[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5359-5370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Targeted 
Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000. I do so because I believe it 
affords us the best opportunity to deal with this problem in a way that 
will relieve this penalty from the vast majority of Americans.
  Approximately 80 percent of the Americans who currently pay the 
marriage tax penalty would have their penalty eliminated entirely under 
our approach.
  Secondly, I favor this approach because it allows us to deal with 
this problem in the most affordable manner, also giving us the freedom 
to address other important issues that have faced our great country. I 
support the Targeted Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000 because it 
strikes the right balance between fiscal responsibility and a socially 
progressive policy, which I think is best for our country.
  I support relief of the marriage tax penalty for several important 
reasons. First, as a matter of basic justice. It is not right that two 
individuals should pay more in taxes simply because they are married. 
When our Tax Code falls into ridicule, compliance drops and the 
Government, as a whole, falls into disrepute. We should not allow this 
to happen. We can take an important step to preventing this from 
happening by dealing with the marriage penalty problem.
  Secondly, I support marriage tax penalty relief as a matter of social 
policy. Marriages and families are the basic building blocks on which 
our society is built. Too many marriages today end in disillusion. Too 
many families today are fractured because of the strains they face, 
often financial strains. If we can take action to strengthen families 
and marriages, to provide a sound and secure environment in which 
children can be raised, it is better for our country in a whole host of 
important ways.
  I support the marriage tax relief provisions I speak to today as a 
matter of economic policy. During prosperous times when we enjoy 
surplus, it is only right that we share some of that hard-earned 
benefit with those who have generated it in the first place: the 
taxpayers of our country.
  All of this is not to say we can afford just any approach to 
resolving the marriage penalty situation. We have to get it right. We 
have to do it in a way that is affordable and balanced with the other 
needs our country faces. This cannot be said of all the approaches 
currently before this body. Some of the approaches are poorly targeted, 
more than we can afford and, in fact, do not deserve the title of 
marriage tax penalty relief at all.
  I admire the work done by the Democrats on the Senate Finance 
Committee; in particular, the leadership of the ranking member, Senator 
Moynihan, and Senator Baucus. Their approach is truly targeted to 
ending the marriage tax penalty problem. It is intellectually elegant, 
and I appreciate the work they have done in this regard. We have 
several practical issues we are working through, but their approach 
truly deserves the title ``marriage tax penalty relief.''
  The same cannot be said of the approach taken by the majority. Their 
approach claims to be a marriage tax penalty reduction bill but, as has 
been alluded to by several other speakers, more than half of the 
benefits go to

[[Page 5360]]

those who do not have a marriage tax penalty at all. Many things can be 
said about this proposal. Calling it a marriage tax penalty bill is not 
one of them.
  Secondly, it is too slow. It is phased in over a 7-year period. Why 
should we wait so long to give this important relief to the taxpayers 
of America? If it is truly a pressing problem, surely we can afford to 
act much sooner than that.
  Third, it is regressive in nature. More than half of the benefits 
under the approach taken by the majority go to those earning more than 
$100,000 a year.
  I have no trouble with the wealthy in our society. In fact, I wish we 
had more wealthy in the United States of America. But at a time when we 
have to make difficult decisions and allocate scarce resources among 
competing priorities, I think relief of the marriage tax penalty needs 
to be more squarely focused upon the middle class, an approach not 
taken by the majority.
  Finally, and most significant of all, is the issue of affordability. 
The approach taken by the majority would use fully $248 billion over 
the next 10 years to solve this problem, severely limiting our ability 
to deal with other pressing matters that face our country.
  If you care about a drug benefit for Medicare, not only is the 
majority position silent about your concerns, it in fact limits our 
ability to do something about your concerns. If you care about making 
college more affordable by including a college tax deduction or credit 
to lower the cost of college, not only does the majority position do 
nothing to address your concerns, in fact it makes addressing your 
concerns and reducing the burden of the college expense on working 
families more difficult to accomplish. If you care about caring for the 
elderly, a sick parent or grandparent, not only is the majority 
approach silent about your concerns, it in fact makes it more difficult 
to deal with this important and pressing matter. If you care about debt 
relief or about education reform, not only is the majority position 
silent about your concerns, it in fact makes it more difficult to 
consider.
  Fortunately, there is another alternative, one that is targeted, one 
that is immediate, one that is progressive, and one that is affordable. 
The approach I speak to today, as the approach taken by the Democrats 
in the Senate Finance Committee, is a true marriage tax penalty relief 
bill. No one who does not currently pay a marriage tax penalty will be 
eligible for a tax cut under this provision. It helps those who have 
the problem get relief, which is the way it should be.
  Secondly, the relief is immediate. In the first year of this 
approach, fully 51 percent of Americans who pay a marriage tax penalty 
will have their marriage tax penalty eliminated entirely. After 4 
years, when this approach is fully implemented, more than 80 percent of 
the American people, everyone making under $120,000 a year, will have 
their marriage tax penalty fully eliminated--100-percent elimination of 
the marriage tax penalty for everyone making $120,000 a year in just 4 
years, not the 7 proposed by the majority.
  Third, this approach is progressive. Everyone making under $120,000 
will have the marriage tax penalty eliminated, and the majority, more 
than half, of the benefits go to those making between $50- and $100,000 
a year. Working families, the middle class, those who are struggling 
most can make ends meet.
  Finally, on the issue of affordability, while the majority proposes 
$248 billion over 10 years to deal with this problem, our approach 
would take only $90 billion--more than 80 percent of the problem 
eliminated at only a fraction of the cost--thereby freeing up billions 
and billions of dollars to deal with other pressing matters that face 
our society.
  Let me put this in perspective: the difference in cost of the 
majority's position versus our position is $158 billion over 10 years. 
The difference in cost would completely fund a Medicare drug benefit 
proposed by the President of the United States for every senior citizen 
across our country qualifying for Medicare, helping to lower the cost 
of prescription drugs. Even if you don't adopt the President's approach 
to a Medicare drug benefit and instead adopt the less costly provisions 
proposed by the majority--let's take the Republican drug benefit, 
costing around $70 billion over the next 10 years--you would still have 
the ability to fully fund that and, in addition, adopt a $10,000 tax 
deduction for people with children in college, allowing them to write 
off the first $10,000 of college tuition.
  In addition, you would allow a $3,000 credit for senior citizens who 
are being cared for by their children or grandchildren, lowering the 
cost of long-term care for the elderly in our society. You would allow 
for the $30 billion of education reform proposed by Senator Graham on 
the floor of the Senate just last year.
  Let me briefly review the affordability provisions. On the one hand, 
you have a so-called marriage tax penalty relief bill that costs $248 
billion over 10 years, the majority of which goes to people who, in 
fact, don't pay the marriage tax penalty, or you can eliminate 80 
percent of the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it entirely for everyone 
making under $120,000 and, in addition to that, fully fund the Medicare 
drug benefit proposed by the majority, and fully fund the college 
tuition deduction proposed by Senator Schumer, and fully fund the long-
term elderly care credit proposed by myself and others, and fully fund 
the money for education reform proposed by Senator Graham.
  The choice is clear: a marriage tax proposal on the one hand that 
goes to largely benefit those who don't pay the marriage tax penalty or 
a marriage penalty relief proposal that eliminates the vast majority of 
that problem and adds a Medicare drug proposal and makes college more 
affordable and provides for long-term care for the elderly and invests 
funds in the quality of education. I believe the choice is clear.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and, again, commend the 
Senate Finance Committee Democrats for their dedication to this issue 
and the hard work they have devoted to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a very important debate. I 
hope we are going to be able to move to pass this bill before people 
have to write their checks during the weekend deadline for income taxes 
this year.
  Right now, there are negotiations underway between the Republicans 
and the Democrats about what kind of amendments should be offered. I 
very much hope that the Democrats will agree to offer some relevant 
amendments because I think there are surely legitimate disagreements 
about how we would give marriage tax penalty relief. But I also hope we 
will not have extraneous amendments offered, no matter how good the 
cause, which would take away from what President Clinton asked us to 
do, and that is to send him a marriage tax penalty bill that does not 
include extraneous legislation. That is what we are attempting to do.
  So I hope we can move forward into the amendment phase and talk about 
our differences. I think the distinguished Senator from Indiana wants 
tax relief for hard-working married couples. I think we may have a few 
differences, but in the end I suspect that he and I will both vote for 
the bill that is passed out of this Senate; that is, if we can get to 
the vote. That is what I hope we can do.
  I think we need to be very careful in the debate, though, about 
accuracy and what the different proposals are going to do. I heard a 
Senator earlier today in debate say that this bill on the floor will 
break the Treasury. I think the distinguished Senator from California, 
Mrs. Boxer, perhaps didn't look at the numbers and didn't match it to 
the budget resolution because, clearly, this not only doesn't break the 
Treasury, it doesn't even spend half of the allocation in the budget we 
passed last week for tax relief. In fact, it is $69 billion over 5 
years, and the budget we passed last week is $150 billion over 5 years. 
So this is not even half.
  We do hope to give tax relief to other people in our country. We want 
to

