[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H260-H268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I look back over the last 5 years and I 
think of when I was first elected in Congress in 1994, what were the 
big issues of the day. The Democrat Congress and President Clinton had 
just enacted the biggest tax hike in the history of this country, 
raising our tax burden to its highest level ever in peacetime history. 
We had massive deficits of $200 billion to $300 billion a year as far 
as the eye could see, and there was a proposed government takeover of 
our health care system. The American people did not necessarily like 
that situation, and they gave the Republicans the opportunity to be in 
the majority for the first time in 40 years.
  We said that we were going to meet the challenges, we were going to 
balance the budget, we were going to cut taxes for the middle class, 
that we were going to reform welfare, and, of course, pay down the 
national debt. I am proud to say that over the last 5 years, we have 
accomplished many of those goals, in fact, every one of them.
  We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years; we cut taxes 
for the middle class for the first time in 16 years. In fact, 3 million 
Illinois children benefit from that $500 per child tax credit. The 
first welfare reform in a generation has reduced our Nation's welfare 
rolls by one-half, and we overhauled the IRS and paid down $350 billion 
of the national debt. Those are great changes. On top of that, this 
past year, we stopped the terrible practice, probably Washington's 
dirtiest little secret, and that is Republicans put a stop to the raid 
on Social Security. This past year, for the first time in 30 years, we 
balanced the budget without touching one dime of Social Security, 
protecting that retirement income for our seniors.

                              {time}  1030

  Those are great accomplishments. Of course, this year we are working 
to continue our effort to save social security and Medicare, to pay 
down the national debt, to help our local schools. We also want to 
bring about tax fairness. I thought I would take the next hour to 
discuss the issue of tax fairness.
  One of the most fundamental questions of fairness that I am often 
asked in the South Side of Chicago, the

[[Page H261]]

 South suburbs, the rural areas that I represent, is, is it right, is 
it fair, that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples on 
average pay almost $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are 
married? Does that seem right, that under our Tax Code, that 25 million 
married working couples pay $1,400 more just because they are married 
than an identical couple with an identical income, identical 
circumstances, who live together outside of marriage? That is not 
right, is it?
  This House over the last few years has been working to eliminate what 
we call the marriage tax penalty. We sent to the President last year 
legislation which would have wiped out the marriage tax penalty. Had it 
been in effect and not vetoed by the President, it would have provided 
marriage tax relief for 25 million couples this year.
  We are back at it again. In fact, tomorrow this House is going to 
vote on a stand-alone bill, a clean marriage tax elimination proposal, 
H.R. 6, which I am proud to say has the bipartisan cosponsorship of 241 
Members of the House.
  The State of Illinois that I represent has 1.1 million couples 
suffering the marriage tax penalty. I have a photo with me of really a 
fine example of a young couple in Joliet, Illinois, two married 
schoolteachers who suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  This is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They teach in the Joliet schools. 
They suffer the marriage tax penalty. In fact, Michelle pointed out to 
me, ``We just had a baby.'' Of course, they benefit from the $500 per 
child tax credit that we enacted just a few short years ago, but they 
suffer a marriage tax penalty.
  Michelle shared. She said, ``Tell your friends in the Congress that 
if you wipe out the marriage tax penalty for the Hallihan family, that 
the money that otherwise would have gone to Washington in extra taxes 
because we are married would buy 3,000 diapers to help us care for our 
child.''
  In the South suburbs of Chicago, $1,400, the average marriage tax 
penalty, is one year's tuition at Joliet Community College and other 
colleges in Illinois. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care 
center. It is real money for real people. We are going to be voting on 
legislation tomorrow which of course wipes out the marriage tax penalty 
for a majority of those who suffer it. It is legislation that helps 25 
million couples.
  It does several things. First, we double the standard deduction for 
joint filers. The marriage tax penalty results from filing taxes 
jointly. Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers with 
incomes that are nearly identical, are similar to this machinist and 
schoolteacher. What causes the marriage tax penalty is a married couple 
files jointly. When you file jointly, you combine your income. If you 
stay single, you do not. So when you combine your income, that pushes 
you into a higher tax bracket.
  There is a case here of a machinist at Caterpillar. Say he is single, 
making $30,500, basically the identical income to Shad and Michelle. If 
he stays single, he stays in the 25 percent tax bracket. If he meets a 
schoolteacher in Joliet with an identical income of $30,500, their 
combined income of $61,000, because they choose to get married, file 
jointly, pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. As we can see 
from this example, they pay basically the average marriage tax penalty 
of $1,400 just because they are married.
  Madam Speaker, it is just wrong that under our Tax Code this hard-
working machinist and this hard-working schoolteacher who made the 
choice to live in holy matrimony pay higher taxes just because they are 
married.
  Mr. RILEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. RILEY. Madam Speaker, I come here today to compliment the 
gentleman for his hard work. In the 3 years that I have served in this 
House, I do not know of another individual that has put in as much 
time, spent as many hours, on any one issue as the gentleman has. I 
want to come here and compliment the gentleman for his diligence, his 
tenaciousness. I am sorry we did not get this signed into law last 
year. I have gotten to the point now that I have seen this so often 
that I feel like I know the gentleman's couple.
  On a more personal note, I have a daughter that was married back in 
September. It is amazing how her ability to understand the marriage tax 
penalty has dramatically increased since she now is married and they 
are filing a joint income tax.
  The President has talked about giving relief to married couples, at 
least for the last 7 years. In his State of the Union this year he 
addressed this very penalty. Now we hear from the White House that he 
may veto this.
  I would like to come forward today and say to the President, if he 
ever has an opportunity to live up to his word, to do what he has said 
he will do, if there is an unfair tax out there that is more egregious 
than this, I would like to know what it is. This is his opportunity to 
live up to the promises that he has made to the married couples of the 
country.
  There is no one, there is no one that I know of that can defend this. 
We hear, especially on this side of the aisle, so often, ``This is only 
a measure to help the rich.''
  There is one thing about this that is dramatically different. In this 
bill, as part of this marriage tax penalty relief bill, this year we 
are going to increase the amount a person can earn by $2,000 before 
they are prohibited from filing for the earned income tax credit.
  So this time we are not only talking about middle class and lower 
class taxpayers in this country, we are talking about a broad spectrum 
of America that we are able to help, not only to right a wrong and to 
quit paying lip service to families and to dramatically do something 
for them for a change, but this is a time when the President can show 
some leadership.
  I appreciate what the gentleman has done, and I appreciate what the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has done. The Members have worked 
on this so tenaciously for the last 3 years. I do not know of another 
item like this.
  When I do town hall meetings, when we do web site surveys, and I ask, 
what is the most unfair tax in this country today, without exception, 
by an overwhelming majority, every survey that we have done said that 
we need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because I think most 
people in this country understand, if there is one thing in this 
country that we need to protect and support, if there is one thing in 
this country that undergirds our very society, it is marriage. It is 
the family. Anything that we can do to help that family we need to 
stand ready to do.
  Again, we have 241 cosponsors. We will pass this tomorrow. I think we 
will send it to the President. But I think it is going to be up to each 
one of us to continue to carry on this dialogue with the American 
people, because this is the President's last year. He has said, 
standing right there in his State of the Union Address, he wanted to do 
something about the marriage tax penalty. I hope this president 
realizes this time we need more than a promise, we need more than 
rhetoric. We need his signature on that bill.
  Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I want to thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), for his leadership as 
an active member of a team of Members of the House who have been 
working so hard over the last several years to eliminate what we 
consider to be the most unfair consequence of our complicated Tax Code, 
and that is the Tax Code's bias against marriage.
  Our goal with the H.R. 6 legislation we will be working to pass 
tomorrow, and has 241 cosponsors, as the gentleman pointed out, 30 
Democrats have rejected the pressure from their leadership and are 
cosponsoring this legislation because they agree, it is time we help 
those 25 million couples.
  Let me share just very briefly what this proposal contains that we 
are going to be voting on tomorrow. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, which is a nonpartisan or I should say bipartisan committee 
that gives those of us in Congress advice on tax matters, I asked them 
the question, when it comes to those who suffer the marriage tax 
penalty, and we are looking at 25 million married ones, who are they? 
And of course, they pointed out not only is the marriage tax penalty 
about $1,400, but half of those who file jointly and suffer the 
marriage tax penalty itemize their taxes. The other half do not. Middle 
class taxpayers who

[[Page H262]]

itemize their taxes primarily itemize their taxes because they own a 
home.
  So as we look at how we can eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty, we have to keep both homeowners and those who do not itemize 
their taxes in mind.
  There is another consequence in the Tax Code with the earned income 
tax credit for the working poor. It is a program created by Ronald 
Reagan back in the 1980s to help those in the work force who are kind 
of right on the edge so they can get by and raise their family and stay 
in the work force at the same time. We address marriage tax relief 
there.
  So essentially what we do in the proposal that we are going to vote 
on tomorrow, and I hope receives overwhelming bipartisan support, is we 
help those who do not itemize their taxes by doubling the standard 
deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles. For those who do 
itemize, and frankly, those are basically homeowners, one-half of 
married couples, we widen the 15 percent bracket.
  Every one of us, every American, the first part of our income, if we 
make as a single about $25 or less, it is taxed at 15 percent, and if 
one is married, under our proposal, that person can make up to about 
$50,000 as joint filers, combined income, and of course paying the 15 
percent bracket.
  So we widen the 15 percent bracket to wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty for those who itemize their taxes, and for the earned income 
tax credit, as the gentleman pointed out, we raise the income 
eligibility threshold for joint filers, so we wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty for those who participate in the earned income tax credit.
  We also have an adjustment in this proposal so no one affected by 
this legislation is impacted by the alternative minimum tax.
  So we double the standard deduction, widen the 15 percent bracket, 
help the earned income tax credit, we provide protections against that 
horrible alternative minimum tax, and we wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty for almost 25 million married ones.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has been a 
real leader in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The 
gentleman has been a real leader, as he is here today.
  Like the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), I have a son married 
here recently. Every young person who gets married now all of a sudden 
realizes what we are talking about is very real. And it is very unfair, 
as the gentleman has been pointing out today, to have a couple, where 
one earned $30,500 a year as a single person and was paying a 
relatively modest amount of taxes, pretty much in that 15 percent 
bracket, and then they get married to somebody else who is earning 
another $30,500 a year, and all of a sudden they are bumped up. They 
have a 28 percent tax bracket, which neither one would have been in to 
the degree they are if they had been not married, if they had been 
single still.
  What we are doing and the gentleman is doing tomorrow, what we did 
actually in the bill that the gentleman helped us with so much last 
year, the tax bill the President vetoed, was to try to correct that 
problem.
  It is fairly straightforward, that we want to treat married couples, 
especially those which we consider moderate to middle-income married 
couples, equally and fairly, and the low-income people too.
  What is amazing to me, and the gentleman pointed it out, I want to 
make sure I am correct about this, what the President has all of a 
sudden come to, and he has gotten religion on this, he is saying, I am 
for the marriage tax penalty for the first time, but he does not do the 
itemized deduction, as I understand it right now. He phases it in. He 
would double it, but it would be over 10 years. We have ours come in 
right away, as soon as this bill gets into law.
  I would ask the gentleman, am I not correct about that?
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the President in his 
proposal, his marriage tax relief essentially is 10 years from now. He 
phases it in over 10 years. He only does the standard deduction, which 
only benefits those who do not itemize. If you are a middle class 
working married couple that owns a home and itemize your taxes, the 
President's proposal, even after the 10 years it takes to fully phase 
it in, would provide zero relief.
  I would also point out that the President's proposal after it is 
phased in after 10 years would only provide relief for about 9 million 
couples, versus the 25 million who would benefit from our proposal to 
double the standard deduction, widen the 15 percent bracket to help 
those who itemize, as well as the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the point the gentleman is making is our proposal, that we are going to 
have down on the President's desk hopefully shortly, would take effect 
on the itemized deduction portion immediately.
  There are phase-in features to the 15 percent bracket issue, but we 
come right in and provide immediate relief with regard to doubling that 
itemized deduction, do we not, I would ask the gentleman?
  Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Florida is 
correct. We double the standard deduction immediately, so for those who 
do not itemize, they provide immediate relief. Then we begin phasing in 
over a short period of time the widening of the 15 percent bracket to 
help those who are itemizers, such as homeowners. The earned income tax 
credit is immediate, as well.
  One thing I would point out to the gentleman from Florida is the 
primary beneficiaries of the proposal that we are going to vote on 
tomorrow are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 in combined 
income. A married couple with a combined income of $30,000 will see 
almost 97 percent of their tax burden eliminated when we wipe out their 
marriage tax penalty. A couple making a combined income of $75,000, and 
most people do not consider that rich today, will see about 10 percent 
of their income taxes wiped out by wiping out the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I am very much aware, as the gentleman is, that the total at the end of 
the day that the President is proposing, once it is even phased in, 
which is a 10-year phase-in just for the itemized deduction, is only 
about $45 billion, and ours is $180. He is only giving tax relief, if 
you will, of less than one-third of what we are proposing to do, and at 
the same time, as the gentleman pointed out so well, he is only 
reaching those who would itemize. He is not reaching those who 
otherwise would be wanting to claim, he is reaching those who do not 
itemize.

                              {time}  1045

  He is reaching only those who take the standard deduction. We reach 
those who itemize as well in this proposal. So in essence, A, the 
President is not giving nearly as much relief in dollar amount; B, he 
is delaying it, not giving it immediately like this bill would do; and, 
C, he is not beginning to reach the number of people that this bill 
reaches, the young people in the categories that have been described.
  I think that makes this an extraordinarily important bill to pass, to 
become law; and I hope and pray that it does. I certainly commend the 
gentleman, again, for what he has done, and I strongly support it.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I again thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), for his 
leadership and hard work and effort as we work to wipe out the marriage 
tax penalty for 25 million married working couples.
  Let us be frank here. Of course I am a Republican and we have been 
working as Republicans to wipe out the marriage tax penalty over the 
last several years, but I was pleased the President had a change of 
heart. Last year he vetoed our effort to wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty, and he made passing reference to it in the State of the Union 
speech. So there has been a change of position, because it broke the 
hearts of 25 million couples when he vetoed it last year.
  He has come up with a proposal, as we said, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) pointed out, that takes 10 years to phase in. So 
essentially 10 years from now, those who do not itemize would see their 
standard deduction doubled. So it barely keeps

[[Page H263]]

up with inflation and only provides about $210 in marriage tax relief 
for those couples, 9 million couples.
  The proposal that we are bringing to the floor tomorrow, H.R. 6, the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act, has 241 cosponsors, including a dozen 
Democrats. We provide, as we essentially wipe out the vast majority of 
the marriage tax penalty, up to about $1,250 in marriage tax relief for 
married couples. We benefit 25 million married working couples.
  Think about it. What is $1,200? That is several months' worth of car 
payments, 3 months of day care for a family with children that are in a 
child care center. It is, of course, a down payment on a home. It is a 
contribution to an individual retirement account. It is real money for 
real people. So this is why it is so important that we work in a 
bipartisan way.
  That is why I really want to salute my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. Danner), for her leadership as a Democrat, our chief 
Democrat cosponsor of H.R. 6, and for her efforts to make this a 
bipartisan effort, because that is what it should be. Politics should 
not stand in the way of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) for yielding, and also I congratulate him as we 
stand, I think, on the threshold of a wonderful victory. I am a 
freshman, obviously, but I can say this, that from the first day that 
we met over a year ago, the gentleman has been preaching the gospel of 
eliminating the marriage penalty; and finally it has become a chorus, 
and I think again we are poised to do great things. I congratulate the 
gentleman for his hard work. I think we are poised to do great things.
  Something I would like to add to it, why this is especially 
appropriate to take up right now, the President in the State of the 
Union speech talked about all the wonderful things that are occurring 
in the American economy, and he should. There are a lot for all of us, 
Republican and Democrat, to be proud of. Unemployment is at a 30-year 
low. Inflation is relatively low. The economy is growing at historic 
levels. Wonderful, wonderful things.
  There is a dark side to it. We also have to understand that so many 
American couples have to have two wage earners. Now, if families decide 
to make that choice, that is one thing; but so many families have to 
have two wage earners just to make ends meet in this economy. So there 
are so many wonderful things.
  The tough side is that many families do have to have two wage 
earners. If, in fact, economic reality is forcing that, then it is 
particularly unfair that we have a Tax Code that punishes that. So it 
is especially important right now, as we have this economy, as we have 
so many two wage-earner families, that we do take on eliminating the 
marriage penalty.
  I think it is awfully important. We talked a bit about the tax relief 
it provides, but to me it is a matter of fairness because we do have so 
many couples who are forced into two wage-earner situations. As we all 
know, the Tax Code and the IRS suffer a lack of respectability.
  So many of us do not have a high regard for the Tax Code and all the 
absurdities in it. This perhaps is at the top of the list.
  When we talk to our constituents about what they dislike most about 
the IRS code and paying taxes, this is it. People are willing to pay 
their fair share. People are willing to work with a Tax Code that is 
fair; but when we take a look at how we punish these working couples, 
obviously there is nothing fair about that Tax Code.
  Finally, I think the gentleman boiled it down to its most important 
element, the type of tax relief that we are poised to provide, 
hopefully on a bipartisan measure and hopefully the President will give 
in and sign this, in very practical terms it will make an important 
difference. Whether it be affording health insurance or affording day 
care, this is real money and this is a real difference for working 
couples.
  The timing could not be better. It is critically important that we 
not only pass it, but pass it through both Houses and get it signed as 
quickly as possible, so the great prosperity that we all point to with 
pride can be enjoyed by working couples all over America.
  Once again, I congratulate the gentleman for his hard work. He has 
done a great job, and I am real excited about what is going to happen 
tomorrow.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his leadership as one of the new Members 
that has joined our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) really pointed out a really 
important point. This is all about fairness. As we have often asked in 
this debate over our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 
25 million American working couples who pay $1,400 more in higher taxes 
just because they are married, is it right? Is it fair?
  I do not believe that there is one American who believes that the 
marriage tax penalty is fair; that our Tax Code punishes 25 million 
married working couples. That is 50 million Americans who pay higher 
taxes just because they are married. That is not fair.
  My biggest disappointment, as we go into this debate tomorrow, is 
that the President says that he only wants to help those who do not 
itemize their taxes. So is it really fair that if there is a young 
married couple or older married couple who pursues the American dream 
and buys a home and, of course, many itemize their taxes because they 
own a home, that they still have to pay the marriage tax penalty? That 
is not right.
  I know tomorrow and later today we may hear a debate from the 
Democrats saying they do not want to help homeowners. They will just 
say they only want to help those who do not itemize. Well, I know of 
thousands of middle-class, married couples who are homeowners who 
itemize their taxes in the district that I have the privilege of 
representing. One half of married couples, and there are 1.1 million 
married couples in Illinois that suffer the marriage tax penalty, so 
over 500,000 of them itemize their taxes because they probably own a 
home or they give money to charity or their church or synagogue or 
temple or mosque, or they have college expenses that are paying off 
student loans. Those folks itemize and the alternative that the 
Democrats are going to call for tomorrow will not provide marriage tax 
relief to them.
  They will just say, sorry, they still have to pay the marriage tax 
penalty, and that is not right. It is not fair.
  Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from South 
Dakota (Mr. Thune), who has been another leader in our effort to wipe 
out the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for yielding.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has been an outspoken 
advocate. I have cosponsored his bills in past sessions of Congress, at 
least in my first term in Congress as well as this current one, and the 
gentleman has spearheaded and led the effort to remove this crushing 
burden on married couples in this country, and so I credit with him 
that, and elevating it to the level where actually we are going to have 
a vote on this, which I think is a remarkable accomplishment. Again, it 
is a great credit to the hard work and effort the gentleman has put 
into it.
  I think it is entirely appropriate. Moreover, it is a moral 
imperative that we get rid of the marriage penalty and the Tax Code. A 
lot of people, I think, who probably listen to what comes out of 
Washington as we talk about this whole issue probably think to some 
degree that it is a discussion like a lot of things in Washington in 
the abstract; this is some theoretical thing. The reality is, this is a 
real issue which affects real people in a very real way.
  Think about the number of married couples who are out there. The 
marriage penalty strikes hardest really at middle-income families. Most 
marriage penalties occur when the higher earning spouse makes somewhere 
between $20,000 and $75,000 a year; and I will give an example of 
someone who came into my office a few weeks back who fits right into 
that category. They are a young couple who live in Sioux Falls, South 
Dakota. They have two children. One of them works, makes about $46,000 
a year, the other one about

[[Page H264]]

$21,000 a year. As they sat down and calculated their taxes this year, 
they came to the harsh realization that they were going to pay $1,953 
more for the privilege and benefit of being married.
  That is flat wrong. That is something that needs to be changed, and I 
could not help but sympathize with his situation because I think it is 
typical of many throughout this country, throughout America, certainly 
throughout my home State of South Dakota, where there are a lot of 
hard-working couples who have children who are both working, trying to 
make ends meet, trying to put a little aside for retirement, trying to 
put some money aside for their kids' education, pay the bills, raise 
their children, live their lives and who should not have to be 
penalized for doing that.
  Frankly, that is exactly what has happened over time is this marriage 
penalty has become more and more of a burden in our Tax Code. As this 
drumbeat continues to go on in the effort that the gentleman has led to 
move this issue forward, to elevate it in people's minds across this 
country, I think we have gotten to the point where, in fact, we may 
even have a President who when this reaches his desk, and hopefully it 
will soon, he will be forced to sign it because his pollster is going 
to tell him he has to. The President obviously has shown a great 
aptitude for seizing on issues which meet with public approval, and I 
think this is a case in point. I think he has sort of co-opted it.
  What the President proposed in his effort to address the marriage 
penalty in the Tax Code is small. He has basically come up with a 
quarter of the plan that we have.
  The President has essentially proposed marriage without the 
honeymoon. He is going to give people a little bit of tax relief from 
the marriage penalty but, frankly, only addresses about 9 million 
couples where the legislation that the gentleman has authored and which 
we will vote on tomorrow helps 28 million working couples in this 
country, eliminates this crushing burden, this punitive burden from the 
Tax Code and, frankly, I think restores some level of fairness to the 
Tax Code.
  So I would hope that as we have this debate and hopefully as people 
across America hear this debate over the course of the next several 
days that the pressure will build, it will mount. People are realizing 
what this is. I had an opportunity to visit with a tax accountant this 
week and discussed with him what we were looking at doing. He could not 
have been happier to see that. As I shared with him some of the 
particulars of the people who have contacted me about this, he says 
that is exactly right.
  I said I cannot imagine that someone in a middle income at that time 
category with two young children, who are both working, are going to 
pay $1,900-plus dollars more in taxes this year for the benefit of 
being married. We all know that marriage is a costly proposition at 
times, which certainly should not be added to through the Tax Code and 
he said that is exactly right. That is about the level of taxation that 
the marriage penalty would impose on a working couple in this country.
  So it is long overdue. This is something which we just have no 
choice, no alternative, but to deal with. I would certainly hope, as we 
move forward in this debate, that we will see some movement on the part 
of the White House.
  I appreciate the fact that there are folks on the other side of the 
aisle who have seen the wisdom in taking care of this issue, have 
cosponsored the legislation of the gentleman, and will be helpful I 
think as this debate ensues in, again, driving home the point that this 
is something that just as a matter of fundamental principle, an axiom 
of fairness in the Tax Code, needs to be addressed.
  So I am happy to participate in this effort, to be a cosponsor of the 
legislation, and will work vigorously to see that this burdensome, 
onerous, crushing burden that we have in the Tax Code today is removed 
once and for all and that we liberate married couples in this country 
in a way that will allow them to provide for their family's future and 
restore some level of fairness in the Tax Code today.
  So I appreciate again the effort that the gentleman has made and 
would just say to him that on behalf of the people that I represent in 
the State of South Dakota, this is certainly going to be a very welcome 
thing. It is a very real issue which affects real people in a very real 
way on a daily basis.
  The gentleman alluded to earlier the things that could be paid for if 
it was not costing an additional $1,400 a year to pay for the cost of 
this marriage penalty, from child care, to college, to car payments, to 
school clothes for the kids, to a family vacation perhaps. Health 
insurance is something that we have been trying to address, free up 
additional resources so that people in this country can afford to have 
health care; a down payment on a home, perhaps putting money aside into 
an IRA or retirement plan. There are so many things that if we look at 
it in the overall picture, where this is tremendously beneficial to the 
people that we really want to help in this country, and those are those 
folks who get up every morning, the people that I represent in South 
Dakota who get up day in and day out, work hard to pay the bills, to 
make that living and hopefully put a little bit aside for retirement. 
This is one way that this Congress can help, in a very profound way, 
them get that job done.
  I think we are in a position to do this because of a lot of the 
decisions that have been made in the last couple of years in the area 
of fiscal responsibility on behalf of people in this country getting 
spending under control. We have seen now that as the surpluses start to 
mount up, a lot of it has to do with the measure of fiscal 
responsibility, fiscal restraint, the resolve that the class of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), when they came to this Congress 
and took over the Congress in 1994, and those of us who joined them 
later had in order to put us in a position where we could make this 
change.
  It is a fundamental issue. It is an issue and a matter of fairness. 
It needs to be done. As we move this through the House tomorrow, I hope 
the Senate will act on it and the President will sign it into law and 
we can end this burden once and for all.

