[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9163-S9173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2312, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2312) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Thompson amendment No. 3353, to require the addition of use
of forced or indentured child labor to the list of grounds on
which a potential contractor may be debarred or suspended
from eligibility for award of a Federal Government contract.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, is recognized to offer an amendment regarding
the marriage penalty.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in collaborating with my colleague, the
Senator from Kansas, I have agreed with him that he would offer the
amendment on the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 3359
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that
married couples may file a combined return under which each spouse is
taxed using the rates applicable to unmarried individuals)
Mr. BROWNBACK. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself, Mr.
Ashcroft, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire
and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 3359.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. __. COMBINED RETURN TO WHICH UNMARRIED RATES APPLY.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part II of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
income tax returns) is amended by inserting after section
6013 the following new section:
``SEC. 6013A. COMBINED RETURN WITH SEPARATE RATES.
``(a) General Rule.--A husband and wife may make a combined
return of income taxes under subtitle A under which--
[[Page S9164]]
``(1) a separate taxable income is determined for each
spouse by applying the rules provided in this section, and
``(2) the tax imposed by section 1 is the aggregate amount
resulting from applying the separate rates set forth in
section 1(c) to each such taxable income.
``(b) Determination of Taxable Income.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1), the
taxable income for each spouse shall be one-half of the
taxable income computed as if the spouses were filing a joint
return.
``(2) Nonitemizers.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if an
election is made not to itemize deductions for any taxable
year, the basic standard deduction shall be equal to the
amount which is twice the basic standard deduction under
section 63(c)(2)(C) for the taxable year.
``(c) Treatment of Credits.--Credits shall be determined
(and applied against the joint liability of the couple for
tax) as if the spouses had filed a joint return.
``(d) Treatment as Joint Return.--Except as otherwise
provided in this section or in the regulations prescribed
hereunder, for purposes of this title (other than sections 1
and 63(c)) a combined return under this section shall be
treated as a joint return.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this section.''
(b) Unmarried Rate Made Applicable.--So much of subsection
(c) of section 1 of such Code as precedes the table is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Separate or Unmarried Return Rate.--There is hereby
imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than
a married individual (as defined in section 7703) filing a
joint return or a separate return, a surviving spouse as
defined in section 2(a), or a head of household as defined in
section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the
following table:''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part II of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6013
the following:
``Sec. 6013A. Combined return with separate rates.
(d) Budget Directive.--The members of the conference on the
congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 shall
provide in the conference report sufficient spending
reductions to offset the reduced revenues received by the
United States Treasury resulting from the amendments made by
this section.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the amendment we have offered would
eliminate the marriage penalty, and that is an item of discussion we
want to discuss this morning--the Senator from Missouri and myself. A
number of people have been involved in this discussion. The Senator
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has been one of the leading proponents
of this particular issue of doing away with the marriage penalty.
Our amendment to eliminate the marriage penalty, which is being
cosponsored by Senator Ashcroft, Senator Inhofe, Senator Grams, would
reinstate income splitting and provide married couples who currently
labor under the onerous burden of our Tax Code with much needed relief.
Our amendment doubles the standard deduction for married couples. It
is a very simple amendment. It doubles the standard deduction for
married couples.
Currently, the single standard deduction is $4,150, while the
marriage standard deduction is only $6,900. Our amendment would raise
the standard deduction for all married couples to $8,300, precisely
double what it currently is for single people.
That is just the heart and soul--that is the guts of what this is
about. We are trying to make the field the same for married couples as
it is for singles. We think this will send a powerful signal to the
institution of marriage that is central to family involvement in this
country and saying that if you get married, we are not going to tax you
more than if you are single living together.
That is the simple statement here. You ask people across the country,
Is this a good thing to do? And they clearly say, yes. It makes no
sense that right now we tax married couples, tax two-wage-earner
families more than we do single individuals. This much needed amendment
would provide hard-working American families with the tax relief they
deserve but have not gotten from this Congress.
Over the past month, the Senate has considered several spending
bills, bills which increase the size of Government and which call upon
the taxpayers to yield even more of their personal income to the
Federal Government.
As many of my colleagues know, during consideration of the budget
resolution, I, along with several of my colleagues, Senator Ashcroft,
Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Smith, Senator Grams, called
for larger tax cuts to be considered this year. Unfortunately, it
appears with only a little amount of time left in this session that we
are running out of time.
We have to put this issue forward now. We need to give the American
taxpayers relief. We ought to have the integrity to keep our promises
to the American people by eliminating the marriage penalty this
session. The Senate leader has been very supportive of this effort.
This is his top priority as well, to eliminate the marriage penalty.
The American people sent us to Congress to lower taxes and to cut
Government spending. And this Congress has gotten some of that done,
but not enough. Clearly, we need to keep moving forward on tax cuts.
Let us get our work done now and let us get it done for the American
people.
Unfortunately, because we have failed to get a resolution that calls
for elimination of the marriage penalty, I am offering this amendment,
along with five of my colleagues, in order to give the taxpayers the
relief they deserve.
Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will be calling for the yeas
and nays. I just want to make a point about what this amendment does.
We currently have in our Tax Code that if you have a two-wage-earner
family, and their combined income is between $22,000 and $70,000, you
have what is called effectively a marriage penalty. You pay more tax if
you exist in this category--a two-wage-earner family between $22,000
and $70,000--you pay more tax than if the two people would just live
together. It is called the marriage penalty. It amounts to about $150
billion over a 5-year time period that we are taxing people.
I have letters here, testimonials of people who said, ``You know
what? We were thinking about getting married, and then we couldn't
because of the tax structure that was penalizing us for getting
married.''
Listen to this gentleman. He is from Columbus, OH, a gentleman by the
name of Thomas, who I will leave out his last name.
Thank you so much 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.
There are two economists in this country who every year get divorced
at the end of the year so that they can file separately and then are
married the first part of the next year and then use the money to have
a celebration with. Is that the sort of tax policy that we should have
in America that encourages that type of situation to take place?
This is a lady from Alberton, MT:
My husband and I both work. We are 50 and 55 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, and lived together. I caused a great deal of
stress and lots of anguish amongst our family as this was not
the way we were raised. We finally took the tax hit--
Listen to that--
We finally took the tax hit and married to make my family
happy. This marriage penalty is awful!
That is from Alberton, MT, that that couple writes.
Is that the sort of thing we want to encourage our couples to be a
part of or to have that sort of difficulty? I just don't think so.
This one from Iowa: ``I think the marriage penalty is an outrage, yet
another way the government stops us from being moral citizens.'' Can
you believe that? They are writing, it ``stops us from being moral
citizens.''
``I really hope this bill passes. I'm taxed enough as it is. I don't
mind paying taxes, but enough is enough.'' That is Joe from Des Moines,
IA, writing that.
This from Wichita, KS, my home State: ``I appreciate you helping me
and millions of other Americans.'' And I should mention, this affects
21 million American families--21 million American families--many of
them just getting started as family members. ``I
[[Page S9165]]
appreciate your helping me and millions of other Americans who are
struggling to keep their families together. I work full time for county
government. My wife is a stay at home mom who works. I have four
children and it is a challenge to pay the bills but we still do it. It
would help us if the government helped us and killed the marriage
penalty. A fair tax system would certainly be helpful to us.''
