[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5671-5675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, in listening to my colleagues I am 
pleased to detect broad support for ending the so-called marriage 
penalty. I know that no one in this body believes that there should be 
a price to pay to the government for matrimony. However, we should work 
for a fair and reasonable solution that will not expand the marriage 
bonus and shift tax unfairness from one group in this country to 
another. The fact is that expanding marriage bonuses is not fair to 
single Americans just like doing nothing is unfair to married couples.
  The ironic thing about the marriage penalty is that it was actually 
born out of fairness. According to a June 22, 1999 document prepared by 
the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, before 1948, there was 
only one income tax schedule, and all individuals were liable for tax 
as separate filing units.

[[Page 5672]]

Under this tax structure, there was neither a marriage penalty nor a 
marriage bonus.
  However, this structure created an incentive to split incomes 
because, with a progressive income tax rate structure, a married couple 
with only one spouse earning income could reduce their combined tax 
liability if they could split the income and assign half to each 
spouse. Under this system a disparity between the citizens of community 
and separate property states arose after a handful of Supreme Court 
cases upheld the denial of contractual attempts to split income, but 
ruled that in states with community property laws, income splitting was 
required for community income. This led Senator John McClellan, of my 
home state of Arkansas, to ask Senator William Knowland of California, 
``why is it that just because you live in California and I live in 
Arkansas, you pay $646 less every year than I pay?''
  The Revenue Act of 1948 provided the benefit of income splitting to 
all married couples by establishing a separate tax schedule for joint 
returns. That schedule was designed so that married couples would pay 
twice the tax of a single taxpayer having one-half the couple's taxable 
income. While this new schedule equalized treatment between married 
couples in states with community property laws and those in states with 
separate property laws, it introduced a marriage bonus into the tax law 
for couples in states with separate property laws. As a result of this 
basic rate structure, by 1969, an individual with the same income as a 
married couple could have had a tax liability up to 40 percent higher 
than that of the married couple.
  To address this inequity, which was at the time labeled a ``singles 
penalty,'' a special rate schedule was introduced for single taxpayers, 
leaving the old schedule solely for married individuals filing separate 
returns. This schedule created the infrastructure for the so-called 
marriage penalty that we seek to end today.
  At the time more than thirty years ago when the current single and 
married filing categories were established, our society looked 
different, and very few people were affected by the flaws in our tax 
code that imposed a penalty on marriage. As we all know, Mr. President, 
the general rule is that married couples whose incomes are split more 
evenly than 30-70 suffer a marriage penalty. However, the fact still 
remains, that married couples whose incomes are attributable largely to 
one spouse generally receive a marriage bonus.
  As the income levels between men and women have rightly narrowed and 
as more married women have moved into the work force, the so-called 
marriage penalty has begun to affect more and more families.
  Today we are debating a bill offered by the Senate Finance Committee 
that seeks to address the problem of the so called Marriage Penalty, 
and I applaud my colleagues for bringing this to the floor. As I said 
before, I believe we all want to tell our constituents that we have 
ended the marriage penalty, however, the underlying bill will not allow 
us to do that.
  There are 65 provisions in the tax code that contribute to a possible 
marriage penalty for taxpayers. The bill offered by the Majority only 
eliminates one of those provisions and softens the bite of two others. 
The fact still remains that 62 other provisions could rise up to affect 
married couples on tax day. If we are going to end the marriage 
penalty, Mr. President, we should just end it.
  Another problem with the Majority bill is that it expands the 
marriage bonus. We should not bring back the unfairness we had before 
1969. We should learn from the history of this debate and we should 
come up with a better solution. I believe in the sanctity of marriage, 
as do all of my colleagues. I don't believe in penalizing it. But I 
also recognize the rights and fairness that our single constituents 
demand. We should not shift tax unfairness from one group to another, 
we should work to eliminate the unfairness for all Americans.
  The Majority bill would also expand the roles of the Alternative 
Minimum Tax. Talk about unfair! I think a lot of Americans would almost 
rather pay the marriage penalty than have to deal with the Alternative 
Minimum Tax. The Majority bill would expand, by 5 million, the number 
of people who have to fill out an AMT tax form and pay higher rates. 
Not only is it inexcusable, it goes against what we stand for and what 
we are trying to achieve
  We should be working to lessen the effects of the AMT on middle class 
families not expand them. I am aware that the Majority bill includes a 
provision to permanently exempt the non-refundable personal tax credits 
from AMT determination. That is good policy. In fact, Mr. President, I 
am the author of the bill, S. 506, that is essentially attached to the 
Majority bill. This provision, however, will not do enough to lessen 
the effects that doubling the standard deduction will have on the AMT 
roles. The good policy of S. 506 is drowned by the bad policy to which 
it is attached; drowned in the squeals of 5 million voters. I remind my 
colleagues that the AMT equals higher taxes and confusing forms. No one 
wants that for their constituents.
  Lastly, Mr. President, this majority bill can hardly be labeled a 
``Marriage Penalty Relief Bill'' at all. It doesn't completely 
eliminate the marriage penalty and less than half the cost of the bill 
goes to reducing it. 60 percent of the cost of the Majority bill goes 
to singles and to expanding the marriage bonus. I believe we should be 
honest with the American taxpayer and quit trying to aggregate tax cuts 
under popular headings like ``Marriage Penalty Relief'' and ram them 
through the process with cloture votes.
  If my colleagues truly believe in fairness, as I think they do, then, 
Mr. President, let us work to truly end the marriage penalty, not to 
just put it on hold. Let's work together, Mr. President, to end the 
marriage penalty. Lets put an end to it now and forever. That means 
eliminating all 65 marriage penalties. Not just one and a fraction. 
That also means avoiding a new singles penalty. We have a record to 
look upon, Mr. President. We have a history. If we approach the 
marriage penalty in the way the Majority proposes, the unfairness will 
continue, the debate will continue, and sadly, the marriage penalty 
will continue as well.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not like the marriage penalty. I think 
it is poor public policy. However, I am forced to vote against cloture 
today because the majority has refused to allow the minority to offer 
amendments to improve this seriously flawed legislation.
  The majority has presented us with a bill that not only fails to 
completely remedy the marriage penalty, but also provides large tax 
cuts to individuals and married couples who currently experience a 
marriage bonus. Less than 40% of the benefits of this bill would 
actually go to couples earning under $100,000. This is not a marriage 
penalty bill; this is a fiscally irresponsible tax cut bill for the 
wealthy. Hard working married couples in Vermont deserve an honest, 
targeted measure to eliminate the marriage penalty, not the proposal 
that is before us today.
  I had looked forward to debating amendments to strengthen this bill 
and I am disappointed that the majority is cutting off the debate with 
a motion to invoke cloture. The integrity of the Senate is threatened 
when the majority refuses to permit the minority to debate amendments. 
The Senate should be the conscience of the nation because of the 
distinguishing feature of this body for any Senator to offer amendments 
and thoroughly debate the merits of legislation.
  I support an end to the marriage penalty. I will continue to work 
with other Senators to pass legislation that is targeted at eliminating 
all of the marriage penalties that are embedded in our tax code. 
Vermonters deserve nothing less.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two cloture 
motions, the first, to end debate on the Finance Committee's substitute 
amendment to H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act, and, the 
second, to end debate on the underlying bill.

[[Page 5673]]

  First, I am, as are others, deeply concerned with that anomaly in the 
tax code known as the ``marriage penalty.'' I can think of no rational 
reason why two individuals who have vowed a lifelong commitment to each 
other through the sacred institution of marriage should, in certain 
cases, have their combined income taxed at a higher rate than that of 
two unmarried persons. At a time of declining social values, it simply 
does not make sense for the Congress to sanction policies which clearly 
work to the detriment of family stability.
  Throughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of civilizations 
and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the 
permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the 
stability, strength, and health of human society. The purpose of this 
kind of union between human beings is primarily for the establishment 
of a home atmosphere in which a man and a woman pledge themselves 
exclusively to one another and who bring into being children for the 
fulfillment of their love for one another and for the greater good of 
the human community at large. Indeed, I doubt that any Senator would 
refute the assertion that the promotion of marriage and family 
stability is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.
  The question then is how to utilize the nation's tax code to move 
towards this goal. Marriage neutrality, for reasons that I will leave 
to the distinguished Finance Committee Chairman, the Senator from 
Delaware, and, the Finance Committee ranking member, the Senator from 
New York, to explain, is seemingly incompatible with a progressive 
income tax system that allows for married couples to file jointly. That 
is, if this body believes that higher-income households should pay 
higher taxes than lower-income households, and that married couples 
should be allowed to file joint returns, marriage neutrality can be a 
difficult goal to achieve. While I applaud the efforts of the Senator 
from Delaware and the Senator from New York in their attempts to 
balance these seemingly incompatible goals, I remain hesitant about 
jumping on any bandwagon at this time without first raising some 
concerns.
  My primary concern, which I would presume is a concern of all 
Senators, is the cost associated with each of these proposals. The 
Republican plan, upon which the majority leader has filed a cloture 
motion, would cost approximately $248 billion over 10 years, and would 
explode after the first 10 years, costing the Federal Government $39 
billion per year thereafter. This cost would be paid for through the 
non-Social Security surpluses that are projected by the Congressional 
Budget Office over the next 10 years. The so-called Democratic 
alternative, on the other hand, is not much better. The proposal would 
cost $150 billion over 10 years, but once fully phased in, is expected 
to cost about $48 billion per year thereafter. The basis upon which 
these tax cuts are being proposed is the presumption that the 
Congressional Budget Office's projections of non-Social Security 
surpluses will come to pass and will be large enough to cover tax cuts 
of this magnitude without causing the Federal budget to revert back 
into the kind of annual triple-digit billion dollar budget deficits we 
suffered over the last two decades. Never mind the fact that these non-
Social Security surpluses are not yet in the hands of the Treasury. 
Never mind the fact that this Senate has not yet ensured that our 
domestic spending needs will be met in the coming years. Never mind the 
fact that such enormous tax cuts, once enacted, would be very difficult 
to reverse.
  To its credit, however, the Democratic alternative is a substantively 
better proposal. Not only would it eliminate all sixty-five marriage 
penalties in the tax code, compared to the Republican proposal which 
would eliminate only three of the penalties, but it would also limit 
tax relief to those who actually suffer marriage penalties. 
Nevertheless, the Senate stands ready to shut down debate on these 
measures, and to effectively prohibit the Democratic alternative from 
being offered. Moreover, amendments that could possibly improve these 
proposals, or, at least, ensure that these proposals are enacted in the 
most cost efficient way possible, would also be limited--perhaps not to 
be allowed to be called up at all.
  Another concern of mine is that both proposals are distributionally 
skewed away from lower- and middle-income families. Senators should be 
encouraged to offer amendments so that these proposals better target 
families who most need tax relief. Instead, Senators are discouraged 
from offering amendments to improve the measure. Watching the debate 
yesterday, I noted Senators suggesting that amendments should be 
limited to only five or six so that the Senate could finish its work 
tonight and recess for the Easter break. As far as this Senator from 
West Virginia is concerned, if this legislation is as important as most 
Senators seem to think it is, we should stay in tomorrow, perhaps 
Saturday, and for as long as it takes to provide the best targeted, 
most cost-efficient tax package possible. This legislation should not 
be railroaded through this Chamber in order to accommodate a political 
deadline or to avoid debate on controversial amendments.
  I, for one, will not support shutting down debate on these measures 
without first having these concerns addressed. I refuse to allow myself 
to be backed into a position where I must support limiting debate on a 
so-called marriage penalty relief bill simply to avoid political 
attacks that I do not support marriage penalty relief. My constituents 
understand my position on this matter. I have been married, now, almost 
63 years, so I know about the marriage penalty. It has not changed over 
the years. I will oppose cloture on this bill, not because I am opposed 
to marriage penalty relief, but because I am opposed to this kind of 
legislating.
  Putting aside the policy implications of these votes for a moment, I 
am growing increasingly concerned about how this body is seemingly 
incapable of considering any legislation without, first, limiting 
amendments that may be offered; and, second, limiting the ability of 
Senators to debate the legislation. These marriage penalty proposals 
are only the most recent example of this new style of legislating. 
Education savings accounts, the Social Security earnings limit, and 
bankruptcy reform have all been debated in this fashion. The stock 
options bill that was brought to the floor was limited to one hour of 
debate with no amendments or motions in order. Presumably, this 
agreement was reached to prevent minimum wage amendments from being 
offered. Indeed, time after time, day after day, cloture motions to end 
debate are being filed before debate even has a chance to get under 
way.
  The rationale behind today's cloture vote is that a majority of 
constituents and legislators support marriage penalty relief, so this 
legislation should be passed without delay. Ironically, this is exactly 
why the Senate was established as the body of majority rule but 
minority right. When James Madison arrived in Philadelphia in 1787 to 
correct the ``injustices'' of the Articles of Confederation, he had 
derived a general theory of politics based on his experiences in the 
Virginia state legislature. His focus was on the majoritarian premises 
of popular government. While Madison pondered that legislators would 
primarily respond to the passions and interests of their constituents, 
he realized that minority rights were not so much to protect the people 
from government as to protect the people from popular majorities acting 
through government. In recent months, however--and I say this not as a 
Democrat, but as a member of the minority--minority rights have been 
pushed aside in order to accommodate political expediency. The 
Democrats, as I observe them, are standing up for their rights as a 
minority, not attempting, as has been stated several times in the past, 
to dictate the Senate's schedule. This Democrat is certainly not trying 
to dictate the schedule. I do, however, have an interest in the Senate. 
And, I think that the Senate has gone downhill in recent years. I think 
that it is too partisan. I

[[Page 5674]]

have seen bills called up, and cloture immediately filed upon them to 
end debate on them when there had been no debate. I, when I was 
majority leader, filed cloture motions in similar situations, but I 
never did it time after time and day after day, I did it very seldom.
  Senators do have the right to offer amendments, they do have the 
right to debate those amendments, and they have the right to a roll 
call vote on those amendments if they want it. Similarly, this Senator, 
along with every other Senator in this body, has the right to debate 
amendments offered by other Senators and to a roll call vote on those 
amendments. This was the message that I was hoping to convey last 
Friday during the debate on the budget resolution. When I objected to 
the unanimous consent request regarding the inclusion of some fifty 
amendments to the budget resolution, my goal was not to prevent the 
consideration of those amendments.
  In fact, I was suggesting that the Senate spend the extra time on 
Saturday and on Monday to debate and to vote on those amendments. It 
was my desire to hear debate and to vote on those amendments, not to 
move on to final passage.
  The Senator who offers the amendment, of course, has a right to have 
debate on it and a right to ask for a vote. But any other Senator also 
has a right to hear the debate and also has a right to ask for a vote 
if he wants it. So it is not just the Senator who offers the amendment 
whose case is put in jeopardy because he is denied a vote. The whole 
Senate and the people I represent, the people the Senator from Rhode 
Island represents, are entitled to a debate also on the amendment.
  As I have said before, I will not support the erosion of minority 
rights in the Senate simply to advance a politically popular 
initiative. I hope that my colleagues will take a moment to consider 
their votes in this context, rather than in the context of what is 
politically popular and expedient.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, last week, I offered an amendment to the 
Senate budget resolution that would have required Congress to enact a 
new Medicare prescription drug benefit before considering any massive 
tax cuts. While a procedural hurdle prevented my amendment from 
passing, fifty-one senators voted to waive the budget point of order, 
indicating they favored it, sending the American people a strong signal 
that a majority of the U.S. Senate thought we should put the needs of 
our nation's seniors before excessive tax cuts.
  Yet only a week after this vote, Mr. President, we are considering a 
massive tax cut that will spend $248 billion of the surplus over 10 
years, without doing anything to modernize Medicare. Under the guise of 
eliminating the ``marriage penalty,'' the majority has brought a bill 
to the floor that would devote over half of its benefits to people who 
either aren't married, or who are actually receiving right now a tax 
benefit, or ``bonus,'' for being married. This takes a lot of chutzpah.
  I believe we ought to eliminate the marriage penalty for those who 
actually suffer the marriage penalty and need the relief most. With all 
the rhetoric from the other side about eliminating the marriage 
penalty, one might think that they would share my view and want to pass 
a bill that would actually focus on the penalty.
  But a close examination of the Republican bill reveals that it is not 
quite what it is described to be. In fact, there are 65 provisions in 
the Tax Code that have a marriage penalty, including Social Security. 
Their bill takes care of one provision entirely and two others 
partially, and leaves the other 63 marriage penalties exactly the way 
they are. The Democratic bill addresses all 65 provisions, and takes 
care of the entire penalty for nearly everybody. The Democratic bill 
accomplishes all this but costs half as much.
  It is time that we set our priorities straight. We ought not to be 
devoting $140 billion of the surplus over 10 years to individuals who 
currently have no marriage penalty when we have done nothing to help 
those who suffer from the ``senior citizens' drug penalty'' the high 
prices our Nation's seniors are forced to pay for prescription drugs.
  I intend to offer a motion to recommit this bloated bill to the 
Finance Committee, with instructions to report out a new bill by June 1 
that focuses its dollars on taxpayers who actually face a marriage 
penalty, and that devotes $40 billion over the next 5 years to a new 
prescription drug benefit. This motion will not prevent Congress from 
enacting marriage penalty relief this year, it will just ensure that we 
do not backtrack from last week's vote to enact a prescription drug 
benefit before we do major tax cuts.
  I want to share again a letter I received from a woman in St. 
Stephens Church, VA which illustrates why the prescription drug 
amendment is so important. She writes:

       My husband and I are both retirees and rely on Social 
     Security and Medicare. Recently, we both had to go to our 
     family doctor, and the drugs that were prescribed for us 
     would cost us out of pocket approximately $300 per month. Due 
     to the cost of the two prescriptions, we are forced to choose 
     not to take the medication and live with the illness.

  Another woman from Scottsville, VA writes:

       My husband's income consists of his Social Security and a 
     small pension from his former employer. We spend over twice 
     as much for prescriptions as we do for groceries, and it's 
     getting harder and harder to stretch our income 'til our 
     checks arrive.

  These Virginians are not alone in their troubles. The average senior 
citizen will spend $1,100 on prescription drugs this year. Most of them 
will not have adequate prescription drug coverage to help them cover 
these crushing costs. The numbers of those who do have coverage are 
dropping rapidly.
  Despite the suggestions of some of my colleagues, this problem is not 
limited solely to the poor. One in four Medicare beneficiaries with a 
high income--defined as $45,000 a year for a couple--has no coverage 
for prescription drugs. And while some seniors do have coverage, nearly 
half of them lack coverage for the entire year, making them extremely 
vulnerable to catastrophic drug costs.
  Complicating this matter for the elderly is the ``senior citizens' 
drug penalty'' that seniors without drug coverage are forced to pay. 
Most working Americans who are insured through the private sector pay 
less than the full retail price for prescription drugs. This is because 
insurers generally contract with Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers--or 
PBMs--that negotiate better prices for drugs and pass on the power of 
group purchasing to their customers.
  Seniors lack this option, however, and must still pay full price for 
their drugs. A study released earlier this week showed that seniors 
without drug coverage typically pay 15 percent more than people with 
coverage. And the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries without drug 
coverage who report not being able to afford a needed drug is about 5 
times higher than those with coverage.
  This ``senior citizens' drug penalty,'' in my view, is 
unconscionable. Senior citizens rely more on drugs, and have higher 
drug costs, than any other segment of the population. They deserve to 
have the same bargaining power that benefits other Americans.
  Last week the other side spoke against my amendment, claiming that 
there was already adequate language in the Republican budget resolution 
to ensure that we pass a prescription drug benefit this year. At the 
time, they pointed to the $40 billion reserve fund which was included 
in the budget resolution the Committee reported, arguing that this 
would provide ample money to enact a prescription drug benefit and 
offer tax relief.
  Republicans asked, in essence, that we trust them that the Senate 
will not squander the surplus on tax cuts before we have helped our 
nation's seniors. Let me say that I do trust my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle. To borrow a line from Ronald Reagan, I believe 
we should trust--but verify. That is what my amendment last week did. 
It required deeds as well as words.
  Seeing what happened in the budget resolution conference committee, 
it has become clearer than ever why we need to verify the promises that 
the other side gives us. Because despite both chambers setting aside a 
$40 billion reserve fund for a prescription

[[Page 5675]]

drug benefit, one of the first things that the conferees did was cut 
this fund in half, to $20 billion--a number far too low to enact any 
sort of universal benefit for our nation's seniors. The conferees then 
took this other $20 billion, which is vitally needed to fund a 
universal prescription drug benefit, and said that it should be used 
for other Medicare reforms, such as another round of adjustments to the 
payment rates for Medicare providers that were hit hard by the cuts in 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. But after touting this reserve fund as 
the key to a prescription drug benefit, they have essentially neutered 
themselves.
  Even worse, the conferees removed the one provision that would have 
helped push a prescription drug benefit forward. The Senate budget 
resolution set a date of September 1 for the Finance Committee to 
report out a prescription drug bill. This deadline would have 
guaranteed that the Senate would at least consider prescription drug 
legislation this year. But the conferees stripped this deadline out of 
the bill. They have basically said: it is not important for the Senate 
to pass a bill to eliminate the ``senior citizens' drug penalty.''
  I am by no means opposed to taking another look at the decisions we 
made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I worked very hard last year 
in the Finance Committee on the Balanced Budget Refinement Act. And 
there ought to be room, in the context of a balanced budget, to provide 
further relief to health care providers who were hit hard by the cuts 
in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  We ought not to be limiting our Medicare reform efforts to $40 
billion, however, simply to free up additional funds for tax cuts. With 
this new limit, Republicans have essentially pitted a prescription drug 
benefit for seniors against additional relief for doctors, hospitals, 
nursing homes, and other health care providers. Republicans have 
decided that two important priorities must square off, so that we can 
provide billions of dollars in so-called ``marriage penalty'' tax 
relief to individuals who do not even incur a marriage tax penalty on 
their taxes.
  Our nation's seniors deserve better than this. Last week, at least 
fifty-one Senators felt the same way. I urge every one of them, as well 
as Senators who opposed my amendment last week because they thought the 
$40 billion reserve fund would guarantee a prescription drug benefit, 
to support my motion to recommit this bill. With its passage, we will 
be able to eliminate both the true marriage tax penalty and the 
``senior citizens' drug penalty.''

                          ____________________