[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9163-S9173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2312, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2312) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Thompson amendment No. 3353, to require the addition of use 
     of forced or indentured child labor to the list of grounds on 
     which a potential contractor may be debarred or suspended 
     from eligibility for award of a Federal Government contract.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, is recognized to offer an amendment regarding 
the marriage penalty.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in collaborating with my colleague, the 
Senator from Kansas, I have agreed with him that he would offer the 
amendment on the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 3359

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that 
 married couples may file a combined return under which each spouse is 
       taxed using the rates applicable to unmarried individuals)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself, Mr. 
     Ashcroft, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire 
     and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 3359.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. COMBINED RETURN TO WHICH UNMARRIED RATES APPLY.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part II of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     income tax returns) is amended by inserting after section 
     6013 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6013A. COMBINED RETURN WITH SEPARATE RATES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--A husband and wife may make a combined 
     return of income taxes under subtitle A under which--

[[Page S9164]]

       ``(1) a separate taxable income is determined for each 
     spouse by applying the rules provided in this section, and
       ``(2) the tax imposed by section 1 is the aggregate amount 
     resulting from applying the separate rates set forth in 
     section 1(c) to each such taxable income.
       ``(b) Determination of Taxable Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1), the 
     taxable income for each spouse shall be one-half of the 
     taxable income computed as if the spouses were filing a joint 
     return.
       ``(2) Nonitemizers.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if an 
     election is made not to itemize deductions for any taxable 
     year, the basic standard deduction shall be equal to the 
     amount which is twice the basic standard deduction under 
     section 63(c)(2)(C) for the taxable year.
       ``(c) Treatment of Credits.--Credits shall be determined 
     (and applied against the joint liability of the couple for 
     tax) as if the spouses had filed a joint return.
       ``(d) Treatment as Joint Return.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section or in the regulations prescribed 
     hereunder, for purposes of this title (other than sections 1 
     and 63(c)) a combined return under this section shall be 
     treated as a joint return.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     this section.''
       (b) Unmarried Rate Made Applicable.--So much of subsection 
     (c) of section 1 of such Code as precedes the table is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Separate or Unmarried Return Rate.--There is hereby 
     imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than 
     a married individual (as defined in section 7703) filing a 
     joint return or a separate return, a surviving spouse as 
     defined in section 2(a), or a head of household as defined in 
     section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the 
     following table:''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part II of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6013 
     the following:

``Sec. 6013A. Combined return with separate rates.

       (d) Budget Directive.--The members of the conference on the 
     congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 shall 
     provide in the conference report sufficient spending 
     reductions to offset the reduced revenues received by the 
     United States Treasury resulting from the amendments made by 
     this section.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  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

[[Page S9165]]

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. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following be 
the only amendments in order, other than the pending amendment to the 
pending legislation, subject to relevant second-degree amendments. The 
list has about 56 amendments on it, and with Senator Kohl's approval, I 
will submit the list rather than going through the reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Campbell--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Faircloth--Sense of the Senate breast cancer stamp.
       Faircloth--Exchange stabilization.
       DeWine--Abortion Federal health plans.
       DeWine--Customs drug interdiction.
       B. Smith--Employee benefit programs.
       Mack--Immigration.
       KB Hutchison--SEHBP.
       Jeffords--Postal location.
       Ashcroft--Marriage tax.
       Brownback--2nd degree to Ashcroft.
       McConnell--Relevant.
       Domenici--Fed. law enforcement training center.
       Coverdell--Fed. Law Enforcement training center.
       Abraham--Family impact statement.
       Jeffords--Fed. contractor retirement report.
       Stevens--Duty free stores.
       Stevens--Relevant.
       Mack--GSA land conveyance.
       Jeffords--Child care.
       Thompson--Federal regulatory programs.
       Hatch--Relevant.
       Gramm--Relevant.
       Managers package.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Baucus--Post office locations.
       Bingaman--Relevant.
       Bingaman--HIDTA.
       Bingaman--Relevant.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Cleland--FEC--independent litigation authority.
       Cleland--FEC--7th member.
       Cleland--FEC--fully fund.
       Conrad--High intensity drug trafficking.
       Daschle--Relevant.
       Daschle--Relevant.
       Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
       Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
       Daschle--Internal Revenue Code.
       Dorgan--Canadian grain.
       Dorgan--Advisory cmte intergovernmental relations.
       Feingold--Relevant.
       Feingold--Relevant.
       Feingold--Relevant.
       Glenn--$2.8 million FEC--offset GSA.
       Graham--Haiti.
       Graham--HIDTA.
       Graham--Counter drug funding.
       Harkin--Environmental preferably products.
       Harkin--Drug control.
       Kohl--Managers amendment.
       Kohl--Relevant.
       Kohl--Relevant.
       Kerrey--Sense of the Senate: Priority on payroll tax cuts.
       Lautenberg--Sense of Congress.
       Reid--Contraceptives.
       Wellstone--P.O. designation.
       Wellstone--Relevant.
       Wellstone--Relevant.
       Wellstone--Relevant.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment, the 
Brownback-Ashcroft amendment, to eliminate the marriage penalty in the 
Tax Code. I do so with a sense of enthusiasm.
  As I have had the opportunity to engage citizens in my home State of 
Missouri, or whether I am in some other location, I have found, and I 
do find on a regular basis, that people understand that the most 
important component of this culture is not its Government in

