[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.
____________________