[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9173-S9181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 3359
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered by
Senator Brownback. I appreciate the work he and others have done. I
agree with the premise of this amendment.
We need to provide much needed marriage penalty relief to American
families. We all know how unfair the marriage penalty is. We have heard
from our constituents. We see how it cuts into the family budget. We
realize that it must be changed. Our laws should not penalize married
couples and their families.
Over the years, I have been a forceful advocate for marriage penalty
relief. In fact, during the recent consideration of the tobacco bill, I
cosponsored an amendment that would have provided such relief. I have
also stated many times that marriage penalty relief should be included
in any package of tax cuts. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I
remain committed to that position.
As we look to real and meaningful tax reform, we will take care of
the marriage penalty. This will be one of our top priorities. But
addressing this important issue must be done at the proper time and in
the proper way. This is not the time, nor is this appropriations bill
the appropriate vehicle to proceed with this amendment. This is a tax
issue. It does not belong on this appropriations bill. It did not come
through the committee of jurisdiction. That committee is the Finance
Committee.
I know many of my colleagues agree with me when it comes to the
marriage penalty. They are seeking an opportunity, as I am, to address
it and find a remedy as quickly as we can. This will be our objective
in the future. We intend to take care of this in the right way. I ask
our colleagues outside the committee to support it.
Adoption of this amendment at this time would not only disrupt the
proper order of things and result in the loss of appropriate and
constructive debate within the Finance Committee, but, equally
important, it would subject the entire Treasury-Postal appropriations
bill to a blue slip from the House of Representatives. Revenue measures
must originate in the House. If not, any Member--I emphasize ``any
Member''--of the House can raise an objection. The result would be that
this appropriations bill dies. And that is not in anyone's interest.
While I completely agree with the objective and necessity of this
amendment, while I remain a staunch ally of those who seek to provide
marriage penalty relief, I cannot vote for this amendment.
I ask my colleagues to vote with me. Allow the Finance Committee and
the Senate to address this important issue in a way that is correct and
will bring real and lasting tax relief to married couples and families.
Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Texas
wants to address this matter.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, before the Senator would make any
motion, I would like to be able to speak for a few minutes on the
amendment. I didn't want to be shut out.
If that is the Senator's intention, I would just ask if he would
allow me at the appropriate time----
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Delaware, because I wanted to be able to speak on this matter. I have
just come from a committee markup. But the bill that is on the floor as
an amendment is actually a bill that Senator Faircloth and I
introduced.
I am very pleased that Senator Brownback and Senator Ashcroft and
others have pursued this, because I think it is at the core of what we
should be doing in this Congress; that is, to try to give people back
the money they worked so hard to earn.
[[Page S9174]]
It is so important that we address the issue of the couple from
Houston whom I met recently. He is a police officer. He makes $33,500 a
year. She is a teacher in the Pasadena Independent School District. She
earns $28,200 per year. They were married and immediately had to pay an
increased tax of over $1,000.
Mr. President, this is a young couple who just got married who want
to begin to save to purchase a new home, and they are hit with a $1,000
penalty because they got married.
This is of the utmost importance. It is an issue that we must address
this year.
I appreciate that the Senator from Delaware, who is the chairman of
the Finance Committee, has said if we have tax cuts, this will be the
first priority. I know he agrees with us on the merits. He may disagree
on process or on whether we use this bill as a vehicle. That is
understandable. But in the end, Mr. President, it is very important
that we speak for the working young people of our country to make sure
they get a fair shake when it comes to taxes.
Twenty-one million couples are paying a penalty because they are in
that middle-income level, and when they get married, they get assessed
an average of $1,400 a year more. Simply because they wanted to get
married and raise a family, they are penalized by the U.S. Government.
We must correct this inequity. That is what our bill, the Faircloth-
Hutchison bill does. That is what Senator Brownback and Senator
Ashcroft are trying to do with this amendment. We are together on this.
If this isn't the right process, if this isn't the right time, let's
find the right time. Let's commit to the right time, because we must
correct this inequity. I hope the Senate will speak very firmly that
this is our priority.
I want to address one last issue, and that is Social Security.
Do we have to compete between tax cuts and Social Security?
Absolutely not. In fact, I think many of us are going to support all of
the surplus of the Social Security system going into saving Social
Security. That is our first priority. We are going to have a budget
surplus that is separate and apart from the surplus in Social Security.
We are saying that the surplus should go to tax cuts, because those of
us who have been around here for a few years have begun to see that if
there is any excess revenue in this budget, all of a sudden we get very
creative about how to spend taxpayer dollars. We must remember, the
money does not belong to us, it belongs to the people who work so hard
to earn it. And it must be returned to them before somebody gets very
creative with some new program that would take the money from the
families who earn it. That is the issue.
Let's set aside the surplus from Social Security. And let's start the
process of saving Social Security and making it even better, which I
think we are going to be able to do in a bipartisan way in this Senate.
But let's also take the surplus from the revenue that is coming in and
give it back to the people who earn it--the people to whom it makes a
big difference. If they have that $1,400, that is six or seven car
payments, several payments on a student loan or maybe the couple is
saving for their first home. We can help them with those expenses, and
we should.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from
Delaware for allowing me to make those points.
I hope we will do the right thing. I hope we will make this our
highest priority in this Congress, along with saving Social Security.
