[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2987-H2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MARRIAGE PENALTY ELIMINATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is 
recognized for 40 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, today the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) and I would like to talk to our colleagues and those watching 
at home about this issue of the marriage penalty that the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) mentioned in his earlier discussion.
  This first came to my attention in a very serious way when two of my 
constituents, Sharon Mallory and Dale Pierce, wrote me a letter last 
February that moved me to investigate what exactly was happening in our 
Tax Code. Sharon explained that they wanted to get married. They went 
to H&R Block and found out that although they both worked at about $10-
an-hour jobs at a factory, they would be penalized $2,800 if they got 
married. She would have to give up her $900 refund and pay those 
additional taxes, simply because they got married. She went on to write 
that they could not afford it, and it broke her heart that they could 
not get married.
  This marriage penalty is one of the most immoral provisions in our 
Tax Code. It says to young people, older folks, anybody who is married 
in this country, you are eligible to pay more taxes simply because you 
are married. It is wrong; it is something that needs to be eliminated 
in the Tax Code.
  I have teamed up with my very good colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), and we have introduced a bill, the Marriage 
Penalty Elimination Act that is gaining more and more support every day 
in Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, because Members 
realize on the Democratic side and on the Republican side that this is 
the wrong way to treat families in our country.
  We have all suddenly begun to realize in this country that families 
are indeed the centerpiece of our society. They are the ones that bring 
up our children. The family unit is the one that helps our communities 
to grow. Why should the government penalize people who are married, 
simply because they are married, in the Tax Code?
  Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to my colleague to explain the 
legislation that we have cosponsored and describe the efforts that he 
and I have undertaken to address this problem, and take it to the 
American people so that they are aware of the problem in the Tax Code.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana; 
I want to thank him for the partnership we have had to eliminate what 
we all consider to be not only the most unfair, but really immoral 
provision in our Tax Code, which is the marriage tax penalty.
  I represent a pretty diverse district. I represent the south side of 
Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom 
and farm communities, and I find that some pretty simple questions come 
forward which I really believe illustrate why elimination of the 
marriage penalty should be the number one priority of this Congress 
when it comes to the tax provisions in this year's budget agreement.
  Some questions that I have been asked as a legislator, when I have 
had town meetings, or at the local VFW or the local union hall or the 
local plant, folks just say that Americans do not feel that it is fair 
that our Tax Code punishes marriage with a higher tax. Do Americans 
feel that it is fair that a working married couple with two incomes who 
are married happen to pay higher taxes just because they are married, 
in comparison to a couple that lives together outside of marriage in an 
identical income bracket?
  I say to my colleagues, if we think about it, our Tax Code actually 
provides an incentive to get divorced, because for 21 million married, 
working couples, they pay on the average $1,400 more just because they 
are married. In the district that I represent, the south side of 
Chicago, the south suburbs, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet 
Junior College; it is 3 months of day care at a local child care center 
in Joliet as well. That is real money for many people.
  Let me give an example here. Of course we have all had so many 
constituents who have shared with us and written us some pretty 
heartfelt letters regarding the marriage tax penalty and how the 
marriage tax penalty hurts them. But let me give an example right here 
in the district that I represent, outside of Chicago; Joliet is the 
largest community that I represent.
  Take an example of a machinist who works at Caterpillar. Caterpillar 
is a major manufacturer in the district that I represent; they make the 
real heavy earth-moving equipment, the bulldozers and earth-scrapers 
and other things, and folks work hard there. We have a case of a 
machinist who works at Caterpillar, and this machinist makes $30,500 a 
year. If this machinist is single with this $30,500 a year income, if 
we take into consideration the standard deduction and exemption, he 
falls in the 15 percent tax bracket, if he is single.
  Now, say he meets a gal in Joliet and they decide to get married, and 
the gal he wants to marry is a school teacher, a tenured school teacher 
in the Joliet public schools. She makes an identical income of $30,500. 
Well, under our current Tax Code, if they are married, they file 
jointly and when they do, their combined income is $61,000. Even after 
you take into consideration the standard deductions and exemptions,

[[Page H2988]]

they actually are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket. And by being 
pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, just because they are married 
under our Tax Code, that produces an almost $1,400 marriage tax 
penalty.
  Now, is it right that when this machinist who works hard every day at 
caterpillar in Joliet, Illinois, marries a school teacher who works 
hard every day at the Joliet public schools, just because they are 
married, they are punished under our Tax Code and required to pay 
almost $1,400 more just because they are married?
  Now, if they chose to live together outside of marriage they would 
save almost $1,400. I think that is just amazing that our Tax Code 
actually does that, because for this machinist or school teacher, if 
they would choose to go to Joliet Junior College and decide to go back 
to school, that $1,400 would pay for 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior 
College. That really illustrates why I think it is so important that 
the marriage tax penalty be eliminated. Because when we think about it, 
21 million married, working couples suffer the marriage tax penalty. 
That is 42 million taxpayers.
  April 15, of course, was the day that everyone had their taxes be 
due, and 21 million couples, if they were not aware of it before, 
discovered they were paying the marriage tax penalty. That is why I 
believe that elimination of the marriage tax penalty should be our 
number one priority this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank so many in the profamily groups that 
have worked with us and a lot of our colleagues in both the House and 
Senate who have come together, of course, with essentially a compromise 
bill that we put together, legislation called the Marriage Tax Penalty 
Elimination Act of 1998, legislation that will eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty in a very simple way.

  Of course, we double the tax brackets. Right now, under, say, the 15 
percent tax bracket, if one is making $24,650, one is in the 15 percent 
tax bracket, but if one gets married, one can only make about $42,000 
and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. We double it from 24,650 to 
49,300. It is very simple. We also double the standard deduction which 
this machinist and school teacher would be able to enjoy. It is simple 
legislation.
  The other thing I want to point out, as well, there is no unintended 
consequence from our legislation. The marriage tax penalty resulted 
from unintended consequences as the Tax Code was changed over the last 
30 years. No one sought to create it, but unfortunately, it was created 
because our Tax Code, a progressive Tax Code, has become more 
complicated over the years. But we can help this machinist at 
Caterpillar and this school teacher in Joliet with passage of the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
  I think it is important legislation. I want to commend the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt), and all of those who have been working so hard who have been 
putting together this legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) in a moment to further explain our legislation.
  Let me mention, first, to emphasize the point the gentleman was 
making, if two people are working and suddenly they become married, 
they get hit with higher taxes simply because they are married, and 
that is because the tax brackets do not recognize that two people 
earning twice as much money should be paying the same amount of taxes. 
Instead, what they do is they have what is called, I guess we would 
call it ``bracketry,'' but essentially they lower that higher bracket 
for the married couple, make them pay more taxes, and the reason that 
that has happened over the last 30 years is that people here in 
Washington want the extra money to grow government, for more spending 
programs.
  Even President Clinton said the marriage penalty is indefensible, 
but, and when he starts to say ``but,'' we have to listen carefully; I 
am not sure we can afford the give up the money. That has been the 
mentality around this place for 30 years.
  Well, I am happy to say that today, I talked with our Committee on 
Budget chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), who is working 
on a budget this week that will cut back on the growth of government, 
reduce the ever-expanding spending, and set aside that money so that we 
can eliminate the marriage penalty. I was delighted, because I think it 
is important that we all get behind Chairman Kasich's effort and say, 
yes, we will hold back just a little bit of extra money, we do not have 
to keep expanding government ever faster and faster, we will hold it 
back just a little bit, and then we will do what is right for the 
families in this country and eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Let me now recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to 
describe in even more detail how our legislation would work.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's points are well made 
there, particularly the point about the idea that we cannot afford to 
give back this money. I think the real question is, can we afford to 
keep this money? Can we afford to continue to make marriage financially 
a penalty? It is just wrong to do that, and I think if this Congress 
needs to set any standard, that standard needs to be that every time 
one can leave money with American families, rather than take that money 
from them and bring it to Washington, American families and America is 
going to be better off.
  Last year we passed the tax bill that created real tax relief for 
families with children, and if somebody has three kids at home today 
who are 17 or younger, that person should be paying $100 less in 
Federal taxes every month this year than you paid last year; and if you 
are not, you had better go down to the employment office at work and 
ask what form you need to get filled out to get your taxes straightened 
back out, because what this Congress decided was that families could 
spend that $100 a month on their three kids, 17 or younger, better than 
some bureaucrat in Washington could spend that $100 a month on those 
same kids.
  Here is another chance to not do what, hopefully, we can ultimately 
do, which is get rid of this complex Tax Code that nobody understands 
and start all over toward a fairer, simpler Tax Code, but in the 
interim, we need to remove these inequities.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said a minute ago about that 
couple he was talking about, that they are almost exactly the average 
of the 21 million American couples that are penalized by this, almost 
exactly at the $1,400 per year level. Is this fair? Of course it is not 
fair. Could that family do better with that $120 or so a month, better 
than the Federal Government would do with it? You bet they would do 
better with it for their family than the Federal Government would do 
with it for their family. And even if they would not, is it fair to 
take it from that family simply because they have chosen to be married, 
and suddenly have this penalty kick in?
  In this new and improved version of eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty, again I think the gentleman and Mr. Weller have worked hard, 
and hopefully, I have been part of that discussion, to make sure that 
we do not unintentionally do something that we did not mean to do.
  So, simply, we have gone in and we have doubled the brackets if you 
are a married couple. We have doubled the standard deduction from 
$4,150 to double that, $8,300. We have doubled the threshold where one 
goes from the 15 percent bracket to the 20 percent bracket, and in 
every other case where there was a figure that should be doubled for a 
couple that had not been in the past, that is what this does. It is 
very simple. It is very easy to understand. It is not going to produce 
any unintended consequences; it is just going to have people who are 
married and both working paying the same taxes as people who are not 
married and both working.

                              {time}  1645

  What could be fairer than that? The pro-family groups, the Christian 
Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women of America, 
the Eagle Forum, the Traditional Values Coalition have all endorsed 
this bill. They have all said this is a giant step forward for American 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be our number one tax priority. This 
should not be allowed to go through another April 15. That is good news

[[Page H2989]]

about the budget, that this Congress is going to create a budget where 
we do not have to ask the question of whether we can afford not to have 
this money, this $1,400 times 21 million. That is the amount of money 
we are talking about. We do not have to have this money to balance the 
budget.
  We are going to balance the budget on principles of fairness and on 
principles that are pro-family and principles that encourage marriage. 
That is exactly what this bill does.
  I hear more and more talk in the halls of the Capitol that more and 
more people think this should be the first thing we do in tax reform 
this year. And hopefully we can do even more tax reform than this, but 
this should be job one when it comes to tax reform this year.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that one group that is 
particularly punished by this marriage penalty are women. One of our 
colleagues said to us, we could actually call this the Working Women's 
Tax Relief Act of 1998, because what happens is that the marriage 
penalty discriminates against women who throughout their career 
sometimes are working, sometimes they are staying at home to raise 
their children, sometimes when the children are old enough, going back 
and continuing that career.
  What happens is that when they enter back into the workforce, they 
are immediately taxed at the higher rate because of their spouse. If we 
consider the Federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, the State and local 
taxes, women pay an astounding 50 percent marginal tax on their income 
simply because they are married and entering into the workforce.
  Now, working women are wholeheartedly against this marriage penalty 
tax. Teri Ness, the CEO and founder of the National Association of 
Women Business Owners testified before the Committee on Small Business, 
and she said 95 percent of her members said Congress should eliminate 
the marriage penalty. It is simply a matter of fairness.
  Now, the marriage penalty also discriminates against those women who 
decide to stay home and take care of their families because without 
doubling the brackets, they are penalized because they are married. And 
they are penalized as a stay-at-home mom because of this marriage 
penalty tax.
  H.R. 3734 is a bill that helps all married couples by doubling the 
brackets, doubling the personal exemption, and allowing us to say once 
and for all we are going to go on record being in favor of families.
  Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What is 
really interesting, the gentleman from Indiana and I were elected in 
1994 and of course we were part of the class of freshmen in 1994 and we 
made a commitment to the people and the people who elected us that we 
were going to change the way Washington works. One of the most 
fundamental changes that we made was not only to balance the budget for 
the first time in 28 years, and my colleagues know darned well that if 
it had not been for the freshmen in 1994 that we would not have a 
balanced budget today, but we gave the middle-class working families 
the first tax cut in 16 years.
  Our philosophy when we came in in 1994 was that we want families to 
keep more of what they earn because they work so hard. And of course 
they can better spend their dollars back home in Illinois and Indiana 
and North Carolina than we can here in Washington.
  It was interesting, when the President was asked by Washington 
reporters what he thought about eliminating the marriage penalty, as 
was pointed out earlier, he said well, gee, it is a problem but 
basically indicated we need the money to spend. That is unfortunate 
because think about it. Those who object to eliminating the marriage 
penalty always say, gee, it is going to cost Uncle Sam. Think about it: 
$1,400, that is real money for real people. And think how much $1,400 
costs middle-class working couples.
  One thing the President has said earlier this year, he had an idea 
which frankly it is a pretty good one. He talks about expanding the 
already existing child care tax credit. He thinks maybe that is a 
better idea than eliminating the marriage penalty. My staff and I did 
the numbers. We figured how much tax relief this machinist and school 
teacher that I referred to in Joliet, Illinois, would enjoy if they 
have a child who goes to the day care center.
  Under the President's proposal the average married couple that would 
qualify for the child care tax credit would see an extra $358 a year. 
That pays in Joliet, Illinois, less than three weeks of day care. If we 
eliminate the marriage penalty for this working married couple in 
Joliet, this machinist at Caterpillar and a school teacher, we save 
them $1,400. In Joliet, that is almost 11 weeks of child care at this 
child care center.
  Mr. Speaker, which is better? Three months of day care with 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty or three weeks of day care under 
the President's proposal? Clearly, by eliminating the marriage penalty 
we can help married couples with children in a much bigger way.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Schumer), who I understand has to catch a plane.


        First Lady's Remarks on Palestinian State Were a Mistake

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh) for being gracious.
  Mr. Speaker, I take the White House at its word that the First Lady's 
comments on a Palestinian State were a mistake and not the White House 
position.
  But this is what the White House should have said loud and clear: For 
there to be peace, Yassir Arafat should renounce violence and stop 
turning a blind eye to those under his authority who terrorize Israel.
  Israelis want peace, but they are skeptical about the Palestinian 
will and ability to thwart terrorism. Israelis will not and should not 
accept a state that is a base for terror or for war, and the First 
Lady, I hope, will realize that she was mistaken in believing that such 
a State would be in furtherance of peace. It will not.
  When voices in the White House say there ought to be a Palestinian 
State before there are guarantees of security, they do not set the 
peace process forward. They set it back.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his courtesy.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I agree with the remarks 
of the gentleman wholeheartedly.
  Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to another one of our colleagues in the 
class of 1994. She has represented our class at the leadership table 
and been a true leader in our class in trying to bring about the 
revolution that the gentleman from Illinois talked about in changing 
the way Washington does business, the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for bringing 
this bill forward. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) was talking 
earlier about the child care credits and what a difference it would 
make for families who are struggling to make ends meet. That is just 
one good example of what we are talking about.
  When I go home, people say to me, ``Y'all do some dumb things up 
there.'' All the time I hear that. And they say, ``There is no common 
sense, where is the common sense that we have back here at home? You do 
not do it.'' And one of the most frequent complaints I get that on is 
the Tax Code. People say it makes no sense to them. I think we probably 
would have to be completely out of touch with the world today to in any 
way defend our Tax Code as reasonable or common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, any one of us could send our tax forms to eight 
different accountants and we would get eight different examples of how 
we could do our taxes because nobody really knows. We have complicated 
the dickens out of the code. It does not make sense to any of us and 
even the experts have a heck of a hard time trying to figure it out.
  One of the things I think that is especially stupid is the marriage 
tax penalty; I mean, penalizing people for getting married. And many 
young couples do not have a clue that this is going to hit them until 
after they have been married and file their first joint tax return. 
Then they find out that all the sudden, good grief, we owe a bunch of 
money we did not think we owed.
  So in looking at it from common sense like we do back home in North

[[Page H2990]]

Carolina, we say why in the world are we encouraging as a Federal 
Government young people to live together instead of getting married 
because we tax them more if they get married? I mean, that does not 
make sense to anybody back in North Carolina. It certainly does not 
make sense to us.
  That is why I am so glad my colleagues brought it forward. There is 
no rationale to this when we think about why they are doing this. Why? 
Other than to put more money in the government coffers. Taxes put more 
money in the government, and the government just spends it instead of 
letting the hard working Americans keep their own money in their own 
pocket, which is what this is about.
  So I am just real encouraged that my colleagues brought the bill 
forward and I hope that everybody is going to support this so that we 
can get rid of this dumb idea that taxes people because they married.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her 
comments. And she mentioned young people who suddenly discover they are 
hit with a penalty. That reminded me of an episode two weeks ago when 
we were back home over the Easter recess. A young man came up to me 
after one of my talks and he said let me tell you what happened to me 
and my wife. We were just married last fall. We had to postpone our 
honeymoon and we were getting ready to take it this year and all of a 
sudden on April 15 we realized that we had to pay about $2,200 more in 
taxes. That was the money they had been saving up to go on their 
honeymoon. He said it just broke their hearts. They had to pay the 
taxes they owed because of this marriage tax in the Tax Code. Now they 
are going to have to postpone their honeymoon once again.
  Time and time again I hear from young people who do not expect it. 
One of my staffers said it is almost as if when they say ``I do,'' 
Uncle Sam says ``fork it over,'' and that is unfortunate in this 
marriage penalty tax and what it is doing to our families today.
  Let me turn to one of our colleagues who has served with us actually 
before our class, a forerunner of the class of 1994, but is with us in 
spirit. And he is someone I turn to often to seek wisdom and guidance 
about how we can pursue these legislative objectives. I yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh) for yielding to me. As a former tax manager, there are so 
many things wrong with the current Tax Code that I could stand here all 
day and night talking about them. But there is one aspect of that Tax 
Code that in my view is the most unfair of all, and that is the 
marriage penalty.
  Under the current Tax Code, married couples usually pay more Federal 
taxes than single taxpayers, everyone knows this. We can ask any 
recently married couple about the shock that they received when they 
got their first tax bill. And it is wrong. It is wrong that the IRS 
charges a family more based on their marital status than they would 
when two single people are individually paying those taxes.
  The marriage penalty is essentially a tax on working wives, because 
the joint filing system compels married couples to identify a primary 
earner and a secondary earner and usually the wife falls into this 
latter category. This works out to be a tax on working women who become 
married. And therefore from an accountant's point of view, the wife's 
first dollar of income is taxed at the point where her husband's income 
has left her. And if the husband is making more money than the wife, 
then the couple may even conclude that it is not worth it for the wife 
to earn income. In fact, a woman working part-time may be working just 
to pay the tax man after the marriage.
  We need to instruct the IRS to be fair and not penalize married 
couples just for making the decision to get married, and the way to do 
this is to make married people equal to single people in the eyes of 
the Tax Code. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. McIntosh).
  This bill would benefit married couples regardless of whether they 
have children. Its ideas are simple. It allows families to decide how 
they file their income tax, either individually or jointly, whichever 
gives them the greatest benefit. And according to a recent 
Congressional Budget Office study, 21 million married couples paid an 
average of $1,400 in additional taxes last year because they had to 
file jointly, $1,400 in additional taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I know all families have a better use for $1,400 than 
giving it to the IRS as a marriage penalty. Whether it is to be spent 
for a mortgage or extra groceries or kids, married couples should be 
allowed to keep that extra money they earn. They should not be 
penalized just because they made the decision to get married.
  The Republican Party stands for tax cuts, tax relief, and the 
marriage penalty should be one of the first things to go. Actually, 
this unfair excessive tax should have been removed years ago, but the 
Democrats who controlled Congress for 40 years raised taxes instead of 
cutting them.
  The marriage penalty slams middle-class workers. Economist Bruce 
Bartlett says that most of the people affected by the marriage penalty 
have incomes under $30,000 a year.
  So why does this marriage penalty exist? That is an easy one, because 
for years it has brought in a lot of money that the IRS would not 
normally have collected. And because big government is fueled by money, 
extra money provides even more government, more bureaucratic jobs, and 
therefore government does not have an incentive to eliminate the 
marriage penalty.

                              {time}  1700

  They actually have an incentive to keep it in place. Make no mistake 
about it. Anyone who supports the marriage tax penalty and votes 
against this bill is simply saying they do not care if married people 
pay more taxes than necessary or than is fair.
  They are saying they do not care that an average married couple pays 
an additional $1,400 in taxes to the government when they make that 
decision to get married. They are saying they want a bigger government 
at the extra expense of working couples.
  We need to do everything we can to keep families together and to 
encourage marriage. Furthermore, we need to do everything we can to 
reduce the size and scope of government in our lives and reduce taxes 
on working Americans.
  The time has come to divorce ourselves from the marriage tax penalty. 
We need to pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act. I encourage 
all of my colleagues to vote for this outstanding and much-needed 
legislation. I want to thank my fellow coauthors for their presentation 
here today.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me share with the gentleman from 
California some good news that I mentioned earlier before he arrived on 
the floor.
  In talking to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, he has indicated to me that it is his desire 
in the budget that we stop the growth of government that the gentleman 
from California talked about, and say we, by just holding back that 
growth to a reasonable level, we can make sure to have the funds 
available to pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act and do that this 
year so that never again in this country will couples be suffering 
under the marriage penalty.
  I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for putting that in 
his budget. We now have to work with him and show that there is public 
support for that budget, to convince all of our colleagues that just a 
little bit of restraint on that spending side of the equation will let 
us eliminate this marriage penalty tax.
  Let me mention, also, I have been opening up my web site and inviting 
people all over the country to write to me about how the marriage 
penalty has affected them. I have received hundreds of letters. The web 
site, by the way, is www.house.gov/mcintosh.
  I wanted to share with you a couple of those E-mails that I received. 
One of them is from a fellow named Tom Smith from Columbus, Ohio. He 
writes, ``Thank you for addressing this issue. I am engaged to be 
married, and my fiance and I have discussed the fact that we will be 
penalized financially. We have postponed the date of our marriage in 
order to save up and have a ``running start,'' in part because of this 
nasty, unfair tax structure.''
  Then T.D. who is from Alberton, Montana, she writes to me, ``My 
husband and I both work. We are 50 and 55

[[Page H2991]]

years old. This is a second marriage for both of us. We delayed our 
marriage for a number of years because of the tax consequences.'' Let 
me repeat that. ``We delayed our marriage for a number of years because 
of the tax consequences. It caused a great deal of stress, lots of 
anguish among our families. We finally took the tax hit and married to 
make my family happy. This marriage penalty is awful.'' That is T.D. 
from Montana. Those are the type of responses we have been getting from 
hundreds of Americans who suffer from this marriage penalty tax.
  Sometimes the policy analysts here in Washington come up to me and 
say, oh, Mr. Congressman, you cannot tell me that it really makes a 
difference for anybody because they have to pay $1,400 more in taxes. I 
share with them these E-mails, and I say we may be able to afford it. 
My colleagues and I may not be affected by that, or we may tighten our 
belts, but there are a lot of people in this country who are living on 
the margin. Every dollar matters.
  They are trying to save for their children to give them a chance to 
have a good education, to put food on the table, to have a better 
future. For us to tell them we are going to penalize you because you 
are married is outrageous and must be eliminated.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have also been receiving letters and 
E-mails as well of those who have been suffering from the marriage 
penalty. Like our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), I 
have been written by a number of tax preparers who have shared 
examples.
  One gentleman, a Robert Eckert of Jacksonville, Florida, in a letter 
that he shared with us, he says, ``As a seasonal tax preparer and 
enrolled agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very significant; 12 
percent of after-tax income or 33 percent increase in tax liability for 
many couples. This marriage penalty hits all ages and all incomes.''
  He has several examples here; I will mention a couple of them. One is 
a retired couple and the other is a low income couple. The retired on 
Social Security couple, he says this couple got married midyear, each 
with about $20,000 in company pension income and $12,000 in Social 
Security payments. As singles, they would pay no tax on the Social 
Security income; but as married, $16,000 of combined Social Security 
payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400. Think about that. A 
married, retired couple paying $2,400 just because they are married.
  Another example that he shares is of a low income couple, and he 
says, this is really the saddest event of his 7 years of preparing tax 
returns. Mr. Eckert says, a cemetery grounds keepers and his county 
clerk spouse, one making $16,000, the other making $11,000, are 
married, and they have twin 6-year-old boys.
  They also have neighbors, an unmarried couple with twin 5-year-old 
girls working at the same cemetery and county office building and have 
similar incomes who not only pay $460 less in taxes, but receive a 
$2,563 in earned income tax credit check.
  The married couple, the cemetery grounds keeper and his county clerk, 
pay over $3,000, 12 percent of their after-tax income just because they 
are married. There are several other examples.
  Mr. Speaker, I include these letters for the record.
  The text of the letters are as follows:
                                                  October 1, 1997.
     Representative Jerry Weller,
     U.S. House of Representatives, House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Weller: As a seasonal tax preparer and 
     Enrolled Agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very 
     significant, 12% of after tax income or 33% increase in tax 
     liability. The marriage penalty hits all ages and all 
     incomes. Some examples:
       Retired on Social Security: This couple got married mid 
     year, each with $20,000 company pension income and $12,000 
     social security payments. As single, they pay no tax on the 
     social security income, as married $16,000 of combined social 
     security payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400.
       High Income Executives: Two spouses with $80,000 and 
     $50,000 incomes pay $1,584 more in taxes than if, as an 
     unmarried couple they filed single returns.
       High School Teachers: Two $40,000 a year public school 
     teachers, each a single parent of a teenage son, got married 
     New Year's Eve. They felt very strongly their sons would have 
     a better chance of staying away from drugs with the emotional 
     support and economic stability of a married two parent 
     family. More important, they believed boys in single parent 
     environment are six times more likely to become involved with 
     the juvenile justice system. They became ``very emotional'' 
     when I determined their tax liability increased from $4500 
     each, $9000, to $12,434--a 35% increase for getting married 
     and trying to help their sons to a better life.
       Low Income: This is the saddest event of my seven years 
     preparing tax returns. A cemetery grounds keeper and his 
     county clerk spouse, $16,000 and $11,000 incomes, are married 
     with twin six year old boys. They have a neighbor, an 
     unmarried couple with twin five year old girls, working at 
     the same cemetery and county office and similar incomes who 
     not only pay $460 less taxes but receive $2563 in earned 
     income tax credit. My married couple pay over $3000, 12% of 
     their after tax income for being married!!!
           Sincerely,
     Robert Eckert, E.A.
                                  ____

                                                 January 18, 1998.
       Congressman Weller: I recently heard that you were 
     sponsoring a bill to not have tax penalty on married couples 
     as it now exists. Our beloved Congressman is no longer with 
     us but he was a personal friend and I also worked on all his 
     campaigns. I remember discussing things with him. We talked 
     about how the government having things backwards sometimes 
     and rewarding people that are not working and penalizing the 
     working and somehow sending the wrong message. I totally 
     support your bill and will be praying for you also as you 
     undertake this.
           Best wishes,
     Pam Mann and family.
                                  ____

                                               September 15, 1997.
     Hon. Jerry Weller,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Weller: Last week our local newspaper ran an 
     article about the marriage tax penalty bill that you and 
     Representative McIntosh are co-sponsoring. I wholeheartedly 
     support you in your efforts to have this unfair tax code 
     eliminated. Since I have a dog in this fight, I want to see 
     this inequity straightened out.
       Why should we punish the people who enter into marriage 
     over the people who choose to just live together? I think all 
     married couples should be allowed to file their taxes either 
     as single individuals or jointly as a couple. If filing 
     jointly is a benefit to the married couple, that's just a 
     plus to being married; the single couples could marry and 
     receive the same tax benefit. As the tax code is now, in most 
     instances, it is advantageous to be able to file taxes as a 
     single individual. I am a 61 year old grandmother, still 
     holding down a full time job, and I remarried three years 
     ago. I had to think long and hard about marriage over staying 
     single as I knew it would cost us several thousand dollars a 
     year just to sign that marriage license. Marriage has become 
     a contract between two individuals and the federal 
     government. Why should the IRS be able to dictate my filing 
     status when filing jointly is not in my best interest?
       I want to write my own congressmen to ask them to support 
     you and Mr. McIntosh. Please send me the number of the 
     marriage tax penalty bill. Also I would like to receive more 
     information about the specifics of the bill if you have that 
     available.
       I would be interested in helping get this bill established 
     at the grass roots level. Do you have any suggestions on how 
     I could help in bringing this bill to a favorable conclusion?
           Sincerely,
     Mary A. Hottel.
                                  ____

     Congressman Jerry Weller,
     Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Weller: We support your change to the 
     ``so-called marriage tax penalty''.
       We are prime examples of this. My husband and I work for 
     Motorola-CSS in Libertyville, Illinois. We both work the same 
     schedule. We generally work 40 hours a week. But, when there 
     is overtime it is mandatory! We cannot say no! We then work a 
     54 hour week, 6 days, with 1 day a week off. The money is 
     nice but all that overtime drives up our incomes into a 
     higher tax bracket, when we file jointly.
       When we filed our taxes for 1996 we owed (paid) the IRS 
     $1391.00. At that time we decided to have extra money 
     withheld from my husbands check to be paid to the IRS. We 
     thought this would balance out what we would owe for 1997. We 
     had an extra $120.00 a month withheld. Of course it didn't 
     cover what we owe for 1997. With all that overtime it pushed 
     us into an even higher tax bracket. If we hadn't had that 
     extra $120.00 a month taken out we would owe the IRS almost 
     $2200.00.
       We have figured our taxes for 1997 married filing jointly, 
     married filing separately, and single. As you can see we 
     would benefit filing single.
       We have no deductions. We are DINKS, Dual Income No Kids. 
     We cannot write off anything. I would be happy to pay the 
     difference that is owed to the IRS filing singly. That would 
     be $127.12, versus $1003.17, married filing jointly or 
     $996.17 filing married/separately. Which would you choose?
       We have told family and friends our dilemma. Everyone has 
     said maybe we should get a divorce. I do not want that!

[[Page H2992]]

       This is not fair to couples with no children or other 
     deductions. Please do something to change that rule! Thank 
     you for your concern.
           Sincerely,
     Steven and Kathleen Hines.
                                  ____


              Unfairness in Tax Code: Marriage Tax Penalty

       Mr. Speaker: I rise today to highlight what is arguably the 
     most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax 
     penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in 
     bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married 
     couples compared to a couple living together outside of 
     marriage.
       In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union 
     Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the 
     budget surplus.
       A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement 
     which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and 
     held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget.
       While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending 
     totaling at least $46-48 billion in new programs--we believe 
     that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to 
     America's families as additional middle-class relief.
       This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class 
     and working poor than any Congress of the last half century.
       I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be 
     framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel it's fair 
     that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? 
     Do Americans feel it's fair that the average married couple 
     pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost 
     identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it 
     right that our tax code provides an incentive to get 
     divorced?
       In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the 
     marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is 
     just wrong!
       Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when 
     both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to 
     be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a 
     year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if 
     they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, 
     it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic 
     institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a 
     disproportionate toll on working women and lower income 
     couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's 
     issue.
       Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty 
     unfairly affects middle class married working couples.
       For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing 
     plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in 
     salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also 
     bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both 
     file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 
     15%.

                                                      MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE IN THE SOUTH SUBURBS                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Machinst                   School Teacher                    Couple                  Weller/McIntosh II     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Gross Income...........  $30,500                       $30,500                       $61,000                       $61,000                     
Less Personal Exemption and       $6,550                        $6,550                        $11,800                       $13,100 (Singles x2)        
 Standard Deduction.                                                                                                                                    
Taxable Income..................  $23,950                       $23,950                       $49,200                       $47,900                     
                                  (x .15)                       (x .15)                       (Partial x .28)               (x .15)                     
Tax Liability...................  $3592.5                       $3592.5                       $8563                         $7,185                      
                                                                Marriage Penalty              $1,378                        Relief $1378                
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                 Weller-McIntosh II Eliminates the Marriage Tax Penalty                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       But if they choose to live their lives in holy matrimony, 
     and now file jointly, their combined income of $61,000 pushes 
     them into a higher tax bracket of 28 percent, producing a tax 
     penalty of $1400 in higher taxes.
       On average, America's married working couples pay $1400 
     more a year in taxes than individuals with the same incomes. 
     That's serious money. Millions of married couples are still 
     stinging from April 15th's tax bite and more married couples 
     are realizing that they are suffering the marriage tax 
     penalty.
       Particularly if you think of it in terms of: a down payment 
     on a house or a car, one years tuition at a local community 
     college, or several months worth of quality child care at a 
     local day care center.
       To that end, Congressman David McIntosh and I have 
     authorized the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act.
       The Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act will increase the 
     tax brackets (currently at 15% for the fist $24,650 for 
     singles, whereas married couples filing jointly pay 15% on 
     the first $41,200 of their taxable income) to twice that 
     enjoyed by singles; the Weller-McIntosh proposal would extend 
     a married couple's 15% tax bracket to 49,300. Thus, married 
     couples would enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income 
     subject to the low 15% tax rate as opposed to the current 28% 
     tax rate and would result in up to $1,053 in tax relief.
       Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction 
     for married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of 
     singles (currently at $4,150). Under the Weller-McIntosh 
     legislation the standard deduction for married couples filing 
     jointly would be increased to $8,300.
       Our new legislation builds on the momentum of their popular 
     H.R. 2456 which enjoyed the support of 238 cosponsors and 
     numerous family, women and tax advocacy organizations. 
     Current law punishes many married couples who file jointly by 
     pushing them into higher tax brackets. It taxes the income of 
     families' second wage earner--often the woman's salary--at a 
     much higher rate than if that salary was taxed only as an 
     individual. Our bill already has broad bipartisan 
     cosponsorship by Members of the House and a similar bill in 
     the Senate also enjoys widespread support.
       It isn't enough for President Clinton to suggest tax breaks 
     for child care. The President's child care proposal would 
     help a working couple afford, on average, three weeks of day 
     care. Elimination of the marriage tax penalty would given the 
     same couple the choice of paying for three months of child 
     care--or addressing other family priorities. After all, 
     parents know better than Washington what their family needs.
       We fondly remember the 1996 State of the Union address when 
     the President declared emphatically that, quote ``the era of 
     big government is over.
       We must stick to our guns, and stay the course.
       There never was an American appetite for big government.
       But there certainly is for reforming the existing way 
     government does business.
       And what better way to show the American people that our 
     government will continue along the path to reform and 
     prosperity than by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
       Ladies and Gentleman, we are on the verge of running a 
     surplus. It's basic math.
       It means Americans are already paying more than is needed 
     for government to do the job we expect of it.
       What better way to give back than to begin with mom and dad 
     and the American family--the backbone of our society.
       We ask that President Clinton join with Congress and make 
     elimination of the marriage tax penalty . . . a bipartisan 
     priority.
       Of all the challenges married couples face in providing 
     home and hearth to America's children, the U.S. tax code 
     should not be one of them.
       Lets eliminate The Marriage Tax Penalty and do it now!
       Thank you Mr. Speaker.
                                  ____


