[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H365-H367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TAX FAIRNESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kerns). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the 
House today, and I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about not only 
the accomplishments of this Congress, but also to talk about a major 
issue of fairness, a fundamental issue of fairness in the Tax Code.
  I represent the south side of Chicago. I represent the south suburbs 
and Cook and Will, Grundy and Kankakee and La Salle Counties. This is a 
very, very diverse district of city and suburbs and country. The 
message that I have heard time and time again since I was a candidate 
for Congress in 1994 the first time, was that folks back home want us 
to look for solutions to the challenges that we face.
  I remember when I was first elected in 1994, we wanted to do some 
pretty radical things. We wanted to balance the budget, we wanted to 
reform the welfare system, we wanted to pay off the national debt, we 
wanted to stop the raid on Social Security and Medicare. We were called 
radical for having those kind of ideas and that kind of agenda.
  I am proud to say in the 6 past years that this Republican Congress 
has accomplished those very goals. Not only have we balanced the budget 
4 years in a row, but we have paid down almost $600 billion of the 
national debt. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, we are projected to see a surplus of extra tax revenue, a tax 
surplus of almost $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Think about that. Our Federal budget this year is $1.9 trillion, but 
over the next 10 years we are expected to collect $5.6 trillion in more 
tax revenue than we are projected to spend. A huge surplus.
  I am also proud to say that we did something that our grandparents, 
many seniors and those who aspire to be seniors have complained about 
over the years, and that is we stopped the raid on Social Security. 
Three years ago, this Republican Congress took the initiative and 
passed legislation which locked away 100 percent of Social Security for 
Social Security. This past year we did the same for Medicare. And 
yesterday we did it again for the coming budget year. We passed the 
Social Security and Medicare lockbox, setting aside 100 percent of the 
Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses for Social Security 
and Medicare to use those dollars not only to run our current program 
of Social Security and Medicare, but to set them aside as we modernize 
those programs to assure that Social Security and Medicare are there 
for future generations.
  When it comes to welfare reform, I am proud to say that we reformed 
welfare. I remember when I was first elected we had more children 
living in poverty than ever before in our Nation's history and the 
highest rates of teenage illegitimacy. Clearly, our Nation's welfare 
system was failing. We passed welfare reform. Took us three times 
before we were able to convince the President to sign it into law, but 
he finally signed it into law in 1996. And since then we have seen our 
Nation's welfare rolls drop. In fact, in States like Illinois they have 
been cut in half, with almost 6 million former welfare recipients now 
on the tax rolls as working taxpayers. Clearly fundamental changes.
  Think about it. We have balanced the budget, we have stopped the raid 
on Social Security, we have stopped the raid on Medicare, we have paid 
on the national debt $600 billion, and we are on track to eliminate our 
Nation's debt by the year 2009, and we also reformed and made 
fundamental changes to our Nation's welfare system.
  One of our other priorities, of course, has been the issue of 
bringing fairness to the Tax Code. Now, I was proud that as a key part 
of the Contract With America we enacted the child tax credit. In States 
like Illinois, that meant an extra $3 billion in tax relief that stayed 
in the pocketbooks of Illinois taxpayers rather than going to 
Washington to be spent by Washington from that $500-per-child tax 
credit alone.
  But there are other issues in the Tax Code that we need to address 
that are important to families. I thought Valentine's Day was an 
appropriate day to raise this issue. It is an issue of fundamental 
fairness. Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million 
married working couples, husband and wife both in the workforce, pay on 
average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? It 
just does not seem right, it does not seem fair that if a man and a 
woman who are both in the workforce decide to get married that they 
have to pay higher taxes if they make that choice.
  The only way today to avoid the marriage tax penalty, if you are 
still single, is to not get married. And if you are married, the only 
form you can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to file for 
divorce. Well, that is wrong that under our Tax Code married working 
couples pay higher taxes than identical couples who live together 
outside of marriage. That is just wrong.

