Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the question, and I think it is absolutely right on target that we are having a reduction in family creation. If you ask people in this body is that a good thing to have taking place, they would say no. We need to have more families, not less families, and part of the problem with government is we have had to create more and more government doing more and more things because we have fewer and fewer families proportionally doing less and less things. If there is anything that we have been about, it is trying to reinstill a sense of family and values and virtues in this culture, and everybody agrees with that. Here you have a direct policy that is hurting creation of families, hurting creation of that foundational unit within a society and culture, that if it is weakened, the Government is weakened; if it is stronger, the Government is going to be stronger, too, because you have that foundational unit. You can't create enough police forces or militaries or welfare institutions to take the place of the family. We have had a decline percentagewise in the creation of cohesive family units. This policy contributes to that of having a marriage penalty. The removal of that policy would help in the other direction of creating a family unit together. I might note to the Senator from Missouri and to my colleagues, when we were looking at the welfare reform debate, we were very concerned about what has happened to our families and saying, ``Are we sending the right signals or wrong signals to family creation?'' We decided we were sending the wrong signals and we needed to change them to the right signals. Do you know what is taking place? In my State of Kansas, we have a reduction in welfare rolls of 50 percent. I have met with a number of people who are off welfare now who were on welfare. I asked them, ``What do you think of the changes we did?'' And they said, ``Thank goodness you did it. Welfare, to me, was like a drug. I got hooked on it. I got addicted to it, and you said, `If you can work, you have to work, and we are going to let the States decide if we are going to subsidize additional children born out of wedlock.' '' They were thanking me for forcing them to do something that they needed to do. That was a policy signal that we sent from the Government. For many years we said if you don't want to work, you don't have to work; if you can work and you don't want to work, you still don't have to work; if you want to have more children out of wedlock, fine, we will pay you for doing that. We said, ``No, no, no, if you can work, you need to work.'' Here let's support marriage.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks regarding the Hutchinson amendment that is to be offered shortly regarding the Tax Code sunset bill or Tax Code Elimination Act that he has been working on. I have been working with him, along with a number of our other colleagues in the Senate, in considering this particular piece of legislation. I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas on his work on pushing forward a sunsetting of the Tax Code and a sunsetting of the burden it places on the American families--not so much of the rates, even though I think those are too high; not so much as the level of taxation, which I think are too high as well; but the burden simply of such an oppressive, intrusive Tax Code. I want to share a little bit with my Members here in the Senate about the nature of this Tax Code and some of the things that are happening within this Tax Code. I have a chart here that I think says quite a bit about where our Tax Code has evolved to. Look at the basic foundation. The Declaration of Independence, 1,300 words; the Bible, 773,000 words; the United States Tax Code, 2.8 million words and growing. And growing. That is just too much, too much of a burden. I also want to share with my colleagues, this debate has been going on for a little bit of time, so we contacted the IRS and said could we have all of the forms that you send to the average American in asking them to fill out their taxes. We just want to see the forms that the average American gets, and we would like to have all of them. It was interesting that the first thing they responded from the IRS headquarters is we don't have all of the forms. They said they couldn't get those, so they did send us about two-thirds of them. I would like to show Members, these are just the forms. This is not the law. These represent the regulations that explain what is taking place with the IRS code. These are just the forms that they send and the instructions that go with those forms. There are a lot of other documents that go along with these, as well. I hope I can get these stacked on the desk and the desk will hold it. The burden on the back of this desk is the burden on the back of the public. This is not even all the forms. It represents two-thirds of the forms shipped out by the IRS to the average taxpayer, to businesses, saying these are the sort of things you have to fill out. Not only do you have to fill them out, you have to fill them out correctly. If you don't get them correct, you are subject to fines, penalties, possible imprisonment, from this horrendously complex Tax Code that many people--even with some advising from the Government--don't get the answer right. If that doesn't define a burden, I don't know what does. What is even worse is that the Federal Government is not content merely in collecting taxes or making complex taxes. It wants to control behavior, as well. Some of those things it would put in the Tax Code are not even very good, either. I want to give a great example of micromanagement by the Federal Government of people's daily lives in a negative fashion; that is, the marriage tax penalty. Most people are familiar with the marriage tax penalty, and that is a tax on people to be married, two-wage-earner families, to be married. They will pay more in taxes than two single people. Two single people who choose to live together would pay less in taxes than a married couple. Now I think most people would say in this time of difficulty for families that that is a bad signal to send. We are going to tax marriage as a disincentive to marriage in the system. People say we didn't put it there as a disincentive. Well, it is a disincentive to marriage and it is built into the Tax Code and it is substantial. It is also preposterous. Our society is built on the foundation of solid families. Creating disincentives to solid families is the wrong signal for us to send at this point in time in our Republic. It is the wrong signal to send at any time. Because of the marriage penalty and other inconsistencies in our Tax Code, I am convinced that this is a Tax Code that history will report as one of the most onerous burdens ever faced by the American public. Our amendment aims to make this code history and to require Congress and the President to put in place a new code, a fair and a simpler tax code, that has far less micromanagement from the Federal Government, and is far more oriented towards growth and toward the family. Mr. President, I want another American century. I want it for my children. I want it for my children's children. And I want it for all Americans. I am convinced that with this type of a system, with this type of micromanagement out of Washington, we cannot have another American century. This code must be scrapped. We put plenty of time in place to come up with a new, better, simpler tax code that is more liberating to the families, that is more supportive to business, and is far more intelligible by the public. As a matter of fact, I simply ask my colleagues that don't support this type of amendment, could we do any worse than the current Tax Code? Could we truly be any more complicated than the current taxation system? Could we be any more onerous and unintelligible than the current tax system if we sunset this and go to another? I ask that question as I travel around the State of Kansas, and I don't get many people that say it could get any worse. It has grown over the years and we have added and added and amended and amended. Americans are demanding tax reform and we have promised tax reform. It is now time to deliver on that promise to the American people. Some will argue that we have to be careful about any radical changes to our tax laws, and I agree. I believe that we must carefully weigh alternative plans, debate the macro and micro effects of each, and then arrive at a thoughtful and reasoned solution that is equitable and just. That is why we are putting this off 4\1/2\ years until we actually go to and require a new Tax Code. We are saying 4\1/2\ years of debate, but let's finally start the debate. We haven't even gotten started on it. We are saying let's start the debate, and let's set a time certain that we will have a new Tax Code that is fairer and simpler, and let's have a great national debate about it. The way we are going right now is, we are saying yes, it is a bad Tax Code, but we are not willing to do anything about it. This amendment would simply say we are going to do something about this over the next 4\1/2\ years. We are going to pass a new Tax Code. We are sunsetting this one at a date certain, and let the great national debate begin. I think that is a just and equitable way to go, and it is not a radical way to go. The bottom line is that the Tax Code we now have in place punishes good investment decisions and distorts the labor market, as well as our rates of national savings. It hurts the family and manipulates behavior by adding incentive to do one thing while punishing another, which frequently goes in the wrong direction. Here is another quick example of an inadequacy in our Tax Code that is a harmful public signal. I don't know if you recall this; some people will. I mentioned this previously on the floor. If you are a chronic gambler, you can deduct your gambling losses. If you are a homeowner who made an unlikely investment and the value of your home declined, you have no recourse in the Tax Code because you cannot claim a deduction for capital loss. The question is, Why can somebody deduct a loss associated with a bad game of blackjack but not a loss associated with their primary residence in which they were the unfortunate victim rather than the willing participant? The code is full of inconsistencies like the one I mentioned--perhaps unintended-- that people got into over a period of time. I would like to think that what we could do now is start a reasoned and great debate about a simpler, fairer, better system that is far less about micromanagement and raising revenue for the Federal Government, and not about sending bad signals to the public. Some may disagree about how we would go about going to a different Tax Code, but this is precisely the issue upon which we must focus our debate. We must decide where we want the tax to be imposed, and we must understand the imposition of the tax on the health of the economy. However this debate takes shape, we must have as our goal a tax system that doesn't distort behavior and create deadweight loss. We must have as our goal a pro-growth, pro-family tax system. We should have as our model some kind of simpler and fairer and far more understandable code. As I travel across Kansas, I ask a lot of people about whether or not they regularly, or even within the last month, have made a personal or business decision based upon the Tax Code. Virtually two-thirds say that, ``Over the last month, I have made a business or a family decision based upon tax policy.'' That is not what we want to create. It is a system where everybody has to consult with the Tax Code before they make a business decision, where everybody has to consult the Tax Code before they make a family decision. Yet, that is the system that evolved to where we are today, to where it is micromanagement out of Washington. I ask the public in Kansas, ``Imagine if you had a system that, regardless of the business decision you made or the family decision you made, the tax results were the same. Would you like such a system?'' They say, ``Absolutely.'' Furthermore, they would have more economic growth, as they would put the money into a better economic decision taking place here, and they would not be penalized as a family member doing things that are the best for their families. Let's begin the great national debate. Let's sunset this Tax Code and move to something new. Our bill will enable the debate to take place outside of the realm of some of the demagoguery because it does protect the important funding mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare. We set aside those chapters in the IRS Code; we don't touch those. I believe we have a commitment to ensure that we have a full, honest, and open debate. Our bill will give that opportunity to this Senate. Finally, Mr. President, as we look forward to the new millennium and, hopefully, another American century, we will provide the American people with a renewed sense of the American dream, a renewed sense of what it means to be an American and what it means to live in America. We can't achieve that with this taxation system. It is time to sunset it, start the debate, and get to a better one. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that would provide rural States with a stronger representation on the Federal- State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board). Such a change is necessary because critical universal telephone service issues have been mishandled by the Joint Board since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Joint Board was intended to provide the States with an opportunity to help craft national universal service policy because the States are more experienced in dealing with these issues than their national counterparts. The Act created the Joint Board and required the Board to make recommendations concerning how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should implement the universal service provisions contained in the Act. However, the Joint Board was chaired by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, and the Board made recommendations that undermine rural interests and put upward pressure on rural residential telephone rates. The Joint Board needs greater representation from the States, especially rural States. My amendment would do the following: Add an additional State Utility Commissioner to the Joint Board. Require that two of the five State Utility Commissioners serving on the Board represent rural States. Require that one of the State Commissioners and one of the FCC Commissioners serve as Co-Chairmen of the Joint Board. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that rural interests are adequately represented on the Joint Board, and that the recommendations made to the FCC are consistent with the universal service goals of the Act. Mr. President, I have been very frustrated with the manner in which universal service issues have been addressed by the Joint Board and the FCC since the passage of the Act. Although it is the most important part of universal service, the high-cost piece has been getting the short shrift. The FCC has just referred a number of critical high-cost issues back to the Joint Board for its consideration. This amendment is critical because rural communities across the country need to be effectively represented on the Board as it reviews these issues. The States, especially rural States, have the most experience dealing with the high-cost issues, and the recommendations of the Joint Board must adequately reflect their input and their expertise.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague will yield, I would also note the individuals who have contacted various offices around here signing on to this very issue. This is a lady from Indiana who said this: 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. Darryl and I would very much like to be married, and I must say it broke our hearts when we found out we can't afford to get married. This is from Indiana. This gentleman from Ohio said: I have been engaged to be married. My fiancee and I have discussed the fact 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. Those are just two. And I have a number of other letters of people saying: ``What is this? You guys are talking about family values and you penalize us for getting married.'' And particularly the youngest couples just getting started. All we are asking for today is to let us vote on this issue, and we are being blocked. I am asking people not to vote for this cloture motion, in order that we can vote to do away with this extraordinarily bad tax that is taxing those fundamental family-building units, the marriage institution that we need so much to be so much stronger.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, will my colleague from Missouri yield for a question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Last week when we put forward this notion of doing away with the marriage penalty, one of my Democrat colleagues said, ``I would be willing to do that if you offset it by doing away with the marriage bonus.'' He raised the question of the marriage bonus in the Tax Code. I told him I am not about raising taxes. But I wonder if the Senator has thought about this issue. Is there a marriage bonus that is in the Tax Code? Is that something that should be addressed?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to explain to Members what is taking place here. Yesterday I filed an amendment to the legislative appropriations bill that would eliminate the marriage penalty we have been talking about this morning. My amendment, which is being cosponsored by several Senators, would reinstate income splitting and provide married couples who currently labor under this Tax Code with some relief. I tried to offer my amendment last Friday with spending legislation that was originally supposed to be debated. However, because of objections from the Democrat side of the aisle to the unanimous consent request that would have guaranteed a vote on eliminating the marriage penalty, we have not been able to get a vote on the elimination of the marriage penalty. Later in the day, another UC was propounded that would have allowed the Senate to move forward with the legislative branch appropriations bill but without my amendment, and to that UC I objected. Subsequently, the cloture motion was filed to bring debate about tax relief to a close and move forward with this legislation. I am asking my colleagues today to vote against this cloture motion so we can consider the marriage penalty that is being objected to by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague will yield for another question, it seems the bonus is to America; it is not necessarily to the married couple that we are talking about in this. The other thing I would ask my colleague about is, the marriage penalty that we are talking about affects nearly 21 million American families, most of them young, starting families. These are all families that make between $20,000 and $70,000 a year. They are two-wage-earner families. So you are really talking about that group of young Americans just getting started, both working, both struggling, both trying to make this family go, and we actually penalize them on an average of $1,400 per year. My colleague is familiar with that. Also, this is a relatively new tax. We have only put it on since 1969. That was the year of Woodstock. I don't know if there is a significance to any of that, but perhaps this is now the time that we should get away from that sort of penalty. I just was curious; I know my colleague knows of those statistics and the importance of trying to help those struggling young families that are just now getting a foundation started for their families.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Thomas and I have offered would simply require the Architect of the Capitol, the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, the Public Printer, and the Director of the United States Botanic Garden to submit to Congress an inventory of all noninherently governmental--or commercial--activities. Throughout this session of Congress, my colleague from Wyoming and I have been working on S. 314, also known as the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act, which would require the Federal agencies to do the same. My subcommittee, the Oversight Subcommittee on Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia has held three hearings focusing on this legislation. More recently, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported this bill out of committee. This bill has bipartisan support, the support of the Administration, as well as Federal employees and the industry community. Through our work on this issue, we concluded that this requirement should apply to the legislative branch as well. Last month, OMB asked all Federal agencies to submit their commercial inventory to OMB. The legislative branch should do the same and submit their inventory to Congress. The Thomas-Brownback amendment tasks those who are engaged in the daily operations of the legislative branch to identify these commercial activities. Once these activities are identified, the heads of these legislative branch departments, along with the Senators, will have the opportunity to evaluate these functions. Past discussions concerning these activities in the legislative branch have focused only on specific targets such as the Senate Barber Shop and Beauty Salon. In order to have a comprehensive view of how to improve operations in the legislative branch, we need to know all commercial activities performed in-house. As the legislative body of the Federal Government, we, as Congress have the opportunity to not only legislate on this issue, but to set an example. I challenge my colleagues who are committed to ensuring that no taxpayer's dollar is wasted in the Federal Government, to set this example and support this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate my colleague from Utah for pointing that out. That was a misstatement on my part.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. I ask unanimous consent that, after the Senator's 20 minutes, I retain the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the point. I still fundamentally disagree with it. If we are talking about the issue of fairness, we spent 4 weeks talking about raising taxes on tobacco and working Americans. I don't know how many people were arguing at that time, ``OK, if we spent 4 weeks on that then we ought to talk 4 weeks about tax cuts.'' I have only been standing here an hour or two. We spent 4 weeks talking about raising those taxes, vote after vote. Some of the things in that policy area I thought were making some legitimate points about how we should try to cut back on teen smoking--which I do not support; nobody supports teen smoking--and how we can get at it. If we are going to talk about fundamental fairness, we did spend 4 weeks on that particular topic and much of it centered around how we raise taxes. I am talking about on this particular bill, because we are short on the Legislative Calendar, let's talk about a tax cut. We are not getting a vote on that. We are being blocked from getting a vote on a very serious tax policy problem at a very important time in our country. There was a poll of the American public about what they are most concerned about today. Consistently, people have been getting more and more concerned about what is happening to the values of this country, what is happening to us. While I don't think this body at all can control that sort of, ``Hey, here's what's happening across a civil society in America,'' we can send signals, and we do send signals regularly. When we had the welfare reform bill, we said in the welfare reform bill, ``OK, if you're an able-bodied person and you can work, after 2 years, you are going to have to work. If you can do that, we are going to make you do that.'' We sent a signal from here. Do you know what is happening in Kansas because of that? We have a welfare roll reduction of nearly 50 percent. I met with a number of people who were on welfare for a long period of time. They said to me, ``This is a wonderful change. You forced me off it. Welfare was like a drug that I was hooked to. You made me get out and work, and I feel better about it.'' A 50-percent reduction, and the people who were on it feel better about where they are today. It was a signal. One can say, ``Well, we didn't really change that much of welfare reform policy.'' I think we did change a substantial amount, and we sent the right signal. With this, Mr. President, we are sending all the wrong signals. We are saying that if you are a two-wage-earner family, you have to pay more in taxes. If you make between $20,000 and $75,000, I am sorry, you have to pay more in taxes. It is the wrong signal. It sends a bad signal. It needs to be corrected, and it can be corrected. We are on the legislative branch appropriations bill. As the Senator from Utah had noted, this does not include the salaries of individuals who serve in this body, and I misstated that. These are some of the things that it does fund: It funds the operations of Congress. People can see the Superintendent's shops, the various things we fund here, and directory of services we have here. The only reason I am pointing this out is that this is basically running this institution, some of which I am wondering why we don't have contracted out or privatized myself. My point in raising this is, I think before we pay these, we ought to give more back to families to operate their budget, a mere $1,400. I talked some about the groups who support this elimination of the marriage tax penalty. I noted, too, I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, when we get a chance to vote on this, will be supportive of this. I think it is important that people understand how this problem works and when it went in place and what we can do about it. I have cited the Congressional Budget Office before on this particular problem where they are noting: The Federal income tax law generally requires married couples filing a joint tax return based on combined income of husband and wife. As a result, husbands and wives with similar incomes usually incur a larger combined tax liability than they would if they could file individually. At the same time, spouses who have markedly different incomes but file as a couple generally face smaller tax bills than they would if they were single. Is that good tax policy? Is that right? Those two possibilities often referred to as ``marriage penalties'' and ``bonuses'' result from the conflicting goals of a tax system that attempts to balance fairness between married and unmarried couples among married couples and among taxpayers with differing incomes. OK. So we have had a conscious policy here toward marriage for some period of time. My problem is, why do we penalize a certain group in here, that is, middle-income individuals, struggling greatly in this system, and we actually have this as a policy? This is according to CBO. This is a policy, and we enacted it into law in Congress in 1969-- before I was here, the year of Woodstock, the year of putting a man on the Moon. I do not know if there was a signal that was sent at Woodstock that we ought to do these sorts of things, but it went into place then. Under the 1996 tax law, married couples could face a Federal tax bill that was more than $20,000 higher than the amounts they would pay if they were not married and could file individual tax returns, whereas, other couples may find that filing a joint tax return reduces their tax bills by more than $4,000. Now, surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want to redress this issue. And I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota saying, ``Well, we're not opposed to it. We just want to raise a whole bunch of other tax bills.'' What we are trying to do with this is to direct and correct the very narrow wrong that applies to 21 million American families. I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say that is not something we need trading material for, that ``We will trade you that if you will let us bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights,'' or some other issue. Or as the Senator from Kentucky said, he wanted to do away with the marriage bonus, which I have a problem with. I do not want to raise those taxes on individuals. I do not think that most people on the other side of the aisle would say we need to trade this back and forth. Why couldn't we just get a consent from them that we would vote on this amendment? Yet, that is the problem I am having, not being able to get consent from Democrat colleagues on this particular issue that we would be able to get a vote on this item. I am willing to have a vote on Senator Ford's proposal that we do away with the marriage bonus, which I do not agree with. I will not vote with the Senator, but I certainly am willing to agree that we have a vote on that particular issue. But I do not see why we would disagree. I do not see why we would have this particular problem at this particular time and in this debate. Let me cite some other materials that people are working with about the particular problems that families are having. CBO again: The various ways of defining marriage penalties and bonuses--one broad measure indicates that more than 21 million married couples-- Twenty-one million married couples; so there are families associated with those married couples-- paid an average of nearly $1,400 in additional taxes in 1996 alone-- So $1,400 per couple-- because they must file jointly, whereas, another 25 million found that the benefits of filing jointly decrease their tax bill an average of $1,300. I am glad that people got the decrease on the 25 million. I see no reason why we should penalize the other 21 million. Marriage penalties totaled about $29 billion in 1996. The marriage penalty--listen to this--$29 billion was the size of the marriage penalty in 1996. So $29 billion. That is a negative signal of gigantic proportion that we are sending across this Republic and across this country, if we do not deal with this issue. And it is of importance that we deal with it now while we have so few legislative days that remain. I want to quote some people, what working Americans are saying about the marriage penalty as they grow more and more informed about the marriage penalty. This is a gentleman from Union, KY. He said this: Before we set a wedding date, I calculated the tax implications. There is a scary notion, that before you get married that a person is going to actually calculate their tax implications to it. I hope more people do not do that. Since we each earn in the low $30,000s, the federal marriage penalty was over $3,000. This is a gentleman in Union, KY. The marriage penalty was over $3,000. He notes: What a wonderful gift from the IRS! What kind of gift is that? What kind of message is that? What kind of signal is that? It is money that ought to be returned. I encourage people listening and watching--why don't you figure out what your own marriage penalty is to see how you are going to be impacted if we are able to get this change and get a vote on it from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they will let us vote on it? This is Bobby and Susan from Marietta, GA, who raised this issue. They said this quote: When we figured out our 1996 tax return . . . we figured what our tax would be if we were just living together instead of married. Now, that is not a very good notion either that we want to encourage with the tax policy. They said this: Imagine our disgust when we discovered that, if we just lived together instead of being married, we would have saved an additional $1,000. That is the signal we wanted to send to Bobby and Susan from Marietta, GA? ``Imagine our disgust when we discovered that, if we just lived together instead of being married, we could have saved an additional $1,000.'' I am standing here thinking, now, is that the signal we wanted to send to them? How many married couples actually figure what their taxes are and say, ``You know what? The Federal Government is telling us not to get married. Maybe we should not get married, then, if that is the signal that they are sending to us. And we are going to either pay a penalty of $1,000 for getting married, or we can continue to live together. Now, should we pay that penalty or should we just live together?'' Bobby and Susan said they figured it was, for them, going to be an additional $1,000 in taxes. Listen to this quote: 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. Here are people that actually sat and figured it out. And people do figure these things out. And they do see the signals that are being sent, and they do respond. Fortunately, a lot of people know that these are wrong signals, and then they do not act accordingly. But they do respond to those things. Here is Sharon from Indiana, what she said. This is a good one. 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. So she forfeits a $900 refund check. And she would be writing a check to the IRS for $2,800. Darryl and I would very much like to be married . . . ``Darryl and I would very much like to be married.'' and I must say, it broke our hearts when we found out we can't afford it [when they found out they could not afford to be married because of the tax policy of this country]. Now, isn't that something we ought to deal with posthaste? Isn't it something we ought to say right now, let us have a vote on this so we can send the right sort of signal to Sharon and Darryl in Indiana and to Philip in Union, KY, and Bobby and Susan in Marietta, GA? They said: ``We can't afford to get married because of the Federal tax policy.'' This is a gentleman from Columbus, OH. I am engaged to be married [he says] and my fiancee 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. ``Nasty, unfair tax structure.'' Those aren't quite the type of words that we use in the Senate all the time. But he has calculated, figured it up, and said, ``Well, OK, I want to get married, and we want to do a lot of things as a family, but the first thing we have to do is pay more in taxes.'' Is that the sort of policy that we want to send forward? Is that the sort of thing that we want the American public to look at and to hear about? Is that the sort of thing that we want to support as a policy, as a family values policy of this Congress? Here is Christopher from Baltimore, MD: I am a 23-year-old and a marriage penalty victim for four years now. I am a union electrician who works hard to put food on the table to take care of my family. Then he asked the simple question, ``Why is the government punishing me just because I'm married?" Why are we? Why aren't my Democrat colleagues willing to let me have a vote, let us have a vote, on a bill that most of them would support, as well, to do away with the marriage tax penalties? Are they just fearful we will give the American public back some of their money and will direct it to families who need it the most, young families just starting out, union electricians, who want a little bit more of their tax money back? Two-wage-earner families is who this tax is actually targeted toward. We are actually taxing them more. Aren't we concerned about two-wage- earner families struggling heroically? This is a great direct shot at helping them build their family units. Why won't my colleagues from the other side of the aisle let us vote on this? Let's just have a vote on this and see. I would think we would have a lot of people support it. Don't block this vote. Scott from Palmdale, CA: If you want more of something reward it; if you want less punish it monetarily. That is a basic principle that is used in the Tax Code frequently. If you want more family units, reward them financially. Then maybe the statistic will drop that says 70 percent of divorces are due to money challenges. That is a pretty fundamental principle on this basis of how we run this Government. We have places that we can send signals out there. We can send signals out through legislation, we can send signals through regulation, and we can send signals through tax policy in this country. The tax policy in this country is that if you tax something more, you will punish it; if you tax something less, you will reward it. We are actually taxing two-wage-earner families more. And do we ask them to get less of that--is that what we are asking to get less of? This is Christopher, from Fairfield, OH: One of the biggest shocks my wife and I had when deciding to get married was how much more we would have to give to the government because we decided to be married rather than live together. Here are people, figuring, calculating, looking and saying: OK, now what will we do here? It does not make sense that I was allowed to keep a larger portion of my pay on a Friday and less of it on a Monday with the only difference being that I was married that weekend. That is pretty succinct, as well. The only difference was that I was married that weekend. From Andrew and Connie from Alexandria, VA--real close: We grew up together and began dating when we were 18. After dating for three years we decided that the next natural step in our lives together would be to get married. I cannot tell you the joy this has brought us. I must tell you that the tax penalty that was inflicted on us has been the only real source of pain that our marriage has suffered. So here is a couple that dated for 3 years, when they were 18 they started dating--much joy; the only pain that has been inflicted is the tax increases that they suffered for getting married. Here is Andrew, from Greenville, NC: It is unfortunate that the government makes a policy against the noble and sacred institution of marriage. I feel it is unfortunate that it seems to hit young struggling couples the hardest. That is great Greenville, NC. If you look at the category of those hitting the marriage tax--and, again, I refer to the chart from the National Center for Policy Analysis--it is couples making, combined, $20,000 and $75,000 of earned income, two-wage-earner couples in that category, frequently young, married couples, starting their family. So that while this tax penalty actually hits 21 million married couples, it is hitting far more in the way of children. It is hitting young children at some of the most vulnerable times in their lives. This is something that really was one of the most perverse signals we could possibly send. It is directed mostly at younger couples. It is when they are starting their families. It is at a time when people are deciding to get married or not to get married, and we send this perverse tax signal that you have to send more money that you are making to the Federal Government. If anything, we should be sending them a bonus at that particular point in time. Why won't my Democratic colleagues let us vote on this? Why won't they let us do this? That just doesn't seem to make sense, why they wouldn't let us vote on this narrow issue. On the issue of fairness, they say we need to bring up other tax policy issues. We brought up a lot of tax increase issues. We are finally talking about a tax cut issue. We should be willing and able to vote on this sort of issue now. This is Thomas, from Ohio. He writes: No person who legitimately supports family values could be against this bill [that is, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty]. 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 don't know how any more clearly you could put that as an issue. Why would we continue to propound that? We may have somewhere around 30 or 40 legislative days left in this Congress. My point in bringing this up at this point in time is, we aren't having a lot of chance to be able to correct wrongs on other bills other than appropriations that are moving through the legislative body. We have to move appropriations bills through. We should move appropriations bills through. We will not be getting a lot of these other issues up--tax policy, particularly dealing with this most onerous tax on married couples, marriage tax penalty. Why won't we deal with this now? We are trying to deal with it on the legislative branch appropriations bill, as well. This is a good vehicle to deal with it. It funds the institutions of the Congress here. So we are saying let's deal with this one now on this short legislative calendar that we have while we have the resources to be able to do it. This is Sean, from Jefferson City, MO. He wrote this: I think the marriage penalty is a major cause of the breakdown of the family here in the U.S. He is citing it as a major cause of the breakdown of the family here in the United States. [Ending it] would cut down on the incidence of cohabitation by unmarried couples and give more children two-parent families where there is a real commitment between the parents. I am not certain about what he said earlier, but I think it is the proper signal for us to send to families, particularly the young and struggling ones. 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? A lot of single parents struggle heroically to raise children, and we don't want to penalize them. The amendment I want to put forward does not penalize them. It does not penalize them. It simply says a two- wage-earner married couple, earning between $20,000 and $75,000, you shouldn't penalize either. When parents are truly committed to each other through their marriage vows, their children's outcomes are enhanced. That is Gary and Carla from Houston, TX. This couple from New Castle, VA: I am a 61-year-old grandmother, still holding down a full- time job and I remarried 3 years ago. This is astounding. 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. In this lady's estimation, from New Castle, VA: Marriage is a contract between two individuals and the Federal Government. She had to think long and hard about whether to stay single or get married because she couldn't afford the taxes. That is an extraordinary situation and ought to be corrected as soon as possible. Here is from Chicago, IL: We read that representative Jerry Weller of Illinois is one of a group of sophomore legislators pushing for an end to the marriage penalty. We do not believe this effort should be a partisan effort and strongly feel that members of both parties should join together to right this wrong and that Congress should do it quickly. Well, that is what we are trying to do here today, and to do this quickly. It should be done. It can be done. We need to do it. We need to do it on this vehicle. That is why we are putting this forward now. This 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, simply because my family cannot afford to pay the price. Is that a horrendous statement to have from Jeffrey in Pennsylvania?--keeping the names somewhat anonymous. My wife and I have actually discussed the possibility of obtaining a divorce, something neither of us wants or believes in, especially myself, simply because my family cannot afford to pay the price. My goodness, that is something we just have to collect. This is the Ottawa Daily Times. According to Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of Southern California and California Institute of Technology and author of ``Taxing Women,'' in an article in the University of Chicago Press: 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 an accountant's point of view, the wife's first dollar of income is taxed at the point where her husband's income has left her. Or that can be reversed to the category where the wife's income exceeds the husband's. If the husband is making substantially more money than the wife, the couple may even conclude that it is not worth it for the wife to earn income. In fact, McCaffery's book details the plight of one woman who realized her job was actually losing money for her family. Her job was actually losing money for her family. Now, that is a horrid situation that is taking place. This is in the book, ``Taxing Women,'' by Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of Southern California and the California Institute of Technology. This next one is from the Ottawa Daily Times: You try and be honest to do things straight, and you get penalized for it. That's just not right. That was from Illinois. I don't know how better to summarize it than how the people across America have summarized it in these particular voices from across the country. Those are pretty good summaries. It raises the point of why I am so adamant that we need to deal with this issue now. I cannot understand why my Democrat colleagues want to block this issue--even under some notion of the fairness of them having a tax bill and us having a tax bill. I can't believe they would be opposed to this tax bill, which is on two-wage-earner families. I don't see this as a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue, an issue of family values, which we all support, and we have very few legislative days left to deal with it. It needs to be dealt with now. What could couples do with this money if they had the $1,400 that the average couple currently pays? Some people would do different things. They could pay electric bills for 9 months averaging $103 a month. They could pay for 3 or 4 months of day care if they had that $1,400 back-- in some places it is higher, and in some it is lower. They could pay for a 5-day vacation to Disneyland if they wanted to with that $1,400. A package rate concludes a double room, a Disneyland hotel, and entry into the entertainment park for mom, dad, and two kids. I think that is a much better place to put this money, if people would just take off to Disneyland with their family in tow. I don't know if those rates still apply or not. Or they could make four or five payments on a minivan, which average $300 to $350 a month. It seems everybody needs a minivan anymore. Or they could eat out 35 times in a restaurant, with the meals averaging $40. They could buy 1,053 gallons of gasoline at $1.33 a gallon. They could purchase 1,228 loaves of bread, with an average loaf costing $1.14. Now, ask anybody here, should these married couples spend the money on those things, or should they send it to us in penalty? I think they have better places to be able to put their own resources. So that is why I am so adamant that we not go on to this spending bill until we help American families with their spending. The ability to pay 9 months of electric bills is important. I don't intend to just occupy my colleagues' time with this. This is an important issue that I think needs to be raised, and it needs to be seen, and it needs to be heard. There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion on this particular issue. I see other colleagues, and I would be willing to let them speak if they desire. I don't want to block them. I do want to raise this issue of consciousness across the American public on this particular issue of the marriage penalty. That is why I have been talking on this point and why I raise it on this legislative branch appropriations bill. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. And I stand corrected on that issue. That is correct, and I did misspeak on that point.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will in just a moment. We spent 4 weeks on the tobacco legislation. We spent lots of time on other things in which I know the Senator from North Dakota was deeply interested. We gave lots of folks lots of floor time. Have we voted on any tax cuts yet for the American public? We have voted on a lot of tax increases. I think it is time we start saying it is time to give the people back a little bit of money. I would like to see married couples get it back first. I will yield for a question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. My point in making that is to say we have a real situation here, well known, extraordinarily documented, and we have the ability to pay for it. And before we pay ourselves in the legislative branch bill, let's pay the American families a little something. That seems to me to make eminent sense of something we should do. I also further note, if I can----

Mr. BROWNBACK. And, obviously, then the reason I am not getting a vote on the tax penalty is your objection to this.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. With that understanding, no objection.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we were under the unanimous consent agreement that I was to receive recognition after my colleague from Minnesota. I am willing to go along with this if we have unanimous consent that I receive recognition after these colleagues conduct morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I can then continue with my statement and have it appear continuously in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, if at that point in time I would be able to retain the floor, I am willing to agree.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I was proceeding earlier, before allowing the Senator from Nevada to speak before catching a plane. A number of groups have taken notice of this issue of a marriage tax penalty and think that it is clearly time and it is important that we at this time address this particular issue. The Independent Women's Forum has sent a letter urging Congress to ``put the Tax Code where its rhetoric is.'' I think that is a real interesting way they state that in the letter. ``We should put the Tax Code where the Congress' rhetoric is.'' We talk a lot about families, values, and virtues, and those sorts of institutions that make for a civil society. We talk endlessly about those things. Yet, then we tax them; we tax them disproportionately. This group has the courage to be able to identify, well, I guess then you guys really don't mean it. You will say one thing and do another. The Independent Women's Forum urges Congress to put the Tax Code where its rhetoric is and eliminate marriage penalties. Serious steps to reform tax laws would mean real liberation to those who work and those who may have to in the future. Marriage taxes can impose a nearly 50-percent marginal tax rate on second earners. They are saying in their publication, most of which are spouses, obviously, this is a State-sponsored discrimination, the unintended consequence of which is to discourage--they are saying here--women from entering the labor force. ``If Congress is sincere in improving the lives of American families, it will eliminate tax loopholes that choke paychecks. Real support for the family begins with tax reform.'' There is a strong letter that they are citing that we ought to change our Tax Code along that line. Let's look at the Catholic Alliance, and what they say. The Catholic Alliance Endorses the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Their president announces support for the Marriage Tax Elimination Act and the end of the marriage tax penalty. They say this: Catholic Alliance promotes the primacy of the family as a matter of public policy. We support the Marriage Tax Elimination Act as one step in the right direction. The current tax code, while it still exists, should be used as a vehicle to promote social responsibility. It certainly should not be used in a punitive manner toward the preeminent institution of marriage and family. How better could you describe it than that? ``It certainly should not be used in a punitive manner toward the preeminent institution of marriage and family.'' They go on to state: We welcome the Marriage Tax Elimination Act introduced today by representatives Dave McIntosh and Jerry Weller. This bill can be a first step in recognizing in law that the family is the first church, the first school, the first government, the first hospital, the first economy, and the first and most vital mediating institution in our culture. In order to encourage stable two-parent marriage bound households we can no longer support a tax code that penalizes them,'' Fournier said. Then this is what Pope John Paul II said in a letter in a publication called ``Christian Family in the Modern World.'' The Pope says this: . . . families should grow in awareness of being ``protagonists'' of what is known as ``family politics'' and assume responsibility for transforming society; otherwise families will be the first victims of the evils that they have done no more than note with indifference. There are some pretty strong terms that they noted. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, retaining the floor, I am going to proceed on forward with a discussion of the marriage tax penalty. I withdraw my unanimous consent request if it is not going to be agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator. As I understand it, negotiations are going on now as to whether or not we will be able to bring up this particular elimination of the marriage tax penalty. We are trying to get agreement with your side of the aisle on whether or not that would be allowed to be brought up in the legislative branch appropriations bill. That is my desire. If we get that worked out, I will be yielding rapidly so that you can go forward with your items. If that is not getting worked out, I am going to talk about this for awhile, because it is an important issue. The Legislative Calendar is short. We have spent a lot of time talking about the tobacco settlement--a month. We have spent a lot of time talking about things that don't as directly affect the American family as the marriage tax penalty does, on 21 million American families. So I think it is time that we start talking about something that gets to North Dakota families and others directly. That is why I am willing to do this and to tie things up until we get moving forward on some of that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can retain the floor.