We can do both.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also would like to rise and join Senators
Brownback and Ashcroft in offering an amendment to correct the
injustices of the marriage penalty. I want to take a few minutes to
speak on behalf of that. It is vitally important, I believe, that
Congress pass this amendment, and as quickly as possible.
I also would like to note that Senator Helms of North Carolina would
like to be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. President, we have debated this issue now for quite some time. It
is clear to me that this is noncontroversial and should have support
from all Members of this body.
Everyone in this debate agree that the family has been and will
continue to be the bedrock of American society. We all agree strong
families make strong communities; strong communities make for a strong
America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax treats married
couples unfairly. Even President Clinton agrees that the marriage
penalty is unfair.
But still Washington refuses to get rid of this bad tax policy that
discourages marriage--the most basic institution of our society.
As a result, millions of married couples will be forced to pay more
taxes simply for choosing to commit to a family through marriage.
A 1997 study by the Congressional Budget Office, entitled ``For
Better or Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income Tax,'' estimated 21
million couples, or 42 percent of couples incurred marriage penalties
in 1996. This means 42 million individuals pay $1,400 more in taxes
than if they are divorced, or living together.
But marriage penalties can run much higher than that. Under the
current tax law, a married couple could face a Federal tax bill that is
more than $20,000 higher than the amount they would pay if they were
not married.
Again this is extremely unfair. This was not the intention of
Congress when it created the marriage penalty tax in the 1960s by
separating tax schedules for married and unmarried people.
The marriage penalty is most unfair to married couples who are both
working. It discriminates against low-income families and is biased
against working women.
The trends show that more couples under age 55 are working, and the
earnings between husbands and wives are more evenly divided since 1969.
As a result, more and more couples have received, and will continue to
receive, marriage penalties and while fewer couples receive bonuses.
The marriage penalty creates a second-earner bias against married
women under the federal tax system. The bias occurs because the income
of the secondary earner is stacked on top of the primary earner's
income.
As a result, the secondary earner's income may be taxed at a
relatively higher marginal tax rate. Married women are often the
victims of the second earner bias.
During the 1970's and 1980's, as more and more women went to work,
their added incomes drove their households into higher tax brackets.
Today, women who return to the work force after raising their kids face
a tax rate as high as 50 percent.
The CBO study also found ``small but statistically significant
effects of marriage penalties in reducing the likelihood of marriage
for women.''
Mr. President, what this finding means is that the marriage penalty
tax has discouraged women from marriage.
This is shameful. This is a direct insult to our most basic and most
stable institutions. We must put an end to it.
American families today are taxed at the highest levels since World
War II, with nearly 40 percent of a typical family's budget going to
pay taxes on the Federal, State, and local level. They deserve a tax
break. Last year's tax relief was too little and too late. More
meaningful tax relief must be provided.
In the next 5 years, the Federal Government will take $9.6 trillion
from the pockets of working Americans. The revenue windfall will
generate a huge budget surplus. This surplus comes directly from taxes
paid by the American people. It is only fair to return it to the
taxpayers.
Repealing the marriage penalty will allow American Families to keep
$1,400 more each year of their own money to pay for health insurance,
groceries, child care, or other family necessities.
Mr. President, some argue that repealing the marriage penalty will
only benefit the affluent. This is completely false. The fact is, the
elimination of the injustice of the marriage penalty will primarily
benefit minority, low- and middle-class families. Data suggests the
marriage penalty hits African-Americans and lower income working
families hardest.
According to the CBO, couples at the bottom end of the income scale
who incur penalties paid an average of nearly $800 in additional taxes,
which represented 8 percent of their income.
[[Page S9175]]
Eight percent, Mr. President. Repeal the penalty, and those low-income
families will immediately have an 8 percent increase in their income or
an 8 percent cut in their taxes.
Some also argue that repealing the marriage penalty would affect
families receiving marriage bonuses. This is not true either. Although
there are couples who receive marriage bonuses, this doesn't justify
the Federal Government penalizing another 21 million couples just for
being married.
We should give more bonuses to all American families in the form of
tax relief, whether both spouses or only one of them are working.
In closing, I must point out that this amendment takes the approach
of income splitting to repeal the marriage penalty. Married couples
would be allowed to split their income down the middle, regardless of
who earned it, and be taxed at the lower rate. This would protect
working couples without punishing women who remain at home.
In his book ``The Decline (And Fall?) of the Income Tax,'' Michael
Graetz, former Treasury Department tax whiz, writes ``A tax system
can't survive when it departs from the fundamental values of the people
it taxes''. I couldn't agree with him more.
Mr. President, it is unfair and immoral to continue the marriage
penalty tax. Today, let us just get rid of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in very strong
support of the marriage penalty amendment. I am pleased to be a
cosponsor of the amendment. I want to say, under our current tax
system, getting married increases your taxes. That does not make a lot
of sense.
The typical family pays more than $100 per month in extra taxes
because of the marriage penalty. I have looked at this matter for years
and never understood the rhyme or reason for the policy in the first
place. Why on Earth such legislation would ever pass the U.S. Congress
is mind-boggling. I guess there are some out there who think the
institution of marriage has no special importance.
Even if there are those people who feel that way, it would be hard
not to acknowledge that taxing people simply because they got married
is discriminatory, pure and simple, no matter how you feel about
marriage. Why should you be discriminated against in the Tax Code
because you get married?
Let's not overlook the importance of marriage and the family to our
country's success. Children do best when they are raised by two happily
married parents. We have some in the liberal establishment who would
probably take issue with that as well, but I believe that is the case.
I think the statistics speak for themselves. Study after study
indicates that children raised in such families are more successful in
school, are less likely to commit crime, do drugs, or bear illegitimate
children. They do better in the workplace when they get out of school.
They do better and they are more likely to stay married as adults if
they have that kind of family unit to learn from.
So, imposing a tax penalty on marriage is probably one of the most
antichild and antifamily policies that we could have. Often, those
hardest hit by the marriage tax are those young married couples who are
just trying to get started. We hear all the time from our
constituents--I know I do--about this. Here is a letter from a young
man in Salem, NH. I am not going to have the letter printed in the
Record, just for the purpose of protecting the individual's privacy,
but let me quote from that letter:
You see, Senator, my wife and I are both working very hard
to make a decent life for ourselves and our future children,
if we can ever afford to have them. Unfortunately, we made a
tactical error some 15 months ago. We decided that we loved
each other enough to get married, and now I realize that
before making such a decision, I should have consulted the
Tax Code to see what the incremental tax liabilities would
be. In 1997, our tax liability was approximately $1,100 more
than it would have been had we simply decided to live
together out of wedlock.
That is a very powerful statement from a young couple who love each
other, who got married, and then paid a penalty in the Tax Code for
doing that.
There is one other letter from a constituent in Lee, NH.
My husband and I got married this past August. He is a
police officer and I started a new job as a project engineer
for a large plastics manufacturer. We purchased our first
home together in September, thinking we would get taxed on
our savings for a home. We thought we were establishing
ourselves quite well as a young married couple. It was to our
surprise that when we met with our CPA we found out that
there was a couple of thousand dollars tax penalty just for
being married, which has cost us $2,700. This, of course,
increased the amount of money that we owed to the IRS. We
both expected to owe taxes, a small amount, due to the fact
that we are a double income family without children as yet.
However, the last thing we expected to be taxed on was our
marriage. This has placed a very large burden on my husband
and me and since it wasn't in our budget it is affecting our
home security.
In our country, I think that one of the last things we need
to penalize is marriage. We have enough divorcees, deadbeat
parents, and abusive families to worry about. Does it really
make sense to attack the families that do not fall into these
categories? I understand the money has to come from
somewhere, but families like ours also have to control our
expenses. Why can't the Government bring in funds without
this tax penalty and control its expenses?
Mr. President, these constituents are very perceptive. I agree with
them. There is no excuse for withholding tax relief from American
families. I agree with them. There is no better place to start cutting
taxes than the marriage penalty. There is no excuse for maintaining a
tax policy that undermines children and marriage.
This amendment, which would allow a husband and a wife to each claim
half of their joint incomes and be taxed in the lower brackets that
apply, will send a very clear message to the American people from this
Congress that marriage is a valued institution, that we want to
encourage it, not discourage it, and that we ought not to be penalized
in the Tax Code for being married. We want to adopt a policy that does
not discriminate against marriage by effectively eliminating this
marriage penalty.
New CBO projections call for Federal budget surpluses exceeding $500
billion over the next 5 years. Thus, the full elimination of the
marriage penalty would equal less than one-third of the projected
budget surplus. This surplus gives us the opportunity to have a
positive impact upon millions of American families, hard-working
American families who are trying to do the right thing to raise their
children in the right way and send a message saying that marriage is
important to our culture.
This amendment is long overdue--long overdue--and I agree with the
Senator from Missouri that the business of Government is to create an
environment in which the family can flourish, and we need to encourage
institutions like the family. The more we encourage the family, the
less need we are going to have for Government to step in. Maybe that is
the reason why we had the marriage penalty in the first place.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. There
will be all kinds of reasons given why we shouldn't, but I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to eliminate the penalty that the
Tax Code imposes on the American family. I yield the floor, Mr.
President.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join with my
colleagues from Missouri and Kansas in their amendment to eliminate the
marriage penalty. There has been a growing level of frustration amongst
most of us in the Senate and, I am sure, our colleagues on the other
side of the Rotunda, as the Congressional Budget Office and others
predict and justify by their analysis higher and higher budget
surpluses, as to what we will do with this revenue. As most of my
colleagues know, I, amongst others, have fought for decades to bring
about a balanced budget knowing that from that budget we would have
opportunities to significantly change the way our Government does
business, but most importantly, the way our Government impacts the
lives of American citizens in the form of rules and regulations and
laws, because balanced budgets limit Government, but most importantly,
as a result of the kind of impact the Federal Government, through its
taxing policies, have on wage earners' ability to
[[Page S9176]]
earn and to spend their money for themselves, for their families, for
their children.
Over the course of creating tax policy the last good number of
decades, one of the great tragedies that I think the public recognizes
is that Congress can use tax policy as a form of social engineering.
You can cause the public to move their moneys in one direction or
another by the way you tax them. You can also cause the public or
individuals to act differently.
There was a recent article in a newspaper, a national wire story just
this past week. More couples are living together without being married
than ever in the history of our country. They cited a lot of reasons.
One of the reasons they didn't cite was tax policy. But in talking with
citizens of my State and couples who have chosen to live together
without marriage, the marriage penalty is clearly one of those issues.
Tragically enough, that is either by intent or by mistake, but the
reality is clear: Tax policy driven by this Congress and by the
American Government has caused a lifestyle change in our country, a
change in the forming of the family unit that many of my colleagues
today have said, and rightfully spoken to, as being the foundation of
our society, the strength of our communities and, therefore, the
strength of our country.
Tax policy should not do that, and here we are in an opportune time,
an opportunity that we have never had in the years I have spent here,
to make these kinds of changes, and we ought to do it.
I must also tell you that with the projected surplus over the next 5
years of $500 billion plus, there are a lot of other things we can do.
For future generations, we ought to fix the Social Security system. Fix
it, I mean by not making it a chain letter, by not creating a
tremendous precipice of problems as it relates to the year 2018 or
whenever the spiking of the baby boomers arrives and those necessary
checks must go out to our citizens. We ought to fix it now.
On that issue--I don't often side with this President--but I think he
is right. We ought to use this opportunity to stabilize and change and
adjust the Social Security system.
By offering this amendment today, what my colleagues are not saying
is don't fix Social Security. They are saying we have an opportunity to
address a nagging problem inside the tax structure of this country,
while at the same time we ought to deal with Social Security. I hope
the House and the Senate, before we adjourn this fall, speak very
clearly to these issues. The public deserves a tax cut. When you have a
surplus that you have collected from the American taxpayer, you ought
to give it back, or at least you ought to give a substantial portion of
it back.
Polling shows that the American public also expects us to pay off the
debt, and one of the ways you pay off the debt or you eliminate a major
portion of the debt structure of this country is by dealing with Social
Security, because the debt is, in fact, the money that we have borrowed
from the Social Security trust funds by the character of the unified
budget under which we finance the activities of our Government.
I am going to support Senator Ashcroft and Senator Brownback today in
their effort. We must deal with this. It is timely that we deal with it
now, and I think it is important that the Senate express itself with
this opportunity. The marriage penalty is a major first step in
addressing what needs to be significant tax reform in this country that
I hope can come in the 106th Congress that will convene in January of
next year.
I applaud my colleagues today for bringing this issue to the floor
for debate and for a vote, and I hope the Senate will concur with them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this morning we will vote on an
amendment that brings to light a particularly glaring injustice of the
Federal Tax Code, and that is the marriage tax penalty.
In recent months, the Senate has debated this issue more than once. I
think these efforts are significant. I congratulate Senators Brownback
and Ashcroft for offering this amendment and also the many other
Members who have championed the elimination of the marriage tax
penalty.
Let me also say this: The U.S. Senate should not rest until we are
able to eliminate this counterproductive, unfair, and regressive
policy. I will continue to support amendments to end the marriage tax
penalty until we are successful.
I ask myself one fundamental question before I make up my mind on any
issue we deal with on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That is: Does this
policy make sense for the American people?
Let us apply this question to our current Federal Tax Code, which
quite simply penalizes a working couple for getting married. Should
folks pay more tax because they are married? Absolutely not.
The marriage tax penalty raises revenue for the Government but it is
poor public policy. It most often raises taxes on lower- and middle-
income families who claim the standard deduction. That is wrong. We
must strengthen the bonds of family to strengthen the fabric of our
society.
Before 1969, marriages were treated by the Federal Tax Code like
partnerships--allowing husbands and wives to split their incomes
evenly. In 1969, the practice of income splitting was ended. By doing
this, the Government did nothing less than penalize American couples
for marrying.
Since that time, with the Nation's progressive tax rates, tax laws
have meant that working married couples are forced to pay significantly
more money in taxes than they would if they were both single.
Currently, 42 percent of married couples suffer because of the marriage
tax penalty.
Let me provide an example. A single person earning $24,000 per year
is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. If two people, each earning $24,000,
get married, the IRS, by taxing them on their combined income, taxes
them in the 28-percent bracket.
This amendment will phase out the marriage tax penalty by allowing
married couples to file a combined return. By doing this, each spouse
is taxed using the rates applicable to unmarried individuals so that
one spouse's lesser income does not push a couple's combined income
into a higher tax bracket.
Some might argue that it is the job of the Federal Government to
promote good behavior; others might disagree. But I think that we could
all agree on one issue: The Federal Government should not be penalizing
marriages, a sacrosanct institution and the bedrock of our social
structure. It is time for the Federal Government to end this injustice
to the American family. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
How many times have we heard, Mr. President, statements by Senators
on the floor of this institution talking about family values--family,
the fabric of this society? Yet, here we have tax policy that penalizes
families. It is time to end the injustice. Again, I support Senator
Brownback and Senator Ashcroft and the leadership on this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am in the contradictory position of
agreeing in substance with this amendment. There is no question in my
mind that it is wrong to penalize married couples who pay more taxes
than if they were single. As I have said, it is a matter that must be
corrected. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I shall work mightily
to see that this is accomplished.
But the fact is that this is a revenue measure. If this amendment is
adopted, it subjects the entire Treasury-Postal appropriations to a
blue slip from the House of Representatives. Under our Constitution,
revenue measures must originate in the House. If not, any Member--and,
again, I emphasize any Member--of the House can raise an objection. The
result would be that this appropriations bill dies. I do not think that
is in anyone's interest. For that reason, I move to table the
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
[[Page S9177]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
motion to table the Brownback amendment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Snowe
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--51
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Helms
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3359) was rejected.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is the amendment that I put
forward----
Mr. GRAMM. May we have order, Mr. President, so we can hear the
Senator from Kansas?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Amendment No. 3359, Withdrawn
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly everybody's
support of the notion that we should do away with the marriage penalty.
It is the appropriate signal, and it is the appropriate thing for us to
say to the American public. It is the appropriate sort of tax cut that
we can certainly pay for it at the present time. I am particularly
appreciative of the leadership's support and Senator Lott's commitment
to provide that sort of working relief to American taxpayers.
I am withdrawing my amendment because the Constitution does not allow
tax-cutting legislation to originate in the Senate. This vote, however,
sends a strong message to the House that we want to eliminate the
marriage penalty. And that is what we hope to be able to get done yet
this session of Congress.
I would like to yield to one of the cosponsors of this amendment, the
Senator from Missouri, for comments as well.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kansas for
his outstanding work on this issue. I believe that it is simply wrong
for America to launch through the tax system an assault on one of the
major principles of our culture--enduring, lasting marriages. But I
concur with his judgment that this would subject this bill to what is
known as a blue slip in the House and could disrupt the business that
we ought to be conducting. I commend him for withdrawing the amendment.
I thank him for the excellent work that he has done.
I think this vote is a clear signal that this body understands this
assault on the values of America, known as the marriage penalty, does
not belong in the policy of this country.
I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank those who supported this
particular effort and hope that we will have an opportunity to rally as
public servants to eliminate this scar on the body politic whereby we
wound the primary institution of stability in our culture, the family,
by penalizing marriages. It is time for us to stop that. I believe we
can and will, and this vote demonstrates it.
I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the request of the Senator from Kansas, the
amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 3359) was withdrawn
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't want anyone to misinterpret the
vote just taken. Obviously, there are a lot of motivations in offering
amendments like this on the appropriations bill. As the Senator from
Missouri just noted, this legislation would have been blue-slipped had
it gone over to the House. I appreciate the actions just taken in
withdrawing the amendment.
So that there will be no doubt, we will be offering a similar
marriage penalty amendment this afternoon--a marriage penalty amendment
that will be paid for, that will be targeted, that will offer a far
greater opportunity to address the real issue without using the Social
Security surplus.
The previous amendment would have, without question, used Social
Security to pay for it's tax benefits. One hundred billion dollars over
the next 5 years out of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus is
something most Democrats are unprepared to support. We don't have to
use the Social Security trust fund. We don't have to use the surplus.
We don't have to use a broad-based, completely untargeted approach to
marriage penalty relief.
So we will have another opportunity this afternoon to vote on the
marriage penalty in a reasonable and a direct and a far more
responsible way. And I look forward to that debate as well.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield
for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I am trying to understand the difference. We voted on a
tabling motion. We went actually to a recorded vote on a tabling motion
on this amendment. Then, immediately after the tabling motion failed,
the author of the amendment said he was going to withdraw it because
apparently it would be blue-slipped and, therefore, inappropriate, and,
second, violates the Budget Act.
What is the difference between voting to table and then being the
author and deciding it violates the Budget Act and it is also a blue-
slip problem, and therefore I am going to withdraw it? Is there any
distinction between a vote to table and a decision by the author to
withdraw, in the Senator's opinion?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota raises a good question. I
don't know what motivation there may have been to simply put the Senate
on record one more time. As everyone recalls, we had this debate on the
tobacco bill. We had two versions of the marriage penalty proposed--the
Democratic version and the Republican version. There are some very
considerable differences. But, voting against the tabling motion and
then withdrawing it seems somewhat of a convoluted approach to
legislating. I am unclear as to what the motivation may have been.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly, I will yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. I am glad the Senator reminded us that we had this
morning penalty issues on the tobacco bill. The Senators who voted to
table that tobacco bill had actually voted to table the marriage
penalty then, did they not?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is correct. There was a motion
to table the amendment at that time. They voted to do so at that time.
Obviously, they will probably be voting again this afternoon to table a
marriage penalty vote that we will be offering.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But, clearly, I
think there
[[Page S9178]]
was a political motivation as much as a substantive motivation on the
part of our Republican colleagues. That was evidenced in the tobacco
bill debate, and it will be evidenced again today.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. For those of us who want to make certain the surplus is
used first to guarantee the longevity and solvency of the Social
Security trust fund, are we going to have an opportunity with the
amendment that the Senator is going to offer to support tax reform
consistent with that goal of protecting Social Security first?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. We
don't have to use Social Security trust funds. We don't have to use the
surplus to pay for a marriage penalty amendment. We can find an
appropriate offset and delineate that offset, which is what I think is
the responsible thing to do. There was no delineation of an offset in
the previous amendment, so one has to assume that the Republican
amendment was, again, more of a demonstration of rhetoric than genuine
effort to provide responsibly-funded tax relief. The rhetoric we get
from our colleagues on the other side that they will not use the Social
Security trust funds. The facts are otherwise. For example, in this
amendment, $100 billion in Social Security trust funds were likely to
be used.
There is a difference between our approaches to fiscal
responsibility, protecting Social Security, and providing tax relief. I
think that ought to be made clear in the Record. We will have an
opportunity once more to debate that this afternoon.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one additional
question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I inquire of the Senator from South Dakota, the
representation was made by the author of the amendment, after the vote,
``We now have some expression of who in the Senate wants to abolish the
marriage tax penalty.'' We have had other votes on that constructed in
different ways, constructed in ways that don't use the Social Security
trust funds in order to provide this kind of tax relief. But, could one
also not make the point that those who voted against tabling were
casting a vote to violate the Budget Act? If, in fact, the amendment as
offered violated the Budget Act, could one not construe a vote in
opposition to tabling to say, by those who cast that vote, we would
like to violate the Budget Act here? I mean, there are all kinds of
motives, I suppose. I don't want to ascribe motives to anyone. But it
seems to me, to have a tabling vote here on the floor of the Senate and
then decide by that tabling vote who cares or does not care about the
marriage tax penalty, and then withdraw the amendment and then stand up
and say, ``Now we know who cares and doesn't care,'' it seems to me you
could also put different interpretations on that same vote. Perhaps the
people who decided they didn't care whether it violated the Budget Act
cast a vote to say we didn't care about the Budget Act. Would that be a
fair construction?
Mr. DASCHLE. I think it is a fair construction. I give great credit
to the chairman of the Finance Committee for making that point. The
chairman of the Finance Committee did the responsible thing and was
certainly showing, once again, his leadership in this regard in making
sure everyone understood this is not a tax bill. This is an
appropriations bill. There is a time to address taxes. There is a time
to address spending through appropriations. The chairman of the Finance
Committee drew that distinction, as did most of us.
So, again, we will have another opportunity to discuss this matter,
but I simply wanted at this point in the Record to be sure everyone
understood what motivations there may have been for those of us who
feel we ought to take a more responsible view with regard to the
marriage penalty itself.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to explain
to my colleagues what the issue was just about. I appreciate the
opportunity, as well, to be able to address the question of motivation.
Make no mistake about the motivation here. Our motivation is to
eliminate the marriage penalty tax. That is pure and simple. That is
what we have been saying for the last couple of hours. It is to
eliminate the marriage penalty tax.
We wanted to have this debate at this point in time and juncture
because there are less than 30 legislative days until we finish up.
Signals that have been coming out haven't been much about tax cuts.
They have been mostly about spending. We wanted to send a very clear
signal we are for cutting taxes, and in particular, first and foremost,
the marriage penalty tax.
We needed to have some way to be able to have that debate. We spent a
lot of time here on the Senate floor--we spent 4 weeks on a tobacco
bill. We spent a lot of time on a lot of other issues. We have not
spent much time on tax cuts. We are limited on the number of things we
can talk about, and the vehicles we can talk about them on. This was
one we could, and we decided it is getting to the end of this session,
we have to start talking about tax cuts. We have to start talking about
families. This is one of the things that we can talk about, the
marriage penalty tax.
Anybody looking at the Constitution can say, ``Wait a minute; this
has to originate in the House.'' And it does. Then there is a blue slip
procedure in the House, which exists. We are soon to be going out for
the August break, and we wanted to be able to say to our colleagues in
the House: There is support for marriage penalty tax elimination. We
wanted to get that debate started and moving on forward and to say that
to them. That is what this debate was about. That is what the vote was
for. That is what our motivation is. If anybody is questioning that, we
have been standing here for 2 or 3 hours saying that is what we want to
do.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us,
when it comes back from the House, to eliminate the marriage penalty
tax. It is a ridiculous tax. I hope most of them would stand up and
vote with us at that point in time. If they want to change their vote
this time, maybe we can try it again here later on, to send that
stronger signal to the House that the Democrat side supports this as
well. That is what we are about and that is what we are trying to get
through.
I think we spent plenty of time debating that and making that point
clear. So if there is a question about motivation, that is what it is
about. It is eliminating that marriage tax penalty and sending that
signal back over to the House.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Kansas makes a fair point. I think he
makes his point with some credibility on the issue of the marriage tax
penalty. I understand that. I think most people find most Members of
the Senate agree with him. When, in the Tax Code, you have a penalty
with respect to the income tax for certain married couples, we ought to
do something to address that. I just observed, however, that the
Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Missouri offered an amendment
that addresses it and then withdrew the amendment because it apparently
violates the Budget Act and would be blue-slipped in any event because
a revenue measure of this type must be advanced first in the House of
Representatives by the Ways and Means Committee.
The reason I stood, following the vote on tabling this amendment, was
I did not want this to be interpreted as the Senator from Kansas was
interpreting it, that this tabling motion was a description of who in
the Senate cares about the marriage tax penalty. I think there are many
Members of the Senate who agree with the Senator that the marriage tax
penalty ought to be eliminated. It ought to be eliminated. We ought to
find a way to do that. We ought to find the right way to do that.
The question is, When you eliminate the marriage tax penalty, as the
Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee indicated,
[[Page S9179]]
where do you make up the revenue? Exactly how do you construct
something that makes up the revenue you lose when you eliminate the
marriage tax penalty? I think it is a worthy effort for this Congress
and future Congresses to embark upon. But as we have discussed before,
the proposition that was offered this morning would lose a substantial
amount of revenue we now have. The proposal did not offer methods by
which that would be made up. I think we have to do that. That is
precisely why it violated the Budget Act.
I have heard a great deal of debate by a number of Senators here on
the floor--the Senator from Kansas, from Missouri, and others. As the
Senator knows, there have been other proposals to address the marriage
tax penalty on the floor of the Senate that have also gotten a number
of votes, and I have voted for addressing that issue, because I think
it is a worthy issue to address.
So I just thought it was curious that we had a proposal that I think
costs over $100 billion or so that had a blue slip problem and a
problem of violating the Budget Act, that we debate it and then we have
a tabling motion, and we allow people to vote not to table it, and then
stand up and say those who voted not to table it care about dealing
with the marriage penalty and, by inference, those who voted to table
it do not care. Then the vote is over and it is not tabled, it is still
prevailing here in the Senate, still pending as the Senate business,
and then it is withdrawn precisely because it has the problems those
who voted to table it allege that it had.
I just want to make the point, you will find support and we will find
support, I think, when you and a number of us together address the
marriage tax penalty in a thoughtful way and in a way that does not
bust the Budget Act and does not create a blue slip and does not
propose solutions for which there are not revenues in order to make up
the shortfall.
I appreciate the attention of the Senator from Kansas and the Senator
from Missouri. Let me end by saying, again, it is a worthy subject for
the Senate to consider, but we cannot consider it in ways that violate
the Budget Act.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank
the Senator from North Dakota. This is a matter that deserves our
attention. It is an affront to the very institution that is most
critical to the future of America. Some might say since this is not
going to be included in a part of this bill because of the problems of
originating such a measure in the Senate, that perhaps this was an
endeavor which lacked merit.
I really think it is important for us to keep the pressure on in this
arena. It is important for a very simple reason, and that is that there
are proposals to spend, spend, spend constantly. They are insistent.
They always have the support of the bureaucracy. They would fund a
bigger and bigger Government, more bloated and more bloated. It is
essential that we elevate into the consciousness of this body and to
the consciousness of the American public that there are very important
places in which we ought to provide relief to American families,
particularly as it relates to the marriage penalty, which is an attack
by our Government on a central value of our culture, that value of
marriage.
You had but to look at this year and to see what it has contained. We
started the year in January with some suggestion we were going to have
additional revenues. The President came out virtually every day in
January while we were preparing to come into session with what I call
the ``program du jour.'' It was like going to the diner and having the
special. Every day there was a new program to expand spending, to
enlarge the consumption of Government, and implicitly, to contract the
ability of people to spend the money that they earned as families.
For those people who believe the success of America in the next
generation is going to be based on Government, then that is, I think, a
good strategy. But for those of us who believe the real success of
America is not going to be based on Government programs, but is going
to be based on whether or not we have solid families, then I think a
strategy should exist to bring attention to the fact that we are
penalizing, at the rate of $29 billion a year, people simply for being
married. Some people think, ``We need to be spending this money in
Government.''
Frankly, we ought to ask ourselves, do we think we are going to do
more to foster the No. 1 institution in American culture, the family,
by taking money from them and spending it in the bureaucracy, or
letting those families spend the money on their own families in order
to do what they need to do and to provide for a strong America.
This isn't a question about whether moneys are going to be spent or
not. This is a question about whether people are going to spend money
on their families or the bureaucracy is going to spend money on
Government. Which do we believe builds a stronger America?
Frankly, the number of spending proposals that we are the recipient
of continues to skyrocket. I have to say that the rules of this
organization, the rules of the Senate, the rules of the Congress favor
spending. It is hard to get something through to give money back to the
people, and it should not be. But for so long, we have been so
prejudiced toward taking money, and it has finally gotten to a point
that is unacceptable. We are at the highest overall tax rate in
Government in American history right now. It is time for us to say no
more, especially as it relates to an assault on the American family.
It is true this measure has been withdrawn because it is awkward and
not in accordance with the rules as relates to this measure, but it is
time for us to begin to elevate this and to say, ``Wait, we have to
stop this insistent consumption by the Government that keeps us from
being able to spend our own resources as families.''
I thank the Senator from Kansas for an outstanding job. I was pleased
to march shoulder to shoulder with him in this effort. I, frankly,
welcome people from both sides of the aisle who feel keenly about this.
We do need relief for American families, I don't think there is any
question about it. I am delighted that some are expressing that and
will continue to do so.
I have been delighted at every turn of the debate when individuals
have understood that the future of America is far more likely to be
guaranteed and ensured by strong families than it is by big Government.
It is time for us to reflect that in our tax policy.
I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I look forward to working with
him toward the realization of this goal of declaring peace on America's
families. For too long, we have made war with our tax policy on
America's families. I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we are only going to be another 10
minutes or so, and there are several Senators who want to make
unanimous consent requests.
Since we only have a few minutes, and I hate to burden the two
Senators who are waiting, I will wait and send the remainder of the
amendments to the desk after the break. I yield the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 3362
(Purpose: To require Federal agencies to assess the impact of policies
and regulations on families, and for other purposes)
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coverdell and
Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 3362.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. __. ASSESSMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON
FAMILIES.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) require agencies to assess the impact of proposed
agency actions on family well-being; and
[[Page S9180]]
(2) improve the management of executive branch agencies.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term
``Executive agency'' by section 105 of title 5, United States
Code, except such term does not include the General
Accounting Office; and
(2) the term ``family'' means--
(A) a group of individuals related by blood, marriage, or
adoption who live together as a single household; and
(B) any individual who is not a member of such group, but
who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to a member of
such group, and over half of whose support in a calendar year
is received from such group.
(c) Family Policymaking Assessment.--Before implementing
policies and regulations that may affect family well-being,
each agency shall assess such actions with respect to
whether--
(1) the action strengthens or erodes the stability of the
family and, particularly, the marital commitment;
(2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision
of their children;
(3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function;
(4) the action increases or decreases disposable family
income;
(5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the
financial impact on the family;
(6) the action may be carried out by State or local
government or by the family; and
(7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy
concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
(d) Governmentwide Family Policy Coordination and Review.--
(1) Certification and rationale.--With respect to each
proposed policy or regulation that may affect family well-
being, the head of each agency shall--
(A) submit a written certification to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and to Congress that such
policy or regulation has been assessed in accordance with
this section; and
(B) provide an adequate rationale for implementation of
each policy or regulation that may negatively affect family
well-being.
(2) Office of management and budget.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall--
(A) ensure that policies and regulations proposed by
agencies are implemented consistent with this section; and
(B) compile, index, and submit annually to the Congress the
written certifications received pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Office of policy development.--The Office of Policy
Development shall--
(A) assess proposed policies and regulations in accordance
with this section;
(B) provide evaluations of policies and regulations that
may affect family well-being to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and
(C) advise the President on policy and regulatory actions
that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage
and family in the United States.
(e) Assessments Upon Request by Members of Congress.--Upon
request by a Member of Congress relating to a proposed policy
or regulation, an agency shall conduct an assessment in
accordance with subsection (c), and shall provide a
certification and rationale in accordance with subsection
(d).
(f) Judicial Review.--This section is not intended to
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its
agencies, its officers, or any person.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of the hour, I will only speak
briefly about this amendment now and then move to set it aside so the
Senator from Delaware can speak, and then we can return to this
sometime later today.
This is an amendment, obviously, to the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill. This amendment, essentially, accomplishes a very
specific purpose: to reinstate an Executive order which was in effect
for over 10 years intended to ``ensure that the autonomy and rights of
the family are considered in the formulation and implementation of
policies by Executive departments and agencies.''
I am offering the Family Impact Statement Act as a relevant amendment
to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill because it is this bill
which funds the agency which will oversee its implementation and
enforcement; namely, the Office of Management and Budget.
I believe that today, in an era during which observers and social
scientists from all parts of the political spectrum have come to
realize the profound importance of the family on character development,
we should be doing everything we can to protect the health, security
and autonomy of the American family.
This belief lay behind President Ronald Reagan's signing of the
family impact Executive order in 1987. In my view, President Clinton
made a mistake last April when he revoked this order as part of an
Executive order on environmental policy. Now I believe, more than ever,
we need to make our bureaucracy more supportive and respectful of
families' interests. I believe my colleagues will have no trouble
giving their enthusiastic support to this amendment.
Simply put, this amendment will require Federal agencies to assess
the impacts of their policies and regulations on America's families. It
provides that each agency assess policies and regulations that may
affect family well-being.
This assessment will aim to determine:
One, whether the action strengthens or erodes the stability of the
family and particularly the marital commitment;
Two, whether the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurturing and supervision of their
children;
Three, whether the act helps the family perform its function or
substitute governmental activity for that function;
Four, whether the action increases or decreases disposable family
income;
Five, whether the benefits of the proposed action will justify its
financial impact on the family;
Six, whether the governmental action may be carried out by State or
local government or by the family itself;
And seven, whether the action establishes an implicit or explicit
policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal
responsibility of young people and the norms of society.
Simply put, Mr. President, agencies will be directed to assess
whether proposed rules and policies will help or hurt families as they
seek to provide mutual support and carry out their vital function of
forming children into good adults, good citizens, good workers, and
good neighbors.
On finishing this assessment, the agency heads will submit a written
certification to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress
that the assessment has been made and provide adequate rationale for
implementing each policy or regulation that may adversely affect family
well-being.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will then use
this information to ensure that agency policies and regulations are
implemented consistent with this amendment, and compile, index, and
submit annually to Congress the written certifications made by agency
heads.
To ensure that no proposed policy or regulation that could adversely
affect the family goes unassessed, this legislation also provides that
a Member of Congress may request a family impact assessment and
certification.
In addition, the Office of Policy Development will be directed by
this amendment to assess proposed policies and regulations in
accordance with it, provide evaluations to the Office of Management and
Budget, and advise the President on policy and regulatory actions that
may be taken to strengthen marriage and the family in the United
States.
In my view--and I will limit my statement at this time--I believe
that most Members of this body, as we have already seen expressed today
from both sides of the aisle, are very concerned about America's
families and want to be on the side of strengthening families.
There are a variety of ways to do this, and the Executive order which
was enacted in 1987 by President Reagan made unelected persons in our
governmental bureaucracies responsible for assessing the impact on
families of new rules and regulations before they were implemented. To
me, that is a sensible thing to require of our Government regulators.
The decision to revoke that requirement, which was made last year, in
my judgment, was a step in the wrong direction. This amendment seeks
to, in effect, reinstitute those policies so that the concerns and the
impact on families of governmental regulations will be assessed prior
to--prior to--the creation of and implementation of new Federal
regulations.
I think that makes sense, Mr. President. For that reason, I offer the
[[Page S9181]]
amendment on behalf of myself and a number of other Senators who
cosponsored our original legislation. In light of the hour and the
desire on the part of others to speak at this time, I ask unanimous
consent that this amendment be set aside for further consideration
later today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. I remind the
Senator that under the previous order, the Senate will recess at 12:30.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we stay in
session until I complete my statement, which will be roughly 10 to 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry, I did not hear
the Senator's closing comment. That we stay in session until what time?
Mr. ROTH. Until I complete my statement, which will be roughly 10 to
15 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I may
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the introduction of S. 2369
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________