Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a subject that is both extraordinarily difficult and painful. In times of international turmoil, the Nation should rally behind our leaders, and we are in the midst of such times. But President Clinton's abdication of the duties of leadership has made this impossible. The report of the independent counsel is now under seal. When its contents are released to the Members of Congress, questions of criminal wrongdoing will unavoidably dominate this branch of government. The Congress must determine whether the President will be impeached. I will not prejudge that question. As a Member of the body that will deliberate on this issue, I believe it is important to have access to all the evidence before reaching a conclusion on the issue of impeachment. Rather, I rise today to respectfully ask President Clinton to do the right thing for our country and resign from his office voluntarily. There are three reasons why I believe this has become necessary at this point in time. First, the President's conduct has all but destroyed his ability to lead as head of state and Commander in Chief. Second, the President's actions have been corrosive to our national character and have debased the Office of the Presidency. Third, President Clinton should spare our Nation the debilitating spectacle of impeachment hearings. Over the last several weeks, we have witnessed the disastrous consequences abroad of diminished American leadership. There are some who have said that the President's conduct is purely a private matter. They are wrong. Private actions have public consequences. They do for all of us, but especially the President of the United States. In all of governance, but with foreign policy in particular, credibility is everything. Weakness is provocative; deceit can be deadly. When American foreign policy is unpredictable, our allies are unreliable, and tyrants are emboldened. These hypothetical dangers have become tragic realities. Yesterday afternoon, I chaired a hearing on U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, for instance, and we heard from Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.N. Special Representative; James Woolsey, former CIA Director; and Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. What we heard was deeply distressing. It appears that the President's policy toward Iraq consists of paying lipservice to the importance of comprehensive and unrestricted weapons inspections and then preventing the arms inspectors from carrying out their mission. Such abdication of leadership leaves Saddam Hussein free to build weapons of mass destruction, thus jeopardizing the security of our troops, our allies in the region, and ultimately the United States itself. Nor is Iraq the only nation that has thumbed its nose at a weakened United States. Around the world, rogue nations are violating fundamental human rights, waging wars of aggression, and flouting international treaties. Our ability to deter these acts has been sadly compromised by an absence of leadership, a total lack of credibility. Enemies of our values and interests have judged the President's ability to lead the United States and have found it wanting. As a result, the world is a much more dangerous place. Second, the President's actions have squandered his moral authority to lead at home. The problems of family breakdown and moral decay are the most significant that we face. Just one comes glaringly out into mind: that nearly 30 percent of our children born in this country are born to single moms, many of whom are teenagers having children. Can the President, with the problems he has today, lead our fight in that area? The President cannot address these problems when he himself has contributed to the decay. One of the privileges and obligations of high office is to act as a role model for children. We need our President to set an example to be admired, not to be avoided. The President's ongoing adultery with an intern of barely legal age, misuse of the Oval Office, and repeated lies from he and his staff have done enormous damage to the body politic. Unfortunately, at the very time when most need strength, focused resolve, and moral leadership from our President, he has been unable to supply it. We live in a volatile world with very real dangers and very difficult problems. We cannot afford to let these dangers go unnoticed and problems unresolved by a President unable to lead. I say all of this with great respect and with deep regret. President Clinton is a talented man who believes in America and has spent his life serving others. Yet his immoral indiscretion, and months of lies to the Nation have tarnished his leadership ability beyond repair. None of us are without sin. But the high call of leadership demands a certain moral authority that by the President's own actions is now lost. There is a final point to be made. Very soon the contents of the independent counsel's report will be made known publicly. The contents of this report will result in impeachment proceedings. Such hearings will surely take a heavy toll on the function of our government, on the trust invested in our civic institutions, and on the American people themselves. President Clinton could spare us this ordeal. He could quickly and decisively enable our Nation to put this sorry chapter in our history behind us and to move on. But at this point there is only one way for him to do that. Sadly and reluctantly, I have concluded that the only way for us to move forward as a Nation is for the President to resign. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period for morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the pending McCain amendment to the Interior appropriations bill for debate only until noon. At noon, under a previous order, Senator Feingold will be recognized to offer a motion to table the McCain amendment. If the amendment is not tabled, debate only will resume until 1:45 p.m., at which time the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the McCain amendment. Following that vote, Senator Graham of Florida will be recognized for up to 1 hour of morning business. Following the remarks of Senator Graham, and assuming cloture was not invoked on the McCain amendment, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior bill with amendments being offered and debated. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session, with the first vote occurring at approximately 12 noon.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this afternoon I was not present for a vote to table the McCain Amendment No. 3500. Had I been present, I would have voted against the tabling motion. I was absent because I was presenting, posthumously, Mother Theresa's Congressional Gold Medal, which is just now available. The replicas are available from the U.S. Mint. It was a tremendous tribute to a wonderful lady, Mother Theresa, who passed away a year ago September 5, as we remembered her today. My vote would not have changed the outcome of the vote on this motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as we confirm the nomination of Mr. Jack Lew to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I want to take this opportunity to highlight a problem that OMB has the power to help correct, but to this date has chosen not to. As many are aware, there is a real problem right now in rural America brought about the dismal farm prices. The only way that commodity prices are going to increase is to boost exports. Certainly, passage of Fast Track, funding of the IMF, continuing normal trade relations with China, and lifting sanctions are necessary parts of the strategy to grow our export markets. However, there is also a tool, the Export Enhancement Program, that the federal government can be using to help boost exports and revive farm exports in the near term. Congress has done its part in providing appropriations for this program, but the Administration has failed to utilize the program. The EEP program is designed to help our agricultural exports compete in the face of subsidized competition in international markets. Despite clear evidence that subsidized competition is eroding U.S. markets, particularly for wheat flour, the Administration has been dragging its feet in initiating the EEP. The USDA has been pushing for the use of the Export Enhancement Program for wheat flour for almost two years. However, before the program can be initiated, an interagency review group, of which OMB is a member, must approve the initiative. OMB has not endorsed usage of the Export Enhancement Program to counteract European subsidies for wheat flour, and thus has effectively blocked use of the program. It is objectionable that the Clinton Administration is not compelled to stand up for its farm community in the face of adversity in the same way that its European counterparts are. Secondly, it is objectionable that the OMB is driving agricultural trade policy, instead of the Department of Agriculture in conjunction with the U.S. Trade Representative. Exports of U.S. wheat flour have come to a virtual standstill, and it is not because U.S. farmers and millers are relatively inefficient. It is because our competitors, namely the European Union, highly subsidize flour milling. The Administration has the power to correct this by using our own export subsidy program, but OMB is preventing it. The Administration has announced its intention to purchase wheat and donate it overseas for humanitarian purposes. This is a fine idea, but it is not a substitute for an initiative that will target commercial markets. The EEP program can be used in countries that pay cash for the wheat flour they consume and that do not qualify for humanitarian assistance. These are important markets that the U.S. wheat industry has spent years developing. Furthermore, using the EEP to leverage sales will allow USDA to facilitate a larger amount of wheat flour sales using fewer federal dollars that it would through a donation program. The EEP is needed not only because it wall help us regain our commercial presence in markets traditionally held by the U.S., but also because it will increase our leverage in future trade negotiations. The real objective here needs to be to eliminate export subsidies worldwide. However, our competitors have no reason to come to the negotiating table if the U.S. has already unilaterally eliminated export subsidies. The Export Enhancement Program needs to be utilized now for wheat flour. I encourage Mr. Lew to make that a priority when he enters office.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about Georgia and the recent events which have taken place in this impressive country. Several days ago, Georgia reaffirmed its commitment to full participatory democracy when the Minister of State requested the resignation of all cabinet ministers, and then resigned himself. His resignation was accepted, and President Eduard Shevardnadze has vowed to reconstitute a new government by the middle of August. This transition, so reminiscent of the ebb and flow of governments in great parliamentary democracies, has been accomplished without violence or bloodshed, without chaos or confusion, and with the support of the Georgian people. Truly Georgia is an inspiration to peoples everywhere who long for democracy and who struggle against the freedom-stifling legacy of the communist experiment. Georgia is impressive in other ways as well. Its economy continues to grow in a positive direction, unlike the economies of some of its neighbors; Georgia is not perfect, and it is not pristine. But it is progressive. With a growth rate of nearly 8 percent in 1997 and projected growth of 11-13 percent in 1998, Georgia is on track to a significant economic turn-around. This turn-around and the prosperity that will inevitably flow from it, still involve many hurdles. Georgians have bravely faced these challenges, and they face more still. Probably none is so painful as the ongoing conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia's most northwestern province bordering Russia. This brutal brushfire war has now claimed lives unnecessarily on both sides, and it must be ended. Mr. President, the CIS peacekeepers are a major part of the problem and the reason the war continues. As the Times of London noted on July 27th, Georgia accepted the CIS peacekeepers only under duress, because the UN blinked. These CIS peacekeepers, the Times points out, have not exactly distinguished themselves by their impartiality. They are ``entirely drawn from the Russian Army, and commanded from Russian, not CIS, headquarters. Of its four battalions, one fought the Georgians in the 1992-93 war, while another two are recruited from anti-Georgia nationalities.'' It is hard to imagine that this formula can create anything but conflict, and indeed, there have been constant complaints from Georgia that these so- called peacekeepers are merely part of a Russian strategy to destabilize Georgia, a strategy that includes