[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8453-S8456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Senator 
from Utah taking the time to explain what we are hoping to go to next, 
the legislative branch appropriations bill. I hope we can discuss as a 
part of that legislative branch appropriations bill something that 
affects 21 million American families and it increases their taxes an 
average of $1,400 per family. It was done to them in 1969, the last 
year that we balanced the budget, until this year, and we have the 
ability to deal with it now. That is a thing called the marriage 
penalty, the marriage penalty tax.
  I don't know how much of the American public is aware of this tax, 
but in 1969, there was placed a tax, actually a change in the Tax Code 
to a point that married couples were taxed more for being married than 
if they were single. It amounts, on average, to $1,400 per family. It 
affects around 21 million American families, and it is wrong.
  It is the wrong kind of tax. It is the wrong kind of notion. It is 
telling people, in the Tax Code, that we are going to penalize you for 
being married. This is a wrong idea when we are struggling so much in 
America today with the maintenance of families, with trying to keep 
families together, when we are trying to say that the foundational 
units of a civil society is the American family, and then we are 
saying, ``Well, yeah, but we're going to tax you.'' We send by that 
signal that we think less of married families.
  It is time that we go back and do what we did prior to 1969, and that 
is not tax married couples more than if they were just single people 
living together. We were, up until 1969, operating that way, and then 
in that year, in an attempt to get more revenues into the Federal 
Government, we put this tax in place, taxing married couples. It is 
wrong. It is the wrong idea. It is the wrong signal.
  It is something that we have the ability to deal with now. The 
Congressional Budget Office this week stated that over the next 5 
years, we will have $520 billion in surpluses over the next 5 years--
$520 billion in surpluses over the next 5 years, a half a trillion 
dollars. I just say to my colleagues, my goodness, if we have that 
resource there, we have families struggling so much, if the 
foundational unit of a civil society is the family and we are taxing 
that family more, let's give them a little break.
  This is the right vehicle on which to do it. We are talking about 
funding the legislative shop here, let's help fund the families a 
little bit. We have the ability to do it, and it will send the right 
signal. It will send a good signal. It is the time we can send a 
signal, and we ought to do it, and we ought to do it now.
  That is what we were hoping to propose on the legislative branch 
appropriations bill, to deal with the elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty for the working families. This hits mostly families between a 
combined income of $20,000 per year to $75,000 per year. That is the 
category of families that is hit by this marriage tax penalty.
  The amendment that I was going to propose and was sponsored by 
Senator Ashcroft and a number of others--Senator Inhofe, Senator Smith, 
and I think a lot of my colleagues would join on this amendment--the 
amendment I was going to put forward does a very simple thing: It just 
makes the standard deduction the same for married couples as it is for 
singles.
  I don't know how many people recognize this, but currently, if you 
file single, under the Tax Code, the standard deduction is $4,150, 
while the marriage standard deduction is only $6,900. Our amendment 
would simply raise the standard deduction for all married couples to 
$8,300, precisely double what it currently is for single people, so you 
don't have this penalty built into the system, so you don't have this 
signal to the American public that we devalue this institution of 
marriage. In 1969, and prior to that period of time, we said you get 
the same if you are married, and then after 1969, we said you don't.

  I guess there were a number of reasons this was put into effect in 
1969. People were saying, ``Well, if you are single versus if you are a 
couple, you have living expenses that are a little less.'' If there are 
two singles versus two people living together in the same place--there 
are a number, I suppose, of different reasons, but I guess actually at 
the end of the day, the reason was to get more tax money out of 
people's pockets. It was done then, and now we are saying let's correct 
this wrong.
  When you ask the American public about this issue--and I raise it 
quite a bit with people--they think this is a ridiculous tax. We 
shouldn't be taxing couples more than we tax singles who live together. 
It just sends a signal that this is not the sort of thing we want to 
take place today, particularly when you look at what happens to our 
families across America.
  I don't think I need to remind many people about the problems we are 
having with marriage and with families in this country today. We are 
having at any one time nearly 50 percent of our children living in a 
single-headed household, and many of these families struggling 
heroically to raise a family, but yet we are sending a signal against 
the family at the same time we do that.
  We are also sending it to some of the hardest hit families who 
struggle the most in the economy today. This tax applies heaviest to 
families with incomes of between $20,000 a year and $75,000 a year. 
This is a good bracket of folks we are taxing more heavily, and we 
shouldn't be taxing them more heavily at this point in time.
  I direct my colleagues' attention to some of the reports that have 
been put out on this issue as well. The Congressional Budget Office did 
a report about a year ago on this particular issue. They state in their 
report:

       Federal income tax laws generally require that a married 
     couple file a joint tax return based on the combined income 
     of the 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.

  This is the opening statement of the CBO.
  I ask all of my colleagues, How many of you agree with that tax 
policy? That is something that the Congress put in place. How many 
people actually agree with that tax policy? I don't know that there 
would be anybody who would actually agree with that tax policy, yet it 
is in place and we have the time, we have the wherewithal, we have the 
vehicle here funding the legislative branch that we can do this and 
fund this now. I think it is appropriate that we should do that and 
take care of something that in 1969--relatively recently--was put in 
place.
  I draw my colleagues' attention to some editorials that have been 
written on this particular subject. The Indianapolis Star talks about 
the marriage penalty and that this is something from which we should 
get away. They have even a pretty nice cartoon about a couple and a car 
who are just married, and they are hooked to this big anchor, a 
marriage tax penalty, pulling them back the other way.
  Is that the sort of signal we want to send from Congress toward the 
institution of marriage? I don't think it is.
  The Christian Science Monitor: ``Bid to Make Tax Policy Friendlier to 
Marriage.'' They are saying, ``Look, this is something we ought to 
do.''
  We have a number of editorials where this was raised across the 
country.
  We are just dealing with one aspect of this. In fact, according to 
the Joint Economic Committee, in a study on the marriage penalty, the 
Tax Code contains 66 provisions that can affect a married couple's tax 
liability. So it is a number of places. We are just getting at one 
particular feature of it which is that standard deduction. I think 
there are places we ought to look at overall in doing more in this 
area. That is the sort of thing that we want to take up--this 
ridiculous tax--that we want to put forward.
  I am hopeful that, with the manager of the bill who has been 
agreeable to this, we can get the Democrat ranking member to agree that 
we could bring up this ridiculous tax, and that he would consent to us 
having a debate, a vote on this particular issue, so we can say to the 
American public, this is something that is pretty important, and we can 
do this now, particularly since the CBO said we have the wherewithal to 
get this done.
  So I plead with my Democrat colleagues, let us bring this up. A 
marriage tax penalty is something important----

[[Page S8454]]

  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can regain the floor, yes.
  Mr. FORD. We do have a marriage bonus that is now for the upper 
income. The marriage bonus, you know, is quite lucrative. I have a bill 
to eliminate the marriage penalty also. So I am basically agreeing with 
what you are trying to do. But when I started developing this, I found 
out we had a marriage bonus. If we eliminate the marriage bonus, 
eliminate the marriage penalty, we will come out with a surplus of 
about $4 billion over the next 5 years.
  Is the Senator willing to do something along that line?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am not interested in raising taxes at the point in 
time of the American public is----
  Mr. FORD. We are not raising taxes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It would be raising taxes on a certain group of 
people. If you are saying, let us do away with this particular bonus, I 
do not have any problem giving bonuses to people who are married. I 
think this is a good institution that we ought to be supporting. I am 
not interested in raising taxes on anybody, particularly people who are 
married.
  I think that is not the way we ought to be going, particularly with 
the kind of money that we have flowing into the Treasury, and 
particularly with the American public being taxed at roughly 40 percent 
of their income annually. They are taxed to the max. And then we add on 
top of that--to working families--the marriage penalty. The tax repeal 
I am talking about applies to families that make a combined income 
between $20,000 a year and $75,000 a year. And that is the one that I 
want to pull off. And I hope that----
  Mr. FORD. I understand where the Senator is coming from. I also agree 
because I have a similar bill. It is at the table. But it seems like, 
to me, that we want to be fair to everyone. If you are going to be fair 
to everyone, you ought to be paying about the same. The bonus is nice 
to have, I understand. But some are eligible over the $75,000 for a 
bonus. We ought to be trying to help those under $75,000. I think we 
could equalize the tax situation, do both of the things that you and I 
would like to do.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be agreeable to my colleague bringing his bill 
up on this bill if it will allow us to bring this one up on this bill. 
I would be agreeable to him putting that forward. That would be fine 
with me. I will not be voting with you on it because I just am not 
interested in taxing marriages more. But I would----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand it is: ``My way or nothing.'' 
Probably what we get is nothing.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am just saying, if you want to bring your bill up, I 
would be happy to see that particular one brought up on this vehicle, 
as well dealing with the institution of marriage, I think, is an 
important thing to be able to do.
  My colleague from Missouri wanted to address this topic, too. I would 
be willing to yield to my colleague from Missouri if he desires to talk 
on this particular topic--or he may want to wait until another time.
  I point out, we have support from a number of groups that are 
interested in this moving on forward.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator from Kansas agree that a marriage 
penalty not only would provide a disincentive for people to get 
married, but it might, as a matter of fact, provide an incentive for 
some people who are married to get a divorce?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It is strange, but actually if you look at our tax 
policy, people would be paid to be able to--if they do get a divorce 
and live separately, they would actually have more money coming to them 
and less going to the Federal Treasury, which is an extraordinary, 
ridiculous notion that is built into the Tax Code.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator from Kansas aware of the fact that that 
has actually happened? There are a number of couples that decided to 
get a divorce so that in the eyes of the law they are divorced so that 
they could get this subsidy for divorce from the Federal Government?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the question the Senator is asking. I am 
told also there is a married couple, they are economists at one of the 
universities in the country, who each year divorce at the end of the 
year and get married the next day. Then they have kind of a party with 
the money that they earned and keep by going through this process of 
divorcing on December 30, or 31 and marrying again on January 1st or 
2nd. They have kind of a honeymoon each year off of this signal that 
they are able to read from the Federal Government. And the thing about 
it, I do not want to suggest that more people do that. I think that 
would be a wrong notion. But still it is----
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator agree our tax laws literally are 
suggesting that people get divorced and remarried and then fritter away 
or otherwise use the proceeds of this anomalous provision in the code?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is actually what happens and takes place, which 
is--just think about it. That is the signal that we are sending to the 
American public, that they actually are encouraged to do something like 
this by the tax policy of the U.S. Congress? That is an incredible 
thing.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator from Kansas agree that when the 
Senator from Kentucky talks about a bonus, he is talking about a 
situation where one of the two marriage partners is not employed 
outside the home; and really what the tax law does is allow, in some 
respect, part of the income to be assigned to that partner, some of the 
cost be assigned to that partner, and for that reason there is a 
theoretical bonus? But would the Senator agree it is important to 
understand that in marriage that there are a lot of respects in which 
it is appropriate that the ``nonemployed spouse'' be understood as 
having contributed substantially to the proceeds of the family that 
result from the employed spouse's earnings?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Absolutely. I could not agree more with the notion 
that there are things that ought to be taken into consideration here. 
And the notion of a bonus in marriages is not an accurate notion here. 
I was willing to let my colleague from Kentucky go ahead and raise his 
amendment on this particular bill, if he would desire to, if he would 
let us be able to put this amendment forward and have a discussion, if 
he wants to try to refute that sort of argument taking place. But I do 
not think that we should be in the business, even if there is such a 
thing as a bonus, of removing that on married couples.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Now, this week the Congressional Budget Office has 
forecast a surplus over the next 5 years. And that surplus has really 
been growing dramatically. It started out about 4 or 5 months ago that 
they said it might be $140-some billion. Now they have taken the 
surplus projection to--how much over the next 5 years?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. CBO has taken their budget projections now to $520 
billion over the next 5 years, over half a trillion dollars in budget 
surplus.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. So that is money that is supposed to be in excess of 
what we would otherwise budget?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That money is indexed as to what we would actually 
already have budgeted. I point out to my colleague from Missouri, not 
only is that in excess of it, but we found a way to cut the taxes while 
we were in deficit. Now we are running a surplus, and we are saying, 
Can't we find a little way here to be able to cut taxes on hard-working 
married couples in America?
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask you--we have $520 billion in surplus--how much of 
the surplus would it take in order to eliminate the marriage penalty?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. In order to be able to eliminate the marriage penalty, 
there are different ways people have configured and looked at this 
issue. The bill we are putting forward has a $151 billion price tag 
over 5 years. So you are not even talking about dealing with the entire 
surplus with this marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Less than one-third.

[[Page S8455]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Less than one-third.
  Out of every $5 surplus you have, $1.50 is going back to married 
families. Does that make any rational sense here, that we are getting 
$5 in and saying, OK, $1.50 is back. I think we ought to be doing far 
more. This ought to start the overall situation, but we are looking at 
least a start here.
  This is the sort of thing we need to do. We need to move. You ought 
to see the groups supporting this. The National Taxpayers Union, with 
300,000 members, strongly supports the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. 
The Marriage Tax Elimination Act would address that and dramatically 
widen the scope of tax relief.
  This is a broad tax relief issue--21 million families, not just 
individuals, 21 million families, in America pay this tax penalty. 
Currently, laws force many married Americans to pay a higher tax bill 
than they would if they remained single and had the same combined 
income. Such a double standard is wholly at odds with the American 
ideal that taxes should not be a primary consideration in any 
individual's economic or social choices. I want to underline ``social 
choices'' because we have social problems in this country. We have 
social maladies in this country.
  I held a forum with Joe Lieberman last week about the overall issue 
of violence and teen violence taking place, and everyone there----
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. From the left, from the right--I want to go ahead and 
finish this point, if I could--from the left and from the right. We had 
a former Black Panther there, a former Clinton administration official 
saying the real problem we have here is we have a breakdown in the 
families taking place. We have too little density of responsible adults 
per children. We are saying send a signal that does not decrease the 
density of adults per child. I think that is a responsible social 
policy instead of a social choice here that is actually contrary to the 
issue.
  Americans for Tax Reform support the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, 
offered in the House by Representatives Weller! and McIntosh. ``We 
believe that married working couples deserve the same treatment as 
singles.'' That is their statement.
  Now, isn't that pretty clear? Now is the perfect time for action 
because the Congressional Budget Office is anticipating an earlier-
than-expected fiscal surplus. This is Americans for Tax Reform saying 
that this is a good way to go. For many Americans, the average marriage 
tax is approximately equal in value to half a year of car payments. 
Half a year of car payments we are talking about. With an extra $1,400 
a year, a couple might be able to send a child to the school of their 
choice. The bottom line is, according to the Americans for Tax Reform, 
a marriage tax is very real to many working couples in this country.
  I ask people who are watching this, if you would look and figure up 
your own tax and see how many of you are paying a marriage tax penalty 
for being married.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can retain the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada would like to inquire of the 
Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Nevada has a bill he would like 
to introduce. It would take 7 or 8 minutes. Is it possible to work out 
some kind of time arrangement to do so? The Senator from Nevada also 
has a flight at 12:45 he would like to make. I am prepared to enter 
into a unanimous consent if my colleagues agree the floor would be 
immediately reclaimed by the Senator from Kansas. I am not trying to 
cut him off, but I do have a time constraint that poses some 
limitations upon the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am happy, if I retain the floor after 
the 7 minutes or the 8 minutes, to yield with that understanding.
  Mr. BRYAN. I will propound a unanimous consent, if that is agreeable.
  I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to have 8 minutes with the 
understanding the floor would be retained by the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Nevada?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his consideration.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 2326 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I was glad to accommodate the Senator 
from Nevada. I have had similar situations come up. I understand the 
Senator from New York may have a similar time situation, and I would be 
willing to accommodate him, with a unanimous consent to obtain the 
floor after the Senator from New York is finished. He had previously 
been willing to yield the floor to some other individuals.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
York, with the understanding that I retain the floor after that 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
inquire of the Senator from Kansas. I understand we are in morning 
business. I don't object and would not object to the Senator taking 
substantial time in morning business. As I understand it, we are 
allowed 10 minutes, but the Senator has, by unanimous consent, received 
permission to speak for as long as he chooses. Normally, in morning 
business when Senators want to speak, we can increase that time of 10 
minutes.
  In this circumstance, we were about prepared to go to the legislative 
branch appropriations bill. Senator Bennett from Utah made an opening 
statement in morning business. I am the ranking member on that 
subcommittee and I was prepared to make an opening statement. I guess I 
would like to get some notion of how long the Senator from Kansas 
intends to retain the floor in morning business before I agree to other 
sets of circumstances, so I can try to gauge the time and understand 
what might transpire on the floor of the Senate. So reserving the right 
to object, I inquire of the Senator from Kansas as to what are his 
intentions.
  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. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas certainly has that 
right. In fact, when the bill is brought to the floor--the bill is not 
yet technically on the floor, the legislative appropriations bill--when 
the bill is brought to the floor, the Senator certainly has a right to 
offer any amendments. Nothing will prevent the Senator from his right 
to offer an amendment.
  I guess the issue is whether the Senator can offer his amendment, but 
other people are prevented from offering theirs. Maybe it will be 
worked out, but my expectation is that it won't get worked out. You 
used the term ``tie up'' the floor. I would really prefer that you not 
do that in morning business. I prefer that you find a way to do that 
the minute the bill is on the floor, if you so choose. But tying up the 
floor in morning business simply inconveniences others who would like 
to do some work here.
  I am sympathetic to the notion that there is a marriage penalty. I 
guess I am standing here, however, with the Senate in morning business, 
hoping that perhaps the Senator might allow the Senator from New York 
to proceed, and then allow me to proceed, and others who might want to 
proceed, and then it doesn't matter whether somebody talks until Sunday 
noon. I would

[[Page S8456]]

like, in the morning business segment, or perhaps the opening segment 
of the appropriations bill, to be able to dispatch that business and 
let whoever wants to talk, do it until they are exhausted.
  You are speaking of a subject of some importance, I admit that. I am 
sympathetic to the issue you are raising. I hope that you perhaps would 
allow us to do the things we would like to do in preparation to get the 
bill to the floor.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
  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. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for a 
suggestion that I would propound a unanimous consent. I have 
legislation that I know the Senator from Kansas is supportive of, and 
we want the Senate to be supportive. It would take me no more than 5 
minutes to ask that it be brought up under a unanimous consent 
agreement.
  I will speak for no more than 10 minutes, and probably less, because 
I have had an opportunity to make my views known; then, further, that 
the ranking member, Senator Dorgan, on the legislative appropriations, 
be given up to 15 minutes so that he might make his opening remarks on 
the legislative appropriations. That would be no longer than 25 
minutes, and thereafter the Senator would retain the floor and the 
floor would return to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  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. D'AMATO. That would be the agreement.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I can then continue with my statement and have it 
appear continuously in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleague from Kansas for being gracious, and 
Senator Dorgan, the ranking member, for his suggestion so we can 
accommodate the needs of our colleagues.

                          ____________________