[[Page 5361]]

eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We want to let seniors work if they 
are between 65 and 70 and not be penalized for it, and that bill has 
already been passed. We want small business tax cuts to make it easier 
for our small businesses to create the jobs that keep our economy 
thriving. We would like to give education tax cuts. Under the 
leadership of Senator Coverdell, we passed education tax cuts that 
would help people give their children the education enhancements that 
would increase their education quality. All of these things fit within 
the $150 billion tax relief in the budget that we passed last week.
  I think this is quite responsible and I think it is long overdue. We 
are talking about a tax correction as much as anything, because it is 
outrageous to talk about people who are single, working; they get 
married and they don't get salary increases, but all of a sudden they 
owe $1,000 more in taxes. It is time to correct this inequity. That is 
exactly what the bill before us does. It corrects the inequity all the 
way through the 28-percent tax bracket. It helps people all the way 
through those income brackets.
  Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from Alabama if he 
would like to speak. I don't know if others are waiting to speak, but 
he was waiting earlier. I am happy to yield to him at this time because 
he has been a leader in this effort.
  How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Ten minutes would be fine.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will stop my remarks and yield to Senator Sessions 
for 10 minutes from our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Texas for her stalwart 
leadership in this bill. The President of the United States said in his 
State of the Union Message that the marriage tax penalty should be 
eliminated. Polling data shows that the overwhelming number of American 
citizens believe it should be eliminated. I had a meeting and a press 
conference with a number of families in Alabama on Monday, and we sat 
down and talked with them about the struggles they have. One couple had 
eight children. They are paying additional taxes because they are 
married. Another couple had just gotten married and had a young child, 
and they are paying more because they are married. Those are the kinds 
of things that are unexplainable to the American people. They are 
unjustifiable in logic, fairness, and justice. On a fundamental basis, 
the marriage tax penalty is an unfair and unjust tax. It is not that we 
are doing a tax reduction so much as we are eliminating a basic 
unfairness.
  As I have said before, the challenge we are facing today is to 
create, as Members of this Senate, public policy that improves us as a 
people, that helps us to be better citizens. On every bill that comes 
through, every piece of legislation that we consider, we need to ask 
ourselves: Will this make us better or improve us as a nation? When we 
have legislation and laws in force that give a bonus to people to 
divorce, we have something wrong.
  I have a friend who went through an unfortunate divorce. They got 
that divorce in January. I was told: Jeff, had we known about it and 
thought about it at the time, we could have gotten the divorce in 
December and we would have saved another $1,600 on our tax bill.
  The Federal Government is paying a bonus to people who divorce. In 
effect, that is what our public policy does. If they are married, they 
are paying a penalty. It is $1,600, according to CBO, for an average 
family who pays this penalty, and $1,400, according to the Treasury 
Department, President Clinton's own Treasury Department, that says the 
families who pay this penalty pay an average of almost $100 per month. 
That is a lot of money. That is tax-free money that they could utilize 
to fix their automobile, get a set of tires, go to the doctor, take the 
kids to a ball game, or buy them a coke after a game, or go to a movie, 
and do the kinds of things families ought to do.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator, is the so-called marriage tax penalty 
a consequence of getting married or is it a consequence of getting 
married and the proportion of incomes each spouse earns? I might ask 
the question differently. How many people in America--if the Senator 
knows, and he may--get a bonus under our tax laws, not a penalty? What 
percentage of American taxpayers today receive a bonus as opposed to a 
penalty?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am not sure about any bonus factor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is because when they get married, they pay less 
taxes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, 21 million, I believe, pay more taxes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator, are there some people getting married 
and, as a consequence, pay less taxes?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is perhaps so.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is so.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is a factor, as the Senator indicated, relative to 
the income that each person earns.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What we are trying to do is find a solution that solves 
the problem of the disparity in what each spouse makes, which might 
then cause the penalty. For example, we all know when you have a 
married couple and one spouse receives more income than the other--
considerably more--the joint tax is going to be less than if they are 
filing separately. We all know that. That is mathematically a given. 
The consequence, though, of a married man and woman who earn roughly 
the same amount is that couple pays more in taxes than they would pay 
if they were separate.
  So what we are trying to do is solve the problem--if the Senator 
would agree with me--and to make sure that when a man and woman get 
married, we address the problem created when the two people have 
somewhat similar incomes, which then creates the penalty. So some who 
are married pay a penalty and some get a bonus. Aren't we only trying 
to solve the penalty problem for those couples who find themselves in a 
penalty position?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will just say this. The Senator is correct in saying 
this legislation deals with the penalty provision and does not attempt 
to increase taxes on married couples, to try to reach some sort of 
ideal level.
  It is designed to provide relief from the penalty that occurs.
  Does the Senator propose that we increase the taxes on those who may 
be paying less because they are married?
  Mr. BAUCUS. If we are trying to solve the so-called marriage penalty 
problem, then we should try to solve the so-called marriage tax penalty 
problem.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We are solving the marriage tax penalty problem. You 
may be complaining about the bonus some might get.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I could answer the question, on the other hand, if we 
want to do something else in addition to solving the marriage tax 
penalty problem, that is a different debate, and we should try to 
figure out how best to do that. As it is today, there are 25 million 
Americans who find themselves in the penalty position when they get 
married. But there are 21 million Americans who find themselves in a 
bonus situation when they get married. It is about 50-50. It makes 
sense, I think, to try to give relief to those in the penalty 
situation.
  I am not sure if those who are already in the bonus situation need 
more relief, as contained in the Finance Committee bill, the majority 
bill.
  I was asking the Senator why we are doing that. Why are we doing more 
than fixing the penalty?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think it would be a matter of some discussion if the 
Senator would like to have some hearings in the Finance Committee on 
whether or not these bonuses occur. I don't think they are as 
substantial as the penalties may be. They are not. But, at any rate, if 
the Senator wants to have hearings on whether they ought to be raised, 
then I think that is something that is worthy of evaluation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This Senator is not advocating any increase in taxes; no 
way at all. I want to make that clear. I know the Senator didn't mean 
to imply

[[Page 5362]]

that I was thinking of raising taxes because I am not.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We have a problem when two people are working and they 
are making $30,000 a year--just two, a man and woman. They fall in 
love. They get married. At $30,000 a year each, they end up paying 
about $800 more a year, which is $60 or $80 a month in extra tax simply 
for getting married. I want to eliminate that. If somebody wants to 
deal with the other problem, they can.
  Frankly, I am beginning to observe there is a feeling on the other 
side that this bill needs to go away, that people are not willing to 
confront it directly. I hope that is not so. I hope we can see this 
legislation go forward.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might ask the Senator one more question, is it 
better to try to find some way to pay down the national debt at the 
same time we are fixing the marriage tax penalty problem?
  The Senator gave a hypothetical of a man and woman each earning 
$30,000. They get married and have to pay more taxes. That is not 
right. I totally agree that is not right. That ought to be fixed. 
Somebody who pays more income taxes as a consequence of getting married 
should not be facing that situation, and we should, in the Congress, 
figure out a way--as various proposals do--so a couple does not have to 
pay any more income taxes as a consequence of getting married. I agree 
with the Senator. That is not right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly all it does. Does the Senator disagree? 
This bill eliminates the penalty. That is what it intends to do. That 
is what the President says he supports. That is what the Senator from 
Montana says he supports. That is it.
  I have the floor. I will yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The 10 minutes yielded to the 
Senator from Alabama have expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 5 minutes so we can 
continue this discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to hear the Senator's question on the 
point.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The question I am asking is this: More than half of the 
Finance Committee bill does not address the marriage tax penalty 
problem. More than half goes to married couples who have no marriage 
penalty problem but who are already in a bonus situation.
  I am asking the Senator: Most Americans would rather have the 
national debt paid down. Doesn't it make more sense for us to address 
the marriage tax penalty problem directly and to take the rest and help 
pay down the national debt?
  Mr. SESSIONS. We are paying down the national debt in record amounts. 
As the Senator knows, we are down $175 billion this year. That will 
continue. The tax reduction that would be affected by this bill 
represents only, let us say, a small fraction of the total surplus we 
will be looking at in the next number of years.
  If these so-called bonuses that the Senator refers to are primarily 
given to the one-income earner couple where a mother stays home and is 
not working, they receive some benefit from that. I think the bonus is 
not sufficient to make up for the fact that one of them stays at home.
  Also, one of the most pernicious parts of this bill--the Senator from 
Texas has talked about this previously--is that we are attempting in 
America today to break through the glass ceiling to have women move 
forward and achieve equal income in America. That is happening to a 
record degree. But under the present Tax Code, the more equal the 
marriage partners are in income, the more tax penalty falls on them. In 
a way, as a practical matter, it seems to fall against working women in 
a way that you would not expect it to, and it is something we would not 
want to see happen.
  We have unanimous agreement that the marriage tax penalty is a matter 
that ought not to continue. This legislation deals directly and 
squarely with that. It doubles the standard deduction. It doubles the 
brackets for married couples, which is the simplest and best way to 
achieve that. It will give hard-earned relief to married couples.
  We had the spectacle reported of the witness who testified in the 
House committee that each year he and his wife would divorce before the 
end of the year, file separately, get the lower tax rate, and then 
remarry at the beginning of the next year.
  We ought not to have tax policies that would make somebody feel as if 
they could get ahead of the system and save money for their family by 
divorcing every year. It is the kind of thing that is not healthy.
  I appreciate the fact we are finally moving. I hope in a bipartisan 
way to see this bill become law.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, these are very interesting discussions. 
I think that for a long, long period of time people at the grassroots 
of America have understood there should not be a policy that hurts 
people who join in bonds of matrimony. Everybody realizes that the 
strength and foundation of our society is the family. The husband and 
wife are the strength of our society and the foundation of our society.
  We have legislation before us that finally will end the penalty 
against people who marry and get hit with a higher level of taxation 
rather than two people who aren't married and filing separately making 
the same amount of income.
  Basically, we are talking about the issue of fairness--in this case, 
fairness within the Tax Code; economic fairness for people who are 
married.
  For about 30 years, our Tax Code has been penalizing people just 
because they happen to be married.
  This is, of course, a perfect example of how broken our Tax Code is, 
and perhaps is an example that can be given with many other examples of 
why there ought to be a broader look at greater reform and 
simplification of the Tax Code. That debate is for another day. Even 
though 70 percent of the people in this country feel the Tax Code is 
broken and ought to be thrown out, there is not a consensus among the 
American people whether a flat rate income tax, which about 30 percent 
of the people say we ought to have, or a national sales tax, which 
about 20 percent of the people say we ought to have, should take the 
place of the present Tax Code.
  I use those two percentages to show there is not much of a consensus 
of what should take its place and therefore probably not enough 
movement being reflected in the Congress for an alternative to the 
present Tax Code. Therefore, we find ourselves refining the Tax Code 
within our ability to do it--a little bit here and a little bit there.
  One of the most outstanding examples of something wrong with our Tax 
Code is that people pay a marriage penalty, pay a higher rate of 
taxation because they are married as opposed to two individuals filing 
separately. As with the earnings limitation that discriminated against 
older Americans, a bill was recently signed by the President of the 
United States. This unfair marriage penalty needs to be dumped, as 
well.
  I applaud my side of the aisle because it took a Republican-led 
Congress to repeal the Social Security earnings limit, but the 
President of the United States was very happy to sign that Republican-
led effort. To be fair to the other side, it eventually did pass 
unanimously. It is the same Republican-led Congress that is taking the 
lead in repealing the marriage penalty tax.
  I listened to a number of comments from the minority side yesterday. 
I came away with the conclusion they want the American people to 
believe that the other side of the aisle is for getting rid of the 
marriage penalty tax. Of course, the minority party had control of the 
Congress for decades and never once tried to repeal it. Even more 
interesting, I am afraid we could be victims of the old bait-and-switch 
routine. For instance, as this bill was being considered in the Senate 
Finance

[[Page 5363]]

Committee, an amendment was offered by the minority to delay any 
marriage penalty relief until we fixed Social Security and Medicare. 
That is a ``manana'' type of amendment, meaning if we wait to do these 
other things tomorrow before we have a tax cut, we are never going to 
have a tax cut.
  We may see that amendment again on the floor of the Senate. Remember, 
in committee, all of the Democrats voted for delay until Social 
Security or Medicare was fixed, and all the Republicans voted to fix 
the marriage penalty tax now. We all know neither the administration 
nor the Democratic side have comprehensive proposals to fix Social 
Security and Medicare. I have to admit, I am participating with two or 
three Democrats on a bipartisan effort to fix Social Security, but the 
administration has refused to endorse that bipartisan effort. There are 
also bipartisan efforts in the Senate to fix Medicare, but the White 
House has not endorsed those bipartisan efforts.
  Saying that Social Security and Medicare ought to be fixed before we 
give some tax relief, and particularly tax relief through the marriage 
penalty tax, is like saying you don't want a tax cut. I am sorry to say 
at this late stage of this Congress, I don't think we will see from the 
Clinton-Gore administration any efforts to fix these problems this year 
in a comprehensive way. When they say we ought to fix Social Security 
or Medicare first, it is a manana approach--put it off until later; 
that day will surely never come if we follow that scenario.
  The national leadership of the unions in America, the AFL-CIO 
leadership, put out their marching orders in a legislative alert making 
these very same arguments that I am sure is only coincidental. They 
urge that the marriage penalty relief should be delayed until these 
other problems--presumably Social Security and Medicare--are solved.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for marriage 
penalty relief but only some time in the unknown future. That is, in 
fact, Washington, DC, doubletalk that continues to make the American 
people more cynical about whether Congress is ever determined and 
willing and committed to deliver keeping our promises. Delaying this 
tax relief means no tax relief at all. I hope taxpayers across the 
country will let their Senators know they have had enough of this 
doubletalk and that they will demand real action now, and sooner or 
later we will get this bill brought to a final vote.
  Another misguided argument used yesterday is that under the majority 
bill married couples get a tax cut but single mothers with kids 
wouldn't get one. This is a complicated aspect of the bill, but the 
argument is not correct. Senators making these arguments repeated it, 
bringing emphasis to it, as if something new has been discovered, that 
some kind of smoking gun had been discovered. Unfortunately, for those 
Members' arguments, the statements are inaccurate. An important part of 
our bill repeals the alternative minimum tax for over 10 million 
people. Many helped in that provision will be single mothers.
  There is something much more interesting about this argument; that 
is, the alternative that presumably will be offered by the other side 
of the aisle is the bill that flatout, without question, doesn't help 
single mothers at all. But that isn't even the most important point.
  That important point is, if a single mother chooses to eventually get 
married--and since marriage is the foundation of our society, I think 
we all agree that this is a good move, both for the mother and the 
children--then, under our bill, she will not be penalized for being 
married. There will not be a higher rate of taxation just because that 
single mother gets married. Under current law, if she continues to work 
after being married, the Government is going to slap her and her 
husband with a big tax increase. It is that sort of very bad situation 
our bill will eliminate.
  In addition, it is important to note the alternative, from our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, discriminates against stay-at-
home moms. Why should we have proposals before us indicating, if you 
decide you want to stay at home and raise your kids, spend full time 
doing it--probably the most important economic contribution you can 
make to American society, and you are not going to get paid for it, but 
it is a great contribution to American society. It might not be much of 
an economic contribution to the family because there is no income going 
to come as a result of it, but it is good for American society for kids 
to have parents who are able to be at home with them.
  So if you decide to stay at home with the kids, you are going to be 
discriminated against under the alternative from the Democrat side of 
the aisle.
  That proposal only helps two-earner couples. It not only doesn't help 
those single mothers over whom the other side of the aisle cries 
crocodile tears frequently, it hurts those families where one parent 
decides to stay at home with the children. I hope all of you stay-at-
home parents out there listening understand what the Democratic 
alternative would do to your families.
  It seems to me we should be helping people get married, encouraging 
marriage--it is the solid foundation of our society --not penalizing 
them for doing it. So, I hope we can get this bill to discussion 
without cloture. Obviously, there is a legitimacy for amendments from 
the other side of the aisle. There is even probably legitimacy for 
amendments from our side of the aisle. There ought to be agreement to 
those amendments.
  It is really time for the gridlock to be over, to move to this bill, 
to get to a final vote. Now is the time to pass this very important 
reform, and I urge the Members of this body to come together on 
amendments, on limitations on discussions, and do what is right by 
passing this legislation.
  Before I yield the floor, if I could do something for the leader: I 
ask unanimous consent the debate only continue on the marriage tax 
penalty until 5 p.m. today, with the time equally divided, and the 
majority leader recognized at the hour of 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think it is important to lay things out 
as to what this issue is and what it is not. There is a lot of talk 
that this is a marriage tax penalty. There is even an implication by 
some that there is something put in the Tax Code to penalize couples 
because they are married; that is, they have to pay more taxes. Of 
course that is not true. A little history, I think, is instructive as 
to why we are here and what perhaps some solutions might be.
  When the income tax was enacted, the Congress treated individuals as 
the unit of taxation, whether or not one was married. If somebody made 
a certain amount of money, he or she paid income taxes. If he or she 
got married, he or she was subject to the same rates, the same 
schedule. The individual was treated as the unit.
  That was the case for a while. But many States in our Nation are 
community property States. They have different laws which determine to 
what income a man or woman in married status is entitled. In community 
property States, the rule is any income earned by a spouse is 
automatically community property and therefore is equally divisible. As 
a consequence, in community property States, each, the man and wife, 
would combine their incomes and file separately. That was upheld by the 
courts. That created a big discrepancy between community property 
States and common law States.
  In common law States, an individual still had to pay the individual 
rates, whether or not he or she got married, which was just not fair. 
So Congress in 1948 changed the law to make it fair. What did Congress 
do? Congress in 1948 said: OK, we are going to double the deductions 
for married couples as opposed to singles, so when you get married, you 
do not pay any more taxes

[[Page 5364]]

than you would pay if you were single. That was the rule of thumb. The 
brackets for the married were doubled, and the deductions were doubled.
  That created another inequity. In this area of tax law, when you push 
down the balloon someplace, it pops up someplace else. The inequity 
created was the inequity for individual taxpayers because individual 
taxpayers say: Wait a minute, here I am as an individual taxpayer. I am 
paying up to 42 percent more in income taxes on the same income that a 
married couple earns. If the married couple earns $100,000, 
hypothetically, my taxes as a single individual earning $100,000 are up 
to 42 percent more than the couple's. That is not right.
  Congress in 1969 agreed that was not right, so Congress went in the 
other direction. In 1969, Congress said: We are going to raise it, 
widen the brackets, adjust the brackets for individuals so they are a 
little more in line with those for people who are married.
  The rule of thumb was a tax paid by an individual could not be more 
than 60 percent more than the taxes paid by a married couple. That was 
fine for a while. Then over the years we have a lot more couples where 
both members of the family are earning more income.
  This is a long way of saying when we make some change in the law 
here, it is going to cause some inequity someplace else. It is a 
mathematical truth that we cannot have marriage neutrality and 
progressive rates and have all married couples with the same total 
income pay the same taxes. It is a mathematical impossibility to 
accomplish all three objectives. It cannot be done. So we have to make 
choices. The choices are whether to tilt a little more in one direction 
or the other. The bill before the Congress now is a good-faith, honest 
effort to try to solve that problem.
  There are different points of view. The bill passed out by the 
Finance Committee attempts to solve that problem one way. The provision 
offered by Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, had a different approach to solve that problem. Let me very 
briefly lay it out so people have a sense of what the two different 
approaches are to solve the marriage tax penalty problem.
  Recognizing that today, to be honest about it, more married couples 
receive a bonus when they get married, not a penalty--or, to state it 
differently: More people, men and women, when they get married today, 
will receive a bonus; that is, they will pay less taxes as a 
consequence of getting married than they would individually.
  It is true that about half of the people who get married end up 
paying more taxes, and that is called the marriage tax penalty. It is a 
consequence of the progressive nature of our Tax Code, along with a 
desire to be fair to widows and widowers and other single taxpayers, 
and to be fair to married taxpayers, making sure that some married 
taxpayers, who have the same income as other married taxpayers, do not 
pay more. It is a very hard thing to do.
  The majority bill tries to solve it this way: It raises the standard 
deduction. It raises the 15-percent and 28-percent brackets. It changes 
the earned-income tax credit for lower income people. It makes no other 
change. It is pretty complicated.
  As a consequence, some people who are married and pay a marriage tax 
penalty will receive relief but not all will. This is a very important 
point. The majority committee bill addresses only 3 of the 65 
provisions in the code which cause the marriage tax penalty. That is 
standard deduction and the two brackets. That is all.
  The chart behind me shows the situation. On the left is current law. 
There are 65 provisions in the Tax Code today which cause a marriage 
tax penalty. The GOP proposal, which is the column in the middle of the 
chart, addresses only 3, leaving 62 provisions in the code which cause 
a marriage tax penalty.
  What is one of the biggest? Social Security, and it is a big one, 
too. It costs about $60 billion to fix. The majority committee bill 
says: No, we are not going to help you seniors. If two of you get 
married, you have to pay more taxes. You have a marriage tax penalty; 
we are not going to help you. The majority committee bill does not deal 
with seniors at all.
  There are a lot of senior citizens in our country who are not going 
to find any relief as a consequence of the majority bill. There are 61 
other provisions in the code on which the majority committee bill will 
not give people relief.
  The bill offered by Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, is very simple. It says to taxpayers: OK, you have a 
choice. You, as a married couple, can file jointly or you can file 
separately. That is your choice. You run the calculation, and whatever 
comes out lower is presumably the one you are going to make.
  What is the beauty about that? Why is that better? It is better 
because it is simple. The majority bill further complicates the code, 
and the code is complicated enough. The majority bill adds more 
complications by trying to deal with changing the deductions, phase-
ins, and so forth. There are a lot more complications.
  The minority provision is very simple. It says: You choose. It does 
not add more complications. In addition, it addresses all 65 of the 
marriage tax penalty provisions in the code today. There are many of 
them. I mentioned one such as Social Security. That is one the majority 
bill does not address.
  Other are like interest deduction of student loans. Many students 
have loans, and as a consequence of current law, when you get married, 
sometimes you pay more taxes. The majority committee bill does not do 
anything about that. The majority committee bill does not address that. 
It only deals with 3 provisions--the standard deduction and two 
brackets, 15- and 28-percent brackets. Those three provisions sometimes 
cause a marriage tax penalty.
  The minority bill takes care of all the penalty provisions in the 
code. Look at the chart again. The zero under the Democratic proposal 
means there are zero marriage tax penalties as a result of the 
Democratic proposal. The GOP proposal has 62 remaining marriage tax 
penalties.
  I am curious as to why they did not address those. I may ask some 
Members on that side as to why they did not address some of them. A lot 
of folks are going to wonder, senior citizens are going to wonder, 
somebody who takes an IRA deduction is going to wonder, someone who 
takes a Roth IRA deduction is going to wonder: Gee, why don't they take 
care of marriage tax penalties that affect me? I do not know. Maybe 
sometime the majority can answer why they do not address those other 
marriage tax penalties.
  There are other inequities, but I am not going to get into all of 
them right now. We will get into them at a later date.
  It is important to point out that there are two attempts to solve the 
marriage tax penalty problem: The majority committee bill only deals 
with three of the provisions in the Tax Code which cause a marriage tax 
penalty. The minority bill deals with all of them. There is no 
provision left as a consequence of the minority bill.
  In addition, the minority bill is much simpler; one only has to 
choose, whereas in the majority committee bill, my gosh, one cannot 
choose; they are forced into a situation, and they are not part of the 
solution. They have to deal with extra complexities. It does not solve 
the problem.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kansas wants to 
speak, but if I can take a couple minutes to respond to some things the 
Senator from Montana stated, I think I should do that.
  I yield to the Senator from Kansas such time as he might consume. I 
should wait until the Senator from Montana is on the floor before I 
give my response to him. I yield Senator Brownback such time as he 
consumes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Mr.

[[Page 5365]]

Grassley, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me time to 
speak on this bill.
  I, too, want to comment on the Marriage Penalty Act and the marriage 
tax penalty elimination, and some of the comments of the Senator from 
Montana. I wish he was still on the floor.
  He says we have differences of opinion: The Democrats have a marriage 
tax penalty bill; the Republicans have one. He thinks theirs is better. 
Great. Let's have a debate on those two. Let's vote. I do not know when 
we have had as much clarity of differences between a Democratic bill 
and a Republican bill, where both parties have said we want to pass a 
bill on any issue this year, than the bill we have before us.
  I am pleading with the members of the Democratic Party: Let's have a 
vote. Let's have a great debate. We will debate your bill for 2 hours, 
ours for 2 hours, vote on both of these, and let's get this moving 
forward.
  If they want to pass a marriage tax penalty elimination bill, we have 
the time; we have the place; we have the floor; we can have this vote 
now. If they do not want to, and really all this is about is: Well, we 
do, but we are going to block this with eight or nine irrelevant 
amendments; we are really not that interested in doing this, then that 
should be said as well. They should be out here saying, no, this really 
isn't a high priority for the Democratic Party to pass, rather than 
saying, OK, we have a bill, you have a bill, and let's vote.
  It is time we vote up or down, and we have the time before we go into 
a recess.
  The other thing I would like to point out is the President sent us 
his budget for the fiscal year 2001. I have a copy of the budget the 
President submitted to us. In his budget, he inserted his support for 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty. In the President's budget, on the 
EITC, on page 57, entitled, ``Supporting Working Families,'' he says at 
the bottom of this page:

       In this budget, the President builds upon these policies 
     that are central to his agenda of work, responsibility, and 
     family.

  He says:

       The budget expands the EITC to provide marriage penalty 
     relief to two earner couples . . . .

  That is what our bill does. We have a chance to get that particular 
provision that he is calling for in the budget to the President.
  Going back now in his budget to the tables of his proposals and his 
10-year estimates on it--this is on page 409--he provides for, and it 
states:

       Provide marriage penalty relief and increase standard 
     deduction.

  He does a much smaller one than we have put forward. I think he also 
even has a smaller one than Senator Moynihan's proposal that came 
forward in the Finance Committee. But the President has said all along: 
Let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let's do this.
  It is in his budget.
  He has asked us not to send him these gargantuan bills that have 20 
different items in them. He asked us to send him one like we did on the 
Social Security earnings limit test. We passed that bill and sent it to 
the President. He signed it into law. He appreciated being able to have 
that degree of clarity and that degree of focus on a particular issue.
  We have another one. We are having the debate on it. It is the time 
and the place for us to consider and vote on this now. We need to 
consider the proposals that the other party has, and to consider our 
proposals. Let's move this topic forward.
  The President has said he wants it. I hope the President gets 
involved in this debate and urges the Senate and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to vote on this issue and to get it to him--if 
he wants it. He said he did in his budget. If he truly wants this 
marriage tax penalty relief, let's have a vote, and let's get it to the 
President. We can do this now.
  I am fearful. What I am sensing is that we are just getting a lot of 
delay tactics and no real interest in passing the marriage penalty tax 
relief. Clearly, there is not an interest to pass it before April 15.
  People have the right to do those sorts of tactics, if they want to. 
But I do not think they should hide and say they just have a different 
bill, when the true desire here is to not have any bill go through at 
all.
  This affects a lot of people. We have been over and over this lots of 
times. It affects 25 million Americans. In Kansas, 259,000-plus people 
are affected by this marriage tax penalty that we have in place. The 
Senator from Montana has 89,000 people who are affected.
  I am looking forward to the chance and the time when we get to 
actually vote on these issues. Frankly, I think we have had enough 
discussion about the Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal. 
We know what is in these proposals now. We know the costs of these 
proposals. We are ready to pass this. It is time to vote. I really do 
not understand too much what is holding this up from moving forward.
  My colleagues and I have had a number of people contacting our 
offices saying that this is a penalty they want to see done away with.
  They have contacted us numerous times. I have worked with the Members 
of the House of Representatives who have passed this bill already. They 
have sent to me letters from a number of people from across the country 
with their specific examples of how they are penalized by the marriage 
tax penalty.
  This is a letter from Steve in Smyrna, TN. He says:

       My wife and I got married on January 1, 1997. We were going 
     to have a Christmas wedding last year, but after talking to 
     my accountant we saw that instead of both of us getting money 
     back on our taxes, we were going to have to pay in. So we 
     postponed it. Now, for getting married, we have to have more 
     taken out of our checks to just break even and not get a 
     refund. We got penalized for getting married.

  Then he concludes:

       And that just isn't right.

  I agree. I presume the Senator from Montana agrees. I presume most of 
the people on the other side of the aisle agree as well. Let's vote 
then and get a proposal out of here so we can actually deal with this.
  Here is one from Wayne in Dayton, OH:

       Penalizing for marriage flies in the face of common sense. 
     This is a classic example of government policy not supporting 
     that which it wishes to promote. In our particular situation, 
     my girl friend and I would incur an annual penalty of $2,000 
     or approximately $167 per month. Though not huge, this is 
     enough to pay our monthly phone, cable, water, and home 
     insurance bills combined.

  I think that is pretty huge when you are talking about that size of a 
marriage penalty.
  This one is from Marietta, GA. Bobby and Susan wrote this one:

       We always file as married filing separately because that 
     saves us about $500 a year over filing married, filing 
     jointly. When we figured our 1996 tax return, just out of 
     curiosity, we figured what our tax would be if we were just 
     living together instead of married. Imagine our disgust when 
     we discovered that, if we just lived together instead of 
     being married, we would have saved an additional $1,000. So 
     much for the much vaunted ``family values'' of our 
     government. Our government is sending a very bad message to 
     young adults by penalizing marriage this way.

  This is from Thomas in Hilliard, OH.

       No person who legitimately supports family values could be 
     against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another 
     example of how in the past 40 years the federal government 
     has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental 
     institutions that were the strength of this country from the 
     start.

  This one is from David in Guilford, IN:

       This is one of the most unfair laws that is on the books. I 
     have been married for more than 23 years and would really 
     like to see this injustice changed so my sons will not have 
     to face this additional tax. Please keep up the great work.

