[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15620-15622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
     4810 have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record, of July 19, 2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, tomorrow this Senate will approve the 
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is a great victory 
for the American family--all of America's families. It is not one that 
has been won for America's families, as much as it has been earned by 
America's families.
  This bill is the centerpiece of our efforts to reduce the tax 
overpayment by American taxpayers. It is fair, it is responsible, it is 
the right thing to do for American families. And it is long overdue 
that they receive it.
  The provisions in this bill will help 45 million families. That is 
substantially every family in the U.S. Some of my colleagues have 
argued that almost half of those families--21 million families located 
in every state in this country--do not deserve any tax relief. I reject 
that. I reject it because in my home state of Delaware it would mean 
leaving over 30,000 families that contributed to our ever-growing 
budget surplus out of family tax relief.
  Why should the family in which one spouse stays home to raise the 
children and keep the house not receive a tax break? Does that spouse 
not work? Do you imagine that spouse doesn't work just because she or 
he does not get paid? Does that family not count? They do in Delaware, 
they do in this country, and they do in this bill.
  All of these American families have contributed to the record surplus 
that we have in Washington. They deserve to get some of it back. I 
believed that three months ago when I first unveiled this package. And 
I believe it even more so now in light of estimates recently released 
by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Today's bill amounts to less than 5 percent of the total budget 
surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a nickel on the dollar 
of our total budget surplus. It amounts to just 9 percent of the total 
non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. That is less than 
a dime on the dollar of the non-Social Security surplus. A nickel and a 
dime. By any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax relief is 
fiscally responsible. Those who dispute that are themselves seeking to 
``nickel-and-dime'' America's families out of tax relief.
  I would ask those who oppose this family tax relief: just how big 
will America's budget surplus have to get before America's families 
deserve to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? If 
just 5 percent of the budget surplus and just 9 percent of the tax 
overpayment is too big a refund, how little should it be? How long do 
they have to wait? How hard do they have to work? How large an 
overpayment do they have to make? How large a budget surplus do we need 
to have?
  This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of 
marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the 
rate brackets, and the earned income credit. And we have done so in a 
way that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in 
the tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home 
parent is not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both 
parents work outside the home. This is an important principle because 
these are important families.
  Let's take a look at what all these families will receive under our 
bill--and just as importantly, let's look at when they will get it. 
First, our bill increases the standard deduction for married couples 
filing a joint return to twice the deduction for singles.
  This benefit, which would reduce a couple's taxable income by $1,450, 
is effective for this taxable year. That's right--for the year 2000. 
That means when a couple files their tax returns this coming April, 
they will be able to see and feel the results of our work. This 
provision will benefit about 25 million taxpayers. As a result, I 
believe that we should call this bill the ASAP tax relief bill for 
America's taxpayers--tax relief for America's families now.
  Now, I know that those who search for excuses to oppose tax relief 
will question the immediacy of this tax cut. Before they do, I would 
remind those people: it was not a problem for them to raise taxes 
retroactively seven years ago. And of course, when you are raising 
taxes retroactively, it is a big problem because people have already 
made their financial commitments. In contrast, giving people an 
immediate tax cut is only a problem if you object to letting people 
keep their money.
  Second, our bill increases the 15 percent rate bracket for married 
couples so that it is twice the size of the corresponding rate bracket 
for singles. While we phase in this doubling, we begin the increase 
immediately. Taxpayers will receive a portion of the benefit as soon as 
possible--as soon as they file their year 2000 tax returns. And they 
will see the entire benefit--a total of over $1,100 per family--in the 
year 2004. This provision will help about 21 million taxpayers.
  Third, our bill helps married couples who are receiving the earned 
income credit. We increase the beginning and ending points of the 
credit's income phase-out for these couples by $2,000. Just like the 
other provisions in the bill, we deliver this relief immediately--for 
the tax year 2000. The hard working families who receive the EIC will 
see the benefit as soon as they file their year 2000 tax returns. This 
provision helps almost four million families, including an expansion of 
the EIC to one million families who were previously ineligible for the 
credit because of their combined income.
  Finally, our bill ensures that families will continue to receive 
their family tax credits. Congress has delivered a variety of tax 
credits to American families--credits like the child credit, the HOPE 
credit, the Lifetime Learning credit, the dependent care credit, and 
the adoption credit. This bill extends a temporary provision that 
carves out these credits from the ever-reaching grasp of the 
alternative minimum tax. Millions of families will also see this 
benefit. For them, this tax relief won't be an empty promise.
  In any House-Senate conference, both sides are forced to make 
compromises. This one was no exception. I would like to have included 
the doubling of the 28 percent bracket as we did in the Senate and as 
61 Senators supported. I think that these families deserve their full 
tax break as well. Even the Democratic alternative offered in the 
Senate accounted for these families by not completely phasing-out their 
relief until $150,000. I fought hard, but our colleagues in the House 
did not agree and they refused to budge. I also would

[[Page 15621]]

have liked to keep our earned income credit provision at $2,500. Once 
again, the House disagreed. But this is still a good bill and it still 
delivers the tax relief families have earned and deserve.
  Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way 
of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more 
progressive. Families with incomes under $100,000 receive a tax cut 
under our bill that is proportionally higher than the amount of taxes 
they currently pay. In other words, their tax burden will fall.
  Let's look at a few examples prepared by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. First, let's take a married couple with two children earning 
$30,000. When this bill is fully effective, that couple would see a 
reduction in its taxes of over 143 percent. On the other hand, a two-
child couple earning $100,000 would see its taxes drop by 11 percent, 
and a couple earning $200,000 would see its taxes drop by less than 4 
percent.
  This same dynamic holds true for a couple with no children. Under our 
bill, a couple earning $20,000 would see its taxes reduced by 28 
percent; a couple earning $75,000 would have its taxes reduced by 16 
percent, and a couple earning $100,000 would have its taxes reduced by 
9.5 percent.
  There is no honest way people can claim that this bill is tilted 
towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose 
this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is 
not--but because it is tilted away from Washington. As a result, some 
of America's tax overpayment will flow back to America's families.
  And while I would rather have seen the 28 percent bracket doubling 
included in the bill, its absence does do one thing. Its absence 
removes any excuse for the President not to sign this bill. If 
President Clinton does not sign this bill, then there is only one 
explanation. No matter how much the amount of surplus, no matter how 
much the size of the tax overpayment, no matter how high the overall 
tax burden, and no matter how much families deserve tax relief, it is 
all less important than the fact that Washington wants the money more. 
They are saying to America: those in the White House need your money 
more than the people in your house do.
  With the passage of this bill, Congress has met every test that the 
President has set for tax relief. He wanted it to go to deserving 
people. Who could be more deserving than America's families? He wanted 
it to be fiscally responsible. What could be more fiscally responsible 
than using just a nickel on America's budget surplus dollar and a dime 
on its tax overpayment? He wanted it to be one provision and not part 
of a large package. How could it be smaller than the single proposal of 
family tax relief included here?
  Every test, no matter how illusory, has been met. With this bill, 
President Clinton has run out of excuses for not giving American 
families tax relief. No more if's, and's, or buts. No more excuses. No 
more obstacles and no more conditions, this Senate will go on record 
tomorrow: Family tax relief now.
  Madam President, the time for excuses has passed, the time for family 
tax relief has come. While President Clinton has been focused on 
international affairs, families across America have been waiting for us 
to make good on our promise. For President Clinton to make good on his 
promise. They have been patient. They are waiting for us to return some 
of this record surplus to them.
  There is no reason, none whatsoever, that this bill, the ASAP tax 
relief bill for America's family taxpayers, should not be immediately 
signed. Let's approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2000 and let's divorce the marriage tax penalty from the tax code once 
and for all.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield back the time of the minority 
tonight, leaving the equally divided half hour in the morning.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I will yield back whatever time is not 
used by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, who wishes to speak.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I will need somewhere around 10 
minutes to discuss the conference report. May I proceed at this time?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas, and I will 
yield back the remainder of our time tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Finance 
Committee for putting forward this legislation. This is the marriage 
penalty tax. It has been before this body. We passed it with 61 votes 
in favor of it, and 9 Democrats voted in favor of this bill. Almost the 
entire Republican side voted for this bill. Now we have a conference 
report in front of us.
  I hope people will look at this and look at what is in the conference 
report. That is why I wanted to take some time to go through it. It is 
a 5-year package, $89 billion. I don't want people saying it is $250 
billion or anything; it is an $89 billion package. It only hits the 15-
percent tax bracket. There has been concern about the 28-percent 
bracket being hit. It doesn't include the 28-percent bracket. The House 
side has a 15-percent bracket in dealing with the marriage penalty but 
not the 28-percent bracket. So we went with the House side and said: 
OK, we will pull out the 28-percent bracket. So it is just that 15-
percent bracket. It is phased in faster than the Senate bill that 
passed. It does continue to contain the earned-income tax provisions 
within it so that married couples who are currently being hit by a 
marriage penalty associated with the earned-income tax credit are no 
longer impacted by that.
  This is an overall excellent bill that meets virtually everybody's 
suggestions that they were making about this bill. I hope we can get 
100 percent support within the Senate for this bill.
  It eliminates the marriage penalty built into the standard deduction 
effective back to the beginning of this year. It backs it up to the 
beginning of the year 2000. It widens the 15-percent bracket gradually 
so that joint filing is two times that of singles. It starts at the 
beginning of this year, and is fully effective by the year 2004.
  In other words, we are taking that 15-percent bracket for two-wage 
earners, or spouses with combined incomes, or even only one spouse, and 
we are doubling the standard deduction. We are doing it up until 2004.
  It increases the top phaseout amount of the earned-income tax 
credit--the provision I was talking about earlier--for joint filers by 
$2,000 effective to the beginning of this year; again, the beginning of 
the year 2000. It sunsets the tax relief provisions in accordance with 
the Byrd rule at the end of 2004. I want to make sure to point out that 
provision to people as well. This is a 5-year marriage penalty 
elimination for the 15-percent tax bracket and earned-income tax 
credit.
  That is basically what the package is. I think it should contain 
more. I think we ought to have the 28-percent bracket as well on 
combined incomes. We couldn't get agreement to that in the House. We 
did on the 15-percent bracket.
  I direct most of my statement tonight to the administration. This is 
going to pass. It is going to pass strong. We have had a lot of calls 
and contacts in our office from people saying: Of course you shouldn't 
tax marriage. Let's do away with this penalty. That is what we are 
simply pleading to the President.
  After tomorrow morning when this passes with at least 61 votes, this 
will be on the administration's desk. It is up to the President and 
Vice President to determine whether they are going to sign this tax 
cut. Are we going to sign this tax correction and send to the American 
people, or are we going to veto it?
  The President has been saying: OK. Send me prescription drugs and I 
will sign the marriage penalty. In the State of the Union Message, he 
said: Let's deal with the marriage penalty tax, and let's eliminate it. 
He didn't say then that you have to send this to me at the same time. 
He asked for a hundred things in the State of the Union Message. He 
didn't say they have to be linked together. I think he is hiding behind 
that issue rather than saying

[[Page 15622]]

whether he is for or against eliminating the marriage penalty within 
the Tax Code.
  I call on the President to sign this for the American people. After 
tomorrow morning, the President and the Vice President and this 
administration are all that stands in the way of the American people 
being able to receive this correction within the Tax Code so people who 
are married don't pay more taxes than people who are single.
  It simply makes equitable a situation for most people impacted by the 
marriage penalty; not all. It would be better if it dealt with 
everybody. It is a simple statement that we should not be taxing 
marriage. We have said that repeatedly. For most people impacted by the 
marriage penalty, this bill will deal with that situation. We will not 
be taxing people just for being married. Plus, I think it is just the 
right message to send across to the American public saying we think 
marriage is a valuable institution; it shouldn't be taxed. We think it 
is at the center of family values. Let's all say we are for it and that 
we shouldn't be taxing it.
  Also, it gets around that iron rule in government that if you want 
less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. 
I don't think we want to tell the American public we want less 
marriage, and therefore we are taxing them.
  This is the time for us to accomplish this.
  I say in conclusion that this is going to pass, and it will pass 
large tomorrow morning. At least nine Democrats voted for it the last 
time. The only thing that stands in the way of this tax relief--this 
tax sanity, that we shouldn't be taxing marriage and the American 
public--is the President of the United States. Please, Mr. President, 
sign this bill.
  This is good tax policy. This Congress is doing a number of things. 
We are getting them to the President. It is up to the President whether 
he will sign them into law.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Marriage Tax Relief Act that 
passed in the Senate previously and that has now come back to us from 
conference is a piece of legislation of historic importance. I would 
like to share a few thoughts with this body concerning why I think it 
is so important.
  Not long ago a Harvard president wrote a book about the beginning of 
our Republic--the first 150 years. He said every piece of legislation 
that was considered and passed was debated on the principle of whether 
or not it would make the American people better as individual people, 
as human beings. It would encourage their self-reliance, their 
discipline, and their work ethic. It would encourage them to educate 
themselves and their families. It would make them more law abiding.
  We know that public policy does, indeed, affect social policy and 
that actions have consequences. We know that a tax is a penalty. A tax 
is a detriment. When you tax something, you get less of it. In fact, 
that is why we tax cigarettes and beer more than we do food and 
medicine. We believe you can reduce certain activities to some degree 
by a tax. We now know if you subsidize an event, you get more of it.
  Those are principles that I think are undisputed. How much I don't 
know. How much it affects any one single event in the life of a nation 
I don't know. But when you have over 200 million people making 
thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of decisions every 
day, every week, and every month of the year, penalties on one type of 
decisionmaking and a subsidy on another type of decisionmaking can 
affect what happens.
  We are in the position that this great Nation through inadvertence, I 
suppose, has created a system that actually penalizes marriage. It, 
indeed, can be said to subsidize divorce.
  I know a friend who got a divorce in January. I was told had they 
divorced in December it would have saved them $1,600 in tax dollars; 
the Federal Government would be prepared to subsidize that divorce. But 
had they married in December, it would have cost them on their tax 
return an additional $1,600; $1,600 is a lot of money.
  The average family who pays this marriage tax penalty according to 
the best estimates pays around $1,400 more per year in taxes. That is 
$100 a month. That is real money for American families.
  I want to say how excited I am that I believe we are on the verge of 
passing and sending to the President a bill that I trust he will feel 
quite comfortable signing--a bill to eliminate this bizarre penalty.
  How much has it impacted marriage and families in America? I don't 
know. But we know this: Marriage and family is a good institution. It 
strengthens America through families. Traditions, stability, and 
education are ways of getting along in the world and transmitted 
partnerships occur. People live longer who are married, for the most 
part. It is a good institution. It is the institution that raises our 
next generation, trains them, and prepares them for the world.
  It is such a delight and a thrill to know that we will, tomorrow, I 
am quite confident, vote to eliminate this penalty on one of America's 
most valuable institutions, the family. What a good day that is going 
to be. I look forward to it. I am going to celebrate it when it is 
signed, as I am confident the President will do. We will have made a 
major step in this body to strengthening one of America's greatest 
institutions, and that is the family.

                          ____________________