capital gains tax on the sale of houses. It was right to fix the broken welfare system so Americans could discover independence, the freedom of work, and the power of responsibility. We did that. It was right to reform the IRS, to shift the burden of proof to the government, and to do so much more; and we did that. It was right to expand educational opportunity for schoolchildren and give more flexibility to parents and to teachers, and we did that. {time} 1215 It was right to stop the raid on social security on the trust fund and to protect every dime of the social security surplus from being spent on other programs, and we did that. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is right to fix the marriage tax penalty. I hope all of my colleagues will stand with American families today and fix this once and for all, and not simply use the crutch of every excuse that can be manufactured. For my entire career in Congress I have fought for the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, last year President Clinton vetoed our marriage penalty relief. It would have helped 25 million couples, but it was vetoed. Just 2 weeks ago the President stood in this room, right here, and told the Nation that he would finally join with us to fix the marriage tax penalty, and he got resounding applause. So today we are back at it again. I hope President Clinton and Vice President Gore this time will embrace this good bipartisan bill, because there are 26 Democrat cosponsors. The American people support it, Representatives and Senators from both parties support it, and there is no excuse why it should not be done now. Despite all this support, I have a feeling we are still hearing excuses from the Democrats why we cannot do it, for whatever reason. They may say that we should not also help stay-at-home moms and dads. They call this the marriage bonus. Their plan actually denies relief to child-caring parents. That is wrong. So we do help, and that is right. Raising a child is the single most important job in the world. Those who forego careers and outside work activities to stay and rear those children need help, too. We are right to provide families with that relief. Even President Clinton says we should help these parents. He said it not long ago in his State of the Union Address here in this Chamber. Why do the Democrat leaders not agree? Why do they fight us on this? Democrats also complain that this is too much tax relief, but again, they are wrong. Fixing the marriage penalty takes less than 1 penny out of every dollar of Federal revenues. Is that too much to fix this wrong, one penny? Their position is extreme. Then they say the timing is not right. Wrong again. We should fix the marriage penalty right now. Married couples should not have to wait one day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code. Then they say, oh, it helps the wealthy. They mean those who itemize. Their plan only takes care of those who take the standard deduction. We think the marriage penalty should be fixed for those who itemize, too, and want to deduct the interest on their home mortgages and the taxes on their houses, because almost half of the people that are helped by this are in that category, and they are in the 15 percent bracket. Almost 25 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes each year, $1,400 each year just because they are married. The Tax Code is tough enough on Americans as it is, but it should not create this penalty. Let us work together and give millions of married couples the fairness they deserve. We do that. Our plan is fair. It is right. It is broad-based. It helps lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and all married couples. It comes down to a matter of principle. The fact that married couples pay more in taxes just because they are married is simply immoral. It is unfair. It is not right. It is unjust. It should be corrected. All of our colleagues should join me in voting for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking Democrat, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Democrats favor relief on the marriage penalty. In fact, when the President spoke, more Democrats stood up quicker than the Republicans stood up during the State of the Union message. The President, in his budget that he gave us last week, has relief for the marriage penalty. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle in a couple of hours will be able to vote on the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which will deal with the problem of the marriage penalty. The problem with this bill, talking about extreme, is that this bill really is not a marriage penalty relief bill. It is in name only. It is kind of like the Trojan horse. It does not really exist. The Republicans will have to admit, maybe they will not want to talk about it, but over half the relief in this bill of $182 billion, one-half of the bill of the gentleman from New York, $182 billion, that goes to people who do not even have a marriage penalty. So how can Members call this really a marriage penalty bill? There are a lot of problems with this bill, because we did not have a hearing, we did not have discussions. Nobody talked to the President or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or any Democrat on this piece of legislation. It was just kind of put together at the last minute. All of a sudden, we are voting for it a week later on the floor of the House of Representatives. But bear in mind, this is unbelievable but it is true, somebody who makes $50,000 a year will get major relief from the marriage penalty of $149 a year, about $10 a month. But if you make $100,000 a year, you are going to get about $1,000 a month. That is what is extreme. It is not about the marriage penalty, this is about tax relief and redistribution to wealthy Americans. In addition, it is going to create a lot more complexity in the code, because people who make $50,000 then will have to file what is known as the alternative minimum tax. But the real problem with this bill is we have no budget. Because we have no budget, what is going to happen is these little tax bills that are moving through the House right now, $180 billion here, $200 billion there, all of a sudden it is going to affect our ability to fix Medicare and social security, the two most pressing problems in America today. It would be wonderful if the Republicans would have come to the floor today with a social security relief package, but they have spent most of their time playing the blame game. If we just had a bill to deal with social security first, because that is what we need to do. Social security and Medicare should be dealt with before we deal with tax provisions, because we are using, we are using the so-called budget surplus that may or may not be there. I urge a strong no vote on this extreme bill that is in name only called the marriage penalty, and vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which really deals with the problems of average, middle-class Americans that are suffering from the marriage penalty. [[Page H295]] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) claims time on the majority side. There was no objection. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the marriage penalty. Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for the marriage penalty over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on that income. They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately, the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a higher bracket. That is the penalty. The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the 7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We were overtaxing them. We understand that the rewards that come with working can be abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the demands of work and family. I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific Northwest. Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits, whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or going out into the work force. Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones. We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign this bill. The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan, because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer couples than our bill does. I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the President will be very wise and sign this fair bill. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible, that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the Republicans are peddling does not meet that test. First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter. Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an additional $47 billion a year. Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security and Medicare relief. They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us what is the rest of their plan. {time} 1230 The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this bill fails on all accounts. Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6. I am proud today that we are able to step forward and fix a glaring inequity in our Tax Code. Twenty-five million American couples pay more in taxes simply because they walk to the altar and say, I do. At an average of $1,400 a couple, the marriage penalty makes it much tougher for families, for millions of families, to make their car payments or save that little bit extra for college down the road. In my district in Michigan alone, there are 106,000 people paying higher taxes just because they are married. I was pleased to see the President agree with us and call for marriage penalty relief this year. His plan is a good start, but it is really not enough. I think it is better to hit the marriage [[Page H296]] penalty head on instead of the President's approach, which picks and chooses which families get relief and which families do not. The President's proposal would not mean a dime for a working couple earning $30,000 each, who scrimped and saved to buy their home last year. Why would they not benefit from the President's plan? Because they itemize their taxes and fill out longer forms. That just does not make any sense at all. Our proposal on the other hand helps everyone who faces a marriage penalty, whether they happen to own their home or not, whether they itemize or not. If they pay the penalty, our legislation will help them. I believe that American families are overtaxed. American families today pay twice the taxes they did just in 1985, and over 38 percent of the typical family's income goes to taxes. The $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that we see really means that taxpayers have made a substantial overpayment. Let us make a start at returning some of that overpayment and fixing one of the strangest and most inequitable features of our Tax Code. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a distinguished Member of the House. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing nearly $1 trillion of the surplus. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break. True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off.'' Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple hundred billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress, $200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt. I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain it. I am sure the gentleman cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples, especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets. We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone on the other side of the aisle. We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts. Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly penalized simply because they say, I do. Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for it, but today we have heard the excuses. Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western Pennsylvania? Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform, vote for the bill. Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow married couples to spend the money they earn. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing real marriage penalty relief to middle class families. I also rise in opposition to a Republican tax scheme which goes far beyond the marriage penalty. Their irresponsibility jeopardizes Social Security and leaves nothing to strengthen Medicare. Marriage penalty relief is the right thing to do. Married couples should not find themselves penalized because both need to work. The Tax Code has penalized marriage for too long and any tax cut proposal should attack this problem. That means acting within the framework of a balanced budget that will pay down the debt, protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and make needed investments in education. These are the priorities of the American people. Hardworking Americans, Democrats, independents, and even Republicans have sent us this message loud and clear. The only people who do not seem to be listening are the Republican leaders in this Congress. If they were listening, they would hear the families out, those who say do the right thing. Instead, Republicans come to this floor with a massive tax bill that not only squanders the surplus, it fails to provide true marriage penalty relief. In fact, over 70 percent of the tax relief in their bill goes to the wealthiest Americans, most of whom do not even pay a marriage penalty. Meanwhile, families that need relief the most would receive less than 41 cents a day. Democrats support real marriage penalty relief that targets those who need it most. Our plan provides more tax relief to low- and moderate-income Americans who work hard for their paycheck each and every day and deserve to keep more of their money. It would ensure that more working families can take advantage of the earned income tax credit. One hundred thousand of my constituents in my district, those on Social Security, will be hurt by this Republican bill, and the Democratic alternative would cover both those who are suffering from the marriage penalty and those who are on Social Security. We should not be fooled by the numbers that are being brought up on the other side. The Democratic proposal would cover both. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. [[Page H297]] Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I am surprised by this debate today. We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families have a safe and prosperous country to live in. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best possibility for beginning in life. The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk to those families, and I doubt they would agree. Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend Democrats for nothing. Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is so unfair to use political labels like tax and spend. We are very anxious to work with the majority to get a budget and to get this thing done right, but if they just want a political issue they have it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get Medicare and Social Security in my district. Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit. What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it, and suddenly it comes here. In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a tax break to the businesses. Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what, Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country, will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.'' Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we are going to do with Medicare. To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election year. {time} 1245 Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement 100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate priority? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is about 2 years too late, is it not? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down to the serious work here? The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, all politicians in America promote family values. They are good political buzz words. But the truth is, in America, family values happen to mean higher taxes for married people, period. But it does not stop there. Our Tax Code is so screwed up, it also rewards dependency, subsidizes illegitimacy, promotes sexual promiscuity, denies and inhibits achievement and work, while all the time supposedly promoting family values. It has become so perverse in America, even marital sex is overtaxed by our policies. It is no wonder the American people are taxed off. It is no wonder America has so many common law homes and marriages and unwed mothers and kids on our street without guidance, nor stability. I am going to vote for this bill. I want to yield back all the broken homes in America that have been the result of all of the family value rhetoric we hear from Washington politicians. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic leader, for yielding me the time. Well, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to give away surplus revenue before the surpluses even materialize. I support marriage penalty tax relief. I will save the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend on the other side of the aisle, the time and trouble of citing the statistics in my district. There are 51,222 married couples in my district, and they would get relief under the Rangel substitute which I intend to support. But I would also point out that more than twice as many people, 112,262 constituents in my district receive Social [[Page H298]] Security and Medicare benefits; and they will not get protection under the Republican bill. We have had 30 years of deficit spending. There is enough blame to go around for all of that and the tremendous national debt that has resulted. Now we have an era of surpluses, and we are going to decide what to do with the extra money. But what is the size of the surplus? I am amused by all these guesstimates. Six months ago, the CBO said that it was going to be a trillion dollars, and we all started to divvy up that money. Then a few weeks ago, because of this robust economy that we are experiencing, they revised that figure and said it was going to be almost double that, $1.9 trillion. We all got excited about that until I picked up the New York Times and read an article by Bob Reischauer called the ``Amazing Vanishing Budget Surplus.'' As I went through his article, which I thought was pretty well thought out, and he took away the Social Security portion of that surplus, which is the bulk of the surplus, and moderately revised down some of the over-optimistic assumptions. He concluded that our 10-year budget surplus could actually be as low as $100 billion. Now, I can understand people thinking that it will be more than that, and I am among that number. But do we really think it is going to be 20 times that? We all say that we are in favor of saving Social Security, saving Medicare, providing prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying down the national debt. We all say that. But if we do that, what, if any, money will be left? I think Bob Reischauer's projection is low. But what if he is right? Let us take that as an example. This one bill, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), this one bill would put us $82 billion in deficit. Just this one bill! So I support the Rangel substitute. I will vote against this irresponsible bill, and I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I know how many married couples are in my district. I am going to protect them and the seniors. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I appreciate his efforts to bring marriage penalty relief to the floor today. He has been a real champion on this issue. I also commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for moving it through the Committee on Ways and Means. Let me just start by saying that we have a non-Social Security budget surplus projected that is over $2 trillion. The marriage penalty we are talking about today is about one dime out of the dollar of that non- Social Security budget surplus. To say that we cannot take care of paying down the debt, to say that we cannot take care of Social Security and Medicare in that context is just not right. We can. We can do that, and we can take care of this unfairness in the Tax Code. This is a good bill because 25 million couples out there pay, on average, about $1,400 on average more than people who are in their situation but not married. That is just unfair. That may not be much money by Washington standards; but in my district, that is a lot of money. That means about 63,000 couples in the second district of Ohio have more money to save for their own retirement, more money to save for their kids' education, more money to make a down payment on a car or a home. Frankly, it is just not fair. This is their money. This part of the code has to be changed. I have heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle say today, well, our bill is more targeted. We want to target it more. Well, if you target it, two things happen. Number one, people who deserve the benefit, who deserve to get outside of the marriage penalty do not get it. This includes, yes, people who itemize, people who own their own homes. Yes, it includes stay-at-home moms. It even includes some folks that they say they would like to help. Because if they target it and be too specific and refine it too much, they are going to miss some people who need the help. The second thing that happens is in order to target it and refine it the way that Democrats would like to do they add enormous complexity to the Tax Code. Now, I hope all of us will focus on that today. We are doing this, not only in a way that provides relief to people who are being penalized by this unfair part of our Tax Code, but we are doing it in a way that is as simple as possible so we are not adding tremendous complexity to the Tax Code. My colleagues have to add that complexity if they try to target and try to social engineer too much with this proposal. So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us ask the couples in our districts, do they want to get outside of this unfair marriage penalty. The answer will be a resounding yes. We have an opportunity to do it today. Let us join together and pass real marriage penalty relief, and I urge everyone to vote yes on final passage. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important issue, and I am glad that the House is considering the legislation today. Most of us have supported marriage penalty relief for many, many years. That being said, however, I do not think that the current version of H.R. 6 is helpful. The President's budget addresses the problem in a more fiscally responsible fashion, and I commend him for making his proposal. It would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the 15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage penalty for most families across the country. Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families that need it most in the country. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that was repo

