Over The Course Of His Congressional Career Sherrod Brown Has Voted At Least EIGHTY-THREE Times For Higher Taxes.
During His Time In Congress, Brown Has Voted At Least SIXTEEN Times Against Tax Relief For Married Couples.
During His Time In Congress, Brown Has Voted At Least FIFTEEN Times Against Repealing The Estate Tax.
Brown Voted FOR The Clinton Tax Hike, The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History.
Brown Voted AGAINST Passing The 1999 Tax Relief Act.
Brown Voted Against Critical Provisions Of The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts.
Brown Voted Outright AGAINST Passing The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts.
Brown Voted AGAINST Making The 2001 Tax Cuts Permanent.
Brown Voted At Least FOUR Times Against Accelerating A Tax Cut For Middle-Class Americans From President Bush’s 2001 Tax Cut Package.
Brown Voted At Least TWICE Against Passing The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
Brown Voted To Raise Federal Gas Taxes In 1993, And Voted Against A Repeal Of The Gas Tax Increase Three Years Later.
Brown Voted At Least TWICE To Raise Taxes On Social Security Benefits. He Later Voted At Least THREE Times Against Repealing That Tax Hike.
Sherrod Brown’s History Of Voting For Higher Taxes:
Over The Course Of His Congressional Career Sherrod Brown Has Voted At Least EIGHTY-THREE Times For Higher Taxes. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #199: Passed 219-213: R 0-175; D 218-38; I 1-0, May 27, 1993, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, August 5, 1993, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 1215, CQ Vote #295: Passed 246-188: R 219-11; D 27-176; I 0-1, April 5, 1995. Brown voted Nay; H.R. 3415, CQ Vote #182: Passed 301-108: R 208-15; D 92-93; I 1-0, May 21, 1996, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #245: Passed 253-179: R 226-1; D 27-177; I 0-1, June 26, 1997, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #243: Rejected 197-235: R 0-227; D 196-8; I 1-0, June 26, 1997, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 284, CQ Vote #210: Adopted 216-204: R 213-9; D 3-194; I 0-1, June 5, 1998, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4579, CQ Vote #469: Passed 229-195: R 210-11; D 19-183; I 0-1, September 26, 1998, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #76: Rejected 173-250: R 0-216; D 173-33; I 0-1, March 25, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #77: Adopted 221-208: R 217-2; D 4-205; I 0-1, March 25, 1999, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #80: Motion agreed to 349-44: R 161-44; D 187-0; I 1-0, April 12, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 220-208: R 217-3; D 3-204; I 0-1, April 14, 1999, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #331: Rejected 173-258: R 1-220; D 171-38; I 1-0, July 22, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #332: Motion rejected 211-220: R 1-220; D 209-0; I 1-0, July 22, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #333: Passed 223-208: R 217-4; D 6-203; I 0-1, July 22, 1999, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #356: Motion rejected 205-213: R 0-212; D 204-1; I 1-0, August 2, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #378: Motion rejected 205-221: R 0-218; D 204-3; I 1-0, August 5, 1999, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #379: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 221-206: R 216-4; D 5-201; I 0-1, August 5, 1999, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 3081, CQ Vote #41: Passed 257-169: R 215-1; D 41-167; I 1-1, March 9, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #252: Rejected 196-222: R 3-213; D 192-8; I 1-1, June 9, 2000, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #254: Passed 279-136: R 213-0; D 65-135; I 1-1, June 9, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #390: Rejected 198-228: R 0-219; D 197-8; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #391: Motion rejected 197-230: R 0-219; D 196-10; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #392: Passed 269-159: R 220-0; D 48-158; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #418: Adopted 271-156: R 219-0; D 51-155; I 1-1, July 20, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4865, CQ Vote #450: Passed 265-159: R 212-3; D 52-155; I 1-1, July 27, 2000. Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4865, CQ Vote #449: Rejected 169-256: R 1-215; D 167-40; I 1-1, July 27, 2000, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #458: Rejected 274-157: R 220-1; D 53-155; I 1-1, September 7, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #466: Rejected 270-158: R 221-0; D 48-157; I 1-1, September 13, 2000, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #42: Rejected 155-273: R 0-219; D 154-53; I 1-1, March 8, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #44: Motion rejected 204-221: R 0-218; D 203-2; I 1-1, March 8, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 3, CQ Vote #45: Passed 230-198: R 219-0; D 10-197; I 1-1, March 8, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #66: ejected 79-343: R 0-217; D 78-125; I 1-1, March 28, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #67: Rejected 204-221: R 12-206; D 191-14; I 1-1, March 28, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 81-341: R 79-139; D 1-201; I 1-1, March 28, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #69: Rejected 183-243: R 0-219; D 182-23; I 1-1, March 28, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #70: Adopted 222-205: R 218-2; D 3-202; I 1-1, March 28, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #73: Rejected 196-231: R 0-218; D 195-12; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #74: Motion rejected 184-240: R 0-216; D 183-23; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #75: Passed 282-144: R 217-0; D 64-143; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 201-227: R 3-215; D 197-11; I 1-1, April 4, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #83: Motion rejected 192-235: R 0-218; D 191-16; I 1-1, April 4, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #104: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 221-207: R 214-3; D 6-203; I 1-1, May 9, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #84: Passed 274-154: R 215-3; D 58-150; I 1-1, April 4, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #117: Rejected 188-239: R 0-218; D 187-20; I 1-1, May 16, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #118: Passed 230-197: R 216-0; D 13-196; I 1-1, May 16, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #146: Motion rejected 198-210: R 1-205; D 196-4; I 1-1, May 23, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 240-154: R 211-0; D 28-153; I 1-1, May 26, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #402: Rejected 166-261: R 0-217; D 165-43; I 1-1, October 24, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #403: Motion rejected 199-230: R 0-218; D 198-11; I 1-1, October 24, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 3090, CQ Vote #404: Passed 216-214: R 212-7; D 3-206; I 1-1, October 24, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 3529, CQ Vote #508: Motion rejected 177-238: R 0-215; D 176-22; I 1-1, December 20, 2001, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 3529, CQ Vote #509: Passed 224-193: R 214-2; D 9-190; I 1-1, December 20, 2001, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 622, CQ Vote #38: Motion agreed to 225-199: R 214-1; D 10-197; I 1-1, February 14, 2002, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 586, CQ Vote #103: Motion agreed to 229-198: R 219-1; D 9-196; I 1-1, April 18, 2002, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2143, CQ Vote #218: Motion rejected 205-223: R 1-217; D 203-5; I 1-1, June 6, 2002, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2143, CQ Vote #219: Passed 256-171: R 214-4; D 41-166; I 1-1, June 6, 2002, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4019, CQ Vote #228: Rejected 198-213: R 1-207; D 196-5; I 1-1, June 13, 2002, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4019, CQ Vote #229: Passed 271-142: R 210-0; D 60-141; I 1-1, June 13, 2002, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #82: Adopted 215-212: R 214-12; D 1-199; I 0-1, March 21, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #141: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 216-211: R 216-7; D 0-203; I 0-1, April 11, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #180: Motion agreed to 222-202: R 222-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #181: Motion rejected 202-218: R 0-217; D 201-1; I 1-0, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #182: Passed 222-203: R 218-3; D 4-199; I 0-1, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #225: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 231-200: R 224-1; D 7-198; I 0-1, May 23, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote # 287: Rejected 188-239: R 2-226; D 185-13; I 1-0, June 18, 2003, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #288: Passed 264-163: R 223-4; D 41-158; I 0-1, June 18, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #305: Motion agreed to 222-200: R 221-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, June 24, 2003, Brown voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 393, CQ Vote #89: Rejected 183-243: R 12-211; D 171-31; I 0-1, March 25, 2004, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4181, CQ Vote #136: Rejected 189-226: R 1-216; D 187-10; I 1-0, April 28, 2004, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4275, CQ Vote #169: Rejected 190-227: R 1-216; D 188-11; I 1-0, May 13, 2004, Brown voted Yea; H. Res. 685, CQ Vote #301: Rejected 184-230: R 2-217; D 181-13; I 1-0, June 24, 2004, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #82: Rejected 180-242: R 3-218; D 176-24; I 1-0, March 17, 2005, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #85: Rejected 134-292: R 1-225; D 132-67; I 1-0, March 17, 2005, Brown voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #88: Adopted 218-214: R 218-12; D 0-201; I 0-1, March 17, 2005, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 194-238: R 1-228; D 193-9; I 0-1, April 13, 2005, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #102: Passed 272-162: R 230-1; D 42-160; I 0-1, April 13, 2005, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #619: Rejected 192-239: R 2-226; D 189-13; I 1-0, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #620: Motion rejected 193-235: R 0-226; D 192-9; I 1-0, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #621: Passed 234-197: R 225-3; D 9-193; I 0-1, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Nay; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #7: Motion rejected 185-207: R 8-204; D 176-3; I 1-0, February 8, 2006, Brown voted Yea; H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #74: Motion rejected 192-229: R 4-222; D 187-7; I 1-0, March 29, 2006, Brown voted Yea)2003 Bush Tax Cuts
President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cuts Were Centered Around A Reduction In The Taxes On Dividends And Capital Gains To Stimulate The Economy And Give Relief To America’s Growing Investor Class. “The centerpiece [of the 2003 tax cut law] was a new 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains, aimed at sparking economic growth by encouraging an ‘investor class,’ representing roughly half of U.S. households, to invest in stocks. . . . [The package r]educed the tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent through 2008. Low-income investors will pay 5 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007, and zero in 2008.” (“2003 Legislative Summary: Tax Reconciliation,” CQ Weekly, December 13, 2003)
The 2003 Tax Cuts Accelerated The Income Tax Cuts From The 2001 Tax Package. “[The tax cuts r]educed the tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent through 2008. Low-income investors will pay 5 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007, and zero in 2008.” (“2003 Legislative Summary: Tax Reconciliation,” CQ Weekly, December 13, 2003)
The Package Also Accelerated The Doubling Of The Child Tax Credit. “The 2003 tax cut temporarily increases the child tax credit to $1,000 per child. . . . Under the 2001 tax law, the child tax credit was set at $600 per child in 2003, and was scheduled to increase to $700 in 2005, to $800 in 2009 and to $1,000 in 2010. The new tax law immediately increases the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. For 2003, the $400-per-child increase will be paid in advance - similar to the ‘rebate checks’ issued in 2001 - this summer using information provided on 2002 tax returns.” (Jill Barshay and Wendy Boudreau, “Provisions of 2003 Reconciliation Law,” CQ Weekly, June 7, 2003)
In Addition, “The 2003 Tax Law Provide[d] Temporary Tax Incentives For Businesses To Buy Equipment.” (Jill Barshay and Wendy Boudreau, “Provisions of 2003 Reconciliation Law,” CQ Weekly, June 7, 2003)
Votes On The 2003 Tax Cuts:
Brown Voted At Least TWICE Against Passing The 2003 Tax Cuts:Tax Reductions – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would provide $550 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. The bill includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2003. Lower income taxpayers would pay 5 percent. Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated and made retroactive to Jan. 1, and the upper limit of the 10 percent income tax bracket for couples would be increased to $14,000 through 2005. The child tax credit increase also would be accelerated so that the $1,000 credit would be effective through 2005. The tax break for married couples would be accelerated so that their standard income tax deduction would be double the standard deduction for a single filer through 2005. The alternative minimum tax exemption for couples filing jointly would be increased to $64,000 through 2005. The deduction that small businesses could take on investments would be increased to $100,000 through 2005. The bill also would increase to 50 percent the portion of an investment that larger companies can write off in the first year.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #182: Passed 222-203: R 218-3; D 4-199; I 0-1, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Tax Reductions -- Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states’ discretion. The agreement includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would increase to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include increasing the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #225: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 231-200: R 224-1; D 7-198; I 0-1, May 23, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Votes To Reduce The 2003 Tax Cuts:
Brown Voted To Reduce The 2003 Tax Cuts:Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations -- Ruling of the Chair. “Motion to sustain the ruling of the chair that upheld the Rogers, R-Ky., point of order against the Obey, D-Wis., amendment on grounds that it would constitute legislation in an appropriations bill. The Obey amendment would increase homeland security funding by $1 billion, including additional money to secure the nation’s ports, borders and airports. The increase would be offset by reducing tax breaks in the $350 billion tax cut law (PL 108-27) for individuals with annual incomes of more than $1 million.” (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #305: Motion agreed to 222-200: R 221-0; D 1-199; I 0-1, June 24, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Brown Voted To Water Down The 2003 Tax Cuts: Tax Reductions -- Ruling of the Chair. “Thomas, R-Calif., motion to table (kill) the Rangel, D-N.Y., appeal of the ruling of the chair that the Rangel motion to recommit was not germane. The Rangel motion would have sent the bill back to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to substitute language that would provide a $177 billion tax package, including smaller breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of unemployment benefits and grants to states to help with their budget crises.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #180: Motion agreed to 222-202: R 222-0; D 0-201; I 0-1, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Brown Voted To Delay The 2003 Tax Cuts:Tax Reductions – Recommit. “Moore, D-Kansas, motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to add language stating that the bill’s provisions would not take effect until there is a balanced federal budget.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #181: Motion rejected 202-218: R 0-217; D 201-1; I 1-0, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Yea)Votes On Extending The 2003 Tax Cuts:
Brown Voted At Least FIVE Times Against Extending The 2003 Tax Cuts On Dividends And Capital Gains:Fiscal 2006 Tax Reconciliation -- Democratic Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment that would extend, for one year, many expiring provisions such as the deduction for state and local retail sales taxes, the deduction for college tuition expenses, tax incentives for the District of Columbia and Indian reservations, the 15 year depreciation period for leasehold and restaurant improvements, qualified zone academy bonds and the Brownfields cleanup tax incentive. The amendment would also eliminate all individual minimum tax liability for incomes below $200,000 in the case of joint returns and below $100,000 in all other cases for taxable year 2006.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #619: Rejected 192-239: R 2-226; D 189-13; I 1-0, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Yea)Fiscal 2006 Tax Reconciliation – Recommit. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the bill to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to strike language related to the capital gains and dividend tax breaks as well as add a new section to the bill dealing with tax relief for the alternative minimum tax.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #620: Motion rejected 193-235: R 0-226; D 192-9; I 1-0, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Yea)Fiscal 2006 Tax Reconciliation – Passage. “Passage of bill that would provide $56.1 billion to extend a series of tax cuts set to expire between 2005 and 2010. It would extend for two years, through 2010, reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends. It would also extend, for two years, a tax provision that allows small businesses to write off more than $100,000 in capital investments in the year they are made. It would allow for a one-year extension of the college tuition deduction, the research and experimentation tax credit and the state and local sales tax deduction in states without income taxes. Note: A ‘yea’ was a vote in support of the president’s position.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #621: Passed 234-197: R 225-3; D 9-193; I 0-1, December 8, 2005, Brown voted Nay)Fiscal 2006 Tax Reconciliation -- Motion to Instruct. “Neal, D-Mass., motion to instruct House conferees to include language that would accept the Senate-passed provision relating to the Alternative Minimum Tax extension as well as eliminate House-passed provisions extending the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would terminate at the end of 2008. The motion also would instruct conferees to insist on a conference report that would not increase the federal deficit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #7: Motion rejected 185-207: R 8-204; D 176-3; I 1-0, February 8, 2006, Brown voted Yea)Tax Reconciliation -- Motion to Instruct. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report include the Senate-passed provision relating to the Alternative Minimum Tax extension, eliminate House-passed provisions extending the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would terminate at the end of 2008 and insist that the conference report will neither increase the federal budget deficit nor the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.” (H.R. 4297, CQ Vote #74: Motion rejected 192-229: R 4-222; D 187-7; I 1-0, March 29, 2006, Brown voted Yea)Votes On The Budget Resolution Outlining The 2003 Tax Cuts:
Brown Voted At Least TWICE Against The Budget Resolution Outlining President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cut Package:Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution – Adoption. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years. The resolution would call for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts and $265 billion in mandatory spending reductions over the next decade. It would call for $775.4 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2004. Discretionary funding unrelated to defense and homeland security would receive a one percent reduction from the current level. It also sets up a $400 billion, 10-year reserve fund for Medicare overhaul and a prescription drug benefit.” (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #82: Adopted 215-212: R 214-12; D 1-199; I 0-1, March 21, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution -- Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years. The agreement would allow a tax cut of up to $550 billion to be protected by reconciliation rules.” (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #141: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 216-211: R 216-7; D 0-203; I 0-1, April 11, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Marriage Penalty Tax Relief:
Brown Has Voted At Least SIXTEEN Times Against Tax Relief For Married Couples:Tax and Spending Cuts – Passage. “Passage of the bill to cut taxes by $189 billion over five years through a variety of proposals, including a $500-per-child tax credit for families earning up to $200,000 a year; the elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax; a lowering of the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 19.8 percent; the easing of the ‘marriage penalty’ in the tax code; the establishment of ‘back loaded’ individual retirement accounts; and the repeal of the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. The cost of the bill would be offset through various proposals, including cutting discretionary spending by $100 billion over five years; increasing federal employees’ pension contribution; and freezing reimbursement rates in certain Medicare programs.” (H.R. 1215, CQ Vote #295: Passed 246-188: R 219-11; D 27-176; I 0-1, April 5, 1995, Brown voted Nay)Fiscal 1999 Budget Resolution – Adoption. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution to adopt a five-year budget plan that would create a surplus of $63.4 billion by 2003, by cutting spending by $101 billion over five years and using the funds to finance tax reduction which would include the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty. The plan calls for an increase, by $5 billion, in defense spending, over the caps agreed to under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The resolution sets binding levels for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1999: budget authority, $1,730.4 billion; outlays, $1,721.9 billion; revenues, $1,755.6 billion; and surplus, $33.7 billion.” (H. Con. Res. 284, CQ Vote #210: Adopted 216-204: R 213-9; D 3-194; I 0-1, June 5, 1998, Brown voted Nay)Tax Cuts – Passage. “Passage of the bill to cut taxes by $80.1 billion over five years, including $6.6 billion in cuts in fiscal 1999, by extending expired provisions such as the research tax credit, reducing taxes for farmers and married couples and making health insurance premiums 100 percent deductible for the self-employed.” (H.R. 4579, CQ Vote #469: Passed 229-195: R 210-11; D 19-183; I 0-1, September 26, 1998, Brown voted Nay)Tax Cut Package – Passage. “Passage of the bill to reduce federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. The measure would reduce individual income tax rates by 10 percent over a 10-year period, contingent upon annual progress in reducing interest on the nation’s debt. It would reduce the ‘marriage penalty’ by increasing the standard deduction for married couples to double that for singles; cut the capital gains tax rate for individuals from 20 percent to 15 percent for property held for more than one year; gradually lower the corporate capital gains tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent by 2005; reduce the estate and gift tax rates until they are completely eliminated in 2009; accelerate the phase-in of a 100 percent deduction for health insurance premiums for the self-employed, and allow all taxpayers to deduct health care and long-term care insurance if employers pay 50 percent or less of the premium; increase the annual contribution limit for Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $2,000 and permit tax-free withdrawals to pay for public and private elementary and secondary tuition and expenses.” (H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #333: Passed 223-208: R 217-4; D 6-203; I 0-1, July 22, 1999, Brown voted Nay)Tax Reconciliation – Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to reduce taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. The conference report would reduce each of the five income tax rates by 1 percentage point, phase out the estate tax, and raise the standard deduction available to taxpayers filing jointly from $7,200 to $8,600 gradually over five years. The conference report would reduce the capital gains tax rate from 10 percent and 20 percent to 8 percent and 18 percent effective Jan. 1, 1999.” (H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #379: Adopted 221-206: R 216-4; D 5-201; I 0-1, August 5, 1999, Brown voted Nay)Alleviate ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax – Passage. “Passage of the bill to reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $182 billion over 10 years. The measure would increase the standard deduction claimed by married couples to twice the amount claimed by single taxpayers. The upper boundary of the 15 percent tax bracket would gradually increase from 2003 to 2008 to twice the limit for singles. The measure also would allow couples to earn an additional $2,000 before being disqualified from receiving the earned income tax credit.” (H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #392: Passed 269-159: R 220-0; D 48-158; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Nay)Alleviate ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax – Adoption. “Adoption of the conference report of the bill that would reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $89.8 billion over five years. The measure would increase the standard deduction claimed by married couples to twice the amount claimed by single taxpayers. The upper boundary of the 15 percent tax bracket would gradually increase from 2000 to 2005 to twice the limit for singles. The measure also would allow couples to earn an additional $2,000 before being disqualified from receiving the earned income tax credit. The bill would also allow couples to use family tax credits without paying the alternative minimum tax.” (H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #418: Adopted 271-156: R 219-0; D 51-155; I 1-1, July 20, 2000, Brown voted Nay)Alleviate ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax - Veto Override. “Passage, over President Clinton’s Aug. 5, 2000, veto, of the bill that would reduce taxes for married couples by approximately $89.8 billion over five years. The measure would increase the standard deduction claimed by married couples to twice the amount claimed by single taxpayers. The upper boundary of the 15 percent tax bracket would gradually increase from 2000 to 2005 to twice the limit for singles. The measure also would allow couples to earn an additional $2,000 before being disqualified from receiving the earned income tax credit. The bill would also allow couples to use family tax credits without paying the alternative minimum tax.” (H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #466: Rejected 270-158: R 221-0; D 48-157; I 1-1, September 13, 2000, Brown voted Nay) Marriage Tax Reduction – Recommit. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Comittee with instructions to report the measure back to the House with an amendment providing a tax rebate for those with tax liability and those eligible for the earned income credit in 2000 of $300 for singles and $600 for married couples.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #74: Motion rejected 184-240: R 0-216; D 183-23; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Yea)Marriage Tax Reduction – Passage. “Passage of a bill that would reduce taxes by $399.2 billion over 10 years by doubling both the married couples’ deduction and the child tax credit. The measure would gradually raise the standard deduction, expand the 15 percent income tax bracket, and raise the alternative minimum tax exemption for married couples filing jointly to twice that of individuals filing singly. The bill would raise the earned-income amount used by joint filers to calculate the earned-income credit to 110 percent of the amount used by all other taxpayers. It also would gradually double the child tax credit to $1,000, and make the credit refundable.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #75: Passed 282-144: R 217-0; D 64-143; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Nay)Tax Cut Reconciliation - Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reduce taxes by $1.35 trillion through fiscal 2011 through income tax rate cuts, relief of the ‘marriage penalty,’ a phaseout of the federal estate tax, doubling the child tax credit, and providing incentives for retirement savings. A new 10 percent tax rate would be created retroactive to Jan. 1, and taxpayers would get rebate checks this summer of $300 for singles and $600 for couples. The bill would double the $500-per-child tax credit by 2010 and make it refundable; raise the estate tax exemption to $1 million in 2002 and repeal the tax in 2010; increase the standard deduction for married couples to double that of singles, beginning in 2005; and increase annual limits on contributions for Individual Retirement Accounts to $5,000. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Adopted 240-154: R 211-0; D 28-153; I 1-1, May 26, 2001, Brown voted Nay)Permanent Tax Cuts - Concur with Senate Amendments. “Thomas, R-Calif., motion to concur in a House amendment to Senate amendments to the bill that would permanently extend the cuts in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax reduction package, many of which are set to expire in 2010. It would extend reductions in income tax rates, relief of the marriage penalty, elimination of the estate tax, doubling of the child tax credit, and expansion of pension and education provisions. The bill also would revise various Internal Revenue Service tax provisions, including penalty, interest and collection provisions. It would change penalties for failure to pay estimated taxes; waive minor, first-time error penalties; exclude interest on unintentional overpayments from taxable income; and allow the IRS greater discretion in disciplining employees who violate policies.” (H.R. 586, CQ Vote #103: Motion agreed to 229-198: R 219-1; D 9-196; I 1-1, April 18, 2002, Brown voted Nay)Married Couples Tax Relief – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would permanently extend breaks for married couples contained in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax cut law. It would indefinitely extend an increase in married couples’ standard deduction, and raise their income subject to the 15 percent rate to double that of individuals. The bill also would permanently allow married couples to earn $3,000 more than single tax filers and continue to qualify for the earned income tax credit.” (H.R. 4019, CQ Vote #229: Passed 271-142: R 210-0; D 60-141; I 1-1, June 13, 2002, Brown voted Nay)Tax Reductions – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would provide $550 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. The bill includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2003. Lower income taxpayers would pay 5 percent. Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated and made retroactive to Jan. 1, and the upper limit of the 10 percent income tax bracket for couples would be increased to $14,000 through 2005. The child tax credit increase also would be accelerated so that the $1,000 credit would be effective through 2005. The tax break for married couples would be accelerated so that their standard income tax deduction would be double the standard deduction for a single filer through 2005. The alternative minimum tax exemption for couples filing jointly would be increased to $64,000 through 2005. The deduction that small businesses could take on investments would be increased to $100,000 through 2005. The bill also would increase to 50 percent the portion of an investment that larger companies can write off in the first year.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #182: Passed 222-203: R 218-3; D 4-199; I 0-1, May 9, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Tax Reductions -- Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states’ discretion. The agreement includes a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and scheduled to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would increase to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include increasing the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.” (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #225: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 231-200: R 224-1; D 7-198; I 0-1, May 23, 2003, Brown voted Nay)Brown Voted At Least THREE Times To Delay Or Condition The Enactment of Tax Relief For Married Couples:Alleviate ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax -- Motion to Recommit. “Rangel, D-N.Y., motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee with instructions to add language that would not put the tax reduction into effect until a Medicare prescription drug benefit meeting certain criteria were enacted.” (H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #391: Motion rejected 197-230: R 0-219; D 196-10; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Yea)Married Couples Tax Relief -- Democratic Substitute. “Matsui, D-Calif., substitute amendment that would permanently extend breaks for married couples contained in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax cut law but only if the Office of Management and Budget certifies that there would be no increase in the deficit in the non-Social Security portion of the budget during the 10-year estimating period beginning in fiscal 2011.” (H.R. 4019, CQ Vote #228: Rejected 198-213: R 1-207; D 196-5; I 1-1, June 13, 2002, Brown voted Yea)Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution -- Blue Dog Substitute. “Stenholm, D-Texas, amendment that would provide for a balanced budget by fiscal 2012 and reduce the deficit by half over the next two years. Action on additional tax cuts or other proposals that would create additional budgetary obligations would be deferred until Congress and the president has taken action to reduce the deficit. It would allow for a one-year extension of the $1,000 child tax credit, so-called marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent tax bracket and allow for an extension of the tax cuts after 2010 subject to pay-as-you-go rules.” (H. Con. Res. 393, CQ Vote #89: Rejected 183-243: R 12-211; D 171-31; I 0-1, March 25, 2004, Brown voted Yea)Brown Voted Against Recommending That The House Should Permanently Extend Tax Breaks For Married Couples: House Support for Married Couples Tax Relief – Adoption. “Adoption of the resolution that would express the sense of the House that Congress should, before it adjourns, clear for the president’s signature legislation (HR 4019) that would permanently extend breaks for married couples contained in last year’s $1.35 trillion tax cut law.” (H. Res. 543, CQ Vote #430: Adopted 285-130: R 212-0; D 72-130; I 1-0, October 2, 2002, Brown voted Nay)Brown Has Voted At Least Four Times For Watered-Down Democrat-Proposed Tax Relief For Married Couples:Alleviate ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax -- Democratic Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment to reduce taxes for married couples by $95 billion over 10 years. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that for singles, and would increase the eligibility limit for couples for the earned income tax credit by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002. The measure would not make any changes to the lowest income tax bracket.” (H.R. 4810, CQ Vote #390: Rejected 198-228: R 0-219; D 197-8; I 1-1, July 12, 2000, Brown voted Yea)Income Tax Reduction -- Democratic Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment that would create a new 12 percent tax rate to be phased in over three years; expand the earned income tax credit; double the married couple deduction; and adjust the alternative minimum tax so that filers would receive the rate reduction benefits.” (H.R. 3, CQ Vote #42: Rejected 155-273: R 0-219; D 154-53; I 1-1, March 8, 2001, Brown voted Yea)Marriage Tax Reduction -- Democratic Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment that would reduce taxes by $585.5 billion over 10 years. The plan would lower the current 15 percent tax bracket to 12 percent on the first $20,000 of couples’ taxable income and $10,000 for single taxpayers. It would double the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice that of individuals filing singly. The plan would adjust the alternative minimum tax so that anyone with tax liability would receive the benefit of the rate reduction. It also would simplify and expand the earned income tax credit for low-income earners.” (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #73: Rejected 196-231: R 0-218; D 195-12; I 1-1, March 29, 2001, Brown voted Yea)‘Marriage Penalty’ Relief -- Rangel Substitute. “Rangel, D-N.Y., substitute amendment that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers and increasing the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would prevent the alternative minimum tax from negating the benefits of the bill for married couples, and it would offset the cost of the bill by imposing a 3.6 percent surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year and married couples with annual incomes of more than $1 million.” (H.R. 4181, CQ Vote #136: Rejected 189-226: R 1-216; D 187-10; I 1-0, April 28, 2004, Brown voted Yea)NOTE: Brown Voted At Least Twice For Tax Relief For Married Couples:‘Marriage Penalty’ Relief – Passage. “Passage of the bill that would permanently extend tax provisions eliminating the so-called marriage penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples double that of single taxpayers and increasing the upper limit of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples to twice that of singles. It also would make permanent higher income limits for married couples eligible to receive the refundable earned-income tax credit.” (H.R. 4181, CQ Vote #138: Passed 323-95: R 220-0; D 102-95; I 1-0, April 28, 2004, Brown voted Yea)Family and Corporate Tax Breaks -- Conference Report. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would extend the $1,000 per child tax credit through 2009, the upper limit for the current 10 percent bracket through 2010 and tax breaks for married couples through 2008. It also would provide a one-year extension of current income exemptions from the alternative minimum tax and extend the expiring research and development tax credit through 2005.” (H.R. 1308, CQ Vote #472: Adopted (thus sent to the Senate) 339-65: R 213-0; D 125-65; I 1-0, September 23, 2004, Brown voted Yea)NOTE: Brown Voted At Least Twice To Reduce Phase-In Times For Tax Relief For Married Couples:Tax Cut Reconciliation -- Motion to Instruct. “Stark, D-Calif., motion to instruct conferees to insist that the conference report not include phase-ins longer than five years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets. The conference report should include marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief, increasing the per-child tax credit, pension reform and permanent extension of the research tax credit.” (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #146: Motion rejected 198-210: R 1-205; D 196-4; I 1-1, May 23, 2001, Brown voted Yea)Marriage and Job Tax Credits – Passage. “Weller, R-Ill., motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would move up the start date of the phase-in of the doubling of the standard deduction for married couples from 2005 to 2003. The bill also would combine the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits and make the new break available to employers hiring individuals from the two credits’ targeted groups, including qualified high-risk youth, veterans and family assistance recipients.” (H.R. 4626, CQ Vote #177: Motion agreed to 409-1: R 211-0; D 196-1; I 2-0, May 21, 2002, Brown voted Yea)
