[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5668-5670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   REDUCING TAXES FOR MARRIED COUPLES

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, at the start of 
debate on this important bill to reduce taxes for married couples by 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty, to give some reaction to comments 
made from the other side of the aisle yesterday. My reaction probably 
should have been given last night, but the environment at that time was 
such that other Members wanted to speak on issues other than the 
marriage tax penalty, so I did not take advantage of the opportunity. 
It would have been more appropriate for me to respond to the Senate 
minority leader and other Members of the other side of the aisle last 
night so it would be more in context.
  These comments are in regard to our efforts to repeal the marriage 
tax penalty and also to clear up some of the inaccurate and misleading 
statements made by the other side of the Senate.
  We heard the charge made yesterday by the minority leader that, in 
passing this bill, we are going to be dipping into the Social Security 
surplus. Of course, that is going to be the Democratic mantra from now 
on, even though it is not the truth. Our own budget document is 
evidence of it not being our intent. Knowing the other side is 
salivating at trying to make this bogus political charge stick, we have 
been very careful in making sure we stay within the $150 billion in tax 
relief authorized in the budget resolution that will be before us later 
today in the form of the conference committee report on the budget for 
the year 2001.
  By carefully staying within these limits, we aren't touching one cent 
of Social Security money. That is important because people know the 
irresponsibility of Congress from 1969 until the Republican majority of 
Congress, the first Republican majority in both Houses of Congress in 
40 years, finally got the job done of balancing the budget with 
decisions made in 1997. For the first time in 43 years, we are paying 
down on the national debt 3 years in a row. The budget we are going to 
adopt this afternoon for the year 2001 will be the fourth year, and we 
will be paying down $177 billion on that off the debt in the budget 
year 2001.
  Regardless of what the members of the other side of the aisle say, 
this marriage tax penalty bill we are going to pass to reduce taxes for 
the average married couple by $1,400, because they will no longer get 
hit with the marriage penalty, fits into the budget and doesn't use one 
cent of Social Security money to accomplish our goal of justice for 
middle-class married families in America.
  Now, we also heard the misleading charge yesterday that we in the 
majority are trying to dictate what amendments the Democrats could 
offer. All we have been trying to do is to bring some order to this 
process so we can get this bill, which even the President of the United 
States says ought to pass. In his State of the Union Message, he asked 
us to pass a bill eliminating the marriage tax penalty. So, yesterday, 
they said we were trying to dictate amendments. Well, during that 
discussion, we asked if second-degree amendments could be in order to 
the Democrats' first-degree amendments. We were told absolutely not. So 
the Democratic side is doing as much dictating as anyone. If we can be 
accused of complaining about the amendments they want to offer and 
objecting to it, then they have no right to deny us the opportunity to 
offer second-degree amendments to their amendments.
  In fact, the assistant minority leader stated that his caucus was in 
lockstep behind the minority leader. Well, that is simply part of the 
problem. The other side does walk in lockstep against reform in an 
attempt to paint this Congress as a do-nothing Congress. Funny, isn't 
it, how when Democrats brag about being in lockstep and unanimity 
behind their leader, somehow that isn't being partisan. But if 
Republicans were to vote in lockstep behind our leader, they would say 
we are being very partisan.
  So, again, it seems as if we have a double standard that is not quite 
justified. Maybe my accusations should be directed more toward the 
press and media than the other side of the aisle and their statements. 
But it seems so often if Republicans are together, we are being 
partisan. But if Democrats are together, they aren't being partisan. As 
I have followed the stories on this in the press for the last 2 days, I 
haven't seen any charge of partisanship by the media toward the other 
side of the aisle. But, boy, I bet we Republicans would be painted as 
partisan.
  Unfortunately, for the other side, this Congress has already made 
substantial progress and will continue to do so, and they will never be 
able to label us as a do-nothing Congress. I wish, though, that we had 
a few independent thinkers on the other side of the aisle, as we do on 
our side of the aisle, and not the lockstep following of leaders to the 
extent which it is. All I have to do as a Republican is proudly point 
out the independence of Senator McCain on this side of the aisle to 
show that there are Republicans who are independent and do not always 
follow in lockstep. It would be nice if there were a few ``Senator 
McCains'' on the other side of the aisle who were willing to break 
ranks and be very independent.
  A couple of the amendments the Democrats want to offer deal with 
prescription drugs. Of course, these are political amendments. We 
Republicans have already set aside $40 billion in our budget to deal 
with Medicare and prescription drugs. All we need to do is have people 
on that side of the aisle--as there are bipartisan Medicare reform 
proposals with prescription drug provisions in them--get behind some of 
these bipartisan approaches and get the White House behind them. We 
will be glad to move on those within the $40 billion we have set aside 
in our budget to deal with Medicare reform and prescription drugs 
because we all know this problem has to be solved. We know

