[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7104-S7109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are poised to approve the Marriage Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is a great victory for the 
American family--all America's families. It is not one that has been 
won, as much as it has been earned.
  This bill is the centerpiece of our efforts to reduce the tax 
overpayment by American families. It is fair, it is responsible, it is 
the right thing to do for American families. And it is long overdue 
that they receive it.
  The provisions in this bill will help over 45 million families. That 
is virtually every family in the U.S. Some of my colleagues have argued 
that almost half of those families--21 million families located in 
every state in this country--do not deserve any tax relief. I reject 
that argument. I reject it because in my home state of Delaware it 
would mean leaving over 30,000 families that contributed to our ever-
growing budget surplus out of family tax relief.
  All of these American families have contributed to the record surplus 
that we have in Washington. They deserve to get some of it back. I 
believed that

[[Page S7105]]

three months ago when I first unveiled this package. And I believe it 
even more so today with the new numbers released by the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Today's bill amounts to just 3 percent of the total budget surplus 
over the next five years. It amounts to just 8 percent of the total 
non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. That is less than 
a dime on the dollar of American's tax overpayment. By any comparison 
or estimation, this marriage tax relief is fiscally responsible.
  I would ask those who oppose this family tax relief: Just how big 
will America's budget surplus have to get before America's families 
deserve to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? if 
8 percent of just the overpayment is too big a refund, how little 
should it be? How long do they have to wait? How hard do they have to 
work? How large an overpayment do they have to make?
  This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of 
marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the 
rate brackets, and the earned income credit. And we have done so in a 
way that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in 
the tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home 
parent is not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both 
parents work outside the home. This is an important principle because 
these are important families.
  Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way 
of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more 
progressive. Families with incomes under $100,000 pay less than 50 
percent of the total federal taxes; yet under our bill, these same 
families receive substantially more than 50 percent of the benefits.
  I do not understand how people can claim that this bill is tilted 
towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose 
this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is 
not--but because it is tilted away from Washington. As a result, some 
of America's tax overpayment will flow back to America's families.
  Mr. President, it is time for us to act. Families across America are 
waiting for us to make good on our promise. They are waiting for us to 
return some of this record surplus to them. Let's approve the Marriage 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 and let's divorce the marriage 
tax penalty from the tax code once and for all.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the current tax code is at war with our 
values--the tax code penalizes the basic social institution: marriage. 
The American people know that this is unfair--they know it is not right 
that the code penalizes marriage. I commend the Senate on the vote we 
are going to take today to end this long-standing problem.
  Twenty-five million American couples pay an average of approximately 
$1,400 in marriage penalty annually as a result of the marriage 
penalty. Ending this penalty gives couples the freedom to make their 
own choices with their money. Couples could use the $1,400 for: 
retirement, education, home, children's needs.
  This bill will also provide needed tax relief to American families--
39 million American married couples, 830,000 in Missouri. Couples like 
Bruce and Kay Morton, from Camdenton, MO, who suffer from this unfair 
penalty. Mr. Morton wrote me a note so simple that even a Senator could 
understand it: ``Please vote yes for the Marriage Tax relief of 2000.''
  Another Missourian, Travis Harms, of Independence, Missouri, wrote to 
tell me that the marriage penalty hits him and his wife, Laura. Mr. 
Harms graciously offered me his services in ending the marriage 
penalty. ``I would like to thank you for your support and effort 
towards the elimination of the unfair `marriage tax.' If there is any 
way I can support or encourage others to help this dream become a 
reality, I would be honored to help.''
  I am grateful to Travis Harms and Bruce Morton for their support. And 
I want to repay them by making sure we end this unfair penalty on 
marriage.
  The marriage penalty places an undue burden on American families. 
According to the Tax Foundation, an American family spends more of 
their family budget on taxes than on health care, food, clothing, and 
shelter combined. The tax bill should not be the biggest bill families 
like the Morton's and Harms' face.
  And families certainly should not be taxed extra because they are 
married. Couples choosing marriage are making the right choice for 
society. It is in our interest to encourage them to make this choice.
  Unfortunately, the marriage penalty discourages this choice. The 
marriage penalty may actually contribute to one of society's most 
serious and enduring problems. There are now twice as many single 
parent households in America than there were when this penalty was 
first enacted.
  In its policies, the government should uphold the basic values that 
give strength and vitality to our culture. Marriage and family are a 
cornerstone of civilization, but are heavily penalized by the federal 
tax system.
  The marriage penalty is so patently unfair no one will defend it. 
Those on the other side of the aisle are making a stab at addressing 
the marriage penalty, even though they are not willing to provide 
relief to all couples who face this unfair penalty. Their bill 
implements a choose or lose system for some couples who are subject to 
the marriage penalty. Their bill phases out marriage penalty relief, 
and does not cover all of the couples who face this unfair penalty.
  This issue, however, is not about income, it's about fairness. It is 
unfair to tax married couples more than single people, no matter what 
their income. The Finance Committee bill provides tax relief to all 
married couples.
  In addition, the Finance Committee bill makes sure that couples do 
not face the risk of differential treatment. Under the minority bill, 
one family with a husband earning $50,000 and a mother staying home 
with her children will pay more in taxes than a family with a combined 
income of $50,000, with the wife and husband each earning $25,000. This 
system creates a disincentive for parents to stay at home with their 
children. The Republican plan will treat all couples equally.
  While the minority bill is flawed, I am encouraged that they are 
finally acknowledging that the marriage penalty is a problem. I am also 
encouraged that President Clinton has also acknowledged the unfair 
nature of the marriage penalty. But unfortunately, Treasury Secretary 
Larry Summers has announced that he would advise the President to veto 
marriage penalty relief.
  I say to the President and to my colleagues on the other side: being 
against the marriage penalty means that you have to be willing to 
eliminate it. You cannot just say you oppose the penalty, and then 
fight to keep the penalty in law, or to keep part of the penalty in law 
for some people. Join us to vote for the elimination of the penalty, 
and let us bring this important tax relief bill to the American people 
together.
  The marriage penalty has endured for too long and harmed too many 
couples. It is time to abolish the prejudice that charges higher taxes 
for being married. It is time to take the tax out of saying ``I do.''
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Marriage 
Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act. This bill would eliminate much 
of the so-called marriage penalty contained in the current tax code by 
expanding the standard filing deduction for married couples filing 
jointly, widening the tax brackets, increasing the income phase-outs 
for the earned income credit, and extending permanently the 
preservation of the family tax credits.
  My main reason for supporting this measure is the simple fact that I 
do not believe that the federal government should be penalizing 
marriage. If two people meet and fall in love, they should not have to 
worry about whether their formal union will bring about adverse tax 
consequences. After all, newly married couples have enough to worry 
about, without the added burden of increased tax liability.
  Mr. President, one of the basic principles of our tax system is that 
it treats individuals in similar situations in the same way. In other 
words, if two individuals make the same amount of money and the rest of 
their lifestyles are similar, they pay the same amount of tax.
  When two people marry, these principles of fairness should remain in

[[Page S7106]]

place, even if the basis of tax liability changes from the individual 
to the family. Two people, as a married couple, simply should not have 
to pay higher taxes than they would as singles. And furthermore, two 
couples who make the same income should pay the same amount of taxes. 
The proposal before us today adheres to those principles. The 
alternative offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
does not.
  Mr. President, I support the marriage tax relief proposal currently 
before us now--it is a step toward eliminating one of the most 
egregious examples of unfairness and complexity in the tax code today. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support its final passage.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of 
material in S. 2839 considered to be extraneous under subsections 
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or 
exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a 
determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
  To the best of my knowledge, S. 2839, the Marriage Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2000, contains no material considered to be 
extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of 
section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this week the Senate was required to 
choose between two plans to correct the marriage tax penalty. 
Unfortunately, both of them were flawed.
  Make no mistake. The marriage penalty is wrong. The tax code should 
not penalize people simply because they choose to marry. As our economy 
continues to thrive, we have the opportunity to address the unfairness 
in the tax code. But we must do so in a manner that is fiscally 
responsible. We must provide relief to those unfairly penalized, but 
avoid an unwarranted windfall to those who already receive favorable 
treatment.
  I believe the only way to fully eliminate the marriage penalty is to 
allow couples to decide whether to file jointly, or as individuals. As 
we have heard throughout this debate, there are 65 different places in 
the tax code which can cause married couples to pay more tax than they 
otherwise would. By allowing couples to choose between filing singly or 
jointly, we allow each couple to choose the best outcome for their 
personal situation. That is the approach I favor.
  And that is why I supported Senator Moynihan's proposal. His plan 
takes the right approach, and would completely eliminate the marriage 
penalty for couples making $100,000 or less. However, I believe Senator 
Moynihan's proposal did not go far enough to completely restore 
fairness for all couples, no matter what their income.
  I did not support the plan proposed by Senator Roth. It would deal 
with only three of the instances in the tax code that can result in a 
marriage penalty, and would direct even greater benefits to people who 
already experience a ``marriage bonus'' under current tax law. The Roth 
proposal carries a tremendous price tag, with costs ballooning out of 
control as the baby boomers begin to retire--and despite its costs, 
would provide only modest relief from the marriage penalty for the 
great majority of couples over the next ten years.
  We have heard that this legislation faces a veto. We will have the 
opportunity to return to this issue, and find a better solution, one 
that is affordable, simple, and effective.
  The plan I offered in the Finance Committee in April could, I 
believe, form the basis for a compromise. It provides a simple, 
elegant, and complete solution to the marriage penalty, based on the 
concept of optional single filing.
  Optional single filing could not be simpler--taxpayers decide whether 
to file as a couple or as two single individuals, whichever method 
produces the smallest family tax bill. Optional single filing means 
that couples who actually pay the marriage penalty get the relief from 
it.
  Let's review one more time why the marriage tax penalty happens. 
Under our system, marriage affects tax liabilities because married 
couples pay income taxes jointly rather than as two individuals. 
Because tax brackets, deductions, and credits for couples are not 
always set at exactly twice the levels for individuals, married couples 
do not always pay the same taxes as they would if the same two people 
were unmarried. As I said, experts have identified 65 separate 
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that can affect taxpayers 
differently based on marital status.
  About 42 percent of couples pay more filing jointly than if they were 
not married and filed as two individuals. This is defined as a marriage 
tax penalty. About half of all married couples pay less. This is known 
as a marriage tax bonus. The remainder see no significant difference 
either way.
  The Roth proposal dealt conclusively with only one of the provisions 
that gives rise to a marriage penalty. If the difference in the 
standard deduction is responsible for your marriage penalty, the 
Republican plan has all the relief you need.
  If the widths of the rate brackets causes you to pay more as a 
married couple than you would if you were two single individuals, the 
Roth plan will give you some help. Likewise, if your penalty stems from 
the structure of the earned income tax credit, the Republicans have a 
little something to offer. But for those two marriage penalty 
situations--and the 62 other provisions in the Internal Revenue Code 
that could result in a couple paying a marriage penalty--only optional 
single filing can provide complete relief.
  That's why I so strongly support optional single filing. It's the 
best way of dealing with the marriage penalty--give people the 
flexibility to decide what's best for them.
  And, because optional single filing would not give tens of billions 
of dollars in new tax breaks for wealthy individuals who already get a 
marriage bonus, it would allow us to pay down the national debt faster. 
Every time I visit with North Dakotans, they tell me that paying down 
the national debt should be a top priority. Paying down debt will 
strengthen our economy and reduce interest costs. And it will ensure 
that our children and grandchildren are not saddled with future tax 
increases to pay for the debt we ran up in the past three decades.
  This plan is simple. It is complete. And it matches our nation's 
priorities. I hope that as this debate moves forward, we can use the 
plan as a basis for an effective compromise.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of eliminating the 
marriage penalty for working families. Eliminating the marriage 
penalty--which results when a married couple pays more in taxes than 
they would if they had remained single--is the right thing to do. 
Unfortunately, the approach the majority offers is fiscally 
irresponsible and provides more than half its benefits to couples who 
pay no marriage penalty. By contrast, the approach I support provides 
tax relief only to those who actually pay marriage penalties, and it 
allows us to provide additional, targeted tax cuts.
  A few months ago, I introduced my own approach to the marriage 
penalty problem, the Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000, S. 
2043. My bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit--up to a maximum 
of $500 in 2001, rising to $1,700 in 2004--that reduces or eliminates 
the marriage penalty on a couple's earned income. My bill provides 
immediate marriage penalty relief to millions of American families, 
completely eliminating the penalty for 59 percent of families that face 
a penalty in the first year. Plus, it provides tax relief only to those 
families who currently pay more when they marry than they would if they 
had remained single, which is the true measure of the marriage penalty.
  Because it is more targeted to those with marriage penalties, my bill 
is also more fiscally responsible. The Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief 
Act costs $80 billion over ten years--$33 billion in the five-year 
reconciliation window--or just over $10 billion a year by the year 
2010. It costs only one-third as much as the Republican plan, yet it 
eliminates the marriage penalty within four years for more than 80 
percent of families.
  In other words, Mr. President, my bill is targeted, simple, and 
affordable, as is the Democratic alternative offered by Senator 
Moynihan. Both approaches allow us to honestly deal with

[[Page S7107]]

the marriage penalty while also providing enough room for other 
priorities, such as prescription drug coverage, a college tuition tax 
credit, or a long term care tax credit. Given the likelihood that the 
Democratic alternative will fail, and the Republican bill will be 
vetoed by the President, it is my hope that my proposal will eventually 
receive serious consideration.
  Compare the advantages of both the Democratic alternative and the 
Bayh approach to the Republican bill that we are debating here today. 
The Republican bill is expensive, costing $248 billion over ten years 
and $56 billion over five years. If allowed to continue until the year 
2010, it would cost more than $40 billion every year. The bill is 
poorly targeted, with nearly 60 percent of the total tax relief going 
to couples who today pay less in tax when they marry, rather than more.
  In addition, the Republican bill provides immediate relief only to a 
small number of families because it phases in over a seven-year period. 
In fact, the Republican bill has not even completely phased in by the 
end of the five-year budget window, thereby hiding its true cost.
  I appreciate the argument made by the other side of the aisle that 
with significant surpluses on the horizon, some of that money ought to 
be returned to taxpayers. I also agree that we ought to do something 
about the marriage penalty, because people should not have to pay more 
tax simply because they fall in love and get married, as the two 
Senators from Texas point out often with both irony and humor. But 
unfortunately, eliminating the marriage penalty is not the only 
challenge we face. The majority's proposal severely hampers our ability 
to cut other taxes, pay down the debt, and make needed investments in 
Medicare and education. It provides most relief for those who pay no 
marriage penalty and offers incomplete relief for those who do. I 
support a better, more balanced approach and look forward to the day 
when it is adopted.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not like the marriage penalty. I think 
it is poor public policy. Unfortunately, the Senate Finance Committee 
has presented us with a bill, sponsored by Senator Roth, that does not 
completely eliminate the marriage penalty. What this bill would do 
instead is direct a majority of its tax benefits to married couples who 
already benefit from a marriage bonus and to certain individuals who 
have never even been married. Hard working married couples in Vermont 
deserve an honest, targeted measure to eliminate the marriage penalty, 
not the proposal that is before us today.
  Of the 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code, the Republican bill 
eliminates only one and partially addresses only two more. It would do 
absolutely nothing to get rid of the 62 other marriage penalties in 
areas such as the Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits, Individual 
Retirement Accounts, and the taxation of Social Security benefits, 
programs that are important to Vermonters. In addition, by increasing 
the deduction and expanding brackets, this bill would benefit married 
couples who experience a marriage bonus, at a cost of $55.6 billion 
over five years and $40 billion per year after that.
  I support the alternative amendment, proposed by Senator Moynihan, 
because it would eliminate all 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code 
for couples with up to $100,000 in adjusted gross income. This common 
sense plan would accomplish this relief by allowing married couples to 
calculate their tax liability jointly or as single individuals. The 
alternative would also significantly shrink the marriage penalty for 
couples with between $100,000 and $150,000 in adjusted gross income. 
According to the Vermont Department of Taxes, in 1998, 113,132 married 
couples in Vermont had an adjusted gross income under $150,000. That is 
94.5 percent of all married couples ion Vermont that filed taxes that 
year. Under Senator Moyinhan's proposal, Vermonters get more bank for 
their buck and those married couples who are truly hurt by the marriage 
penalty get a break.
  Senator Roth's bill, when fully phased in, would cost American 
taxpayers $40 billion a year, $10 billion more than Senator Moynihan's 
proposal, but would leave 62 marriage penalties untouched. In addition, 
an analysis by the Department of Treasury indicates that only 40 
percent of the benefits of this bill would actually reduce the marriage 
penalty. This means that 60 percent of the benefits are directed to 
other cuts--expensive cuts that do nothing to provide senior citizens 
with a prescription drug benefit, nothing to improve our children's 
education, nothing to help repay our national debt.
