[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6987-S6989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I preface my comments this afternoon by
praising the distinguished public service of the ranking member of the
Senate Finance Committee, the very able and distinguished senior
Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. Senator Moynihan is not only a
treasure for his own State; he is a national resource. This institution
and this country will greatly miss his public service.
His years of experience have provided context and perspective for
many of the policy debates in which we have been engaged since I have
been a Member of this body and, more specifically, since becoming a
member of the Senate Finance Committee and having had the opportunity
to meet with him. He always acts in a gracious way, with much charm and
considerable Irish wit and humor that makes every meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee something special because of his wisdom, his insight,
and the manner in which he presents his case.
I am pleased to be supportive of the alternative marriage penalty
relief measure of which he is the prime architect, and I will discuss
that more in just a moment.
My purpose in coming to the floor this afternoon is to oppose the
legislation before us today. I do so with regret because it is my view
that it would be possible for us to craft a bipartisan measure which
would accomplish the result sought by those of us who believe the
marriage penalty is unfair and should be eliminated.
Unfortunately, this measure will pass. It will do so on a partisan
vote, and, most assuredly, the President will veto this measure and we
will, in effect, have missed an opportunity to alleviate a burden that
millions of Americans endure, that is unfair, and that we could correct
before this session of the Congress concludes. I regret that very
deeply, and I am hopeful we may extricate ourselves from the situation
we face.
This measure is described as providing relief from a marriage
penalty. Let me say that it sails under false colors. No. 1, it does
not provide the relief its advocates contend. No. 2, it provides
substantial tax relief to those who are not facing a marriage penalty,
who enjoy a marriage bonus, and to at least 29 million others who are
not married at all.
Providing relief in these two other categories may be an area of
legitimate debate and concern, but it could
[[Page S6988]]
hardly be argued that this is providing relief from an onerous marriage
penalty. I much appreciate the support of our distinguished chairman of
the Finance Committee to provide relief to taxpayers who are currently
paying the penalty. As I said, this does much more and, I think in
doing so, diminishes our effort to solve the problem.
My own view is that as a result of the surpluses that have accrued,
we ought to be paying down the national debt and taking care of the
Social Security and Medicare problem that is longstanding and that
threatens to engulf us in those outyears as more and more people become
eligible for that program. We ought to be providing a prescription drug
benefit as part of Medicare and, yes, we ought to be providing some tax
relief, but we ought to do so in a very targeted fashion. I believe
that appropriately one of those targets is eliminating the marriage
penalty, and I will talk more about the specifics of the proposal in
just a moment.
The proposal before us not only is not targeted and is misdirected,
in my view, it is also enormously costly. Although we are debating this
matter in the context of reconciliation, a concept that I suspect is
lost on most Americans who may be watching the proceedings of the
Senate this afternoon, that is in a 5-year constraint. In point of
fact, what we are talking about is a 10-year bill and a 10-year cost.
The proposal the majority advances would cost $248 billion. In my
view, we squander much of the surplus that could be devoted to these
other priorities and yet fail to achieve what the majority says is its
priority, and that is to eliminate the marriage penalty.
Let me talk for a moment about what the marriage penalty is because
not everybody perhaps understands it. Because of certain anomalies in
the Tax Code, when millions and millions of married couples in which
both are wage earners--a situation that has become increasingly
frequent in recent years--combine their incomes, some married couples
pay a penalty, and that is wrong and we ought to correct that. It is
indefensible and, indeed, one can even argue that it is morally
improper as well.
Twenty-five million Americans pay a marriage penalty, and that is the
target to which I want to address my comments.
Because of the anomalies in the Tax Code, another 21 million
Americans receive a marriage bonus; that is, they benefit by reason of
the provisions of the Tax Code. In my view, that is not what the target
ought to be. Those married couples will, under the provision of the
Republican plan, receive a bonus on top of a bonus, and that, it seems
to me, ought not be where our priorities are focused.
Let me point, if I may, to the chart to my right. The total cost of
this plan, as I indicated, is $248 billion over a 10-year period of
time. Note that 40 percent of those who will be beneficiaries under the
plan--40 percent receive 40 percent of the $248 billion; 60 percent of
that $248 billion goes to those who are in the bonus category; and 23
percent do not have any penalty at all, no impact by virtue of the
marriage penalty.
Of the total amount we are providing in the form of tax relief, only
40 percent--substantially less than half--actually is targeted to the
marriage penalty. That is on what we ought to be focusing our
attention. Sixty percent of the tax relief provided in this measure has
nothing to do with the marriage penalty at all.
Moreover, under the bill that is offered by the majority, we have
individuals who will be affected. Some 5 million additional taxpayers
will be caught up under what is referred to as an alternative minimum
tax. The Republican proposal does not reduce the tax rolls of the AMT,
or the alternative minimum tax; it greatly expands it. That is why I
have called this proposal something that masquerades as marriage
penalty relief because it is much more than that and, at the same time,
much less.
The proposal the majority has advanced in terms of its ostensible
claim of providing a marriage penalty relief is, at best, a half
trillion dollars.
