Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the National Rural Development Council.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 2 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on national security space programs, policies and operations, in review of the fiscal year 2001 defense authorization request and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Daly, a fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted floor privileges for the period of consideration of S. 1712, the Export Administration Act of 1999.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 rise today to address a couple of items that are going to be coming before this body and the importance of our addressing them. One is the marriage tax that is so embedded in our Tax Code, and the other is lifting the Social Security earnings limit. Both of these issues need to be taken care of this Congress. It is in the power of this Congress, particularly this body, the Senate, to deal with both of these items, and it is time we do it. I am going to be speaking out often about this until we get these measures passed. They make sense. It is time we do it. The American people want us to do it. The House has passed both of these bills, and it is time we do so as well. Our Tax Code is riddled with provisions that penalize America's families. If that is not clear to date, it should be, and it will become increasingly clear as we discuss both of these issues, the marriage penalty and the Social Security earnings limit. In fact, our Tax Code regarding marriage penalizes marriage in over 60 different ways, according to the American Association of Certified Public Accountants. That is a body of which the Presiding Officer has been a part in the past. This is unacceptable. As my colleagues already know, one of the most egregious marriage penalties occurs in the marginal tax rate bracket and in the standard deduction. I want to go through this because everybody hears about the marriage penalty tax, and it occurs in over 60 places. The bill that passed the House and is currently being considered in the Finance Committee addresses it in several places, but not all 60, but they are in several of the most important places. I want to particularly talk about the marginal tax rate bracket and the standard deduction. In fact, last year 43 percent of married taxpayers, roughly 22 million couples, paid an average of $1,489 more in Federal income taxes than they would have paid had they remained single. The Government should not use the coercive power of the Tax Code to erode the foundation of our society--the family. We must quit subsidizing and encouraging people not to get married and penalizing marriage. The House passed a bill to provide marriage tax penalty relief for America's families in the 15-percent marginal rate bracket and to eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction. The House- passed bill provides a good starting point for our discussions on marriage penalty deduction and elimination. It does not do everything, but it is a good starting point and key area with which to go. Doubling the standard deduction, increasing the width of the 15- percent bracket, and fixing the earned-income tax credit will eliminate or reduce the marriage penalty for all filers. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the highest proportion of marriage penalties occurred when the higher-earning spouse made between $20,000 and $75,000 per year. Clearly, we need to make the marriage penalty elimination a priority for all families, not just a few. We must continually work to make our Tax Code better, to make it fairer for America's families. I am hopeful we will be able to correct this gross inequity in our Tax Code this year. I want to go through some examples of people in Kansas who have written to my office about the impact of the marriage penalty. People know it is there, and they do not like it. First, we can pass this bill in this body this year and get it to the President. We have to have an agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats as to whether or not we are going to agree to pass this bill. I am calling on my Democratic colleagues to agree with us and pass sensible marriage penalty relief. They have it in their power to block us from doing this as well, but I hope they will come forward and say: We do not want this pernicious tax to be on our married families. We are all for family values, and the central unit of that family is the married couple. We do not want to see placed on America's families this average of $1,480 per family, on 22 million working couples who are making between the $20,000 and $75,000 limit. We do not want to see that tax placed on them. We do not want people saying: I cannot afford to get married because of the Federal Tax Code. People are saying just that now. I want my colleagues to listen as I share some letters I have received from Kansas constituents about this very issue. When I go home every weekend and talk with people, the marriage penalty tax comes up regularly. Listen to this letter: Dear Senator Brownback: My husband, a mechanic, and I are working hard to raise our two daughters as well as we can on his income. It is tight sometimes, but we get by. After our littlest one, Emma, starts school I will be returning to work at least part-time or \3/4\ time. Mitch and I were looking forward to the extra income so we could pay off our car, start saving for our girls' college education and most of all, quit living month to month if something goes wrong. After doing our taxes this year we fiddled with the numbers to see where a supplementary income would put us. We discovered that my working much more than part time would put us in a higher tax bracket and almost negate my income. In short, my husband is punished for working nights and extra overtime and I am punished for wanting to send my daughters to college. The best tax strategy that we could find would be to divorce, let Mitch deduct the mortgage interest and I file as the head of household with the girls. In short, the present tax code has a significant incentive for shacking up instead of marrying. These are my constituent's words--rather blunt, but they do make the point. She goes on to write: Some people say that this tax cut is bad because it would benefit the wealthy and the richest Americans. If they think a mechanic and a secretary are the richest Americans, and are opposed to the Richest Americans, then who are they for? Obviously not mechanics and secretaries. Please vote to remove the marriage penalty so our hard work will mean something more than higher taxes. Here is another letter. This one is from David: Dear Senator Brownback: I am a college student at Washburn University. My girlfriend and I have been thinking about getting married for several months. As part of the planning we went through our finances. It sounds like a good idea to me. I checked our taxes and found that if we were married this year, we would have paid $200 extra in Federal taxes. Granted that may not sound like much, but at $9 and change an hour, $200 is a lot of money. I calculated how much we could be making in a few years and found that we will pay $600 more for being married than just shacking up. Again, a rather blunt statement, but put forward clearly. He goes on to say: Basically, we have to pay $600 for the privilege of being married. I always thought the government tried to reward constructive, positive behavior through the tax code, but it is punishing one of the most socially stabilizing behaviors, marriage. We don't think we or anybody else should be punished for being married and hope you can do something about it. Here is another one: Dear Senator Brownback: I am writing to express my support for The Marriage Tax Elimination Act recently passed in the House of Representatives and to urge you to vote in support of this measure when it comes to the Senate. This legislation would address a serious inequity in current tax law by eliminating the disparity that exists with respect to the total ``standard deduction'' allowed two married taxpayers versus the total ``standard deduction'' allowed two single taxpayers. Tax policy should not discriminate either in favor of or against two individuals with respect to their decision to be married (or not be married). Rather, the same total itemized deduction amount should be allowed married taxpayers who choose to file jointly as two individuals who file separately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Is that just basic common sense, that if you are going to be married or if it is two singles, you should be taxed at the same level instead of having an increased tax for being married? It is pretty hard to explain that policy to that constituent. Here is another letter from a constituent: Senator Brownback: We were notified that a Marriage Tax Relief Act was pending in the Congress. We want to go on record as supporting any measure that will roll back the ``Marriage Penalty'' on America's families, including ours! We trust that you are willing to vote YES on this bill. Thank you, and God bless. Here is another letter: Dear Senator Brownback: I would like to thank you for expressing your ideas and opinions on the marriage penalty tax to the senate on behalf of the Kansas taxpayers. Doubling the standard deduction for married couples, and doing so as quickly as possible, lessens the blow with which nearly 21 million couples are hit every year. I have seen many people struggle with their taxes each year and I am writing on behalf these people to recognize you for your tremendous effort to make their lives easier. Thank you again. Here is another letter. This is from Salina, KS: Dear Senator Brownback: I am writing to you about the reduction of the ``marriage penalty''. I want to urge your support to correct it. It is a misconception to regard it as a tax cut. It is in fact a tax penalty that must be corrected. Two single people that choose to get married must not pay more tax than two people that 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. Ask yourself what would a couple do with the extra money? It will get spent. All those millions of dollars flow right back into the economy and get taxed again. It really won't hurt, it will help! I like his positive attitude on that. We get a lot of letters and comments from people about this being a tax, a penalty: Why do you say you are all for family values, yet you are willing to tax marriage, the central unit of the family? It just does not make sense to folks. We are talking about a pretty substantial amount of money per married couple--around $1,445 a year--for an average family. With that money: They could pay the electric bill, which, if it averages $153 per month, they can do that over a period of 9 months. They could pay for a week-long vacation at Disneyland. That would be good for a family. They could make four payments on the minivan. Car payments for an American minivan average between $300 and $350. They could make four payments. They could have a nice $40 dinner 36 times. I do not know which people would do that. Most working families go to McDonald's, and it does not cost $40. But if you want to spend $40, you can go out to dinner 36 times. Working families could buy 1,094 gallons of gas at $1.32 per gallon. That example is a little old. We could talk about energy policy if you would like. They could buy 1,268 loaves of bread at the rate of $1.13 per loaf. I think you get the picture. But many families could do a lot with that money. I want to reiterate, we have the bill now to do that. It has passed the House. It is in the Finance Committee. It is going to be here. It will be up to this body to determine, are we going to let it on through or not? The opposition has the right to stall this, to stop this bill from clearing on through. But this is not right for us to do as a matter of tax policy. I am going to continue, and a number of us are going to continue, to push aggressively to get this tax relief through, get this penalty off. Marriage in America has enough difficulties without being penalized by the Federal Government, as one of my constituents wrote. According to a recent Rutgers University study, marriage is already in a state of decline in America. From 1960 to 1996, the annual number of marriages per 1,000 adult women declined by almost 43 percent. Someone might say: Let's tax it some more; maybe it will go down some more. At the same time that fewer adults are getting married, far more young adults are cohabiting. In fact, between 1960 and 1998, the number of unwed couples cohabiting increased by 1,000 percent. When marriage, as an institution, breaks down, children do suffer. The past few decades have seen a huge increase in the out-of-wedlock- birth and divorce rates, the combination of which has substantially undermined the well-being of children in virtually all areas of life. That is according to many studies we have. It has adversely affected children physically and psychologically, their socialization and academic achievement, and even increased the likelihood of suffering physical abuse. That is not to say all children in those circumstances are going to be having those difficulties. They are not. Many single people struggle heroically to do a good job raising their children. Still, the total aggregate result is that, over all, if you have this type of situation increasing, you are going to negatively impact the physical and psychological health, socialization, and academic achievement of that child, and even increase the likelihood of physical abuse. Do we want to encourage that more by continuing this pernicious tax? This is a tax on children, a penalty on children. Study after study has shown that children do best when they grow up in a stable home, raised by two parents who are committed to each other through marriage. I guess we shouldn't need a study to tell us that, but we have them. Newlyweds face enough challenges 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 believe we can and must start now to rid the American people of this marriage penalty. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee as well as my other colleagues to make sure we get this job done. I will continue to come to the floor day in and day out to push that. We now have a bill to eliminate this major portion of the marriage penalty tax. It is going to be the choice of the Democrat Party whether or not we will pass it through this body. I hope they will come forward and say, yes, it is time to end the marriage penalty in America. Yes, it is time to end this tax on our Nation's children. Yes, it is time to end this penalty on 43 percent of the married couples in America. This isn't a tax cut for the wealthy. This is a tax cut for the family. It is not even a tax cut, it is just leveling the playing field and removing the tax penalty. Clearly, we should do this. One other issue of importance that will also be coming before the body is the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act. That, too, has passed the House of Representatives. Thank God for the work the House is doing in getting these bills through and over to the Senate. This bill passed the House 422-0. This is a bad law that has been on the books since the Depression era. You would have thought somebody would have stood up and said: I thought that was a good law all this time. Nobody did. We should not use the coercive power of the Federal Government to prevent seniors who want to work from working. They have spent a lifetime paying into the Social Security trust fund. It is simply not fair to deprive them of their Social Security benefits simply because they choose to stay in the workforce longer or choose to begin working again after retirement. I was talking with a constituent in Kingman, KS, who works at a small factory in Kingman. He lost his farm during the decade of the 1980s, during the farm depression. He is approaching retirement age and will be there shortly. He said: You really need to remove this thing for me and for a number of people. I lost my farm in the 1980s. That was my savings account. I have to continue to work to earn enough money to support the family. I can't afford to be penalized for working. The very thing we need to be encouraging people to do, we are penalizing. Here is a man who has worked hard all his life. He is approaching retirement age, will continue to work, and needs to continue to work. He said: Don't penalize me. Don't pull this away. I wish I hadn't loss the farm in the 1980s, but I did. That was my savings account. I don't have one now. I need to work. Let me work and don't penalize me. Without a growing on-budget surplus, it is possible to remove this penalty for America's working seniors. It is imperative that the Senate pass this important bill so we can rid the Social Security system of its disincentive to work. Americans should be free to work if they choose. Passage of this bill will help elderly Americans stay in the workforce longer. It should be their choice and not ours. This bill allows people older than 65 and younger than 70 to earn income without losing the Social Security benefits they have paid in their entire life. It is an important bipartisan measure that passed overwhelmingly in the House. I expect it will pass in the Senate as well. Chairman Greenspan even noted its important positive impact on the economy to increase the potential in the labor force that would be available. This is another important measure that has passed the House. I call on my colleagues: We must pass this legislation. Let's pass the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act. Let's pass this elimination of the Social Security earnings test so we can allow people to work, so we can allow married families to be able to save up some money and not be penalized for the simple act of being married. It is in our power to determine whether or not we will do this. I call on my colleagues to do that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank Senator Coverdell and add my voice in support of the amendment by Senator Mack and Senator Hatch. The marriage penalty appears in the Tax Code 66 different places. That is a situation where we have a married couple who do not get the same advantages as two people filing individually. Here is another case where the marriage penalty occurs, and here is another case where we are trying to pull it out of the Tax Code. That is why I add my voice of support to this amendment by Senator Hatch and by Senator Mack to eliminate this portion of the marriage penalty that appears in the education IRAs. Annually, there are about 22 million married couples who pay a penalty of some sort or another in the Tax Code, for being married. They pay an average of $1,480 more in Federal income taxes than they would if they were single living together. I think it is a bad signal that we send across the country. It is a bad signal in the Tax Code. It is one we ought to ferret out wherever we possibly can. This is a good place for us to address this particular issue. Our Tax Code is riddled with provisions that penalize America's families. The House has passed a bill to provide marriage tax penalty relief that is separate and distinct from this particular area of the marriage penalty. What they would do is provide marginal rate brackets that are fair for the families. They would eliminate the marriage penalty that exists in the standard deduction as well. However, even with those changes, which I am hopeful we can pass this year, we still will have more to do to ensure married people are not discriminated against in our Tax Code. In fact, our Tax Code penalizes marriage in over 60 different ways, according to the American Association of Certified Public Accountants. This is unacceptable. We must continually work to make our Tax Code better, to make it fairer for America's families. This amendment being offered by my colleagues, Senator Mack and Senator Hatch, takes an important step in our Tax Code to end a bias against marriage. I am hopeful we will pass this amendment on a strong bipartisan basis. We will pass more substantive marriage tax penalty relief later this year. As my colleagues have already described, the Hatch-Mack amendment eliminates the marriage penalty and the reduction in contributions to education and individual retirement accounts. This important provision will remove one of the marriage tax penalties that exists in our Tax Code. I believe we must pass this important amendment. I thank my colleagues who are introducing the amendment for allowing me this time to speak on the bill and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of H.R. 1883.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately proceed to a rollcall vote on final passage of H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999. Following the vote, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1134, the education savings account legislation. It is hoped that an agreement regarding relevant amendments will be made in order to have a substantive debate on that tax legislation. In addition, the Senate may consider other legislative or executive items available for action; therefore, Senators can expect further votes this afternoon. As previously announced, there will be no votes on Friday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 262, introduced earlier today by Senator Wellstone.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 261, submitted earlier by Senators Helms, Biden, Roth, Lott, and Dodd.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a series of unanimous consent requests to put in front of the Senate as we proceed to close down the Senate this evening.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate voted on H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. That bill will shortly be voted on by the House and sent to the President. I hope he will sign it because it is an important signal that the United States will not tolerate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. We will not tolerate trafficking in missiles and the technology with which to build them. I believe that is an important signal for us to send. I also think it is important we recognize what took place this week in Iran. This threat occurred, but in the midst of this, 80 percent of the people in Iran turned out to vote. They are not interested in the entrenched policies of Ayatollah Khomeini and his harsh legacy. Reformers dominated in the polls. Despite the best efforts of the hardline clerical institutions to disqualify and intimidate popular candidates, the Iranian people had the courage of their convictions. They want economic liberalization, they want freedom of the press, and they want personal liberty. We in the United States obviously share those convictions and are obviously heartened by what took place at the polls this week in Iran. It should be noted and applauded, and this resolution does just that. We say to the Iranian people: Congratulations. Thank you. This is a good step in moving forward. At the same time, we want to say we will not tolerate weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering these weapons. We want to send those clear signals. There is another thing which is going on in Iran. Earlier today, I had a press conference with several other people about three men--Sirus Zabihi-Moghaddam, Hedayat Kashefi-Najafabadi, and Manuchehr Khulusi-- three Baha'is who are on death row in prison facing imminent execution for the simple reason of practicing their faith. That is it. They are on death row facing imminent death for daring to practice their faith. This cannot be tolerated. There are nearly 300,000 Baha'is in Iran. It is the largest religious minority in the country. They have suffered continuous persecution for their peaceful beliefs. I remind the Iranian people who have voted for freedom this week that this is part of it. This is also something they have signed on to. Nearly 50 years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations--of which Iran is a member--adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since that time, this Universal Declaration has become the bedrock document for human rights. However, the Iranian Government continues to be an egregious violator. I wish to read one portion of this document. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This hour, I call on the Government of Iran--from whom the people of Iran, by their clear vote this week, are seeking change--to ensure the safety of these three individuals. This hour, I call for the release of these individuals--Sirus Zabihi- Moghaddam, Hedayat Kashefi-Najafabadi, and Manuchehr Khulusi--whose only crime was a sincere expression of their faith, which is a universal fundamental right. Most importantly, I call upon the Government of Iran to provide freedom of religion to its people--who are yearning for change, as witnessed by the vote this week--including their peaceful yet brutalized Baha'is community. I ask for their freedom to express their faith as they see fit. Our resolution is in addition to the bill that passed earlier today. It congratulates the Iranian people and says: Let's take other steps forward. No weapons of mass destruction. But, also, let's recognize religious freedom, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Iranian Government has signed on to. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution, S. Con. Res. 83, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 83 submitted by myself and Senator Wellstone.

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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, February 28. I further ask consent that on Monday, 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 proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, from 12 noon until 1 p.m.; Senator Thomas, or his designee, from 1 to 2 p.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Following morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1134 and that the majority leader be immediately recognized.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a star print of S. 824 be made with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 12 noon on Monday and will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the education savings accounts legislation. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the bill today with the cloture vote scheduled to occur at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 29. Pursuant to rule XXII, all first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 p.m. on Monday. For the information of all Senators, the leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate.