[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H4065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE MARRIAGE PENALTY

  (Mr. GINGRICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' 
attention the fact that the House budget resolution, which will be 
debated today and probably voted on tomorrow, calls for about $100 
billion over five years in tax cuts. It specifically singles out the 
marriage penalty as a key tax burden that we should provide families 
relief from. Let me just say, I have a particular interest in this 
because my younger daughter got married earlier this year. She actually 
found out how much more she and her husband will pay.
  But without drawing my own family directly into this, let me cite 
from Bobby and Susan from Marietta, Georgia, whom I represent. Bobby 
and Susan wrote in. They said, ``When we figured our 1996 tax return, 
we figured what our tax would be if we were just living together 
instead of married. Imagine our disgust when we discovered that if we 
just lived together instead of being married we would have saved an 
additional $1,000. So much for the vaunted family values of our 
government. Our government is sending a very bad message to young 
adults by penalizing marriage this way.''
  I just think this is a chance to vote a very simple principle. We can 
save 1 percent of spending over the next five years and get rid of the 
marriage penalty that punishes people for being married. I think to 
have a pro-family tax code with a slightly leaner government is a 
pretty good ``yes'' vote. I hope my colleagues will join me. Let us 
save 1 percent of projected Federal spending, get rid of the marriage 
penalty and send the right signal to all Americans.

                          ____________________