Earlier in my comments, I praised the ranking member of the Finance
Committee, the able Senator from New York. His approach, it strikes me,
does what we are trying to accomplish: It eliminates the marriage
penalty, but it does so in a very targeted and specific way, and that
ought to be the guiding principle. If we are serious about eliminating
the marriage penalty and providing relief for those taxpayers, 25
million in America, that ought to be the focus. It is simple and is
more targeted.
The reconciliation bill before us relies on a complex scheme of
bracketed extensions, deduction increases, and allowance of personal
preference.
One would have to have a Ph.D. from MIT to figure how the
calculations are made. I thought, in the waning days of the 106th
Congress, if there was one thing on which we could agree--both those on
the other side of the aisle and those on our side of the aisle; those
who find themselves to the right of center, to the left of center, and
the moderates--we ought not to do anything to make the Tax Code more
complicated.
Each summer, as I know a number of my colleagues do, I spend the
entire recess doing townhall meetings across my State. Not
surprisingly, there are different views as to what we ought to be
doing. But no one has argued: You know, what you need to do, Senator,
is, return to Washington and try to make this Tax Code more
complicated.
May I say that the proposal advanced by the majority will add
dozens--maybe hundreds--of new pages of regulations. By contrast, the
Democratic alternative provides simplicity.
Taxpayers would be allowed a choice, not a difficult concept for us
in America: If you benefit under the Tax Code, as a married person, by
filing as a single person, that is your option, and you can do so--no
ifs, ands, or buts. And conversely, if you benefit as a married person
by filing a joint return, that is your choice as well. It is that
simple. Whatever fits your individual need. It is tailored, it is
specific, and it is simple.
That is what we are talking about. And I believe that is what we
should be all about. Moreover, it is far less expensive than the
proposal offered by the Republican majority--much less expensive.
It leaves monies to deal with the priorities I have outlined that I
think most Americans support: Providing extended solvency to Social
Security and Medicare and a prescription drug benefit, and, yes, to pay
down that enormous national debt that exploded during the 1980s and
early 1990s.
Moreover, the proposal that we advance, the one that Senator Moynihan
has so ably crafted, completely wipes out the marriage penalty--
completely wipes it out--without irresponsibly awarding cash bonuses to
those who already receive a break under the Tax Code.
While the majority's proposal only addresses a grand total of three
marriage penalties in the entire Tax Code, the proposal that we offer
would address every single one of the 65 marriage penalties in the Tax
Code. It is understandable, it is simple, it is targeted, and it is
comprehensive. It does the job.
I will illustrate this point of simplicity with an example, if I may.
I have asserted that under the plan the majority has advocated, it
does not wipe out the marriage penalty relief for many. This chart I
have here shows an example. Under this example, a married couple--wife
and husband--each earn $35,000 a year. Their joint return reflects
$70,000 in joint income.
As individuals, they would pay a tax of $8,407. But if they were
filing a joint return, they would pay $9,532. Under the current law,
they must file jointly. That is the marriage penalty. That is what we
are talking about, probably not a situation that is too dissimilar for
thousands of married couples--perhaps hundred of thousands. By virtue
of being married, they pay $1,125 more than two single individuals with
the identical incomes--the woman earning $35,000, the man
earning $35,000, who are able to file individually as opposed to a
joint return.
Under the bill before us, only $443 of relief is provided. That is
only 39 percent of the penalty. So to those couples who are in the
situation of being led to believe that if the bill that has been
advocated by the majority is passed, they are going to get relief, they
are going to be very disappointed because they are not getting all the
relief; they are only getting 39 percent.
Under the Democratic plan, crafted by the distinguished Senator from
New
[[Page S6989]]
York, Mr. Moynihan, 100-percent relief is achieved, the full $1,125.
And how is that done? Not through a convoluted approach of either
compressing or enlarging the brackets, or adjusting the deductions, or
from some other kind of incantation in the Tax Code, with which we are
all so familiar making our Tax Code such a complicated burden for the
average citizen to fill out. By the simple provision--one line in the
Tax Code--it is your choice. You may file individually or you may file
a joint return.
Obviously, this couple would choose to file individually and in so
doing would reduce their tax liability by $1,125. That is real relief.
That is targeted relief. That is what our proposal is all about. It is
easy to understand. It provides the virtue of simplicity. It does the
job, and it is targeted.
I am going to conclude because I know the distinguished Presiding
Officer has other matters to attend, and this Senator does as well.
I am hopeful that we can extricate ourselves from this abyss into
which we are about to fall. Most of us in the Chamber agree that the
marriage penalty is fundamentally wrong. We can solve it with a
bipartisan approach, less expensively, simply, and completely by
adopting this choice. I certainly hope that we do so.
I pledge to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I look
forward to working with them and hope that we can accomplish it. The
course of action that we are pursuing is a collision course. The wheels
are going to come off this train. This proposal will not become law,
nor should it, because it does not provide complete relief from the
marriage penalty, but it does provide extraordinary tax relief to those
who are unaffected in any way by it, for those who already receive a
bonus. That is not the kind of targeted tax relief we ought to be
providing.
Mr. President, I think from a parliamentary point of view, all I need
to do is yield the floor, and under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, we are in adjournment; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
Mr. BRYAN. I notice the enthusiastic response by the distinguished
Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, you will be pleased to hear, and our colleagues who
are listening will be pleased to hear, I yield the floor.
____________________