May 17, 2001 Mr. CONRAD. I would like to hear an explanation of how it harms the economy of the country to address the marriage penalty this year rather than wait 4 years. How is that? How does that hurt the country? How does it hurt the country to address the marriage penalty now instead of waiting 4 years? Just the opposite is true. It strengthens the country to address the marriage penalty now and not wait 4 years. The fact is, on this side I offered a budget plan that had half as big a tax cut, but it dealt with the marriage penalty. In fact, it had more money to address marriage penalty than is in this bill. So it is not a question of since you supported a smaller tax cut that you were then preventing addressing the marriage penalty. There are other choices to be made. How much you provide at the top end of the income spectrum is a key issue. Here is the problem with this bill. The top 1 percent get twice as much of the benefits as the bottom 60 percent. That is the problem with this bill. If you didn't design the tax proposal in this way, you would have no problem doing what I am doing with this amendment, which is to provide marriage penalty relief starting now, not waiting, as the legislation before us does, for 4 years to do anything. The problem they have is summed up very well in this chart. The top 1 percent get 33.5 percent of the benefit of this bill. The bottom 60 percent get 15 percent of the benefit. So the top 1 percent, people on average who earn in this country $1.1 million a year--and that is great; I am all for them. I am pleased they are successful. It is a great thing about America. But when we are talking about taking the people's money and giving it back to people, I am not for taking the people's money and giving a third of it to people who are on average earning $1.1 million. That doesn't strike me as fair. That doesn't strike me as equitable. That doesn't strike me as balanced. That doesn't strike me as the way to strengthen the economy. In this amendment I say let's address the marriage penalty beginning now. We do not have to wait 4 years to begin to address the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is not right. It is hurting those who are in a circumstance in which the Tax Code penalizes them for being married. That is not right. Nobody supports that. I do not suggest anybody does. The Senator from Iowa said some of us on the other side last year did not support a proposal on marriage penalty. You bet we did not support that because it did not solve the marriage penalty. It dealt with three of the provisions in the code that create marriage penalty, that impose a marriage penalty. There are over 60 provisions in the code that impose marriage penalty. On our side, we proposed giving taxpayers a choice. They could file as individuals, they could file as a couple, whichever benefited them the most. That is the only way to solve all of the 60 places in the Tax Code that impose a marriage penalty. That was not accepted. It was not passed. In this bill, we have a different approach. It is a useful approach. It helps. But it is delayed. It is deferred. It is drawn out. What we are saying is: Look, let's address the marriage penalty now. Let's not wait 4 years before we start. And let's not wait until 2008 to fully phase it in. Let's start dealing with the marriage penalty now. I think that is fair and it does no harm to the country. It strengthens the country to do so. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.