Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has worked so hard to champion the cause to bring this legislation to fruition. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Shad and Michelle. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a customary rule for the consideration of a conference report, and I hope my colleagues will support it. The conference report on the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act has been crafted in the true spirit of compromise, not just between the House and Senate negotiators, but also in an effort to accommodate the President's views. We have heard the White House's message. They want a smaller tax cut. So we have pared back this legislation. What Republicans hope is that the White House now hears our message and that of the American people who are clamoring for a fair, simpler Tax Code. The inequities and illogical provisions in our Tax Code are too numerous to count. But today we have a chance to provide some fairness by eliminating one of its most egregious provisions. We can do it in a fiscally responsible manner. There is no excuse why at this time of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses that we cannot give a little bit back to the American people who are doing the work to keep this economy going and feeding the Government's coffers with their own hard- earned cash. We in Washington love to take credit for the booming economy and the budget surplus, but the kudos should go to the American people who are driving the success. It is time to temper the Government's greed, and what better place to start than by supporting America's families. Let us end the marriage tax. I urge a yes vote on the resolution and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking Member, my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 553 provides for consideration of a motion to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Reconciliation Act. The motion will be debatable for 1 hour equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority Member on the Committee on Ways and Means. As my colleagues will recall, the House passed H.R. 4810 last week by a bipartisan vote of 269 to 159. This vote marked the second time that the House passed this legislation and the fourth time that it has voted to provide marriage tax penalty relief in this 106th Congress. The will of the House is clear, and it is time that we finish the job and get this bill to the President for his signature. We are almost there. In fact, the Senate just passed its own version of the marriage tax penalty relief act by a bipartisan vote of 60 to 39. This resolution will allow the House to quickly respond to the Senate's actions by going to conference where the two bodies will negotiate a final marriage tax penalty elimination act that we can send to the President, and in doing so, we will give him the chance to make good on the words he spoke during his State of the Union speech. During that speech, the President told the American people that we can make ``vital investments in health care, education, support for working families and still offer tax cuts to help pay for college, for retirement, to care for aging parents and to reduce the marriage penalty. We can do these things without forsaking the path of fiscal discipline that got us to this point.'' Mr. Speaker, Congress has helped the President meet his challenge. We have passed legislation to preserve Social Security for future generations, to provide affordable drug coverage to seniors through Medicare, to restore our national defense, to invest in education and to pay down the debt. We have done all of these things in the context of a balanced budget, and we are still swimming in surplus cash. Meanwhile, 25 million American couples suffer under the unfair financial burden imposed by the marriage penalty. On average, they pay $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single; skip the whole marriage thing and just live together. What kind of message is that for the government to send? Where is the logic in taxing marriage, one of the most fundamental institutions in our entire society? Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is real money to American families. Families can use this income to pay for health care, invest in a child's education or plan for their retirement. Sound familiar? These are all the things the President says that government should finance before it provides tax relief. Well, why do we not just cut out the middleman, the government, and let the American people make the decisions about what their needs are and where their money should be spent? Let us stop crippling them financially so they have to lean on the crutch of government. Eliminating the marriage penalty will help these families, especially the middle class and minorities, whom the marriage penalty hits the very hardest. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the Republicans and many Democrats in Washington actually agree that the marriage penalty is bad policy. If we in Congress can agree that the marriage tax should be abolished then there is no reason to delay any longer in reversing this inequity in the Tax Code. That is why the House Republican leadership is moving quickly to get this bill to conference and to the President so that he can sign it. Today, with the passage of this resolution, we have the opportunity to show that we can come together in a bipartisan way to achieve something for the American people that will make a real difference in their lives. We can end this tax that robs hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars from some 25 million families each year, and let them keep their money to spend as they see fit on their priorities. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why at this time of peace and prosperity and budget surpluses that we cannot provide this tax equity and relief. It is time to end the delays, the excuses and the political trade-offs. It is time to get the job done. I hope my colleagues will join me today in moving this issue forward and I hope the President will be true to his word and take the opportunity to sign this legislation when we put it on his desk. I urge a yes vote on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my distinguished colleague, a gentleman who has put so much time and effort in this Marriage Penalty Relief Act, a gentleman who has brought two people and made them household names to the American public, Shad and Michelle, and we will hear about them now.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the strong bipartisan votes for marriage tax penalty relief in both bodies demonstrate the will of Congress and the people that we represent. It is time to see if the President will join us by enacting this legislation. It is time to do the right thing. I urge a yes vote on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 545 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. For those Members who think they are experiencing deja vu, let me clear up any confusion. It is true that the House has already voted to provide relief from the marriage tax penalty. In fact, on February 10 of this very year, the House passed legislation that is identical to H.R. 4810 by a bipartisan vote of 268- 158. Prior to that, the House twice passed marriage tax relief as part of a larger tax bill which the President unfortunately vetoed. So this is actually the fourth time that the 106th Congress will debate and vote to provide tax fairness to married couples. It probably baffles the American people that it takes this much effort to correct such a blatant inequity in the tax code, but rest assured the Republican majority is determined to keep at it and give the President another chance to sign this bill into law. Today, we will consider the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act under a reconciliation process which we hope will speed this legislation's path to the President's desk. Under the rule, the House will proceed with 1 hour of general debate on the bill which will be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Even though the House has already thoroughly debated this issue and passed this legislation, the Committee on Rules decided to give the minority an opportunity to offer a substitute amendment which will be debated for 1 hour. The substitute amendment which is printed in the Committee on Rules report may be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee. All points of order against consideration of the bill and the amendment are waived. Not only will the minority have the opportunity to offer a substitute but they also will have the option of offering a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. So I think we can all agree that this rule is quite fair in its generosity to the minority. Mr. Speaker, 'tis the season for holy matrimony and as wedding bells chime across the Nation this summer, many couples will celebrate their unions without suspecting that the Government has in store for them a tax on their marriage. If these newlyweds listen to the family-friendly rhetoric in Washington, they might think the Government is toasting to them as they create their new families. But instead of sending sentiments of congratulations and best wishes, the only thing the Government plans to deliver is a bigger tax bill. So let us hope these couples do not run out and cash the wedding checks that they receive from Grandpa Joe and Cousin Jane because they still have to pay Uncle Sam. That is right, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government sees marriage as an opportunity to increase taxes. Newlyweds may see their taxes rise by hundreds or even thousands of dollars based solely on the fact that they have walked down the aisle and said, ``I do.'' It is hard to understand why the decision to make a solemn commitment to another individual through the institution of marriage has anything to do with the rate at which one is taxed, but we should know by now that the Government has no qualms about taking every opportunity to make a grab for more of our hard-earned money. In fact, each year 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes simply because they are married. This policy is unfair and discriminatory, not to mention the fact that it undermines one of the most fundamental institutions of our society. And it makes little sense to add to the tax burden of newlyweds, especially when marriage is often a precursor to added financial responsibilities such as owning a home or having children. I think we all know that despite all of our glowing talk about a robust economy, many families find that it is hard to make ends meet. Both spouses must work. Under the current Tax Code, working couples are pushed into a higher tax bracket because the income of the second wage earner, often the wife, is tacked a much higher rate. Because of the marriage penalty, 21 million families pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single or just living together. What kind of message does that send? The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will bring fairness to the Tax Code by doubling the standard deduction for married couples, expanding the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income is taxed at a lower rate, and increasing the amount that low-income couples can earn and still be eligible for the earned income tax credit. This fix will mean lower taxes for 25 million American couples, and that is 59,000 couples in my district alone. But my Democrat colleagues will claim that we are doing too much, though I am not sure there is such a thing as too much fairness, Mr. Speaker. Still, they will want to differentiate between married couples and penalize some couples for their vows, but not others. Under the Democrat's plan, the Government does not have to give these families as much money back, so the Government can keep and spend more. They may claim that this is a more responsible approach; but, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that the Government is experiencing a budget surplus. We have already taken the Social Security and Medicare trust funds off the table and made a commitment to paying down the debt, and we still have money left over. If we cannot afford to fix this glaring inequity in our Tax Code today, then when would my Democrat friends suggest that we do it, and how is it responsible to let this penalty on marriage continue when the Government is swimming in surplus cash? I do not claim to understand the logic, but this rule will give the Democrats the opportunity to make their case and offer their substitute. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that will give the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act the momentum it needs to move through the Senate and to the President's desk, so that he has another opportunity to do the right thing and give working families this needed break. There is absolutely no reason to continue this unfair policy, no more excuses. It is time to either defend the marriage tax or eliminate it. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's instruction about what we should be doing as a Congress, but I am not sure where he has been, because he says we have not addressed Social Security. Well, have we? Of course we have. We have a lockbox. We have locked away the Social Security Trust Fund for the first time. Have we addressed Medicare? Yes, we have done the same thing. We have locked away those funds for the first time. Have we addressed prescription drugs for our seniors? Yes, we did. We voted on it just about a week ago. So, Mr. Speaker now, once again, we will give the President his chance to sign the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) who has worked so hard on this legislation. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 545 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I do appreciate the instruction from my friend in the minority, but in the 6 short years that the Republicans have been in charge of this place, we have done more to shore up Social Security and Medicare and provide relief for seniors than in the 40 years preceding when the Democrats controlled the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), our distinguished colleague. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to support this rule, the customary rule provided for tax legislation. The House has already passed virtually identical legislation to eliminate this marriage tax penalty. All we are doing today is using the reconciliation process to speed this legislation to the President's desk so we can give him a second chance to sign it. Mr. Speaker, our society values marriage as a fundamental institution that strengthens our moral fiber. Marriage teaches us about love, family, commitment, and honor. How can we promote these ideals if we continue to allow the government to impose an unfair, discriminatory, and immoral tax penalty on individuals solely because they are married? Today we have another chance to send a strong message, which is the right message, to hard-working families by voting to end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) who has been a champion of this legislation comes to the floor constantly with his charts of Shad and Michelle, and anybody who follows this legislation probably has come to know them as household names. When he started, Shad and Michelle were just getting married. Now Shad and Michelle have a son. Let us get this signed into law before Shad and Michelle are grandparents. I urge a yes vote on the rule and on the bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the House passed a repeal of the death tax last month. We will continue to work to see that this unfair tax is repealed. The American dream is about the opportunity of every citizen to build a better future for themselves and their children through hard work and personal initiative. It means building your own business, pouring your own sweat into a small farm to turn a profit, saving each day so you can leave something to your family. Yet it is these Americans who are working so hard, playing the rules and paying taxes who, upon their death, become the victims of a tax that discounts their dedication, punishes their entrepreneurship, and denies their dying wishes. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this death tax, only one-third of all small businesses and family farms are passed on after the first generation. This is not right. Where is the logic? Why does the government have to grab someone's life savings out of their hands once they die? It is time we eliminate the death tax and reinvest in America, so the dreams and values of these folks can be carried on to future generations. We need to make sure that death tax gets buried.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which will allow the House to debate a plan to give seniors access to affordable prescription drugs. This bipartisan plan is voluntary, affordable, and covers all Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, the other side wants to change the subject. They want to divert our attention away from the fact that this Congress is about to vote on one of the most significant issues we face this year by trying to bring this House to a halt and to prove their claim that we are a ``do nothing Congress.'' It has been their plan all along. Before this rule was even written, they had the press release out celebrating their dramatic walk-out on the debate this morning. Regardless of how many substitutes, amendments, hours of debate, their rhetoric and antics would be the same. Well, methinks thou doth protest too much. My colleagues know full well that, under this fair process, the rule provides that both Republicans and Democrats get one bite of the apple, one for them and one for us. I would remind my colleagues that even this basic fairness was never guaranteed until the Republicans took control of the House and ensured that a motion to recommit would always be available to the minority. But they do not want a fair fight. They want an unfair advantage. The Democrats do not want to debate the issue. They are throwing a temper tantrum to divert attention away from the merits of this bill. Well, frankly, it is a transparent political strategy and it is irresponsible. But these political stunts are not surprising. It has been clear for some time that the issue of prescription drugs has been a political game to the Democrats all along. And every minute they waste, every dilatory tactic and every delay they employ will show their real intentions. They did not walk out on us, Mr. Speaker. They walked out on American seniors. And shame on them. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve an honest debate about the merits of the Medicare prescription drug plan that is before this House. Unfortunately, the Democrats' political grandstanding is designed to eclipse an honest debate on the merits. But we will walk through it if we must. We will do it cheerfully. The American people deserve no less. They want to hear an honest debate. I urge my colleagues, come back from their grandstanding, their press conferences, their parade, and let us get to work. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. ``With God, all things are possible.'' If we could teach our children only one thing, it should be that with hard work, perseverance, and faith in themselves, all things are possible with God. I can think of no better message to send our future generations than to tell them that nothing is beyond their reach. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by ruling that the motto of the state of Ohio is unconstitutional, is keeping the people of Ohio from sharing this message. No branch of government should strip Ohioans of this, their expression of hope and optimism. Certainly, I believe strongly in the First Amendment, which protects individuals' freedom of religion but also prohibits government establishment of religion. I for one believe that we cannot be overzealous to the point of discouraging expression: historic, traditional, time-honored expression that has defined us as a state and nation for generations. Let us be clear: The motto of the State of Ohio does not establish any particular religion nor does it express any religious belief. Rather, the Ohio motto simply represents an expression of American optimism--one that for over 200 years has served to help steer this great nation. I urge you to support the people of my home state, and the people of our nation, by supporting the resolution.

