[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 109 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S8624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     REPEAL OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to take time before leaving for 
the weekend to be here to express my strong disappointment with 
President Clinton and his Democratic allies in the Congress who have 
once again denied millions of American couples marriage penalty relief.
  On August 5, President Clinton vetoed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief 
Reconciliation Act. This week, due to strong opposition from some of 
our Democrat colleagues, the House fell 16 votes short of the number 
needed to override the President's veto, thus letting down 22 million 
American couples, including 550,000 couples from my state of Minnesota.
  These hard-working Americans are penalized, on average, $1,500 per 
year simply because they are married. This $32 billion annual tax 
burden is extremely unfair to these working men and women.
  Washington is taking this money from American couples at a time when 
it doesn't need the money as much as these families do. This money 
could be used for savings for their children's education, for daycare, 
for tutors, for braces, for a new washer/dryer, for a family vacation, 
or for a down payment on a car.
  For President Clinton and his Democrat allies in the Congress to deny 
working men and women this desperately needed tax relief is not only 
wrong, it is a disgrace.
  It is shameful that their spending appetite is growing bigger each 
year and faster than the incomes of American workers and all of the 
people across this country who simply choose to get married, start a 
family, to begin their lives together, and at the altar they have the 
IRS standing with them.
  Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples. There are 
more than 60 provisions in the tax code that penalize working American 
couples by pushing them into a higher tax bracket, punishing them 
because of their decision to be joined in holy matrimony.

  This was not the intention of Congress when it separated tax 
schedules for married and unmarried people. It also runs contrary to 
our often-stated desire to strengthen the institution of the family in 
America a desire that was reaffirmed with the enactment of my $500 per 
child tax credit legislation.
  The family has been, and will continue to be, the bedrock of our 
society. Strong families make strong communities; strong communities 
make for a strong America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax 
treats married couples unfairly.
  President Clinton himself agrees that the marriage penalty is unfair. 
He has said that. He believes the marriage penalty tax is unfair, but 
he vetoed a bill that, by the way, was a compromise, calling into 
question his resolve to reverse this inequity that he called unfair. 
But evidently the President believes it is more important for 
Washington to collect unfair taxes than it is to give tax breaks to 
working Americans. He uses any and all excuses he can find to keep as 
many dollars as possible coming into the Government's coffers. Even at 
a time of huge surpluses, he refuses to let American couples keep a 
little bit more of their own money.
  We are not even talking tax cuts; all we are talking about is tax 
overcharges that should be returned. If you overpay a bill, you expect 
to get your change back. If you go to McDonald's and the meal is $5 and 
you give them $10, you expect to get your change back--or for any kind 
of a transaction. In this transaction, you should be able to expect to 
get your money back. On a marriage penalty which is unfair, you should 
at least be able to get your refund. But despite the rhetoric of this 
administration suggesting otherwise, the Clinton and Gore 
administration and its Democratic allies in Congress are not serious 
about correcting this unfair tax penalty.
  Out of eight budgets the Clinton/Gore administration proposed, only 
one included a tiny bit of relief for married couples. Their paltry 
marriage penalty relief means millions of couples would not receive the 
tax relief they want and need. In fact, the President's plan was less 
than 25 percent of the plan that was sent to him, which would mean that 
out of 100 couples, he would say 75 married couples don't deserve tax 
relief even though they are unfairly taxed. A minor, paltry tax relief 
was proposed by this administration.
  Today, families pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, 
and shelter combined. Something is wrong when parents work more to 
provide for the government than they do for their own families. It is 
time for the government to contribute to the strengthening of the 
family, rather than aiding its breakdown.
  There is no legitimate policy reason to continue punishing millions 
of American couples through this unfair marriage penalty.
  By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton 
and his Democrat allies in the Congress have shown that they care less 
about working couples who are struggling to raise families. They care 
more about dumping money into Washington's coffers. By continuing this 
bad tax policy that discourages marriage, they will force millions of 
married couples to pay more taxes to support a big government rather 
than being able to provide better for American families.
  By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton 
and his Democrat allies in Congress have chosen to continue to 
discriminate against working women. Since more and more women work 
today, their added incomes drive their households into higher tax 
brackets unfairly, reducing their take-home pay.
  By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton 
and his Democrat allies in Congress have done harm to the minority, 
low-income families whom they claim to help, because the marriage 
penalty hits lower-income working families hardest.
  This is not a tax cut for the rich, as this administration always 
loves to say. Anytime there is any tax relief out there, it is always 
somehow for the rich. But this hits hard-working, middle-class, middle-
income families.
  In fact, President Clinton has denied relief for couples at the 
bottom end of the income scale who incur penalties. As a result of the 
marriage penalty, they paid nearly $800 in additional taxes, which 
represents 8 percent of their income.
  So what about that? This is not tax relief for the rich.
  By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton 
and his Democrat allies in Congress have undermined the family the 
institution that is the foundation of our society by discouraging women 
from marriage, or even leading some married couples to get friendly 
divorces.
  This is just plain wrong.
  To President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I would consider asking 
you once again to put aside the election-year politics and reconsider 
your veto on our marriage penalty tax relief that would help millions 
of couples live the American Dream. I would ask that. But I know it 
would be a waste of time. And so do millions of Americans. I know and 
they know we'll have to wait for a President that is more sympathetic 
to those who work everyday rather than big government.
  To ask this President to reduce or sign this bill I guess would be a 
waste of time, because I believe, as do millions of Americans, that we 
will not see one dime of tax relief as long as he is in the White 
House. We need another President who is going to be more sympathetic to 
those who pay the bills. I always call them the most used and abused 
and underappreciated people in the country. That is the people who pay 
the bills--the taxpayers.
  To the 44 million Americans, including 1.1 million Minnesotans, who 
suffer from this unfair penalty, I want to pledge that we will repeal 
this marriage tax bill next year and we will not rest until our Tax 
Code becomes truly family friendly.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.




                          ____________________