[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6018-6019]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth and Senator 
Grassley for helping us write a very good bill that will give relief to 
21 million married couples in this country; 42 million people will 
receive a benefit.
  When I go through my State and a policeman comes up to me and says, 
``I cannot believe how much more I am paying since I got married,'' or 
a schoolteacher or a county clerk or a sheriff's deputy, I wonder what 
could we be thinking. This is not a tax cut; this is a tax correction. 
Twenty-one million American couples are paying a penalty only because 
they are married. That is not right.
  The President of the United States, in his March 11 radio address, 
addressed six tax cuts he thinks would be a good idea. Two of those are 
in the bill we are voting on today. He said:


[[Page 6019]]

       . . . a tax relief to reduce the marriage penalty, tax 
     relief to reward work and family with an expanded earned 
     income tax credit.

  Of the six tax cuts he says he favors, two are in the bill on which 
we will be voting. One has to ask the fair question: Why would so many 
of the Democrats refuse to let us bring up the bill that addresses 
exactly what the President has asked us to send to him?
  We sent him marriage tax penalty relief last year. He vetoed the 
bill. He said there was too much in it; there were too many other tax 
cuts. I happen to believe there is not a tax cut that I do not like 
because I think hard-working Americans deserve more relief. We are only 
using part of the income tax withholding surplus here, not Social 
Security surplus, not even all of the income tax withholding surplus. 
We are only using part to give the money back to the people who earned 
it.
  Nevertheless, the President said it was too much. So we said: All 
right, we are going to send him smaller tax cut bills just as he 
requested.
  We sent him one which removed that terrible added tax on Social 
Security recipients between the age of 65 and 70 who want to work and 
make more than $17,000. That is gone. We passed the bill, we sent it to 
the President, and he signed it.
  There must be a real problem on the Democratic side, and I quote the 
distinguished leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate in Reuters 
on April 13 of this year when he said:

       I think the Republican bill is a marriage penalty relief 
     bill in name only. It's a Trojan horse for the other risky 
     tax schemes they have that have been proposed so far this 
     year.

  To what risky tax schemes could he be referring? Was it the Social 
Security earnings tests we eliminated for people who are over 65 and 
want to work? Was it the education tax credits we have passed and is 
now in conference to help parents by giving a credit for their 
children's education starting in kindergarten and going all the way 
through college? Or is it the small business tax credits he thinks are 
risky tax schemes to help our small business people create new jobs to 
keep our economy going?
  I do not think one can make the case that this is a risky tax scheme. 
This is marriage penalty relief for 21 million American couples who are 
paying the tax only because they got married. In addition, we add more 
people who will get the earned-income tax credit because they are 
coming off welfare and are working and feeling good about themselves. 
We want to encourage them to do that. A family of four making $31,000--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will still get an earned-income tax credit when they 
make $33,000.
  There is no excuse. It is time to let us take up amendments on this 
bill and vote marriage tax penalty relief for the hard-working people 
of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is important to be clear what this 
vote is about--and what it is not about. This vote is not a test of who 
supports eliminating the marriage penalty. Virtually every member of 
this Senate agrees: Married couples who work hard just to make ends 
meet should not have to pay more in taxes simply because they are 
married.
  If the plan proposed by our Republican colleagues only eliminated the 
marriage penalty in a way that was fair and responsible, I would vote 
for it. And so, I suspect, would every other Democrat in this Senate.
  But the Republican plan goes far beyond fixing the marriage penalty. 
Sixty percent of their $248 billion plan has nothing to do with fixing 
the marriage penalty. That is what this vote is about. This vote is 
about the tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts hidden in this bill 
that have nothing to do with eliminating the marriage penalty on 
working families.
  In addition to the $99 billion it costs to address the marriage 
penalty, the Republican plan includes another $149 billion for tax 
breaks that have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Most of these 
new tax breaks would go to those who arguably need it least--including 
couples at the top of the income ladder who already get a marriage 
bonus!
  We believe there is a better use for that additional $149 billion: 
creating an affordable, voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit. 
That is what this vote is about: Should we use the extra tens of 
billions of dollars in this bill to create more tax breaks that 
disproportionately benefit upper income Americans--people who, in many 
cases, get a marriage bonus? Or should we eliminate the marriage 
penalty for couples who need a tax cut, and use the other $149 billion 
in this bill to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit?
  What is really going on here? What are Republicans afraid of? 
Evidently, they are absolutely terrified of voting on our prescription 
drug amendment. They seem to recoil at even the slightest mention of 
those two words.
  Our Republican colleagues filed cloture on this bill before debate 
had even begun. They hope to rig the procedural situation so as to 
shield their faulty bill from public scrutiny and avoid voting on 
prescription drugs.
  Senator Lott has said our amendments are ``ridiculous.'' He has said 
it would give him great joy to vote against them. We want to make his 
day. We want to give him that chance. That is why I once again will 
vote against cloture on this bill. If Republicans really think our 
amendments are ``ridiculous,'' they can vote against them. If they 
think that adding a prescription drug benefit is a ``poison pill,'' 
they can vote against it. But let us vote and get on with the Senate's 
business and the business of the American people.

                          ____________________