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It addresses the major points of controversy in a bipartisan manner. The Committee on Rules and the House leadership have responded to the concerns about the funding levels for the personnel who support this institution. That is why the rule makes in order a manager's amendment to add resources to support the Capitol Police, House staff, CRS employees, and others who work hard to make the legislative branch a safe and efficient work environment, as well as a top tourist attraction for our visitors. In addition, the rule offers my colleagues the opportunity to vote for greater fiscal responsibility, not only through passage of the underlying bill, but also through amendments that would allow us to devote more resources to that reduction. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this fair rule, and urge those who talk the talk about fiscal responsibility to walk the walk and support the Leg branch appropriations bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 530 is a structured rule that governs the consideration of H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act related to contract borrowing and credit authority. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill. Under the rule, there will be 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the rule provides for consideration of only those amendments listed in the Committee on Rules report. This type of structured rule has become customary for Legislative Branch spending bills because of the controversy that often surrounds them. In the case of H.R. 4516, we have heard significant criticism about the funding levels in the bill, but those concerns should be allayed by this rule which makes in order a bipartisan manager's amendment that will add an extra $95.8 million to the bill. These extra dollars will provide for a cost of living increase for House staff and the Capitol Police, as well as make possible the addition of 48 officers to the police force. The Library of Congress will benefit from an extra $7.6 million to restore Congressional Research Service staff and provide for pay raises. The Government Printing Office will get $18.3 million more, including funds to maintain documents in the depository program that are only available in paper form. Funds will also be added to the accounts of the Architect of the Capitol, the General Accounting Office, and the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to the manager's amendment which should quell most if not all of the controversy surrounding this legislation, the rule makes in order two other amendments. The first is a bipartisan amendment that would allow Members who do not use their entire budget allowance to return any unused portion to the Treasury. The savings would then be devoted to deficit or debt reduction. This concept, which has earned broad support in the past, encourages Members of Congress to lead by example and be frugal in their use of taxpayer dollars. In the same vein of fiscal responsibility, the second amendment would devote all the savings from successful appropriations amendments that cut spending to debt reduction, unless the amendment already redirects the savings to other discretionary programs. The three amendments listed in the Committee on Rules report may be offered only by the Member designated in the report and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. Finally, the rule provides the minority with an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. As a testament to the good work of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and his subcommittee, only nine amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules. Of those, three were withdrawn and one is the manager's amendment. On Tuesday, only one Member besides the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee testified on his amendment to the bill. So it would appear that there are few concerns about the bill and that this rule, even with its limitations, fulfills the needs of the vast majority of House Members. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2001 Legislative Branch appropriations bill continues our efforts which began in 1994 to scale back the Federal Government and balance the budget by cutting our spending first. Over the last 6 years, Congress has saved the taxpayers $1.5 billion by looking to its own operations, staff and support systems for places to cut waste and inefficiencies. Since 1994, more than 5,900 positions have been eliminated, and all told we have downsized the Legislative Branch of government by 21 percent. This year's bill continues down this path of fiscal restraint, and legislative spending will be reduced by almost $10 million, even with the added spending in the manager's amendment. Our efforts prove that Congress is willing to look in its own backyard and do its part to cut spending, balance the budget and pay down the debt. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the rest of the subcommittee for their hard work to put together a very lean bill in keeping with their allocation. They were willing to make the tough choices necessary to maintain fiscal responsibility and the American taxpayers appreciate it. Even with the addition of the manager's amendment, total spending on the Legislative Branch will be reduced from last year. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that is responsive to the concerns of the Members of this House and it deserves our support. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and support for a reasonable Legislative Branch spending bill which continues our commitment to a smaller, smarter government that works for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.