Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8459-S8464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota
for his statement. I do want to note what is going on here. The
leadership on our side is attempting to get the legislative branch bill
to the floor for debate. That is appropriate and that is as it should
be. I am simply saying, before we give the legislature its money, let's
give some American families their money back in a small tax cut.
Actually, I think we could do far better than this, but a tax cut that
they should have. The leadership, Trent Lott, agrees with me on this
and is willing to do that.
We have an objection from the other side of the aisle. The Democrat
side of the aisle is not willing to let us take this bill up at this
time.
The majority leader is in agreement and wants to do this, wants to
have a vote on this particular bill. We cannot get agreement from our
Democrat colleagues to agree to vote on this bill. The irony of that
is, I think, if we were able to get it up for a vote, there would be a
number of my Democrat colleagues who would agree that we should do away
with the marriage tax penalty. This is a ridiculous notion, way out of
step with all of our rhetoric, way out of step with the rhetoric of
everybody running for public office in America, talking about the need
to support family and family values.
We tax families more than we do people who are not in a family
situation--not that we should penalize those either, but this should
just all be level. Many of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the
aisle, I am convinced, would vote for this. But we are being blocked by
my Democrat colleagues from being able to take this up for a vote on a
legislative branch bill, and I

[[Page S8460]]

am just not willing to concede that we should not vote on this issue at
this point in time when we are running budget surpluses--that we should
just say, OK, we will fund the legislature, we will fund all the
operations of these fine institutions, but we are going to keep taking
more money from married couples who make between $25,000 and $75,000 a
year. We are going to penalize them $1,400 a year, on average, while
the legislature gets their money and while the Democrat side of the
aisle objects to this being voted on.
I do not think that is right. I do not think we ought to do that,
particularly in light of what we know our financial situation to be. We
can do this. It should be done. We used to do it. We used to treat
married couples the same as single filers up until 1969. We treated
them the same at that point in time. Then, at that point in time, we
created the imbalance situation, to where married couples are taxed
more.
I do not know how many people recognize just how this works, because
it is not even all married couples who are taxed more. The National
Center for Policy Analysis, in a February 1998 policy background paper,
puts it this way. They say:

A marriage penalty results when a married couple pays more
for taxes by filing jointly than each could be if each filed
as a single person.

That was the feature we talked about earlier--some economists--a man
and a woman, economists, who each year at the end of the year divorce,
file separately, retain the extra money, have kind of a special party,
honeymoon, and then marry again the first of the year. That is just
each year they do this to take advantage of this situation, which is
ridiculous, that the Tax Code would actually encourage that.

A couple files the marriage penalty only [only] when both
spouses have earned income.

Is that fair, that we only do this when both spouses have earned
income? A large percentage of married couples, where both spouses work,
work because they have to; they have to, to make ends meet, when you
have a national effective tax rate--national, State, local--of 40
percent, and you have one spouse work to pay taxes and the other spouse
work to pay for everything else. So we have, in this country, again
because of tax policy, in many respects--we force both couples to work,
whether or not they really want to, in their family arrangement. That
is their choice of what they decide to do.
But this marriage tax penalty then, to add insult to injury again,
only applies when both spouses have earned income--only when both of
them are working. Does that make any sense for a tax policy in America?
Does that make any sense for struggling families at all? I think my
Democrat colleagues ought to want to vote on that sort of issue.

Single earner couples never pay a penalty; in fact, always
get a bonus from the Tax Code.
Single earner couples never pay a penalty; in fact, always
get a bonus from the Tax Code, paying less taxes than they
would pay as singles.

This is single-earner couples. Is that good tax policy either? Is
that the way we should be? I think my Democrat colleagues would want to
vote on an issue like this. We are talking about returning a portion
and not spending more in deficit and not hurting Social Security reform
or saving Social Security. We can still save Social Security. You don't
have to pick between marriage and Social Security on this. CBO says we
will have $520 billion in surpluses over the next 5 years. We can help
pay down the debt, we can support marriage, and stop this ridiculous
tax on marriage, and we can save Social Security. Those are doable in
the current situation we are in. Why on Earth would we not want to
vote? Why on Earth would my Democrat colleagues be blocking us from
voting on this particular issue that is so important?
And, finally, we can help match our rhetoric to our actions on how
important family values are. We need to do those things. They show, in
this National Center for Policy Analysis backgrounder piece, just how
this issue works.

The marriage penalty fundamentally results . . . [and they
have charts in here] ``Percentages of couples with marriage
penalties and bonuses.''

I note it only applies to two-wage-earner families that you get the
marriage penalty, which I think is wrong. But what happens is, when you
hit into this penalty category, this is when you have two-wage-earner
families making between approximately $20,000 a year and $75,000 a
year, hit this penalty category, this tax increase category.
Think about that. How many people in America would be impacted then
by that? We are talking about two-wage-earner families making combined
between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. That is a lot of people. It is an
estimate that is affecting 21 million American families. That is just
the two-wage earners. It is not the other children associated with the
families who are getting this huge tax hit that on average is $1,400.
Maybe some people don't think $1,400 is very much money. It is a
half-a-year car payment for some people. It is a wrong signal to
everybody. Whether you agree or disagree that this is very much or very
little, it is the wrong signal to send at this time of such struggle
that we are having taking place in America. It just hits that category
of people.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a
brief question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I will.
Mr. DORGAN. I did not intend to interrupt the Senator from Kansas, I
think, three times. He doesn't understand why the Democrats object to a
vote on this. Does the Senator understand, the Democrats, as he
characterized it, are not objecting to a vote on this? The objection is
to a unanimous consent request that says there would be a vote on what
you are proposing, but no one on this side of the aisle would be
allowed to present alternatives for a vote.
We have a couple of people in the Cloakroom, I am told, who want to
offer tax amendments as well, if you want to have a vote on tax
amendments on the legislative branch bill.
It is not a case of Democrats objecting to a vote on your bill. I
want people who might be listening to the debate to understand that.
The unanimous consent request would say, let us have a vote on yours,
but prevent anybody else from offering anything. Obviously, we have
some folks who object to that.
Mr. BROWNBACK. And, obviously, then the reason I am not getting a
vote on the tax penalty is your objection to this.
Mr. DORGAN. No, no----
Mr. BROWNBACK. My point in making that is to say we have a real
situation here, well known, extraordinarily documented, and we have the
ability to pay for it. And before we pay ourselves in the legislative
branch bill, let's pay the American families a little something. That
seems to me to make eminent sense of something we should do.
I also further note, if I can----
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I will in just a moment.
We spent 4 weeks on the tobacco legislation. We spent lots of time on
other things in which I know the Senator from North Dakota was deeply
interested. We gave lots of folks lots of floor time. Have we voted on
any tax cuts yet for the American public? We have voted on a lot of tax
increases. I think it is time we start saying it is time to give the
people back a little bit of money. I would like to see married couples
get it back first.
I will yield for a question.
Mr. BENNETT. I want to make one quick clarification. The Senator made
a comment that before we pay ourselves, and there are many people who
believe that pay for Members of the Senate is included in the
legislative branch appropriations bill. I want to make it clear that it
is not. The legislative branch bill is pay for the staff, pay for the
agencies connected with the legislative branch, but Members' pay is not
here. If we do go to the legislative branch appropriations bill, it
will not deal with pay for Members of Congress.
Mr. BROWNBACK. And I stand corrected on that issue. That is correct,
and I did misspeak on that point.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate my colleague from Utah for pointing that
out. That was a misstatement on my part.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a
question?

[[Page S8461]]

