[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3496-H3501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PERMANENT MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I claimed this time tonight because I wanted 
to talk to America about an important bill that we have on the floor 
tomorrow. It is H.R. 4019. It is called the Permanent Marriage Penalty 
Relief Act. I am proud that the 107th Congress on 22 occasions over the 
last year-and-a-half has passed 22 tax reduction measures.
  I am not going to come before my colleagues tonight and say that all 
taxes are bad or not necessary, but I will come before my colleagues 
and say what I strongly disapprove of, and one of the reasons why I ran 
to be in this House and fight for American families is to free them 
from the burden of excessive taxes.
  Also, though, because American families today are spending about 22 
percent of their income, more than that, it is the greatest percentage 
of income going to Federal taxes since World War II. Our taxes have 
become excessive and burdensome, and because of that, we are forcing 
more and more married couples, more and more people into the workforce, 
to make ends meet, because those same families are paying more for 
taxes than they are for their housing and their food, the daily 
necessities of life, and I think that is wrong.
  In that totality of taxes that I think are excessive and that we need 
to lighten the burden and trust people with their own money, sometimes 
there are individual type of taxes that are just plain wrong; just 
plain wrong.
  Last week, we voted to permanently repeal the death tax. I thought 
that one individually was wrong. I am thankful that tomorrow that this 
body has the opportunity to give working families, mothers and fathers, 
permanent tax relief on the marriage penalty.
  What is the marriage penalty? First of all, I am going to in a second 
introduce the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) from the Committee 
on Ways and Means, because he has dedicated his congressional life to 
this issue. As we near Father's Day, I will call him the father of 
marriage penalty relief, because he has been a pit bull and obsessive, 
thankfully on this issue, but what happens is in American families, as 
I mentioned earlier, we take so much of their tax monies, tax money 
away from them, and it forces them to make decisions like perhaps 
working longer hours or both parents working, when that may not be 
their choice. Because they both work in our tax structure, they, 
because they are married, will pay more in taxes than if they were 
single.

                              {time}  2130

  It is the marriage penalty. What is worse is it hits those families 
that earn from $20,000 to $70,000. It is not the wealthiest, who pay 
their share; but it hits the hard-working families where each earn 
between $20,000 and $70,000 the hardest. That is just fundamentally 
unfair. That is morally wrong, to tax marriage. The fact that they just 
walked down the aisle and said ``I do,'' and now have to pay more in 
taxes is just fundamentally wrong. It hits the middle-class families 
the hardest. That is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). 
Earlier I mentioned that the gentleman has exercised dogged 
determination in his career to right this wrong.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, who has 
been a real leader in bringing about tax relief. The gentleman and I 
share a common goal, and that is bringing about a recognition in 
government that taxes are too high, that working Americans work too 
long to pay their taxes, that we believe in the Republican majority 
that the American people can better spend their hard-earned income back 
home taking care of their families' needs than we can here in 
Washington.
  And while the government needs some revenue to fund the activities of 
the Federal Government, we also need to recognize that families 
struggle, and we need to find ways to ease the burden on working 
families. That is why I was so proud just a year ago when the President 
signed into law the first major tax cut since Ronald Reagan was 
President. Prior to Ronald Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, so it seems 
like every generation has a major tax cut. And now George W. Bush. But 
it was the commitment of the House Republican majority that drove this 
debate, even though we had essentially a hostile President in the White 
House under President Clinton, who did not share the view that taxes 
were too high. We continued to be persistent, and with the election of 
President Bush, we found an ally in our goal in bringing about across-
the-board tax relief that benefits American taxpayers and that 
addresses the issues of fairness in the Tax Code.
  I would note that what we nicknamed the Bush tax cut benefits over 
100 million American tax-paying households who have seen their taxes 
lowered as a result of the House Republican majority, and signed into 
law by President Bush.
  Mr. Speaker, 3.9 million tax-paying households, low-income families, 
no longer pay Federal income taxes because the Bush tax cut was signed 
into law. Unfortunately, one thing we discovered, sometimes we find 
that Washington works in a strange way. It is interesting in 
Washington, we can raise taxes permanently like Bill Clinton and the 
Democrats did in 1993, we can increase spending permanently, but you 
will find rules somewhere in the Congress that make it hard to 
permanently cut taxes.
  Unfortunately, there was a rule in the other body which prevented 
permanency to the Bush tax cut, permanency to the across-the-board rate 
reductions, permanency to the elimination of the death tax, permanency 
to our efforts to increase opportunities to put more into your IRA and 
401(k) for retirement savings, for education savings accounts for your 
children's education, and also our efforts to eliminate the subject of 
tonight's Special Order, the marriage tax penalty.
  I commend the gentleman from Nebraska and the majority of this House 
for sharing a view that many of us have argued over the last several 
years that the marriage tax penalty is essentially a fundamental issue 
of fairness. The most basic institution in our society is marriage. 
Around marriage we build our families. Unfortunately, under our Tax 
Code for almost two generations, we taxed marriage. I felt, as I know 
many of my colleagues did, that it was a legitimate argument to come to 
this floor and say is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code, 
that we actually taxed married couples more in taxes, higher taxes, 
just because they were married. In fact, on average, 23 million married 
working couples on average were paying about $1,400 in higher taxes 
last year than identical couples living together outside of marriage.