They go on and on. I have pages of people who are writing in about
the marriage penalty and the impact that it has had upon them. Listen
to this from Union, KY: ``Before we set a wedding date, I calculated
the tax implications. Since we each earned in the low $30,000s, the
Federal marriage penalty [was how this gentleman cited it] was over
$3,000. What a wonderful gift from the IRS.'' Are those the sort of
gifts we want to send?
This is from Indiana: ``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.
Darrell and I would very much like to be married and I must say it
break our hearts to find out we can't afford it.'' Can't afford to get
married, thanks to the marriage penalty.
From Ohio: ``I'm engaged to be married and my fiance and I have
discussed the fact that we will be penalized financially.''
Here is from Baltimore, MD: ``I am a 23-year-old, a marriage penalty
victim for 4 years now. I'm a union electrician who works hard to put
food on the table to take care of my family.'' Then he asks a simple
question: ``Why is the government punishing me just because I'm
married?''
That is a simple question that Senator Ashcroft from Missouri and I
and a number of other people ask who want to do away with this most
onerous, wrongheaded, bad signal of a tax. That is the marriage
penalty. That is why we are putting this bill forward here today, to
deal with this particular situation. It is time we do it.
I want to address one other topic on this before allowing other
Senators to speak, because I know a number want to address this
particular issue; that is, whether or not we can pay for this issue.
Let me say simply we can pay for this issue and wall off all the
payments coming to Social Security that are in surplus for Social
Security. You are going to hear a number of people attacking from the
other side, saying we cannot do this because it will take from Social
Security. Then they try to pit Social Security against marriage. It is
a false choice.
We can preserve the entire flow of resources going to Social
Security, the entire payroll tax, and do this marriage penalty lifting,
which ought to be done for a positive signal and for the working
families of this country.
CBO last week said we had $520 billion surplus they projected over
the next 5 years--$520 billion. We are talking, with this particular
marriage penalty, just over $151 billion. So about $1.5 out of $5. Any
surplus that is coming into Social Security we wall off and we say that
should go to Social Security, and we can do it. Do not listen to the
other side saying we are taking from Social Security to deal with the
marriage penalty. We are not. We don't have to do it that way. We are
not doing it that way. I do not support doing it that way.
We support keeping Social Security safe and sound, and any flow of
resources into Social Security stays in there. We should create a real
trust fund and actually put the resources there. We can and we should.
I believe we must, for the foundational institution of this democracy,
the family, and particularly the marriage, do this repealing of this
marriage penalty that penalizes two-wage-earner families making between
$22,000 and $70,000. Many of those are newlywed, starting a family,
with young children involved. This involves 21 million American
families. It is time we do away with this terrible tax penalty.
At a later date, I will respond to some of the accusations I think
will probably be coming from the other side. The Senator from Missouri,
Senator Ashcroft, has been a key champion of this particular issue, as
I have noted, and a number of other people have as well, including
Senator Hutchison of Texas, and I know they want to speak on this
particular issue.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri on this particular amendment.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following be
the only amendments in order, other than the pending amendment to the
pending legislation, subject to relevant second-degree amendments. The
list has about 56 amendments on it, and with Senator Kohl's approval, I
will submit the list rather than going through the reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:
Campbell--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Faircloth--Sense of the Senate breast cancer stamp.
Faircloth--Exchange stabilization.
DeWine--Abortion Federal health plans.
DeWine--Customs drug interdiction.
B. Smith--Employee benefit programs.
Mack--Immigration.
KB Hutchison--SEHBP.
Jeffords--Postal location.
Ashcroft--Marriage tax.
Brownback--2nd degree to Ashcroft.
McConnell--Relevant.
Domenici--Fed. law enforcement training center.
Coverdell--Fed. Law Enforcement training center.
Abraham--Family impact statement.
Jeffords--Fed. contractor retirement report.
Stevens--Duty free stores.
Stevens--Relevant.
Mack--GSA land conveyance.
Jeffords--Child care.
Thompson--Federal regulatory programs.
Hatch--Relevant.
Gramm--Relevant.
Managers package.
Lott--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Baucus--Post office locations.
Bingaman--Relevant.
Bingaman--HIDTA.
Bingaman--Relevant.
Byrd--Relevant.
Byrd--Relevant.
Cleland--FEC--independent litigation authority.
Cleland--FEC--7th member.
Cleland--FEC--fully fund.
Conrad--High intensity drug trafficking.
Daschle--Relevant.
Daschle--Relevant.
Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
Dorgan--Canadian grain.
Dorgan--Advisory cmte intergovernmental relations.
Feingold--Relevant.
Feingold--Relevant.
Feingold--Relevant.
Glenn--$2.8 million FEC--offset GSA.
Graham--Haiti.
Graham--HIDTA.
Graham--Counter drug funding.
Harkin--Environmental preferably products.
Harkin--Drug control.
Kohl--Managers amendment.
Kohl--Relevant.
Kohl--Relevant.
Kerrey--Sense of the Senate: Priority on payroll tax cuts.
Lautenberg--Sense of Congress.
Reid--Contraceptives.
Wellstone--P.O. designation.
Wellstone--Relevant.
Wellstone--Relevant.
Wellstone--Relevant.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment, the
Brownback-Ashcroft amendment, to eliminate the marriage penalty in the
Tax Code. I do so with a sense of enthusiasm.
As I have had the opportunity to engage citizens in my home State of
Missouri, or whether I am in some other location, I have found, and I
do find on a regular basis, that people understand that the most
important component of this culture is not its Government in
[[Page S9166]]
Washington, DC. It is not even the governments that we find in the
State capitals of the United States. The best and most important
component of governing America is to be found in families. As a matter
of fact, I had the privilege of saying on this floor several weeks ago
that if moms and dads in America can do their job, governing America
will be easy. But if moms and dads in America can't do their job,
governing America will be impossible.
I think this is an understanding that we share and is shared from
Boston to Brooklyn to Bozeman. It doesn't matter what town you are in,
people understand that the future, the success, the survival of this
Republic in the next century is probably more related to whether or not
we have successful families than any other single component of what
happens in this society. Sure, it is important what we do in Congress.
Sure, it is important what happens on Wall Street. But what happens on
Main Street and on Elm Street and in the subdivisions of America where
families exist, where families work to transmit values from one
generation to the next, in an institution which has long been revered
and always will be revered, an institution which shapes the character
of our culture--that is what is truly important.
As I rise to support this amendment that would eliminate the attack
on the family that is leveled by our Tax Code, I do so with a sense
that this elimination is long overdue. If we really want to be
successful in the future--and I think that is the business of
government, helping create an environment in which individuals can
succeed and in which institutions can succeed-- there are lots of
reasons to think we are here. But I think we simply want to build a
setting in which we have the right conditions for people to flourish,
for people to grow, for people to reach the maximum of the potential
that God has placed within them. If we are going to do that, we need to
do things that encourage structures like the family, instead of attack
structures like the family.
The marriage penalty attack is really not just on the family, but it
attacks the core institution of the family. A marriage is what a family
is built around. It is built on the durable, lasting, legally
sanctioned, and enforced commitment of individuals to be together and
to help each other as long as they live. There aren't very many things
that work that way in our culture. There are a few things they claim to
have lifetime guarantees on, and the like. But I don't think there are
any institutions that are quite as lasting and helpful, which really
strengthen our culture as effectively as families do.
You can get products that say they are guaranteed for life. I was
amused by the fellow who said he was running a parachute company.
Somebody asked, ``Are they any good?'' He said, ``We guarantee them for
life.'' I don't know if we would be particularly impressed with that.
But the family is focused on and built on marriage, which is designed
to be a lasting, durable relationship, sanctioned by law. I think we
should do what we can to foster it, since it is most likely to be the
thing that provides the basis for our success. This isn't something
new, as a matter of fact, in our culture.
America hasn't been great because we had great government or because
we had great business; we have had greatness in America because of the
hearts of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville, about 160 years ago, came
here from France to try to assess what is it about this country that
makes it dynamic, that makes this country something that is catching
the eye of the entire world. He wrote back--and I have to paraphrase--
that he didn't find the greatness of America in the Halls of Congress,
but he found it in the homes of the people. He didn't find it in
politics; he found it in pulpits. He was really saying that the
greatness of America is something that is resident in the values and
character of America. He focused on the fact that that happens down
beneath the big, overarching concerns of Government, found in the
institution that is singularly identified as the most important
institution in our culture--the family.
So it is no wonder that people raise their eyebrows when they finally
learn what is happening to the family as a result of the Tax Code. I
support this effort to eliminate the penalty that the Tax Code imposes
on people when they get married. I commend the Senator from Kansas for
his outstanding recounting and relating the individual details of the
couple from Montana and another couple from Indiana, and different
people around the country, who have written to say, for goodness' sake,
stop penalizing us and making it impossible for us to really make the
kind of marriage that we want to have, making Government attack
marriage through the Tax Code.
Frankly, American policy should reflect the principles of the
American people. It is time, instead of our policy attacking the
principles, to reinforce the principles. One principle is that we don't
want to say to people: Don't get married. We don't want to say that we
will make it more expensive to get married, we will fine you or
penalize you. We want to say: Look, we think marriage is a good thing,
and we understand that the values that are transmitted in marriages,
the character that is formed there, is the basis for societal success,
not only in this but the next century. We want to encourage it.
So it is time for us to get out our eraser, if you will, and to
return America to a tax policy that does not discriminate against
marriage. I say ``return'' America, because we haven't always had a
discriminatory policy against marriage. But the marriage penalty began
to creep into our tax law a couple of decades ago. Its onerous,
negative impact on this most important institution is really a scar on
the body politic, and it is a wound that we can ill afford to allow to
deepen. We must close this wound and restore this culture to the kind
of health that has made America great.
Last April, a group of like-minded Senators and I, including the good
Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and others, stated our
intention to oppose the Senate's budget resolution, unless meaningful
tax cuts were added. We have noted that the United States of America is
now charging people to live here more than we have ever charged people
to live here before--the highest tax rates in history. Our Government
is charging more. We are taking more of people's money for Government,
leaving less of people's money for themselves and their families than
ever before in the history of the country.
For some, I guess, who like Government and prefer not to make their
own decisions about how they live and want to have a bureaucrat buy for
them what is to be purchased in the less than efficient system known as
``Government,'' that might be OK. But to me, I am shocked. Why in the
world should we be paying the highest taxes in history when we are not
at war? As a matter of fact, the highest taxes have not even gone to
support defense. I think a number of us are a little bit alarmed about
the condition of the Nation's defense. We have slashed the defense
budget. We have curtailed it immeasurably to the point where I am not
sure we are ready to prepare ourselves. We have skyrocketed other
bureaucratic spending in Government. While we have slashed the spending
of the defense establishment, we have also slashed the capacity of
families to spend their own money. So we are rocking along at the
highest tax rates in history, and it is peacetime.
So last April, a group of us said we were not going to vote for a
budget from this Senate, unless we put meaningful potentials for tax
relief in that budget. We were promised that eliminating the marriage
penalty would be the Senate's top priority for 1998. The leadership of
the Senate promised us we would not only have an opportunity to try to
reduce taxes substantially and significantly--not the $30 billion
gesture over 5 years--incidentally, $30 billion over 5 years would buy
about one cup of coffee per month per person, if you left a little tip.
That is really not tax relief.
So here we are; today is July 29 and there are only 31 legislative
days left in the session. Yet, we are not any closer to giving the
American people tax cuts than we were 3 months ago. I have led the mini
revolt against the budget in order to get real potentials for tax
relief on the table. I believe it is time for us to say we need real
tax relief, and the marriage penalty would be the brightest and best
opportunity to provide tax relief that not only reduces
[[Page S9167]]
taxes, but it would begin to align the policy of the United States with
the principles of the American people. Of course, that embracing
principle that everybody understands is the need for strong families.
Now, to add insult to injury--I don't know whether it is an insult or
not--but the Congressional Budget Office came out with new numbers on
the projected Government surplus. Here the Senate had agreed that we
would do $30 billion, maybe, in tax cuts. The Congressional Budget
Office just announced in the last 10 days that the projected surplus is
over $520 billion. Wait a second--$30 billion to let the people have,
which they earned, and we were going to take the other $490 billion and
spend it, in spite of the fact that we were already taxing people at
the highest rates in history. I wonder about that.
So we have come forward today. I thank Senator Brownback and Senator
Hutchison for sponsoring this kind of legislation. I am honored to be a
person who is helping organize this approach to say we need substantial
and significant tax relief. We are not asking that we take the entire
$520 billion. We are not even asking that we take a majority. But we
are asking that at least the onerous affront to the values of the
American people, this attack on marriages, be taken from our Tax Code.
It would cost about $151.3 billion, I think, to do this over 5 years.
So, if you subtract that from the $520 billion, you could figure out
that you still have about $360 billion over the next 5 years. That is
an amazing sum.
We are not even asking for 1 out of 3 dollars, or what would be
equivalent to 1 out of 3 dollars, of the surplus to say leave it in the
pockets of people who work hard to earn it. Don't sweep that money away
to be spent by the bureaucracy. And, for heaven's sake, let's not send
a signal to people, don't get married in this culture, don't begin to
form the basis for this most important institution of America. We need
to say, indeed, we want marriages; we want intact families; we want the
lasting, durable--yes, legally recognized--formal commitments of
marriage upon which to build our family.
We stand here at the end of July on the heels of a month-long recess
coming up in August. And there is a real possibility that Congress will
not pass a budget reconciliation and will not deliver on the tax cut
that was promised to the American people. We ought to shout at the top
of our lungs, ``No, no.'' We do not want to miss this opportunity, with
this substantial capacity in our system, to begin to grant relief to
the people, especially to have a cease-fire on American marriages. It
is time for us to declare peace instead of declaring war on the
principles of the American people when it comes to tax policy. We need
a tax policy that represents the people's principles. Let's declare
peace in terms of our policy on marriage.
Mr. President, our society has affirmed the importance of marriage
and family for a long time. Most Americans would agree that persistent,
durable marriages and strong families are absolutely necessary if we
are to succeed as a nation in the 21st century. Yet, for 30 years--
nearly 30 years--in the last three decades politicians have idly
watched as the Federal Income Tax Code has systematically penalized
millions of people for having been married. In fact, this last year, 42
million married taxpayers collectively paid $29 billion--that is with a
``b,'' not with an ``m''--$29 billion more in taxes than they would
have paid had they been single.
I find it important for me to once in a while review what $1 billion
means.
We all know that $1 million is a lot of money. One billion dollars is
1,000 million dollars. So we have 29,000 billion dollars in tax penalty
because people are married. When you boil that down to what it means to
the average marriage penalty for a family what this tax anomaly, this
tax assault, is, it turns out that is about $1,400 per family. I have
to say that is about $1,400 of after-tax income. If you relieve them of
that, that is actually spendable money. In order to have a spendable
result of about $1,400 of more money for a family to spend, I think you
have to allow in terms of a salary of about $2,000. So this would give
those families about a $2,000 increase in their wages, or about $1,400
in spendable income.
Or, another way, that is well over $100 a month that families could
either add to their payments for better housing, they could add to
their budget for better nutrition, they could add to their clothing
budget so that their children could be better clothed and that they
could be better clothed. This is $1,400 they could use to promote
things that are beneficial to the community.
Yet here we have this marriage penalty that sweeps that $1,400 right
off the kitchen table at budget time merely because these individuals
are married.
I believe this marriage penalty is a grossly unfair assault on the
bedrock of our culture and civilization. As a matter of fairness,
principle, and public policy, Congress should put an end to the Tax
Code discrimination against marriage. The marriage penalty exists today
because Congress legislated ill-advised changes to the Tax Code in the
late 1960s. Fortunately, eliminating the marriage penalty simply
requires Congress to amend the code.
I want to just mention that the marriage penalty tax has a pretty
substantial negative impact on women. It hurts marriages when their
income is equivalent to their husband's income. When their income is
equivalent, it hurts them most of all. We enact policies to help women
in the workplace, yet we have a Tax Code which penalizes those women
once they earn income that is comparable to that of their spouse. There
is significant evidence that such tax consequences have a direct impact
on women's labor participation choices. People make judgments based on
these taxes.
We have already heard from our good friend, the Senator from Kansas.
As a matter of fact, he stated that single people are living together
in a way that many of them feel bad--disappointed their families, set
bad examples for the communities--and they didn't want to do this.
The amendment which Senator Brownback, Senator Grams, and Senator
Inhofe, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and Senator Hutchison have
proposed would eliminate the marriage penalty. And, of course, I am
proposing it with them by allowing husbands and wives to split incomes
as equivalent and filing as if both were single.
Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is expected to collect
$9.6 trillion in revenues. Eliminating the marriage penalty will reduce
that total by 1.6 percent, and that is less than a third of the
projected surplus. That is, the surplus is expected to be $520 billion.
That is money in excess of what we expect to spend. If we continue to
make plans to spend it, we ought to make plans to give it back at least
to curtail the marriage penalty.
There is no excuse for withholding tax relief from American families,
especially tax relief that is necessary to allow them to continue to be
American families. We have no reason to continue to punish Americans
with a Tax Code that is designed to make it tough for them to be
family. For years Washington has told taxpayers, ``You send it, we
spend it.'' We ought to change that. It is time for a new message to be
sent to America. It should be, ``You earned it, we returned it.''
I rise today to say that I find it unconscionable that the policy of
the United States would be an assault on the principles of the American
people, especially a sacred principle of American families that are
built on the core institution of marriage, and that this Government,
frankly, should hang its head in shame to think that it has agreed to
spend the money of individuals and that it would not provide relief
from this war on the principles of America called the ``marriage
penalty.''
In my judgment, we have but one alternative, especially in the face
of the kind of projected surplus which we have before us. That
opportunity is to say that we are going to declare peace when it comes
to the American family, and we are going to tell people that, ``We will
not penalize you any longer because you have chosen to be married; as a
matter of fact, we are going to provide a way for you to enjoy the same
kind of treatment under the Tax Code that you would have if you were to
have remained single.''
The end of the 105th Congress is coming quickly upon us. I call upon
my
[[Page S9168]]
colleagues to join me for the elimination of the marriage penalty once
and for all.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Faircloth be added as a cosponsor to this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to give a couple of facts and
some figures that I think are important to have.
The average marriage penalty in this country for people who are
paying the marriage penalty is just over $1,400 a year; $1,425 a year
is the average amount that families are paying for the marriage penalty
in America. I think that is just far too high.
It may not seem like a lot to some people. But in paying electric
bills, you could pay an average one for over 9 months. For some
families, it would pay for a week-long vacation at Disneyland. It would
make four payments on a minivan. You can go out to dinner, buy over
1,000 gallons of gasoline, you can buy over 1,200 loaves of bread.
Those are important things to do with $1,425.
I want to show this chart to my colleagues as well. There are some
who suggested last time when we entered into this debate that there is
also a marriage bonus, and that if you will do away with the marriage
bonus, we will do away with the marriage penalty. I have no problem
whatsoever giving a bonus to people who are married. I think that we
should honor this institution, and if they want to propose raising
taxes on people who are married, they can go ahead and do so. I oppose
that.
But I want to show who it hits. Again, you are talking about the
highest proportion of the marriage penalty going to those families when
the higher-earning spouse is making somewhere between $20,000 and
$75,000. These are middle-income, a lot of times just starting to be
wage-earner families, and it hits two-wage-earner families as
well. These are the people that we should be trying to help out the
absolute most. I just find it a completely wrongheaded policy, at a
time when we are struggling so much in this country with the set of
values we are putting forward, to say we are not only going to not help
people making between $20,000 and $75,000, or are just starting a
family, we are actually going to tax them, we are going to tax them
more.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me you said this has its most substantial
incidence in young families where people are getting started, both
individuals working.
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator aware that when they interview people
about family problems, and when families break up, that there is a high
incidence of correlation between families that are overstressed
economically and those that do not make it to last as families?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Missouri for the question.
Absolutely. You hear that in any number of cases where people are
breaking up, frequently the No. 1 cited problem is financial stress.
But it then embellishes and builds into further stresses on them.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So if the average marriage penalty is $1,445 a year,
you wonder about how many marriages might actually survive if the
Government were not in there with its bureaucratic hand, extracting an
extra $1,445 a year. You wonder in how many marriages the stress would
be relieved enough that some of that financial friction that eventually
sometimes flares into the flame which consumes the marriage, and burns
down the house, could just be avoided.
Mr. BROWNBACK. The Senator raises a good consideration. We don't know
the number of marriages that would be saved. But we do know that a lot
of times people know this tax is on them. I think too many times my
colleagues think people don't really know this tax exists on them, and
that it exists there, but it is not a real tax, it is not one that
anybody cites to. But we found, time and time again, people act
rationally. They act economically rationally. So if you send a signal
that you are going to tax something, they will do less of it. And if
you send a signal you are going to subsidize something, they do more of
it. So we tax marriage, and what do you think happens in that type of
situation where you put more financial pressure on the family? The
$1,445 is the average. There are some that are taxed substantially
more.
I read to my colleagues, and the Senator from Missouri, letters from
a number of people who have written in and said, ``I cannot believe you
guys would talk about family values, all of you, everybody saying that
families are critical, families are important, yet here is such a
classic example of where you are penalizing the family, and it still
exists, and you guys are still talking about family values.''
One thing I am very pleased about is the majority leader, Trent Lott,
has been a strong proponent of doing away with this marriage penalty
because he knows the importance of what this is about. He knows people
act economically rationally and is supportive of this debate and is
supportive of our efforts to try to get the marriage penalty done away
with. I think it is important, and he has cited to it as well. This is
not for high-wage-earning families, I point out to my colleagues as
well. We are talking about hitting families the most where the highest
earning spouse earns somewhere between $20,000 and $75,000. That is
important.
Just because some of these testimonials are so touching, I want to
read some more of them to my colleagues, because I think they are very,
very telling. This is not just about statistics. This is not just about
economists saying this has an impact. This is about real people looking
at their real situation of real taxes they are paying. Listen to this
one--Steve from Tennessee:
My wife and I got married on January 1, 1997. We were going
to have a Christmas wedding last year, but after talking to
my accountant, we saw that instead of both of us getting
money back on our taxes, we were going to have to pay in, so
we postponed it. Now, after getting married, we have to have
more taken out of our checks just to break even and not get a
refund. We got penalized for getting married.
And then he says something that I think is prophetic and simple and
straightforward. He just says, ``. . . and that is just not right.''
That is our point with this tax. We have the wherewithal to pay for
it in the surplus. We will not touch Social Security surpluses coming
into it. And this tax ``is just not right.''
Here is one from Dayton, OH:
Penalizing for marriage flies in the face of common sense.
This is a classic example of government policy not supporting
that which it wishes to promote. In our particular situation,
[he gives us his own situation] my girlfriend and I would
incur a net annual penalty of $2,000, or approximately $167
per month. Though not huge, this is enough to pay our monthly
phone, cable, water and home insurance bills.
We may sit here and look at this and say $2,000 a year, $167 a month,
that is not a big deal--it is a big deal. It is a big signal we are
sending to families that we are going to tax you and penalize you if
you decide to get married. People act economically rational. They are
going to look at this and they will understand it. They will also act
economically rational if we say we are doing away with this marriage
penalty. We think this is a bad tax, bad tax policy. It is not a place
that we ought to tax, and they will act rationally there as well, and
it sends a signal to families.
This is one I thought was excellent, from Marietta, GA.
We always file as ``married filing separately'' because
that saves us about $500 a year over ``married filing
jointly.'' When we figured our 1996 return, just out of
curiosity, we figured what our tax would be if we lived
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 much vaunted ``family values'' of our government. Our
government is sending a very bad message to young adults by
penalizing marriage this way.
That is from Bobby and Susan in Marietta, GA.
Is that the sort of signal we want to send? Listen to this one from
Ohio:
No person who legitimately supports family values could be
against this bill. The
[[Page S9169]]
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.
That is Thomas from Ohio that writes that in.
I have studies here. We have Joint Economic Committee studies of the
impact of a marriage penalty. We have studies from other institutions,
citing about the marriage penalty. None of them could put it more
succinctly than Thomas has right here: ``This is but another example of
a policy that has broken down the fundamental institutions that were
the strength of this country from the start.''
Let us hear the people. Let us hear their cry. Let us hear them say
what they are saying to us, that this is a wrongheaded idea, what we
are doing.
This one, David from Indiana:
This is one of the most unfair laws that is on the books. I
have been married for more than 23 years and would really
like to see this injustice changed [And then he says, not for
himself, but, he says] so my sons will not have to face this
additional tax. Please keep up the great work. We need more
people in office who are interested in families.
Then this one from North Carolina:
It is unfortunate that the government makes a policy
against the noble and sacred institution of marriage.
Here is somebody, Andrew from North Carolina, who is looking at his
Federal Government and he says:
It is unfortunate the government makes a policy against the
noble and sacred institution of marriage. I also feel it is
unfortunate it seems to hit young, struggling couples the
hardest.
Let us hear the people. Let us hear their sense of what they are
saying about this particular situation, about this particular tax that
is in place.
This gentleman, Michael from California:
I believe a majority of families do not realize the
government is stealing from them because of this marriage
penalty and indirectly has created this pressure to have both
parents work to get by and pay for their family's future.
This indirectly is driving a wedge between families.
Michael in California.
I disagree with the first portion of it, where I think the families
do know about this, but in the last portion of it he is saying, ``This
indirectly is driving a wedge between families.''
I think anybody here on this floor, if you ask people about this
particular bill, ``Do we want to drive a wedge between families?''
There would be 100 Senators here saying ``No, we don't want to drive a
wedge between families.''
That being the case, then why aren't we doing something at this point
in time when we have a chance to deal with this particular issue?
Mr. President, I want to cite some of the studies in case people
think we are just citing the people calling in who want a tax cut.
I have a Joint Economic Committee study, ``Reducing Marriage Taxes,
Issues and Proposals,'' that talks about the various bills that are put
forward within the marriage penalty. What we are talking about is
putting in income-splitting proposals. They are similar.
This is the study on page 10, ``. . .to optional filing because they
adjust for differences in the tax schedules between single and joint
filers.'' This is the Joint Economic Committee report.
However, the proposals differ from optional filing because
they make no distinction regarding the division of income
between spouses. In other words, couples are treated as if
each spouse earns half of their total income regardless of
which spouse actually generates that income. Income splitting
would, therefore, provide all couples with the most favorable
tax treatment by effectively treating them like two singles
with a 50-50 income split. This favorable treatment would
reduce taxes for nearly all married couples. Couples with
equal incomes would receive equal tax cuts, thus maintaining
horizontal equity.
Moreover, income splitting would create marriage bonuses
for most couples and increase bonuses for couples already
receiving them, including one-earner couples. Thus, the
proposals reduce marriage neutrality by [they are saying]
heavily favoring marriage.
This is in the study they are putting forward. They are saying, ``OK,
we are going to create a positive situation for some and we are going
to do away with disparity for others.''
I say, Mr. President, this is a good thing. This is the sort of thing
that we ought to do in doing away with this marriage penalty, and this
is according to the Joint Economic Committee study that we have.
I showed you the chart earlier about the differences between marriage
penalty and bonuses. What we are trying to get at is this zone of
people making between $20,000 and $75,000 and just do away with the
marriage penalty. That is a good thing, and that is the signal we ought
to send.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a
question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to. But first I ask unanimous consent
that Senator Abraham from Michigan be added as a cosponsor to this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I wonder if the Senator from Kansas is aware of the
fact that among people who are concerned about the culture, they have
not only been concerned about families that are dissolved, and the
divorce problem that we have, but the absence of family formation, the
fact that there are lower rates of marriage than people had
anticipated, than we have had in the past. I wonder, if given that
situation, which individuals who have studied our culture are concerned
about, I wonder if the Senator from Kansas might comment on whether or
not the fact that we have a penalty on a number of people taxwise if
they enter a marriage, if that might affect this challenge to our
culture where we have had lower rates of individuals getting married?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the question, and I think it is
absolutely right on target that we are having a reduction in family
creation. If you ask people in this body is that a good thing to have
taking place, they would say no. We need to have more families, not
less families, and part of the problem with government is we have had
to create more and more government doing more and more things because
we have fewer and fewer families proportionally doing less and less
things.
If there is anything that we have been about, it is trying to
reinstill a sense of family and values and virtues in this culture, and
everybody agrees with that. Here you have a direct policy that is
hurting creation of families, hurting creation of that foundational
unit within a society and culture, that if it is weakened, the
Government is weakened; if it is stronger, the Government is going to
be stronger, too, because you have that foundational unit.
You can't create enough police forces or militaries or welfare
institutions to take the place of the family. We have had a decline
percentagewise in the creation of cohesive family units. This policy
contributes to that of having a marriage penalty. The removal of that
policy would help in the other direction of creating a family unit
together.
I might note to the Senator from Missouri and to my colleagues, when
we were looking at the welfare reform debate, we were very concerned
about what has happened to our families and saying, ``Are we sending
the right signals or wrong signals to family creation?'' We decided we
were sending the wrong signals and we needed to change them to the
right signals.
Do you know what is taking place? In my State of Kansas, we have a
reduction in welfare rolls of 50 percent. I have met with a number of
people who are off welfare now who were on welfare. I asked them,
``What do you think of the changes we did?'' And they said, ``Thank
goodness you did it. Welfare, to me, was like a drug. I got hooked on
it. I got addicted to it, and you said, `If you can work, you have to
work, and we are going to let the States decide if we are going to
subsidize additional children born out of wedlock.' ''
They were thanking me for forcing them to do something that they
needed to do. That was a policy signal that we sent from the
Government. For many years we said if you don't want to work, you don't
have to work; if you can work and you don't want to work, you still
don't have to work; if you want to have more children out of wedlock,
fine, we will pay you for doing that.
We said, ``No, no, no, if you can work, you need to work.'' Here
let's support marriage.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me what you are saying, because families
[[Page S9170]]
have begun to replace welfare in a number of settings, they have done a
better job and people are becoming independent; that the number of
people on welfare is going down, and when the number of people on
welfare goes down, the cost to government goes down.
It seems to me that as these costs go down, when families begin to do
their jobs and do them well, we ought to share some of the reduced
costs of government with families by reducing the cost of families so
that we can actually--and I wonder, if you will agree that since
families are helping us reduce the cost of government by reducing the
cost of welfare, if you agree that it might be appropriate for us,
given the fact that families are helping us in this respect, to say to
families, ``and thank you very much, and we would like to reduce your
costs now that you are helping us reduce ours.''
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you for the question. My guess is--and we ought
to probably have an economic study done on this--that for every dollar
we help out the families, we probably get $10 in reduction of costs to
the government. I don't have that based upon studies, but I do have
that based upon personal experience of families reaching out and how
much more effective they are with heart and soul and arms that can hug
and love instead of a cold government check that really doesn't do
anything other than make people hooked to it. We need to support, and
we need to encourage that.
Mr. President, I will continue to have additional people wanting to
be added as cosponsors. Senator Lott has asked to be added as a
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. Mr. President, these are
commonsense issues. They are commonsense results of what we need to
have. If we support marriage, if we support the family, we will have
less cost to government. This is a good thing. This is something we
ought to support. It is something we ought to readily do. It is
something that should pass with 100 votes.
We will shortly have a chance to vote on this particular issue.
Whether we get a vote directly on it or we vote on a motion to table, I
am asking my colleagues to support us in this effort to do away with
the marriage penalty when this comes up. It is not taking the entire
surplus of the $520 billion that the CBO is now projecting. It would
actually score CBO $151.3 billion. I support walling off Social
Security for flow of payments for Social Security. This is a statement
of marriage to families. We don't have to pay a Social Security against
marriage. We don't have to do this.
I support what the President has been saying, ``Let's keep Social
Security to Social Security. Let's create a real trust fund.'' We have
real problems there. We also have real problems in marriage. We also
have real problems with families in this country. We can do this.
Mr. President, $1.50 of every $5 coming in on the surplus would
address this marriage penalty that is a horrific signal we are sending
out to the country right now, that we would actually tax marriage more.
Perhaps this is getting somewhat long with people when they keep
hearing from folks. These are the commonsense responses from people
across country.
A gentleman in Texas:
If we are really interested in putting children first, then
why would this country penalize the very situation--
marriage--where kids do best? When parents are truly
committed to each other through their marriage vows their
children's outcomes are enhanced.
And that is Gary from Houston, TX.
This one I could not believe. This lady is from Virginia.
I am a 61-year-old grandmother still holding down a full-
time job, and I remarried 3 years ago.
A 61-year-old grandmother, full-time job, remarried 3 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 the marriage license. Marriage has become a
contract between two individuals and the Federal Government.
This one 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.
He said he was the product of a marriage that has difficulty, but
they were considering divorce. He says ``simply because my family
cannot afford to pay the price.''
This is Jeffrey from Pennsylvania who says that.
This gentleman from Illinois says:
You try and be honest and do things straight, and you get
penalized for it. That's just not right.
That is Mike from Illinois who sent that letter in.
Person after person coming in and writing in saying that, ``Look,
this just isn't right.''
This one from Sarah that was published in the Ottawa Daily Times:
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
accountants' point of view, the wife's first dollar of income
is taxed at the point where her husband's income has left
her. If the husband is making substantially more money than
the wife, the couple may even conclude it is not worth it for
the wife to earn income. In fact--
And she is quoting from a book by a Professor McCaffrey at the
University of Southern California.
In fact, McCaffrey's book details the plight of one woman
who realizes her job was actually losing money for her
family--
Actually losing money for her family.
by her working.
We are overtaxing the American public now anyway, with people having
to pay roughly about 40 percent of their income in taxes, taxes at all
levels--Federal, State, and local, with Federal being the highest
portion. I think that ought to be lowered. But, clearly, you hear there
are cases where they are not only being taxed but we are forcing people
with two-wage-earner families to work and one just working for the
Government, but even in that case you are even taxing them more, to the
point where it isn't even worth working.
Mr. President, this amendment needs to pass. We need to have this
debate. We can afford to do this. We can do this and still set Social
Security, payroll taxes, aside; and I am calling on my colleagues to do
just that.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that Heather Oellermann be
given floor privileges during the duration of this debate. She serves
in my office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask that my name be added as a
cosponsor to the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment to S. 2312.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I rise to speak further in support of the elimination
of the marriage penalty. Some people have asked, ``Well, isn't there
also a marriage bonus, or isn't there a situation in which people might
do better because they are married than if they're not married?'' And
there are areas of the Tax Code where some individuals do slightly
better, but they are supported by very sound logic. I would like to
talk for a few moments about them, those instances.
I indicate that in no way do I think that the existence of this so-
called ``marriage bonus'' in some places in the Tax Code--that that
bonus really is any reason why we should impose a penalty in some other
area of the Tax Code. As a matter of fact, there are sound reasons for
us to support the concept of the marriage bonus where it exists.
[[Page S9171]]
Currently, the standard deduction for a single person is $4,150,
while the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is
only $6,900. I did not major in mathematics, but I did one time have
the privilege of serving as the State auditor. I can add $4,150 twice;
that would be $8,300. And when you put the $8,300 that you would get
for two single people together, and you look at the $6,900 deduction
that you get for a married couple filing jointly, you clearly
understand there is a $1,400 deduction that simply does not exist.
The marriage penalty elimination amendment that Senator Brownback and
I, and others, including the majority leader, have offered today will
increase the standard deduction for a married couple to equal twice
what it is for singles--that would be the $8,300 figure.
Now the Government rationale for the difference in deduction for
singles and married couples is to reduce the so-called marriage bonus
that occurs when only one spouse works. So the idea is, why should a
spouse get a full deduction if the spouse isn't actually in the
workforce? I think that sort of partakes of a myth that we ought to
disabuse ourselves of and that I think most people understand. The
suggestion that if someone works outside the home they are working, but
if someone isn't working outside the home they are not working--I don't
think that is really the case.
I think what we really indicate is not so much a bonus if we give a
deduction for the person who is nonworking outside the home but stays
home, it is a recognition of the substantial contribution that the
nonemployed spouse makes to the family.
We have had a pretty substantial experience with marriage in my
household. There are three decades plus that my wife and I have been
married. There have been times when both of us have been employed,
times when only my wife was employed, times when only I was employed. I
think in every one of those instances to ignore the sort of
contribution that the nonemployed spouse makes to the work product,
even of the employed spouse and of the household, would be a tremendous
injustice.
I think what we really have, instead of the so-called marriage bonus,
is just a recognition of the fact that the nonemployed, in-a-formal-
sense, spouse is contributing to the income that comes to that
household by virtue of the capacity that is expanded to the other
spouse who is employed and by virtue of the expanded well-being of the
family. American families need help from the ever-increasing tax load
which we are imposing on them. Men who stay at home or women who stay
at home to care for the children should not be penalized by the Tax
Code.
I have been somewhat distressed in recent years that we have begun to
extend this myth and to provide incentives for people not to stay at
home, to have a prejudice against people who would stay at home. Our
Government policy should work in favor of children, not against them.
Sometimes when we have a massive tax prejudice in favor of both parents
leaving the house, that is not in the best interests of children. I
think most of the data we have seen in recent years is that children
really thrive when they have the attention of parents, and, obviously,
if you have one of the parents who can stay at home, it really helps
children significantly.
Our current Tax Code rewards the dependent child tax credit for
families who put their children in child care, for example, and,
therefore, provides an incentive for people to institutionalize their
children rather than to care for them in the home. A mother who stays
at home with her child makes the sacrifice in the total combined
paycheck for the family and for her career, perhaps, or the father who
does the same, should that family be penalized? I think the answer is
clearly no. As a matter of fact, that person may be doing our culture a
great favor by providing attention from a loving, compassionate parent
in a way that no institution would be able to provide attention or
training for that child.
The Tax Code should acknowledge that contributions made by spouses
who stay at home, be they male or female--and we have done it both ways
in my household from time to time; there have been times when my wife
was the earner and I was either doing something at home or running for
office or the like--and either way, we should acknowledge that the
contributions by the so-called nonemployed spouse are not ignored, and
no marriage bonus could ever begin to compensate those individuals for
their contributions to the family.
Now, if Members on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate the
small ``bonus'' in the Tax Code, I think that would be ill advised. I
predict it would be soundly defeated, as it should be. It is
antifamily, it is antimarriage, and given the fact that most of these
are women in this setting, it is antiwomen to suggest a full-time
homemaker provides no value that should be recognized in the Tax Code.
I believe their contribution should continue to be recognized and
applauded. The marriage bonus is a way to recognize some of the non-
economic contributions of stay-at-home spouses.
What we are really here for, I don't think there is a serious legal
attempt to take away those recognitions, but there is a very serious
assault on the values of American families. When we are taxing the
average family that endures the marriage penalty, we are taxing them
$1,400 a year more in taxes than we would if they were single. It seems
to me that assault on the values of the American public is a tragic,
tragic invasion of the strongest institution which we need desperately
for the success and survival of our country. We should recognize that
we need to eliminate that penalty on marriage.
It is with that in mind that I am pleased so many Senators have
agreed to cosponsor this measure. I hope we will vote to make sure that
this becomes a part of the philosophy and policy of American
Government. A government which is at war with the values of its people
cannot long endure. No value is more cherished in America than the
value of durable families. We simply have to eliminate the assault on
marriage, the assault on our families, that is included in a Tax Code
which undermines and curtails the value of families in our culture.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the efforts that have
been brought to the floor by the Senator from Kansas. I would like to
make a few comments and observations about tax cuts and some
misconceptions. I was somewhat distressed at the beginning of this
administration when a statement was made by Laura Tyson, who was the
chief financial advisor at that time. She said--and this is almost a
direct quote--that there is no relationship between the level of
taxation that a country pays and its economic activity. If you would
carry that to its logical conclusion, you would say you could tax
somebody by 100 percent and they are going to be just as motivated to
work hard and to contribute to the economy and take risks and to hire
people as if they had no tax at all. As we know, history has shown us
that this is not true.
One of the interesting things that is so overlooked by many of the
liberals nowadays is that for every 1 percent increase in economic
activity, it produces new income of approximately $24 billion. Three
times in this century we have had administrations that have had massive
tax cuts, and each time this has happened we have actually increased
the revenue. What I am hoping we will get to is a discussion and a
debate along the lines that you can actually increase revenue by
reducing taxes. History has shown us that, in fact, this is true. The
first time this happened was in the 1920s, during the Warren Harding
and Calvin Coolidge administrations. They had consecutive tax cuts,
reducing the top tax rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. The lower
rates of taxation helped expand the economy dramatically. In fact,
between 1921 and 1929, in spite of--or maybe because of--dramatic
reductions in personal income tax rates, revenues increased from $719
million in 1921 to $1.16 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 60
percent. Now, over a 10-year period, that would have been about a
doubling of the tax revenues that came as a result of reducing tax
rates.
[[Page S9172]]
Then in the 1960s, along came the Kennedy administration. Of course,
when you hear some of the things that President Kennedy said at the
time that didn't sound that prophetic, they turned out to be true. At
that time, he said we needed to have more revenues and the best way is
to reduce our tax rates and expand the economy. Again, going back to
the assumption that has been proven over and over again that your tax
revenues increase with certain types of marginal tax rate reductions,
in the 1960s, President Kennedy initiated a series of tax cuts where he
took the top income tax rate and reduced it from 91 percent to 70
percent. These cuts, in part, helped increase the growth by some 42
percent between 1961 and 1968. So again, you have a very similar type
of growth that we experienced back in the 1920s.
Then in 1980, we remember so well Ronald Reagan coming along and the
criticisms that he has had. At that time, he was working with a
Congress that was not that friendly--at least a House that wasn't that
friendly. He was able to probably make the most dramatic reductions in
the tax rates than at any period during any administration in this
country's history, knocking the top tax rates from 70 percent in 1980
down to 28 percent by 1988.
The results of this were very interesting in that if you look at
total revenues raised to run this country in 1980, it was $517 billion.
By 1990, that figure was increased to $1.3 trillion. So revenues
doubled during that period of time that he reduced the tax rates. As
far as the revenues that were generated from the marginal rates, or
from income tax, that went from $244 billion in 1980 to $466 billion in
1990. So you have almost a doubling in that case, also.
So I think those people who are saying that we don't want to reduce
taxes are saying we don't want to reduce the revenues. We have need for
more revenues when, in fact, some of the tax reductions that we will be
talking about could have the opposite effect. I can remember in Ronald
Reagan's speech--one of the speeches he made called ``A Rendezvous With
Destiny'' in the sixties, it was prophetic. He said, ``There is nothing
closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government
agency once formed.'' I think this is one of the problems we are
dealing with now, in that it is so difficult to cut down the size of
Government.
Sometimes it is necessary to reduce taxes in order to overcome that
temptation to spend the money that is out there. We know the political
reality of that. By the way, when many of the Democrats--liberals--were
saying, ``Look at how the deficits increased during the Reagan
administration,'' yes, that is true, they did, but that was not as a
result of reducing taxes; that was a result of increased spending. I
think that, in retrospect, the President should have adopted a policy
of issuing more vetoes, and I don't think we would have had the
deficits that we had.
The bottom line is that we are not an undertaxed Nation. We are a
Nation that needs to reduce taxes. This is an opportunity to do it. I
can't imagine that in this day and age when we have the projected, huge
surpluses that are out there, we would consider anything less than
making major tax reductions. The tax reduction that has been promoted
on the floor by the various speakers regarding the marriage penalty is
certainly one that is justified. I would like to see, in addition, some
marginal rate reductions. I hope we will be able to do that before this
debate is all over.
Lastly, we have come so dangerously close to what has been stated in
history. People have observed this country. When Alexis de Tocqueville
came here, he came to study the penal system and to write about that.
After he saw the great wealth in this Nation and the freedoms, he wrote
a book about the wealth. In the last paragraph, he said that once the
people of this country find that they can vote themselves money out of
the public trust, the system will fail. I think we have come
dangerously close to that. This is the time to reduce taxes and allow
individuals to have more control of the money they earn.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ashcroft
amendment on marriage penalty tax relief. Let me quickly point out that
I strongly support the Senator from Kansas' intentions and believe that
most, if not all, of my Senate colleagues do as well. Americans should
be free to marry or remain single based on much more important
considerations than those related to tax liability.
That said, the Treasury-General Government appropriations bill is not
the proper context for the marriage penalty debate. Now is simply not
the right time or place. The Senate voted in favor of marriage tax
relief during debate on the tobacco bill. And we all look forward to
resuming this debate if and when we are able to take up, and it's my
hope that we do take up, a comprehensive tax relief measure later this
year. The marriage tax relief issue should be debated at that time, in
the context of our overall budget priorities. Simply put, we've come
too far in our efforts to enforce fiscal discipline to change course
now and arbitrarily adopt major and expensive tax policy mesaures on
appropriations bills.
I will oppose the Aschcroft amendment and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to state my views on the elimination
of the marriage penalty.
Before 1969, the federal income tax treated married couples like
partnerships, in which husbands and wives shared their incomes equally.
This practice was called income-splitting. It was ended in 1969,
creating what is commonly known as the marriage penalty--the extra
taxes couples have to pay because they are married rather than single.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 21 million couples
now pay these penalties, which average about $1,400 per couple.
This unfair treatment of married couples is fundamentally wrong. The
tax code ought to treat married couples no worse than it treats single
people. It ought to recognize that marriages are partnerships in which
husbands and wives share their incomes equally for the good of their
families. Until it does this, the tax code is punishing the most
important institution our society has.
This amendment is explicitly pro-family. It is a direct way of
letting families keep more of their hard-earned money, which can be
used for child-care, taking care of a sick parent, education expenses
or whatever else the family wants to do with it. It sends a message to
the American people that marriage should be a welcome occasion, not
just another excuse for higher taxes.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to
eliminate the marriage penalty.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are a lot of things wrong with our
nation's Tax Code, but two things in the code that have always struck
me as particularly egregious are the steep taxes imposed on people when
they get married and when they die. Today, we will have a chance to
vote to end the marriage penalty.
All of us say we are concerned that families do not have enough to
make ends meet--that they do not have enough to pay for child care or
college, or to buy their own homes. Yet we tolerate a system that
overtaxes American families.
According to Tax Foundation estimates, the average American family
pays almost 40 percent of its income in taxes to federal, state, and
local governments. To put it another way, in families where both
parents work, one of the parents is nearly working full time just to
pay the family's tax bill. It is no wonder, then, that parents do not
have enough to make ends meet when government is taking that much. It
is just not right.
The marriage penalty alone is estimated to cost the average couple an
extra $1,400 a year. About 21 million American couples are affected,
and the cost is particularly high for the working poor. Two-earner
families making less than $20,000 often must devote a full eight
percent of their income to pay the marriage penalty. The highest
percentage of couples hit by the marriage penalty earns between $20,000
and $30,000 per year.
Think what these families could do with an extra $1,400 in their
pockets. They could pay for three to four months of day care if they
choose to send a child outside the home--or
[[Page S9173]]
make it easier for one parent to stay at home to take care of the
children, if that is what they decide is best for them. They could make
four to five payments on their car or minivan. They could pay their
utility bill for nine months.
Mr. President, it seems to me that if couples need advice about their
decision to marry, they should be encouraged to look to their minister
or rabbi, or their family, not their accountant or the Internal Revenue
Service. This amendment represents an effort to strengthen families and
give them a chance to spend their hard-earned money in the way they
best see fit.
Given that federal revenues as a share of the nation's income, as
measured by Gross Domestic Product, will set a peacetime record this
year--a whopping 20.5 percent of GDP--and given that we are
anticipating a budget surplus of more than $63 billion, it seems to me
that there is no excuse for the Senate to allow the marriage-penalty
tax to continue any longer.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting to end the egregious
marriage-penalty tax.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
Brownback-Faircloth marriage penalty relief amendment.
In fact this amendment is the same as the legislation I originally
offered with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and many others to provide
relief from the marriage penalty tax.
Mr. President, in listening to my colleagues, I find very little
opposition to the notion that couples should not be penalized with
additional taxes simply because they choose to marry.
As several members have stated, the Congressional Budget Office has
determined that married couples are taxed an extra $1,400 on average
more than singles. This legislation would correct that problem.
Relief from the marriage penalty tax is an idea which enjoys broad,
bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, legislation which I offered
as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget resolution established
marriage penalty tax relief as among the highest priorities of the
Senate this year. That amendment passed this body by a vote of 99 to 0.
Clearly, there is no objection to providing this much needed relief.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that the bill before us is not
the appropriate bill to serve as a vehicle for this tax relief. In
fact, the only objections I can find to this amendment are based on
procedure, and not about the merits of the issue.
I understand the concerns raised about procedure, but I would urge my
colleagues to consider the injustice of this marriage penalty tax, and
join me and the other sponsors of this amendment to eliminate this
unfair burden. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table
the Brownback-Faircloth amendment.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________