Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his leadership and willingness to schedule this time. I am interested in dealing with this issue because we have been pressing it for years. We have been talking about it. Some have talked about it in campaigns. Why do we want to tie in 10 other topics? We should not. I hope the Democratic leader and our side can get together and agree on a set of alternatives that are relevant. Let's have a series of votes up or down so we can deal with this marriage tax penalty relief bill. It is time to do that. We have the wherewithal to do it. I hope we will deal with this now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership on both sides and their discussion on us moving forward and dealing with the marriage penalty tax. I am glad we are finally coming together, but I would note the Senator from South Dakota has put forward, on behalf of the Democrat side, 10 amendments on this issue. Many of these are not directly relevant to what we are trying to get done. With all due respect to him putting these forward, and I appreciate them working with us some, we have a pretty direct issue in front of us. It is the marriage tax penalty. To tie with it a discussion on prescription drugs, to tie with it discussions on Medicare, on Social Security priorities, on a college tuition tax credit, on conservation reserve programs, on the natural disaster assistance program, really just goes contrary, completely, to us ultimately trying to get this bill through. What we have before us is a marriage tax penalty. We have two alternatives put forward by the Democrat Party. That is good. I think we can have good, direct, clear votes on that, and then we can press forward. With all due respect to the Democratic leader, to call this a risky tax strategy, I think what is at risk if we do not deal with the marriage tax penalty is the institution of marriage in this country. What has happened is there is the fall-off in the number of people getting married, and then we tax them on top of that. That is risky. They have said a number of times that 52 percent does not deal with the marriage tax penalty. It is all directly applicable to the marriage tax penalty. The Democratic proposal actually enshrines in law a new homemaker penalty; that is, when one of the spouses decides to stay at home and take care of the children. The Democrat proposal makes families with one wage earner and one stay-at-home spouse pay higher taxes than a family with two wage earners earning the same income. Why discriminate against one-wage-earner families? That is a direct connection to the marriage tax penalty. That is a marriage tax penalty taking place with the one-wage-earner family. Why do we want a Tax Code that penalizes families because one spouse chooses to work hard at home and one chooses to work hard outside the home? I do not see why we would want to do that. There are a lot of things I like about the Democratic alternative, as far as doing away with the marriage tax penalty in a number of other places in the Tax Code. This notion of penalizing a single-wage-earner family is really not something we should be pressing. More to the point, it makes the entire issue of the marriage tax penalty, all 100 percent of the tax cut, relevant to marriage. They are saying 52 percent of it is not relevant to the family. It is directly relevant to that one-wage-earner family. In many of those cases, they are saying it is not. The other point, and I do not think it needs to be belabored: If we are ready to pass marriage tax penalty relief and both sides agree we need to pass marriage tax penalty relief, why would we take up a series of additional amendments on Medicaid, prescription drugs, Social Security, college tuition tax credit, Conservation Reserve Program, natural disaster assistance? Those are not relevant to the issue. We have a chance to do this particular issue, agree or disagree. If the Democrats think this is too rich, let's vote on their bill; let's have a vote on it. We have the chance now to do that, to hone in on that. I am fearful that what I am seeing is more a block to dealing with the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I seek to be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Texas will allow me to ask a question of her.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wonder if my distinguished colleague from Texas would yield for another question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Texas. I appreciate her leadership and the work she has done on this particular issue. I guess what is troubling to me about the issues that are being raised now on the floor is that we actually have a chance to get this done. It is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This isn't a policy statement by any of the various parties. This is an actual chance for us to pass the bill. The bill has cleared through the House. We could pass it in the Senate. We could get it to the President. The President has said he wants to be able to have a smaller tax cut. Here is one that would deal with the marital tax penalty. We are getting it blocked. It seems to me the President ought to step in now and call on the Democrat Members of the Senate to say, no, let's let this bill clear on through. This is similar to the disaster relief issue. I remember a couple years ago--my colleague might--we had a supplemental bill come through and people wanted to have some budget constraints in that bill. There was an emergency need for that supplemental, some disaster relief; some flooding was taking place. The Democratic Party said: We have to have this supplemental for this emergency relief and really hammered on a lot of people about that issue until we passed it so that people could get disaster relief. And we should have given that disaster relief. Here you have virtually the same situation. We have a chance to actually do it--no more sense of the Senate; no more talking about it; no more just saying we ought to do it. With this bill we do it. We are actually being blocked by a parliamentary maneuver on the Democrat side of the aisle. I hope the President will enter into this debate and call on Democrat colleagues of ours to say, no, let's have a vote. Let's debate the different sides of this issue of marriage tax penalty relief. There are different policy ways to handle it. Let's have that good debate, but don't tie it up with endless amendments or with what is taking place now, where we are virtually shutting the floor down because we can't get agreement. This is too important to play that sort of politics. I hope my Democrat colleagues are actually for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Let us have a spirited debate about their different ideas. I appreciate my colleague from Texas carrying this issue forward. We have to deal with this now. Ahead of the April 15 deadline would be the time to do it. This is the point in time to do it. People filling out their forms are seeing the marriage tax penalty they are paying. Let's tell them hope is on the way; we will be able to get this dealt with. I appreciate my colleague doing this. I hope we can get the President involved in calling some of our Democrat colleagues to say, let's pass a bill and let's look at this issue on the merits. I know my colleague from Texas will continue to press that issue on the floor and everywhere else she can.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my distinguished colleague from Texas. My question simply deals with an issue I have been raising now for 3 weeks on this floor, saying that when we get to the time of being able to actually pass marriage tax penalty relief--and we are there, and it is on the floor--let us not have a bunch of extraneous amendments that are irrelevant to the issue, that do not pertain to the issue of the marriage tax penalty. For 3 weeks I have been coming to the floor saying, let's not get to that point in time or let's not have the great Democratic Party saying, we are for marriage penalty relief, and then block us with other nongermane amendments. My simple question to the Senator from Texas is, it appears from what she is describing now, we are actually at that point where we could pass marriage tax penalty relief before April 15, and we are being blocked by nongermane amendments of the Democratic Party. Is that the correct situation we are actually in now?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of the marriage penalty and progress that has been made today on getting this important tax relief out across the country. First, I applaud Chairman Roth for his work on this important issue. Just today, the Senate Finance Committee considered an important bill to provide marriage penalty relief. This bill would provide relief to millions of American families--around 25 million--suffering under the burden of a marriage penalty. The proposal considered by the Senate Finance Committee passed today. We are now another step closer to getting this to the floor, which I believe will take place sometime during the week of April 11, to be able to consider providing this important tax relief to the American public. I am delighted that that bill cleared through the Senate Finance Committee today. The Senate Finance Committee used the House-passed version as a base, upon which it built an even broader and more inclusive bill. Our bill restores fairness and equity to a Tax Code that has come to penalize the institution of marriage in over 66 different ways. That is pretty imaginative, to find that many ways, but it is in there. First, our bill eliminates the marriage penalty in the standard deduction. I want to give the numbers. The standard deduction this year for a single taxpayer is $4,400. However, for a married couple filing jointly, the standard deduction is only $7,350--not even twice the amount for single filers. Our bill does a simple, clear, and just thing. Our bill doubles the standard deduction by making it $8,800. This change in the tax law would take place beginning in 2001, by immediately doubling the standard deduction for joint filers. Our bill is fair. That is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do. Second, our bill widens the 15-percent tax bracket. Under current law, the 15-percent tax bracket for a single taxpayer ends at an income threshold of $26,250. I know these are a lot of numbers, but it is important to show the specifics of the Tax Code and where it penalizes marriage and how we are fixing it. For a married couple, their bracket is less than double this threshold of $26,250. In fact, the threshold is $43,850 for a married couple filing jointly--another penalty. If our bill were fully phased in this year, it would mean that the 15-percent bracket would extend upward to an income amount of $52,500. So for a married couple filing jointly, instead of having a $43,850 threshold level, it goes up to $52,500. It doubles what it is for a single filer. This is real marriage penalty relief and elimination. It is relief because even income earners above the current upper income threshold for the 15-percent bracket--these are the upper income levels of the 15-percent bracket--will be able to fall down through the brackets and thus lower their total tax liability. It is elimination because it doubles the bracket, thus eliminating the marriage penalty in the 15-percent bracket. Again, what we are after is to make everything equal. If you have two single filers or if you have a married couple both filing, they should pay the same amount in taxes. That is what we are trying to get at with this marriage penalty elimination. It will benefit those people hit by this marriage penalty. It is going to lower the taxes for America's families. That is important. It is also equitable. Third, our bill applies the same principle of bracket widening to the 28-percent bracket as well. We are just talking about the 15-percent bracket, doubling that $26,250 to $52,500 instead of the current level of $43,850 for a married couple. That is the 15-percent bracket, the upper end of it. We would also do it for the 28-percent bracket, the 28-percent bracket as applied to singles earning between $26,250 to $63,550. That $63,550 is the upper level of the 28-percent bracket. As in the 15-percent bracket, this amount is not double for joint filers for married couples. You don't get a doubling amount. You actually get cut back from that. Under our marriage penalty relief bill, it is double. That level at which you can stay in the 28-percent bracket as a married couple filing joint would be exactly double what you were as a single person. So again, we just make it equitable and fair. If it is two people filing singly or if it is a couple filing jointly, it will be the same taxable event. That is fair. That is equitable. Fourth, our bill increases the phaseout range for the earned-income tax credit. This is an important feature. Particularly for low-income families with children, they can incur a significant marriage penalty because of current limits on the earned-income tax credit. If both spouses work, the phaseout of the EITC on the basis of their combined income can lead to the loss of some or all of the EITC benefits to which they would be entitled as singles. In other words, if you have two people filing singly, they would be entitled to a certain amount of earned-income tax credit. But if you combine their incomes, you don't get the same amount of earned-income tax credit for the couple as you do for two singles. Our bill fixes that problem as well. The Senate Finance Committee proposal increases the beginning and ending points of the phaseout range by $2,500. This change will be effective December 31, 2000. This will mean families who currently are ineligible for the credit but within the $2,500 of eligibility will be able to receive the refundable EITC. This will reduce the marriage penalty EITC. As I mentioned, the marriage penalty is 66 places in the Tax Code. We are getting at some of the most pernicious areas. For the earned-income tax credit, if you are a two-wage earner family and you should have both been able to qualify for the EITC, once you get married you should have the same amount of EITC available to your family. This particularly applies to lower income families. It is an important thing that we are doing. We fix this in our bill. Our bill helps families at all income levels: low income, middle income, on up. 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 America's 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, the Hope scholarship, the adoption credit, and many others that they would not be able to unless we change this particular area of the marriage penalty that applies as well. Our bill provides fairness and equity. It provides hard-working American families with the tax relief they deserve. Those are some of the specifics of the bill. I think this is an excellent bill in fixing some of these key areas of the marriage penalty. I think we have outlined previously the reasons for doing it. It is not fair to tax people because they get married and make them pay a penalty for the price of being married. More important, marriage is important. We should send a positive signal that this is a good thing. Stable families are important. Our approach also recognizes that every spouse has a great contribution that they make. At the same time our approach reduces and eliminates the marriage penalty for many filers, it sends an important signal to all of America that we recognize the institution of marriage and we intend to promote it as a fundamental building block of our society. I am hopeful this bill is going to be considered on the floor with a reasoned debate and not be too burdened down with amendments that are not germane and that we will be able to provide this marriage penalty relief to the millions of Americans, around 25 million married couples, who are currently adversely affected by the Tax Code. There is more to do. The marriage penalty is in 66 different places. We only get at a few of them, but we get at some important ones. Today's is an important step by the Finance Committee to report this bill out. I think it is a clear and an important step towards our ultimate goal of getting this through the Senate, the conference between the House and the Senate, and to the President where I urge his signature. We must pass this important bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 2102, a bill to establish a permanent homeland for the Timbisha Shoshone. The hearing will be held in the Committee room, 485 Russell Senate Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, to markup the SBA and SBIR Reauthorization bills and other pending legislation. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on emerging threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Defense Science and Technology Program, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2001 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. To hold a hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, to conduct a hearing on ``HUD's Public Housing Assessment System.''

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 2:00 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the current status of cleanup activities under the Superfund program.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 21, 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing on GSA's FY 2001 Capital Investment and Leasing Program, including the courthouse construction program.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 2263 is at the desk, and I ask that it be read the first time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I now ask for the second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 97 introduced earlier today by Senator Reed.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 2262 is at the desk, and I ask that it be read the first time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, at 9:45 a.m., the Senate will immediately begin the final 15 minutes of debate on the Social Security earnings bill. Following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate will proceed to vote on final passage of the bill. Therefore, Senators may expect the first vote for tomorrow at approximately 10 a.m. Following the vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Byrd for the first 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Murkowski or his designee for 60 minutes, to be followed by Senator Durbin or his designee for 50 minutes.