  Essentially our Tax Code was saying the only way to avoid the 
marriage tax penalty was to get divorced or not get married in the 
first place. That is wrong. We believe the Tax Code should be marriage-
neutral.
  I am proud to say that several times this House Republican majority 
brought legislation to the floor and we passed out of the House of 
Representatives legislation supported by every House Republican, and I 
also want to note that up to 62 Democrats joined with us. We had 
bipartisan support for legislation which would permanently wipe out the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Unfortunately, when we passed into law the Bush tax cut, it was a 10-
year program which meant in the year 2010,

[[Page H3497]]

the marriage tax penalty relief would expire; and for a projected 45 
million married working couples, they would see almost a $42 billion 
tax increase because their taxes were going to be higher because the 
marriage tax penalty was going to be reimposed. Is that right? Is that 
fair? I think not.
  Let me explain how the marriage tax penalty occurs. The marriage tax 
penalty occurs when a husband and wife get married. They are both in 
the workforce and file their taxes jointly. When they do that, their 
combined income usually pushes these married couples into a higher tax 
bracket. That produces the marriage tax penalty.
  I have a couple here I would like to introduce to my colleagues in 
the House. Jose and Magdalene Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. They have 
two children, Eduardo and Carolina. They have a combined income of 
about $82,000. They are a middle-class working couple in Joliet, 
Illinois. In their case, prior to the successful passage into law of 
the Marriage Tax Elimination Act this past year, the Castillo family 
suffered about $1,125 in higher taxes just because they are married.
  Now, the question before this House tomorrow, we are going to propose 
legislation to be voted on in the House tomorrow which will make 
permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Really, the 
question is for 45 million married working couples like Jose and 
Magdalene Castillo, do we want to reimpose the marriage tax penalty? I 
think not.
  My hope is that over tomorrow's debate we will see an overwhelming 
bipartisan majority who will vote to make permanent the elimination of 
the marriage tax penalty, so the marriage tax penalty will be one of 
those things that we used to talk about that used to exist in the Tax 
Code because the Tax Code is complicated and we are working in this 
House to make the Tax Code simpler, and that means making the Tax Code 
more fair.
  By eliminating the marriage tax penalty for Jose and Magdalene 
Castillo, we are not only making the Tax Code more fair, we are 
simplifying the Tax Code. My hope is tomorrow an overwhelming majority 
in the House will join with us, and the Senate will follow suit, and we 
will send to the President legislation which will make permanent 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, according to the 2000 census, in the 
gentleman's district it is 59,536 couples that are affected by our 
current Tax Code. In my district of Omaha, Nebraska, it is 58,000 
couples that have to pay more in taxes. When your great couple from 
your district, Jose and Magdalene Castillo, got married and said ``I 
do,'' I do not think it was to more taxes just because they went down 
the aisle together and did what we hoped that they would do and formed 
this bond, formed this family.

  Mr. Speaker, we should not have a tax policy that is antifamily, 
antimarriage. We have heard stories on news programs throughout the 
years, older couples in particular, younger couples that refused to 
married, older couples that would get divorced because of the tax that 
they have to pay. If we are going to be a country that embraces family, 
embraces marriage, then we have to have a tax policy that walks the 
walk. I thank the gentleman for all the work he has done.
  It has been mentioned that we passed marriage penalty relief in my 
two terms here. Just thankfully we have a President this time that 
agreed with it the last time around. Even in the first few months of 
the 107th Congress when this was a solo vote and the Senate had not 
taken it up yet, 282 Members, very bipartisan vote. It dropped a little 
bit when we had the Bush tax plan. We lost about 40 Members. In the 
Senate they could only get to 58.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned this quirky rule 
that they have where it takes a supermajority of 60 votes to make 
reduction of revenue, i.e., a tax cut, they need 60 votes to make it 
permanent over there. We did the right thing and we negotiated a 10-
year plan, a phase out of 10 years of a lot of these taxes. The 
marriage penalty is phased in much quicker to give these families 
relief.
  Now we want to make sure we are doing the right thing for these 
families, these 45 million Americans, that it is made permanent, 
because in essence what we are going to say to these couples in the 
year 2011 is that you are going to have your taxes increased. You are 
going to raise taxes on over 3.9 million African American families out 
of that.
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) have any 
statistics, and my impression from some of what I have read, some of 
this tax actually hits minorities harder, and so I am just pleased that 
hard-working families will get some relief, and they deserve to have it 
made permanent.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly, I 
would note in the legislation we passed out of the House of 
Representatives that was signed into law by President Bush, we helped 
an estimated 45 million married working couples in a number of ways. 
When you are a taxpayer, you are an itemizer, nonitemizer, if you are a 
low-income working family, part of the working poor, earned income tax 
credit, only out of that 20 million married couples received marriage 
tax relief through the Bush tax cut through the doubling of the 
standard deduction to twice that for single people. Those who do not 
itemize their taxes use the standard deduction.
  And for the middle class, those in the 15 percent bracket who itemize 
their taxes, homeowners, those who give to their church, temple, 
mosque, they are homeowners and itemize their taxes, we widened the 15 
percent bracket so they can earn twice as much in income and stay 
within the 15 percent as a single person. There are 20 million when you 
take advantage of the 15 percent widening which are the itemizers. And 
4 million poor families, low-income families, benefit from the marriage 
tax relief that we provided in adjusting the eligibility for the earned 
income credit. Four million working-poor families who struggle, and 
thanks to Ronald Reagan received the earned income credit.

                              {time}  2145

  They would lose that marriage tax relief, that opportunity to have a 
little extra income to take care of their family's needs, if this is 
allowed to expire. That is just one more reason why I believe we need 
to make it permanent, because we do not want to see a $42 billion tax 
increase on 45 million married working couples who would be forced to 
pay higher taxes just because they are married. My hope is tomorrow 
when we debate making permanent the marriage tax relief that was part 
of the Bush tax cut, that an overwhelming majority of this House will 
vote in a bipartisan way to make permanent the elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by three of our good 
colleagues that have fought hard and feel strongly on this issue.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
yielding. I also thank and congratulate the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) for his great efforts on the marriage penalty.
  There are few issues that I feel more strongly about, and one of my 
main goals coming here to Washington was to eliminate the marriage 
penalty. I am very pleased that at least over the course of the next 10 
years that we have accomplished that. It is a major goal that we have 
achieved, but our work is not yet done. I do not understand why we tax 
marriage. We as a Congress, we as a government, we as a people should 
be working to strengthen marriage, to strengthen families. Families are 
the foundation really for the strength of our country. We should do all 
we can to bolster it. When we charge married couples an average of 
$1,400 more just for being married, we are discouraging them from 
getting married. This makes no sense. They should not get that extra 
gift from Uncle Sam when they say ``I do.'' Something that makes this 
very personal to me is when I think about my son or daughter coming to 
me in a few years, maybe after this 10-year period, so I have to get 
this permanent, and saying, ``Dad, you've taught us well. You've taught 
us how to look at the numbers really well and we have noticed that it 
is going to cost us $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 more to be married. So what 
we are going to do is we are just going to live together, but we are 
going