  I am proud to say that this Republican Congress has made elimination 
of the marriage tax penalty a priority, and it is only appropriate that 
on this

[[Page H366]]

day, on Valentine's Day, that we deliver a valentine to the 25 million 
married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty and let 
them know that we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is 
wrong that married couples should have to pay higher taxes.
  I am proud to say that our current President, President Bush, agrees 
that elimination of the marriage tax penalty needs to be addressed. 
Unfortunately, the previous President vetoed our effort to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty, because last year we sent the Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act to President Clinton. He vetoed the bill. And of course 
that means 25 million couples still suffer that penalty.
  During the campaign last fall, then-candidate Bush said had he 
received the bill, had he been President, he would have signed it into 
law. So we have an opportunity with our new President to work towards 
our goal of eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  Let me explain how the marriage tax penalty works. The marriage tax 
penalty occurs when a man and a woman, husband and wife, both are in 
the workforce. When they marry, they file their taxes jointly, which 
means they combine their incomes, and that usually pushes them into a 
higher tax bracket.
  Let me give an example of a married couple from the district I 
represent in the south suburbs of Chicago. This is Shad and Michelle 
Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They 
actually live in a little town called Manhattan, but they are public 
school teachers in the Joliet area. They have a combined income of 
about $65,000. They now have a little boy named Ben. When they file 
their taxes, with their combined income, and after they do the personal 
exemptions and all the other provisions they have, they pay an average 
marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400.
  And as Shad and Michelle have pointed out to me, for Shad and 
Michelle Hallihan and for the average married working couple, $1,400 is 
real money to the folks back home in Illinois. Here in Washington, 
$1,400 out of a $1.9 trillion budget, it is a drop in the bucket. But 
for real people and real communities in places like Illinois, $1,400 is 
a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, it is 3 months of day care 
for the Hallihan family for their little child while they are teaching 
at school, it is 4,000 diapers for their infant. It is real money for 
real people.
  And people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan and 25 million other 
married working couples suffer the marriage tax penalty, and 
unfortunately they continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty because 
our previous President vetoed our legislation to eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty.
  I am proud to say today that we announced our plans to reintroduce 
the Marriage Tax Elimination Act for this Congress, legislation that as 
of today has over 230 bipartisan cosponsors. Now, I would point out 
that we need 218 votes to pass a bill; a majority of the House is 218. 
So a bipartisan majority of the House is cosponsoring our legislation 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

                              {time}  1500

  For couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, we would help them by 
eliminating that marriage tax penalty with the Marriage Tax Elimination 
Act.
  We note that our proposal does a number of things. Number one is, in 
the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we essentially wipe out the 
overwhelming majority of the marriage tax penalty by, number one, 
broadening the brackets. There are five tax brackets, and we broaden 
each of them so that married couples, joint filers, can earn twice as 
much as a single filer in that same tax bracket and stay within each 
bracket paying the same rate.
  That helps those that itemize their tax, couples like Shad and 
Michelle Hallihan, that happen to be homeowners.
  Second, we double the standard deduction for joint filers twice that 
for singles. That will help married couples who do not itemize their 
taxes, usually middle class families, if you own a home, you itemize 
your taxes, but if you do not itemize your taxes, you use a standard 
deduction. So we help them, those who could not itemize by doubling the 
standard deduction.
  We recognize the alternative minimum tax has a consequence when you 
adjust the rate brackets and we make a fix in our legislation that 
ensures that, even though we are adjusting for the marriage tax 
penalty, families like Shad and Michelle can continue to qualify for 
the child tax credit.
  And last, for low-income working families who qualify for that earned 
income tax credit, we adjust the marriage tax penalty there, as well.
  In fact, by adjusting the income threshold for married couples by 
$2,000, we provide for the average family of four eligible for the 
earned income credit about an extra $400 a year in extra income that 
they can use by eliminating the marriage tax penalty in the earned 
income credit, as well.
  The bottom line is we wanted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. 
We feel it is fundamentally wrong that you should pay higher taxes just 
because you are married.
  Now, President Bush has stepped forward because he recognizes, and we 
are very thankful that we have a President who agrees, we need to 
address the marriage tax penalty. And President Bush has a very 
balanced approach to cutting taxes. He says, out of a $5.6 trillion 
surplus that we should take about a fourth of that, $1.6 trillion, and 
use that to lower taxes, stimulate the economy, and bring fairness to 
the Tax Code.
  The centerpiece of his tax cut, of course, is changing the rates and 
going from our current five rates to four rates. And of course, in 
addition to that rate reduction, which he feels is very important, and 
I agree with him, to stimulate this economy, he also attaches to it a 
proposal which will help reduce the marriage tax penalty, a second-
earner deduction.
  Now, that is an important step forward. But I would note that the 
President's plan provides only about $700 in marriage tax relief; and, 
of course, the marriage tax penalty on average is $1,400. So his 
proposal only does about one-half of what we need to do if we really 
want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  So our hope is that, over the next few weeks, next few months, as we 
work to move the President's tax proposal through the Congress, 
particularly as we work to stimulate and revitalize our economy, that 
we can address the need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, as well.
  I and several members of the Committee on Ways and Means have met 
with the President. We have also met with the Treasury Secretary, 
Secretary O'Neill, and other representatives in the administration to 
talk about the need to do more to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  We believe that really the way we can do more is when we adopt the 
President's rate reduction plan, which simplifies the Tax Code and 
lowers taxes for all Americans, that we also adjust the brackets in the 
President's plan so that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. And 
that can be phased in.
  In the same way that the President proposes with his rate reduction, 
we can make the adjustments for the marriage tax penalty, and we 
believe it should be done at the same time. It only makes sense when 
you adjust the rates to deal with marriage penalty at the same time.
  So, my colleagues, I want to share with you that we feel this should 
be a bipartisan priority. And I am proud to say that 230 Members of 
this House are now cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
  I particularly want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act. He and the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
(Ms. Capito) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns) have taken the 
lead in working together with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. 
We want it to be a bipartisan effort.
  There is no reason that Republicans and Democrats cannot work 
together with the Bush Administration to eliminate the most unfair 
consequence of our complicated Tax Code, and that is the marriage tax 
penalty.
  My colleagues, we need fast action on the President's tax cut. And 
here is why I believe it is important that we need fast action.
  I have watched the nightly news, just like my neighbors have, over 
the last

[[Page H367]]

several weeks in the Chicago area. We have seen tens of thousands of 
our neighbors losing their jobs because of the weak economy that 
President Bush inherited from his predecessor.
  Unfortunately, companies like Montgomery Ward are going out of 
business. LTV Steel has declared bankruptcy. Lucent and Motorola and 
Outboard Marine and other companies in the Chicago area are announcing 
massive layoffs. And those individuals are telling me they are having a 
hard time finding a new job.
  Well, if we want to stimulate the economy, Congress needs to set 
politics aside and move quickly, move quickly. We need fast action to 
cut taxes, to put more money in people's pockets, to help families pay 
their high home heating bills, to help families pay off their credit 
card bills, to put confidence back in the minds of the decision-makers 
in business as well as consumers about their future of our economy.
  I believe, as we move quickly, not only should we lower taxes for 
all, but we need to address the need to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  I am proud of the way that the President has balanced his tax plan. 
Because if you look at the President's tax plan, you will note that 
under his proposal that the biggest beneficiaries are moderate and 
middle class taxpayers, because they see the greatest proportion of 
their income returned in tax relief, meaning that moderate, middle 
income, taxpaying families will have the biggest portion of their 
income back essentially as a pay raise, an extra few weeks' pay, an 
extra end-of-the-year bonus that they can use to meet their needs.
  I am proud to say he is doing that. And for a family making $50,000 a 
year, President Bush's proposal would provide an extra $2,000 in higher 
take-home pay. That is an extra three weeks' pay under the President's 
plan.
  Now, if they are making $40,000 a year, it is about $1,600 more in 
higher take-home pay because of lower taxes. So that is pretty 
meaningful if you think about it. And at the end of the day, when his 
plan is done, higher income Americans will pay a higher proportion of 
the income tax burden.
  So if you are concerned about who gets what and who pays more, low, 
moderate, middle income families will see a greater proportion of their 
income back in tax relief and, at the end of the day, wealthier 
Americans will pay a higher proportion of the overall tax burden. So if 
that is important for you, it is something to think about.
  But for a family making $50,000 a year, a married couple with two 
kids, they will see an extra $1,600 to $2,000 in higher take-home pay 
under the President's plan. At the same time we reduce rates for all 
Americans, we believe that we should eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, as well.
  We want to help couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public 
school teachers who work hard every day, to ensure that the children of 
the Joliet-Will County area have a bright future.
  We also want families like Shad and Michelle Hallihan to have a 
bright future as well by ensuring that Shad and Michelle Hallihan get 
to keep what is theirs. It is wrong that when they chose to get married 
that they had to pay higher taxes. That is just wrong.
  We believe, by adoption of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we can 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and we want to work with President 
Bush and Democrats and Republicans, both in the House and the Senate to 
get the job done this time.
  I was so proud last year when we passed the Marriage Tax Elimination 
Act out of this House and the Senate. It broke the hearts of 25 million 
married working couples when President Clinton vetoed the bill. But it 
is a new day. It is a new time of opportunity. We now have a chance to 
do the right thing, and that is, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  It is important to say that, here on Valentine's Day, what better 
valentine can we give 25 million married working couples than to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty?
  Let us work together. We have 230 cosponsors today. Hopefully, we 
will have more tomorrow.

                          ____________________