Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4181, Permanently Extending Increased Standard Deduction, and the 15% Individual Income Tax Rate Bracket Expansion

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4181, PERMANENTLY EXTENDING INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION, AND THE 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION, FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS -- (House of Representatives - April 28, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty tax relief is a good thing, not paying for it is a bad thing. All of us in this Chamber support tax fairness for married couples. But the question is, who supports tax fairness for future generations?

The deficit in this country continues to skyrocket, and what is disturbing to me is that there do not seem to be very many people on the other side of the aisle that care very much about that fact. We have to give President Clinton and his administration credit because, during the Clinton administration, this country experienced the first budget surpluses since the 1960s. Democrats and Republicans, working in a bipartisan way, delivered balanced budgets and extended the solvency of Social Security and Medicare well into the 21st century, but then the Bush administration moved into the White House, and fiscal responsibility went out of fashion.

Over the course of three major tax cuts, essentially handouts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations in this country, the $5.6 trillion surplus became a $2.9 trillion deficit, a stunning $8.5 trillion reversal.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership claimed they were providing middle-class tax relief, but the truth is that the vast majority of these tax cuts went to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country. They claimed that these tax cuts would stimulate the economy and create jobs, but the truth is that this country has lost more than 2 million jobs since the President took office. They claim that this country could afford these tax cuts; but the truth is, they have squandered the Clinton surplus and actually hidden the long-term costs of these tax cuts by pretending that they will expire in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the American people, I believe, can separate the rhetoric from reality. Over the next 4 weeks, starting today, this House will consider legislation to extend various provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Mind you, we will consider these bills without a budget resolution, the framework for all Federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year; and we will consider them years before many of them actually expire.

Today's offering is a bill to extend marriage penalty tax relief beyond 2010. I fully support extending tax relief for married couples, but this bill that the Republican leadership has drafted has the same problem as their previous bills. It is not paid for. Well, I should say actually it will be paid for some day, but not by this Congress. Just like in 2001 and 2003, the Republicans pass the cost of their tax cuts to our children and to our grandchildren. In essence, they are raising taxes on future generations. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair and that is not right.

Democrats, I think, have a better plan to extend marriage penalty relief. The Democratic substitute improves this legislation with three simple, commonsense provisions.

First, the Democrats extend the earned income tax credit for low- and middle-income married couples; and the Democratic bill speeds up the EITC marriage penalty relief included in the 2001 tax cut bill, ensuring that low- and middle-income married couples are not penalized by this unfair tax.

Second, Democrats exempt any marriage penalty relief from the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, over half of the marriage penalty relief is taken away from married couples by the Federal Government because of the alternative minimum tax. The Republican bill fails to fix this unfair taxation, and many married couples will find that the government is taxing the very relief promised them by the Republican leadership. We will not see that in the Republican press releases today.

Third, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats provide an offset. Unlike the Republican bill, Democrats actually pay for this tax relief. Democrats do not believe we should be passing the burden of paying for these tax cuts onto future generations.

Mr. Speaker, every day American families must make tough choices with their hard-earned money. They budget for groceries and housing, transportation, education and child care. They spend sensibly within their means.

Congress could learn a lot from the average American family. Congress should live within its means as well. It is very simple. If you are going to spend, you should pay for it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the other side of the aisle is ignoring that important lesson.

We have an opportunity here today to work together and provide meaningful marriage penalty relief to married couples, regardless of income; and we can do this in a way that we pay for it.

So I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us today. Support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute. Show the American people that this Congress can actually act in a fiscally responsible manner, that it does indeed care about the deficit and the fiscal health of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who I have great respect for.

We serve together on the Committee on Rules, and I did not think we had much of a philosophical difference because I have admired a lot of the comments that she has made over the last several months about the importance of this Congress being fiscally responsible. The gentlewoman actually heads the Republican's Study Group which represents a lot of the more conservative Members of this Chamber, but I read a quote that she had made that appeared in Congress Daily on January 22 that I actually agree with. She says, "I support making tax cuts permanent, but we have to pay for them."

I think the only kind of difference that we seem to have on this debate, which I did not think we did based on this quote, was that we want tax relief and we want it paid for.

My colleague from New York says that we always want to say but, but, but. Well, it is not that we want to say "but." I think most Americans want us to be fiscally responsible, and the fact of the matter is we are faced with the largest deficits in the history of our country. That used to be a concern on the other side of the aisle. It does not seem to be a concern anymore, and we are also faced with record job losses. I mean, 2.6 million jobs have been lost under this administration.

I am concerned by the fact that we cannot seem to get a highway bill to the President's desk. The gentleman from New York is on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. He knows full well that if we passed a transportation bill, we would create a lot of jobs by investing in our infrastructure and investing in our highways.

So if we want to get serious about controlling this deficit, I think we need to show a little fiscal responsibility here on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and say to the gentleman from New York that my favorite four letter word as well is "jobs," and I am, quite frankly, very worried about the fact that under this administration and under their economic policies we have lost 2.6 million jobs.

I want to make sure that our economy moves in a different direction. I guess I also believe that one of the ways to help continue to move us in a different direction is to get our fiscal house in order and to reverse this trend that we are now pursuing, which is one of record deficits.

Going deeper into debt, in the long run, is going to undercut our economy and undercut our ability to grow jobs. What we are simply saying here is that, yes, we believe in marriage penalty tax relief; but we think it should be paid for. I do not think that should be controversial. That seems consistent with a lot of statements made by the other side of the aisle over the many years I have heard speeches being given on this floor.

What we are doing today is not paid for. What we are doing today, in the end, is going to bring us further into debt; and I think that we can do this better. We should be able to come together in a bipartisan way and get this right. I think that is what the American people would expect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and to quote someone a lot more famous than me, "There you go again." It is, we believe in this, but, but, but. Let us do it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and again thank the gentleman for his remarks; but this is not an excuse. This is very serious.

We are now faced with the biggest deficit in the history of this country; and every single Member, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, should be worried about it because we are passing this on to our kids and our grandkids. That is no joking matter. That is serious.

I believe if we do not reverse this trend, we will undercut our ability to grow jobs. So I want tax relief, but I also want us to be fiscally responsible and pay for it. That is consistent with the statement of my colleague from North Carolina, who I have great admiration for. I just wish when we say these things, we would actually fight to make them a reality on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Democratic substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) will offer. I think it is a responsible way to approach this issue because it supports marriage penalty tax relief, but it pays for it.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina mentioned that their budget resolution urges that we pay for additional spending programs. I am all for pay-as-you-go rules, but I think they should also apply to tax cuts. I think it is the responsible thing to do.

I think all of us here would like to go home to our districts and talk about all the tax relief that we can provide our American families; but I think without specifying how we are going to pay for it, it is really irresponsible. It is a nice press release. It is a nice kind of public relations item. But if we do not pay for it, what we are really doing is we are passing the burdens on to future generations, to our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

My grandfather used to say to me that you cannot have dessert without first having your spinach, and I think that that is a good lesson for us to apply to how we do business on the House floor. It is nice to get up here and talk about tax cuts and tax cuts and tax cuts, but it would be better to do so in the context that we pay for them. I think that is what the American people expect. That is what American families have to do. They pay as they go. They have to live within their means, and I think that same lesson should apply here.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the rule, but I would urge my colleagues very strongly to do the responsible thing and to support the Rangel-Matsui Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT