[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 87 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5659-H5660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, over the last several years many of us 
have asked a question that we hear back at home time and time again. I 
represent the South Side of Chicago, the south suburbs, Cook and Will 
Counties, communities like Joliet, bedroom communities like Morris, 
Frankfort, a lot of farm towns.
  I find whether I am in the city, the suburbs, or the country people 
often ask a pretty basic, fundamental question. That is, they ask a 
question: Is it right, is it fair that under our tax code 25 million 
married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in taxes just 
because they are married? They ask that fundamental question of 
fairness: Is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code if one 
chooses to get married, their taxes are going to go up?
  We call that the marriage tax penalty, and it occurs where we have a 
husband and wife who are both in the work force, a two-earner household 
who, when they choose to join together in holy matrimony, one of our 
society's most basic institutions, they end up paying higher taxes than 
if they stayed single or got divorced. The vast majority of folks back 
home tell me they believe that is wrong.
  The marriage tax penalty essentially works this way. Let me introduce 
a couple here, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers 
from Joliet, Illinois. They just had a baby this year and are starting 
a family. But because they are both in the work force, they suffer on 
average the average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400.
  Back home in Joliet that $1,400, that is 3 months of day care for 
their child at the local day care center while they both teach. That is 
a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. The marriage tax penalty on 
average is real money to real people.
  For some here in this House and some over in the Senate, particularly 
the folks down at the White House, they want to spend that money here 
in Washington rather than letting good folks like Shad and Michelle 
Hallihan keep what they suffer in the marriage tax penalty, money they 
could spend on their newborn baby.
  Madam Speaker, Shad and Michelle's marriage tax penalty occurs 
because when we are married, we file jointly, we combine our income. So 
Shad and Michelle with their current income, if they stayed single or 
just chose to live together, they would each pay in the 15 percent tax 
bracket. But because they combine their income when they file jointly, 
they are forced to pay in a higher tax bracket, which causes them to 
pay $1,400 more in higher taxes.
  I am proud to say as a key part of the Republican agenda this year 
this House passed overwhelmingly the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 
6. Every Republican and thankfully 48 Democrats broke ranks with their 
leadership and said they, too, wanted to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. We passed it out of the House with overwhelming bipartisan 
support.
  Unfortunately, I guess I should congratulate the Senate Democrats 
because they prevented the Marriage Tax Elimination Act from moving 
through the Senate. Of course, we are now moving it through the budget 
process to get around their parliamentary procedure that they are using 
to prevent us from eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  Later this week we are going to be voting on an agreement between the 
House and Senate which essentially wipes out the marriage tax for 25 
million couples. In fact, the legislation we will be voting on later 
this week is

[[Page H5660]]

identical to what the House passed earlier this year, doubling the 
standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles. That will 
help those who do not itemize their taxes who suffer the marriage tax 
penalty, essentially wiping it out for every one of them.
  We also widen the 15 percent bracket so joint filers can earn twice 
as much as single filers in the 15 percent tax bracket. The benefit of 
that is that means if one is an itemizer, someone who owns a home, and 
most middle class family do, that is why they itemize their taxes, 
they, too, will see their marriage tax penalty eliminated.
  There are some on the other side and those at the White House who 
say, well, maybe we will do a little marriage tax relief, and we will 
just help those who do not itemize. So they are saying if one owns a 
home and is married and suffers the marriage tax penalty, that is 
tough. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, want them to continue suffering the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Madam Speaker, I believe there is a need to help everyone who suffers 
the marriage tax penalty, whether they own a home or not, whether they 
itemize their taxes or not.
  We have a great opportunity this week, Madam Speaker. I invite every 
Democrat to join with every Republican in voting to eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty. Think what it means to young couples like Shad 
and Michelle Hallihan, two hard-working public school teachers from 
Joliet, Illinois, who, because they chose to live together in holy 
matrimony and chose to join together in marriage, now suffer the 
marriage tax penalty. We are going to help them by eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Madam Speaker, I want to invite everyone in this House to join 
together in helping good people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Let us 
do it. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us do it in a 
bipartisan way. I hope this time the President will sign it into law.

                          ____________________