                              {time}  1100

  So, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the leadership 
effort that he has made on this issue and again would offer my full 
effort, support, anything that I can do to make this become a reality.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for his tireless work on our 
efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  As the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) pointed out, it is all 
about fairness. As we work this year to pay down the national debt and 
help our local schools and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, we 
also want to work to make the Tax Code fair. A lot of us believe that 
the most unfair consequence of our complicated Tax Code is the marriage 
tax penalty suffered by 25 million married working couples who, on 
average, pay $1,400 more just because they are married.
  Now, tomorrow we are going to have an opportunity to vote on 
legislation which will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty 
for 25 million couples. I am disappointed that those on the other side, 
particularly the Democrat leadership and some of the bureaucrats down 
at the Treasury Department, only want to help about one-fourth of those 
who suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  In fact, they say if one owns a home and itemizes their taxes, they 
do not want to help one. I do not think that is fair either. If we want 
to help those who suffer the marriage tax penalty, we should help 
everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty.
  I find, whether I am at a union hall, the steelworkers' hall in 
Hegwish in the south side of Chicago, or a grain elevator in Tonica, or 
the Weits' Cafe in my hometown of Morris, Illinois, regardless of 
folks' background or what they do for a living, if they are filing 
jointly and they are married and they both work, they suffer the 
marriage tax penalty.
  We should help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. The 
proposal we are going to pass, hopefully with an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of support tomorrow, will wipe out the marriage tax 
penalty for a vast majority of

[[Page H265]]

those who suffer it, helping 25 million married working couples who 
suffer from the marriage tax penalty.
  It is all about fairness. Let us be fair to everyone who suffers the 
marriage tax penalty, those who itemize, those who own a home, as well 
as those who do not itemize, those under earned income credit all 
benefit from our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Granger), and I appreciate very much her leadership and her efforts to 
wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, I am glad to join my colleagues who come 
to the floor of the House today to talk in support of eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, 
it is unfair and un-American penalty.
  I want to thank Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer), who is doing a superb job in his final year in 
service to Texas and the Nation, and certainly the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) who has been a tireless advocate for marriage tax 
penalty relief.
  There are a number of items in our Nation's Tax Code that are un-
American and unfair and in need of immediate reform. But I cannot think 
of a tax that is more offensive or unfair than the marriage tax 
penalty. When couples walk down the aisle to say ``I do'' to each 
other, they should not be saying ``I do'' to the IRS.
  I am also pleased that President Clinton has come around to our side 
in favor of fixing this tax. After all, how could anyone argue that it 
is fair to require couples to pay more tax simply because they choose 
to get married? We are not talking about rich or wealthy couples. We 
are talking about regular, hard-working couples that have no choice but 
work as husband and wife to pay the bills together, to make ends meet, 
and to save for a house or start a family.
  Twenty-five million American families have to pay an average marriage 
tax penalty of $1,400. In fact, over 60,000 couples in my district 
alone, in my congressional district, the 12th District of Texas, pay 
that penalty. Couples should not be penalized because they chose to 
commit themselves in the holy bonds of marriage.
  The legislation that will pass the House tomorrow provides four times 
more relief for working couples than the President's proposal. In fact, 
the President's proposal will provide up to $210 in tax relief per 
couple. But our legislation, H.R. 6, provides up to $1,400 in tax 
relief per couple.
  The President's plan would double the standard deduction for married 
couples over 10 years. Our plan would double the standard deduction 
next year, make it immediate. The President's plan would help about 9 
million American couples, but our plan would help 28 million American 
couples.

  I want to take a moment to talk especially about how this tax is 
unfair often to women. The fact is that the marriage tax penalty is 
biased against the spouse that has the lower income, which, 
unfortunately, oftentimes is the wife. This happens because the 
marriage couple's income is pooled, and the first $43,050 of combined 
income is taxed at 15 percent. Combined income above this amount is 
taxed at 28 percent. That is highly unfair, because if the married 
couples were single, both incomes would be taxed at 15 percent. The 
House bill fixes this problem by doubling the single earner deduction 
for married couples.
  I look forward to passage of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty 
Elimination Act, and I look forward to voting that and going back to my 
district and saying, I have done something to make this Tax Code 
fairer. I think it is the first step in other steps that we need to 
provide a tax that people understand, they believe is fair and 
equitable.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) very much for 
his leadership in this stand.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for her leadership and efforts to 
wipe out the marriage tax penalty. She has made a very important point 
that those who really suffer the most from the marriage tax penalty 
tend to be working women. Traditionally, and it is changing, but 
traditionally the second earner has been a women. Now it has changed 
where more women are becoming the primary bread winner, but 
traditionally that has not been the case.
  Right now, if a woman is in the work force, that causes a marriage 
tax penalty. It is just not right that she is punished, as well as her 
husband, if she goes into the work force because they want a little 
extra money to make ends meet and care for their children.
  So, clearly, as we work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, there 
is a lot of people who benefit, 25 million married working couples who 
benefit from our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  As the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) also pointed out, the 
primary beneficiary of the legislation that we are going to vote on 
tomorrow are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 in combined 
income, joint income between husband and wife who suffer the marriage 
tax penalty.
  With the legislation we are going to pass out of the House tomorrow, 
hopefully with an overwhelming bipartisan support, and I would note 
that there are 30 Democrats that are cosponsoring, along with a total 
of 241 bipartisan cosponsors, almost every Republican is a cosponsor of 
this bill, that we wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
  But also for a couple making $30,000 a year, we essentially wipe out 
their tax burden entirely. In fact, according to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, a bipartisan tax advisory panel that gives tax advice when it 
comes to tax issues to the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as 
other Members of the House and Senate, if a married couple has a 
combined income of $30,000, which is a pretty moderate income, they 
would see almost 94 percent of their tax burden wiped away as a result 
of this legislation. If a couple has a combined income of $75,000 
between husband and wife, they would see about a 10 to 11 percent 
reduction in their tax burden as a result of wiping out the marriage 
tax penalty. That is real money when we think about it.
  The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. It is just not right that 
marriage couples pay an average $1,400 more because they are married 
compared to an identical couple with identical couple who are not 
married and may live together.
  Back in the south suburbs of Chicago and the area I represent, there 
are 1.1 million Illinois married couples who suffer the marriage tax 
penalty. Fourteen hundred dollars is 1 year's tuition for a nursing 
student at Joliet Junior College, our local community college. It is 3 
months of day care for a family with children with a child in a local 
child care center. So it is real money for real people.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht) who has been a real leader in our effort to bring 
fairness to the tax code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) and especially for this special order and all that he has 
done over the last several years to call the public's attention to 
this.
  I was thinking, if one had been Rip Van Winkle and had fallen asleep 
40 years ago and one woke up and one realized how much this government, 
the Federal Government the State government, the local government, how 
many different taxes they lay on people and have imposed over the last 
40 years. We finally reached a point where the average family, 
according to the Tax Foundation, the average family in America now 
today spends more for taxes than they do for food, clothing, and 
shelter combined. I mean, who would have thought that 30 or 40 years 
ago?

  But more importantly, who would have even imagined that we would have 
found a way or Washington would have found a way to tax marriage. I 
mean, it really is almost preposterous on its surface to even think 
about a fact that married couples pay extra taxes just because they are 
married.
  I have to tell my colleagues a story. My wife, Mary, and I have been 
married 27 years. Okay. And she has been dealing with me for all of 
those years. We probably do not have all that complicated of taxes. But 
she is a much better accountant than I am, so she does our taxes. We 
have actually gone to tax preparers. We have had CPAs do our taxes in 
the past. The truth of the matter is I think my wife, Mary, does

[[Page H266]]

a more thorough job than anybody else.
  Well, this weekend, she did our taxes. She was not in a good mood. 
Because she also works part time as a teacher in a nursery school in 
Rochester, Minnesota, and she loves the job. In fact, she does not do 
it for the money because, after 12 years, I think she is up to about 
$10 an hour, something like that. She certainly does not do it for the 
money. She does it because she enjoys the kids, she enjoys the work, 
she enjoys the school.
  But after doing our taxes and realizing how little she gets to keep 
of her paycheck at the end of the day, she said, ``You know, it is time 
you guys eliminate this marriage penalty tax, because if I were taxed 
at the 15 percent level for what I do, it would be at least worth it.''
  I think the illustration the gentleman from Illinois has of that 
attractive young couple there, I want to make a couple of points. The 
President, and I think many of us, have been talking about the 
importance of education and why we need to attract more good people 
into the field of teaching.
  But if we really look at this, we found out with some research in our 
district, for example, this marriage penalty affects 70,000 married 
couples in the First Congressional District of Minnesota. The 
interesting thing is, and we do not have the hard evidence yet, in the 
discussions that we have had and the phone calls we have had in our 
office, and extrapolating some things, we have come to the conclusion 
that one of the groups that is punished the most by this marriage 
penalty tax, the ones who have to pay the extra taxes more often than 
anybody are teachers.
  It is interesting how many teachers, if one gets into it and goes 
into a school system, one finds that the art teacher is married to the 
English teacher or vice versa, or the principal is married to an 
elementary teacher. Or in many cases one may have one of the spouses 
who works at a local plant and a teacher who works.
  But if one stops and thinks about it, one of the groups that is 
affected more than any other single group are teachers. If we want to 
attract people into the education profession, it seems to me the last 
thing we ought to do is punish them for getting married.
  So this is about fundamental fairness. I know that the President and 
some people say, well, what we need to do is just tinker around the 
edges, and we want to provide some relief to certain targeted groups. 
Well, in my opinion, if something is unfair, we ought to pull it out by 
the roots.
  So I am going to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) and all the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means for the 
work they have done to try and eliminate this unfairness. It should 
never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Now is a chance 
to, on a stand-alone bill, to allow the American people to understand 
what this means to them, their families, their future.

