Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 176, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1219, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, the Senator from Delaware, for his excellent work on crafting this compromise package and putting it together. I think it is a substantial bill of support for the American public. We need to give this money back to the American public for overpaying their taxes. I rise in strong support of the conference report being considered today. This important bill provides broad-based tax relief to America's families and returns their tax overpayment to them in the form of a tax reduction. It is important that Congress return this money to the American people and allow them to do with it what they see fit. I am particularly pleased to join in this effort on the elimination of the marriage penalty. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, has led this effort, along with Senator Ashcroft. This bill does important work on eliminating the marriage penalty tax and reducing that pernicious impact on our society. The American people need to get this rebate. I think we can do more and better with it than the Government can. The conference report before us takes important steps, as I stated, toward eliminating the marriage penalty. It doubles the standard deduction, as well as widening the tax brackets, which does much to alleviate that terrible impact that the marriage penalty has on America's families. It impacts nearly 21 million American couples in this country. Doubling the standard deduction helps families. Our families certainly need help. I am, therefore, pleased that the conferees kept this provision, and I am hopeful that the President will sign the conference report and provide America's families with this important tax relief which they clearly deserve and clearly need. Congress has drafted a tax bill. Now it will be up to the President. This session, Congress utilized its opportunity to provide for comprehensive tax relief. It has done that. Now the President must make use of this unique opportunity to help eliminate the marriage penalty. It affects so many couples in our country--21 million--by forcing them to pay, on average, an additional $1,400 in taxes a year. The Government should not use the coercive power of the Tax Code to erode the foundation of our society. We should support the sacred institution and the sacred bonds of marriage. Marriage in America certainly is in enough trouble the way it is, and it doesn't need to be penalized by the Government. According to a recent report out of Rutgers University, marriage is already in a state of decline. From 1960 to 1996, the annual number of marriages per 1,000 adult women declined by almost 43 percent. Now, when marriage as an institution breaks down, children do suffer. The past few decades have seen a huge increase in out-of-wedlock births and divorce, the combination of which has substantially had an overall impact on the well-being of our children in many ways. It has affected every family in this country. People struggle, and they try to help to support the family and the children as much as they can. But this institution of marriage has had great difficulty. In my own family, there has been difficulty as well. The Government should not tax marriage and further penalize it. There is a clear maxim of Government that if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. Well, we don't want less of marriage. We should not tax it. Study after study has shown that children do best when they can grow up in a stable home environment, with two loving, caring parents who are committed to each other through marriage. Newlyweds face enough challenges without paying punitive damages in the form of a marriage tax. The last thing the Government should do is penalize the institution that is foundational in this civil society. This year we change that. The new budget estimates, from both the Office of Management and Budget and CBO, show higher-than-expected surplus revenue, even after accounting for Social Security. Of course, for some, this is no surprise. We have known all along that growth does work. It helps and it works. Of course, the surging surplus is as a result of nonpayroll tax receipts. It is really a tax overpayment to the Government in personal income and capital gains tax. We must give the American people the growth rebate they deserve and return the overpayment. I believe we can, and must, start--and start now--to rid the American people of the marriage tax penalty. I look forward to working with the Chairman, as well as other colleagues, to make sure we get this job done. In closing, this is a day we should celebrate. We are able to do something that sends a strong signal of support to families across this country, which is critically important to do. Yes, this has an impact overall, but I think it is a very positive impact to send that sort of signal to our struggling young families across this country. I think we clearly should do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed en bloc to the following bills which were reported today by the Judiciary Committee: S. 199, S. 275, and S. 452. I further ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be agreed to where applicable, the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 187, H.R. 1175.

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 provisions of S. Con. Res. 51.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Wednesday, September 8, at 12 noon, with morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the pending Interior bill. Any votes ordered on that bill will be stacked to occur at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 8. As a reminder, a cloture motion on the Transportation appropriations bill was filed today, and by previous order that vote will occur at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 9. Further, the Senate may also begin consideration of the bankruptcy bill following completion of the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have been through a lot. I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon on Wednesday, September 8. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, 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 begin 1 hour of morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reports of contributions of the nominees discharged today from the Committee on Foreign Relations be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that all nominations received by the Senate during the 106th Congress remain in status quo, notwithstanding the August adjournment of the Senate and the provisions of rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, with the following exceptions, which I send to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the nominations be considered and confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 166, 167, 191, 195, 198, 199, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221 through 226, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service, the nomination of Mervyn Mosbacker, reported today by the Judiciary Committee. I further ask consent that the following list of nominations be discharged from the Banking Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate proceed to their consideration as well.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 255, S. 800.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on August 5, 1999, by the President of the United States, that being Convention No. 182 for Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, Treaty Document 106-5. I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, 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, point of inquiry of the manager of the bill to understand where we are. We will be voting on the managers' base bill as has been put forward in amendments so far; is that where we are? I want to understand where we are.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to understand for sure what all this contains in it, whether or not I am looking at the proper bill, the Cochran amendment No. 1499 to S. 1233. I want to make sure I have the right section, section G, regarding the tobacco program in the base bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am delighted to join her in this amendment that it appears will garner overwhelming support. I hope that sends a strong signal across this country that today is a day to celebrate. We should be celebrating the institution of marriage and support that institution rather than tax it. For many years now we have taxed it. Clearly, if there is a policy in Government that stands it is if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. We have been taxing marriage, and marriage has fallen off in this country 43 percent over the last 30 years. That is a terrible situation for an institution that is so central. I note to my colleagues, we all frequently talk about family values. Thomas, from Hilliard, OH, writes in about this point on the marriage penalty and the notion of family values: 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. I could not have put it better. I am delighted it appears that this amendment is going to be agreed to. I hope we can get it to the President's desk and that the President will be supportive of eliminating the marriage penalty tax. I hope as well we could go further in the future and enact income splitting, that we could provide for a couple to split their income. This would be even more supportive of this fundamental institution in our culture, in our Nation, of marriage. I hope we can take that step on into the future. I am delighted to have the chairman's support in this. I urge all my colleagues in the name of family values, vote for this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If he will state his marriage penalty, I yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Texas. She has been the leader on this issue. I am delighted to be working with her on such an important issue. I also thank the chairman of the committee for recognizing the importance of eliminating the marriage penalty. We moved this up; this is the highest priority. I want to tell Members why I think it is the highest priority in the words of people who have been interviewed and who have paid the marriage penalties. In the Wichita Eagle on Sunday, Kyle and Lynn Schudy stated they rediscovered the cost of true love this April, April 15. Their total cost of true love came to $1,823. That is how much the extra income tax was for this Prairie Village couple in their early thirties. That is what they paid last year because they are married and filed jointly instead of single and living together. They found that was the cost of true love. I don't know that we can make a much better case for eliminating the marriage penalty than the voices across America who have stated what they are paying in this marriage penalty. Listen to this from Tennessee: 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, who saw that instead of both of us getting money back on our taxes we would have to pay in. So we postponed it. Now after getting married we have to have more taken out of our checks just to break even and not get a refund. We got penalized for getting married and that is not right. I don't know that it can be any clearer than what some of these families have said. From Maryland, Mark Patterson: My wife and I decided to have a family and get married. All we were concerned about was the love we had for each other. That sounds like a pretty good start. After 8 years of marriage and two children we found all we worry about now is how to come up with enough money to put a roof over our head, eat and have good day care for our children. I am sick about the huge chunks of money taken out of every pay check by Uncle Sam just because we are married.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Some would draw that conclusion. Clearly, we are taxing marriage. We are taxing the fundamental institution around which we build values. That is not right, as the people in the letters from across America state. Here is another letter from Ohio: No person who legitimately supports family values could be against this bill of eliminating the marriage penalty. 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. A woman writes: My boy friend, Darryl and I have been living together for quite some time. We would very much like to get married. We both work at Ford Electronics in Crothersville, IN, and make less than $10 an hour, but work over time when available and Darryl does farming on the side. I cannot tell you how disgusted we both are over this tax issue. If we get married not only would I forfeit my $900 refund check, we would be writing a check for $2,800. This was figured by an accountant at H&R Block at New Castle. There is nothing right about this after we continually hear the government preach to us about family values. Nothing new about the hypocrites in Washington. Why not do away with the current tax system? These are voices from across America. This is from Houston, TX: If we are really interested in putting children first, why would this country penalize the very situation [marriage] where kids do best? When parents are truly committed to each other through their marriage vows, their children's outcomes are enhanced. Yet we tax it and penalize it to the average of $1,400 per married couple of the 21 million American married couples who pay this tax. I am sure this evolved and nobody maliciously said we will tax married couples. The fact remains, we tax marriage, and it must stop. We have the chance now to actually do that. Another point I want to make about this: The institution of marriage in America is in serious trouble. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article of July 2 of this year titled ``For Better or Worse, Marriage Hits a Low.''

Mr. BROWNBACK. It says: Americans are less likely to marry than ever before, according to a new study, and fewer people who do marry report being ``very happy'' in their marriages. This report, released yesterday by Rutger University's National Marriage Project and touted as a benchmark compilation of statistics and surveys, found that the nation's marriage rate has dipped by 43 percent in the past four decades. . . . We have a chart of the result from the Rutger study. In 1960, per 1,000 women age 15 and over, between 85 and 90 percent per year were getting married, and now it is below 50 percent, a 43-percent fall-off in people getting married. The writers of the study stated this about the institution of marriage, the foundational unit upon which we build family values and pass them on to the next generation: Key social indicators suggest a substantial weakening of the institution of marriage. This is serious. I daresay that probably in this next Presidential campaign, ``family values'' may be the two words said most often as we worry, fret, and are concerned about what is happening to our children and our society and in this culture. Can anybody in this room, in this august body, therefore say it is OK to tax the fundamental institution that helps most in building family values, that we tax the U.S. institution of marriage, that we make 21 million American couples annually pay on average to the tune of $1,400 just for the privilege of being married when we are so worried about the values in the country? How can we vote against this? I am delighted the chairman has put this in the bill. I am happy we are trying, and I hope we will be successful, in moving this up earlier, so once and for all we can stop taxing the institution of marriage. We have to stop doing that. When marriage as an institution breaks down, children suffer. The past few decades have seen a huge increase in out-of-wedlock births and divorce, a combination which has substantially undermined the well- being of children in virtually all areas, all places of life. Some people can struggle heroically and help build up the families, and certainly nobody is here to castigate others. We are saying this is a tax that is wrong. It is wrong for virtually every reason. It taxes a fundamental family-value-building institution. It penalizes people whom we should be rewarding. Study after study has shown children do best when they grow up in a stable home, raised by two parents who are committed to each other. 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 foundational unit of passing on to the next generation morals and family values, and yet we do it. We have done it for a number of years. We must give the people back a tax cut. I will support the overall effort to give back in tax cuts the nearly $800 billion. I think we should do that. But clearly our top priority in this effort must be eliminating this bad--this worst tax that we have, worst for its effect on the institution of marriage. We must give the American people the growth rebate they deserve and return this overpayment. The first tax we must cut is this marriage penalty tax. It is going to be expensive. It is important. It is expensive to couples who pay this tax all the time, on average $1,400 per year per couple. With that, I have a number of other things to share, but I think it is simply time we do away with this tax. I am delighted to join the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Missouri in their efforts, in our efforts to do this. I applaud the chairman for building this into the tax cut. I am hopeful we can do this earlier. I would like us to even do income splitting. We are not going to be able to do it today. With that, I yield back to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will ask to include in the Congressional Record two letters recognizing the efforts of the Channel One Network in educating school-age children in the dangers of drug use. These letters were originally included in the transcript of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing on July 13 regarding Drug Free Schools. The first is from Richard Bonnette, President of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Mr. Bonnette thanks Channel One for supporting the mission of Partnership for a Drug-Free America by changing millions of young people's attitudes about drugs. In the second letter, I join Mr. Bonnette's praise of Channel One's airing of $25 million worth of pro bono anti-drug public service announcements over the last ten years as part of its news broadcasts to school-aged children. I am pleased to join Mr. Bonnette in congratulating Channel One on their efforts. I ask that these letters be printed in the Record. The letters follow. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 14, 1999. Hon. James Jeffords, Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I respectfully request that the attached letter from Richard Bonnette, President and CEO of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America be made a part of the record for the Committee's July 13, 1999 hearing on Drug Free Schools. Mr. Bonnette writes in praise of the excellent public service of the Channel One Network in educating our nation's youth about the dangers of drug use. I would like to join Mr. Bonnette's praise of the Channel One Network. Over the past ten years, Channel One has aired more than $25 million worth of anti-drug public service announcements as part of its news broadcasts to school-aged children. The efforts of the Channel One Network demonstrates good corporate citizenship. When we in Congress call upon the media and entertainment industries to act responsibly for the benefit of our children, this is part of what we are talking about. Mr. Bonnette's letter refers to a study conducted between 1995-1997 by the Partnership for a Drug Free America. The study found strong evidence that students in Channel One schools had significantly more negative attitudes about drugs, and were much more aware of the risks of drugs than students in non-Channel One schools. I am pleased to here add my praise of their efforts. Sincerely, Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator.