[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2517-S2520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000--Continued
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the members of the minority
allowing me to speak for a moment on this important piece of
legislation. It is legislation I cosponsored when Congress convened
earlier last year. It was Kay Bailey Hutchison's bill to repeal the
marriage tax penalty. Since that time, the legislation has been adopted
to provide for an essential repeal for most Americans. That is the
pending business before us. I have supported similar measures ever
since I came to the Senate in 1995, and I am very pleased the majority
leader has attempted to schedule a vote on this prior to tax day.
As we have just seen, it may not be possible for the Senate to
actually vote on repealing the marriage tax penalty prior to tax day,
but it would certainly be our hope that that could be accomplished
immediately thereafter, if not before.
This will be the third time in 5 years we have acted to mitigate the
marriage tax penalty. In 1995, Congress passed legislation that would
have provided a tax credit to married couples to partially offset this
penalty. President Clinton vetoed that bill. In 1999, Congress again
approved a measure to provide married couples with some relief.
[[Page S2518]]
Last year's bill would have set the standard deduction for couples at
twice the deduction allowed for singles. It also would have set the
lowest income tax bracket for married couples at twice that allowed for
single taxpayers. Again, President Clinton vetoed that last September.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the total tax burden
borne by American taxpayers dipped slightly in 1998. That is the good
news. The bad news is Americans still spent more on Federal taxes than
on any of the other major items in their household budget. For the
median-income two-earner family, for example, Federal taxes still
amounted to 39 percent of the family budget, more than what they spent
on food, housing, and medical care combined. One of the reasons why
they paid so much is the continuation of the marriage tax penalty that
exists in the Nation's Tax Code.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half of all
married taxpayers--about 21 million couples--filing a joint return paid
a higher tax than they would have if each spouse had been allowed to
file as a single taxpayer.
The marriage tax penalty hits the working poor particularly hard.
Two-earner families making less than $20,000 often must devote a full 8
percent of their income to pay the marriage tax penalty. Eight percent
is an extraordinary amount for couples who count on every dollar to
make ends meet.
I will give an example of the marriage tax penalty at work. In this
example, the penalty comes about because workers filing as single
taxpayers get a higher standard deduction and because income tax
bracket thresholds for married couples are lower than the thresholds
for singles. Consider a married couple with each spouse earning about
$30,000 a year. They would have paid $7,655 in Federal income taxes
last year. By comparison, two individuals earning the same amount but
filing a joint return would have paid $6,892 between the two of them.
That is a marriage tax penalty of $763, about a 10-percent penalty
simply for being married.
The average penalty paid by couples is even higher than that--about
$1,400 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Think what
families could do with an extra $1,400. They could pay for 3 or 4
months of day care if they chose to send a child outside the home, or
make it easier for one parent to stay at home and take care of the
children if that is what they decide is best for them. They could make
four or five payments on a car or minivan. They could pay their utility
bill for 9 months.
The bill reported by the Finance Committee is the most comprehensive
effort yet to eliminate the marriage penalty. It will increase the
standard for couples filing jointly to twice the deduction allowed for
single taxpayers. It will widen the 15-percent and 28-percent tax
brackets. It will allow more low-income married couples to qualify for
the earned-income credit and preserve the family tax credits that are
currently phased out by the alternative minimum tax.
Unlike President Clinton's so-called relief bill, the plan Chairman
Roth brings to us today does not neglect married couples who choose to
have one parent stay at home to raise their children. It gives them
relief and, in so doing, it let's them know we value the choice they
have made to stay home and raise a family.
Unlike the Clinton plan, which would preserve the penalty for many
couples, our plan would eliminate the marriage tax penalty in its
entirety. Sure, that means revenue loss associated with this
legislation is greater than the President proposed, but the smaller
cost of providing relief under the Clinton plan is also indicative of
just how little it would do to solve the problem. We should not be
stingy when attempting to ensure fairness in the Tax Code.
Passage of this legislation will continue the good progress we have
made this year in making the Tax Code fairer. First, we passed the
measure to repeal the Social Security earnings limitation, a tax that
has unfairly penalized seniors for more than 60 years simply because
they wanted to earn extra income to supplement their monthly retirement
checks. The measure is now law.
Hopefully, the marriage tax penalty repeal bill will pass with a
strong bipartisan majority, and President Clinton will rethink his
opposition and sign it when it reaches his desk.
Another thing we can do to make the Tax Code fairer is eliminate the
death tax. Although most Americans will probably never pay the death
tax, overwhelming majorities still sense there is something terribly
wrong with a system that allows Washington to seize more than half of
whatever is left after someone dies--a system that prevents hard-
working Americans from passing the bulk of their nest eggs to their
children or grandchildren.
We can debate the merits of any number of changes in the Tax Code--
whether a flat tax is preferable to a sales tax; whether tax rates
should be reduced across the board; or whether we should make the Tax
Code more conducive to savings and investment. There are legitimate
points to be made on all sides. But when it comes to fairness, we need
to do what is right. The marriage tax penalty, as the earnings limit
and the death tax, is wrong; it is unfair; and it is time to put it to
rest.
I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas for her hard work. I
thank Chairman Roth for bringing it forward. I appreciate the work of
the majority leader in getting this matter before the Senate for a vote
so we can finally end the marriage tax penalty.
I again thank Senator Hutchison for deferring to me for my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Arizona for making a wonderful statement about the importance of the
marriage tax penalty and tax relief in general for the hard-working
people of our country. He is absolutely right; people are paying a
higher rate of tax than they have ever paid in peacetime.
I am concerned that there seems to be a problem with taking up this
bill and debating amendments. I am very concerned about what appears to
be an effort to not take up this bill and have relevant amendments
considered.
We are going to disagree on the merits of the marriage tax penalty. I
hope we come to a conclusion that will significantly lower the marriage
tax penalty for most of the 21 million American couples who now pay
that penalty just because they are married.
I hope the distinguished minority will allow us to go forward with
the debate. I hope my colleagues will allow us to talk about our
differences on this issue.
I want to be clear; the questions we have just heard in the last hour
appear to be related to offering amendments which are not relevant to
the marriage tax penalty and could, in fact, kill the marriage tax
penalty bill. If it is the Democrats' strategy to kill the marriage tax
penalty bill for 21 million Americans in the name of other amendments
they want to offer that are not relevant, I hope they will think about
that.
We all want to address Medicare and prescription drugs. We have
addressed minimum wage. There are many issues on which we can disagree,
but I hope we can all agree that those are not relevant to the marriage
tax penalty, and that we will not let our disagreements on issues such
as minimum wage or the way we want to provide prescription drugs to
interfere with a very simple concept, a very clean bill that gives
marriage tax penalty relief to 21 million American couples, which is
exactly what the bill before us does.
In the Finance Committee, Republicans and Democrats of good will
debated the marriage tax penalty. They passed a bill out of their
committee, and it deals with the marriage tax penalty. It did not deal
with extraneous issues because, in fact, the President asked us to send
specific bills to him so that he could make his decision on what he
would sign and what he would not, one tax cut at a time.
We will be able to test the President and his commitment to giving
marriage tax penalty relief. We sent him marriage tax penalty relief
last year. We sent significant marriage tax penalty relief to the
President last year, and the President vetoed the bill.
The President said: Oh, you have the marriage tax penalty relief in
conjunction with all these other tax cuts. We had across-the-board tax
rate cuts that
[[Page S2519]]
would have helped every American paying taxes. We had significant cuts
in the inheritance tax. We had other tax cuts for small businesspeople.
The President said: That is too much. In fact, I think he said it was
reckless to give people that much of the money they earned back to
them. I believe he said it was reckless.
The President said: Give me smaller tax cuts. So that is exactly what
we are doing. We are trying to give him a significant cut in the
marriage tax penalty. We are trying to say to the President: We want
marriage tax penalty relief. You have said you are for it. We are going
to send you a bill that includes marriage tax penalty relief, that
deals just with marriage tax penalty relief.
I would think the Senate would be able to come to an agreement on a
marriage tax penalty bill--with relevant amendments of any type--and go
forward to discuss our differences on the merits on marriage tax
penalty relief.
That is what the majority leader offered the Democratic minority. He
offered them the ability to have relevant amendments and disagreements
on the merits of this bill. That is fair. We all understand that. We
have a little different approach on marriage tax penalty relief. We can
debate those issues--if we have the chance. But it seems the Democrats
do not want us to have that chance. It seems they do not want to be
required to have relevant amendments so we can discuss this and give it
to the President to sign.
I hope it is not the Democrats' view that we should put this off. I
hope they are not going to require that we not pass marriage tax
penalty relief this week before we go into recess for a week to spend
Easter with our families. I certainly hope that is not the result we
are going to see here. I hope the result will be reached of a good
marriage tax penalty relief bill before we leave for a week of recess
over the Easter holiday. I think we owe that to the people of this
country.
I have received some mail from my constituents.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator
from Texas will allow me to ask a question of her.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy to answer a question from the
Senator from Kansas who, by the way, has been one of the leaders in
seeking marriage tax penalty relief. He is a cosponsor of the bill
before us today, along with myself. He was a cosponsor of the bill we
sent to the President last year. He has talked on the floor about this
issue perhaps more than any one of us.
I would be happy to answer a question by the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my distinguished colleague from Texas.
My question simply deals with an issue I have been raising now for 3
weeks on this floor, saying that when we get to the time of being able
to actually pass marriage tax penalty relief--and we are there, and it
is on the floor--let us not have a bunch of extraneous amendments that
are irrelevant to the issue, that do not pertain to the issue of the
marriage tax penalty. For 3 weeks I have been coming to the floor
saying, let's not get to that point in time or let's not have the great
Democratic Party saying, we are for marriage penalty relief, and then
block us with other nongermane amendments.
My simple question to the Senator from Texas is, it appears from what
she is describing now, we are actually at that point where we could
pass marriage tax penalty relief before April 15, and we are being
blocked by nongermane amendments of the Democratic Party. Is that the
correct situation we are actually in now?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just say, the distinguished Senator from
Kansas is making a very good point. He has raised this point for the
last 3 weeks. That is, are the Democrats going to block consideration
of a real marriage tax penalty relief bill by requiring that extraneous
amendments that have nothing to do with marriage tax penalty relief be
offered as a condition for bringing this bill to the floor? I think the
distinguished Senator from Kansas is exactly right.
I have to stand up for my majority leader. I am so proud of our
majority leader for standing on the floor and offering the Democrats
every single option that would keep this floor open for debate. He
offered them the option of going forward on their prime amendment. He
offered them the option of offering any relevant amendment. He offered
them the option of just having morning business so that anyone can come
to the Senate floor and talk about their issues of concern. That is
exactly what our majority leader did. He did exactly what he should be
doing to move the business of the Senate along.
I have to say, in response to the Senator from Kansas, I think it is
very important it be known that the majority leader has allowed any
amendment to come before the Senate. Just last week, on the budget,
many of us had amendments that were knocked off--just knocked off the
budget--by an objection from a distinguished Member on the Democratic
side because he did not want to vote on those amendments en bloc. There
were many amendments from both sides of the aisle that were just
knocked off.
The distinguished majority leader did not do that. He allowed them
all to come in. I think he has been the most open he could possibly be
in allowing every single amendment of every possible conception to be
offered on many of the bills we have had before us this year and, most
recently, last week on the budget bill. We have taken a position on
every single controversial issue that has been brought up in our
country since the session started in January.
The distinguished majority leader today is asking that we be able to
debate marriage tax penalty relief, with any number of amendments that
are relevant, because the distinguished majority leader believes we can
have differences in approach.
We passed a marriage tax penalty relief bill last year to which we
all agreed. It was overwhelmingly passed. We sent it to the President,
and it was vetoed. The President said: The tax cut is too much. We
don't want to give that much money back to the people who worked so
hard for it. Send me something smaller.
That is exactly what the Finance Committee is doing. The Finance
Committee voted a bill out--smaller, but it does give relief to every
single married person in this country. It gives total relief to people
in the 15-percent bracket and the 28-percent bracket. It increases the
earned-income tax credit for the poorest working people in our country.
That is what the bill does. So why wouldn't we be able to take the bill
to the floor and debate it?
I think the Senator from Kansas is on to something. The Senator from
Kansas is saying, why would the Democrats want to kill marriage tax
penalty relief with extraneous amendments?
We have had sense of the Senates.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wonder if my distinguished colleague
from Texas would yield for another question.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from
Kansas for a question.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Texas. I appreciate her
leadership and the work she has done on this particular issue.
I guess what is troubling to me about the issues that are being
raised now on the floor is that we actually have a chance to get this
done. It is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This isn't a policy
statement by any of the various parties. This is an actual chance for
us to pass the bill.
The bill has cleared through the House. We could pass it in the
Senate. We could get it to the President. The President has said he
wants to be able to have a smaller tax cut. Here is one that would deal
with the marital tax penalty.
We are getting it blocked. It seems to me the President ought to step
in now and call on the Democrat Members of the Senate to say, no, let's
let this bill clear on through. This is similar to the disaster relief
issue. I remember a couple years ago--my colleague might--we had a
supplemental bill come through and people wanted to have some budget
constraints in that bill. There was an emergency need for that
supplemental, some disaster relief; some flooding was taking place. The
Democratic Party said: We have to have this supplemental for this
emergency relief and really hammered on a lot of people about that
issue until we passed it so that people could get disaster relief.
[[Page S2520]]
And we should have given that disaster relief.
Here you have virtually the same situation. We have a chance to
actually do it--no more sense of the Senate; no more talking about it;
no more just saying we ought to do it. With this bill we do it. We are
actually being blocked by a parliamentary maneuver on the Democrat side
of the aisle.
I hope the President will enter into this debate and call on Democrat
colleagues of ours to say, no, let's have a vote. Let's debate the
different sides of this issue of marriage tax penalty relief. There are
different policy ways to handle it. Let's have that good debate, but
don't tie it up with endless amendments or with what is taking place
now, where we are virtually shutting the floor down because we can't
get agreement. This is too important to play that sort of politics.
I hope my Democrat colleagues are actually for eliminating the
marriage tax penalty. Let us have a spirited debate about their
different ideas. I appreciate my colleague from Texas carrying this
issue forward. We have to deal with this now. Ahead of the April 15
deadline would be the time to do it. This is the point in time to do
it. People filling out their forms are seeing the marriage tax penalty
they are paying. Let's tell them hope is on the way; we will be able to
get this dealt with.
I appreciate my colleague doing this. I hope we can get the President
involved in calling some of our Democrat colleagues to say, let's pass
a bill and let's look at this issue on the merits. I know my colleague
from Texas will continue to press that issue on the floor and
everywhere else she can.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Kansas for making a very
good point. He is saying maybe now it is time for the President to step
in and show his commitment on this issue. Maybe he can work with the
distinguished Democratic minority in saying, I think this is something
we ought to do, such as an emergency.
I guarantee Kervin and Marsha Johnson believe it is an emergency, as
they are filling out their tax forms this week. Kervin is a D.C. police
officer. His wife is a Federal employee. They were married last July.
This year they will pay $1,000 more in taxes because they got married 7
months ago.
I guarantee that Eric and Ayla Hemeon believe this is an emergency.
Eric is a volunteer firefighter and works for a printing company. Ayla
works for a small business. They have been married for 2 years and are
expecting their first child in about a month. Last year they paid
almost $1,100 in a marriage tax penalty just because they got married
and that they would not have paid if they were single. They are filling
out their tax forms right now, and they would like to see the Congress
give them relief from paying that $1,100 next year so they can buy
something for their new baby.
Lawrence and Brendalyn Garrison believe this is an emergency. He is a
corrections officer at Lorton prison. She is a teacher in Fairfax
County, VA. Last year we estimate they paid nearly $600 in a marriage
tax penalty. They are really upset about it. When I talked to them last
week, they said: We have been married 25 years and we think you should
pass marriage tax penalty relief and make it retroactive.
I think they have a good point. They have been paying the penalty for
25 years. This is an error in the Tax Code that must be corrected.
Jerri Dahl of Arlington, TX, believes this is an emergency. He wrote
me a letter and said:
It is tax time again, and I am not going to let it go by
without attempting to do something about what I feel is a
terrible injustice to working people. I am not joking when I
tell you that my husband and I are seriously contemplating
divorce in order not to be penalized financially next year.
I think we have a number of people in this country who believe this
is an emergency, who, as they are writing the check to the Government,
believe the Senate should act on a bill that would give them relief
from a payment they should not have to make. Most people in our country
believe they owe a fair share of taxes to the Government. They love
this country and they want to do their part, but most people don't want
to do more than they think is fair. When a single person in an office
is sitting next to a married person in an office and they have the same
job and make the same salary and the married person has to pay more in
taxes than the single person sitting at the next desk making the same
salary, that doesn't pass the test of fairness.
I commend the majority leader for attempting to bring this bill to
the floor. I commend my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, the Senator
from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham,
and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth. They have been working on this
legislation for a long time. Senator Roth brought the bill forward last
year. The President vetoed it and said it was too much. Senator Roth
came back this year. He originally had a different bill--it was a
doubling of the 15-percent bracket--but he listened to many of us who
said, let's go to 28 percent so people in that middle-income bracket
can get relief. That is the middle-income couple who needs that money
to be able to do more for their children or to buy their first house or
to pay for the car.
The working people of our country deserve better government than they
are getting today. They deserve better government than the Democrats
shutting down the Senate because they don't want open debate on
marriage tax penalty relief.
I hope tomorrow they will change. I hope they will change and say it
is OK to discuss this issue. It is OK to have disagreements, but let's
keep our eye on the ball. Let's come together, Democrats and
Republicans, and correct the inequity in the Tax Code in this country
that says a married person and a single person in the same job making
the same salary should pay the same taxes.
That is what we are seeking today. I hope the Democrats will come
back fresh tomorrow and say: We agree with you. Now is the time to do
the responsible thing. Let's correct the Tax Code to say every person
working in this country should pay their fair share of taxes but no
more. Let's give tax relief to the hard-working married couple who has
been paying a penalty for 6 months or a year or 25 years. Let's correct
it now because now is the time we can.
As the majority leader said about the gas tax reduction that we also
tried to give people today: If not now, when? If not this, how?
Let us be a little more forthcoming in creativity when it comes to
helping the hard-working people of this country have the marriage
penalty relief they deserve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. I compliment my friend and
colleague from the State of Texas for all of her hard work and
leadership in trying to correct the marriage tax penalty. It is an
unfair quirk in our Tax Code that we hope we can finally bring to an
end at some point this year.
(The remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald pertaining to the introduction of S.
2398 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 2402
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________