  In some respects, this is a debate about fairness. But at the end of 
the day, it is also a debate between the family budget and the Federal 
budget. Since the gentleman from Illinois and I came here in 1995, we 
have really had a battle on our hands to control Federal spending.
  There is a lot of good news. We have moved from a $220 billion 
deficit to now, for the first time in the last 2 years, we have had 
real surpluses here at the Federal level. That happened because we 
recognize that if we dramatically slow the rate of growth and Federal 
spending, it was not that long ago Federal spending was growing at 6, 
8, 10, 12 percent per year. Well, the last several years, Federal 
spending has been growing at a slower rate than the average family 
budget.
  In fact, even this President, and we have to congratulate him on 
this, the budget he submitted the other day calls for an increase in 
total Federal spending of 2\1/2\ percent. Next year, we believe, and 
the economists we talked to believe that the Federal budget should grow 
at somewhere around 2\1/2\ percent. But the average family budget in 
America is growing at 3\1/2\ percent.
  Now, that is a tremendous success story. If we can keep that kind of 
momentum going and limiting the growth in the Federal budget to less 
than the growth in the average family budget, it means we are going to 
see real surpluses. Those surpluses can go to pay down debt. Those 
surpluses can go to make certain we protect Social Security and have 
generational fairness.
  But I think also some of that surplus ought to go to correct some of 
these unfair inequities in the tax code. One of the most glaring 
examples is this marriage penalty tax which married couples have been 
paying.
  I also want to say this, in this debate between the Federal budget 
and the family budget, I know the Federal Government, and I know the 
family, and I know the difference. I know who can spend that money 
smarter. If that young couple or some of the people that I have talked 
to in my district has an extra $1,400, $1,500, $1,600 a year, I believe 
that they can spend that money a whole lot smarter than the Washington 
bureaucrats can. I think they can get more value for it. I think in the 
end of the day, if we allow those people to keep, spend, or invest 
their own money, we are going to keep this economy growing and stronger 
as we go forward.

                              {time}  1115

  So it is about generational fairness, it is about fundamental 
fairness, it is about the difference between the family budget and the 
Federal budget. And if we continue to control Federal spending, we can 
provide this kind of tax relief. We can do it this year.
  In fact, the only argument I might have against the bill that will be 
on the floor tomorrow is that it ought to be retroactive. I believe we 
have the money in the budget this year so that as people are doing 
their taxes this year, as they are beginning to fill out their tax 
forms, there ought to be a way we might be able to do something 
retroactively. Not just for next year but this year. Let us eliminate 
this marriage penalty now.
  Finally, let me say this is not a debate between the Republicans 
versus the Democrats. This is not even right versus left. This is a 
debate of right versus wrong. And it is simply wrong to make married 
couples pay extra taxes simply because they have a marriage 
certificate. The gentleman knows this, I know it, and the American 
people now know it.
  In fact, if anyone wants to visit 
our Web sites, my own Web site
is gil.house.gov. That is www.gil.house.gov. And if people go to that 
Web site, Members or people who might be watching this, if they go to 
that Web site, there is actually a calculator there. It takes a few 
minutes, but they can see if they are a married couple, both working, 
how much they are currently paying in terms of a marriage penalty.
  The idea of saying, well, we are going to do this for people who do 
not itemize but we will not do it for people who itemize, in my 
opinion, that does not really solve the problem. In some respects it 
makes the unfairness even worse. So I congratulate the gentleman and 
the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. As I say, it is not a 
debate between Republicans versus Democrats; it is not even right 
versus left. It is right versus wrong. The system is wrong, we have a 
chance to correct it, the surplus is there, and part of that surplus 
ought to go to changing this glaring error in the Tax Code. So I 
congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota, who has been a tireless advocate for wiping 
out the marriage tax penalty and speaking out on behalf of families in 
Minnesota. I appreciate very much his leadership.
  The gentleman from Minnesota made an important point. He said that 
the legislation we are going to pass out of the House of 
Representatives tomorrow, hopefully with an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote, is a stand-alone bill that does one thing, and that is this 
legislation wipes out the marriage tax penalty for couples like Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, 
Illinois. If we think about it, last year, when President Clinton and 
Vice President Gore vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, it was part of a package. There were other tax unfairness 
issues we were trying to address. And President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore said they would much rather spend the money than bring 
fairness to the Tax Code.

[[Page H267]]

  This year there are no excuses, because we are going to send to the 
President a stand-alone bill that does one thing, wiping out the 
marriage tax penalty for those who suffer it, and that is 25 million 
married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they are 
married. It is not right. It is not fair.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), 
who has been a tireless advocate as well in our efforts to wipe out the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I especially 
thank the gentleman for all the work that he has done. He is the 
bulldog around here for marriage tax penalty relief. It is many years 
he has been working day in and day out to bring us to this point. 
Tomorrow we will actually have this significant vote. We have even 
brought the President to this issue. And I think there is now some 
bipartisan support around marriage tax penalty relief.