[[Page 5669]]

that some seniors can't afford prescription drugs. Some seniors have to 
choose between food and drugs. That is not a choice they should have to 
make. And we have, consequently, taken the initiative in our budget and 
have $40 billion for that. Now all we need is a little bit of 
cooperation from the other side of the aisle, following on what one or 
two on the other side of the aisle have attempted to do with 
Republicans, to move a bill along in this effort. But the White House 
happens to be dragging its feet.
  Now, I think the insinuation is, from the amendments being offered on 
prescription drugs, that we don't see this as a problem and that we 
don't want to solve this problem. They aren't telling the truth.
  Another amendment they have asked us to look at deals with the 
taxation of Conservation Reserve Program payments to farmers. The 
Internal Revenue Service--as they so often do in their infinite wisdom 
but lack of common sense--is trying to impose Social Security taxes on 
these payments. Of course, this is the Clinton-Gore administration that 
is doing this to the farmers of the United States. These taxes hadn't 
been opposed until the Clinton-Gore administration started imposing 
them through the IRS. And now we have a Democrat amendment to overturn 
what the Clinton-Gore administration is doing to the farmers on the CRP 
payments. So why don't the people on the other side of the aisle just 
call up President Clinton and Vice President Gore and ask them to order 
their own IRS to drop this silly new interpretation of the law because 
right now we have the Vice President going around the country saying 
how much he is willing to help the farmers of the United States and, 
Lord only knows, they need help with prices at 25-year lows.
  Well, I guess help came after he invented the Internet because I 
haven't seen any help in this area since this has been in the courts in 
the United States. Now we have the Clinton-Gore IRS beating up on 
farmers with this new tax. Now, there is nothing wrong with the tax 
being offered from the other side of the aisle, trying to correct this; 
but it seems to me that there are other ways this could be handled.
  Yesterday, we also heard what was really a political attack, that 
this tax relief is somehow a ``risky tax cut scheme.'' How come from 
the other side of the aisle all we ever hear about is ``risky tax cut 
schemes''? We don't hear about the risky spending schemes that are 
offered by the White House or by the other side of the aisle. All you 
have to do is go back to State of the Union Address on January 2000 and 
listen to the President of the United States propose 77 new spending 
programs--77 new spending programs. Somehow, there is shock on the 
other side that we want to let the people of this country keep their 
hard-earned money rather than running it through the Treasury in 
Washington, DC.
  Now, there is a certain amount of good economic freedom argument you 
can give that is very philosophical about why the working men and women 
of America ought to spend more of their own money and send less of it 
to Washington just so they can have the economic freedom to do with the 
fruits of their labor and their minds what they want to do. But there 
is also a pretty good economic argument for not running any more money 
than is absolutely needed through Washington, DC. That is because money 
spent through the Federal budget does less economic good--in other 
words, it turns over less times for the economy--than money spent by 
individual taxpayers and working men and women of America. All one has 
to do is look at the defense budget. The defense budget produces a lot 
of expensive items. But once they are made, those items are not used 
for producing wealth. They serve a good purpose for our national 
defense. But they don't turn over any more money in our economy.
  We come to these risky spending schemes of this administration with 
77 new programs, and we have tax cuts before Congress. Being at the 
highest level of taxation in the history of our country, at about 21 
percent of gross domestic product, if we allow the President, through 
those 77 risky spending schemes, to build up to that level of 
expenditure at 21 percent, then when we have a downturn in the economy, 
the spending is going to stay up here and the income is down here. Then 
you have another budget deficit; whereas, if we continue the pattern of 
the last 50 years of taxing at about 18.5 to 19 percent of the gross 
domestic product, then over the historical average there will be less 
chance of a deficit.
  We want to let the working men and women keep more of their money and 
keep our historical level of taxation at about 18.5 to 19 percent. We 
do not want the extra money that is now coming into the Treasury to be 
eaten up by these 77 risky spending schemes of this administration.
  I feel compelled to correct a statement made by my democratic 
colleague from Illinois. My colleague stated that the Republican 
marriage penalty bill would require 5 million more taxpayers to pay 
higher taxes. My colleague stated:

       Here's the kicker. They don't want to talk about they have 
     drawn their bill up so that five million Americans will 
     actually pay higher taxes. . . . Take a look around the 
     corner--five million Americans end up paying higher taxes 
     under the alternative minimum tax. So now isn't that 
     something?

  This is simply incorrect. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation there would be no increase in any taxpayer's overall tax 
liability as a result of this bill.
  In fact, the bill attempts to correct an AMT problem for millions of 
taxpayers. According to Joint Tax, in the year 2010, 9.2 million tax 
returns will benefit from the AMT provision in the bill--this includes 
6.5 million joint returns and 2.7 million other individual returns 
benefiting from this bill. This is a worthy goal, and we should do what 
is right.
  According to Joint Tax, in 2010 approximately 1.5 million joint 
returns benefiting from the AMT credit extension will become AMT payers 
under the bill. However, as I just mentioned, Joint Tax estimates that 
the bill would not increase any taxpayer's overall tax liability.
  The record must be set straight--no one will pay higher taxes as a 
result of this bill.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have rejected a request we 
made yesterday to allow a debate solely on the marriage tax penalty 
relief. The Senate leader has offered 10 relevant amendments, including 
their alternative marriage tax penalty proposal. The other side has 
rejected this offer. The other side claims they want to debate other 
issues--talk about issues other than tax relief.
  Either way you slice it--by what the Senate minority has done or by 
what they claim--they evidently don't care about marriage tax penalty 
relief itself.
  Senate Democrats could live with a focused debate when it applied to 
the education savings accounts a month ago, March 2, and ending the 
Social Security earnings limit for seniors over 65, which only a few 
weeks ago, on March 22, was passed by the Senate.
  However, now when it comes down to marriage tax penalty relief, our 
colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle say no. Why? What 
has changed compared to these other two tax bills? Why were those other 
items only a few weeks ago so much more important than this bill that 
would help over 40 million families? The bill before the Senate will 
help 40 million families. They want to debate other issues, so they are 
holding up the marriage tax penalty bill.
  Imagine the hue and cry Democrats would raise if the shoe were on the 
other foot--if we were debating these other issues and we demanded to 
offer marriage tax penalty amendments.
  The House has acted. The Finance Committee has acted. The Senate 
should now act. However, it can't because the Democrats are obstructing 
this legislation like in-laws on a honeymoon.
  We have been more than fair. We have said this is a debate on 
marriage tax penalty relief--offer any amendment you want that related 
to this bill

[[Page 5670]]

and we will give you a debate and a vote on it. Any amendment--up to 
ten of them.
  How many relevant amendments did the Democrats offer yesterday? Less 
then half of their ten addressed this issue. By my generous calculation 
that means that they only half care about marriage tax penalty relief.
  In the House, it was not this way. Forty-eight Democrats across the 
Rotunda voted for marriage tax penalty relief. It was bipartisan over 
there. Why can't it be bipartisan here? Democrats here are seeking to 
make this a highly partisan Senate.
  So the Senate must wait and over 40 million American families will 
have to wait. Every couple who suffers under this marriage tax penalty, 
which has existed for 31 years, must wait further. In a sense, everyone 
is going to have to wait while the other side of the aisle obstructs 
this tax relief effort.
  This is tax week across America. America's families are hunkered down 
over their kitchen tables figuring out their tax forms. Isn't it time 
these taxpayers get a break from the most unfair part of this process, 
the provisions that tax them at a higher rate just because they are 
doing what is right and are married?
  I want to give them that break. My colleagues want to give them that 
break. However, my Democrat colleagues don't want to give them that 
break. In fact, they don't want to even give them a debate or a vote on 
this very important issue.
  I urge the Senate to go to the final debate on this and pass it 
before we adjourn this week. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________