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000
(House of Representatives - February 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H291-H330] MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000 Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 419, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the bill is considered read for amendment. The text of H.R. 6 is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999''. (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section 2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATES. (a) General Rule.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the following: ``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and [[Page H292]] ``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $7,725, plus 28% of the excess over $51,500............................ $28,277, plus 31% of the excess over $124,900.......................... $70,313, plus 36% of the excess over $260,500.......................... $180,401, plus 39.6% of the excess over $566,300....................... ``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $5,182.50, plus 28% of the excess over $34,550......................... $20,470.50, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150........................ $37,598, plus 36% of the excess over $144,400.......................... $87,548, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150........................ ``(c) Other Individuals.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than an individual to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $3,862.50, plus 28% of the excess over $25,750......................... $14,138.50, plus 31% of the excess over $62,450........................ $35,156.50, plus 36% of the excess over $130,250....................... $90,200.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150..................... ``(d) Estates and Trusts.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-- ``(1) every estate, and ``(2) every trust, taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table: The tax is:e income is: 15% of taxable income.................................................. $262.50, plus 28% of the excess over $1,750............................ $906.50, plus 31% of the excess over $4,050............................ $1,573, plus 36% of the excess over $6,200............................. $2,383, plus 39.6% of the excess over $8,450.''........................ (b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for 2000.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended-- (1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``1999'', (2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting ``1998'', and (3) by striking paragraph (7). (c) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) The following provisions are each amended by striking ``1992'' and inserting ``1998'' each place it appears: (A) Section 25A(h). (B) Section 32(j)(1)(B). (C) Section 41(e)(5)(C). (D) Section 59(j)(2)(B). (E) Section 63(c)(4)(B). (F) Section 68(b)(2)(B). (G) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii). (H) Section 151(d)(4). (I) Section 220(g)(2). (J) Section 221(g)(1)(B). (K) Section 512(d)(2)(B). (L) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii). (M) Section 685(c)(3)(B). (N) Section 877(a)(2). (O) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II). (P) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B). (Q) Section 2503(b)(2)(B). (R) Section 2631(c)(1)(B). (S) Section 4001(e)(1)(B). (T) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii). (U) Section 6039F(d). (V) Section 6323(i)(4)(B). (W) Section 6601(j)(3)(B). (X) Section 7430(c)(1). (2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by striking ``1987'' and inserting ``1998''. (3) Subparagraph (B) of section 132(f)(6) is amended by inserting before the period ``, determined by substituting `calendar year 1992' for `calendar year 1998' in subparagraph (B) thereof ''. (4) Sections 468B(b)(1), 511(b)(1), 641(a), 641(d)(2)(A), and 685(d) are each amended by striking ``section 1(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section 1(d)''. (5) Sections 1(f)(2) and 904(b)(3)(E)(ii) are each amended by striking ``(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``or (d)''. (6) Paragraph (1) of section 1(f) is amended by striking ``(d), and (e)'' and inserting ``and (d)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating to standard deduction) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-- ``(A) $8,600 in the case of-- ``(i) a joint return, or ``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), ``(B) $6,350 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or ``(C) $4,300 in any other case.'' (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended to read as follows: ``(4) Adjustments for inflation.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1999, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to-- ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.'' (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(5) is amended by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$700''. (3) Subsection (f) of section 63 is amended by striking ``$600'' each place it appears and inserting ``$850'' and by striking ``$750'' in paragraph (3) and inserting ``$1,050''. (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)(4) of section 63 (as it applies to subsections (c)(5)(A) and (f) of such section)'' and inserting ``section 63(c)(4)''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted. The text of H.R. 6, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 6 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000''. (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard deduction) is amended-- (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'', (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and (4) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be applied''. (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET; REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.-- ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)-- ``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts determined under clause (i). ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table: ``For taxable years be- ginning in The applicable calendar year-- percentage is-- 2003.......................................................170.3 2004.......................................................173.8 2005.......................................................183.5 2006.......................................................184.3 2007.......................................................187.9 2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0. ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''. (b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.-- (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (h). (c) Technical Amendments.-- (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' before ``by increasing''. (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''. [[Page H293]] (d) Effective Dates.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002. (2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001. SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT. (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and amounts) is amended-- (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting ``Amounts.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the earned'', and (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by $2,000.''. (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended to read as follows: ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined-- ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and ``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''. (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under subparagraph (B) thereof)''. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in House Report 106-495 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). General Leave Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to open the debate on our side, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when a man and a woman exchange the vows of marriage, they traditionally promise to their spouse that they will be there for richer or for poorer. Unfortunately, for too many years, our government has wanted to make these married couples poorer. Over 25 million married couples have to pay extra taxes, just because they are married. Well, today we have the opportunity to give a Valentine's Day gift to these 50 million, hard-working American families. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act is another piece of our common sense agenda that enjoys strong support of Americans around this country. This is because most Americans understand that it is ridiculous for our government to penalize married people. This is not just about tax cuts; it is about fairness. I know of a young couple in my home State of Illinois, Peggy and Patrick Allgeier. Peggy is an elementary school teacher and Patrick is an assistant football coach at a small college. These fine young people have committed their lives to teaching. They have committed their lives to helping young people. Last July, in a wedding ceremony, they committed their lives to each other; but they also committed about $1,500 of their salary back to the Federal Government because they decided to get married. Because of that wedding, Peggy and Patrick now face the risk of being penalized by our Tax Code. This is absurd. We should be helping young married couples, not forcing them to pay extra taxes. Some have argued that the marriage penalty is no big deal. They think that if Americans itemize, they should be penalized. They think that if an American owns a house, he or she ought to be penalized. They say that if an American scrapes and saves to obtain the American dream, they ought to be penalized. Well, I think these people are wrong. In my district alone, over 65,000 couples are hit by the marriage penalty tax every year. These couples pay an average of $1,400 in extra taxes simply because they are married. We need a fairer Tax Code. We need a Tax Code that does not punish married couples. We need a Tax Code that recognizes that working families need help. They need to buy braces for the kids; they need to be able to pay the insurance on the car and the home. They need to do the things that every American, whether one itemizes on one's income tax or not, needs to do. They do not need the Federal Government picking their pocket and taking money out of their home account just because they are married. I encourage all of my colleagues here to vote yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief bill today. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle said this is an extreme bill. It is an extreme practice to do this, extreme tax cuts. Well, folks, I think it is extreme too. I think it is an extremely good idea, and we ought to do it as extremely quickly as possible because the American people think that they need to have the marriage penalty relief. They think that this is extremely fair, and they would like to have it passed today. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the Speaker that this is a serious problem that we face. The President of the United States agrees, and God knows if the majority wanted to take care of this and not want a political issue that was going to be vetoed, they would have reached out to the Democrats, they would have reached out to the President, they would have had hearings, and we would have targeted the relief. Why did they pile on so many tax cuts that were totally unrelated to the marriage penalty? Why did they make certain that the President was going to veto this because they completely ignored the budget process? They have so violated their own budget rules that in order for this issue to come to the floor, they have to waive the regular rules, just to bring it on the floor. They have no budget to deal with Social Security, no budget to deal with Medicare, no budget to deal with the national debt; but they intend to take this $1.8 trillion tax cut and feed it to the House piece by piece. It would seem to me that it is not too late for us to decide what issues are important enough for us to work together on. We voted for the rule. We supported the rule because it gives us an opportunity to get a bill that the President will sign, a bill that really deals with the penalty and not with just a broad tax cut. The President said he will veto this because there is no provisions made for anything that deals with the budget. So I know that the Republicans want to have a political gimmick for Valentine's Day, and that is what this is all about; but it is not too late for us to work together. It is not too late for us to take care of the marriage penalty. It is not too late for us to take care of Social Security, Medicare, affordable drugs, to do something for education. Let us all work together. There are enough things for us to argue about come November; but I think the American people would want us to start working together, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, no one discussed this bill with me or any of the members of the committee that are not in the majority party. We have had no hearings, the President's bill was never discussed. Our input was never asked for. It is not too late for beginning to get something productive in this year, this last year of the session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is launching into a debate to do the right thing, to correct the terrible wrong in [[Page H294]] the Tax Code that is called the marriage penalty that penalizes Americans simply because they got married. That is truly wrong, and we should all be proud to have the opportunity to correct this injustice. Indeed, the fundamental principle of doing what is right has driven the Republican agenda since we got into the majority in 1995. We have worked to fix what was wrong and to do what was right. It was right to make Congress live under the laws that apply to everyone else, and we did that. It was right to balance the budget so that we do not leave greater debt to our children and their children, and we did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare so that older Americans could have more confidence that their bills will be paid, and we did that. It was right to give families the child tax credit so that today, every family gets $500 per child. For a family with 2 children, that is $1,000 a year. We did that, and it was right. It was right to give tax breaks for higher education, and it was right to eliminate the capital gains tax on the sale of houses. It was right to fix the broken welfare system so Americans could discover independence, the freedom of work, and the power of responsibility. We did that. It was right to reform the IRS, to shift the burden of proof to the government, and to do so much more; and we did that. It was right to expand educational opportunity for schoolchildren and give more flexibility to parents and to teachers, and we did that. {time} 1215 It was right to stop the raid on social security on the trust fund and to protect every dime of the social security surplus from being spent on other programs, and we did that. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is right to fix the marriage tax penalty. I hope all of my colleagues will stand with American families today and fix this once and for all, and not simply use the crutch of every excuse that can be manufactured. For my entire career in Congress I have fought for the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, last year President Clinton vetoed our marriage penalty relief. It would have helped 25 million couples, but it was vetoed. Just 2 weeks ago the President stood in this room, right here, and told the Nation that he would finally join with us to fix the marriage tax penalty, and he got resounding applause. So today we are back at it again. I hope President Clinton and Vice President Gore this time will embrace this good bipartisan bill, because there are 26 Democrat cosponsors. The American people support it, Representatives and Senators from both parties support it, and there is no excuse why it should not be done now. Despite all this support, I have a feeling we are still hearing excuses from the Democrats why we cannot do it, for whatever reason. They may say that we should not also help stay-at-home moms and dads. They call this the marriage bonus. Their plan actually denies relief to child-caring parents. That is wrong. So we do help, and that is right. Raising a child is the single most important job in the world. Those who forego careers and outside work activities to stay and rear those children need help, too. We are right to provide families with that relief. Even President Clinton says we should help these parents. He said it not long ago in his State of the Union Address here in this Chamber. Why do the Democrat leaders not agree? Why do they fight us on this? Democrats also complain that this is too much tax relief, but again, they are wrong. Fixing the marriage penalty takes less than 1 penny out of every dollar of Federal revenues. Is that too much to fix this wrong, one penny? Their position is extreme. Then they say the timing is not right. Wrong again. We should fix the marriage penalty right now. Married couples should not have to wait one day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code. Then they say, oh, it helps the wealthy. They mean those who itemize. Their plan only takes care of those who take the standard deduction. We think the marriage penalty should be fixed for those who itemize, too, and want to deduct the interest on their home mortgages and the taxes on their houses, because almost half of the people that are helped by this are in that category, and they are in the 15 percent bracket. Almost 25 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 in higher taxes each year, $1,400 each year just because they are married. The Tax Code is tough enough on Americans as it is, but it should not create this penalty. Let us work together and give millions of married couples the fairness they deserve. We do that. Our plan is fair. It is right. It is broad-based. It helps lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and all married couples. It comes down to a matter of principle. The fact that married couples pay more in taxes just because they are married is simply immoral. It is unfair. It is not right. It is unjust. It should be corrected. All of our colleagues should join me in voting for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking Democrat, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Democrats favor relief on the marriage penalty. In fact, when the President spoke, more Democrats stood up quicker than the Republicans stood up during the State of the Union message. The President, in his budget that he gave us last week, has relief for the marriage penalty. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle in a couple of hours will be able to vote on the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which will deal with the problem of the marriage penalty. The problem with this bill, talking about extreme, is that this bill really is not a marriage penalty relief bill. It is in name only. It is kind of like the Trojan horse. It does not really exist. The Republicans will have to admit, maybe they will not want to talk about it, but over half the relief in this bill of $182 billion, one-half of the bill of the gentleman from New York, $182 billion, that goes to people who do not even have a marriage penalty. So how can Members call this really a marriage penalty bill? There are a lot of problems with this bill, because we did not have a hearing, we did not have discussions. Nobody talked to the President or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or any Democrat on this piece of legislation. It was just kind of put together at the last minute. All of a sudden, we are voting for it a week later on the floor of the House of Representatives. But bear in mind, this is unbelievable but it is true, somebody who makes $50,000 a year will get major relief from the marriage penalty of $149 a year, about $10 a month. But if you make $100,000 a year, you are going to get about $1,000 a month. That is what is extreme. It is not about the marriage penalty, this is about tax relief and redistribution to wealthy Americans. In addition, it is going to create a lot more complexity in the code, because people who make $50,000 then will have to file what is known as the alternative minimum tax. But the real problem with this bill is we have no budget. Because we have no budget, what is going to happen is these little tax bills that are moving through the House right now, $180 billion here, $200 billion there, all of a sudden it is going to affect our ability to fix Medicare and social security, the two most pressing problems in America today. It would be wonderful if the Republicans would have come to the floor today with a social security relief package, but they have spent most of their time playing the blame game. If we just had a bill to deal with social security first, because that is what we need to do. Social security and Medicare should be dealt with before we deal with tax provisions, because we are using, we are using the so-called budget surplus that may or may not be there. I urge a strong no vote on this extreme bill that is in name only called the marriage penalty, and vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which really deals with the problems of average, middle-class Americans that are suffering from the marriage penalty. [[Page H295]] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) claims time on the majority side. There was no objection. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the marriage penalty. Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for the marriage penalty over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on that income. They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately, the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a higher bracket. That is the penalty. The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the 7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We were overtaxing them. We understand that the rewards that come with working can be abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the demands of work and family. I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific Northwest. Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits, whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or going out into the work force. Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones. We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign this bill. The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan, because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer couples than our bill does. I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the President will be very wise and sign this fair bill. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible, that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the Republicans are peddling does not meet that test. First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter. Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an additional $47 billion a year. Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security and Medicare relief. They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us what is the rest of their plan. {time} 1230 The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this bill fails on all accounts. Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6. I am proud today that we are able to step forward and fix a glaring inequity in our Tax Code. Twenty-five million American couples pay more in taxes simply because they walk to the altar and say, I do. At an average of $1,400 a couple, the marriage penalty makes it much tougher for families, for millions of families, to make their car payments or save that little bit extra for college down the road. In my district in Michigan alone, there are 106,000 people paying higher taxes just because they are married. I was pleased to see the President agree with us and call for marriage penalty relief this year. His plan is a good start, but it is really not enough. I think it is better to hit the marriage [[Page H296]] penalty head on instead of the President's approach, which picks and chooses which families get relief and which families do not. The President's proposal would not mean a dime for a working couple earning $30,000 each, who scrimped and saved to buy their home last year. Why would they not benefit from the President's plan? Because they itemize their taxes and fill out longer forms. That just does not make any sense at all. Our proposal on the other hand helps everyone who faces a marriage penalty, whether they happen to own their home or not, whether they itemize or not. If they pay the penalty, our legislation will help them. I believe that American families are overtaxed. American families today pay twice the taxes they did just in 1985, and over 38 percent of the typical family's income goes to taxes. The $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that we see really means that taxpayers have made a substantial overpayment. Let us make a start at returning some of that overpayment and fixing one of the strangest and most inequitable features of our Tax Code. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a distinguished Member of the House. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing nearly $1 trillion of the surplus. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break. True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off.'' Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple hundred billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress, $200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt. I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain it. I am sure the gentleman cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples, especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets. We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone on the other side of the aisle. We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts. Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly penalized simply because they say, I do. Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for it, but today we have heard the excuses. Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western Pennsylvania? Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform, vote for the bill. Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow married couples to spend the money they earn. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing real marriage penalty relief to middle class families. I also rise in opposition to a Republican tax scheme which goes far beyond the marriage penalty. Their irresponsibility jeopardizes Social Security and leaves nothing to strengthen Medicare. Marriage penalty relief is the right thing to do. Married couples should not find themselves penalized because both need to work. The Tax Code has penalized marriage for too long and any tax cut proposal should attack this problem. That means acting within the framework of a balanced budget that will pay down the debt, protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and make needed investments in education. These are the priorities of the American people. Hardworking Americans, Democrats, independents, and even Republicans have sent us this message loud and clear. The only people who do not seem to be listening are the Republican leaders in this Congress. If they were listening, they would hear the families out, those who say do the right thing. Instead, Republicans come to this floor with a massive tax bill that not only squanders the surplus, it fails to provide true marriage penalty relief. In fact, over 70 percent of the tax relief in their bill goes to the wealthiest Americans, most of whom do not even pay a marriage penalty. Meanwhile, families that need relief the most would receive less than 41 cents a day. Democrats support real marriage penalty relief that targets those who need it most. Our plan provides more tax relief to low- and moderate-income Americans who work hard for their paycheck each and every day and deserve to keep more of their money. It would ensure that more working families can take advantage of the earned income tax credit. One hundred thousand of my constituents in my district, those on Social Security, will be hurt by this Republican bill, and the Democratic alternative would cover both those who are suffering from the marriage penalty and those who are on Social Security. We should not be fooled by the numbers that are being brought up on the other side. The Democratic proposal would cover both. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. [[Page H297]] Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I am surprised by this debate today. We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families have a safe and prosperous country to live in. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best possibility for beginning in life. The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk to those families, and I doubt they would agree. Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend Democrats for nothing. Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem? Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is so unfair to use political labels like tax and spend. We are very anxious to work with the majority to get a budget and to get this thing done right, but if they just want a political issue they have it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get Medicare and Social Security in my district. Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit. What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it, and suddenly it comes here. In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a tax break to the businesses. Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what, Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country, will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.'' Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we are going to do with Medicare. To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election year. {time} 1245 Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement 100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate priority? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is about 2 years too late, is it not? Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down to the serious work here? The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, all politicians in America promote family values. They are good political buzz words. But the truth is, in America, family values happen to mean higher taxes for married people, period. But it does not stop there. Our Tax Code is so screwed up, it also rewards dependency, subsidizes illegitimacy, promotes sexual promiscuity, denies and inhibits achievement and work, while all the time supposedly promoting family values. It has become so perverse in America, even marital sex is overtaxed by our policies. It is no wonder the American people are taxed off. It is no wonder America has so many common law homes and marriages and unwed mothers and kids on our street without guidance, nor stability. I am going to vote for this bill. I want to yield back all the broken homes in America that have been the result of all of the family value rhetoric we hear from Washington politicians. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic leader, for yielding me the time. Well, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to give away surplus revenue before the surpluses even materialize. I support marriage penalty tax relief. I will save the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend on the other side of the aisle, the time and trouble of citing the statistics in my district. There are 51,222 married couples in my district, and they would get relief under the Rangel substitute which I intend to support. But I would also point out that more than twice as many people, 112,262 constituents in my district receive Social [[Page H298]] Security and Medicare benefits; and they will not get protection under the Republican bill. We have had 30 years of deficit spending. There is enough blame to go around for all of that and the tremendous national debt that has resulted. Now we have an era of surpluses, and we are going to decide what to do with the extra money. But what is the size of the surplus? I am amused by all these guesstimates. Six months ago, the CBO said that it was going to be a trillion dollars, and we all started to divvy up that money. Then a few weeks ago, because of this robust economy that we are experiencing, they revised that figure and said it was going to be almost double that, $1.9 trillion. We all got excited about that until I picked up the New York Times and read an article by Bob Reischauer called the ``Amazing Vanishing Budget Surplus.'' As I went through his article, which I thought was pretty well thought out, and he took away the Social Security portion of that surplus, which is the bulk of the surplus, and moderately revised down some of the over-optimistic assumptions. He concluded that our 10-year budget surplus could actually be as low as $100 billion. Now, I can understand people thinking that it will be more than that, and I am among that number. But do we really think it is going to be 20 times that? We all say that we are in favor of saving Social Security, saving Medicare, providing prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying down the national debt. We all say that. But if we do that, what, if any, money will be left? I think Bob Reischauer's projection is low. But what if he is right? Let us take that as an example. This one bill, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), this one bill would put us $82 billion in deficit. Just this one bill! So I support the Rangel substitute. I will vote against this irresponsible bill, and I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I know how many married couples are in my district. I am going to protect them and the seniors. Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I appreciate his efforts to bring marriage penalty relief to the floor today. He has been a real champion on this issue. I also commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for moving it through the Committee on Ways and Means. Let me just start by saying that we have a non-Social Security budget surplus projected that is over $2 trillion. The marriage penalty we are talking about today is about one dime out of the dollar of that non- Social Security budget surplus. To say that we cannot take care of paying down the debt, to say that we cannot take care of Social Security and Medicare in that context is just not right. We can. We can do that, and we can take care of this unfairness in the Tax Code. This is a good bill because 25 million couples out there pay, on average, about $1,400 on average more than people who are in their situation but not married. That is just unfair. That may not be much money by Washington standards; but in my district, that is a lot of money. That means about 63,000 couples in the second district of Ohio have more money to save for their own retirement, more money to save for their kids' education, more money to make a down payment on a car or a home. Frankly, it is just not fair. This is their money. This part of the code has to be changed. I have heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle say today, well, our bill is more targeted. We want to target it more. Well, if you target it, two things happen. Number one, people who deserve the benefit, who deserve to get outside of the marriage penalty do not get it. This includes, yes, people who itemize, people who own their own homes. Yes, it includes stay-at-home moms. It even includes some folks that they say they would like to help. Because if they target it and be too specific and refine it too much, they are going to miss some people who need the help. The second thing that happens is in order to target it and refine it the way that Democrats would like to do they add enormous complexity to the Tax Code. Now, I hope all of us will focus on that today. We are doing this, not only in a way that provides relief to people who are being penalized by this unfair part of our Tax Code, but we are doing it in a way that is as simple as possible so we are not adding tremendous complexity to the Tax Code. My colleagues have to add that complexity if they try to target and try to social engineer too much with this proposal. So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us ask the couples in our districts, do they want to get outside of this unfair marriage penalty. The answer will be a resounding yes. We have an opportunity to do it today. Let us join together and pass real marriage penalty relief, and I urge everyone to vote yes on final passage. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important issue, and I am glad that the House is considering the legislation today. Most of us have supported marriage penalty relief for many, many years. That being said, however, I do not think that the current version of H.R. 6 is helpful. The President's budget addresses the problem in a more fiscally responsible fashion, and I commend him for making his proposal. It would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the 15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage penalty for most families across the country. Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families that need it most in the country. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that