several assassination attempts on President Shevardnadze. From the beginning, the Abkhaz conflict has been widely acknowledged to be Russia's doing. The separatists who want to break off Abkhazia from Georgia are provoked, fueled and encouraged by the Russians. Georgia has offered Abkhazia full autonomy, an offer that has been answered by Russian guns. As early as 1992 Russia provided the Abkhazians with weapons to conduct the war, and the Russian government today supports the Abkhaz leadership in its unwillingness to bring the conflict to a close through negotiation. One member of the Abkhaz leadership wrote in the Russian nationalist press in 1992 that ``Abkhazia is Russia.'' Since then, Russia has managed to scuttle all budding negotiations, even while serving as the putative ``mediator'' at the recent Geneva talks between the Georgians and Abkhazians, and it has unfailingly sided with the Abkhaz against Georgia at the infrequent bargaining tables and on the battlefield. Let us be frank: These Russian peacekeepers do not want peace. Rather, they seek to extend the hostilities so that Georgia will find it difficult to consolidate its hold over this breakaway region. These so-called peacekeepers have helped to create thousands of dead on both sides; they have created massive flows of Georgian refugees by turning a blind eye toward some of the most blatant ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world; and they have allowed the devastation of what is arguably one of the richest and most beautiful parts of the Georgian state. Abkhaz leaders, with Russia's help, have perpetrated one of the world's most egregious examples of ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of Georgians have been forced out of their homes in Abkhazia and turned into homeless, hungry refugees. Georgia's many requests in recent years to the United Nations to condemn this blatant genocide have fallen on deaf ears, and most Georgians now attribute the Abkhazians' continued use of ethnic cleansing to UN inaction. Georgia has once again asked the UN to intervene in Abkhazia, but its willingness to do so, especially with Russia holding a seat on the Security Council, is in doubt. How is it possible that ethnic cleansing can high behind a transparent veil of ``peacekeeping''? Why has the UN shirked its duty to protect these vulnerable Georgians, when it seems willing, even eager, to condemn genocide elsewhere in the world? Where is the indignation and outrage from our statesmen? Where are the legions of human rights advocates that usually visit the corridors of our departments and ministries? The Abkhazians (who constitute less than 20 percent of the population of the region they claim as their own) and their Russian supporters, should harbor no illusions about the ultimate outcome of this struggle: Abkhazia will remain part of Georgia. The Georgian government will never acquiesce in territorial claims on its historic territory, and the US government will never support such claims. Meanwhile, Abkhazians are poised to miss what could be one of the most exciting periods in the development of the South Caucasus. The opening of energy pipelines from the Caspian will create unprecedented opportunities for growth and development, and the forging of the Eurasian Transport Corridor, the New Silk Road, which originates in Georgia, foretells a future in which all Georgians, including Abkhazians, should prosper. Those of my colleagues who have traveled to Georgia know of the immense beauty of the country, and the kindness and generosity of its people. They know of the Georgians' will in the face of numerous obstacles and barriers. And, increasingly, they understand why and where Georgia's interests intersect with America's interests. Put simply, Georgia is a key strategic ally for America in a region in which America has few strategic anchors. America has a strong national interest in encouraging a close and multifaceted relationship with Georgia. Though small, poor and weak, Georgia has the potential to be small, yet rich and strong. It is in our best interest to promote this transition with American aid, American power and American prayers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on December 10, 1948--nearly 50 years ago--the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and called on member nations ``to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded . . . `` Since that time, the Universal Declaration has become the bedrock document for human rights standards and aspirations for signatory governments. One government, however, the government of Iran, is distinguished as an egregious violator of a central principle this document expounds-- namely, that of religious freedom. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration explicitly 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.'' On Tuesday, July 21st, the Iranian government summarily executed an Iranian Baha'i for the single alleged act of converting a Muslim to the Baha'i faith. The Baha'is are Iran's largest religious minority with about 300,000 adherents and suffer continuous persecution for their faith. The executed, Mr. Ruhollah Rowhani, a medical equipment salesman with four children, had been picked-up near the northern Iranian city of Mashad by the Iranian authorities in September 1997. He was held in solitary confinement during that extended period until final execution. The facts are stark in their cruelty. His family was allowed to visit him briefly the day before his execution but, amazingly and cynically, they were not notified that his execution was set for the next day. They finally discovered the death only after they were given one hour to arrange for his burial. With brutal disregard, the Iranian government refused to divulge any information to this grieving family who were forced to conclude from the rope marks that their beloved relative had been executed by hanging. It is safe to say that Mr. Rowhani was accorded no due process nor afforded a lawyer prior to his execution. He died alone at the end of a rope for the alleged sin of sharing his sincerely held faith. I will state this very clearly--Mr. Rowhani was the victim of the most extreme form of religious persecution. Mr. Rowhani died for his faith and this is an outrage which must be denounced. Mr. President, this barbarous act flies in the face of the Universal Declaration to which Iran is party. Mr. Rowhani had a fundamental right to practice his religion. Iran denied him that right. Mr. Rowhani had a fundamental right to a public trial. Iran denied him that right. Mr. Rowhani had a fundamental right to counsel. Iran denied him that right. Mr. Rowhani had a fundamental right to NOT be hung at the end of a rope for holding minority religious beliefs. My deepest concern now rests with the fifteen other Baha'is now being held by the government of Iran for essentially the same charges that resulted in Mr. Rowhani's execution. As I speak now, at least three Baha'i men in the city of Mashad presently sit on death row, facing imminent execution because they dared to quietly celebrate their faith. I speak as much for them today as I do in protest to the brutal killing of their fellow-believer. This hour, I call on the Government of Iran to ensure the safety of these individuals. Better yet, I call for the release of these individuals whose only crime was the sincere expression of their faith, which happens to be a minority religion. Most importantly, I call upon the government of Iran to provide freedom of religion to its people, including the famously peaceful yet brutalized Baha'is community. I want to take this opportunity to commend the international community for its swift response to Mr. Rowhani's execution and urge other governments and organizations to vigilantly monitor the fate of the 15 jailed Baha'is, particularly the 3 jailed in Mashad presently facing the death penalty. Religious persecution demands a tireless counter response; it demands a vigilant defense. If we hold the principle of religious freedom to be a precious and fundamental right, something worth protecting, then we must always defend those who are wrongfully and brutally crushed for their faith by hostile national governments. We cannot bring Mr. Rowhani back or right the wrong that was done to him and his family, but we can advocate against this happening again. Iran must abide by global human rights principles. Accordingly, Iran must release the fifteen Bahai who have been incarcerated for their faith. Iran must preserve the lives of those facing execution for their faith. Iran must honor its commitment to the religious freedom principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and set these prisoners free.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the amendment we have offered would eliminate the marriage penalty, and that is an item of discussion we want to discuss this morning--the Senator from Missouri and myself. A number of people have been involved in this discussion. The Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has been one of the leading proponents of this particular issue of doing away with the marriage penalty. Our amendment to eliminate the marriage penalty, which is being cosponsored by Senator Ashcroft, Senator Inhofe, Senator Grams, would reinstate income splitting and provide married couples who currently labor under the onerous burden of our Tax Code with much needed relief. Our amendment doubles the standard deduction for married couples. It is a very simple amendment. It doubles the standard deduction for married couples. Currently, the single standard deduction is $4,150, while the marriage standard deduction is only $6,900. Our amendment would raise the standard deduction for all married couples to $8,300, precisely double what it currently is for single people. That is just the heart and soul--that is the guts of what this is about. We are trying to make the field the same for married couples as it is for singles. We think this will send a powerful signal to the institution of marriage that is central to family involvement in this country and saying that if you get married, we are not going to tax you more than if you are single living together. That is the simple statement here. You ask people across the country, Is this a good thing to do? And they clearly say, yes. It makes no sense that right now we tax married couples, tax two-wage-earner families more than we do single individuals. This much needed amendment would provide hard-working American families with the tax relief they deserve but have not gotten from this Congress. Over the past month, the Senate has considered several spending bills, bills which increase the size of Government and which call upon the taxpayers to yield even more of their personal income to the Federal Government. As many of my colleagues know, during consideration of the budget resolution, I, along with several of my colleagues, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Smith, Senator Grams, called for larger tax cuts to be considered this year. Unfortunately, it appears with only a little amount of time left in this session that we are running out of time. We have to put this issue forward now. We need to give the American taxpayers relief. We ought to have the integrity to keep our promises to the American people by eliminating the marriage penalty this session. The Senate leader has been very supportive of this effort. This is his top priority as well, to eliminate the marriage penalty. The American people sent us to Congress to lower taxes and to cut Government spending. And this Congress has gotten some of that done, but not enough. Clearly, we need to keep moving forward on tax cuts. Let us get our work done now and let us get it done for the American people. Unfortunately, because we have failed to get a resolution that calls for elimination of the marriage penalty, I am offering this amendment, along with five of my colleagues, in order to give the taxpayers the relief they deserve. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will be calling for the yeas and nays. I just want to make a point about what this amendment does. We currently have in our Tax Code that if you have a two-wage-earner family, and their combined income is between $22,000 and $70,000, you have what is called effectively a marriage penalty. You pay more tax if you exist in this category--a two-wage-earner family between $22,000 and $70,000--you pay more tax than if the two people would just live together. It is called the marriage penalty. It amounts to about $150 billion over a 5-year time period that we are taxing people. I have letters here, testimonials of people who said, ``You know what? We were thinking about getting married, and then we couldn't because of the tax structure that was penalizing us for getting married.'' Listen to this gentleman. He is from Columbus, OH, a gentleman by the name of Thomas, who I will leave out his last name. Thank you so much for addressing this issue. I am engaged to be married and my fiance and I have discussed the fact that we will be penalized financially. We have postponed the date of our marriage in order to save up and have a ``running start'' in part because of this nasty, unfair tax structure. There are two economists in this country who every year get divorced at the end of the year so that they can file separately and then are married the first part of the next year and then use the money to have a celebration with. Is that the sort of tax policy that we should have in America that encourages that type of situation to take place? This is a lady from Alberton, MT: My husband and I both work. We are 50 and 55 years old. This is a second marriage for both of us. We delayed our marriage for a number of years because of the tax consequences, and lived together. I caused a great deal of stress and lots of anguish amongst our family as this was not the way we were raised. We finally took the tax hit-- Listen to that-- We finally took the tax hit and married to make my family happy. This marriage penalty is awful! That is from Alberton, MT, that that couple writes. Is that the sort of thing we want to encourage our couples to be a part of or to have that sort of difficulty? I just don't think so. This one from Iowa: ``I think the marriage penalty is an outrage, yet another way the government stops us from being moral citizens.'' Can you believe that? They are writing, it ``stops us from being moral citizens.'' ``I really hope this bill passes. I'm taxed enough as it is. I don't mind paying taxes, but enough is enough.'' That is Joe from Des Moines, IA, writing that. This from Wichita, KS, my home State: ``I appreciate you helping me and millions of other Americans.'' And I should mention, this affects 21 million American families--21 million American families--many of them just getting started as family members. ``I appreciate your helping me and millions of other Americans who are struggling to keep their families together. I work full time for county government. My wife is a stay at home mom who works. I have four children and it is a challenge to pay the bills but we still do it. It would help us if the government helped us and killed the marriage penalty. A fair tax system would certainly be helpful to us.'' They go on and on. I have pages of people who are writing in about the marriage penalty and the impact that it has had upon them. Listen to this from Union, KY: ``Before we set a wedding date, I calculated the tax implications. Since we each earned in the low $30,000s, the Federal marriage penalty [was how this gentleman cited it] was over $3,000. What a wonderful gift from the IRS.'' Are those the sort of gifts we want to send? This is from Indiana: ``I can't 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 to the IRS for $2,800. Darrell and I would very much like to be married and I must say it break our hearts to find out we can't afford it.'' Can't afford to get married, thanks to the marriage penalty. From Ohio: ``I'm engaged to be married and my fiance and I have discussed the fact that we will be penalized financially.'' Here is from Baltimore, MD: ``I am a 23-year-old, a marriage penalty victim for 4 years now. I'm a union electrician who works hard to put food on the table to take care of my family.'' Then he asks a simple question: ``Why is the government punishing me just because I'm married?'' That is a simple question that Senator Ashcroft from Missouri and I and a number of other people ask who want to do away with this most onerous, wrongheaded, bad signal of a tax. That is the marriage penalty. That is why we are putting this bill forward here today, to deal with this particular situation. It is time we do it. I want to address one other topic on this before allowing other Senators to speak, because I know a number want to address this particular issue; that is, whether or not we can pay for this issue. Let me say simply we can pay for this issue and wall off all the payments coming to Social Security that are in surplus for Social Security. You are going to hear a number of people attacking from the other side, saying we cannot do this because it will take from Social Security. Then they try to pit Social Security against marriage. It is a false choice. We can preserve the entire flow of resources going to Social Security, the entire payroll tax, and do this marriage penalty lifting, which ought to be done for a positive signal and for the working families of this country. CBO last week said we had $520 billion surplus they projected over the next 5 years--$520 billion. We are talking, with this particular marriage penalty, just over $151 billion. So about $1.5 out of $5. Any surplus that is coming into Social Security we wall off and we say that should go to Social Security, and we can do it. Do not listen to the other side saying we are taking from Social Security to deal with the marriage penalty. We are not. We don't have to do it that way. We are not doing it that way. I do not support doing it that way. We support keeping Social Security safe and sound, and any flow of resources into Social Security stays in there. We should create a real trust fund and actually put the resources there. We can and we should. I believe we must, for the foundational institution of this democracy, the family, and particularly the marriage, do this repealing of this marriage penalty that penalizes two-wage-earner families making between $22,000 and $70,000. Many of those are newlywed, starting a family, with young children involved. This involves 21 million American families. It is time we do away with this terrible tax penalty. At a later date, I will respond to some of the accusations I think will probably be coming from the other side. The Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, has been a key champion of this particular issue, as I have noted, and a number of other people have as well, including Senator Hutchison of Texas, and I know they want to speak on this particular issue. I yield to the Senator from Missouri on this particular amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to. But first I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham from Michigan be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The Senator raises a good consideration. We don't know the number of marriages that would be saved. But we do know that a lot of times people know this tax is on them. I think too many times my colleagues think people don't really