[[Page H3498]]

to put that $1,000 or $2,000 to good use and we'll do good things with 
it.''
  I do not want to have that conversation and no parent should have 
that conversation and no couple should struggle with those issues. We 
should be helping them to the greatest extent possible. We should be 
making this permanent. It is a shame that we were not able to make this 
permanent before. We were two Senators short, unfortunately, as the 
gentleman from Nebraska mentioned, and any of many States could have 
provided us those two Senators. We will not name any States in 
particular, but this is critical that we get it permanent. It is also 
bad budgeting. The budgeting after 10 years assumes that we are going 
to let the marriage penalty go back up. I know if the group that we 
have in this room and those that have worked so hard on the marriage 
penalty have anything to do with it, we are not going to let the 
marriage penalty tax be increased and brought back to life again in 10 
years.
  I strongly encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on tomorrow's 
resolution to back American families, to back marriage, to help the 
children that will come from that and to help the strength that comes 
from taking the bonds of holy matrimony.
  I again thank the gentleman from Nebraska for having us here today 
and for his leadership as well as the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. TERRY. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has provided 
great leadership. The citizens of Minnesota should be pleased with his 
leadership on this issue. Probably the 59,000 affected couples in his 
district should thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is hard to speak 
with so many distinguished members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
here because you guys, we know, are the tax experts. But back in our 
little old briar patch, we know a thing or two about fairness. I do not 
think we even need to debate this, and the liberal Democrats would even 
admit that the marriage tax penalty is unfair because in essence you 
cannot carry your tax deduction with you. When you walk down the aisle, 
leave your deduction outside the church because you are fixing to lose 
it, as we would say.
  The issue, I think, that is underlying this, and I think you have 
covered the substance of the bill pretty well, is just the fact that 
the liberals, particularly those on the other side of the Capitol, and 
this is a bicameral body, this legislative body. It is very similar to 
the Georgia legislature where we had a House and we had a Senate. This 
is a similar institution. When the House passed something, the Senate 
would pass something or the Senate would amend it. In this case we have 
got a body who hates tax reductions. Period. Fairness does not matter, 
all that matters is income, so they can go out and spend more money.
  I always say that if I was walking down the street with two of the 
liberal Democrats from Washington and I had $15 in my pocket and they 
did not have any, the two of them would vote on who was going to pay 
for lunch and it would end up being me, and in their view that is fair. 
They did not have any money and I had money, so they voted and I have 
to pay for lunch, and that is fair. We all laugh about that, but I will 
tell you this. Look at it this way. Say you had a thousand people 
walking down the street or a thousand people in the room, and of that 
thousand people, 999 did not have any money, but one person had a whole 
lot of money. And so the 999 voted and said, ``You're going to be 
paying a little bit more, you're going to be paying extra, and you're 
going to be paying for all of us.'' They would say obviously that 
person who had money must have done something wrong, must have gotten 
real lucky, must have cut some corners short, and so of course it is 
fair. That is the view of so many Washington liberals of the tax 
dollars that our constituents back home make.
  One of our colleagues today said, if you really want to know the 
truth of the matter, talk to somebody who has oil on his hands or dirt 
on his fingers and his sleeves rolled up in America and they can give 
you the view, and in about 3 seconds, the American workers back home 
would say the marriage tax penalty is unfair and ridiculous, get rid of 
it. And so the only question here tonight is, why are we not getting 
rid of it? It is because of this other body. The House has passed this 
over and over again.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), as you pointed out earlier 
tonight, has practically made a career in this. I expect he has had a 
very spectacular career, made a great contribution to the governmental 
process, the debate process up here, but the reality is the folks on 
the other side of the Capitol love taxes and they block it every single 
time.
  I know our good friend from Arizona is here just chomping to get at 
the bit.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, the 62,397 married couples who have been hit 
by the marriage penalty in the gentleman from Georgia's district I am 
sure thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  I want to bring into our discussion here the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) who, because of his leadership and vote tomorrow, the 
52,429 married couples in his district will be trusted with more of 
their money.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding, my 
friends from Illinois and Georgia who join us here tonight, Mr. 
Speaker, and I stand in the well alongside my friend from Nebraska, 
traditionally at the podium given to our friends from the Democratic 
Party. I do so tonight to signal the fact that our vote tomorrow should 
be a vote that does not accentuate party lines, that when people go and 
register for a marriage license, they do not declare a political party 
preference, they are not required to register as Democrats or 
Republicans or independents or libertarians or vegetarians, they go and 
apply for a marriage license.
  Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, it is my fervent hope that we will see a 
bipartisan vote to restore rationality and common sense to the peculiar 
situation we find because of a quirk in the rules where we have failed 
to make this marriage tax relief permanent.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If my friend would yield, I just want to say that quirk 
is, of course, there on purpose by the liberals who like to collect tax 
dollars and so I just wanted to emphasize a point that the gentleman 
has made several times in the past.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for making the point. I would appeal 
to all who come here, when you talk about tax fairness, there is 
nothing fair about penalizing people for getting married. I think back 
almost a decade and a half ago now to the news that I took my mom, when 
Miss Mary and I decided to get married, she said, ``Oh, honey, I'm so 
excited for you. After all, two can live as cheaply as one.'' My mom is 
a wise woman, but she is not a certified public accountant and she was 
not dealing with the Tax Code, because we have seen in so many cases 
for so long when couples would stand at the altar and say ``I do,'' 
they were unwittingly saying ``I do'' to higher taxes. And now with a 
commonsense reform that we have embraced on a bipartisan basis in this 
body, others on this Hill with a clever rule differentiation seek to 
take it away, we simply go on record tomorrow reaffirming that the Tax 
Code should have real fairness, that there should not be a penalty for 
marriage.
  Indeed, confronting the challenges we confront in a society, knowing 
how beneficial it is to have healthy, happy households where men and 
women in a loving relationship of marriage bring up their children, 
there is no reason to penalize people who work hard and play by the 
rules.
  And so tonight we come here to reaffirm our belief that we should 
rescind the marriage penalty permanently and tomorrow this House has a 
chance to go on record saying ``I do'' to lower taxes, taking away this 
barrier of discrimination that has affected the institution of marriage 
and taking another step for true tax fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow again we will hear the tired old arguments of 
class warfare. Let me simply reaffirm what we have found through the 
years when we reduce the tax burden, whether it is on businesses or on 
families or on individuals. When the tax bite is reduced and money is 
put to work in terms of saving and investment and spending for

[[Page H3499]]

those items that families need, something very interesting happens. 
Revenues to the Federal Government actually increase. So I come to this 
particular position in the well tonight symbolizing the fact that we 
appeal to our friends on the left, not as a Republican versus a 
Department issue, but as an American commonsense point of view, to 
permanently rescind this penalty, to make good on the efforts my friend 
from Illinois has championed for so long, to recognize the commonsense 
value that there is no need to attach an economic stigma to the 
institution of marriage. And now as my friend, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) points out, if we in fact have people tomorrow 
vote against making this permanent, in essence what they are doing is 
calling for a tax increase on every married couple. They are calling to 
add back taxes to their family budget.
  I understand in Washington, Mr. Speaker, that $1,400 on average, that 
is not even in Uncle Sam's change scoop on his dresser drawer. I mean 
we deal in millions and billions of dollars, but I would submit, as my 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), has made clear so 
many times, $1,400 is real money to a family, in terms of a college 
fund, in terms of making educational opportunities available, in terms 
of saving for the future, in terms of buying clothes for the family, in 
terms of orthodontia for children, in terms of real life, real 
budgetary decisions made around the kitchen table. The common sense of 
making this tax relief permanent cannot be denied and, yes, we can have 
those denizens of class warfare come out and play this warped game 
where they define fairness in a deranged way that my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), pointed out, the theater of the 
absurd so clearly to us in this body mere moments ago, but the fact is 
there is no reason to deprive families of money that they can save, 
spend, and invest for their own futures and in so doing help our 
country, because the economic activity in the long run will actually 
increase revenues to the government because people are willing to put 
their money to work in effective spending for their family or savings 
or investment for the future, and we are not talking about something 
that is a drop in the bucket. We are talking about millions of American 
families here.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
telling me that it is not a cost that we are going to hear about, how 
it is costing the government to give these families this relief?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me let the gentleman in on a little 
secret. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) asks a very pertinent 
question, and given the curious mathematics of Washington, let us point 
out at the outset that we could take every economist in the world, lay 
them end to end, and still never reach a conclusion. But part of the 
peculiarities of the way in which we practice accounting in Washington, 
D.C. is with a bias towards spending. We call it static scoring. That 
is to say, we fail to take into account the history that we have seen 
for the better part of close to 50 years in the United States.
  For example, and again I am glad to stand here in this portion of the 
well, because we can point to a Democratic chief executive, John F. 
Kennedy, who in the 1960s cut taxes across the board.