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. I do want to show what is paid for in the
legislative branch appropriations bill then as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for a question.
Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate his courtesy. I just observe, however, I
don't want him to skip over this point. The point isn't that somebody
on one side of the aisle in the Senate is objecting to what you are
doing. If there is intended to be a debate about tax policy on this
bill, I expect the Senator from Kansas would fully understand, in the
name of fairness, that it wouldn't be just his amendment that would be
in order to be offered, but that there would be others, probably on
both sides of the aisle, who would want to weigh in with their
particular amendments.
The objection is to the unanimous consent request that would say you
get to offer your amendment but no one else gets to offer their ideas
on the subject of taxation. I hope that when you characterize this, it
is not to characterize it as something that the Democrats are unfairly
trying to do, because that is not the case. The objection is to
allowing you to offer your amendment but preventing anyone else from
offering their amendment on the tax issue.
In conclusion, I expect we will have a very substantial and lengthy
debate on the issue of tax reform and tax changes and tax cuts perhaps
in the month of September. At least that is the way it is shaping up. I
want to make sure this is characterized fairly. I don't believe the
Senator was being fair to us when he was saying we object to your
amendment. That is not what we object to. We object to a process that
says you can offer yours but no one on this side can offer their
amendments on the subject of taxation. I appreciate the courtesy.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the point. I still
fundamentally disagree with it. If we are talking about the issue of
fairness, we spent 4 weeks talking about raising taxes on tobacco and
working Americans. I don't know how many people were arguing at that
time, ``OK, if we spent 4 weeks on that then we ought to talk 4 weeks
about tax cuts.''
I have only been standing here an hour or two. We spent 4 weeks
talking about raising those taxes, vote after vote. Some of the things
in that policy area I thought were making some legitimate points about
how we should try to cut back on teen smoking--which I do not support;
nobody supports teen smoking--and how we can get at it. If we are going
to talk about fundamental fairness, we did spend 4 weeks on that
particular topic and much of it centered around how we raise taxes.
I am talking about on this particular bill, because we are short on
the Legislative Calendar, let's talk about a tax cut. We are not
getting a vote on that. We are being blocked from getting a vote on a
very serious tax policy problem at a very important time in our
country.
There was a poll of the American public about what they are most
concerned about today. Consistently, people have been getting more and
more concerned about what is happening to the values of this country,
what is happening to us. While I don't think this body at all can
control that sort of, ``Hey, here's what's happening across a civil
society in America,'' we can send signals, and we do send signals
regularly.
When we had the welfare reform bill, we said in the welfare reform
bill, ``OK, if you're an able-bodied person and you can work, after 2
years, you are going to have to work. If you can do that, we are going
to make you do that.'' We sent a signal from here.
Do you know what is happening in Kansas because of that? We have a
welfare roll reduction of nearly 50 percent. I met with a number of
people who were on welfare for a long period of time. They said to me,
``This is a wonderful change. You forced me off it. Welfare was like a
drug that I was hooked to. You made me get out and work, and I feel
better about it.''
A 50-percent reduction, and the people who were on it feel better
about where they are today. It was a signal. One can say, ``Well, we
didn't really change that much of welfare reform policy.'' I think we
did change a substantial amount, and we sent the right signal.
With this, Mr. President, we are sending all the wrong signals. We
are saying that if you are a two-wage-earner family, you have to pay
more in taxes. If you make between $20,000 and $75,000, I am sorry, you
have to pay more in taxes. It is the wrong signal. It sends a bad
signal. It needs to be corrected, and it can be corrected.
We are on the legislative branch appropriations bill. As the Senator
from Utah had noted, this does not include the salaries of individuals
who serve in this body, and I misstated that. These are some of the
things that it does fund: It funds the operations of Congress. People
can see the Superintendent's shops, the various things we fund here,
and directory of services we have here.
The only reason I am pointing this out is that this is basically
running this institution, some of which I am wondering why we don't
have contracted out or privatized myself. My point in raising this is,
I think before we pay these, we ought to give more back to families to
operate their budget, a mere $1,400.
I talked some about the groups who support this elimination of the
marriage tax penalty. I noted, too, I hope my colleagues from both
sides of the aisle, when we get a chance to vote on this, will be
supportive of this.
I think it is important that people understand how this problem works
and when it went in place and what we can do about it.
I have cited the Congressional Budget Office before on this
particular problem where they are noting:

The Federal income tax law generally requires married
couples filing a joint tax return based on combined income of
husband and wife. As a result, husbands and wives with
similar incomes usually incur a larger combined tax liability
than they would if they could file individually. At the same
time, spouses who have markedly different incomes but file as
a couple generally face smaller tax bills than they would if
they were single.

Is that good tax policy? Is that right?

Those two possibilities often referred to as ``marriage
penalties'' and ``bonuses'' result from the conflicting goals
of a tax system that attempts to balance fairness between
married and unmarried couples among married couples and among
taxpayers with differing incomes.

OK. So we have had a conscious policy here toward marriage for some
period of time. My problem is, why do we penalize a certain group in
here, that is, middle-income individuals, struggling greatly in this
system, and we actually have this as a policy? This is according to
CBO. This is a policy, and we enacted it into law in Congress in 1969--
before I was here, the year of Woodstock, the year of putting a man on
the Moon. I do not know if there was a signal that was sent at
Woodstock that we ought to do these sorts of things, but it went into
place then.

Under the 1996 tax law, married couples could face a
Federal tax bill that was more than $20,000 higher than the
amounts they would pay if they were not married and could
file individual tax returns, whereas, other couples may find
that filing a joint tax return reduces their tax bills by
more than $4,000.

Now, surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want
to redress this issue. And I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota
saying, ``Well, we're not opposed to it. We just want to raise a whole
bunch of other tax bills.'' What we are trying to do with this is to
direct and correct the very narrow wrong that applies to 21 million
American families.
I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say
that is not something we need trading material for, that ``We will
trade you that if you will let us bring up the Patients' Bill of
Rights,'' or some other issue. Or as the Senator from Kentucky said, he
wanted to do away with the marriage bonus, which I have a problem with.
I do not want to raise those taxes on individuals. I do not think that
most people on the other side of the aisle would say we need to trade
this back and forth.
Why couldn't we just get a consent from them that we would vote on
this amendment? Yet, that is the problem I am having, not being able to
get consent from Democrat colleagues on this particular issue that we
would be able to get a vote on this item.
I am willing to have a vote on Senator Ford's proposal that we do
away with the marriage bonus, which I do not agree with. I will not
vote with the Senator, but I certainly am willing to agree that we have
a vote on that particular issue. But I do not see why we

[[Page S8462]]

would disagree. I do not see why we would have this particular problem
at this particular time and in this debate.
Let me cite some other materials that people are working with about
the particular problems that families are having.
CBO again:

The various ways of defining marriage penalties and
bonuses--one broad measure indicates that more than 21
million married couples--

Twenty-one million married couples; so there are families associated
with those married couples--

paid an average of nearly $1,400 in additional taxes in 1996
alone--

So $1,400 per couple--

because they must file jointly, whereas, another 25 million
found that the benefits of filing jointly decrease their tax
bill an average of $1,300.

I am glad that people got the decrease on the 25 million. I see no
reason why we should penalize the other 21 million.

Marriage penalties totaled about $29 billion in 1996.

The marriage penalty--listen to this--$29 billion was the size of the
marriage penalty in 1996. So $29 billion. That is a negative signal of
gigantic proportion that we are sending across this Republic and across
this country, if we do not deal with this issue. And it is of
importance that we deal with it now while we have so few legislative
days that remain.
I want to quote some people, what working Americans are saying about
the marriage penalty as they grow more and more informed about the
marriage penalty.
This is a gentleman from Union, KY. He said this:

Before we set a wedding date, I calculated the tax
implications.

There is a scary notion, that before you get married that a person is
going to actually calculate their tax implications to it. I hope more
people do not do that.

Since we each earn in the low $30,000s, the federal
marriage penalty was over $3,000.

This is a gentleman in Union, KY. The marriage penalty was over
$3,000.
He notes:

What a wonderful gift from the IRS!

What kind of gift is that? What kind of message is that? What kind of
signal is that? It is money that ought to be returned. I encourage
people listening and watching--why don't you figure out what your own
marriage penalty is to see how you are going to be impacted if we are
able to get this change and get a vote on it from our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, if they will let us vote on it?
This is Bobby and Susan from Marietta, GA, who raised this issue.
They said this quote:

When we figured out our 1996 tax return . . . we figured
what our tax would be if we were just living together instead
of married.

Now, that is not a very good notion either that we want to encourage
with the tax policy.
They said this:

Imagine our disgust when we discovered that, if we just
lived together instead of being married, we would have saved
an additional $1,000.

That is the signal we wanted to send to Bobby and Susan from
Marietta, GA?
``Imagine our disgust when we discovered that, if we just lived
together instead of being married, we could have saved an additional
$1,000.''
I am standing here thinking, now, is that the signal we wanted to
send to them? How many married couples actually figure what their taxes
are and say, ``You know what? The Federal Government is telling us not
to get married. Maybe we should not get married, then, if that is the
signal that they are sending to us. And we are going to either pay a
penalty of $1,000 for getting married, or we can continue to live
together. Now, should we pay that penalty or should we just live
together?''
Bobby and Susan said they figured it was, for them, going to be an
additional $1,000 in taxes.
Listen to this quote:

So much for the much vaunted `family values' of our
government. Our government is sending a very bad message to
young adults by penalizing marriage this way.

Here are people that actually sat and figured it out. And people do
figure these things out. And they do see the signals that are being
sent, and they do respond. Fortunately, a lot of people know that these
are wrong signals, and then they do not act accordingly. But they do
respond to those things.
Here is Sharon from Indiana, what she said. This is a good one.

I can't tell you how disgusted we both are over this tax
issue. If we get married not only would I forfeit my $900
refund check, we would be writing a check to the IRS for
$2,800.

So she forfeits a $900 refund check. And she would be writing a check
to the IRS for $2,800.

Darryl and I would very much like to be married . . .

``Darryl and I would very much like to be married.''

and I must say, it broke our hearts when we found out we
can't afford it [when they found out they could not afford to
be married because of the tax policy of this country].

Now, isn't that something we ought to deal with posthaste? Isn't it
something we ought to say right now, let us have a vote on this so we
can send the right sort of signal to Sharon and Darryl in Indiana and
to Philip in Union, KY, and Bobby and Susan in Marietta, GA? They said:
``We can't afford to get married because of the Federal tax policy.''
This is a gentleman from Columbus, OH.

I am engaged to be married [he says] and my fiancee 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.

``Nasty, unfair tax structure.''
Those aren't quite the type of words that we use in the Senate all
the time. But he has calculated, figured it up, and said, ``Well, OK, I
want to get married, and we want to do a lot of things as a family, but
the first thing we have to do is pay more in taxes.''
Is that the sort of policy that we want to send forward? Is that the
sort of thing that we want the American public to look at and to hear
about? Is that the sort of thing that we want to support as a policy,
as a family values policy of this Congress?
Here is Christopher from Baltimore, MD:

I am a 23-year-old and a marriage penalty victim for four
years now. I am a union electrician who works hard to put
food on the table to take care of my family.

Then he asked the simple question, ``Why is the government punishing
me just because I'm married?"
Why are we? Why aren't my Democrat colleagues willing to let me have
a vote, let us have a vote, on a bill that most of them would support,
as well, to do away with the marriage tax penalties? Are they just
fearful we will give the American public back some of their money and
will direct it to families who need it the most, young families just
starting out, union electricians, who want a little bit more of their
tax money back?
Two-wage-earner families is who this tax is actually targeted toward.
We are actually taxing them more. Aren't we concerned about two-wage-
earner families struggling heroically? This is a great direct shot at
helping them build their family units.
Why won't my colleagues from the other side of the aisle let us vote
on this? Let's just have a vote on this and see. I would think we would
have a lot of people support it. Don't block this vote.
Scott from Palmdale, CA:

If you want more of something reward it; if you want less
punish it monetarily.

That is a basic principle that is used in the Tax Code frequently.

If you want more family units, reward them financially.
Then maybe the statistic will drop that says 70 percent of
divorces are due to money challenges.

That is a pretty fundamental principle on this basis of how we run
this Government.
We have places that we can send signals out there. We can send
signals out through legislation, we can send signals through
regulation, and we can send signals through tax policy in this country.
The tax policy in this country is that if you tax something more, you
will punish it; if you tax something less, you will reward it. We are
actually taxing two-wage-earner families more. And do we ask them to
get less of that--is that what we are asking to get less of?
This is Christopher, from Fairfield, OH:

One of the biggest shocks my wife and I had when deciding
to get married was how

[[Page S8463]]

much more we would have to give to the government because we
decided to be married rather than live together.

Here are people, figuring, calculating, looking and saying: OK, now
what will we do here?

It does not make sense that I was allowed to keep a larger
portion of my pay on a Friday and less of it on a Monday with
the only difference being that I was married that weekend.

That is pretty succinct, as well.

The only difference was that I was married that weekend.

From Andrew and Connie from Alexandria, VA--real close:

We grew up together and began dating when we were 18. After
dating for three years we decided that the next natural step
in our lives together would be to get married. I cannot tell
you the joy this has brought us. I must tell you that the tax
penalty that was inflicted on us has been the only real
source of pain that our marriage has suffered.

So here is a couple that dated for 3 years, when they were 18 they
started dating--much joy; the only pain that has been inflicted is the
tax increases that they suffered for getting married.
Here is Andrew, from Greenville, NC:

It is unfortunate that the government makes a policy
against the noble and sacred institution of marriage. I feel
it is unfortunate that it seems to hit young struggling
couples the hardest.

That is great Greenville, NC.
If you look at the category of those hitting the marriage tax--and,
again, I refer to the chart from the National Center for Policy
Analysis--it is couples making, combined, $20,000 and $75,000 of earned
income, two-wage-earner couples in that category, frequently young,
married couples, starting their family. So that while this tax penalty
actually hits 21 million married couples, it is hitting far more in the
way of children. It is hitting young children at some of the most
vulnerable times in their lives.

This is something that really was one of the most perverse signals we
could possibly send. It is directed mostly at younger couples. It is
when they are starting their families. It is at a time when people are
deciding to get married or not to get married, and we send this
perverse tax signal that you have to send more money that you are
making to the Federal Government. If anything, we should be sending
them a bonus at that particular point in time.
Why won't my Democratic colleagues let us vote on this? Why won't
they let us do this? That just doesn't seem to make sense, why they
wouldn't let us vote on this narrow issue. On the issue of fairness,
they say we need to bring up other tax policy issues. We brought up a
lot of tax increase issues. We are finally talking about a tax cut
issue. We should be willing and able to vote on this sort of issue now.
This is Thomas, from Ohio. He writes:

No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill [that is, to eliminate the marriage tax
penalty].
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another
example of how in the past 40 years the federal government
has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental
institutions that were the strength of this country from the
start.

I don't know how any more clearly you could put that as an issue. Why
would we continue to propound that? We may have somewhere around 30 or
40 legislative days left in this Congress.
My point in bringing this up at this point in time is, we aren't
having a lot of chance to be able to correct wrongs on other bills
other than appropriations that are moving through the legislative body.
We have to move appropriations bills through. We should move
appropriations bills through. We will not be getting a lot of these
other issues up--tax policy, particularly dealing with this most
onerous tax on married couples, marriage tax penalty. Why won't we deal
with this now? We are trying to deal with it on the legislative branch
appropriations bill, as well. This is a good vehicle to deal with it.
It funds the institutions of the Congress here. So we are saying let's
deal with this one now on this short legislative calendar that we have
while we have the resources to be able to do it.
This is Sean, from Jefferson City, MO. He wrote this:

I think the marriage penalty is a major cause of the
breakdown of the family here in the U.S.

He is citing it as a major cause of the breakdown of the family here
in the United States.

[Ending it] would cut down on the incidence of cohabitation
by unmarried couples and give more children two-parent
families where there is a real commitment between the
parents.

I am not certain about what he said earlier, but I think it is the
proper signal for us to send to families, particularly the young and
struggling ones.
From Houston, TX:

If we are really interested in putting children first, why
would this country penalize the very situation, marriage,
where kids do best?

A lot of single parents struggle heroically to raise children, and we
don't want to penalize them. The amendment I want to put forward does
not penalize them. It does not penalize them. It simply says a two-
wage-earner married couple, earning between $20,000 and $75,000, you
shouldn't penalize either. When parents are truly committed to each
other through their marriage vows, their children's outcomes are
enhanced.
That is Gary and Carla from Houston, TX.
This couple from New Castle, VA:

I am a 61-year-old grandmother, still holding down a full-
time job and I remarried 3 years ago.

This is astounding.

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 the marriage license. Marriage has become a
contract between two individuals and the Federal Government.

In this lady's estimation, from New Castle, VA:

Marriage is a contract between two individuals and the
Federal Government.

She had to think long and hard about whether to stay single or get
married because she couldn't afford the taxes. That is an extraordinary
situation and ought to be corrected as soon as possible.
Here is from Chicago, IL:

We read that representative Jerry Weller of Illinois is one
of a group of sophomore legislators pushing for an end to the
marriage penalty. We do not believe this effort should be a
partisan effort and strongly feel that members of both
parties should join together to right this wrong and that
Congress should do it quickly.

Well, that is what we are trying to do here today, and to do this
quickly. It should be done. It can be done. We need to do it. We need
to do it on this vehicle. That is why we are putting this forward now.
This is from Pennsylvania:

My wife and I have actually discussed the possibility of
obtaining a divorce, something neither of us wants or
believes in, especially myself, simply because my family
cannot afford to pay the price.

Is that a horrendous statement to have from Jeffrey in
Pennsylvania?--keeping the names somewhat anonymous.

My wife and I have actually discussed the possibility of
obtaining a divorce, something neither of us wants or
believes in, especially myself, simply because my family
cannot afford to pay the price.

