[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATIC SUBSTITUTE TO THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. NANCY PELOSI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2000

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Appropriations process, the 
Republicans have attempted to portray Democrats and Democratic 
priorities in the areas of health, education, and other important 
federal initiatives as fiscally irresponsible. However, priorities such 
as health research, school construction, and teacher training are 
underfunded in the appropriations bills because the Republicans 
insisted on including massive tax cuts for the wealthy in the budget 
resolution. Which is the more accurate definition of fiscal 
responsibility--massive tax cuts that do not benefit most Americans or 
targeted tax cuts that leave room for health and education for all 
Americans?
  Today's debate raises that same question. The Republican Marriage 
Reconciliation Act will cost an astounding $182 billion over the next 
ten years, consuming nearly one-fourth of the on-budget surplus. 
Democrats have a sensible alternative that costs almost half as much as 
the Republican bill, while still providing marriage penalty tax relief 
to a majority of Americans.
  The fact is that most married couples are subject to tax at the 15% 
marginal rate. The only marriage penalty faced by most of these couples 
is due to the fact that the standard deduction for a joint return is 
less than twice the standard deduction for single taxpayers. The 
Democratic substitute would eliminate this marriage penalty by 
increasing the standard deduction for joint returns so that it is equal 
to twice the standard allowed to single taxpayers.
  In addition, low-income married couples also face a marriage penalty 
in the earned income tax credit. The Democratic substitute would reduce 
those penalties by increasing the income level at which the EITC begins 
to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500 in 2002 and thereafter.
  The Republicans portray themselves as the party of tax cuts and 
Democrats as the opponents of tax relief, but the reality has always 
been quite different. The reality of the bill being debated today is 
that the bulk of the tax cuts they propose are not marriage penalty 
relief, but rather a widening of tax brackets that benefit higher 
income taxpayers. As a result, half of the tax cuts in the Republican 
bill go to those who do not currently pay any marriage penalty.
  What Democrats have emphasized, today and always, is the importance 
of fairness in providing tax relief--fairness that ensures family 
security and protects our nation's priorities. The Democratic 
substitute would benefit the vast majority of married couples, and 
provide greater tax relief for low-income taxpayers than would the 
Republican bill. We should provide fiscally responsible tax relief to 
those Americans who need it most. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
the Marriage Penalty


Reconciliation Act and yes on the Democratic substitute.

                          ____________________