  But I wanted to make four points today about this very important 
initiative. First, the marriage tax penalty is a penalty. So when 
people say tax cuts, and we have had all this rhetoric about tax cuts, 
this is actually a penalty. So we want to do away with penalties. This 
is an equity issue, a fairness issue.
  Frankly, I think it is very similar with the death tax. I think the 
death tax is grossly unfair. Since that money has already been taxed 
while an individual is living, it is grossly unfair when they die the 
money is taxed again. And so those really are the two linchpins of 
equitable taxation, is to eliminate this marriage tax penalty and to 
eliminate the death tax. I think we should try to do both, and I am 
very encouraged that we are bringing Democrats and Republicans together 
around this first step, which is marriage tax penalty relief.
  Also, I want to remind everyone in this House that when I was born, 
in 1957, the combined State, local, and Federal tax liabilities of the 
average American was less than 10 percent. My father reminds me of that 
often. Ten cents on the dollar. Down South they have that bumper 
sticker that says ``What is good enough for Jesus ought to be good 
enough for Uncle Sam.'' And that is the 10 percent figure. Today, 
though, that combined tax liability for working Americans is 
approaching 50 percent.
  Now, we have held the line on taxes for the last several years and 
that is good. We have a good economy, and there are many economic 
benefits of what is going on in this country. But we must recognize 
that the trend towards higher taxation is not a favorable trend. And if 
this continues, the young people in this country will be saddled with 
so much of their take-home pay going back to the government in taxes 
that they will not be able to survive.
  Frankly, there are many families that have to have two income earners 
now, and now those two income earners are working multiple jobs. It 
squeezes the time that we can spend with our children. There is a real 
crunch there. We have got to give the American family some tax relief. 
This is one step in that direction. We must roll back the layers of 
taxation on the American people, and we must have a tax program that 
encourages marriage and encourages families.
  The third point. We need to advocate pro-family tax relief for the 
institution of marriage and the institution of family. We need to go 
beyond this. We need to look at some of the systemic problems with 
early childhood development, to use our Tax Code to give families the 
ability to stay with their children more in those early formative 
years.
  This past year I was vice chairman of this bipartisan working group 
on youth violence. We found many things through that great process, and 
other Members in this chamber today were part of that process; and one 
of the things that was undeniable is that violent behavior or any kind 
of adverse illegal-type behavior manifested among teenagers is actually 
traced back to their loving, tender care at an early age from their 
parents. If a teenager is violent, they were probably neglected or 
abused or mistreated as a small person. There is a direct connection 
with a loving, caring parent and good behavior later in life.
  We need a Tax Code that really encourages the stay-at-home 
opportunity for a mom or a dad, or whatever the family chooses, so that 
our young people have more family time with their parents. So this type 
of tax policy, one that eliminates the marriage tax penalty, one that 
encourages families to spend more time together, quality time, and 
allows families to economically stay ahead but also spend more time 
together in bringing our children up in the proper way in this country 
is at the heart of a great society.
  We should be a great society. In order to do that, we need to come 
together in a bipartisan way and pass this with overwhelming support 
and send a message to the President that it is time now to sign 
marriage tax penalty relief. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I want to reclaim my time and thank the 
gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership in helping families. He has 
been a tireless advocate in making the Tax Code fair. That is what it 
is all about. Our goal is to make the Tax Code fair for working 
families, those who work hard, pay their bills on time, and pay their 
taxes on time. They all tell me they pay too much in taxes, but they 
complain even more about how unfair the Tax Code is; that it is too 
complicated and that our Tax Code punishes marriage, it punishes 
family, it punishes those who are entrepreneurs and create small 
businesses.
  Clearly, a decision has been made by our leadership, under the 
leadership of our House Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), that we are going to do something that is a good idea. We are 
going to send to the President a stand-alone bill that does one thing. 
So there are no excuses. There are no excuses for Bill Clinton to veto 
this bill this time. And that is we are going to send to the President 
legislation that will help 25 million married working couples by 
bringing fairness to the Tax Code, that wipes out the marriage tax 
penalty.
  The proposal we will vote on tomorrow does several things. It helps 
those who do not itemize, by doubling the standard deduction for joint 
filers to twice that of singles, and that will take care of about 9 
million couples. We also widen the 15 percent bracket to help those who 
itemize their taxes. And as we all know, the primary reason middle-
class families itemize their taxes is because they own a home. So if we 
want to help those other couples, and we are going to help 25 million 
couples, we have to help those who itemize; those who own a home and 
pursue the American dream. They should not have to continue paying the 
marriage tax penalty just because they are a homeowner. That is wrong.
  We also help those who participate in the earned income credit, the 
working poor. Those who are at the edge that need a little extra help. 
Of course, Ronald Reagan created the earned income credit program back 
in the mid-1980s to help families that are working poor and of course 
want to be in the work force and be able to support their children and 
raise their families in a good quality of life.
  So we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married 
working couples, we help those who itemize and suffer the marriage tax 
penalty, and we help low-income families. And under our proposal, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries 
are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. In fact, for a 
couple making $30,000 in combined income, 97 percent of their Federal 
income tax is wiped out when we wipe out their marriage tax penalty. 
For those making $75,000, we reduce their tax burden by about 11 
percent when we wipe out their marriage tax penalty.
  I think of young couples like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public 
school teachers in Joliet, Illinois, who suffer the marriage tax 
penalty. They both teach in Joliet public schools. They just had a 
baby, and they are excited about that. And as Michelle told me, she 
says if we can convince the Congress and the President to wipe out the 
marriage tax penalty, what the marriage tax penalty means to couples 
like Michelle and Shad Hallihan is about 3,000 diapers for their 
newborn child.
  The marriage tax penalty is real money for real people. It is $1,400 
on average. Twenty-five million married working couples suffer the 
unfairness

[[Page H268]]

of the Tax Code when they pay $1,400 more in higher taxes. In the south 
suburbs of Illinois, on the south side of Chicago, the area I have the 
privilege of representing, $1,400 is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior 
College, the local community college. It is 3 months of day care. It is 
several months of car payments. $1,400, the average working tax 
penalty, is a significant contribution to an individual's retirement 
account, those IRAs. It is real money for real people.
  Tomorrow, H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, will be brought 
to the floor of this House to be debated. My hope is it will pass with 
an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It is all about fairness, bringing 
fairness to the Tax Code. My hope is Democrats will join with 
Republicans in wiping out the marriage tax penalty.
  I am pleased that thanks to the leadership of my colleague and 
friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), who is our chief 
Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 6, we have 30 Democrats that have joined 
as cosponsors as part of the 241 that are in support of this bill. 
Tomorrow is a big day. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us 
bring fairness to the Tax Code. Let us have a strong bipartisan show of 
support for H.R. 6, wiping out the marriage tax penalty and bringing 
fairness to the Tax Code.

                          ____________________