                              {time}  2200

  This is an approach that was reaffirmed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s 
and by our own current President, George W. Bush, just 1 year ago. The 
premise, as it has turned out, and check the numbers, as we say in 
baseball, you could look it up, revenues to the government actually 
increase when you cut taxes across the board. If we cut taxes on these 
millions of American families, I have every confidence that, in the 
long term, revenues to the government will increase, because money is 
being put to work on behalf of these families.
  Again, it comes down to this realization, Mr. Speaker: This money is 
not money that belongs to the Federal Government; it is money that 
belongs to the American people. When that money is put to work, through 
prudent spending, wise investment and making the money work for the 
families of America, it returns to the Federal Government in terms of 
tax revenue. Yet you would not know it from the culture of the 
forecasts and the evaluations of the static scorers who fail to let 
reality be taken into account in terms of their ledger sheets. That is 
the reality with which we deal.
  But in Washingtonese, what we will hear tomorrow is a parade of 
speakers stating flat out that the American people are not entitled to 
their money, stating somehow in bizarre fashion that the marriage 
penalty is a quirk, a curiosity, and, I dare say, coming to the floor, 
speaker after speaker, as prisoners of process, rather than champions 
of policy.
  So, again, my appeal, and I realize it is a challenge with 100-plus 
days to a midterm election, and I realize it is difficult for many to 
separate politics from policy, but I believe tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, 
there will be those on the Democratic side of the aisle who will join 
us in saying let us end the marriage penalty permanently, because it is 
not a Republican issue, it is not a Democratic issue, it is an issue of 
concern to all Americans and all American families who need to have the 
chance to prosper and succeed and make the most of their opportunities, 
for themselves and for their children.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
that great oratory. We talk about this quirky Senate rule. We are going 
to hear a lot about it. Because when we had the death tax repeal 
discussion last week, we kept hearing from some of the leadership on 
the other side about how it was the Republican bill, that we were 
somehow deceiving the public, and now we are trying to come back. I 
heard a lot of strange and weird stories last week. I am sure we are 
going to hear those same stories again.
  The reality is we did the right thing for the American public by 
taking one step forward. But it was not the giant step that was 
absolutely necessary, and we are trying to correct it tomorrow.
  The Senate rule requires, if I kind of understand it right, is that 
in the Senate you cannot reduce revenues outside of the scope of the 
budget, which is a 10-year budget in essence. So that is why it is a 
10-year plan.
  I think it is ironic that just today on the House floor we had a vote 
to require that this body, both Houses, a constitutional amendment that 
would require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. I just think it is 
ironic that the practical effect of the Senate rule is it takes a 
supermajority to lower taxes, but a simple majority to raise taxes.
  Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman would yield, I think the gentleman from 
Nebraska is bringing up a good point. That is what is frustrating, and 
one of the reasons I know I came to Congress in 1994 and one of the 
causes we in the House Republican majority have been working towards, 
is finding ways to help working families have some extra spending money 
to meet the needs of every American family, to be able to afford to go 
to college, or buy a new bicycle for the little girl when she is 
getting old enough to ride a bicycle.
  Mr. TERRY. We are going through the same thing with our 7-year-old.
  Mr. WELLER. Or make improvements to the house. Families struggle. The 
gentleman from Arizona, the point he made about how when you figure out 
what the amount the marriage tax penalty comes out to, it is real money 
for real people. You take Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, 
Illinois. For the Castillo family, prior to a year ago when the Bush 
tax cut was signed into law, the Castillo family faced about a $1,150 
marriage tax penalty.
  Thankfully, because of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which was 
combined as part of the Bush tax cut, signed into law, they no longer 
pay this marriage tax penalty. If we fail to make permanent the 
marriage tax penalty relief signed into law last year, they once again 
will have their taxes higher, raised. They will lose that $1,150 back 
to Uncle Sam. For the Castillo family, in a town like Joliet, in the 
south suburbs of Chicago, for Jose and Magdalena, $1,150 is several 
months of car payments, that is 2 to 3 months of child care for little 
Carolina, that is a significant portion of tuition at Joliet Junior 
College. The marriage tax penalty is real money for real people like 
the Castillo family. That is what this is really all about.
  The marriage tax relief signed into law last year, which currently is 
temporary, and my hope is this House will

