[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6013-6018]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            MARRIAGE PENALTY

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am sure we welcome everyone for ``Take 
Your Daughter to Work Day'' here in Washington.
  I will take a few minutes to talk about the marriage penalty tax bill 
that is before us. Speaking of daughters, this provision of the tax 
code makes it difficult for young families who have daughters to be 
treated fairly.
  Before addressing the specifics of the bill before us, I must say 
that I am a little disappointed in the lack of cooperation this year on 
the floor. Each time we address an issue with a solution that is 
generally acceptable to most people, we find ourselves faced with all 
kinds of amendments, many of which have nothing to do with the subject 
we are seeking to address, designed entirely to create political wedge 
issues rather than solutions. I suppose that is customary, perhaps, in 
a Presidential election year, but it is too bad. It is too bad that 
each time we begin to talk about an issue that should be addressed by 
this Congress, and indeed is generally agreed to by most Members of the 
Senate, we find it being used to bring up issues that are not relevant, 
not a part of what is being discussed, but simply are used to delay, 
used as leverage, used to make an issue. I hope we can get by this 
resistance.
  One of the items we will be addressing early next week is an 
education bill, a broad education bill, elementary and secondary 
education, one that most everyone in the country wants to see moved 
forward. Education is probably one of the principals issue with which 
all of us are concerned. Yet I predict that we will find next week all 
kinds of irrelevant amendments will be added to seek to confuse and 
delay the passage of legislation.
  I hope that is not the case. I hope it is not the case with what I 
think is a very important issue, the marriage penalty. All of us are 
concerned about our tax system, concerned about how complex the tax 
code is. Certainly right after April 15, we are all very aware of how 
excessively complicated this system has become, designed to affect 
behavior as much as it is to collect revenue.
  One of the things we ought to consider, as we seek to simplify taxes, 
is fairness. That is the situation we face today with regard to the 
marriage penalty. The Federal Government penalizes couples simply for 
being married.

[[Page 6014]]

Two people earning this amount of money jointly, unmarried, become 
married and pay more taxes on the same amount of income. That is not 
fair. That is what we ought to be dealing with, the fairness issue.
  Last year, 43 percent of married taxpayers, 22 million couples, paid 
an average of $1,500 more in taxes than they would have paid had they 
not been a married couple. In my State of Wyoming, 45,000 couples were 
affected by this tax situation, a high percentage of our population. 
Marriage penalty relief is middle-class tax relief. We always hear it 
is for the rich. This isn't for the rich. This is for middle-class 
people who become married, as we urge people to do and then, indeed, 
they are assessed a penalty. Middle-income families are the hardest 
hit.
  What does marriage penalty relief mean to families? Fifteen hundred 
dollars for families would mean a semester of community college, 4 
months of car payments, clothes for the kids, a family vacation, a home 
computer, several months of health insurance premiums, or contributions 
to an IRA or a savings program, which we encourage people to do.
  This country finds itself, thankfully, with more than adequate 
funding for Federal programs, even after we have ensured that Social 
Security is not used for operating funds. This prosperity is due in 
part to the Republican Congress' ability to control spending. Now, for 
the first time in over 40 years, we have an opportunity to begin to pay 
down the Federal debt, while also providing tax relief, because of the 
excess money coming into Washington.
  You, the people of this country, must decide if this is the 
appropriate course to take. Do you want to spend more money? Do you 
want to have more Government involvement, more Government regulation, 
or should we give this money back to the taxpayers who have paid it in? 
It is your money after all. This bill is an opportunity to do that. If 
your intention is to control the size of the Federal Government, tax 
relief is a very good idea. If you keep the money, I guarantee it will 
be spent on expanding the size of Government.
  An editorial that ran a while ago in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle called 
on Congress to do something about the marriage penalty. I will a small 
portion from it:

       While the tax system is unfair, Congress's lack of action 
     is even more unjust. Members know there is a problem but 
     refuse to act. That is shameful.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THOMAS. I could not agree more with that sentiment. It sums it up 
very well. This vote will clearly highlight those who want to do 
something about the marriage penalty, who want to do something about 
tax simplification, tax fairness, and those who do not. We will see 
those who want to use this legislation simply to introduce extraneous 
issues, knowing that those issues will not be resolved, but, rather, 
can be used as issues in the political campaign.
  Marriage should be a sacred event, not a taxable one. We have a bill 
that will do something about that penalty. I urge all my colleagues to 
support the cloture motion so we can move forward and implement this 
much needed tax relief.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                            Marriage Penalty


               Will Congress finally correct this wrong?

       In 1996, 21 million American families paid an average of 
     nearly $1,400 in marriage tax penalties. Congress would be 
     remiss if it allows this assault on married couples' 
     pocketbooks to continue.
       There are many members of Congress who say the country's 
     complicated and progressive tax structure is the primary 
     cause of the marriage penalty. Since marriage combines two 
     tax units into one, a couple's combined income means their 
     joint liability is higher that the sum of what their 
     individual tax bills would be if they filed as single.
       While the tax system is unfair, Congress' lack of action is 
     even more unjust. Members know there is a problem, but refuse 
     to act. That is shameful.
       And in this case, their talk is not cheap.
       Throughout America's history, policymakers have attempted 
     to discourage certain behaviors by taxing them. So-called 
     ``sin taxes'' are levied on everything from cigarettes to 
     gasoline.
       While people of good conscience may disagree on the 
     morality and efficacy of using the tax code to discourage 
     various behaviors, virtually no one disputes taxes are a 
     disincentive. It is odd, then, that the federal income tax 
     code effectively taxes marriage--and thereby discourages it.
       That's a shame. Some couples choose cohabitation over 
     marriage because of this tax penalty; others postpone 
     marriage until later tax years. Some have even divorced 
     because of the penalty, and others speed up their divorces to 
     save money. These practices denigrate marriage and normalize 
     non-marital relationships.
       The marriage penalty continues to be one of the most 
     discriminatory taxes. And while $1,400 a year may not sound 
     like a lot to some, over the years it can add up. A couple 
     married for 50 years would end up paying $70,000 in 
     additional taxes.
       The Congressional Budget Office estimates the average 
     annual penalty of $1,400 could cover a few mortgage payments, 
     a down payment on a car, a needed vacation or it could be 
     invested or put into a savings and earn dividends and 
     interest.
       Because of the way the tax code is structured, only 
     eliminating the current system will end the marriage penalty. 
     However, a stopgap method is needed.
       The most promising option is House Resolution 6. Under this 
     proposal, the standard deduction and bracket breakpoints for 
     married couples filing jointly would be made twice what they 
     are for single filers. This proposal should be relatively 
     simple to implement and would help toward the elimination of 
     the marriage penalty.
       Equality under the law is fundamental to America. By 
     treating married couples inequitably, Congress is allowing 
     the tax code to make a mockery of this ideal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Texas, 
Mrs. Hutchison, has reserved 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to use 
a portion of that time to speak on the issue of the marriage tax 
penalty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address a number of issues 
that have been raised recently on the marriage tax penalty elimination 
bill. We will be voting at noon on a cloture motion. We have the 
opportunity at noon to vote on whether or not to proceed to this issue. 
We have the opportunity then, as well, to consider any relevant 
amendments.
  That needs to be made perfectly clear. Amendments are in order after 
the cloture motion. The only issue is whether or not they pertain to or 
are germane to marriage tax penalty relief. All of those will be open 
and debatable. If there is a Democratic alternative they think is 
better on the marriage tax penalty, that is relevant, we can deal with 
that. We will debate it. We can vote on it, if we can finally get to 
cloture on this issue.
  We need to be very clear that there is no blockage on amendments 
relevant to the marriage tax penalty. All relevant ones will be and can 
be considered after the cloture vote so we can move forward with this 
issue. What would not be relevant is nongermane issues, issues outside 
of the point of the marriage tax penalty.
  There have been raised on the floor this morning several inaccuracies 
I wish to clear up. There is a statement going around that somehow 60 
percent of the tax relief in this bill doesn't deal with the marriage 
tax penalty. I disagree with that. One hundred percent of the relief 
proposed in this bill goes to married couples. I don't know who they 
are claiming the 60 percent goes to, but 100 percent of this relief 
goes to married couples. I will make it very clear: It isn't 60 percent 
of this going to businesses or 60 percent of it going to farmers or 60 
percent of it going to some other category; 100 percent goes to married 
couples. That is indisputable. I want to talk about the nature of the 
bill so people can get that fresh in their minds. We talked about it 2 
weeks ago, but some time has passed. I will talk about what our bill 
does.
  Our bill eliminates the marriage tax penalty in the standard 
deduction. Here are the nuts and bolts. The standard deduction this 
year for a single taxpayer is $4,400. However, for a married couple 
filing jointly, the standard

