No. I am simply saying in most of the amendments offered there is a direct relevancy to the issue of marriage tax penalty. I am also suggesting in all cases we would be prepared to limit the debate to 1 hour equally divided. Regardless of its relevancy, the fact is the majority leader would be able to begin this debate, conduct his debate as he has anticipated, with an expectation that we could finish by the end of the day tomorrow. He has noted, of course, that he doesn't necessarily support or endorse many of these amendments. It is the right of the majority leader, especially given the fact that we have now submitted to a 1-hour time limit, that he can oppose them, he can table them.
Thomas Daschle: “No. I am simply saying in most of the amendments offered there is a direct relevancy to the issue of marriage tax…”
On the recordApril 12, 2000
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the relevance of amendments related to the marriage tax penalty during Senate debate.
Share
More from Thomas Daschle
Jan 26, 2009
It seems to me to make a lot of sense that there should be a Federal health board that has some oversight responsibility.
Jul 21, 2009
The agriculture sector is in a unique position to lead and benefit from efforts to address climate change.
Jul 21, 2009
Federal action to establish a mandatory program to limit greenhouse gas emissions is sensible and will provide agricultural producers with significant new market opportunities.
May 12, 2013
The American people, by survey after survey, say they want these tax loopholes closed when they are informed particularly of the loopholes which allow corporations to shift revenue to a tax haven.





