[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14649-14650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Senate will be voting on two 
competing marriage penalty relief proposals. The choice really could 
not be more clear. I want to talk a little bit about that choice this 
afternoon. The Republican bill has very little to do with the marriage 
penalty.
  In fact, I was just commenting that if the Republicans were trying to 
treat an illness, they would be sued for malpractice--given the bill 
they are proposing this afternoon--malpractice because they are not 
curing the disease. In fact, in some ways they are causing the disease, 
this marriage penalty disease, to be even more problematic, more 
difficult. They are actually creating another disease--a singles 
penalty. We need to be aware of the repercussions of what the 
Republicans are attempting to do with their legislation this afternoon. 
The singles penalty is something I will talk a little bit more about.
  To begin, I don't think there is any doubt that if you asked all 100 
Senators: should we fix the marriage penalty, the answer would be 
emphatically yes. The question is, How do we fix it, and are we really 
intent on fixing it?
  Our Republican colleagues only deal with three of the marriage 
penalty provisions incorporated in the law today. If you were going to 
completely eliminate the entire marriage penalty, you would have to 
deal not with 3 but with 65 of the provisions incorporated in the tax 
law that have caused the imbalance or the inequity to exist today. The 
Republicans have only dealt with three. Yet the cost to the Treasury of 
their plan--the one we will vote on today--is $248 billion overall.
  I don't know what it would cost if you were going to try to fix all 
65 under the Republican plan. Republican amendments were filed 
addressing six additional provisions, totaling $81 billion, in the 
Finance Committee. The remaining 56 provisions, untouched in the 
Republican bill, not addressed at all, have yet to be calculated in 
terms of what the cost might be with regard to the approach our 
Republican colleagues use.
  The second chart spells out what that means. If you only deal with 3 
of the 65 provisions, this is what happens. Take a married couple with 
a joint income of $70,000. Under current law, if the couple were single 
and they each paid their share of the tax, their tax total would be 
$8,407, depicted on the chart. Yet because they are kicked into a 
higher tax bracket when they reach that $70,000 joint income level, 
their tax is not $8,407; their tax is $9,532. So the marriage penalty 
is $1,125 under current tax law.
  Here is what the Republicans do. The Republicans will provide, under 
their bill, 39-percent relief. That is all you get. Here they are, 
spending $248 billion, and they can't even do it right. They can't even 
fix all 65 provisions. They fix three. So you leave the balance, under 
the Republican bill, for another day, apparently.
  We don't believe that ought to be the way to fix the marriage 
penalty. We think you ought to fix the marriage penalty, if you are 
saying you are going to fix it. We provide 100-percent relief, $1,125 
in relief for that couple making $70,000 a year. That is what we do. 
That is why we believe it is important for people to know there is a 
clear choice tonight when we vote on those plans: You can vote for the 
$248 billion Republican plan that fixes 3 or you can vote for the 
Democratic plan that provides for 100-percent relief and fixes all 65.
  I think it is very important for us to understand that not only is 
there a choice in trying to address the marriage penalty, but there is 
also another problem.
  We know how doctors try to fix one disease and sometimes create 
another side effect they had not anticipated because they prescribed 
the wrong medicine. We have a true illustration of prescription drugs 
as we know it in this country today, with a $248 billion fix when you 
could do it for a fraction of the cost. Not only that, their 
prescription doesn't cure the disease. Not only does it not cure the 
disease, it actually creates a new one.

[[Page 14650]]

  I guarantee my colleagues, within the next few years, you will have 
somebody come to the floor and say: Now we have to fix the singles 
penalty. It is broken. We may need another $248 billion tax plan to fix 
the singles penalty.
  This is what happens under the Republican plan. You have a joint 
income for that couple of $70,000. Current law requires their tax 
liability of $10,274. The Republican plan would provide $8,743, leaving 
the $443 relief I mentioned a moment ago.
  Let's take a widow, a widow who is making that $70,000 income--not a 
couple but a widow. She has a tax liability under current law of 
$14,172. Yet her penalty, a singles penalty, would go from $3,898 under 
current law to $5,429 under the Republican plan.
  What happens with this tax plan for a single person under certain 
circumstances--take a widow, a widow who is already probably faced with 
all kinds of serious financial pressures. Her tax burden goes up by 
$1,531, a new singles penalty created--I assume inadvertently--because 
our Republican colleagues are rushing to try to fix a marriage penalty, 
and they can't do it right. That is why this vote this afternoon is so 
important.
  The Democrats will be offering a plan that recognizes another 
inequity in the Republican plan. I have already talked about two: 
First, the importance of recognizing that out of the 65 provisions, the 
Republican plan only deals with 3; and then secondly, how we now have 
created--I assume inadvertently--this singles penalty.
  Look at the third problem with the Republican plan that has caused us 
to want to come to the floor to offer the alternative we will tonight. 
If you are making $20,000, the amount of tax relief you get under the 
Republican plan is $567. That is all you get. But if you are making 
$20,000, under the Democratic plan, your tax reduction, the amount of 
relief, is $2,164. If you are making $30,000 a year, according to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, which has analyzed this, under the 
Republican plan you get $800. Under the Democratic plan, you get 
$4,191. Why? Because we fix the marriage penalty. We provide entire 
relief, all 65 provisions.
  Look at what happens if you are making $50,000. I don't know what the 
Republicans have as a problem with those who are making $50,000, but 
they are sure penalizing them here. You only get $240 under the 
Republican plan in relief. Why you would want to penalize somebody 
making $50,000, I don't know. Under the Democratic plan, you get $1,913 
in relief.
  Let us skip all the way over to the other end of the spectrum. This 
probably tells it best.
  If you are providing real relief, you are going to go to those people 
who need the relief the most, those people in the $30,000 to $50,000 
category. Under the Republican plan, if you are making more than 
$200,000, that is when you start kicking in to real money. You get 
$1,335 in relief there. But if you make $50,000 in income, you get 
$240. That is the third reason we are so concerned about this 
Republican plan.
  Under the Republican plan, you get $1,335 in relief if you are making 
tons of money. If you are making $50,000, as are most people in the 
country--couples--you are going to get $240.
  We are concerned for those three problems. That is why we are 
offering our alternative tonight. The Democratic marriage penalty 
relief plan allows married couples to file separately or jointly--
another very important aspect: Give them the flexibility. Let them 
decide what is most helpful to them.
  That is how we avoid the so-called singles penalty, not the 
Republican plan. It eliminates all marriage tax penalties for taxpayers 
earning $100,000 or less, 100 percent. It reduces all marriage tax 
penalties for those taxpayers earning up to $150,000 and does not 
expand the so-called marriage bonus or the singles penalty that we are 
actually creating inadvertently today.
  I want to show one last chart that probably makes the case as well as 
I can. The marriage penalty bill proposed by the Republican plan deals 
with three. The Democratic alternative deals with the standard 
deduction and the problem we have with the marriage penalty and the 
standard deduction; earned income tax credits; child tax credits; 
Social Security benefits; rate brackets; IRA deductions, student loan 
interest deductions, and the 56 other marriage penalty provisions that 
exacerbate the marriage penalty today. We do them all. The Republican's 
do three.
  There is one other nonsubstantive but procedural concern I have, 
which I am compelled to bring up. The regular order in the Senate right 
now is the marriage penalty. We ought to be taking this bill up under 
the regular order, but we are not doing that. I think everyone here in 
the Chamber knows why. We are not doing that because the Republicans 
don't want to vote on tax amendments. That is why we are not doing it. 
They are using the brick wall they built around their marriage penalty, 
this impenetrable wall. So this is an up-or-down vote, a take-it-or-
leave-it vote. You either like it or don't; you either take it or leave 
it. That is the way it is going to be. We are not going to give the 
Democrats an amendable vehicle. We are going to give them a vehicle 
they can't amend, a vehicle that will allow the one alternative; and we 
are not going to debate tax policy, even though this goes to the heart 
of tax policy.
  So for the second time in less than a week we are going to be voting 
on a bill that I think deserves to be defeated. We should have defeated 
the estate tax bill. I will offer to Senator Lott that I am willing to 
sit down today and negotiate with him and the Finance Committee 
Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bill the President will 
sign. That isn't going to happen with the bill they passed last week. 
This bill is going to get vetoed, too. This bill will be vetoed, and it 
will be vetoed for good reason. It doesn't fix the marriage penalty. It 
costs $248 billion. It helps those at the high end and leaves everyone 
else in the lurch. It creates a singles penalty. That isn't the way to 
legislate. That is why we normally have amendments--to try to fix 
problems that were caused on purpose or inadvertently.
  I am hopeful the majority will take great care before they pass the 
bill that they are going to be pressing this evening. I hope they will 
work with us to come up with an alternative that the President will 
sign. We can do things the right way and we can enact them into law and 
provide meaningful accomplishment and meaningful relief and meaningful 
help to victims of the marriage penalty. Or we can simply make more 
statements about how some in this Senate prefer simply to help those at 
the very top of the income scale, once again, whether they need it or 
not. That is our choice. I hope Senators will take great care in making 
their choice, and I look forward to the debate and vote later this 
evening. Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________