[[Page H3500]]

vote to make permanent tomorrow, is meaningful to 45 million married 
working couples, just like Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, 
Illinois. When you think about it, for 45 million married working 
couples, if this marriage tax penalty relief is not made permanent, 
these couples, 45 million couples, will see a $42 billion tax increase 
just on marriage, if we fail to make permanent the marriage tax relief.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I want to talk about that 
number a little bit. Did the gentleman not tell me earlier that in the 
First District of Georgia, over 65,000 people would benefit?
  Mr. TERRY. I can find that again here. In the First District of 
Georgia, and this is 2000 census data, 62,397 couples in the 
gentleman's district.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. So then that is $1,400 a couple.
  Mr. TERRY. On average that they pay.
  Mr. KINGSTON. That is about $85 million. Now, if I as a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations was asked by the chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), ``Kingston, you got $85 million you can spend 
in your district,'' how would you do it? Would you go out and buy a 
bridge, would you build something for the government, a new monument? 
Heck, no. What you would do is spread it out as much as possible to the 
middle class working families in your district, and that would be one 
of the greatest appropriations I could bring home to the First 
District.
  So this vote tomorrow I will have the opportunity to return to my 
district $85 million for the local economy, for the local jobs, for the 
taxpayers. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has pointed out, 
tuition, new tires, home mortgages. That is a lot of money. I can only 
think of what $85 million will mean to coastal Georgia. Also, I will 
feel a lot better that they are spending that money, rather than the 
United States Congress spending it.
  Mr. TERRY. That is the point. The gentleman is correct. That is the 
point of this, is that we are trusting people with their own money, to 
make their own decisions about what is best for them and their family.
  Now, we in Congress, I hear this all the time, ``what have you 
brought back for the district?'' This is something we get as 
representatives asked by some of our business leaders or constituents, 
and sometimes you brag about a bridge or helping with the bridge.
  But there is no better appropriation, there is no better gift that we 
can give our constituents, than their own money, letting them keep 
their own hard-earned dollars.
  Let us go back to one of the things we talked about at the beginning 
here. This marriage penalty hits hardest the lower and middle income 
families, those that earn on an average, a single income, combined, 
$20,000 to $70,000. That is who is paying the burden and brunt of the 
marriage penalty. These are hard-working Americans that we are talking 
about. You are taking a vote so they can keep $82 million of their own 
money. I just cannot imagine what that would do for your economy.
  I just jotted down a few notes of what it would do for an average 
Nebraska family. Remember, these are couples who are both working. 
Sometimes when we talk in an esoteric or academic way about the 
marriage tax penalty, we leave out that both parents are working. Both 
parents are working.
  So, how about some good quality time? With both parents working, 
maybe both parents should take a vacation and take those two lovely 
children to Disneyland. That $1,400, they can have a 4-day vacation at 
Disneyland or Disneyworld. They can buy for their school children a new 
computer with a scanner, printer, software. They can get a pretty good 
piece of equipment for $1,400.
  Talking about just keeping your family budget intact, in Nebraska 
that is probably 6 to 8 months of utility bills for the family. That is 
anywhere from 4 to 6 months, depending on the type of insurance 
contract they would have, to pay their health insurance costs. Or, as 
all of us have said, just maybe invest or save in your children's 
future. Or use another provision of the tax bill that we passed last 
year that we need to make permanent, and that is educational savings 
accounts. They can invest that money in their children's future. These 
are all things that we trust their families to make their own decisions 
on.
  By the way, the money that these families save by us not taking their 
money, married families will return to paying in 10 years, paying the 
Federal Government more than $100 a month just to be married. That is 
$3.88 every day just because you said ``I do.'' Every hour you will owe 
16 cents just because you have a spouse. If your marriage lasts 50 
years, and, by the way, I just wrote a letter to a nice couple on their 
50th anniversary, the love of your life will have cost you $70,000 in 
extra taxes. $70,000 extra.
  So tomorrow we have the opportunity to make this permanent.
  Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will yield, my hope is that everyone 
will join with my colleagues from Georgia and Arizona and Nebraska in 
voting to make permanent the marriage tax relief. I think as this 
discussion we have had here in this House Chamber shows, regarding the 
marriage tax penalty, what it means in real terms for real people, 
about how you have a husband and wife, both in the workforce, 
struggling to make ends meet, who, prior to a year ago, paid higher 
taxes just because they were married.
  In the case of Jose and Magdalena Castillo, they paid $1,150 more in 
higher taxes. As the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, if they could 
save that, in a period of 20 years, when little Carolina may be in 
college, a sizeable portion of her college tuition could be paid for 
during the 4 years she may go to the University of Illinois, my alma 
mater, could be paid for by setting aside the $1,150.
  Mr. TERRY. She could be a Rebel and go to the University of Nebraska.
  Mr. WELLER. Or a Bulldog and go to the University of Georgia. But the 
bottom line is the marriage tax penalty is a real issue for ordinary 
people back in Illinois, Georgia and Nebraska and throughout this 
country.
  In the last few days I have heard some suggestions, particularly from 
some of my friends in the left wing of the Democratic Party, who have 
said we do not need to do this now. We have got things here in 
Washington that we need to spend that money on; that maybe we should 
take that $1,150 out of Jose and Magdalena's pocket and spend it on 
something here in Washington.
  Maybe in Washington $1,150 for the Castillo family is no big deal, in 
Washington, where you think in terms of millions and billions of 
dollars. But for regular people, like Jose and Magdalena Castillo, 
$1,150, elimination of the marriage tax penalty for the Castillo family 
represents a 12 percent reduction in their taxes. So if we fail to make 
permanent the marriage tax penalty relief in what we nicknamed the Bush 
tax cut, they will see a 12 percent increase in their taxes so that 
Washington can better spend it, as some on the left side of the aisle 
view.
  My hope is that we will see an overwhelming bipartisan vote tomorrow 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently. I was proud to say 
that almost 280 members of this body voted to move a stand-alone bill 
which would permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty almost 2 
years ago. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by President Clinton at 
that time, and we came back later with what was in the Bush tax cut, 
signed into law, a temporary measure to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty.
  My hope is all 62 of those Democrats will once again vote with us, 
and that more Democrats will join with every House Republican in voting 
to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Because of that 
overwhelming vote, I hope that our friends in the Senate, many of whom 
have resisted permanent elimination of the marriage tax penalty, will 
follow suit, and we can put on the President's desk by this fall 
legislation which permanently eliminates the marriage tax penalty.

