Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. H.R. 4391 amends title 4 of the U.S. Code, whereas S. 1755 amends title 47. H.R. 4391 reflects the drafting style of the House, whereas S. 1755 reflects the drafting style of the Senate. H.R. 4391 deleted the findings incorporated in section 2 of S. 1755. H.R. 4391 also changed the order in which the definitions appear in S. 1755. There are no substantive differences between S. 1755 and H.R. 4391. Therefore, H.R. 4391 and S. 1755 are substantively identical.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is the right time and the right place. We have the wherewithal; we have the ability; we have the need to do this. This body should pass this bill. The President should sign this bill into law and eliminate the marriage penalty tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Chairman Roth, who has done an outstanding job of getting this bill to this point. We are going to get this to the President. The President is going to have the opportunity to sign it and provide relief to over 20 million American couples. The Senator from Massachusetts argued earlier that we haven't done anything for the vast majority of Americans this week. I disagree heartily with that. But he can certainly join us on this one. We have over 20 million American couples, 40 million people--if you count family members affected by this issue, it is far more than that-- who are going to be affected right now by this tax. My comments are not long. They are simple and to the point. There is an iron rule of government: If you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. We are taxing marriage, and we are getting less of it. That is hurting our families, and it is hurting our children. We are taxing marriage to the tune of about $1,400 per couple per year. The tax is applied to 21 million American couples. We have seen a decline in the number of marriages from 1960 to 1996--about 40 percent during that period of time. I am not saying that is all associated with the marriage penalty. It is not. But, clearly, we are sending a signal across the country that we are for family values, but not really. We are going to go ahead and tax the very fundamental institution in which families do the most, and do their best. We are going to tax the fundamental institution around which families are built; that is the marriage. We are going to tax it significantly--$1,400 per married couple across America. When you tax things, you get less of it. You can see what is taking place in the number of couples who are affected in this country. In Kansas, we have nearly 260,000 married couples affected by the marriage penalty. You can see it in States as large as Texas with 1.75 million. You can see it in States such as New York with 1.5 million; States such as Massachusetts where 600,000 couples are taxed by this. I certainly don't consider it spending money when you allow people to keep a little bit more of their own money, particularly when you have such an unfair tax as the one on marriage. It is one of those institutions that we should not be taxing, and yet we are. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Delaware hit the fundamentals of the bill--expanding the tax brackets in the 15- and 28- percent bracket, doubling the standard deduction to be able to take care of this, and the EITC credit as well--because the marriage penalty occurs in about 66 different places in the Tax Code. We are taking care of the biggest areas. But there are still some other areas we are trying to take care of as well. I want to directly hit something that has been raised by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we are somehow providing too much benefit to married couples. One of the Democrat proposals pushed around would actually put in place a homemaker penalty, where you would tax a couple if one decides to stay at home and take care of the family. One of the Democrat proposals would make families with one earner and one stay-at-home spouse pay higher taxes than families with the same household income and two earners; thus, putting in place a stay-at-home spouse penalty; a homemaker penalty. Why would we discriminate against families who would decide to make the very difficult choice of one working outside of the home, one staying at home to take care of older members of the family, and younger members of the family to do other things around the community? Why would we want to penalize that type of situation and create that stay-at-home spouse penalty? I don't understand why that would be something we would want to do. Yet it is being bandied about that that is one of the amendments supported by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I want to note, too, that the fundamentals of this are pretty simple and pretty stark as well. I have another chart to point that out. You can look at this as a typical couple getting married. They wanted to get married. We encourage this. This is a good thing, building families. It is a good thing for family values. We have a first-year teacher making $27,000 of annual income. We have a rookie police officer with $29,698 of annual income. Individually we can see what they would pay in taxes: $3,030 for her; $3,434 for him. Yet if you put them together in a joint return, if you encourage them to get married and say we want you to build a family, we want you to build it within this construction of a marriage, this sacred union between man and woman, they say, OK, but our tax bill to do this--look, they are not making lots of money here: $27,500 for a first-year teacher, $29,000 for a rookie cop--at the Federal level is an additional $638.44. Some say that is not a lot of money; they ought to pay it. Look at what they are making. They need to have this money if they are going to be able to do anything as a young couple, to start building a home, build some equity, and start a family. That is why this tax strikes so many people and why public opinion polls across the country say this is one tax people want removed. Then we get letters. We get all sorts of letters. The Senator from Texas read some letters she received. I receive them. A number of Senators do. This one is from Mark in Salina, KS, writing to urge us to reduce the marriage penalty. He says: Two single people that choose to get married must not pay more tax than two people who choose not to do so. That is a penalty for getting married. Correcting this problem is not ``cutting taxes.'' It is merely restoring them back to the way they were before the couple joined in marriage. Thus it is not a tax cut. It is the correction of the penalty for getting married. Please do the right thing. The right thing clearly is passing this bill. The right thing for the President to do is sign this bill into law. I have this letter from Thomas, from Hilliard, OH: No person who legitimately supports family values could be against this bill. The marriage penalty is but another example of how in the past 40 years the Federal Government has enacted policies that have broken down the fundamental institutions that were the strength of this country from the start. This gentleman has hit on a couple of things. One, it is not a fair tax in the first place; it is something we ought to do away with. He even looks deeper and says, Is the Federal Government really trying to harm one of our fundamental institutions, as a country? Is that really the signal the Federal Government is sending me? Is that what they want to do? Yet a lot of people looking at the Government today actually believe that is the case, that the Government is trying to break down some of these fundamental institutions in our country around which we build our values and on which we build our Nation. Here is another one from Jerry Fishbein, Pennsylvania. He writes: My wife and I have actually discussed the possibility of obtaining a divorce--something neither of us wants or believes in, especially myself . . . simply because my family cannot afford to pay the price [of the marriage penalty tax.] We have had much debate on this issue. I am not going to keep that going on the floor. I think this is a clear choice. We should pass the marriage penalty elimination. We should not put in place a homemaker penalty within this bill. We should provide this relief to over 20 million American couples. The President of the United States and his administration should sign this bill into law. We will pass this in the Senate. If it is passed in the House, the only thing that stands in the way of this bill is the President of the United States and his administration. I ask them, do they really want to send a signal to the American population that they don't value marriage; That they think it should be taxed so we get less of it? Is that really the signal they want to send? I hope they will not and that the President will sign this into law. Amendment No. 3849 (Purpose: To provide tax relief for farmers, and for other purposes)

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in May 2000, a delegation from Georgia attended a five-day seminar in western Sicily to help further a culture of lawfulness in Georgia. The delegation consisted of government officials as well as senior educators, representatives from the Orthodox Church, and the media. The program was organized by two non- governmental organizations--the National Strategy Information Center in Washington, D.C. and the Sicilian Renaissance Institute in Palermo, Sicily--with financial assistance from the City of Palermo and the U.S. Department of State. The seminar featured presentations on key aspects of the Sicilian Renaissance as well as one-on-one meetings between Georgians and their Sicilian counterparts to discuss specific programs that could be implemented in Georgia. The focus was on how in recent decades cultural change in Palermo and other parts of Sicily helped reduce crime and corruption, the lessons from the Sicilian experience that may have applicability to Georgia, and how the Sicilian experience can be modified or replicated in Georgia. The consensus of the Georgian delegation was that the achievements of the Sicilians were remarkable and that many of the practices that have been effective in Sicily are applicable to the prevention of crime and corruption in Georgia. The delegation is now developing culture of lawfulness programs with specific products, and methods of evaluation. Additional sectors of society such as the police, social workers, NGO's will become involved as progress is made. Mr. President, this program is one that attempts to go to the root of one of the major problems left over from decades of communist rule: corruption. The National Strategy Information Center should be commended and encouraged in these types of programs. This is exactly the kind of program we should be encouraging not just in Georgia but in the other Silk Road countries as well. I request unanimous consent that the following article from the Giornale di Sicilia (Palermo) be printed in the Record with my remarks. It is an interview with Vakhtang Sartania, Rector of the Pedagogical University of Tblisi, Georgia, and head of the delegation visiting Sicily, about the visit to Sicily.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to reserve that last minute, if I might.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for recognizing me for this portion of the bill. The portion of the bill I have is a bill that I, along with Senator Daschle, have introduced, with 32 other cosponsors, called the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. What it would do is keep conservation reserve program payments from being subject to self-employment tax. Unfortunately, a circuit court in this country determined that these CRP payments are subject to that. This removes that. That is in the bill. That is why I support my colleague from Iowa and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. In consideration of the severity of this disease and the paucity of current NIH sponsored research I would certainly hope that the NIH will develop and fund a research initiative in cooperation with the National Eye Institute in to the causes of the treatments for Ocular Albinism and related Disorders.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I rise today to bring to the attention of the senate the serious disease Ocular Albinism. Ocular Albinism is an x-linked genetic disorder affecting 1 in 50,000 American children, mostly males. Affected patients show photophobia, nystagmus, strabimus, a loss of three dimensional vision and a severe reduction in visual acuity, due to the abnormal development of the retina and optic pathways. There are five diseases relating to Ocular Albinism including Fundus Hypopigmentations, Macular Hypoplasia, Iris Transillumination, Visual Pathway Misrouting and Nystagmus

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief, but important colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Labor-HHs subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Specter. I appreciate his willingness to engage in this colloquy, and his commitment to ensuring that the federal government does the best possible job in gathering vital information on family structure and function. It has been said that the family is the cornerstone of civilization. Certainly, the evidence we have suggests that family structure is one of the most fundamental indicators of child health and well-being. Strong families are positively linked to child physical, emotional and psychological health, social adjustment, academic competence, and positive behavior. In fact, the more we study family structure and function, the more information we glean about children's health risks, and challenges to their well-being and development. Unfortunately, there is vital data that is not currently being gathered relating to family structure and function. This is not merely my opinion, but the statement of the Federal Inter-Agency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, which declares that important information on child living arrangements, family structure, and family interaction, is falling through the cracks, and recommends expanded and enhanced data-gathering in these areas. Without such data, we are at a disadvantage in determining the root causes of both youth well-being, and youth challenges, and addressing them effectively. It is therefore vital that we encourage the National Center of Health Statistics, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Administration for Children and Families, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and Bureau of Labor Statistics to enhance research in this area. According to the Inter-Agency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, of which all these agencies are a member of, regularly collected data are needed that describe children's living arrangements, and interactions with parents and guardians, including non-residential parents. In addition, regularly-collected data are needed on how many children live with biological parents, step-parents, and adoptive parents, or with no parent or guardian.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the subcommittee chairman. Mr. Chairman, I should add that there are many sources of information that only the federal government has the means and resources to tap effectively. Gathering this data may also prove helpful in reducing health care costs, strengthening families, and improving the health and well-being of children.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chairman. strengthen our sisters

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee and commend him for his understanding of the importance of this issue. federal family statistics

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader mentioning trying to work out the issue on NCAA gaming. I hope we can get that worked out and come to a resolution and move the issue forward. I want to make sure we get that one taken care of as well.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if the majority leader will be willing to yield for a moment, I appreciate his offering this unanimous consent request. I note that we have considered a number of items on various bills--whether it has been items on prescription drugs or different items that have come forward. This is one that has cleared through the committee by a strong vote of 13-2 with wide bipartisan support. The bill itself has broad bipartisan support across the country. It is an important issue. We are having a lot of difficulty with regard to our student athletes being involved in gambling themselves and referees in sporting events being involved in gambling. The NCAA and many of the sporting groups are saying this is a problem. Bigger than all of that, the lead gateway for college students getting into addictive gambling is through sports wagering. What we are trying to deal with is the one place in the country where this remains a problem and where it remains legal. I think we need to have a bill up and a vote. I ask my colleague from Nevada--he has been so persistent on a number of different issues to bring up to the floor--when can we get this one up so we can have a set timeframe for debate? If the Senator from Nevada would like to have a long period of time, that is fine. I am willing to go as short as an hour equally divided. But can we get some idea of when we could do this?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 29. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 4762, the disclosure bill under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 630, S. 2719.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I draw quick attention of the body to the amendment I hope to bring up sometime during the session--or on a freestanding bill--banning gambling on college athletics. There is currently only one State in the Union where you can bet on college sports. That is in Nevada. It is called the ``Vegas Exception.'' That has led to a lot of problems of gambling on college athletics and on college campuses. Also, one of the aspects I want to point out briefly--and why I want to bring this up yet this session of Congress because of the impact it is having on our young people--is the expansion into gambling and getting addicted. We are finding that one of the leading gateways for young people to get into gambling is through sports gambling--betting on sporting events. That is one of the top two ways of getting young people involved. They are among the most susceptible to becoming addicted to gambling. There is a study by the Harvard Medical School on addiction. It reported that college students are three times as likely to develop a severe gambling problem as compared with other adults. It shows that the leading gateway for college students becoming addicted is through sports betting. There is only one place in the country where it is legal. That is in Nevada. It is the ``Vegas Exception.'' That provides this atmosphere where it is legal or thought to be legal in many places, and we are seeing this problem grow. The NCAA is strongly supportive of this amendment. They want to get at this issue of gambling that is expanding exponentially across the country, and the problems they are having they want to be able to deal with so people will know there is a fair game that is going on. They want to deal with it now. Some Members are opposed to this amendment. I simply stand here to say I am prepared to bring this amendment up at any time with limited debate--1 hour of debate equally divided between each side--and I am willing to go late into the night, as it is obvious now at this hour-- to talk about this issue, get an up-or-down vote on it, and simply move forward. If the body agrees, let the body work its will. If the body disagrees, so be it. Let's move on. This is an important issue to our young people, to our colleges, and to college athletics. These games should remain honest and not be influenced by gambling. We are even hearing of some referees now who are betting on games. It is causing people to question whether these are legitimate sporting events or fixed events on the point spread. I simply continue to state to my colleagues that this is an important amendment on which I want to get a vote in this session of Congress. I am prepared to have limited debate at any point in time or bring the matter up as a freestanding bill so we are able to address it. I don't want to hold up other bills. I want to be able to get a vote on this particular item. We can do so in a limited time fashion. It is important that we get this addressed now.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 625, H.R. 3051.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 333, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives to accompany S. 1515, an Act to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and for other purposes.