[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S163-S164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allen, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. Warner, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 11. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 
the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket 
amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns 
shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S164]]

                      marriage penalty legislation

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for 4 years now, I have introduced a 
bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. I have said all of these 
years that I do not think Americans should have to choose between love 
and money. They should be able to get married and not be penalized 
because they do. But in fact 25 million married couples in America 
today do pay a penalty just because they got married. The sad thing is, 
the average penalty they pay is about $1,400. That is $1,400 that a 
young couple would like to have as they are starting their lives 
together, for the things they want: Like the down payment on the new 
house or the new car or the expenses associated with having children. 
We want them to be able to have the money they earn to make their 
choices rather than having Uncle Sam take $1,400 more just because of 
what amounts to a glitch in the Tax Code that requires these married 
couples to pay this penalty.
  The bill I have just introduced today, S. 11, is cosponsored by 
Senators Brownback, Lott, Nickles, Allen, Bunning, Burns, Crapo, Frist, 
Gramm, Hagel, Kyl, Ensign, McConnell, Murkowski and Warner.
  This is a bill that I hope will have broad bipartisan support 
because, in fact, we have passed it twice and sent it to the President 
with bipartisan majorities in the past. The President has chose to veto 
the bills before, but today we have a new President who I believe will 
sign marriage penalty relief. It was part of President Bush's campaign. 
When we send him Marriage penalty relief for the third time in a 
bipartisan way in Congress, I believe President Bush will sign it.
  I am very pleased this bill will double the standard deduction for 
married couples. Today, if you get married the standard deduction that 
two single people would have is not double. We want to double the 
standard deduction. Two people getting married who have two incomes but 
do not itemize would receive a increase of $1,500 in their standard 
deduction. That is what we want to do.
  Secondly, we will double each tax bracket for married couples filing 
a joint return. For example, if a couple is in the 15-percent income 
tax bracket but they get married and are thrown into the 30-percent 
bracket, we want to provide them relief such that they will effectively 
remain in the 15 percent bracket. This bill would widen the 15-percent 
bracket by $9,000 for married couples.
  Congress passed this legislation, and it was vetoed. Today, I am 
introducing this bill. I know we are going to pass it in this Congress, 
and I know it will be signed. This is the beginning of a new day in our 
United States of America, and we are going to eliminate the marriage 
penalty this year. I will count on it.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation my 
colleague from Texas introduced today that will put an end to the 
``marriage penalty'' tax. Mr. President, we've been fighting this tax 
inequity for several years now. The people of Montana have spoken to me 
either through letters or conversation--they think this tax is unfair.
  When we first started working to resolve this issue, I was contacted 
by Joshua and Jody Hayes of Billings, Montana. The Hayes paid $971 more 
in taxes because they were married than they would have paid if they 
remained single.
  In Montana, it is estimated that nearly 90,000 couples are penalized 
by this tax to the tune of $51.5 million--solely for being married. 
Making a living--supporting a family--is a difficult task in today's 
fast paced economy. A young couple married today is immediately subject 
to an additional financial burden because they want to share their 
lives together. The federal tax system penalizes these young couples. 
These are not wealthy people--this effort to provide tax relief does 
not discriminate--this effort does not single out a specific income 
group. It is a tax on families.
  I, along with my Republican colleagues, have made it clear that 
continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, but I can think of no 
other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people.
  If ever there was a disincentive to be married, this penalty would be 
it. I believe this, along with the estate tax, is one of the most 
unfair taxes on Americans. It is not right for people to be penalized 
with higher taxes simply because they choose to get married.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), almost half of 
all married couples pay higher taxes due to their marital status. 
Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples 
by $29 billion per year. Currently, this tax penalty imposes an average 
additional tax of $1400 on 21 million married couples nationwide.
  Mr. President, the marriage penalty can have significantly negative 
economic implications for the country as a whole as well. Not only does 
this penalty within the tax system stand as a likely obstacle to 
marriage, it can actually discourage a spouse from entering the 
workforce.
  By adding together husband and wife under the rate schedule, tax laws 
both encourage families to identify a primary and secondary worker and 
then place an extra burden on the secondary worker because his or her 
wages come on top of the primary earner's wages.
  As the American family realizes lower income levels, the nation 
realizes lower economic output. From a strictly economic perspective, 
the fact that potential workers would avoid the labor force as a result 
of a tax penalty is a clear sign of a failure to maximize true economic 
output. As a result, the nation as a whole fails to reach its economic 
potential, which is demonstrated by decreased earnings and 
international competitiveness.
  Whereas I am very disappointed President Clinton has vetoed this 
initiative in the past, I am confident our new President will support 
America's families.
  Congress has momentum considering this body has already passed this 
legislation to correct this inequity. I encourage my colleagues to 
support this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty.
                                 ______