[[Page S9166]]

Washington, DC. It is not even the governments that we find in the 
State capitals of the United States. The best and most important 
component of governing America is to be found in families. As a matter 
of fact, I had the privilege of saying on this floor several weeks ago 
that if moms and dads in America can do their job, governing America 
will be easy. But if moms and dads in America can't do their job, 
governing America will be impossible.
  I think this is an understanding that we share and is shared from 
Boston to Brooklyn to Bozeman. It doesn't matter what town you are in, 
people understand that the future, the success, the survival of this 
Republic in the next century is probably more related to whether or not 
we have successful families than any other single component of what 
happens in this society. Sure, it is important what we do in Congress. 
Sure, it is important what happens on Wall Street. But what happens on 
Main Street and on Elm Street and in the subdivisions of America where 
families exist, where families work to transmit values from one 
generation to the next, in an institution which has long been revered 
and always will be revered, an institution which shapes the character 
of our culture--that is what is truly important.
  As I rise to support this amendment that would eliminate the attack 
on the family that is leveled by our Tax Code, I do so with a sense 
that this elimination is long overdue. If we really want to be 
successful in the future--and I think that is the business of 
government, helping create an environment in which individuals can 
succeed and in which institutions can succeed-- there are lots of 
reasons to think we are here. But I think we simply want to build a 
setting in which we have the right conditions for people to flourish, 
for people to grow, for people to reach the maximum of the potential 
that God has placed within them. If we are going to do that, we need to 
do things that encourage structures like the family, instead of attack 
structures like the family.

  The marriage penalty attack is really not just on the family, but it 
attacks the core institution of the family. A marriage is what a family 
is built around. It is built on the durable, lasting, legally 
sanctioned, and enforced commitment of individuals to be together and 
to help each other as long as they live. There aren't very many things 
that work that way in our culture. There are a few things they claim to 
have lifetime guarantees on, and the like. But I don't think there are 
any institutions that are quite as lasting and helpful, which really 
strengthen our culture as effectively as families do.
  You can get products that say they are guaranteed for life. I was 
amused by the fellow who said he was running a parachute company. 
Somebody asked, ``Are they any good?'' He said, ``We guarantee them for 
life.'' I don't know if we would be particularly impressed with that. 
But the family is focused on and built on marriage, which is designed 
to be a lasting, durable relationship, sanctioned by law. I think we 
should do what we can to foster it, since it is most likely to be the 
thing that provides the basis for our success. This isn't something 
new, as a matter of fact, in our culture.
  America hasn't been great because we had great government or because 
we had great business; we have had greatness in America because of the 
hearts of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville, about 160 years ago, came 
here from France to try to assess what is it about this country that 
makes it dynamic, that makes this country something that is catching 
the eye of the entire world. He wrote back--and I have to paraphrase--
that he didn't find the greatness of America in the Halls of Congress, 
but he found it in the homes of the people. He didn't find it in 
politics; he found it in pulpits. He was really saying that the 
greatness of America is something that is resident in the values and 
character of America. He focused on the fact that that happens down 
beneath the big, overarching concerns of Government, found in the 
institution that is singularly identified as the most important 
institution in our culture--the family.
  So it is no wonder that people raise their eyebrows when they finally 
learn what is happening to the family as a result of the Tax Code. I 
support this effort to eliminate the penalty that the Tax Code imposes 
on people when they get married. I commend the Senator from Kansas for 
his outstanding recounting and relating the individual details of the 
couple from Montana and another couple from Indiana, and different 
people around the country, who have written to say, for goodness' sake, 
stop penalizing us and making it impossible for us to really make the 
kind of marriage that we want to have, making Government attack 
marriage through the Tax Code.
  Frankly, American policy should reflect the principles of the 
American people. It is time, instead of our policy attacking the 
principles, to reinforce the principles. One principle is that we don't 
want to say to people: Don't get married. We don't want to say that we 
will make it more expensive to get married, we will fine you or 
penalize you. We want to say: Look, we think marriage is a good thing, 
and we understand that the values that are transmitted in marriages, 
the character that is formed there, is the basis for societal success, 
not only in this but the next century. We want to encourage it.
  So it is time for us to get out our eraser, if you will, and to 
return America to a tax policy that does not discriminate against 
marriage. I say ``return'' America, because we haven't always had a 
discriminatory policy against marriage. But the marriage penalty began 
to creep into our tax law a couple of decades ago. Its onerous, 
negative impact on this most important institution is really a scar on 
the body politic, and it is a wound that we can ill afford to allow to 
deepen. We must close this wound and restore this culture to the kind 
of health that has made America great.
  Last April, a group of like-minded Senators and I, including the good 
Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and others, stated our 
intention to oppose the Senate's budget resolution, unless meaningful 
tax cuts were added. We have noted that the United States of America is 
now charging people to live here more than we have ever charged people 
to live here before--the highest tax rates in history. Our Government 
is charging more. We are taking more of people's money for Government, 
leaving less of people's money for themselves and their families than 
ever before in the history of the country.
  For some, I guess, who like Government and prefer not to make their 
own decisions about how they live and want to have a bureaucrat buy for 
them what is to be purchased in the less than efficient system known as 
``Government,'' that might be OK. But to me, I am shocked. Why in the 
world should we be paying the highest taxes in history when we are not 
at war? As a matter of fact, the highest taxes have not even gone to 
support defense. I think a number of us are a little bit alarmed about 
the condition of the Nation's defense. We have slashed the defense 
budget. We have curtailed it immeasurably to the point where I am not 
sure we are ready to prepare ourselves. We have skyrocketed other 
bureaucratic spending in Government. While we have slashed the spending 
of the defense establishment, we have also slashed the capacity of 
families to spend their own money. So we are rocking along at the 
highest tax rates in history, and it is peacetime.
  So last April, a group of us said we were not going to vote for a 
budget from this Senate, unless we put meaningful potentials for tax 
relief in that budget. We were promised that eliminating the marriage 
penalty would be the Senate's top priority for 1998. The leadership of 
the Senate promised us we would not only have an opportunity to try to 
reduce taxes substantially and significantly--not the $30 billion 
gesture over 5 years--incidentally, $30 billion over 5 years would buy 
about one cup of coffee per month per person, if you left a little tip. 
That is really not tax relief.
  So here we are; today is July 29 and there are only 31 legislative 
days left in the session. Yet, we are not any closer to giving the 
American people tax cuts than we were 3 months ago. I have led the mini 
revolt against the budget in order to get real potentials for tax 
relief on the table. I believe it is time for us to say we need real 
tax relief, and the marriage penalty would be the brightest and best 
opportunity to provide tax relief that not only reduces

[[Page S9167]]

taxes, but it would begin to align the policy of the United States with 
the principles of the American people. Of course, that embracing 
principle that everybody understands is the need for strong families.
  Now, to add insult to injury--I don't know whether it is an insult or 
not--but the Congressional Budget Office came out with new numbers on 
the projected Government surplus. Here the Senate had agreed that we 
would do $30 billion, maybe, in tax cuts. The Congressional Budget 
Office just announced in the last 10 days that the projected surplus is 
over $520 billion. Wait a second--$30 billion to let the people have, 
which they earned, and we were going to take the other $490 billion and 
spend it, in spite of the fact that we were already taxing people at 
the highest rates in history. I wonder about that.
  So we have come forward today. I thank Senator Brownback and Senator 
Hutchison for sponsoring this kind of legislation. I am honored to be a 
person who is helping organize this approach to say we need substantial 
and significant tax relief. We are not asking that we take the entire 
$520 billion. We are not even asking that we take a majority. But we 
are asking that at least the onerous affront to the values of the 
American people, this attack on marriages, be taken from our Tax Code.
  It would cost about $151.3 billion, I think, to do this over 5 years. 
So, if you subtract that from the $520 billion, you could figure out 
that you still have about $360 billion over the next 5 years. That is 
an amazing sum.
  We are not even asking for 1 out of 3 dollars, or what would be 
equivalent to 1 out of 3 dollars, of the surplus to say leave it in the 
pockets of people who work hard to earn it. Don't sweep that money away 
to be spent by the bureaucracy. And, for heaven's sake, let's not send 
a signal to people, don't get married in this culture, don't begin to 
form the basis for this most important institution of America. We need 
to say, indeed, we want marriages; we want intact families; we want the 
lasting, durable--yes, legally recognized--formal commitments of 
marriage upon which to build our family.
  We stand here at the end of July on the heels of a month-long recess 
coming up in August. And there is a real possibility that Congress will 
not pass a budget reconciliation and will not deliver on the tax cut 
that was promised to the American people. We ought to shout at the top 
of our lungs, ``No, no.'' We do not want to miss this opportunity, with 
this substantial capacity in our system, to begin to grant relief to 
the people, especially to have a cease-fire on American marriages. It 
is time for us to declare peace instead of declaring war on the 
principles of the American people when it comes to tax policy. We need 
a tax policy that represents the people's principles. Let's declare 
peace in terms of our policy on marriage.
  Mr. President, our society has affirmed the importance of marriage 
and family for a long time. Most Americans would agree that persistent, 
durable marriages and strong families are absolutely necessary if we 
are to succeed as a nation in the 21st century. Yet, for 30 years--
nearly 30 years--in the last three decades politicians have idly 
watched as the Federal Income Tax Code has systematically penalized 
millions of people for having been married. In fact, this last year, 42 
million married taxpayers collectively paid $29 billion--that is with a 
``b,'' not with an ``m''--$29 billion more in taxes than they would 
have paid had they been single.
  I find it important for me to once in a while review what $1 billion 
means.
  We all know that $1 million is a lot of money. One billion dollars is 
1,000 million dollars. So we have 29,000 billion dollars in tax penalty 
because people are married. When you boil that down to what it means to 
the average marriage penalty for a family what this tax anomaly, this 
tax assault, is, it turns out that is about $1,400 per family. I have 
to say that is about $1,400 of after-tax income. If you relieve them of 
that, that is actually spendable money. In order to have a spendable 
result of about $1,400 of more money for a family to spend, I think you 
have to allow in terms of a salary of about $2,000. So this would give 
those families about a $2,000 increase in their wages, or about $1,400 
in spendable income.
  Or, another way, that is well over $100 a month that families could 
either add to their payments for better housing, they could add to 
their budget for better nutrition, they could add to their clothing 
budget so that their children could be better clothed and that they 
could be better clothed. This is $1,400 they could use to promote 
things that are beneficial to the community.
  Yet here we have this marriage penalty that sweeps that $1,400 right 
off the kitchen table at budget time merely because these individuals 
are married.
  I believe this marriage penalty is a grossly unfair assault on the 
bedrock of our culture and civilization. As a matter of fairness, 
principle, and public policy, Congress should put an end to the Tax 
Code discrimination against marriage. The marriage penalty exists today 
because Congress legislated ill-advised changes to the Tax Code in the 
late 1960s. Fortunately, eliminating the marriage penalty simply 
requires Congress to amend the code.
  I want to just mention that the marriage penalty tax has a pretty 
substantial negative impact on women. It hurts marriages when their 
income is equivalent to their husband's income. When their income is 
equivalent, it hurts them most of all. We enact policies to help women 
in the workplace, yet we have a Tax Code which penalizes those women 
once they earn income that is comparable to that of their spouse. There 
is significant evidence that such tax consequences have a direct impact 
on women's labor participation choices. People make judgments based on 
these taxes.
  We have already heard from our good friend, the Senator from Kansas. 
As a matter of fact, he stated that single people are living together 
in a way that many of them feel bad--disappointed their families, set 
bad examples for the communities--and they didn't want to do this.
  The amendment which Senator Brownback, Senator Grams, and Senator 
Inhofe, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and Senator Hutchison have 
proposed would eliminate the marriage penalty. And, of course, I am 
proposing it with them by allowing husbands and wives to split incomes 
as equivalent and filing as if both were single.
  Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is expected to collect 
$9.6 trillion in revenues. Eliminating the marriage penalty will reduce 
that total by 1.6 percent, and that is less than a third of the 
projected surplus. That is, the surplus is expected to be $520 billion. 
That is money in excess of what we expect to spend. If we continue to 
make plans to spend it, we ought to make plans to give it back at least 
to curtail the marriage penalty.
  There is no excuse for withholding tax relief from American families, 
especially tax relief that is necessary to allow them to continue to be 
American families. We have no reason to continue to punish Americans 
with a Tax Code that is designed to make it tough for them to be 
family. For years Washington has told taxpayers, ``You send it, we 
spend it.'' We ought to change that. It is time for a new message to be 
sent to America. It should be, ``You earned it, we returned it.''
  I rise today to say that I find it unconscionable that the policy of 
the United States would be an assault on the principles of the American 
people, especially a sacred principle of American families that are 
built on the core institution of marriage, and that this Government, 
frankly, should hang its head in shame to think that it has agreed to 
spend the money of individuals and that it would not provide relief 
from this war on the principles of America called the ``marriage 
penalty.''
  In my judgment, we have but one alternative, especially in the face 
of the kind of projected surplus which we have before us. That 
opportunity is to say that we are going to declare peace when it comes 
to the American family, and we are going to tell people that, ``We will 
not penalize you any longer because you have chosen to be married; as a 
matter of fact, we are going to provide a way for you to enjoy the same 
kind of treatment under the Tax Code that you would have if you were to 
have remained single.''
  The end of the 105th Congress is coming quickly upon us. I call upon 
my

[[Page S9168]]

colleagues to join me for the elimination of the marriage penalty once 
and for all.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Faircloth be added as a cosponsor to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me you said this has its most substantial 
incidence in young families where people are getting started, both 
individuals working.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator aware that when they interview people 
about family problems, and when families break up, that there is a high 
incidence of correlation between families that are overstressed 
economically and those that do not make it to last as families?
  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. ASHCROFT. So if the average marriage penalty is $1,445 a year, 
you wonder about how many marriages might actually survive if the 
Government were not in there with its bureaucratic hand, extracting an 
extra $1,445 a year. You wonder in how many marriages the stress would 
be relieved enough that some of that financial friction that eventually 
sometimes flares into the flame which consumes the marriage, and burns 
down the house, could just be avoided.
  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

[[Page S9169]]

     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. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I wonder if the Senator from Kansas is aware of the 
fact that among people who are concerned about the culture, they have 
not only been concerned about families that are dissolved, and the 
divorce problem that we have, but the absence of family formation, the 
fact that there are lower rates of marriage than people had 
anticipated, than we have had in the past. I wonder, if given that 
situation, which individuals who have studied our culture are concerned 
about, I wonder if the Senator from Kansas might comment on whether or 
not the fact that we have a penalty on a number of people taxwise if 
they enter a marriage, if that might affect this challenge to our 
culture where we have had lower rates of individuals getting married?
  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. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me what you are saying, because families

[[Page S9170]]

have begun to replace welfare in a number of settings, they have done a 
better job and people are becoming independent; that the number of 
people on welfare is going down, and when the number of people on 
welfare goes down, the cost to government goes down.
  It seems to me that as these costs go down, when families begin to do 
their jobs and do them well, we ought to share some of the reduced 
costs of government with families by reducing the cost of families so 
that we can actually--and I wonder, if you will agree that since 
families are helping us reduce the cost of government by reducing the 
cost of welfare, if you agree that it might be appropriate for us, 
given the fact that families are helping us in this respect, to say to 
families, ``and thank you very much, and we would like to reduce your 
costs now that you are helping us reduce ours.''
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that Heather Oellermann be 
given floor privileges during the duration of this debate. She serves 
in my office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask that my name be added as a 
cosponsor to the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment to S. 2312.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I rise to speak further in support of the elimination 
of the marriage penalty. Some people have asked, ``Well, isn't there 
also a marriage bonus, or isn't there a situation in which people might 
do better because they are married than if they're not married?'' And 
there are areas of the Tax Code where some individuals do slightly 
better, but they are supported by very sound logic. I would like to 
talk for a few moments about them, those instances.
  I indicate that in no way do I think that the existence of this so-
called ``marriage bonus'' in some places in the Tax Code--that that 
bonus really is any reason why we should impose a penalty in some other 
area of the Tax Code. As a matter of fact, there are sound reasons for 
us to support the concept of the marriage bonus where it exists.

[[Page S9171]]

  Currently, the standard deduction for a single person is $4,150, 
while the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is 
only $6,900. I did not major in mathematics, but I did one time have 
the privilege of serving as the State auditor. I can add $4,150 twice; 
that would be $8,300. And when you put the $8,300 that you would get 
for two single people together, and you look at the $6,900 deduction 
that you get for a married couple filing jointly, you clearly 
understand there is a $1,400 deduction that simply does not exist.
  The marriage penalty elimination amendment that Senator Brownback and 
I, and others, including the majority leader, have offered today will 
increase the standard deduction for a married couple to equal twice 
what it is for singles--that would be the $8,300 figure.
  Now the Government rationale for the difference in deduction for 
singles and married couples is to reduce the so-called marriage bonus 
that occurs when only one spouse works. So the idea is, why should a 
spouse get a full deduction if the spouse isn't actually in the 
workforce? I think that sort of partakes of a myth that we ought to 
disabuse ourselves of and that I think most people understand. The 
suggestion that if someone works outside the home they are working, but 
if someone isn't working outside the home they are not working--I don't 
think that is really the case.
  I think what we really indicate is not so much a bonus if we give a 
deduction for the person who is nonworking outside the home but stays 
home, it is a recognition of the substantial contribution that the 
nonemployed spouse makes to the family.
  We have had a pretty substantial experience with marriage in my 
household. There are three decades plus that my wife and I have been 
married. There have been times when both of us have been employed, 
times when only my wife was employed, times when only I was employed. I 
think in every one of those instances to ignore the sort of 
contribution that the nonemployed spouse makes to the work product, 
even of the employed spouse and of the household, would be a tremendous 
injustice.
  I think what we really have, instead of the so-called marriage bonus, 
is just a recognition of the fact that the nonemployed, in-a-formal-
sense, spouse is contributing to the income that comes to that 
household by virtue of the capacity that is expanded to the other 
spouse who is employed and by virtue of the expanded well-being of the 
family. American families need help from the ever-increasing tax load 
which we are imposing on them. Men who stay at home or women who stay 
at home to care for the children should not be penalized by the Tax 
Code.
  I have been somewhat distressed in recent years that we have begun to 
extend this myth and to provide incentives for people not to stay at 
home, to have a prejudice against people who would stay at home. Our 
Government policy should work in favor of children, not against them. 
Sometimes when we have a massive tax prejudice in favor of both parents 
leaving the house, that is not in the best interests of children. I 
think most of the data we have seen in recent years is that children 
really thrive when they have the attention of parents, and, obviously, 
if you have one of the parents who can stay at home, it really helps 
children significantly.
  Our current Tax Code rewards the dependent child tax credit for 
families who put their children in child care, for example, and, 
therefore, provides an incentive for people to institutionalize their 
children rather than to care for them in the home. A mother who stays 
at home with her child makes the sacrifice in the total combined 
paycheck for the family and for her career, perhaps, or the father who 
does the same, should that family be penalized? I think the answer is 
clearly no. As a matter of fact, that person may be doing our culture a 
great favor by providing attention from a loving, compassionate parent 
in a way that no institution would be able to provide attention or 
training for that child.
  The Tax Code should acknowledge that contributions made by spouses 
who stay at home, be they male or female--and we have done it both ways 
in my household from time to time; there have been times when my wife 
was the earner and I was either doing something at home or running for 
office or the like--and either way, we should acknowledge that the 
contributions by the so-called nonemployed spouse are not ignored, and 
no marriage bonus could ever begin to compensate those individuals for 
their contributions to the family.
  Now, if Members on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate the 
small ``bonus'' in the Tax Code, I think that would be ill advised. I 
predict it would be soundly defeated, as it should be. It is 
antifamily, it is antimarriage, and given the fact that most of these 
are women in this setting, it is antiwomen to suggest a full-time 
homemaker provides no value that should be recognized in the Tax Code. 
I believe their contribution should continue to be recognized and 
applauded. The marriage bonus is a way to recognize some of the non-
economic contributions of stay-at-home spouses.
  What we are really here for, I don't think there is a serious legal 
attempt to take away those recognitions, but there is a very serious 
assault on the values of American families. When we are taxing the 
average family that endures the marriage penalty, we are taxing them 
$1,400 a year more in taxes than we would if they were single. It seems 
to me that assault on the values of the American public is a tragic, 
tragic invasion of the strongest institution which we need desperately 
for the success and survival of our country. We should recognize that 
we need to eliminate that penalty on marriage.
  It is with that in mind that I am pleased so many Senators have 
agreed to cosponsor this measure. I hope we will vote to make sure that 
this becomes a part of the philosophy and policy of American 
Government. A government which is at war with the values of its people 
cannot long endure. No value is more cherished in America than the 
value of durable families. We simply have to eliminate the assault on 
marriage, the assault on our families, that is included in a Tax Code 
which undermines and curtails the value of families in our culture.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the efforts that have 
been brought to the floor by the Senator from Kansas. I would like to 
make a few comments and observations about tax cuts and some 
misconceptions. I was somewhat distressed at the beginning of this 
administration when a statement was made by Laura Tyson, who was the 
chief financial advisor at that time. She said--and this is almost a 
direct quote--that there is no relationship between the level of 
taxation that a country pays and its economic activity. If you would 
carry that to its logical conclusion, you would say you could tax 
somebody by 100 percent and they are going to be just as motivated to 
work hard and to contribute to the economy and take risks and to hire 
people as if they had no tax at all. As we know, history has shown us 
that this is not true.
  One of the interesting things that is so overlooked by many of the 
liberals nowadays is that for every 1 percent increase in economic 
activity, it produces new income of approximately $24 billion. Three 
times in this century we have had administrations that have had massive 
tax cuts, and each time this has happened we have actually increased 
the revenue. What I am hoping we will get to is a discussion and a 
debate along the lines that you can actually increase revenue by 
reducing taxes. History has shown us that, in fact, this is true. The 
first time this happened was in the 1920s, during the Warren Harding 
and Calvin Coolidge administrations. They had consecutive tax cuts, 
reducing the top tax rate from 73 percent to 25 percent. The lower 
rates of taxation helped expand the economy dramatically. In fact, 
between 1921 and 1929, in spite of--or maybe because of--dramatic 
reductions in personal income tax rates, revenues increased from $719 
million in 1921 to $1.16 billion in 1928, an increase of more than 60 
percent. Now, over a 10-year period, that would have been about a 
doubling of the tax revenues that came as a result of reducing tax 
rates.

[[Page S9172]]

  Then in the 1960s, along came the Kennedy administration. Of course, 
when you hear some of the things that President Kennedy said at the 
time that didn't sound that prophetic, they turned out to be true. At 
that time, he said we needed to have more revenues and the best way is 
to reduce our tax rates and expand the economy. Again, going back to 
the assumption that has been proven over and over again that your tax 
revenues increase with certain types of marginal tax rate reductions, 
in the 1960s, President Kennedy initiated a series of tax cuts where he 
took the top income tax rate and reduced it from 91 percent to 70 
percent. These cuts, in part, helped increase the growth by some 42 
percent between 1961 and 1968. So again, you have a very similar type 
of growth that we experienced back in the 1920s.
  Then in 1980, we remember so well Ronald Reagan coming along and the 
criticisms that he has had. At that time, he was working with a 
Congress that was not that friendly--at least a House that wasn't that 
friendly. He was able to probably make the most dramatic reductions in 
the tax rates than at any period during any administration in this 
country's history, knocking the top tax rates from 70 percent in 1980 
down to 28 percent by 1988.
  The results of this were very interesting in that if you look at 
total revenues raised to run this country in 1980, it was $517 billion. 
By 1990, that figure was increased to $1.3 trillion. So revenues 
doubled during that period of time that he reduced the tax rates. As 
far as the revenues that were generated from the marginal rates, or 
from income tax, that went from $244 billion in 1980 to $466 billion in 
1990. So you have almost a doubling in that case, also.
  So I think those people who are saying that we don't want to reduce 
taxes are saying we don't want to reduce the revenues. We have need for 
more revenues when, in fact, some of the tax reductions that we will be 
talking about could have the opposite effect. I can remember in Ronald 
Reagan's speech--one of the speeches he made called ``A Rendezvous With 
Destiny'' in the sixties, it was prophetic. He said, ``There is nothing 
closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government 
agency once formed.'' I think this is one of the problems we are 
dealing with now, in that it is so difficult to cut down the size of 
Government.
  Sometimes it is necessary to reduce taxes in order to overcome that 
temptation to spend the money that is out there. We know the political 
reality of that. By the way, when many of the Democrats--liberals--were 
saying, ``Look at how the deficits increased during the Reagan 
administration,'' yes, that is true, they did, but that was not as a 
result of reducing taxes; that was a result of increased spending. I 
think that, in retrospect, the President should have adopted a policy 
of issuing more vetoes, and I don't think we would have had the 
deficits that we had.
  The bottom line is that we are not an undertaxed Nation. We are a 
Nation that needs to reduce taxes. This is an opportunity to do it. I 
can't imagine that in this day and age when we have the projected, huge 
surpluses that are out there, we would consider anything less than 
making major tax reductions. The tax reduction that has been promoted 
on the floor by the various speakers regarding the marriage penalty is 
certainly one that is justified. I would like to see, in addition, some 
marginal rate reductions. I hope we will be able to do that before this 
debate is all over.
  Lastly, we have come so dangerously close to what has been stated in 
history. People have observed this country. When Alexis de Tocqueville 
came here, he came to study the penal system and to write about that. 
After he saw the great wealth in this Nation and the freedoms, he wrote 
a book about the wealth. In the last paragraph, he said that once the 
people of this country find that they can vote themselves money out of 
the public trust, the system will fail. I think we have come 
dangerously close to that. This is the time to reduce taxes and allow 
individuals to have more control of the money they earn.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ashcroft 
amendment on marriage penalty tax relief. Let me quickly point out that 
I strongly support the Senator from Kansas' intentions and believe that 
most, if not all, of my Senate colleagues do as well. Americans should 
be free to marry or remain single based on much more important 
considerations than those related to tax liability.
  That said, the Treasury-General Government appropriations bill is not 
the proper context for the marriage penalty debate. Now is simply not 
the right time or place. The Senate voted in favor of marriage tax 
relief during debate on the tobacco bill. And we all look forward to 
resuming this debate if and when we are able to take up, and it's my 
hope that we do take up, a comprehensive tax relief measure later this 
year. The marriage tax relief issue should be debated at that time, in 
the context of our overall budget priorities. Simply put, we've come 
too far in our efforts to enforce fiscal discipline to change course 
now and arbitrarily adopt major and expensive tax policy mesaures on 
appropriations bills.
  I will oppose the Aschcroft amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to state my views on the elimination 
of the marriage penalty.
  Before 1969, the federal income tax treated married couples like 
partnerships, in which husbands and wives shared their incomes equally. 
This practice was called income-splitting. It was ended in 1969, 
creating what is commonly known as the marriage penalty--the extra 
taxes couples have to pay because they are married rather than single. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 21 million couples 
now pay these penalties, which average about $1,400 per couple.
  This unfair treatment of married couples is fundamentally wrong. The 
tax code ought to treat married couples no worse than it treats single 
people. It ought to recognize that marriages are partnerships in which 
husbands and wives share their incomes equally for the good of their 
families. Until it does this, the tax code is punishing the most 
important institution our society has.
  This amendment is explicitly pro-family. It is a direct way of 
letting families keep more of their hard-earned money, which can be 
used for child-care, taking care of a sick parent, education expenses 
or whatever else the family wants to do with it. It sends a message to 
the American people that marriage should be a welcome occasion, not 
just another excuse for higher taxes.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to 
eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are a lot of things wrong with our 
nation's Tax Code, but two things in the code that have always struck 
me as particularly egregious are the steep taxes imposed on people when 
they get married and when they die. Today, we will have a chance to 
vote to end the marriage penalty.
  All of us say we are concerned that families do not have enough to 
make ends meet--that they do not have enough to pay for child care or 
college, or to buy their own homes. Yet we tolerate a system that 
overtaxes American families.
  According to Tax Foundation estimates, the average American family 
pays almost 40 percent of its income in taxes to federal, state, and 
local governments. To put it another way, in families where both 
parents work, one of the parents is nearly working full time just to 
pay the family's tax bill. It is no wonder, then, that parents do not 
have enough to make ends meet when government is taking that much. It 
is just not right.
  The marriage penalty alone is estimated to cost the average couple an 
extra $1,400 a year. About 21 million American couples are affected, 
and the cost is particularly high for the working poor. Two-earner 
families making less than $20,000 often must devote a full eight 
percent of their income to pay the marriage penalty. The highest 
percentage of couples hit by the marriage penalty earns between $20,000 
and $30,000 per year.
  Think what these families could do with an extra $1,400 in their 
pockets. They could pay for three to four months of day care if they 
choose to send a child outside the home--or

[[Page S9173]]

make it easier for one parent to stay at home to take care of the 
children, if that is what they decide is best for them. They could make 
four to five payments on their car or minivan. They could pay their 
utility bill for nine months.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that if couples need advice about their 
decision to marry, they should be encouraged to look to their minister 
or rabbi, or their family, not their accountant or the Internal Revenue 
Service. This amendment represents an effort to strengthen families and 
give them a chance to spend their hard-earned money in the way they 
best see fit.
  Given that federal revenues as a share of the nation's income, as 
measured by Gross Domestic Product, will set a peacetime record this 
year--a whopping 20.5 percent of GDP--and given that we are 
anticipating a budget surplus of more than $63 billion, it seems to me 
that there is no excuse for the Senate to allow the marriage-penalty 
tax to continue any longer.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting to end the egregious 
marriage-penalty tax.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Brownback-Faircloth marriage penalty relief amendment.
  In fact this amendment is the same as the legislation I originally 
offered with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and many others to provide 
relief from the marriage penalty tax.
  Mr. President, in listening to my colleagues, I find very little 
opposition to the notion that couples should not be penalized with 
additional taxes simply because they choose to marry.
  As several members have stated, the Congressional Budget Office has 
determined that married couples are taxed an extra $1,400 on average 
more than singles. This legislation would correct that problem.
  Relief from the marriage penalty tax is an idea which enjoys broad, 
bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, legislation which I offered 
as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget resolution established 
marriage penalty tax relief as among the highest priorities of the 
Senate this year. That amendment passed this body by a vote of 99 to 0.
  Clearly, there is no objection to providing this much needed relief.
  Some of my colleagues have suggested that the bill before us is not 
the appropriate bill to serve as a vehicle for this tax relief. In 
fact, the only objections I can find to this amendment are based on 
procedure, and not about the merits of the issue.
  I understand the concerns raised about procedure, but I would urge my 
colleagues to consider the injustice of this marriage penalty tax, and 
join me and the other sponsors of this amendment to eliminate this 
unfair burden. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table 
the Brownback-Faircloth amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________