[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.'')

                          ____________________