[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2508-S2517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000--Continued

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the centerpiece of our 
efforts to reduce the tax overpayment by America's families. The 
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 delivers savings to virtually 
every married couple in America. And it does so within the context of 
fiscal discipline and preserving the Social Security surplus.
  The importance of this measure cannot be overstated. According to the 
most recent CBO estimates, in 1999, 43 percent of married couples--
about 22 million couples--faced the marriage tax penalty. The average 
penalty was $1,480 per couple. This was levied on individuals who are 
already overburdened with expenses--the costs associated with buying 
homes, paying for education, raising children, and building financial 
security for retirement.
  It isn't fair, Mr. President. It isn't fair that when two individuals 
marry their combined tax liability becomes greater than if they had 
remained single and continued to pay taxes at their single rate. But 
unfortunately, this has been the case--to one degree or another--for 
more than 30 years.
  Now it's time for a change.
  It's time to restore equity--to bring balance and fairness into the 
tax equation for these married couples. This, of course, is not as 
simple as it might appear. Our tax system has tried to balance three 
disparate goals--progressivity, equal treatment of married couples, and 
marriage neutrality. And it is impossible to achieve all three 
principles at the same time.
  The principle of progressivity holds that taxpayers with higher 
incomes should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The 
principle of equal treatment of married couples holds that households 
with the same amount of income should pay the same level of tax. And 
the principle of marriage neutrality holds that a couple's income tax 
bill should not depend on their marital status. The tax code should 
neither provide an incentive nor a disincentive for two people to get 
married.
  Our policy response differs depending on how we balance these 
different principles. For instance, if we want to ensure that when two 
singles get married their total tax bill will not rise--but we do not 
mind if two married couples with the same overall income level are 
treated differently, then we arrive at one result. However, if we want 
to make sure that two singles who marry do not face increased taxes--
and we want to make sure that two married couples with the same income 
level are treated evenly--then we arrive at a different result.
  Last year, the Senate position in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1999 
embraced the first policy result. We focused on the difference between 
what two spouses would pay in taxes if they were single versus what 
they would pay in taxes if they were married. In order to fully address 
that problem, we developed a system whereby a married couple would have 
an option. The couple could continue to file a joint return using the 
existing schedule of married filing jointly. Or the couple could choose 
to file a joint return using the separate schedules for single 
taxpayers. It was straightforward, and it was universal--we did not try 
to impose arbitrary income limits to cut off the relief.
  As I said last year, this approach had a lot of good things about it. 
Most importantly, I liked the way that it basically eliminated the 
marriage penalty for all taxpayers who suffered from it. It delivered 
relief to those in the lowest brackets as well as to those in the 
highest brackets. It also delivered relief to those who itemized their 
deductions as well as those who took the standard deduction.
  Nevertheless, I did not propose, or support, the separate filing plan 
this year. As the Chairman of the Finance

[[Page S2509]]