  If the Republican bill is enacted, we will have made little progress 
in eliminating the marriage penalty--one small step as opposed the 
giant leap that we would get with Senator Moynihan's alternative. I 
support an end to the marriage penalty and I will continue to work with 
other Senators to pass affordable legislation that is targeted at 
eliminating all of the marriage penalties in our Tax Code. Vermonters 
and all hard working Americans deserve nothing less.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the marriage tax penalty is an injustice 
in the Federal income Tax Code that results in a married couple filing 
a joint return paying more in taxes than if the same couple were not 
married and filed as individuals. Today, the Senate will vote to end 
this injustice.
  There is no question that the American people, both married and 
single, are troubled and upset by the marriage tax penalty, and that 
they are telling Congress and the President to end this injustice in 
the Tax Code. I know every one of my 99 colleagues in the Senate 
receives letters like those that arrive in my mail every day from 
Washington state--letters urging support for legislation to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty.
  I will share just one of the hundreds and hundreds I have recently 
received. The Gaylord's of Sumner, Washington wrote to me and described 
how they learned of the penalty the Tax Code imposed on them for being 
married when preparing their tax filings for this year. The letter 
reads, ``Here is what I did to see the penalty: I simply clicked on the 
`single' box on my wife's return (as it is on the computer, it is a 
simple thing to do) and her tax went from sending $400 to the IRS, to 
an instant recalculation of getting $500 back!'' Computer tax software 
made it easily and brutally clear to the Gaylord's that they were being 
punished by the Tax Code for being married to each other, that they 
would pay less in taxes if they were single.
  Mr. President, the marriage tax penalty is as outrageous as it is 
indefensible. President Clinton, however, has threatened to veto this 
marriage tax penalty legislation. President Clinton should reverse his 
threatened veto, sign marriage tax penalty legislation into law and 
bring fairness to the Tax Code. No longer should those who fall in love 
and get married be penalized by the Tax Code.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican marriage penalty 
tax reform proposal and support the Democratic alternative for three 
simple reasons: the Democratic alternative is targeted, provides 
comprehensive relief, and is fiscally responsible, and the Republican 
plan is not.
  First, the Democratic relief plan is targeted: It confers 100% of its 
benefits on couples suffering a marriage penalty--when two individuals 
pay more in income taxes as a married couple, filing jointly than they 
would if they remained single. The Republican plan confers only 40 
percent of its benefits to taxpayers who currently suffer a penalty. Of 
the remaining benefits, 37 percent go to couples currently receiving a 
marriage bonus--when two individuals pay less in income taxes as a 
married couple, filing jointly than they would if they remained single. 
So the Republican plan is effectively a singles penalty bill.
  Second, the Democratic relief plan is comprehensive: There are 65 
areas of the tax code where a marriage penalty occurs--from the 
standard deduction to the earned income tax credit. The Democratic plan 
addresses all of them. In fact it completely eliminates the penalty--in 
all its forms--for couples earning up to $100,000, 80% of all married 
couples. The Republican plan addresses only 3 of the 65 places in the 
tax code where the marriage penalty occurs--it doesn't address the 
other 62. So the Republican plan provides inadequate, incomplete 
relief.
  Despite these deficiencies, or perhaps, because of them, the 
Republican plan carries an enormous, fiscally irresponsible price tag 
of $40 billion per

[[Page S7108]]

year when fully in place--compared with $29 billion per year for the 
Democratic alternative. Allocating so much money to an inefficient, 
poorly targeted tax cut leaves no room for other important national 
priorities and threatens the very prosperity that has made tax cuts 
possible. The Democratic proposal is simply a better value for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes off the majority leader's 
time to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are not talking about a tax cut 
today. We are talking about a tax correction. We are talking about 21 
million married couples in this country having tax equity.
  We have heard the arguments: This is a tax for the rich. Is a 
schoolteacher who makes $30,000 a year and a policeman who makes 
$32,000 a year a couple who are rich? That is what the other side would 
have you believe. They think this is a tax cut for the rich.
  I ask the question: Does a schoolteacher and a policeman believe the 
Federal Government can decide better how they should spend their own 
money than they can decide for themselves? That is what it gets down 
to.
  When I hear the other side saying this is going to cost the 
Government too much, I think: Who do they think this money belongs to? 
Do they think it belongs to the people who earn it or do they think it 
belongs to people in Washington, DC, who have never met the families 
who are paying these taxes? I think the money belongs to the people who 
earn it.
  We are looking at a $2 trillion non-Social Security surplus. We are 
talking about tax cuts. With the death tax and the marriage tax penalty 
relief that we have given in the last week in this Senate, it would be 
10 percent of the projected non-Social Security surplus--10 cents on 
the dollar.
  What are we going to do with this money if we don't let people keep 
more of the money they earn? Are we going to dream up new programs that 
will not affect these people? I don't think that is the right approach.
  We are talking about tax relief for hard-working American families--
people who make $30,000 a year or $32,000 a year or $35,000 a year--
because we believe marriage should not be a taxable event. We believe 
people should be treated the same if they get married. If they are two 
working people who are trying to save their money to buy their first 
home, they should have the right to do it with their own money, 
especially since we are talking about 10 percent of the non-Social 
Security surplus.
  We are talking about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars today. 
We are talking about letting hard-working families keep the money they 
earn to do a little bit better for their children or to be able to 
start a family or buy their American dream home.
  That is what we are talking about. We believe the family can make the 
decisions for themselves better than someone in Washington.
  Marriage penalty relief is what we are talking about. Tax equity is 
what we are talking about. We are talking about fairness today for 
hard-working Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to make five points in a 
very short period of time before we vote.
  The first goes to the issue raised by the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, 
having to do with the surplus.
  Over the course of the last 6 months we have seen the surplus 
increase--projected now to be about $2.1 trillion. In 6 months, we have 
gone from roughly $800 billion in projected surplus to $2.1 trillion. I 
will predict that surplus is going to change one way or the other over 
the next 6 months, the next 6 years--for any length of time. In fact, I 
think the surplus projections are the fiscal equivalent of the dot-com 
stock market. They will continue to be volatile. We know how volatile 
they can be. We projected deficits as far as the eye could see a few 
years ago. We could see those deficits come back completely in a very 
short period of time. We don't know. There will continue to be 
volatility in predictions of surplus just as there has been volatility 
in the dot-com stock market. Let's keep that in mind.
  When you add all the Republican tax breaks to date, and add the Bush 
Social Security privatization proposal and it comes to $3.4 trillion. 
That exceeds by more than 50 percent the available surplus.
  Last week, we dealt with the estate tax. Today, we are dealing with 
marriage penalties. But when you add all of them up, we exceed by more 
than 50 percent of the projected surplus.
  They are counting on this surplus continuing to go up, No. 1, or they 
are going to do something they say they don't want to do, which is to 
tap the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus in order to 
pay for the tax cuts in the first place. That is point No. 1.
  We don't have the surplus in the bank until it is there. They can 
project all they want to project. But that surplus could be eliminated 
very quickly.
  The second issue: If you are going to say you are going to fix the 
marriage penalty, fix the marriage penalty. There are 65 marriage 
penalties in the Tax Code. The Republicans chose to deal with three of 
them. The cost in dealing with those three is $248 billion. They filed 
amendments in the Finance Committee for an additional $6 billion, 
totaling another $81 billion. I don't know what it would cost if they 
were actually going to fix all 65. We don't know how many hundreds of 
billions of dollars there would be in addition to the $248 billion. 
Keep that in mind. This does not fix the marriage penalty. Anyone who 
is voting under that impression ought to recognize that they can say 
what they will but they are only fixing 3 of the 65 problems that are 
currently incorporated in the tax law. That is the second point.
  This is the third point related to the second point. Let's take this 
teacher and this policeman the distinguished Senator from Texas was 
talking about. She mentioned a teacher and a policeman and having the 
need to address their concern. For this couple who has been penalized, 
let's assume each of them were making $35,000, which in the case of a 
teacher is very difficult to assume. But we will assume that for the 
moment. The husband and wife jointly would pay $9,532. If they were 
able to file singly, they would pay $8,407. So their actual marriage 
penalty is $1,125.
  The Republican plan only provides 39 percent of the relief for that 
couple making $70,000--$443. That is all the relief this Republic plan 
provides. That is another reason the Democrats felt compelled to offer 
our alternative.
  It is no accident that the Democratic plan authored by the 
distinguished Senator from New York and the Finance Committee Democrats 
provide 100-percent relief--$1,125 in the case of this particular 
couple making $70,000.
  The fourth point: This bill actually creates a new inequity. We call 
it a singles penalty. I promise you somebody is going to come to the 
floor saying we have to deal with the singles penalty.
  That $70,000 joint income I was talking about creates a joint tax 
liability of $10,274 under current law. They get some tax relief under 
the GOP plan, and end up with a liability of $8,743. However, a widow 
does not get any relief at all. A single widow, a person trying to make 
ends meet with the same kind of income, doesn't get any kind of 
reduction in her tax liability at all. In fact, because they now create 
a singles penalty, that widow will actually pay $1,531 in additional 
taxes over a couple getting relief under the marriage penalty. We are 
inadvertently creating a singles penalty in the name of trying to 
address this marriage penalty relief under the Republican plan. That is 
something I hope Members will take a close look at.
  The fifth point I raise, I heard several colleagues discuss the fact 
this does not benefit the wealthy at the expense of the rest. According 
to the Joint Tax Committee, it sure does. The Joint Tax Committee said 
a couple making $50,000 a year, as a joint couple, the Republican tax 
bill is going to allow $240 in relief when paying a marriage penalty 
with $50,000 worth of income. Someone earning $200,000, their benefit 
under the Republican plan is $1,335. The Democratic plan is shown in 
contrast. Someone earning $30,000 under the Democratic plan receives 
$4,191 in relief. Under the Republican plan, they receive $807.

[[Page S7109]]

  When representing the vast majority of the American working families 
in that $30,000 to $50,000, why vote for a plan that actually reduces 
their opportunity to generate meaningful relief by giving them $240 in 
the case of a $50,000 income earner, and $807 relief for those in the 
$30,000 category? Why vote for such a plan?
  It goes to the very point that many have made all along, and the 
distinguished Senator from New York has made so eloquently. Mr. 
President, 60 percent of the benefit in this bill we are about to vote 
on actually goes to those who get a marriage bonus; only 40 percent of 
that $248 million actually goes to those who face a marriage penalty.
  Why give, in the name of marriage penalty relief, 60 percent of the 
benefit to those who are actually getting a marriage bonus under 
current law? Why exacerbate the inequities in current law already? That 
is what we are doing.
  The Democrats have a far better plan. This chart shows that better 
plan. The Republicans, as I noted earlier, deal with 3 of the 65 
inequities for $248 billion, 60 percent of which goes to those who get 
a marriage surplus. The Democrats deal with every single inequity 
currently in the code, all 65, and in one sentence.
  That is the choice. Do we want to fix it or do we want to talk about 
it? Do we want to create new inequities and singles penalties, or do we 
want to deal with the problem? Do we want to fritter away $248 billion, 
thinking we have fixed the marriage problem, or do we want to deal with 
the real problem for a lot less money?
  The Democratic plan allows married couples to file separately or 
jointly. Very simply, taxpayers get a choice. Why deny them that 
choice? We provide them, for the first time, an opportunity to do one 
or the other, in a single sentence.
  We eliminate all marriage tax penalties for those making less than 
$100,000. We don't expand the marriage bonus, and we provide fiscally 
responsible relief.
  You cannot get much better than that. I am hopeful my colleagues will 
think very carefully before they vote for a plan that does not solve 
this problem. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan on marriage 
penalty relief.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is absent due to illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
  The bill (H.R. 4810), as amended, was passed.
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 215, I voted ``nay.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it would not change the 
outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the 
Presiding Officer appoints Mr. Roth, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Moynihan 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I take this occasion to thank the 
persons who have supported us and, most particularly, to thank the 
minority staff of the Finance Committee which produced what we think to 
have been a fine measure.
  We are, as ever, indebted to our chief of staff, Dr. David Podoff, 
who, in the course of these deliberations, had Marshall's ``Principles 
of Economics'' on his desk for reference; to our tax team, led by Russ 
Sullivan, Stan Fendley, Mitchell Kent, Jerry Pannullo, Cary Pugh, John 
Sparrow, Lee Holtzman, Matthew Vogele, and Andy Guglielmi; to our 
health team, Chuck Konigsberg, Kyle Kinner, Kirsten Beronio, and David 
Nightingale.
  Also, I extend a very special thank-you to Lisa Konwinski from the 
Budget Committee staff who provided extraordinary assistance on the 
reconciliation bill rules and procedures.
  I yield the floor, sir.

                          ____________________