[[Page 6015]]

deduction is $7,350. It should be $8,800, if it is fair. What we are 
doing is making it fair. Let's make it $8,800.
  Second, our bill widens the 15-percent tax bracket. Under current 
law, the 15-percent bracket for a single taxpayer ends at an income 
threshold of $26,250. But for married couples, the bracket is not 
double; it ends at $43,850. It should end, if it were fair, at $52,500. 
That is what our bill does. It moves it for the double filing couple to 
$52,500. That is fair. That is something that should be in the Tax Code 
and should be allowed.
  Third, our bill applies that same principle of doubling that income 
bracket on the 15-percent bracket, and we provide that into the 28-
percent bracket as well.
  Fourth, our bill increases the phaseout range for the earned-income 
tax credit; that is, on the EITC, there is a marriage tax penalty 
there. With the earned-income tax credit, you don't double the benefits 
for a married couple. Clearly, we should. Low-income families with 
children can incur a significant penalty, and they do, because of the 
current limits on the EITC. If both spouses work, phaseout of the EITC 
on the basis of combined income can lead to the loss of some or all of 
the EITC benefits to which they would be entitled as singles. Our bill 
works to begin fixing this problem. The Senate Finance Committee 
proposal that comes out would do that.
  Finally, our bill would permanently extend the provision that allows 
the personal nonrefundable credits to offset both the regular tax and 
the minimum tax. It is important that American families receive the 
full benefit of the tax cuts they were promised. This important change 
will allow America's families to maintain the $500 per child tax 
credit, HOPE scholarship, adoption credit, and many others.
  So those are the nuts and bolts of the bill. That is where the tax is 
occurring. That is where we would alleviate the marriage tax penalty. 
That is it. That is what the bill is about. So the notion that it 
doesn't go to married couples is erroneous. It benefits a lot of 
people. Currently, the marriage tax penalty is on about 25 million 
American married couples. I have shown this chart previously. In 
Kansas, we have over 259,000 couples paying a marriage tax penalty. On 
average, as the Senator from Wyoming noted, it is about $1,400 per 
couple.
  We have, I think, a lot of unfairness in the Tax Code. Typically, we 
try to benefit things that we think are helpful in the Tax Code and tax 
things that we think are harmful. If that is the typical analysis, then 
in this situation we must believe that marriage is harmful because we 
are taxing it. But the record is far different on that. Marriage is a 
good thing. It is a central value-creating institution for the American 
family. Anybody for family values ought to be for marriage. It is 
around that central unit that the family builds the values it shares 
with the children, and then later with the grandchildren and great 
grandchildren; that emanates from that central unit. This is a very 
good thing, a very positive thing.
  The institution of marriage has been under attack in recent years. 
The number of people getting married has gone down substantially. A 
University of Rutgers study points this out. I want to quote it so that 
people have that information:

       According to a recent study, marriage is in a state of 
     decline from 1960 to 1996. The annual number of marriages per 
     thousand adult women declined by almost 43 percent.

  I guess our policy is getting through. By taxing something we 
apparently want less of, we are succeeding. That is, in my estimation, 
bad public policy. If you look at the situation around which children 
do the best overall, it is in that stable environment, with two parents 
in a long-lasting relationship of marriage. That is where children do 
best. That is not to say that a number of single parents don't struggle 
heroically to raise good children. They do. But, overall, the 
statistics are that they do best in a two-parent household.
  As a matter of fact, the statistics are that in a single-parent 
household--and many struggle greatly to raise good children, and they 
do a good job, but the overall statistics are very troubling in single-
parent households where children are twice as likely to be involved in 
a crime, twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to be 
abused, and twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs.
  This is just not a good situation. That is not to say that many 
single parents don't struggle heroically to do a good job. Still, we as 
public policymakers should not tax marriage so that we have less of it. 
We should be providing relief to married couples.
  I want to address this issue some have raised of a marriage bonus 
built into this package. I think you could justify, on public policy 
grounds, actually doing that, but I don't think it is here. I think you 
can justify that as well. Our bill provides marriage tax penalty relief 
to working American families by doubling the lowest two tax brackets 
and standard deductions, and also in the EITC bracket. Our bill also 
treats all married couples the same, whether both spouses work outside 
the home or just one. That seems to be fair as well.
  The Democrat alternative does not treat all married couples the same. 
In fact, by giving preferences only to dual-earner families through 
choice of filing, that creates a homemaker penalty. For a spouse that 
decides to stay home and do the hard work of taking care of children, 
parents, or others, they create a penalty in that situation. The other 
alternative--the Democrats' alternative--would make families with one 
earner and one who stays at home to take care of children or elderly 
parents pay higher taxes than families with the same household income 
as two-earner families. Why should we discriminate against one-earner 
families? Why would we want a Tax Code that penalizes families because 
one of the spouses chooses the hard work of the household over the role 
of the breadwinner? Believe me, it is hard work. I don't think it is a 
situation that we would want to enshrine within our Tax Code because, 
again, what we do by taxing it is penalizing them and saying we want 
less of it.
  Do we want to send the message across the country that we want less 
parents involved in raising their children? Clearly, the signal we are 
getting across America reflects that we want more parents involved and 
more parental involvement with children. We need more time involved 
with the family, not less. So we don't want to enshrine in the Tax Code 
a situation where we are actually saying we don't want more parents 
involved and having more time with their children. We should be sending 
the opposite signal across this Nation. The alternative the Democrats 
have put forth says we don't think we should have as much parental 
involvement. I think that is a bad way to go.
  This is a simple bill. We are trying to address what the President 
says he wants. He wants to deal with the marriage tax penalty. We are 
trying to address that. We are trying to send him a bill that deals 
with the marriage tax penalty. Let's take all relevant amendments on 
the marriage tax penalty. We will take those, come what may, and get 
this voted out and get it on over to the President. The House has 
passed it. We are here and we are ready to vote on it. We will have the 
cloture motion vote at noon. I urge my colleagues, let's get on to this 
issue and go ahead and present it.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Texas had 30 minutes reserved for 
this issue. I don't know if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak on 
that time. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma on the time 
of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Texas 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes in total, and this would 
leave the Senator from Texas 10 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will speak in morning business for up 
to 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are several here on the floor who 
would like to speak to the cloture motion. We don't have a lot of time. 
I would like to

[[Page 6016]]

