Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the African trade conference report at 9:30 a.m. If the motion to proceed is adopted, cloture will be filed on the conference report, with that cloture vote to occur on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. Debate on the measure is expectd to take up most of tomorrow's session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 314, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Levin has an amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our vision for the future, our vision for the future of education and why that is important for the future. We have to provide a high-quality education to the students of the United States in order for them to be able to compete, for them to be able to grow, for them to be able to prosper into our future. I think it is critical at this juncture that we in this country talk about what that vision is of our future, that vision of education in our future. We are talking about a different model. We are talking about a different way to go. We are talking about more innovation. We are talking about more individual decisionmaking. We are talking about a system which will allow students in that individual classroom, and teachers and local boards of education and States, to make more decisions about their future than they have had the freedom to make, using education dollars, at any time in the past. This is a model we followed previously. I think the correct model to look at is welfare reform that this Congress, in 1995 and 1996, debated and passed. It was major welfare reform legislation in that we went from a federalized system of one-size-fits-all rules and regulations to a State system. We set up some parameters and guidelines at the outset. We said our objective was to get people to work and have the freedom of the workforce and not continue to be strapped down in a system that did not allow individuals to blossom. It was a system that confined people, in many cases, to failure. We said we were going to let the States innovate. We were going to let the States work to help people more instead of having this one- size-fits-all system. It has been a brilliant success in welfare reform. Welfare rolls are down 50 percent. People are working and receiving a check in the mail, and they are happy about it; they are in charge of their future rather than thanking the Federal Government for a small subsistence payment to mire them in poverty all of their lives. It was innovation, it was opportunities, it was local decisionmaking, and it has been wildly successful. We want to replicate that model in education--local decisionmaking, innovation, individual opportunities, and I think this is going to be wildly successful if we are given the opportunity from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Democratic Party to allow us to move forward with this model of education reform. I hope we do not get hung up as we did last week on the marriage tax penalty saying, to pass marriage tax penalty, we want to deal with germane amendments, and then we were stopped by a number of nongermane amendments on topics that were not relevant at all to the marriage tax penalty. It appears we are starting down the same track. We want to do something significant in education reform. We can do it. We have the time, we have the floor, and we have the opportunity. Or are we going to be stopped by things that simply do not pertain to education at all? The Democratic Party is going to have to decide whether we move forward with an education bill or this is just another chance to block major legislation and complain about a Congress that does not do anything when there are those on their side of the aisle who seek to stop us from doing anything. In a vision of the future, I imagine a future in which a human being actually steps onto another planet in our solar system, and I imagine that the coming generations will look forward and say: We do not fear cancer as a major threat to health. In fact, the odds may be pretty good we both have a pretty accurate vision of opportunities in the future. Indeed, at this point in our Nation's history, in the wee hours of a new millennium, we have tremendous potential to accomplish things that until now have been unimaginable--eliminating cancer as a major health risk in the country or going to other planets. However, for the future to become how we envision it today, our Nation's children must receive a first-class education. Over the next couple of weeks, we will have a chance to address our visions for the future in providing that first-rate education for our children. When I say visions for education, I use the plural for a reason. When Senators from both sides of the aisle close their eyes and envision the future of American education, they often see very different results. One vision about which we have heard quite a bit in the past few weeks is the vision of the status quo. Some want to move into the new century using the old model which spends education funds through specific categories that the Department of Education sees fit. They will continue to hold school districts accountable primarily for filling out their paperwork correctly and on time. In one sense, this model is very successful. This model has been successful at creating programs. Currently, ESEA is comprised of over 60 different programs, each one specifically tailored to address a problem or problems with public education that Washington perceives. With 46 million students in approximately 87,000 public schools, it is pretty impressive that we can figure out their needs so well from here--one place. The status quo model has also been extremely successful at holding States, school districts, and schools accountable for filling out paperwork. While the Government provides only 7 percent of local school funding, it demands 50 percent of all school paperwork. Those are pretty bad odds. In fact, some State education agencies devote 45 percent of their staff to administering the funds they receive from the Federal Government. Quite wasteful. This paperwork burden demands 49 million hours each year, or the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time on paper rather than kids. Indeed, fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed by public schools are teachers today. Unfortunately, with all of its success over the past 30 years, the status quo model has been a failure in one very important aspect, and that is student performance. Many of the status quo programs have been specifically targeted toward low-income students. Yet in the fourth grade, 77 percent of the children in urban high-poverty schools are below basic on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Problems with student performance are not confined to urban districts. These problems have touched the lives of literally millions of Americans. Since 1983, over 10 million students have reached the 12th grade without having learned to read. Over 20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic math. The bill before us has in it a different vision for American education. This new vision is the vision of innovation versus the vision of status quo. Under this model of innovation, instead of relying on Washington to assess the problems facing 46 million students, we rely on the parents, teachers, and principals who know the children's names. Instead of counting on the bureaucrats at the Department of Education to figure out the needs of 87,000 public schools, we leave it up to the school board members and State education officials who can tell you about the neighborhood where the school is located. Under this model, we count on these people to identify the problems facing our students and schools and to be innovative in finding a solution to fix these problems. This model has already started to work in places such as my State of Kansas. Over the past 3 years in Kansas, we have seen Federal education funds increase by over $21 million. However, when one talks to the people who deal with the Federal education funds, they want to talk about the success of consolidated planning, which Kansas implemented under an Ed-Flex waiver. Consolidated planning was a modest step which helped eliminate some unnecessary bureaucracy and helped the State use Federal funds more efficiently. More than that, it gave Kansans a taste of what can be accomplished with a little innovation. I want to give Kansas and the rest of the Nation more room, an incentive to be innovative. That is why I support the bill before us today. Under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and other colleagues such as Senator Gregg, our committee was able to produce a piece of legislation that takes very important steps toward the innovator model, the first being the Straight A's proposal about which several of my colleagues have already spoken. In conclusion, we have had a taste of this in education, and it has worked. We like the taste of it, and we like what it produces. We experienced it in welfare reform, and we have seen enormous success. Let's move forward with this innovation. Let's allow this opportunity to blossom so our kids not only can envision but fulfill the dreams of going to other planets and of curing cancer, but they need a quality education to fulfill those dreams. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is agreeable to yielding 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, has reserved 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to use a portion of that time to speak on the issue of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator from Texas?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will use 5 minutes of that and reserve 5 minutes of that time for the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, I want to note a couple of things as we wrap this debate up, have a chance to vote on the marriage tax penalty in America, send that bill to conference, and ultimately to the President. There is a fundamental principle that I talked about previously which exists and has worked repeatedly in this country. If you tax something, you will get less of it. If you subsidize it, you will get more of it. We have been taxing marriage, and we are getting less of it. The Rutgers study that I cited shows a 43-percent decline in marriage in the period between 1960 and 1996. At the same time, fewer adults are getting married. Far more young Americans are cohabitating. During that same period of time, cohabitation went up 1,000 percent. We subsidize that side of it. We tax getting married. When marriage as an institution breaks down, the children suffer.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. When the institution of marriage breaks down and we tax it, we cause it to break down further. The children do suffer. A number of single parents struggle heroically and do a good job of raising their children. But the best institution to raise those children in and to build family values that we have all talked about is the institution of marriage. That is the best place; the values emanate from that. The past few decades have seen a huge decrease in that institution, as the study I have just cited from Rutgers points out. We are taxing marriage across the country. So we are getting what we are paying for-- fewer marriages. That is happening. We are taxing over 259,000 of them in the State of Kansas. That is not good for the children. The past few decades have seen the problems befall our children because of that overall situation, the well-being of children in virtually all areas of life--physiologically, psychologically, health- wise, sociologically, academic achievement, and the likelihood of suffering physically. They are better off in that stable, two-parent family--not to say that a number of single parents don't do a very good job. They do. Overall, statistically, they are still better off in that two-parent, stable family. As a couple, Gary and Karla Gipson, wrote to me and stated: If they are really interested in putting children first, then why do we in this country penalize the institution of marriage where kids do best? When parents are truly committed to each other through their marriage vows, their children's outcomes are enhanced. That is supported by studies. It is supported by, frankly, common sense. The marriage tax penalty to an extent is a penalty that our children have to bear. It is a penalty on children. That is unacceptable. Newlyweds face enough challenge without paying punitive damages in the form of the marriage tax. The last thing the Federal Government should do is penalize the institution that is the foundation of a civil society. I am hopeful, as this bill is considered on the floor, we will be able to have a reasoned debate and we will be able to work across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion to achieve marriage penalty relief for millions of Americans who are adversely affected by this provision of our Tax Code. We can have that debate on the issue. There is more to do. The marriage penalty is embedded many places, and we could continue, and should continue, to work on that. But, overall, if we are truly interested in the health of our children, if we are truly interested in trying to instill and support family values across this country, if we truly do support that, I do not know how you get around the situation of saying, by taxing marriage, we are going to get less of it, and that is a bad thing for our children. Let's look at this for what it does to the children. Let's provide that support and help to that married couple. Let's provide the support and help, whether it is a two-wage-earner or a single-earner family where one chooses to do the hard work of taking care of the children or an aging parent or a relative. Why would we penalize that situation? For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion and let's get on to this bill. I reserve the remainder of the 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address a number of issues that have been raised recently on the marriage tax penalty elimination bill. We will be voting at noon on a cloture motion. We have the opportunity at noon to vote on whether or not to proceed to this issue. We have the opportunity then, as well, to consider any relevant amendments. That needs to be made perfectly clear. Amendments are in order after the cloture motion. The only issue is whether or not they pertain to or are germane to marriage tax penalty relief. All of those will be open and debatable. If there is a Democratic alternative they think is better on the marriage tax penalty, that is relevant, we can deal with that. We will debate it. We can vote on it, if we can finally get to cloture on this issue. We need to be very clear that there is no blockage on amendments relevant to the marriage tax penalty. All relevant ones will be and can be considered after the cloture vote so we can move forward with this issue. What would not be relevant is nongermane issues, issues outside of the point of the marriage tax penalty. There have been raised on the floor this morning several inaccuracies I wish to clear up. There is a statement going around that somehow 60 percent of the tax relief in this bill doesn't deal with the marriage tax penalty. I disagree with that. One hundred percent of the relief proposed in this bill goes to married couples. I don't know who they are claiming the 60 percent goes to, but 100 percent of this relief goes to married couples. I will make it very clear: It isn't 60 percent of this going to businesses or 60 percent of it going to farmers or 60 percent of it going to some other category; 100 percent goes to married couples. That is indisputable. I want to talk about the nature of the bill so people can get that fresh in their minds. We talked about it 2 weeks ago, but some time has passed. I will talk about what our bill does. Our bill eliminates the marriage tax penalty in the standard deduction. Here are the nuts and bolts. The standard deduction this year for a single taxpayer is $4,400. However, for a married couple filing jointly, the standard deduction is $7,350. It should be $8,800, if it is fair. What we are doing is making it fair. Let's make it $8,800. Second, our bill widens the 15-percent tax bracket. Under current law, the 15-percent bracket for a single taxpayer ends at an income threshold of $26,250. But for married couples, the bracket is not double; it ends at $43,850. It should end, if it were fair, at $52,500. That is what our bill does. It moves it for the double filing couple to $52,500. That is fair. That is something that should be in the Tax Code and should be allowed. Third, our bill applies that same principle of doubling that income bracket on the 15-percent bracket, and we provide that into the 28- percent bracket as well. Fourth, our bill increases the phaseout range for the earned-income tax credit; that is, on the EITC, there is a marriage tax penalty there. With the earned-income tax credit, you don't double the benefits for a married couple. Clearly, we should. Low-income families with children can incur a significant penalty, and they do, because of the current limits on the EITC. If both spouses work, phaseout of the EITC on the basis of combined income can lead to the loss of some or all of the EITC benefits to which they would be entitled as singles. Our bill works to begin fixing this problem. The Senate Finance Committee proposal that comes out would do that. Finally, our bill would permanently extend the provision that allows the personal nonrefundable credits to offset both the regular tax and the minimum tax. It is important that American families receive the full benefit of the tax cuts they were promised. This important change will allow America's families to maintain the $500 per child tax credit, HOPE scholarship, adoption credit, and many others. So those are the nuts and bolts of the bill. That is where the tax is occurring. That is where we would alleviate the marriage tax penalty. That is it. That is what the bill is about. So the notion that it doesn't go to married couples is erroneous. It benefits a lot of people. Currently, the marriage tax penalty is on about 25 million American married couples. I have shown this chart previously. In Kansas, we have over 259,000 couples paying a marriage tax penalty. On average, as the Senator from Wyoming noted, it is about $1,400 per couple. We have, I think, a lot of unfairness in the Tax Code. Typically, we try to benefit things that we think are helpful in the Tax Code and tax things that we think are harmful. If that is the typical analysis, then in this situation we must believe that marriage is harmful because we are taxing it. But the record is far different on that. Marriage is a good thing. It is a central value-creating institution for the American family. Anybody for family values ought to be for marriage. It is around that central unit that the family builds the values it shares with the children, and then later with the grandchildren and great grandchildren; that emanates from that central unit. This is a very good thing, a very positive thing. The institution of marriage has been under attack in recent years. The number of people getting married has gone down substantially. A University of Rutgers study points this out. I want to quote it so that people have that information: According to a recent study, marriage is in a state of decline from 1960 to 1996. The annual number of marriages per thousand adult women declined by almost 43 percent. I guess our policy is getting through. By taxing something we apparently want less of, we are succeeding. That is, in my estimation, bad public policy. If you look at the situation around which children do the best overall, it is in that stable environment, with two parents in a long-lasting relationship of marriage. That is where children do best. That is not to say that a number of single parents don't struggle heroically to raise good children. They do. But, overall, the statistics are that they do best in a two-parent household. As a matter of fact, the statistics are that in a single-parent household--and many struggle greatly to raise good children, and they do a good job, but the overall statistics are very troubling in single- parent households where children are twice as likely to be involved in a crime, twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to be abused, and twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs. This is just not a good situation. That is not to say that many single parents don't struggle heroically to do a good job. Still, we as public policymakers should not tax marriage so that we have less of it. We should be providing relief to married couples. I want to address this issue some have raised of a marriage bonus built into this package. I think you could justify, on public policy grounds, actually doing that, but I don't think it is here. I think you can justify that as well. Our bill provides marriage tax penalty relief to working American families by doubling the lowest two tax brackets and standard deductions, and also in the EITC bracket. Our bill also treats all married couples the same, whether both spouses work outside the home or just one. That seems to be fair as well. The Democrat alternative does not treat all married couples the same. In fact, by giving preferences only to dual-earner families through choice of filing, that creates a homemaker penalty. For a spouse that decides to stay home and do the hard work of taking care of children, parents, or others, they create a penalty in that situation. The other alternative--the Democrats' alternative--would make families with one earner and one who stays at home to take care of children or elderly parents pay higher taxes than families with the same household income as two-earner families. Why should we discriminate against one-earner families? Why would we want a Tax Code that penalizes families because one of the spouses chooses the hard work of the household over the role of the breadwinner? Believe me, it is hard work. I don't think it is a situation that we would want to enshrine within our Tax Code because, again, what we do by taxing it is penalizing them and saying we want less of it. Do we want to send the message across the country that we want less parents involved in raising their children? Clearly, the signal we are getting across America reflects that we want more parents involved and more parental involvement with children. We need more time involved with the family, not less. So we don't want to enshrine in the Tax Code a situation where we are actually saying we don't want more parents involved and having more time with their children. We should be sending the opposite signal across this Nation. The alternative the Democrats have put forth says we don't think we should have as much parental involvement. I think that is a bad way to go. This is a simple bill. We are trying to address what the President says he wants. He wants to deal with the marriage tax penalty. We are trying to address that. We are trying to send him a bill that deals with the marriage tax penalty. Let's take all relevant amendments on the marriage tax penalty. We will take those, come what may, and get this voted out and get it on over to the President. The House has passed it. We are here and we are ready to vote on it. We will have the cloture motion vote at noon. I urge my colleagues, let's get on to this issue and go ahead and present it. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas had 30 minutes reserved for this issue. I don't know if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak on that time. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma on the time of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation entitled the International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000 which combats the insidious practice of trafficking of persons worldwide. As we begin the 21st Century, the degrading institution of slavery continues throughout the world. Sex trafficking is a modern day form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery in the world today. Every year, approximately 1 million women and children are forced into the sex trade against their will, internationally. They are usually transported across international borders so as to ``shake'' local authorities, leaving the victims defenseless in a foreign country, virtually held hostage in a strange land. It is estimated that at least 50,000 women and children are brought into the United States annually, for this purpose. The numbers are staggering, and growing rapidly. Some report that over 30 million women and children have been enslaved in this manner since the 1970's. I believe this is one of the most shocking and rampant human rights abuses worldwide. One of two methods, fraud or force, is used to obtain victims. The most common method, ``fraud,'' is used with villagers in under- developed areas. Typically the ``buyer'' promises the parents that he is taking their young daughter to the city to become a nanny or domestic servant, giving the parents a few hundred dollars as a ``down payment'' for the future money she will earn for the family. Then the girl is transported across international borders, deposited in a brothel and forced into the trade, until she is no longer useful (becoming sick with AIDS). She is held against her will under the rationale that she must ``work off'' her debt which was paid to the parents, which typically takes several years. The second method used for obtaining victims is ``force'' which is used in the cities, where a girl is physically abducted, beaten, and held against her will, sometimes in chains. The routes are specific and definable, and include Burma to Thailand, Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and Nepal to India, among numerous other routes, through which victims of this practice are channeled. Presently, no comprehensive legislation has been adopted, yet, which holistically challenges the practice of trafficking and assists the victims. I am introducing this legislation, the International Anti- Trafficking Act of 2000, today as a companion to the legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Sam Gejdenson, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244). Senator Wellstone has also introduced legislation which closely mirrors the Smith-Gejdenson bill. Our primary difference is the methods for enforcement. Unless the President implements one of the broad waivers granted to him in this legislation, non-humanitarian, non-trade foreign assistance (listed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) to countries will be suspended if countries fail to meet the minimum standard to stop the flow of traffickers in their own countries. Please note that there is an extremely broad national interest waiver provision granted to the President which allows him to exempt any and all programs, as well as an additional waiver which allows the President to guard against any adverse effect on vulnerable victims of trafficking, including women and children. This bill presents a comprehensive scheme to ``penalize the full range of offenses'' involved in elaborate trafficking networks. It also provides a doorway of freedom for those who are presently enslaved throughout the world and promotes their recovery in civil society. Some of the provisions include: establishment of an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, enhanced reporting by the State Department on this practice, protection and assistance for victims of trafficking, changes in immigration status allowing victims to stay to testify in prosecutions, strengthens prosecution and punishment of traffickers, among other provisions. In short, we believe it's time to challenge this evil slavery practice known as trafficking, and I believe this legislation is a first step to gaining freedom for those who are presently bound.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation entitled the International Anti-Trafficking Act of 2000 which combats the insidious practice of trafficking of persons worldwide. As we begin the 21st Century, the degrading institution of slavery continues throughout the world. Sex trafficking is a modern day form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery in the world today. Every year, approximately 1 million women and children are forced into the sex trade against their will, internationally. They are usually transported across international borders so as to ``shake'' local authorities, leaving the victims defenseless in a foreign country, virtually held hostage in a strange land. It is estimated that at least 50,000 women and children are brought into the United States annually, for this purpose. The numbers are staggering, and growing rapidly. Some report that over 30 million women and children have been enslaved in this manner since the 1970's. I believe this is one of the most shocking and rampant human rights abuses worldwide. One of two methods, fraud or force, is used to obtain victims. The most common method, ``fraud,'' is used with villagers in under- developed areas. Typically the ``buyer'' promises the parents that he is taking their young daughter to the city to become a nanny or domestic servant, giving the parents a few hundred dollars as a ``down payment'' for the future money she will earn for the family. Then the girl is transported across international borders, deposited in a brothel and forced into the trade, until she is no longer useful (becoming sick with AIDS). She is held against her will under the rationale that she must ``work off'' her debt which was paid to the parents, which typically takes several years. The second method used for obtaining victims is ``force'' which is used in the cities, where a girl is physically abducted, beaten, and held against her will, sometimes in chains. The routes are specific and definable, and include Burma to Thailand, Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and Nepal to India, among numerous other routes, through which victims of this practice are channeled. Presently, no comprehensive legislation has been adopted, yet, which holistically challenges the practice of trafficking and assists the victims. I am introducing this legislation, the International Anti- Trafficking Act of 2000, today as a companion to the legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Sam Gejdenson, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244). Senator Wellstone has also introduced legislation which closely mirrors the Smith-Gejdenson bill. Our primary difference is the methods for enforcement. Unless the President implements one of the broad waivers granted to him in this legislation, non-humanitarian, non-trade foreign assistance (listed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) to countries will be suspended if countries fail to meet the minimum standard to stop the flow of traffickers in their own countries. Please note that there is an extremely broad national interest waiver provision granted to the President which allows him to exempt any and all programs, as well as an additional waiver which allows the President to guard against any adverse effect on vulnerable victims of trafficking, including women and children. This bill presents a comprehensive scheme to ``penalize the full range of offenses'' involved in elaborate trafficking networks. It also provides a doorway of freedom for those who are presently enslaved throughout the world and promotes their recovery in civil society. Some of the provisions include: establishment of an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, enhanced reporting by the State Department on this practice, protection and assistance for victims of trafficking, changes in immigration status allowing victims to stay to testify in prosecutions, strengthens prosecution and punishment of traffickers, among other provisions. In short, we believe it's time to challenge this evil slavery practice known as trafficking, and I believe this legislation is a first step to gaining freedom for those who are presently bound.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II. Mr. President, Pope John Paul II is the most recognized person in the world, having personally visited tens of millions, in almost every continent and country. He has been one of the greatest pastoral leaders of this century, fearlessly guiding the Catholic Church into the new millennium. Due to his tremendous faith and leadership he was elected bishop at a very early age, and elected to the papacy on October 16, 1978, at the age of 58. Though many people see the Pope as an important statesman, diplomat, and political figure, Pope John Paul II is much more than that. As spiritual leader to the world's 1 billion Catholics, the Pope has commenced a great dialog with modern culture, one that transcends the boundaries of political or economic ideology. As have his predecessors of happy memory, he stands boldly as an ever vigilant sign of contradiction to a culture that is darkened by the clouds of death. In the face of this mounting storm, he has tirelessly proclaimed the need for a culture of life. In what is now one of the Pope's most famous encyclicals, and the one which he regards to be the most significant of this pontificate, Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), the argues powerfully for an increased respect for all human life: Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ``Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.'' That is from the Pope's Evangelium. Mr. President, the urgency of this message--the Pope's message-- becomes more acute by the day; particularly at the beginning of the new millennium. The Pope, having witnessed first-hand the brutal inhumanity of Nazi and Communist regimes, understands, in a way few of us can appreciate, the true dignity of each and every human being. He is a crusader against the offenses against human dignity that have transpired in the 20th century. More than any other single person this century, Pope John Paul II has worked to protect the rights of each individual. As well, John Paul II has addressed almost every major question posed by the modern mind at the turn of the millennium. As noted by the biographer of the Pope, George Weigel, the Pope has provided answers to the questions and desires facing today's world: The human yearning for the sacred, the meaning of freedom, the quest for a new world order, the nature of good and evil, the moral challenge of prosperity, and the imperative of human solidarity in the emerging global civilization. Through his teaching, the Pope has brought the timeless principles of truth contained in the gospel into active conversation with contemporary life and thought. The Pope has started a peaceful dialogue between ideas of the modern world and the age-old truths contained in the Gospel message. One of the gospel messages emphasized by the Pope is the need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and with our sisters and brothers. A week before his historic personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land the Pope asked forgiveness from God on behalf of Christians who were inactive, or who were not active enough in opposing the forces of evil that have ravaged humanity during the past century. This apology preceded his recent personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land; a pilgrimage in which the Pope opened up yet another dialog--this time with the people of the Middle East--a region ripped apart by centuries old conflict, bitterness, and war. Again, in the Holy Land, he empathized with those who suffered under the tyranny of the Nazi regime. The Pope highlighted during his trip, and he has on other occasions, his deep compassion for those who suffered under the brutality of Hitler's Germany and their genocidal war. In the midst of the conflict in the Holy Land, the Pope again shone through as a beacon of light and peace as he proclaimed yet again to the people of the Middle East and the World, the universal calls to holiness. As the New York Times so eloquently noted after the Pope's visit to Jerusalem's Yad Vashem: John Paul has done more than any modern pope to end the estrangement between Catholics and Jews. He was the first pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to acknowledge the failure of individual Catholics to deter the Holocaust and the first to call anti-Semitism a sin ``against God and man.'' There is a valedictory quality to the Pope's actions and travels as the church approaches its third millennium. He seems determined to trace the birth of Christianity in this epochal year, to right the wrongs of the church and to bring a spirit of conciliation to the Middle East. Not long ago he went to Egypt and visited Mount Sinai, where Moses received God's law. This week he stood atop Mount Nebo in Jordan and looked across the Promised Land. He prayed in silence near the places where Jesus was born and baptized. Most people as infirm as John Paul would not dare make such strenuous trips. But he seems to be a man on a mission, and the world is better for it. That was from the New York Times. He is indeed a man on a mission. His message was peacefully conveyed in the Middle East to peoples with whom he has obvious deep religious differences. His serenity in the midst of such turmoil, as well as his obvious love for all people should be a model for us all as we encounter people in our daily life with whom we radically disagree, or with whom we have had a difficult relationship. His epoch journey to the Holy Land will be remembered by history. And, I have no doubt that his presence there will leave a lasting impression, and I hope that it will work to bring about true peace as well. His trip to the Middle East is just one particular example. The Pope's dialog with the modern era has taken him across the world, and has brought the Church into active conversation with people that many in the modern world have chosen to either forget or to ignore. It is a dialog that is ultimately a challenge to the people of the United States as well. For example, his trip to Cuba initiated a dialog between politically opposed forces both here in America and in Cuba. Also, Pope John Paul II's recent call to forgive the debt incurred by Third World countries during the past century, was and is, a challenge to the industrialized nations of the world to join hands in an effort to begin lifting the forgotten people of heavily indebted countries into the next millennium by providing some of the economic relief that they need. This is the challenge presented to those in industrialized countries, to remember and to help those who are less fortunate. The legislation I just introduced has been cosponsored by 66 of my Senate colleagues, and I am hopeful that we can pass this legislation quickly in order to honor so great a man who has done such great things.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Iowa. Mr. President, I say to all my colleagues, this is the vote on marriage tax penalty relief. If you support marriage tax penalty relief, vote for cloture so we can consider this bill. We can send a clean bill to the President. If you are not for marriage tax penalty relief, do not vote for cloture. This is the vote on whether or not we are going to grant marriage tax penalty relief to nearly 25 million American couples. That is what this vote is all about now. It is not about a whole bunch of extraneous amendments. It is about the marriage tax penalty. If you ran on this issue, this is your chance to vote to say: I am for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. If you ran on it, this is the time to stand up and say: I am for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture to go to the bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for allowing me to speak for a few minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak for about 5 or 6 minutes on a bill I am introducing. What does my colleague from Louisiana have in mind?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II. Mr. President, Pope John Paul II is the most recognized person in the world, having personally visited tens of millions, in almost every continent and country. He has been one of the greatest pastoral leaders of this century, fearlessly guiding the Catholic Church into the new millennium. Due to his tremendous faith and leadership he was elected bishop at a very early age, and elected to the papacy on October 16, 1978, at the age of 58. Though many people see the Pope as an important statesman, diplomat, and political figure, Pope John Paul II is much more than that. As spiritual leader to the world's 1 billion Catholics, the Pope has commenced a great dialog with modern culture, one that transcends the boundaries of political or economic ideology. As have his predecessors of happy memory, he stands boldly as an ever vigilant sign of contradiction to a culture that is darkened by the clouds of death. In the face of this mounting storm, he has tirelessly proclaimed the need for a culture of life. In what is now one of the Pope's most famous encyclicals, and the one which he regards to be the most significant of this pontificate, Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), the argues powerfully for an increased respect for all human life: Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ``Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.'' That is from the Pope's Evangelium. Mr. President, the urgency of this message--the Pope's message-- becomes more acute by the day; particularly at the beginning of the new millennium. The Pope, having witnessed first-hand the brutal inhumanity of Nazi and Communist regimes, understands, in a way few of us can appreciate, the true dignity of each and every human being. He is a crusader against the offenses against human dignity that have transpired in the 20th century. More than any other single person this century, Pope John Paul II has worked to protect the rights of each individual. As well, John Paul II has addressed almost every major question posed by the modern mind at the turn of the millennium. As noted by the biographer of the Pope, George Weigel, the Pope has provided answers to the questions and desires facing today's world: The human yearning for the sacred, the meaning of freedom, the quest for a new world order, the nature of good and evil, the moral challenge of prosperity, and the imperative of human solidarity in the emerging global civilization. Through his teaching, the Pope has brought the timeless principles of truth contained in the gospel into active conversation with contemporary life and thought. The Pope has started a peaceful dialogue between ideas of the modern world and the age-old truths contained in the Gospel message. One of the gospel messages emphasized by the Pope is the need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and with our sisters and brothers. A week before his historic personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land the Pope asked forgiveness from God on behalf of Christians who were inactive, or who were not active enough in opposing the forces of evil that have ravaged humanity during the past century. This apology preceded his recent personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land; a pilgrimage in which the Pope opened up yet another dialog--this time with the people of the Middle East--a region ripped apart by centuries old conflict, bitterness, and war. Again, in the Holy Land, he empathized with those who suffered under the tyranny of the Nazi regime. The Pope highlighted during his trip, and he has on other occasions, his deep compassion for those who suffered under the brutality of Hitler's Germany and their genocidal war. In the midst of the conflict in the Holy Land, the Pope again shone through as a beacon of light and peace as he proclaimed yet again to the people of the Middle East and the World, the universal calls to holiness. As the New York Times so eloquently noted after the Pope's visit to Jerusalem's Yad Vashem: John Paul has done more than any modern pope to end the estrangement between Catholics and Jews. He was the first pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to acknowledge the failure of individual Catholics to deter the Holocaust and the first to call anti-Semitism a sin ``against God and man.'' There is a valedictory quality to the Pope's actions and travels as the church approaches its third millennium. He seems determined to trace the birth of Christianity in this epochal year, to right the wrongs of the church and to bring a spirit of conciliation to the Middle East. Not long ago he went to Egypt and visited Mount Sinai, where Moses received God's law. This week he stood atop Mount Nebo in Jordan and looked across the Promised Land. He prayed in silence near the places where Jesus was born and baptized. Most people as infirm as John Paul would not dare make such strenuous trips. But he seems to be a man on a mission, and the world is better for it. That was from the New York Times. He is indeed a man on a mission. His message was peacefully conveyed in the Middle East to peoples with whom he has obvious deep religious differences. His serenity in the midst of such turmoil, as well as his obvious love for all people should be a model for us all as we encounter people in our daily life with whom we radically disagree, or with whom we have had a difficult relationship. His epoch journey to the Holy Land will be remembered by history. And, I have no doubt that his presence there will leave a lasting impression, and I hope that it will work to bring about true peace as well. His trip to the Middle East is just one particular example. The Pope's dialog with the modern era has taken him across the world, and has brought the Church into active conversation with people that many in the modern world have chosen to either forget or to ignore. It is a dialog that is ultimately a challenge to the people of the United States as well. For example, his trip to Cuba initiated a dialog between politically opposed forces both here in America and in Cuba. Also, Pope John Paul II's recent call to forgive the debt incurred by Third World countries during the past century, was and is, a challenge to the industrialized nations of the world to join hands in an effort to begin lifting the forgotten people of heavily indebted countries into the next millennium by providing some of the economic relief that they need. This is the challenge presented to those in industrialized countries, to remember and to help those who are less fortunate. The legislation I just introduced has been cosponsored by 66 of my Senate colleagues, and I am hopeful that we can pass this legislation quickly in order to honor so great a man who has done such great things.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to recognize the majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, for his great work in getting the marriage penalty bill brought up to the point where, right after we get back, I am hopeful, we will be able to vote on this piece of legislation and get it passed. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 2449 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me time to speak on this bill. I, too, want to comment on the Marriage Penalty Act and the marriage tax penalty elimination, and some of the comments of the Senator from Montana. I wish he was still on the floor. He says we have differences of opinion: The Democrats have a marriage tax penalty bill; the Republicans have one. He thinks theirs is better. Great. Let's have a debate on those two. Let's vote. I do not know when we have had as much clarity of differences between a Democratic bill and a Republican bill, where both parties have said we want to pass a bill on any issue this year, than the bill we have before us. I am pleading with the members of the Democratic Party: Let's have a vote. Let's have a great debate. We will debate your bill for 2 hours, ours for 2 hours, vote on both of these, and let's get this moving forward. If they want to pass a marriage tax penalty elimination bill, we have the time; we have the place; we have the floor; we can have this vote now. If they do not want to, and really all this is about is: Well, we do, but we are going to block this with eight or nine irrelevant amendments; we are really not that interested in doing this, then that should be said as well. They should be out here saying, no, this really isn't a high priority for the Democratic Party to pass, rather than saying, OK, we have a bill, you have a bill, and let's vote. It is time we vote up or down, and we have the time before we go into a recess. The other thing I would like to point out is the President sent us his budget for the fiscal year 2001. I have a copy of the budget the President submitted to us. In his budget, he inserted his support for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. In the President's budget, on the EITC, on page 57, entitled, ``Supporting Working Families,'' he says at the bottom of this page: In this budget, the President builds upon these policies that are central to his agenda of work, responsibility, and family. He says: The budget expands the EITC to provide marriage penalty relief to two earner couples . . . . That is what our bill does. We have a chance to get that particular provision that he is calling for in the budget to the President. Going back now in his budget to the tables of his proposals and his 10-year estimates on it--this is on page 409--he provides for, and it states: Provide marriage penalty relief and increase standard deduction. He does a much smaller one than we have put forward. I think he also even has a smaller one than Senator Moynihan's proposal that came forward in the Finance Committee. But the President has said all along: Let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let's do this. It is in his budget. He has asked us not to send him these gargantuan bills that have 20 different items in them. He asked us to send him one like we did on the Social Security earnings limit test. We passed that bill and sent it to the President. He signed it into law. He appreciated being able to have that degree of clarity and that degree of focus on a particular issue. We have another one. We are having the debate on it. It is the time and the place for us to consider and vote on this now. We need to consider the proposals that the other party has, and to consider our proposals. Let's move this topic forward. The President has said he wants it. I hope the President gets involved in this debate and urges the Senate and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote on this issue and to get it to him--if he wants it. He said he did in his budget. If he truly wants this marriage tax penalty relief, let's have a vote, and let's get it to the President. We can do this now. I am fearful. What I am sensing is that we are just getting a lot of delay tactics and no real interest in passing the marriage penalty tax relief. Clearly, there is not an interest to pass it before April 15. People have the right to do those sorts of tactics, if they want to. But I do not think they should hide and say they just have a different bill, when the true desire here is to not have any bill go through at all. This affects a lot of people. We have been over and over this lots of times. It affects 25 million Americans. In Kansas, 259,000-plus people are affected by this marriage tax penalty that we have in place. The Senator from Montana has 89,000 people who are affected. I am looking forward to the chance and the time when we get to actually vote on these issues. Frankly, I think we have had enough discussion about the Democratic proposal and the Republican proposal. We know what is in these proposals now. We know the costs of these proposals. We are ready to pass this. It is time to vote. I really do not understand too much what is holding this up from moving forward. My colleagues and I have had a number of people contacting our offices saying that this is a penalty they want to see done away with. They have contacted us numerous times. I have worked with the Members of the House of Representatives who have passed this bill already. They have sent to me letters from a number of people from across the country with their specific examples of how they are penalized by the marriage tax penalty. This is a letter from Steve in Smyrna, TN. He says: My wife and I got married on January 1, 1997. We were going to have a Christmas wedding last year, but after talking to my accountant we saw that instead of both of us getting money back on our taxes, we were going to have to pay in. So we postponed it. Now, for getting married, we have to have more taken out of our checks to just break even and not get a refund. We got penalized for getting married. Then he concludes: And that just isn't right. I agree. I presume the Senator from Montana agrees. I presume most of the people on the other side of the aisle agree as well. Let's vote then and get a proposal out of here so we can actually deal with this. Here is one from Wayne in Dayton, OH: Penalizing for marriage flies in the face of common sense. This is a classic example of government policy not supporting that which it wishes to promote. In our particular situation, my girl friend and I would incur an annual penalty of $2,000 or approximately $167 per month. Though not huge, this is enough to pay our monthly phone, cable, water, and home insurance bills combined. I think that is pretty huge when you are talking about that size of a marriage penalty. This one is from Marietta, GA. Bobby and Susan wrote this one: We always file as married filing separately because that saves us about $500 a year over filing married, filing jointly. When we figured our 1996 tax return, just out of curiosity, we figured what our tax would be if we were just living together instead of married. Imagine our disgust when we discovered that, if we just lived together instead of being married, we would have saved an additional $1,000. So much for the much vaunted ``family values'' of our government. Our government is sending a very bad message to young adults by penalizing marriage this way. This is from Thomas in 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 one is from David in Guilford, IN: This is one of the most unfair laws that is on the books. I have been married for more than 23 years and would really like to see this injustice changed so my sons will not have to face this additional tax. Please keep up the great work. He goes on. We have a number of different letters. I do not think it really bears going into much longer because what I hear everybody saying is: We are for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The American public is for doing that. It is the time to do that. We now just have procedural roadblocks to getting it done. That is the bottom line of where we are today. We could vote on this today. We could vote on the Democratic alternative. We could vote on the Republican alternative. We could have up-or-down votes on this today and get this through this body, get it to conference, and on down to the President, and see if he really meant it when he said in his budget that he wanted to do this, the EITC, the marriage tax penalty elimination, to see if he really wants to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We could see if the President really meant that. I invite the President to get involved in this debate so we can pass this through. I have worked with the administration on a number of bills. I would hope they would start engaging us here saying: Yes, we want to do this and pass this on through. Let's not stall it. Let's get this thing moving forward so we can send this message out across the country. With that, Mr. President, I see several other Members on the floor. It is time to get this moving forward. I just call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say let's not play on this thing. Let's say we are going to pass it. Let's take the votes, and let's move forward. I yield back to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. President, if I have a minute or 2 more--I don't want to take up the time from my colleague of Iowa.