know this tax exists on them, and that it exists there, but it is not a real tax, it is not one that anybody cites to. But we found, time and time again, people act rationally. They act economically rationally. So if you send a signal that you are going to tax something, they will do less of it. And if you send a signal you are going to subsidize something, they do more of it. So we tax marriage, and what do you think happens in that type of situation where you put more financial pressure on the family? The $1,445 is the average. There are some that are taxed substantially more. I read to my colleagues, and the Senator from Missouri, letters from a number of people who have written in and said, ``I cannot believe you guys would talk about family values, all of you, everybody saying that families are critical, families are important, yet here is such a classic example of where you are penalizing the family, and it still exists, and you guys are still talking about family values.'' One thing I am very pleased about is the majority leader, Trent Lott, has been a strong proponent of doing away with this marriage penalty because he knows the importance of what this is about. He knows people act economically rationally and is supportive of this debate and is supportive of our efforts to try to get the marriage penalty done away with. I think it is important, and he has cited to it as well. This is not for high-wage-earning families, I point out to my colleagues as well. We are talking about hitting families the most where the highest earning spouse earns somewhere between $20,000 and $75,000. That is important. Just because some of these testimonials are so touching, I want to read some more of them to my colleagues, because I think they are very, very telling. This is not just about statistics. This is not just about economists saying this has an impact. This is about real people looking at their real situation of real taxes they are paying. Listen to this one--Steve 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, 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, 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 then he says something that I think is prophetic and simple and straightforward. He just says, ``. . . and that is just not right.'' That is our point with this tax. We have the wherewithal to pay for it in the surplus. We will not touch Social Security surpluses coming into it. And this tax ``is just not right.'' Here is one from 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, [he gives us his own situation] my girlfriend and I would incur a net 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. We may sit here and look at this and say $2,000 a year, $167 a month, that is not a big deal--it is a big deal. It is a big signal we are sending to families that we are going to tax you and penalize you if you decide to get married. People act economically rational. They are going to look at this and they will understand it. They will also act economically rational if we say we are doing away with this marriage penalty. We think this is a bad tax, bad tax policy. It is not a place that we ought to tax, and they will act rationally there as well, and it sends a signal to families. This is one I thought was excellent, from Marietta, GA. We always file as ``married filing separately'' because that saves us about $500 a year over ``married filing jointly.'' When we figured our 1996 return, just out of curiosity, we figured what our tax would be if we lived 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. That is from Bobby and Susan in Marietta, GA. Is that the sort of signal we want to send? Listen to this one from Ohio: 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. That is Thomas from Ohio that writes that in. I have studies here. We have Joint Economic Committee studies of the impact of a marriage penalty. We have studies from other institutions, citing about the marriage penalty. None of them could put it more succinctly than Thomas has right here: ``This is but another example of a policy that has broken down the fundamental institutions that were the strength of this country from the start.'' Let us hear the people. Let us hear their cry. Let us hear them say what they are saying to us, that this is a wrongheaded idea, what we are doing. This one, David from Indiana: 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 [And then he says, not for himself, but, he says] so my sons will not have to face this additional tax. Please keep up the great work. We need more people in office who are interested in families. Then this one from North Carolina: It is unfortunate that the government makes a policy against the noble and sacred institution of marriage. Here is somebody, Andrew from North Carolina, who is looking at his Federal Government and he says: It is unfortunate the government makes a policy against the noble and sacred institution of marriage. I also feel it is unfortunate it seems to hit young, struggling couples the hardest. Let us hear the people. Let us hear their sense of what they are saying about this particular situation, about this particular tax that is in place. This gentleman, Michael from California: I believe a majority of families do not realize the government is stealing from them because of this marriage penalty and indirectly has created this pressure to have both parents work to get by and pay for their family's future. This indirectly is driving a wedge between families. Michael in California. I disagree with the first portion of it, where I think the families do know about this, but in the last portion of it he is saying, ``This indirectly is driving a wedge between families.'' I think anybody here on this floor, if you ask people about this particular bill, ``Do we want to drive a wedge between families?'' There would be 100 Senators here saying ``No, we don't want to drive a wedge between families.'' That being the case, then why aren't we doing something at this point in time when we have a chance to deal with this particular issue? Mr. President, I want to cite some of the studies in case people think we are just citing the people calling in who want a tax cut. I have a Joint Economic Committee study, ``Reducing Marriage Taxes, Issues and Proposals,'' that talks about the various bills that are put forward within the marriage penalty. What we are talking about is putting in income-splitting proposals. They are similar. This is the study on page 10, ``. . .to optional filing because they adjust for differences in the tax schedules between single and joint filers.'' This is the Joint Economic Committee report. However, the proposals differ from optional filing because they make no distinction regarding the division of income between spouses. In other words, couples are treated as if each spouse earns half of their total income regardless of which spouse actually generates that income. Income splitting would, therefore, provide all couples with the most favorable tax treatment by effectively treating them like two singles with a 50-50 income split. This favorable treatment would reduce taxes for nearly all married couples. Couples with equal incomes would receive equal tax cuts, thus maintaining horizontal equity. Moreover, income splitting would create marriage bonuses for most couples and increase bonuses for couples already receiving them, including one-earner couples. Thus, the proposals reduce marriage neutrality by [they are saying] heavily favoring marriage. This is in the study they are putting forward. They are saying, ``OK, we are going to create a positive situation for some and we are going to do away with disparity for others.'' I say, Mr. President, this is a good thing. This is the sort of thing that we ought to do in doing away with this marriage penalty, and this is according to the Joint Economic Committee study that we have. I showed you the chart earlier about the differences between marriage penalty and bonuses. What we are trying to get at is this zone of people making between $20,000 and $75,000 and just do away with the marriage penalty. That is a good thing, and that is the signal we ought to send.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Missouri for the question. Absolutely. You hear that in any number of cases where people are breaking up, frequently the No. 1 cited problem is financial stress. But it then embellishes and builds into further stresses on them.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to give a couple of facts and some figures that I think are important to have. The average marriage penalty in this country for people who are paying the marriage penalty is just over $1,400 a year; $1,425 a year is the average amount that families are paying for the marriage penalty in America. I think that is just far too high. It may not seem like a lot to some people. But in paying electric bills, you could pay an average one for over 9 months. For some families, it would pay for a week-long vacation at Disneyland. It would make four payments on a minivan. You can go out to dinner, buy over 1,000 gallons of gasoline, you can buy over 1,200 loaves of bread. Those are important things to do with $1,425. I want to show this chart to my colleagues as well. There are some who suggested last time when we entered into this debate that there is also a marriage bonus, and that if you will do away with the marriage bonus, we will do away with the marriage penalty. I have no problem whatsoever giving a bonus to people who are married. I think that we should honor this institution, and if they want to propose raising taxes on people who are married, they can go ahead and do so. I oppose that. But I want to show who it hits. Again, you are talking about the highest proportion of the marriage penalty going to those families when the higher-earning spouse is making somewhere between $20,000 and $75,000. These are middle-income, a lot of times just starting to be wage-earner families, and it hits two-wage-earner families as well. These are the people that we should be trying to help out the absolute most. I just find it a completely wrongheaded policy, at a time when we are struggling so much in this country with the set of values we are putting forward, to say we are not only going to not help people making between $20,000 and $75,000, or are just starting a family, we are actually going to tax them, we are going to tax them more.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Faircloth be added as a cosponsor to this.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. Mr. President, these are commonsense issues. They are commonsense results of what we need to have. If we support marriage, if we support the family, we will have less cost to government. This is a good thing. This is something we ought to support. It is something we ought to readily do. It is something that should pass with 100 votes. We will shortly have a chance to vote on this particular issue. Whether we get a vote directly on it or we vote on a motion to table, I am asking my colleagues to support us in this effort to do away with the marriage penalty when this comes up. It is not taking the entire surplus of the $520 billion that the CBO is now projecting. It would actually score CBO $151.3 billion. I support walling off Social Security for flow of payments for Social Security. This is a statement of marriage to families. We don't have to pay a Social Security against marriage. We don't have to do this. I support what the President has been saying, ``Let's keep Social Security to Social Security. Let's create a real trust fund.'' We have real problems there. We also have real problems in marriage. We also have real problems with families in this country. We can do this. Mr. President, $1.50 of every $5 coming in on the surplus would address this marriage penalty that is a horrific signal we are sending out to the country right now, that we would actually tax marriage more. Perhaps this is getting somewhat long with people when they keep hearing from folks. These are the commonsense responses from people across country. A gentleman in Texas: If we are really interested in putting children first, then 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. And that is Gary from Houston, TX. This one I could not believe. This lady is from Virginia. I am a 61-year-old grandmother still holding down a full- time job, and I remarried 3 years ago. A 61-year-old grandmother, full-time job, remarried 3 years ago. I had to think long and hard about marriage over staying single as I knew it would cost us several thousand dollars a year just to sign the marriage license. Marriage has become a contract between two individuals and the Federal Government. This one is from Pennsylvania: My wife and I have actually discussed the possibility of obtaining a divorce, something neither of us wants or believes in, especially myself. He said he was the product of a marriage that has difficulty, but they were considering divorce. He says ``simply because my family cannot afford to pay the price.'' This is Jeffrey from Pennsylvania who says that. This gentleman from Illinois says: You try and be honest and do things straight, and you get penalized for it. That's just not right. That is Mike from Illinois who sent that letter in. Person after person coming in and writing in saying that, ``Look, this just isn't right.'' This one from Sarah that was published in the Ottawa Daily Times: The marriage penalty is essentially a tax on working wives because the joint filing system compels married couples to identify a primary earner and a secondary earner, and usually the wife falls into the latter category. Therefore, from accountants' point of view, the wife's first dollar of income is taxed at the point where her husband's income has left her. If the husband is making substantially more money than the wife, the couple may even conclude it is not worth it for the wife to earn income. In fact-- And she is quoting from a book by a Professor McCaffrey at the University of Southern California. In fact, McCaffrey's book details the plight of one woman who realizes her job was actually losing money for her family-- Actually losing money for her family. by her working. We are overtaxing the American public now anyway, with people having to pay roughly about 40 percent of their income in taxes, taxes at all levels--Federal, State, and local, with Federal being the highest portion. I think that ought to be lowered. But, clearly, you hear there are cases where they are not only being taxed but we are forcing people with two-wage-earner families to work and one just working for the Government, but even in that case you are even taxing them more, to the point where it isn't even worth working. Mr. President, this amendment needs to pass. We need to have this debate. We can afford to do this. We can do this and still set Social Security, payroll taxes, aside; and I am calling on my colleagues to do just that. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you for the question. My guess is--and we ought to probably have an economic study done on this--that for every dollar we help out the families, we probably get $10 in reduction of costs to the government. I don't have that based upon studies, but I do have that based upon personal experience of families reaching out and how much more effective they are with heart and soul and arms that can hug and love instead of a cold government check that really doesn't do anything other than make people hooked to it. We need to support, and we need to encourage that. Mr. President, I will continue to have additional people wanting to be added as cosponsors. Senator Lott has asked to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is the amendment that I put forward----

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to explain to my colleagues what the issue was just about. I appreciate the opportunity, as well, to be able to address the question of motivation. Make no mistake about the motivation here. Our motivation is to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. That is pure and simple. That is what we have been saying for the last couple of hours. It is to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. We wanted to have this debate at this point in time and juncture because there are less than 30 legislative days until we finish up. Signals that have been coming out haven't been much about tax cuts. They have been mostly about spending. We wanted to send a very clear signal we are for cutting taxes, and in particular, first and foremost, the marriage penalty tax. We needed to have some way to be able to have that debate. We spent a lot of time here on the Senate floor--we spent 4 weeks on a tobacco bill. We spent a lot of time on a lot of other issues. We have not spent much time on tax cuts. We are limited on the number of things we can talk about, and the vehicles we can talk about them on. This was one we could, and we decided it is getting to the end of this session, we have to start talking about tax cuts. We have to start talking about families. This is one of the things that we can talk about, the marriage penalty tax. Anybody looking at the Constitution can say, ``Wait a minute; this has to originate in the House.'' And it does. Then there is a blue slip procedure in the House, which exists. We are soon to be going out for the August break, and we wanted to be able to say to our colleagues in the House: There is support for marriage penalty tax elimination. We wanted to get that debate started and moving on forward and to say that to them. That is what this debate was about. That is what the vote was for. That is what our motivation is. If anybody is questioning that, we have been standing here for 2 or 3 hours saying that is what we want to do. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us, when it comes back from the House, to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. It is a ridiculous tax. I hope most of them would stand up and vote with us at that point in time. If they want to change their vote this time, maybe we can try it again here later on, to send that stronger signal to the House that the Democrat side supports this as well. That is what we are about and that is what we are trying to get through. I think we spent plenty of time debating that and making that point clear. So if there is a question about motivation, that is what it is about. It is eliminating that marriage tax penalty and sending that signal back over to the House. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly everybody's support of the notion that we should do away with the marriage penalty. It is the appropriate signal, and it is the appropriate thing for us to say to the American public. It is the appropriate sort of tax cut that we can certainly pay for it at the present time. I am particularly appreciative of the leadership's support and Senator Lott's commitment to provide that sort of working relief to American taxpayers. I am withdrawing my amendment because the Constitution does not allow tax-cutting legislation to originate in the Senate. This vote, however, sends a strong message to the House that we want to eliminate the marriage penalty. And that is what we hope to be able to get done yet this session of Congress. I would like to yield to one of the cosponsors of this amendment, the Senator from Missouri, for comments as well. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.