                            Which is Better?

       Note: The President's Proposal to expand the child care tax 
     credit will pay for only 2 to 3 weeks of child care. The 
     Weller-McIntosh Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 2546, will 
     allow married couples to pay for 3 months of child care.


                 WHICH IS BETTER, 3 WEEKS OR 3 MONTHS?

        CHILD CARE OPTIONS UNDER THE MARRIAGE TAX ELIMINATION ACT       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Average            
                                          Average     Weekly   Weeks Day
                                            Tax      Day Care     Care  
                                           Relief      Cost             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Tax Elimination Act...........     $1,400       $127         11
President's Child Care Tax Credit......        358        127        2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Do Americans feel that it's right to tax a working couple 
     more just because they live in holy matrimony?
       Is it fair that the American tax code punishes marriage, 
     our society's most basic institution?


              WELLER-Mc INTOSH II MARRIAGE TAX COMPROMISE

       Weller-McIntosh II, H.R. 3734, the Marriage Tax Penalty 
     Elimination Act presents a new, innovative marriage penalty 
     elimination package which pulls together all the principle 
     sponsors of various legislative proposals with legislation. 
     Weller-McIntosh II will provide equal and significant relief 
     to both single and dual earning married couples and can be 
     implemented immediately.
       The Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act will increase the 
     tax brackets (currently at 15% for the first $24,650 for 
     singles, whereas married couples filing jointly pay 15% on 
     the first $41,200 of their taxable income) to twice that 
     enjoyed by singles; the Weller-McIntosh proposal would extend 
     a married couple's 15% tax bracket to $49,300. Thus, married 
     couples would enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income 
     subject to the low 15% tax rate as opposed to the current 28% 
     tax rate and would result in up to $1,053 in tax relief.
       Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction 
     for married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of 
     singles (currently at $4,150). Under the Weller-McIntosh 
     legislation the standard deduction for married couples filing 
     jointly would be increased to $8,300.
       Weller and McIntosh's new legislation builds on the 
     momentum of their popular H.R. 2456 which enjoyed the support 
     of 238 cosponsors and numerous family, women and tax advocacy 
     organizations. Current law

[[Page H2993]]

     punishes many married couples who file jointly by pushing 
     them into higher tax brackets. It taxes the income of the 
     families' second wage earner--often the woman's salary--at a 
     much higher rate than if that salary was taxed only as an 
     individual.

                                                      MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE IN THE SOUTH SUBURBS                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Machinist                  School Teacher                    Couple                  Weller-McIntosh II     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Gross Income...........  $30,500                       $30,500                       $61,000                       $61,000                     
Less Personal Exemption and       6,550                         6,550                         11,800                        13,100 (Singles2)           
 Standard Deduction.                                                                                                                                    
Taxable Income..................  23,950                        23,950                        49,200                        47,900                      
                                  (.15)                         (.15)                         (Partial.28)                  (.15)                       
Tax Liability...................  3592.5                        3592.5                        8563                          7,185                       
                                                                Marriage Penalty              1378                          Relief 1378                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weller-McIntosh II Eliminates the Marriage Tax Penalty.                                                                                                 

       The repeal of the Marriage tax was part of the Republican's 
     1994 ``Contract with America,'' but the legislation was 
     vetoed by President Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman from Indiana will yield further, I will 
share one other letter.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Please do.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is a letter from Palm Springs, 
California. Sonny Bono was such a dear friend to all of us, and of 
course he was a co-sponsor of our original legislation. We are now 
joined by his wife, who is going to do a terrific job in representing 
the area that was represented by her late husband.
  But Pam Mann of Palm Springs, California says, ``I recently heard 
that you are sponsoring a bill to not have tax penalty on married 
couples as it now exists. Our beloved Congressman is no longer with us 
but he was a personal friend, and I also worked on all of his 
campaigns. I remember discussing things with him. We talked about the 
government having things backwards sometimes and rewarding people that 
are not working and penalizing the working people and somehow sending 
the wrong message.''
  She supports our legislation. She says she is praying for this 
legislation. She thinks it is important that we do something and do the 
right thing; that is, eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  If you think about it, 21 million married working couples pay an 
average $1,400 more just because they are married. Frankly, not only is 
it not right, but it is wrong that our tax code actually punishes 
marriage. $1,400. That is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. 
That is three months' daycare at a local child care center. That is why 
I am pleased this legislation is gaining such strong support. It 
deserves bipartisan support.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me just close very briefly by saying 
thank you and thank you to all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for supporting this bill. We have a long way to go. We have to 
pass a budget that allows us to eliminate the marriage penalty and stay 
on track for a balanced budget, and we have to pass a tax bill this 
fall.
  With the help of the American people, I am convinced that 1998 can be 
an historic year where we eliminate the marriage penalty tax.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives McIntosh, Weller, 
Herger and Riley for reintroducing the Marriage Penalty Elimination 
Act. One of the most indefensible aspects of our current tax code is 
that over 40 percent of married couples pay more in taxes filing 
jointly than they would if husband and wife each filed individually. 
This long-overdue legislation will end this discriminatory practice.
  While I cosponsored the previous version of this legislation, I did 
not believe it was the best way to eliminate the marriage penalty. 
Although it eliminated the marriage penalty for the 40 percent of 
couples who pay more filing jointly than they would separately, it 
upset the important principle, embedded in current law, that different 
families with the same total income should be treated equally for tax 
purposes. Moreover, it did not treat families in which one parent 
either stays at home or works part-time the same as families in which 
both parents work full time. At a time when the President is proposing 
billions of dollars for commercial day care we should be offering 
credible alternatives that make it easier for working families to keep 
one parent at home.
  That's why Representative Riley and I introduced H.R. 3104, the 
Marriage Protection and Fairness Act. This legislation would permit 
married couples to use ``income splitting'' on their returns, and would 
increase the standard deduction for married couples. These changes 
would: offer almost all married couples a tax cut; eliminate the tax 
penalty on marriage that exists under current law; and continue the 
current policy that different families with the same total income 
should be treated equally for tax purposes. Not surprisingly, this 
legislation quickly garnered 85 cosponsors.
  I am pleased to see that the concerns addressed in our legislation 
have been addressed in H.R. 3734. By doubling the standard deduction 
for married couples and doubling the income thresholds for married 
couples in all tax brackets, this legislation ensures that one-earner 
families will not be treated unfairly as a result of efforts to 
eliminate the marriage penalty. In addition, this legislation respects 
the principle that all married couples with the same income should be 
treated equally by the IRS.
  One income families often have the toughest time making ends meet, 
particularly if they are raising children. This latest version of the 
Marriage Penalty Elimination Act will allow us to eliminate the 
marriage penalty without penalizing stay-at-home parents. I encourage 
all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who has a tribute to pay.


                     Tribute to the Late John Saxon

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that our high school 
student's math and science skills rank near the bottom of the world. As 
we discuss how to reverse this alarming trend, we should take a moment 
to reflect on the legacy of a math-education pioneer who foresaw our 
present crisis, the late John Saxon of Oklahoma.
  Saxon gained national notoriety for his revolutionary Saxon method of 
teaching and for waging a war against the mathematics education 
establishment over their failed theories. Saxon was praised by 
President Reagan and featured by most major news outlets.
  Stanley Hartzler, a leading authority on algebra textbooks, credits 
him with a truly major advance. Commentator William F. Buckley predicts 
that Saxon will figure as prominently in the history of math education 
as Hyman Rickover did in the development of nuclear submarines.
  In 1995, Saxon said, ``America is on the road to becoming a follower 
in technology and science rather than a leader. Our captains of 
industry tell us that they are at a disadvantage in worldwide 
competition because our labor pool is mathematically incompetent. The 
time has come to question the math experts.''
  The type of math experts Saxon criticized were the proponents of 
touchy-feely new math theories. One such theorist has said it is 
downright dangerous to teach students basic computational math skills 
such as 6 times 7 equals 42 because students who have difficulty with 
these concepts will be cast aside and experience a terrible psychic 
toll measured by loss of self-esteem.
  Saxon first became aware of the pending crisis in math education in 
the 1970s during his first teaching job at Rose State College in 
Oklahoma City, after retiring from an exemplary and distinguished 
career of 27 years in the Air Force. Saxon discovered that his students 
were neither comprehending nor retaining the material they were 
learning from their textbook.
  At a student's suggestion, Saxon wrote out some problems for his 
class. When the students were successful from learning from his 
writings, Saxon decided to write a college level algebra textbook.
  Saxon was then a man on a mission. Publishers told Saxon he lacked 
the credentials to write a textbook. However, Saxon believed so 
strongly in his method that he mortgaged his house, spent his savings, 
and borrowed money from his four children to launch his own publishing 
company.
  Early results showed that students who learned using the Saxon method 
outscored those who did not by a margin of two to one. Across the 
Nation, C

[[Page H2994]]

and D students were now getting A's and B's. Classes who used his K 
through 12 math series routinely doubled enrollment and raised college 
board scores by greater than 50 percent.
  Despite the mounting evidence supporting the Saxon method, the math 
establishment considered him to be a pariah. One journal of the 
profession dismissed his method as meaningless, while others accused 
him of turning back the clock on math education.
  The cornerstone of Saxon's method is to train students in the 
fundamentals. Saxon was the Vince Lombardy of math education. He 
understood the importance of constantly drilling his pupils in the 
fundamentals like blocking and tackling.
  Saxon said that algebra is the basic language of all mathematics 
beyond arithmetic. He believed higher math skills could not be taught 
or comprehended by students who were not thoroughly drilled in the 
basics. To Saxon, the math establishment was like a coach. He was 
trying to teach his players trick plays before they knew how to run a 
sweep.
  As we consider how to improve math education in this country, we 
should reconsider what the so-called math education experts have been 
telling us. The education experts in society ought to be determined by 
the results that they produce, the impact that they have in the lives 
of the children, not by the titles or by their degrees that adorn their 
offices. Saxon's success was due to the power of his ideas, not by the 
prestige of any position.
  Today, Saxon Publishing is growing like crazy, according to the 
company president Frank Wang. All 50 States and 20,000 schools 
nationwide use Saxon books, and company sales have quadrupled since 
1991. The Washington Post ran a column this week by Wang. He said that, 
Saxon was in Washington picketing the annual meeting of the National 
Council of Teachers of Mathematics for their recommendation that 
calculators be integrated into classrooms. Wang said Saxon would have 
been surprised that at last month's council meeting Wang was invited to 
participate in a panel discussion on the role of the basics.
  John Saxon is no longer a voice in the wilderness. Today, his legacy 
is on the bridge of revolutionizing math education in America. As we 
continue to discuss how to improve math and science education, I 
encourage my colleagues to let the Saxon legacy lead the way.

                          ____________________