[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14587-14588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     ELIMINATE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very, very diverse district, a 
series of communities on the south side of Chicago and the south 
suburbs, Cook and Will Counties, industrial communities like Joliet and 
a lot of suburban towns, as well as cornfields and grain elevators. The 
folks back home have a pretty clear message even in such a diverse 
district. They want us to meet our challenges and work together and 
come up with solutions.
  That is why they are so proud of what this Congress has accomplished 
in the last 4\1/2\ years, with balancing the budget for the first time 
in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 
16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation, and 
taming the tax collector by reforming the IRS for the first time ever. 
Those are real accomplishments and folks say, ``Well, that's pretty 
good, but that's history. What are we going to do next?''
  Well, this Congress and this Republican House have several very, very 
important goals. We want to strengthen and make our schools not only 
better but safer, we want to strengthen Social Security by locking away 
100 percent Social Security revenues for Social Security. We want to 
pay down the national debt. And, of course, we want to continue working 
to lower taxes for the middle class and for working families. This year 
as we work to lower taxes and to lower the tax burden for middle-class 
families, I believe that the approach we should take is to address the 
unfairness in the tax code, because when I listen to the folks back 
home, whether in the union hall or the VFW,

[[Page 14588]]

a local Chamber of Commerce or at a coffee shop in my hometown down on 
Liberty Street, people say that not only are their taxes too high, they 
complain about the complexity and the unfairness of the tax code.
  I believe this series of questions really illustrates a key area of 
unfairness that we should make a priority in this Congress this year in 
getting the job done on eliminating this most unfair area of our tax 
code, that is why I want to explain why enactment of the Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act is so important with the question of fairness. Do 
Americans really feel that it is fair that under our tax code, married 
working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married? Do 
Americans feel that it is right that 21 million married working couples 
pay on average $1,400 more under our Tax Code just because they are 
married, $1,400 more than an identical couple with identical incomes 
who live together outside of marriage?
  Clearly I think the American people agree that the marriage tax 
penalty is wrong and we need to set it right. The marriage tax is not 
only unfair, it is wrong. It is wrong that under our Tax Code you are 
punished for getting married. As I noted earlier, it affects 21 million 
married working couples on average $1,400 in higher taxes just because 
they are married.
  Let me give an example here of a couple in the south suburbs of 
Chicago. You have a case where a machinist and, of course, this 
particular machinist works at Caterpillar in Joliet, he makes the heavy 
machinery that we use to mine and dig things and build things. He makes 
$30,500. If he is single, after the standard deductions and exemptions 
he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. But under our Tax Code because two 
working people who choose to get married, their incomes are combined 
and in fact you file your taxes jointly, you are pushed into a higher 
tax bracket. This example of this south suburban couple, this machinist 
who meets and marries a schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools with 
an identical income of $30,500, because under our Tax Code they combine 
their incomes and their combined income is $61,000, pushes them into 
the 28 percent tax bracket. And because this machinist and this 
schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago 
chose to get married, they pay more in taxes. That is just wrong.
  Of course I would like to point out that for this schoolteacher and 
this machinist in Joliet, $1,400 is real money. $1,400 is one year's 
tuition at Joliet Junior College, our local community college, and it 
is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. We need to 
eliminate that marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that under our Tax 
Code this machinist and schoolteacher end up paying higher taxes when 
they get married. Had they chose not to get married and just lived 
together, their taxes would have been $1,400 less. That is just wrong.
  Under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we eliminate this marriage 
tax penalty for this machinist and this schoolteacher. In fact, we do 
it by doubling the standard deduction. We also double the brackets so 
that joint filers can earn twice as much as a single filer and remain 
in each bracket. Had the Marriage Tax Elimination Act been law today, 
this machinist and schoolteacher would have seen the marriage tax 
penalty eliminated.
  What is the bottom line? Mr. Speaker, in just a couple of weeks this 
House of Representatives will be working to pass the tax provisions for 
this year's balanced budget, the 3rd balanced budget in 30 years, 
thanks to a Republican Congress. I believe as we work to provide tax 
relief as part of this balanced budget, our first priority should be 
making the Tax Code fairer for this schoolteacher and this machinist by 
working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  I am pretty proud of what we have accomplished. In 1996 we created as 
part of the Contract With America the $500 per child tax credit 
benefiting 3 million Illinois children. This year let us help married 
working couples. Let us help Illinois families by eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty.

                          ____________________