My goodness, that is something we just have to collect. This is the
Ottawa Daily Times.
According to Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of
Southern California and California Institute of Technology and author
of ``Taxing Women,'' in an article in the University of Chicago Press:

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 the latter category. 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.

Or that can be reversed to the category where the wife's income
exceeds the husband's.

If the husband is making substantially more money than the
wife, the couple may even conclude that it is not worth it
for the wife to earn income. In fact, McCaffery's book
details the plight of one woman who realized her job was
actually losing money for her family.

Her job was actually losing money for her family. Now, that is a
horrid situation that is taking place. This is in the book, ``Taxing
Women,'' by Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of
Southern California and the California Institute of Technology.
This next one is from the Ottawa Daily Times:

You try and be honest to do things straight, and you get
penalized for it. That's just not right.

That was from Illinois.
I don't know how better to summarize it than how the people across

[[Page S8464]]

America have summarized it in these particular voices from across the
country. Those are pretty good summaries. It raises the point of why I
am so adamant that we need to deal with this issue now. I cannot
understand why my Democrat colleagues want to block this issue--even
under some notion of the fairness of them having a tax bill and us
having a tax bill. I can't believe they would be opposed to this tax
bill, which is on two-wage-earner families. I don't see this as a
Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue, an issue of
family values, which we all support, and we have very few legislative
days left to deal with it. It needs to be dealt with now.
What could couples do with this money if they had the $1,400 that the
average couple currently pays? Some people would do different things.
They could pay electric bills for 9 months averaging $103 a month. They
could pay for 3 or 4 months of day care if they had that $1,400 back--
in some places it is higher, and in some it is lower. They could pay
for a 5-day vacation to Disneyland if they wanted to with that $1,400.
A package rate concludes a double room, a Disneyland hotel, and entry
into the entertainment park for mom, dad, and two kids. I think that is
a much better place to put this money, if people would just take off to
Disneyland with their family in tow. I don't know if those rates still
apply or not. Or they could make four or five payments on a minivan,
which average $300 to $350 a month. It seems everybody needs a minivan
anymore. Or they could eat out 35 times in a restaurant, with the meals
averaging $40. They could buy 1,053 gallons of gasoline at $1.33 a
gallon. They could purchase 1,228 loaves of bread, with an average loaf
costing $1.14.
Now, ask anybody here, should these married couples spend the money
on those things, or should they send it to us in penalty? I think they
have better places to be able to put their own resources. So that is
why I am so adamant that we not go on to this spending bill until we
help American families with their spending. The ability to pay 9 months
of electric bills is important.
I don't intend to just occupy my colleagues' time with this. This is
an important issue that I think needs to be raised, and it needs to be
seen, and it needs to be heard. There hasn't been a whole lot of
discussion on this particular issue. I see other colleagues, and I
would be willing to let them speak if they desire. I don't want to
block them. I do want to raise this issue of consciousness across the
American public on this particular issue of the marriage penalty. That
is why I have been talking on this point and why I raise it on this
legislative branch appropriations bill.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object.
I ask unanimous consent that, after the Senator's 20 minutes, I
retain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, first, I want to take a couple of minutes,
Mr. President, to compliment my colleague from Kansas on what he is
doing in talking about this marriage penalty and advocating more tax
relief for American families. He has done a great job. I agree with him
wholeheartedly, because when you look at the marriage penalty, bottom
line, this is an unfair tax that has been imposed on something like 21
million couples in this country. It penalizes them for actually being
married rather than encouraging and supporting the institution of
marriage. We have a Tax Code that actually penalizes couples if they
get married.
A couple of months back, President Clinton was asked a question about
the marriage penalty. I believe he admitted that it was unfair. Then he
was asked, ``Why don't we get rid of it?'' The bottom line is that
Government somehow cannot get along without this money. It is $29.1
billion a year, I believe. The Government can't get along without that
money. Somehow families can get along without it, but the Government
can't. Nobody calls up the families and says: If we have this unfair
tax, are you able to get along without the money? Nobody calls the
families. They just have to do more with less, or get along without it.
The bottom line is that, in our Tax Code, somehow our Government is
willing to collect taxes unfairly. I agree with the Senator from Kansas
that families can make much better use of this money, as we have been
advocating for so long, in reducing the taxes. I strongly support his
efforts today in talking about the elimination of the marriage tax
penalty. I just wanted to support him on that.

____________________