John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Republican led Senate is considering legislation that I have long advocated for working families--relief from the marriage tax penalty. This is not a limited problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost half of all married couples--21 million--are affected by the marriage penalty. One study showed that over 640,000 couples in Virginia are affected. The marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a manufacturing plant worker makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they both file their taxes as singles they would pay 15 percent in income tax. But if they choose to live their lives in holy matrimony and file jointly, their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax bracket of 28%. The result is a tax penalty of approximately $1,400. The Republican marriage penalty relief bill would fix this unfairness without shifting of the tax burden and without the need for a tax increase on any individual. Middle and low income families would benefit as much as earners with higher incomes. The bipartisan support for eliminating the marriage penalty is overwhelming. The House of Representatives passed the bill with 268 votes. In the Senate, our bill increases the standard deduction for joint returns to twice the amount of the standard deduction for single returns, doubles the size of both the 15% and 28% tax brackets for joint returns to twice the size of the corresponding tax rate brackets for single returns, and increases the phase-out income level for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for joint returns by $2,500. Additionally, it makes permanent the current allowance of personal nonrefundable tax credits to offset both regular and alternative minimum tax liabilities. Critics have claimed that most of the tax relief under our plan would go to wealthy couples. That is simply not true. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation's distribution analysis estimates that couples making under $75,000 annually will be the biggest winners. Additionally, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that couples earning between $20,000 and $30,000 will receive the biggest percentage reduction in their federal taxes out of any income level, with couples making between $30,000-$40,000 fairing almost as well. Opponents of this measure have argued that some married couples, where only one spouse works, will receive a so-called ``marriage bonus''. Although the word ``bonus'' implies an additional benefit, this is simply not the case. First, this money belongs to the taxpayers. With a surplus of over $2 trillion, not including Social Security, all taxpayers are entitled to a return of their tax overpayment. Second, should the federal government, through tax policy, discourage either parent from staying at home with children? If a couple chooses to raise their family on just one income, they will need all the financial help they can get. The government should not penalize a family simply because it takes both spouses working outside of the home to make $50,000. Being a stay at home parent should be rewarded-- not penalized. This means over $64 billion in tax relief over the next five years. Combined with the other tax relief measures adopted by the Senate this year--tax relief for small employers, improved health care access, and education savings accounts--the total tax relief considered by the Senate falls well within the $150 billion budgeted for tax cuts in the recently-adopted budget resolution. This is a modest proposal. Eliminating the marriage penalty will result in less tax paid to the federal government. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will send Uncle Sam almost $2 trillion in additional surplus taxes over the next ten years. That is after Congress has locked up 100% of Social Security surplus and paid down the public debt. Our proposal asks Uncle Sam to give back to middle class families just 10 cents out of every extra surplus dollar they send to Washington. Is that really to much to ask to help families? The Federal government should not put a price tag on the sacrament of marriage.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If I may interject, it is not necessarily the Democratic side because there is strong bipartisan support, am I not correct, I ask Senator Byrd?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could we have the Senator from Maine, who has been waiting, and the Senator from Texas, enter the colloquy on timing? Again, they have been here for some time.

Mr. WARNER. I would like to speak on the gas issue in sequence after the Senator from West Virginia, if I may. We want to stay on the issue, I suggest, because we have a vote. Then we wish to accommodate other Senators.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be happy if the Senator wishes to proceed and I can follow. Whatever the Senator from West Virginia wishes.

Mr. WARNER. It is under the control of Senator Byrd.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not object--our distinguished colleague from West Virginia is controlling the time on the gas tax. I would like to have 8 minutes in opposition to the gas tax. I know our distinguished colleague from Ohio has been here for some time. He should be accorded precedence over this Senator at least. I wonder if we could have some order so Senators can be convenienced. Then certainly we can put in this matter. I seek, from our distinguished colleague, how would he suggest we go about this?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the 20-plus years I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, this is a day I will long remember. It is the first time I ever voted against a tax decrease in over two decades. I see no certainty to this program. The Senator says 74 percent favor a temporary reduction. Why isn't it 100 percent? I know very few people who want to increase taxes. And with all due respect to my friend, the GAO monitoring 100,000 gas stations across America to see whether or not it came down 4.3 cents? That I just cannot accept.

Mr. WARNER. On your time, you are welcome to do it. Mr. President, in all seriousness, the Senate really was a leader in passing the landmark legislation to modernize America's transportation system. This gas tax was included in that highway fund by 80-plus Senators. It is a foundation block for this program. Let us not bring uncertainty to the modernization of America's transportation system by beginning to pull a block here and a block there. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Off the control of which Senator's time? My understanding is Senator Byrd controls the time for Senators in opposition, of which I am aligned. Senator Murkowski controls the proponents' time. Am I not correct on that, Mr. President?

Mr. WARNER. That would then remove all opposition time; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I ask the Senator, could I have the benefit of a minute of that time?

Mr. WARNER. Do I understand, the Senator yields herself 5 minutes? Is there not 10 minutes under joint control on the subject of gas taxes?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague because he has spent these many years in the appropriations process; he has studied all the budget resolutions going back these many years. I question what the precedent is, and the degree of uncertainty as to this body being able to deliver, and, I might say, the House of Representatives. It would take both bodies; would I not be correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first thank our distinguished Senator from Ohio. When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, he was a Governor. He brought together those Governors. He laid the foundation with the National Governors' Association; indeed, a coalition of highway administrators all over the country. He deserves a great deal of credit for the work he did as we, in this body, worked on the legislation. We could not have done it without the help of those organizations. I am so glad the Senator paid proper respect to their services. I thank our distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I have now been privileged to serve with him here in my 22nd year in the Senate. No matter whether he has been the majority leader or minority leader, as a leader in his party, he has always been there taking the lead, making the tough decisions, and pointing the way. There is an old French saying about a politician one time saying: Tell me, which way is the crowd going so I can jump in front and lead? The senior Senator knows that quote better than I. That is not our senior Senator from West Virginia. He knows which way to lead and then, indeed, the Senate, most often, and the crowd, know which way to go.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator and very much respect and appreciate the leadership he has given. I will work with him on this to the final vote.

Mr. WARNER. But I say to my colleague, there are two separate issues today. Let us divide them. First is the energy policy of this administration. Our distinguished colleague from Alaska has addressed that issue. Yes, it is flawed. In the words of the Secretary of Energy, they were caught napping. As a consequence, we are suffering at the gas pump. We are suffering in our economy. We are suffering in many ways for these increased prices. I have compassion and understanding for those people. I support what Senator Murkowski will bring forth as separate legislation to try to once again restore America's preeminence in its ability to develop energy sources and get the rigs out from under the brier patch of laws and regulations where they once drilled oil and gas in this country but are now rusting in stacks. The Presiding Officer comes from a State which is known for its energy production. He knows full well of that situation. I do not like to be in opposition to the distinguished leaders of my party, the Republican Party, but I am strongly in opposition to this question of repealing this gas tax. I will not go back into the history, but we addressed this in the course of TEA-21. We took the funds, the general revenue, and put them into the highway trust fund. That was a commitment to the American public of those dollars so desperately needed to repair and modernize our transportation system. I think what underlines this debate is the word ``anger.'' Yes, there is anger at the pump. That is understandable. But there is also anger behind the wheel when Americans, driving their vehicles today--whether it is for work or for pleasure, or for whatever purpose--see this cancer of the transportation system slowly eating away at their lifestyle, devouring the time they need at the job, devouring the time they need with their families, devouring the time they need for what little pleasure life provides today in terms of the burdens and commitments on the American family. So we have a choice: Anger at the pump; anger with the highways. I believe it is most important that the institution of the Senate show a continuity of commitment to the modernization of our highways, our rails, and other transportation modes to reduce the threat to our lifestyle. That is what it is all about. If we were to repeal this gas tax--I project that the Senate will not, but if we were to repeal it, what Senator could get up and say, with certainty, that that tax reduction will be passed down to the consumer at the gas pump? I will carefully listen to the speeches. What Senator could make that irrefutable commitment to the American public? The free enterprise system is fraught with uncertainty. I would be willing to--I am not a betting man--wager, though, that that money would not go into the pockets of the American consumers. That will bring about anger at the gas pump far greater than any that was witnessed thus far. There is the question of the modernization of this highway transportation system and other modes of transportation. Hundreds of thousands of people are involved, from the Governor of a State, to their highway transportation authorities, to the legislatures of the various States. These people have made commitments, passed laws, adopted budgets on the reliability of the Congress to stand behind what they put into that legislation. I repeat that. Stability in this program is essential because these modernization programs cannot be done overnight. They cannot either pour concrete or have the designers do their work overnight. There has to be a careful, methodical sequence of the steps. Literally hundreds of thousands of people are involved all over America. They sit and listen, astonished that we are about to take away one of the underpinnings of that program. Those legislatures, in their next session--most of them have completed their sessions for this year--would say: Wait a minute. Before we commit so many State funds in reliance on what the Federal Government might do, let's wait and see. Is the Congress going to do something else to diminish the flow of funds? We cannot have instability in the highway modernization program. That is fundamental, absolutely fundamental. I conclude my remarks and hope the distinguished Senator from West Virginia will address the clause in the bill referred to on page 3, which says: Maintenance of trust fund deposits.--In determining the amounts to be appropriated to the Highway Trust Fund under section 9503 . . . an amount equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of this subsection shall be treated as taxes received . . . I just say to my good friend from West Virginia, who has examined this legislation for so many years in this body, I think this is the first of its type. The distinguished Senator, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, understands the appropriations process. I find that this provision, No. 1, is unique. I don't know of many precedents that I have seen, if any at all. And second, the subject, again, of the uncertainty of taking it with one hand from the highway trust fund, by virtue of the elimination of the tax, then giving it back with the other hand in terms of some commitment, to me, brings about uncertainty. I question how many Senators can rely on that. I hope my distinguished colleague might look at that provision based on his many years of experience.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I see my time is up. I see my colleague on his feet. I wonder if he might address that issue.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have not requested any preferential treatment. I simply wish to send it to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue--not only this particular measure before the Senate, but it goes all the way back to when I was privileged to be bringing to the floor the ISTEA, TEA-21 legislation. Then, in the course of that deliberation, we took the 4.3 cents out of the general revenue and put it in the highway trust fund for the express purpose to improve our Nation's highways. I commend the leadership. I also express my gratitude to the myriad organizations, from the National Governors' Association, the League of Cities and Communities, and hundreds of others that have worked so hard to keep the Congress well informed about the needs of our infrastructure, of transportation. I wish to add one word, and that is ``stability.'' This Nation must have stability in the funding to make this program successful.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as has the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I have had the privilege of serving with our friend, Senator Moynihan, for many years on the Environment and Public Works Committee. If I may say with some little immodesty, I have been sort of a silent partner with Senator Moynihan, not so much on this project--this was entirely his, I say to the junior Senator--but the Ronald Reagan Airport, for example, and the completion of the Federal Triangle are major, significant landmarks which will go forward for future generations. But for this quiet, modest, knowledgeable man--I doubt if he would ever be a cosponsor of this resolution--it is most befitting that this be done to recognize a man who stands for the rule of law. I thank the Senator.