                              {time}  2215

  Think what that will mean to 45 million married working couples; good 
people, good, hard-working people like Jose and Magdelene Castillo and 
little Eduardo and Carolina, who would have a little extra spending 
money to meet their needs rather than sending it to Washington. It is 
an issue of fairness. Our Tax Code should be neutral regarding 
marriage. We believe that the Tax

[[Page H3501]]

Code should not punish society's most basic institution; and of course, 
marriage is our society's most basic institution.
  Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and let us eliminate the 
marriage tax penalty permanently so it is one of those things that we 
talk about that once used to exist, but it is history. Let us make the 
marriage tax penalty history by permanently eliminating the marriage 
tax penalty.
  I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska, and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership in organizing 
tonight's discussion of the importance of eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty and what it means to real people like the Castillo family of 
Joliet, Illinois.
  Mr. TERRY. Well, it is because of the opportunity that we have here 
in the House of Representatives, why I wanted to be here was to help 
families like them and the 58,000 like them in the Second Congressional 
District in Nebraska. Just think of the opportunities that those two 
children would have if they put the nearly $600 for each child in an 
educational savings account for college, what a wonderful opportunity 
that this body will give those families.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) the last word, if he would close the discussion tonight.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
and the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Arizona and the 
gentleman from Minnesota earlier tonight for their leadership on it. 
Because right now we could be home and in bed and watching the baseball 
game. Somewhere I am sure the Braves are out beating somebody. But the 
reality is, we are doing this because we care. I am a little bit senior 
to both of these gentlemen, and I have served in the minority; and I 
can tell my colleagues that it was no fun. Because when the Republicans 
were in the minority, we were always fighting more spending that the 
Democrat majority kept pushing on us. Here is an opportunity for all 
Members of Congress tomorrow to go in and vote for lower taxes, less 
spending, and more fairness for American couples.
  So I certainly appreciate my colleagues for doing what they are doing 
and standing tall for America's families. I look forward to casting yet 
another vote with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). And I thank 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his leadership in 
organizing this tonight.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating and 
using his time when he could be watching the Braves. Tune in to the 
college world series this weekend, though.

                          ____________________