inquire of the assistant majority leader if he would agree to extending 
the time for the vote, say, another half hour at least.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is agreeable to 
yielding 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will modify my request and take 5 
minutes of the time of the Senator from Texas. I have no objection. The 
majority leader and the minority leader will probably come out to make 
the decision on extending the time for the vote. Some people have 
luncheon conflicts, and so on. I have no objection to it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I make that request, if the leaders will come out on the 
floor to make an adjustment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Montana that I 
have no objection, as soon as we run it by the two leaders. If they 
want to postpone the vote for 30 minutes, fine.
  For the information of our colleagues, we have a vote scheduled at 12 
o'clock. I think some people are trying to go to luncheons and 
different things. For scheduling purposes, it may be postponed until 
12:30. That is perfectly fine with this Senator.
  I want to make my comments on the marriage tax penalty.
  I compliment my colleagues from Texas and Kansas for their leadership 
in trying to eliminate the so-called marriage tax penalty. We have a 
chance to do that. We have to get to the amendment. Some people do not 
want to get to the amendment. If we get to the amendment, we can have 
relevant amendments.
  I understand some people have different ideas of different ways of 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Fine. Let's consider them and 
vote on them.
  I think the way the Finance Committee--I happen to be a member of the 
Finance Committee--reported it out is the preferred way to do it.
  Very simply put, we have a tax bracket right now that is very 
complicated. But we have different brackets. We have a zero bracket, a 
15-percent bracket, a 28-percent bracket, a 31-percent bracket, and a 
39.6-percent bracket. Thanks to President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore, the rates have gone up.
  People shouldn't be penalized because one spouse works or two spouses 
work. They shouldn't be penalized under the system because they are 
married.
  Right now you can have one spouse working, say making $40,000 and in 
the 28-percent bracket. Another spouse is making $20,000 and presumably 
would be in the 15-percent bracket, but right now under current law 
that $20,000 by one spouse is taxed at the 28-percent tax bracket. It 
costs them about $1,400. That is unfair. We eliminate that in our 
proposal.
  We double the 15-percent tax bracket. Individuals making up to 
$26,000 pay 15 percent in tax. We double that. We say if it is 15 
percent in taxes at $26,000, let's double that for couples and make 
that $52,000. That will save them about $1,100. We double the 
exemption. The exemption right now is $4,400. We say double that. That 
should be $8,800. We double it. That saves a couple hundred dollars.
  That is where we get the marriage tax penalty figure of about $1,400 
for a couple, if their income combined is $52,000. Let's do that.
  I have heard President Clinton say he wants to get rid of it. But his 
proposal doesn't get rid of it. It may be good rhetorically. It may be 
good on the campaign stump. But there is no substance.
  The President does not eliminate the marriage tax penalty. As a 
matter of fact, the President doesn't cut taxes. He doesn't want tax 
cuts. I respect that.
  He has a tax increase for this year. President Clinton's budget 
proposal increases taxes by a net of $9 billion in the year 2001. Over 
5 years, the President has a proposal for a net tax cut of a measly $5 
billion. Keep in mind that the Federal Government is going to be taking 
in about $10 trillion over that same 5 years. But he would only allow 
for such a small percentage that it won't even show up.
  We are trying to give tax cuts to taxpayers who are married and 
penalized under the system. We do that basically by doubling the 15-
percent bracket and eventually doubling the 28-percent bracket. One 
working spouse that makes a lot less is not thrown into a higher 
bracket.
  We also don't penalize the stay-at-home spouse. We basically double 
the individual brackets. We do that right away so we don't discriminate 
against somebody if they make a sacrifice and say they want to stay 
home with the kids. If this is a tax bracket for individuals, we say 
double it for couples.
  It is the fairest system you can come up with, and it is tax relief 
for American couples. It is significantly greater than that proposed by 
the President.
  But I hope this Congress will pass it in a bipartisan fashion as we 
did by eliminating the Social Security earnings penalty. We passed that 
earlier by an overwhelming margin. The President signed it. Some of us 
had been pushing that for years.
  Some of us for years have been pushing to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. We have a chance to do that. We need to have our colleagues 
vote in favor of the cloture motion at 12 noon or at 12:30 in order to 
make that happen. I urge my colleagues to do it.
  If colleagues have alternative ways of dealing with the marriage tax 
penalty they wish to have considered, I think we are happy to vote on 
those.
  I thank my colleague from Kansas for yielding me time, and I thank my 
colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her leadership.
  I hope today within the hour we will make giant strides and 
ultimately pass it before we leave this Congress. I hope in the next 
day or two we pass a bill that would eliminate the earnings marriage 
tax penalty on married couples.
  I thank my colleague for yielding me 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator 
from Texas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remain on the time of the Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will use 5 minutes of that and 
reserve 5 minutes of that time for the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. President, I want to note a couple of things as we wrap this 
debate up, have a chance to vote on the marriage tax penalty in 
America, send that bill to conference, and ultimately to the President.
  There is a fundamental principle that I talked about previously which 
exists and has worked repeatedly in this country. If you tax something, 
you will get less of it. If you subsidize it, you will get more of it. 
We have been taxing marriage, and we are getting less of it.
  The Rutgers study that I cited shows a 43-percent decline in marriage 
in the period between 1960 and 1996. At the same time, fewer adults are 
getting married. Far more young Americans are cohabitating. During that 
same period of time, cohabitation went up 1,000 percent. We subsidize 
that side of it. We tax getting married.
  When marriage as an institution breaks down, the children suffer.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield? I 
want to make a statement that will take no more than 10 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield from my leader time 10 minutes to 
the distinguished Senator from Montana and 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair makes that note.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.
  When the institution of marriage breaks down and we tax it, we cause 
it to break down further. The children do suffer.
  A number of single parents struggle heroically and do a good job of 
raising

[[Page 6017]]

their children. But the best institution to raise those children in and 
to build family values that we have all talked about is the institution 
of marriage. That is the best place; the values emanate from that.
  The past few decades have seen a huge decrease in that institution, 
as the study I have just cited from Rutgers points out. We are taxing 
marriage across the country. So we are getting what we are paying for--
fewer marriages. That is happening. We are taxing over 259,000 of them 
in the State of Kansas. That is not good for the children.
  The past few decades have seen the problems befall our children 
because of that overall situation, the well-being of children in 
virtually all areas of life--physiologically, psychologically, health-
wise, sociologically, academic achievement, and the likelihood of 
suffering physically.
  They are better off in that stable, two-parent family--not to say 
that a number of single parents don't do a very good job. They do. 
Overall, statistically, they are still better off in that two-parent, 
stable family.
  As a couple, Gary and Karla Gipson, wrote to me and stated:

       If they are really interested in putting children first, 
     then why do we in this country penalize the institution of 
     marriage where kids do best? When parents are truly committed 
     to each other through their marriage vows, their children's 
     outcomes are enhanced.

  That is supported by studies. It is supported by, frankly, common 
sense. The marriage tax penalty to an extent is a penalty that our 
children have to bear. It is a penalty on children. That is 
unacceptable. Newlyweds face enough challenge without paying punitive 
damages in the form of the marriage tax. The last thing the Federal 
Government should do is penalize the institution that is the foundation 
of a civil society.
  I am hopeful, as this bill is considered on the floor, we will be 
able to have a reasoned debate and we will be able to work across the 
aisle in a bipartisan fashion to achieve marriage penalty relief for 
millions of Americans who are adversely affected by this provision of 
our Tax Code. We can have that debate on the issue.
  There is more to do. The marriage penalty is embedded many places, 
and we could continue, and should continue, to work on that. But, 
overall, if we are truly interested in the health of our children, if 
we are truly interested in trying to instill and support family values 
across this country, if we truly do support that, I do not know how you 
get around the situation of saying, by taxing marriage, we are going to 
get less of it, and that is a bad thing for our children.
  Let's look at this for what it does to the children. Let's provide 
that support and help to that married couple. Let's provide the support 
and help, whether it is a two-wage-earner or a single-earner family 
where one chooses to do the hard work of taking care of the children or 
an aging parent or a relative. Why would we penalize that situation?
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion 
and let's get on to this bill.
  I reserve the remainder of the 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there have been a lot of statements on the 
floor, a lot of words. A lot is accurate and a lot is inaccurate. I 
would like to set things straight on what it is we are voting and on 
what it is we are not voting.
  It has been said here that 100 percent of the benefit in the majority 
bill goes to married couples. That is true. But this is not a marriage 
relief bill we are talking about today. Marriage has its own rewards. 
We are not talking about a marriage relief bill. We are talking about a 
marriage tax penalty relief bill.
  The proposition offered by the minority Members, all Democrats on the 
Finance Committee, which is the amendment we hope can be offered to 
solve the marriage tax penalty, is a marriage tax penalty relief bill. 
It is not a marriage relief bill. It is a marriage tax penalty relief 
bill.
  What I am saying is 60 percent of the benefit in the majority bill 
goes to people who have no penalty; 100 percent of the provisions in 
the Democratic bill go to those who are in a penalty position.
  Let's remember, a little over half of Americans are in a marriage 
bonus situation; that is, as a consequence of marriage, they pay less 
taxes than they would pay if they filed singly; whereas a little less 
than half of Americans are in a penalty position; that is, they pay 
more taxes as a consequence of being married compared to what they 
would pay if they were married filing singly. So we are addressing the 
marriage tax penalty by focusing our benefits on the marriage tax 
penalty, not on marriage relief, which is what the majority is talking 
about--marriage relief.
  They must think marriage is a bad thing. They want to give relief to 
married couples. We are giving relief to married couples who suffered a 
tax penalty. Marriage has its own rewards. I am surprised, frankly, the 
majority would think that, by implication, they have to give their 
benefits for the sake of marriage.
  The proposal the Democrats are offering totally addresses marriage. 
It also totally addresses the marriage tax penalties. There are 65 
provisions in the code today which cause a marriage tax penalty 
situation--65. The Democratic provision addresses all of them, all 65, 
so there will be no penalty consequence under the Democratic bill 
because of marriage. How many of the 65 penalties in the code do you 
think the majority bill addresses: 5? 10? 15? 20? 65? No. Three, only 
3, only 3 out of the 65.
  One of them is Social Security differentiation. That is the penalty a 
couple suffers as a consequence of the Social Security tax provisions 
affected by marriage. There are 61 others. There is a huge difference.
  On the one hand, you have the majority that does not want to address 
the other 62 provisions of the code which cause a marriage tax penalty, 
whereas our bill addresses all of them. How does it address all of 
them? By saying to the taxpayers who are married: You have a choice. 
Your choice is this: You file singly or you file jointly. It is your 
choice. Whichever results in the lowest taxes, that is what you pay.
  So it has the benefit not only of addressing all the 65 provisions of 
the code--theirs addresses only 3 provisions of the code--but the 
Democratic provision, the minority provision, also has the benefit of 
choice, allowing taxpayers to choose what they want to do. Not theirs. 
You cannot choose in theirs; this is the way it is. You only get to 
address 3 out of the 65 on theirs.
  What else is going on here? The majority party wants a vote on a 
parliamentary procedure so many amendments--or few amendments--that 
both sides want to offer could not be offered. They are afraid of these 
amendments. They are afraid of an amendment to provide prescription 
drug benefits for senior citizens. They are afraid of an amendment to 
deal with Medicaid. They are afraid of an amendment which will help 
Americans provide education for their children. They are afraid of 
amendments on their side. They are afraid of an amendment, perhaps, 
dealing with estate taxes. They are afraid of that. They do not want 
amendments. They are afraid of them.
  Why are they afraid of them? I don't know why they are afraid of 
them. They don't want the Senate to vote on these amendments, 
amendments which are of very great concern to a vast majority of 
American citizens. Frankly, that is why we are here, to try to serve 
the public interest by offering and voting on amendments which affect 
American citizens.
  The problem, I might say, is this. There are maybe 80 legislative 
days this year. That is all. We have not been voting Mondays or 
Fridays, so there are probably about 50, that is all, remaining this 
year--50 days, maybe, we will have votes. If we cannot offer amendments 
that the American people want us to discuss and debate on this bill, 
when in the world are we going to have time to do it with only 50 days 
left?

[[Page 6018]]

  Basically, the majority does not want a vote on issues that concern 
the American people. They also do not want a vote on a better idea on 
how to address the marriage penalty because technically, if cloture is 
invoked, the amendment offered by Senator Moynihan, which is the 
Democratic amendment--a better idea--will not be in order. It will not 
be in order to address all the 65 provisions of the code called the 
marriage tax penalty. It will not be in order for Americans to choose; 
that is, choose to file jointly or separately. An amendment will not be 
in order to allow Americans to choose.
  It is no wonder all this smokescreen is being put up over here, 
playing politics, lots of folderol. Cut right down to the bone, the 
issue is, Should we be able to vote for a better way to address the 
marriage penalty or not? I think we should; therefore, that amendment 
should be in order. It will not be in order if cloture is invoked. They 
know that. They don't want us to be able to vote on that. In addition, 
they don't want a vote on other amendments, such as education and 
prescription drug benefits, which are a good idea. They don't want a 
vote on those.
  That is all this comes down to. I say let's vote on a couple of these 
amendments. Then let's vote on which of the two marriage tax penalty 
provisions is best. We will be doing the American people a great 
service by solving the marriage tax penalty problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes, and then the Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes, and we will vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Montana and 
commend the reasoning he has presented to this body. What he has 
pointed out is we could move ahead on this issue and reach a fair 
resolution of the injustice of the marriage tax penalty if we just had 
the opportunity to have a reasonable debate and discussion on these 
measures. We are effectively being denied, closed out from that 
opportunity. I just thank him for reiterating that. As a leader on the 
Finance Committee on this issue, I think he has made this case in a 
very powerful way.

                          ____________________