May 17, 2001 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the time. This issue, as it has been described, is about the marriage tax penalty. There cannot be anyone left in the Senate who does not understand this issue. We have debated it and debated it and debated it. Everyone stands up, almost automatically, in the Senate, and says: I am for getting rid of the marriage tax penalty. Count me in. I want to vote for getting rid of the marriage tax penalty. We have a tax bill that has now been brought to the floor of the Senate, and it says: Do you know what. We have written a bill that gets rid of the marriage tax penalty. It is similar to an employee being called into an office and the employer says: Good news. Do you know what. We are giving you a raise. Then the employee says: When does this raise start? The employer says: 5 years from now. But we aren't going to give it to you all at once. We'll phase it in. It starts in 5 years, and it takes 8 years to get the full amount. Look, if we want to get rid of the marriage tax penalty as we have advertised for so many years, why would we not decide that as a part of this tax bill we are going to give real tax relief right now to middle-income taxpayers who are paying a marriage tax penalty? Why would we wait some 5 years? I ask the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in his proposal in which he says, let's make the marriage tax relief available now--and, incidentally, that is tax relief that principally affects middle-income taxpayers who have a penalty under the marriage tax--let me ask him how he would pay for moving up that tax relief so it becomes effective next year, almost immediately. How does the Senator pay for his amendment? Mr. CONRAD. The pay-for in my amendment is to delay the rate cuts for the top two rates, the 39.6-percent rate and the 36-percent rate. As the Senator knows, there are about 3 percent of the American people who are in those very top rates. We still give them the full rate reduction included in this legislation; we just delay it so that we can affect a significant number of people who are in the marriage penalty situation. As you know, there are 50 million couples who have filed a joint return for the most recent year for which the full details are available, and 25 million of them experienced the marriage penalty. That is 25 million couples. That is 50 million people. The legislation I am offering says: Let's allow those people to have relief from the marriage penalty and do so immediately, and have the full benefits of this legislation that addresses the marriage penalty effective in the next year. Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask an additional question, Mr. President, my understanding is that the beginning of tax relief for the top 1 percent of the income earners in this country starts immediately, but the beginning of trying to deal with the marriage tax penalty starts about 5 years from now. Is that correct? Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Actually, overnight they changed it. It was not going to take affect for 5 years. In other words, this chart says, marriage penalty relief for middle-income taxpayers was going to be delayed until 2006; it did not do anything for 5 years. Now it has been changed and moved up 1 year. So it does not do anything for 4 years in terms of marriage penalty relief. What we are saying is, let's do it next year. Let's make it a priority. Mr. DORGAN. One additional question. When will the marriage tax relief be fully effective? Mr. CONRAD. Under the bill that is before us, not until 2008. Under my proposal, there would not be any phase-in. We would do it all the first year. Mr. DORGAN. I know my colleague has studied economics. I have studied economics and actually taught a little economics but was able to overcome that experience. When you study economics, you will learn about John Maynard Keynes' saying: In the long run, we're all dead. Right. So it is interesting this tax bill says: Look, here is what we are going to do. We are going to get rid of the marriage tax penalty, and we are going to do this and that and the other thing; and then you look at the fine print and find out that for the marriage tax penalty, they do not start getting rid of it until 2004 or 2005. I guess you say now it has been altered. It does not complete until 2008. So we are really talking about the long run, aren't we? But, yes, if you happen to be earning $10 million a year in income, you are going to get immediate tax relief by a rate reduction right at the start. Right at the get-go, right at the starting line, you at the top are going to get a rate reduction. But there is not enough money to provide relief for the marriage tax penalty right away, so that is deferred 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, or, as Keynes would say, in the long run. One wonders if there is not a short run and a priority that allows us to say, look, the hard working families who are paying a marriage tax penalty, shouldn't they be moved right to the front of the line. Almost everyone jumps up instantly around here the minute you mention the marriage tax penalty and say: I am for getting rid of it. Count me in. I want to vote right now--except this tax bill does not do that. Remember, John Mitchell once said: Don't listen to what we say. Just watch what we do. That might be good advice for this marriage tax issue as well. People say: We are going to get rid of the marriage tax penalty. Not now we aren't, not unless we adopt this amendment offered by Senator Conrad. Of course we ought to adopt this amendment. Of course this is the right priority. Senator Conrad is not saying everyone should not get a tax cut. He is not saying the top rates should not get a tax cut. That is not what he is saying at all. He is saying, the priority ought to be to provide marriage tax penalty relief now--not in 2004 or 2005, not in 2008, but now, for the American people. That makes eminent good sense to me. He is not suggesting that further rate reductions should not occur at the top level. He is not suggesting we defer tax relief for anyone else up or down the chain. He is simply saying, use, as a priority, the money that he has in his amendment to provide marriage tax penalty relief now. If everyone in the Senate is true to the votes they have cast in the last 3 or 4 years on this subject, Senator Conrad will receive 100 votes for this amendment. If so, I will congratulate him and say: Well done. I hope when the vote is cast, we will have people voting the way they have voted in the past 3 or 4 years on this issue to say: Let's provide marriage tax penalty rate relief right now. Mr. CONRAD. I think it is important to point out the differences between my amendment and the amendment of the Senator from Texas. As you know, in terms of marriage penalty relief, there are two provisions. One is to double the standard deduction for a married couple from what is provided single taxpayers. The second is to deal with the fix on the 15-percent bracket so that we also are providing relief that way. The Senator from Texas would start the standard deduction relief in 2002, which is more quickly than what is provided for in the underlying legislation, but she would then string it out to 2008. Her amendment does nothing to speed up the fix on the 15-percent bracket. There is no improvement there. My amendment takes both provisions that are designed to deal with the marriage penalty and puts them into place next year and pays for it by deferring the reductions for the very top brackets, the top 3 percent of earners in the country. They get their full relief, but it is delayed so that we can give relief to 25 million couples--50 million people--who are affected by the marriage penalty. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the reason I mentioned that everyone in the Senate supports this, no one stands up in the Senate these days and says: I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to have a penalty in the Tax Code for married couples. I don't know of anyone who supports that. The question remaining for the Senate is, Shall we fix that now or shall we wait until later? Senator Conrad says: Let's fix it now. Let's make adjustments to this proposal that is on the floor. If we all agree that the marriage tax penalty should be fixed, the Senator says, let's fix it now rather than much later. That makes sense to me. I am pleased he offered the amendment. I will be pleased to vote for it. I hope every one of my colleagues will do the same. I yield the floor.