[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

                              of delaware

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 2000

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6, the ``Marriage Tax Penalty 
Relief Act of 2000,'' and I urge that we continue to work toward 
enactment of bipartisan legislation that includes sensible tax relief 
and progress on reducing the national debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not been shy in expressing the need for debt 
reduction. I stand squarely behind conservative economists, such as 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in calling for debt reduction 
as the highest priority for managing our surplus. I think tax cuts are 
an important way of providing relief for working Americans, but 
reducing the debt is also essential for improving the economic well-
being of all Americans. Reducing the national debt lowers interest 
rates on everything from student loans to mortgages to credit cards to 
business loans. It provides financial relief to a broad range of people 
without the need for a large bureaucracy at the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) to administer and enforce the financial relief, as tax 
cuts require.
  Relieving the national debt is also a matter of generational equity. 
I am convinced of the need to give future generations a fresh start in 
managing this country. Saddling them with more than $5 trillion in 
national debt handicaps their ability to provide for future needs.
  The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act also addresses an important 
equity issue--equal treatment of married couples. Under current law, 
dual income couples pay a higher share of taxes than single income 
couples with the same income. In addition, they pay a higher share of 
taxes than they would if they were both single. The primary reasons are 
because the 15 percent tax bracket and the standard deduction for 
married couples is not twice that of single earners. This creates a 
``tax penalty'' for dual income married couples, including many working 
class families where both parents must work to make ends meet. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average marriage 
penalty is almost $1400 a year. Between 1969 and 1995, the fraction of 
working-age couples in which both spouses earned income increased from 
48 percent to 72 percent. In Delaware alone, there are 74,120 families 
that suffer from the marriage tax penalty.
  Republicans and Democrats alike agree that these statistics cry out 
for some level of relief. President Clinton proposed a $45 billion 
relief package. House Democrats proposed a limited $89 billion relief 
package. House Republicans have proposed a $180 billion tax package 
that provides relief to more families. Marriage penalty relief was an 
element of the alternative tax package I introduced in 1999. Working 
families can benefit from debt reduction in the form of lower mortgage 
rates and lower interest rates on consumer debt, but they also deserve 
relief from a tax policy that penalizes married couples who must both 
work to provide for their family.
  Both parties should lay aside their rhetoric and budget gimmicks that 
allow the President to claim he can pay down the entire debt, invest in 
large new spending programs, provide tax cuts, and still preserve 
Social Security. Instead, we need to come together, election year or 
not, and make judicious, common-sense decisions on how we will 
prudently allocate the surplus among tax relief, debt reduction, and 
priority programs like defense and education. We cannot make 
unrealistic promises on tax cuts or spending based on ten year budget 
projections that could rapidly change.
  I support H.R. 6 because I recognize that working families deserve 
relief. H.R. 6 makes a strong statement to budget negotiators that 
marriage penalty relief must be a priority. It will serve as a good 
starting point for negotiations that should lead to a fair compromise 
that includes tax relief, debt reduction, and sensible spending for 
important programs. I support H.R. 6 and will continue to work to enact 
effective and fair marriage penalty relief this year.

                          ____________________