[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2664-S2665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
marriage tax relief bill. You could characterize it as tax relief or 
you could characterize it, I suppose, as a tax cut. But the true 
characterization is one that Senator Hutchison has over and over 
emphasized: This is tax correction. The bill is intended to correct the 
Tax Code. The code needs correction because it is an assault on the 
very values of our culture.
  There is a fundamental unfairness when the Tax Code is at war with 
our values and penalizes a basic social institution such as the 
institution of marriage. The American people know this. They understand 
it is not right to have a Tax Code that penalizes marriage. The vast 
majority of the Members of this body understand this. This last week, 
during consideration of the budget resolution, the Senate voted 99-1 on 
the Hutchison amendment to support marriage tax relief. In other words, 
let's abandon the policy of punishing married people who pay higher 
taxes in the Tax Code.
  Despite this overwhelming vote less than 10 days ago, some of my 
colleagues are now trying to stop or to delay the marriage tax relief 
measure by demanding nonrelevant amendments. Yesterday, several 
Senators from the other side of the aisle spoke on the floor and agreed 
there is unfairness in the Tax Code and that it is fundamentally unfair 
to tax people only because they marry. However, these same Senators 
then said the Finance Committee bill gives tax cuts to people who do 
not need them. That seems an arrogant statement to me, to suppose 
Government knows best how to spend the people's money. In addition, one 
Senator opposed the finance bill, asking, how many of these tax cuts 
can we afford to give away?
  I submit, the real question is, how much of the hard-earned money can 
families afford to have taken away by an unfair system which penalizes 
men and women, a schoolteacher, a fireman, for getting married and 
beginning a family? How much longer will we continue to allow married 
couples to be penalized just for getting married?
  We are here to correct that fundamental unfairness. It is something 
that has grown up in the code. It is like a weed which is taking over 
the garden. Good things are prevented by its presence. We ought to pull 
it out and make sure we have a Tax Code that does not make it harder 
for young people to be married and have a family.
  Are we for correcting this unfairness? Are we against it? Or are we 
just saying that we are? One cannot say they oppose this penalty and 
then fight to take the relief away that is provided in the bill. Our 
colleagues in the House

[[Page S2665]]

have already demonstrated dramatically that they back a correction for 
this injustice.
  In February, the House passed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 
2000. Thanks to the good work of the Senate Finance Committee, under 
the direction of Senator Roth, we have a measure which will help 
substantially lessen the burden of this penalty that has been laid upon 
the families of America.
  This bill makes great strides in providing relief and correcting this 
injustice. Twenty-five million American couples pay an average of 
$1,400 a year extra simply because they are married. Ending the penalty 
will give couples the freedom to make the choices they ought to make: 
The choice to be married and have a durable, lasting relationship of 
marriage as the foundation for the family unit.
  The marriage tax penalty forces some Americans to make compromises 
instead of real choices. Mothers and fathers should be able to choose 
whether both parents will be employed outside the home based on what is 
in the family's best interest, or whether there should be a nonworking 
spouse who stays in the home. The Senate bill respects the value of the 
contribution of the spouse who stays home, and that is very important. 
Our Tax Code should respect the value that is added to the equation by 
a stay-at-home spouse who makes the family a stronger unit and builds 
for this country the kind of integrity that strong families provide.
  In conclusion, no one has ever devised or developed or even dreamed 
of a better department of education, social services, a better 
department of health, education, and welfare than the family, and it is 
time for our Tax Code.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time requested by the distinguished 
Senator has expired. Who yields time?

                          ____________________