  He goes on.
  We have a number of different letters. I do not think it really bears 
going into much longer because what I hear everybody saying is: We are 
for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The American public is for 
doing that. It is the time to do that. We now just have procedural 
roadblocks to getting it done.
  That is the bottom line of where we are today. We could vote on this 
today. We could vote on the Democratic alternative. We could vote on 
the Republican alternative. We could have up-or-down votes on this 
today and get this

[[Page 5366]]

through this body, get it to conference, and on down to the President, 
and see if he really meant it when he said in his budget that he wanted 
to do this, the EITC, the marriage tax penalty elimination, to see if 
he really wants to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We could see if 
the President really meant that.
  I invite the President to get involved in this debate so we can pass 
this through.
  I have worked with the administration on a number of bills. I would 
hope they would start engaging us here saying: Yes, we want to do this 
and pass this on through.
  Let's not stall it. Let's get this thing moving forward so we can 
send this message out across the country.
  With that, Mr. President, I see several other Members on the floor. 
It is time to get this moving forward.
  I just call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say 
let's not play on this thing. Let's say we are going to pass it. Let's 
take the votes, and let's move forward.
  I yield back to my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. President, if I have a minute or 2 more--I don't want to take up 
the time from my colleague of Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thought the Senator yielded the floor.
  I would like to speak now if the Senator has yielded the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First of all, I think there is a very general proposition about the 
Tax Code. I want to relate it to the philosophy of higher taxation on 
the part of the Democratic Party members; and that is, that the higher 
the marginal tax rate, the worse the marriage tax penalty is.
  We have in 1990 the drive for increasing taxes by Senator Mitchell 
when he was majority leader. That increased marginal tax rates at that 
particular time. Then we have had the highest tax increase in the 
history of the country, which was the one that was passed within 7 
months after the Clinton administration was sworn in in 1993, in which 
we still had two higher brackets put into the Tax Code.
  Remember, that tax increase passed with 49 Democrats for it, and all 
Republicans and a few Democrats against it. It passed by Vice President 
Gore breaking the tie. Remember that we have a much worse tax penalty 
now than we did under the tax policies of the 1980s, when we had two 
brackets, 15 and 28 percent. The extent to which the marriage tax 
penalty is worse now than before is a direct result of higher marginal 
tax rates promoted by the other side of the aisle.
  I also have to make a point in reference to what the Senator from 
Montana said today, as well as what he had said yesterday; that is, his 
accusation that the tax bill that reduces the marriage tax penalty 
before us is further evidence of the majority party trying to benefit 
higher income people. The Senator should be aware that his Democrat 
alternative actually benefits more higher income people than the bill 
that is before us by the Republican Party. I hope he will take a look 
at the distribution tables that show his bill helps more higher income 
people than the bill we are trying to get passed.
  We have also heard arguments that this legislation does not end the 
marriage tax penalty in every way. This legislation ends the marriage 
tax penalty in the standard deduction and the 15- and 28-percent rate 
brackets and reduces it for virtually every family that suffers from 
the marriage tax penalty. This is the largest attack on the marriage 
tax penalty since its inception in 1969.
  For many working couples, those in the 15-percent and the 28-percent 
tax bracket, which would be up to about $127,000 under this bill, this 
legislation effectively ends the marriage tax penalty. For those 
couples in higher income brackets, this legislation provides a 
significant reduction in the marriage tax penalty.
  It is correct that this bill does not end all marriage tax penalties 
in the Tax Code. There are over 60 instances of the penalty in the 
code. This bill is about hitting the marriage tax penalty where it hits 
hardest--in the middle income tax brackets, the standard deduction, and 
the earned-income tax credit.
  There is also talk about the bill before us resulting in more Tax 
Code complexity. Our bill is simpler than the Democrat alternative. Our 
legislation eliminates the marriage tax penalty in the standard 
deduction and the 15-percent and 28-percent rate brackets. How could 
this be more simple?
  I hope we can have further discussion of these disagreements because 
I am convinced we can soundly overcome the arguments of the other side 
of the aisle.
  I yield the floor. The Senator from Texas may use whatever time she 
needs or is available.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for 
making those points because I think they are very important. The 
differences between the Democrat alternative and the Republican plan 
that is on the floor are actually quite extensive.
  In the first place, the Democrat plan is $100 billion less in tax 
relief for American families. We are trying to cover more families. Not 
only are we trying to cover the people who are in the 15-percent 
bracket and the 28-percent bracket, which takes us through everyone who 
pays taxes up to $127,000 in joint income, but it also increases the 
earned-income tax credit for those who don't pay taxes at all. This is 
what helps a person who has been on welfare who goes to work and 
actually makes a salary of from $15,000 to $30,000 not have to pay any 
kind of penalty, even though they don't pay taxes.
  We want to add to the $2,000 earned-income tax credit $2,500 more to 
the salaries that would qualify for the earned-income tax credit. This 
is an incentive for working people who are in the lowest levels of pay 
to continue working and to realize that it is more important for them 
to work and to have an incentive to work than to be on welfare.
  The points made by the Senator from Iowa are very appropriate. The 
Republican plan not only offers more relief, it offers more relief to 
more people, $100 billion more.
  Secondly, the Democrat plan is phased in over a very long period of 
time. It doesn't become fully effective until 2010. It is very 
backloaded. Fifty percent of it doesn't even take effect until 2008. We 
want to try to make that timeframe less, and we want to have 
significant tax cuts for hard-working American families.
  Of course, we truly do believe that people will be able to make the 
decisions with the money they earn better than they will be able to 
live with decisions made in Washington, DC. In fact, I think it is very 
important that people realize, as they are writing their checks on 
April 15--or Monday, April 17, if they can wait until the very end--
that the chances are they are in the 48 percent of the married couples. 
If they are in that 48 percent that has a penalty, their tax bill next 
year will be an average of $1,400 less, if we can pass the Republican 
plan, send it to the President, and if the President will sign it. The 
President has said he is for tax relief for married couples. We 
certainly think he should sign the bill. If he doesn't sign the bill, 
we would really like to know why because this is a better tax cut plan.
  There is probably just a difference on what is a marriage bonus. For 
a married couple where one spouse decides to stay home and raise the 
children and they don't pay as much in tax as the single person 
doubled, I don't think that is a bonus. I would not want to tell my 
daughter, who has three children, that she is not working when she is 
staying home with them. Thank goodness we have people who want to stay 
home and raise their children. I don't want to make that decision for 
them, but I certainly want them to have the option and not be penalized 
in any way.
  I think everything we can do to encourage families to be able to make

[[Page 5367]]

that choice we should do. I do not consider it a bonus. What I want is 
total fairness. What I want is, if a person is single and marries 
another single working person, when they get married there is no 
penalty whatsoever. The $1,000 we now make them pay because they got 
married would be spent instead by them, to start building their nest 
egg, to have their first home, to buy the second car, whatever it is 
they need, as newlyweds, who are the ones who struggle the hardest. We 
want them to have the benefit of not having discrimination in the Tax 
Code.
  What we are talking about is tax relief; it is a tax correction. It 
is saying that we don't want to penalize people for getting married. 
When 48 percent of the married couples in this country do have that 
penalty, what we want to do is correct it. I hope the Democrats will 
work with us to have relevant amendments that could be put forward. 
This is a good debate. I think we can differ on the way we would give 
marriage tax penalty relief. But my plea with the Democrats is let us 
take it up. Don't say that you have to offer extraneous amendments 
which don't have anything to do with marriage tax penalty, especially 
when President Clinton has asked us to send him a marriage tax penalty 
bill. That is what I hope will happen at 5 o'clock.
  I hope the President will work with the Democrats and tell them he 
believes in tax relief. I hope we can pass that relief for the hard-
working Americans who deserve a break. I urge my colleagues to help us 
offer these amendments. Let's debate them and let's give Americans tax 
relief as they are signing those checks to the Federal Government this 
week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana controls the 
remainder of the time until 5 o'clock.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see my good friend, the Senator from 
Texas, still on the floor. I will ask her a couple of questions.
  Clearly, we both want to solve the marriage tax penalty. It is my 
judgment that we are going to pass legislation this week--I hope so. 
There will be a couple of amendments. It is normal and proper in the 
Senate for Senators who think they can improve upon a bill to offer 
amendments. I certainly hope we can dispose of the issue this week. I 
expect that to happen. I hope so. In doing so, obviously, we want to do 
what is right. When you do something, you should do your darndest to 
make sure you do it right the first time so you don't have to correct 
mistakes later on.
  I am wondering why it would not make more sense to address all of the 
marriage tax penalty problems in the code in this bill rather than only 
a few. As the Senator knows, there are about 65 provisions in the Tax 
Code, the consequence of which sometimes results in a marriage tax 
penalty for some married couples--not all but for some.
  I am not being critical of the provision offered by the majority. But 
as the Senator knows, in the proposal offered by the majority, they 
deal with only 3 of those 65 provisions; whereas, the way the minority 
attempts to solve this, or proposes to solve the marriage tax penalty 
problem is to allow optional filing; as a consequence, all 65 
provisions in the code are dealt with, so that in the minority position 
all of the marriage inequities are solved--all 65 provisions.
  I am wondering why--without being critical--it doesn't make more 
sense for us while we are here, while we are going to pass a bill 
relieving couples of the marriage tax penalty, to entirely solve the 
problem, as is the case in the minority bill, rather than only for a 
few, as is the case in the majority bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Montana for saying, first of 
all, he thinks we will have a marriage tax penalty relief bill passed. 
I certainly think a couple of amendments--five or six or so--on either 
side, which are relevant, to try to perfect legislation is quite 
reasonable. I hope that is what the Democrats intend to offer. That 
isn't what we have seen so far. So perhaps we are coming to a 
conclusion. I hope so.
  Let me say that if the only bill on the floor were the Democratic 
alternative, I would vote for it because I have voted for it before. It 
is not a bad plan. But I think the Republican plan is better. Here is 
why. First of all, our plan helps more people who are in the lower 
levels, the middle-income levels, who really need this kind of help. We 
say that if a single person making $35,000 married, or a single person 
making $30,000, you double the bracket so their combined bracket is 
going to be the same. They will not be penalized in the 15-percent 
bracket or the 28-percent bracket. Now, I would be for going all the 
way through those brackets because I am for tax relief for hard-working 
Americans.
  Ours is a bigger bill. It covers more people. I think it is the 
better approach. I would be for bracket relief across the board, too, 
because I think the tax burden is too heavy and we are talking about 
the income tax surplus, not the Social Security surplus. So this is the 
money people have sent to Washington that is beyond what the Government 
needs for the Government to operate. So I think ours is better, but I 
don't think yours is bad. I just hope we can give the most tax relief 
to the most people.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe the Senator is not addressing the question, for 
many good reasons. The question is, why not deal with all 65 of the 
inequities rather than only 3?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If we took our plan and yours and put them together, 
I would think that would be better than the Republican plan. Your plan 
alone is not as good as the Republican plan because it doesn't give 
that much relief. Our plan gives $2,500 more in the earned-income tax 
credit. This is helping people come off of the welfare rolls and have 
the opportunity to be paid to make them whole. These are people who 
make $12,000 to $30,000 a year, when they have two children, a family 
of four. It also helps people in the 15-percent bracket and in the 30-
percent bracket.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. We are on my time, so 
I will finish up.
  Briefly, I think it is important to point this out. One of the 
provisions not dealt with in the majority bill is taxation of Social 
Security benefits. That is no small item. It would cost about $60 
billion over 10 years if it were to be addressed. I remind people that 
today the majority bill before us is about $248 billion over 10 years. 
So, in addition, $60 billion is the amount that senior citizens would 
have to pay as a consequence of the marriage tax penalty, which is not 
covered by the Finance Committee bill.
  I might add that, again, the minority bill does solve the Social 
Security benefits problem, as it does each of the other 62 remaining 
provisions in the Tax Code which may result in a marriage tax penalty. 
I hear people say, well, theirs is a better bill. But that doesn't get 
down to the specifics of what it actually does. I remind Senators that 
over half of the tax reduction in the bill offered by the Finance 
Committee goes to people who are already in a bonus situation. It has 
nothing to do with the marriage tax penalty.
  I am suggesting that those are dollars that could be perhaps better 
spent for debt reduction. I think most Americans would like to see the 
national debt paid off. That makes a lot more sense to me. Or perhaps 
they would prefer that it go to education, health care, or whatnot.
  We are here to address the marriage tax penalty. I think we should 
focus on the marriage tax penalty and, by doing that, I submit that the 
proposal offered by Senator Moynihan, the minority alternative, focuses 
only on the marriage tax penalty. It is very simple to understand. 
Essentially, the taxpayers choose whether to file jointly or 
separately. I think that sort of empowers the taxpayers to decide for 
themselves what they want to do. They can be part of the solution where 
they pay lower taxes and not have to pay any marriage tax penalty at 
all. Again, $60 billion of Social Security benefits is not fixed by 
this bill.
  I want to add this, and I know my time is about to expire, the AMT. 
One consequence of the committee bill is that there are 5.6 million 
more taxpayers who are going to have to file

[[Page 5368]]

under the alternative minimum tax than today--5.6 million new 
taxpayers, new people who are not filing under the alternative minimum 
tax, separate and filing today, will not have to under the Finance 
Committee bill.
  That is not the case in the minority committee bill.
  I think we should give relief to those folks so they don't have to go 
to the AMT situation; or, to say it differently, the Finance Committee 
bill gives some relief to AMT taxpayers and then takes it back by 
saying now you new taxpayers have to file the AMT.
  Why is that result? Why does that happen? It happens because of what 
I have said for a good part of this day; namely, the Finance Committee 
bill only deals with 3 of the 65 provisions. Those three are: the 
standard deduction, the 15-percent and 20-percent brackets. As a 
consequence, there is this AMT shift.
  I don't think we want to say to 5.6 million Americans that you do not 
have to file the AMT today, the alternative minimum tax, and go through 
all of that and pay that tax, but now you will, as a consequence of the 
Finance Committee bill. I don't think we want to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire about the situation now? I 
believe we had general debate until 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand Senator Daschle will be here 
momentarily. For his benefit, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Democratic leader and I have been 
working to try to reach an agreement to consider the very important 
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. We started working on it yesterday 
afternoon sometime around 3:30 or 4. Senator Daschle indicated they had 
a number of amendments that they would like to have considered, and, of 
course, we asked for a chance to see what those amendments were. We, of 
course, urged that they be relevant amendments.
  At about 3 o'clock today, we received a list of amendments that 
members of the minority wanted to offer to the Marriage Tax Penalty 
Relief Act. The list included nine amendments, five or six of which 
were clearly not related to the marriage tax penalty relief bill. And 
then about an hour or so later an additional amendment was added by 
Senator Harkin. The list is now up to 10 amendments.
  I indicated all along--like we worked it out earlier this year on the 
education savings account--that we could go with alternatives and 
relevant amendments. That is eventually what we did with the education 
savings account. Of course, I had hoped with the very overwhelmingly 
popular Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act that we could do something 
similar to what we did on the Social Security earnings test 
elimination. That was something that had been pending in this body and 
on Capitol Hill for 20 years.
  Finally, we worked it out. We had a couple of relevant amendments to 
which we agreed. We had a good discussion. We voted, I think, on one of 
those amendments. It passed unanimously. The President signed it last 
week with great fanfare that we had achieved this worthwhile goal.
  I think we can do the same thing with the marriage penalty tax. But 
in order to do it, we need to keep our focus on what is the best way to 
provide this marriage penalty tax relief. Is it a phaseout? Should it 
apply to everybody? What can you do for those in the lower income 
brackets in how you deal with the EITC, earned-income tax credit, how 
you deal with the lowest and middle brackets? Is there a better way to 
do it or another way to do it?
  Senator Moynihan, Senator Baucus, and others on the Finance 
Committee, had a different approach. I described it then, and publicly 
I think it is a credible approach. I don't think it is as good as the 
one we had in the basic bill, but it is one that is worthy of being 
talked about and thought about. I hope we can work it out so we can do 
that.
  We could have debate on the bill and then go to a vote on the 
alternatives and relevant amendments and get this finished by the close 
of business on Thursday or Friday at the latest. But the list we have 
is not only not relevant, but, first of all, we haven't had a chance to 
really look at how they would work or the details of the proposals.
  One of them by Senator Robb has to do with prescription drugs. 
Senator Wellstone has one which is something similar to the Canadian 
system of prescription drugs. But it looks to be a pretty detailed 
proposal that I don't think the Finance Committee has had a chance to 
consider.
  We have one by Senator Graham dealing with Medicare and Social 
Security priorities. I think he offered something similar to this in 
the Finance Committee. This is not one of which we were unaware. We 
could have a discussion on that, and I think have a vote, but it 
certainly doesn't relate to the marriage tax penalty.
  We have one on the college tuition tax credit. There is one on the 
CRT income. This is an agriculture issue. We have one on changing how 
you deduct a natural disaster impact on your tax form. I don't even 
know. That may be something we would want to look at doing. Don't we 
want to consider that in the Finance Committee, see what the budgetary 
impact is, and see what people are doing now versus what they might do 
under this proposal? It is something I would like to talk to Senator 
Torricelli about to see exactly what he is trying achieve.
  Then, at 3:45, we got the amendment from Senator Harkin. Honestly, I 
can't even quite tell you what it did. I believe that one relates to 
the marriage tax penalty. It would probably be relevant. Three or four 
of these could probably be relevant, and we could get them done.
  I hope the Democratic leader would try to reduce his list or, at a 
minimum, make them work with us in getting relevant amendments to the 
marriage tax relief bill. I think that is a reasonable request.
  I emphasize again that is what we did on the education savings 
account and on the Social Security earnings limitation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the 
pending legislation and that there be 10 relevant amendments in order 
for the Democratic leader, or his designee, and 2 relevant amendments 
in order for the majority leader to the pending substitute, with no 
amendments in order to the language proposed to be stricken, or motions 
to commit or recommit. I further ask unanimous consent that following 
the disposition of the listed amendments--certainly 10 would be an 
awful lot of amendments--and any relevant second degrees, the bill be 
advanced to third reading, and passage occur, all without any 
intervening action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following passage of the bill, 
the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on behalf of 
the Senate.
  I finally ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for 
Thursday of this week be vitiated, in view of this request, if it is 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 amendments to be 
considered during the debate on the marriage tax penalty be the 
following:
  An alternative amendment offered by Senator Baucus, or his designee; 
an alternative amendment offered by Senator Bayh; an alternative 
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy having to do with Medicaid and 
family care, or a motion to commit on the part of Senator Kennedy; a 
Robb motion regarding marriage tax penalty and prescription drugs; a 
Wellstone amendment on

[[Page 5369]]

prescription drugs; a Graham amendment on Medicare and Social Security 
priorities having to do with the marriage tax penalty; a Schumer 
amendment having to do with college tuition tax credit and the marriage 
tax penalty; a Dorgan amendment having to do with taxation of CRP 
income; a Torricelli amendment having to do with tax consequences of 
national disaster assistance; and a Harkin amendment having to do with 
capping benefits in the bill and putting the savings into Medicare and 
Social Security trust funds on the marriage tax penalty relief 
legislation, as well.
  I further ask that each amendment be limited to debate for 1 hour 
equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I 
inquire, is this the same list I was given earlier today plus the 
Harkin amendment that was added after that original list?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Is there any difference? I thought you indicated on a 
couple of these--and I referred to the earlier Kennedy amendment, which 
really is a major Medicaid change--you made it sound as if it might be 
relative to the marriage penalty tax.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on several occasions we have had debates 
with the Parliamentarian and with the majority with regard to the issue 
of relevancy. I point out to my colleagues, the concept of relevancy is 
only defined as it relates to an appropriations bill. There is no 
definition of relevancy.
  In our view, all of these issues are relevant to the debate on 
marriage tax penalty. We believe relevancy ought to be taken in that 
context. I am troubled by the interpretation we have gotten from the 
Parliamentarian a couple of times on the issue of relevancy. In our 
view, these matters are certainly relevant to the debate on tax 
consequences and marriage penalties.
  Mr. LOTT. Is the Senator saying in each one of these cases what is 
offered would be in place of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act in 
whole or in part?
  Mr. DASCHLE. No. I am simply saying in most of the amendments offered 
there is a direct relevancy to the issue of marriage tax penalty.
  I am also suggesting in all cases we would be prepared to limit the 
debate to 1 hour equally divided. Regardless of its relevancy, the fact 
is the majority leader would be able to begin this debate, conduct his 
debate as he has anticipated, with an expectation that we could finish 
by the end of the day tomorrow.
  He has noted, of course, that he doesn't necessarily support or 
endorse many of these amendments. It is the right of the majority 
leader, especially given the fact that we have now submitted to a 1-
hour time limit, that he can oppose them, he can table them.
  Mr. LOTT. How about second-degree them?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We would not agree to second-degree amendments.
  To ask for the details on top of all of that seems to me to be a real 
stretch. I am sure that in good faith we can work through these 
amendments one by one.
  That is quite an acknowledgment on our part, a willingness to submit 
to the debate, 10 amendments, 1 hour equally divided on each of these, 
most of them directly relevant to marriage tax penalty, but in all 
cases certainly relevant to the debate about priorities of the money 
being spent.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object to that with at least two 
observations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. For instance, the taxability of the CRP income--I don't 
know how anyone can stretch that to make it applicable to the Marriage 
Tax Penalty Relief Act.
  Second, the request by the Democratic leader did not allow for 
second-degree amendments, or any alternatives, or any option--even 
side-by-side amendments by the majority. We certainly need to work 
through that.
  I still think we can go forward and continue to work to try to find a 
list of, hopefully, relevant amendments that could be offered to get to 
a conclusion on the marriage penalty tax.
  Since we are not able to reach an agreement at this time, I announce 
that the cloture vote will occur tomorrow unless we come to an 
agreement that allows a vitiation of that cloture vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, maybe you have to be in the minority to 
appreciate the position in which the minority has now been put once 
again.
  The Republican majority is saying, first and foremost, we want to 
debate the marriage tax penalty. We say to that, absolutely; we want to 
debate the marriage tax penalty. We strongly support marriage tax 
penalty relief.
  Then they say, we want you to limit your amendments. So we say, OK, 
we will limit our amendments.
  Then they say, we not only want you to limit your amendments, we want 
to be able to tell you which amendments you can offer.
  After saying first of all we will debate the marriage tax penalty, 
after secondly saying we will limit amendments, to give the majority 
now the right to dictate to the minority that they have the ability to 
determine what the context, what the definition, what the scope of our 
amendments ought to be, it seems to me to be an abrogation of all that 
is fair in debating an important issue such as this.
  If we are going to spend $248 billion, there are other ways in which 
we can spend that money. Every one of these amendments in that context 
is relevant. Should we spend $248 billion on a marriage tax relief 
bill, 60 percent of which does not go to those experiencing a marriage 
tax penalty? Sixty percent of that $248 billion does not have anything 
to do with the marriage tax penalty. It goes in most cases to people 
who get a marriage bonus.
  We are saying let's fix the marriage tax penalty. But if you are 
going to spend all that money, we have a whole list of other things we 
think we ought to be looking at. It is in that context that I think we 
are being reasonable and fair, especially given the fact that we are 
simply saying we will agree to a limit on amendments, we will agree to 
a limit on time.
  I think this Republican bill is a marriage tax penalty relief bill in 
name only. It is a Trojan horse for the other risky tax schemes that 
have been proposed so far this year. If this bill passes, Republicans 
will then have enacted $566 billion in tax cuts this year before they 
have even completed the budget resolution. That is not even counting 
the audacious $1.3 trillion their Presidential candidate, George W. 
Bush, has proposed as their standard bearer. Add $1.3 trillion and the 
$566 billion, and that is $2 trillion in tax cuts they are proposing 
without a budget resolution.
  Is this the way we ought to spend the surplus, including the Social 
Security surplus? We are saying we can do better than that. We are 
saying we ought to look at providing prescription drugs for our senior 
citizens. We are saying we ought to look at college tuition tax 
credits. We are saying we ought to look at the Medicaid and CHIP health 
programs.
  I remind my colleague, just this day last week, 51 Senators--
Republican and Democrat--voted for passing a prescription drug benefit 
before we pass the first dollar in tax cuts. Mr. President, 51 Senators 
voted for that; a majority of Senators said we are for a prescription 
drug benefit before we are for a tax cut, any kind of tax cut.
  We want to deal with the marriage tax penalty. We want to come up 
with an agreement on the marriage tax penalty. But if some Republicans 
want to run for Democratic leader so they can dictate to the Democratic 
caucus what our agenda ought to be and what our amendments ought to be, 
let them run. I will take them on. We can have that debate. We will 
have a good election in the Democratic caucus.
  But until they are elected Democratic leader, I think Democrats ought 
to make the decision about what Democrats offer as amendments.
  They can agree with us on time, on a limitation on numbers, but not 
on context, not on text, not on substance. That is what this is all 
about.
  We will have the debate time on cloture if we have to. Like the 
majority leader, I am an optimist. I am hopeful

[[Page 5370]]

we can come to some agreement. It certainly is within reach. But not if 
we are dictated to with regard to the text of the amendments.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________