Committee, I am responsible for developing tax policy in a rational 
manner. I am also responsible for working with members of my Committee 
and of the full Senate.
  After listening to my colleagues' views on marriage tax relief, I 
came to the conclusion that the best approach at this time is to build 
on the foundation that Congress has already approved. Last year, in the 
conference report of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1999, the Congress 
adopted three components of marriage penalty relief. These include an 
expansion of the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly; 
a widening of the tax brackets; and an increase in the income phase-
outs for the earned income credit. A different part of the bill also 
addressed the minimum tax issue. This year, the House passed a marriage 
penalty tax bill that included the first three components.
  And the Finance Committee bill, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act 
of 2000, has built on this foundation. Under current law, for the year 
2000, the standard deduction for a single taxpayer is $4,400. The 
standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint return is 
$7,350. That means that for couples who use a standard deduction--and 
those are generally low and middle income couples--they are losing 
$1,450 in extra deductions each year. At a 28% tax rate, that lost 
deduction translates into an extra tax liability of $406 each and every 
year.
  The Finance Committee bill increases the standard deduction for 
married couples so that it is twice the size of the standard deduction 
for singles. And we do that immediately, for the 2001 tax year. When 
fully effective, this provision provides tax relief to approximately 25 
million couples filing joint returns, including more than 6 million 
returns filed by senior citizens.
  Increasing the standard deduction also has the added benefit of 
simplifying the tax code. Approximately 3 million couples who currently 
itemize their deductions will realize the simplification benefits of 
using the standard deduction.
  Second, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 addresses the 
cause of the greatest dollar amount of the marriage tax penalty--the 
structure of the rate brackets. Under current law, the 15% rate bracket 
for single filers ends at taxable income of $26,250. The 15% rate 
bracket for married couples filing jointly ends with taxable income of 
$43,850, which you can see is less than the sum of two times the single 
rate bracket. In practical terms, that means that when two individuals 
who each earn $30,000 get married and file a joint tax return, $8,650 
of their income is taxed at the 28% rate rather than at the 15% rate 
that the income would have been subject to if they had remained single. 
The extra tax liability for that couple each year comes out to $1,125.
  The Finance Committee bill remedies that fundamental unfairness. The 
bill adjusts the end point of the 15% rate bracket for married couples 
so that it is twice the sum of the end point of the bracket for single 
filers. Recognizing that the rate structure hurts married couples in 
the higher brackets, the bill also adjusts the end points of the 28% 
rate bracket as well.
  When fully effective, and we make that happen a year earlier than the 
House, this provision will provide tax relief to approximately 21 
million couples filing joint returns, including more than 4 million 
returns filed by senior citizens.
  Third, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000 addresses the 
biggest source of the marriage tax penalty for low income, working 
families--the earned income credit. This complicated credit is 
determined by using a schedule for the number of qualifying children, 
and then multiplying the credit rate by the taxpayer's earned income up 
to a certain amount. The credit is phased out above certain income 
levels. What that means is that two people who are each receiving the 
earned income credit as singles may lose all or some of their credit 
when they get married.
  In order to address that problem, the Finance Committee bill 
increases the beginning and ending points of the income levels of the 
phase-out of the credit for married couples filing a joint return. For 
a couple with two or more qualifying children, this could mean as much 
as $526 in extra credit. This provision would also expand the number of 
married couples who would be eligible for the credit. It will help over 
one million families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the majority has expired.
  Mr. ROTH. Parliamentary inquiry: I didn't think there was any time 
limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, 
the time between 3 and 4 o'clock was equally divided between the 
majority and the minority, or their designees. The Senator from Montana 
has 29 minutes.
  Does the Senator from Montana have a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I offer a unanimous consent request, if I 
may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may present the request.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Chair restated the agreement, as I 
understood it, correctly. But I don't think the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Roth from Delaware, was on the floor when that 
unanimous consent was propounded and agreed to. He was unaware of the 
time constraint. I think it is only fair, frankly, that the Senator 
from Delaware be able to present his views. I am willing to yield as 
much time as I have to the Senator. How much does the Senator need?
  Mr. ROTH. I would say 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes. Fine, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--I would not want to give away 10 minutes of time from this side 
because there are others who want to speak and are counting on the 
minutes. I have no problem doing a unanimous consent request giving the 
Senator an additional 10 minutes. But I would like to retain 30 minutes 
of time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent request. The 
time was under the control of the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
extended to 10 minutes after 4 p.m. and that this side have 29 
minutes--whatever it is--and the remainder of time be allotted to the 
Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. I have a parliamentary question. It was my understanding 
that Senator Inhofe was speaking as if in morning business. Does that 
time count?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe that is the source of the 
misunderstanding. Senator Inhofe did speak as if in morning business. 
However, the unanimous consent request was that the time between 3 and 
4 be allocated equally. Therefore, I believe the unanimous consent 
request just propounded by the Senator from Montana would probably very 
closely correct that misunderstanding. I believe all of us were 
operating under that understanding.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his 
courtesy.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the time allocation 
between now and 10 minutes after 4 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocation at this time is 10 minutes 
to the majority and 29 minutes remaining for the minority.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, finally, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act 
of 2000 tries to make sure that families can continue to receive the 
family tax credits that Congress has enacted over the past several 
years. Each year, an increasing number of American families are finding 
that their family tax credits--such as the child credit and the Hope 
Scholarship education credit--are being cut back or eliminated because 
of the alternative minimum tax. Last year, Congress made a small down-
payment on this problem, temporarily carving out these family tax 
credits from the minimum tax calculations. This year, we are building 
on that bipartisan approach, by permanently extending the preservation 
of the family tax credits.
  Because of this provision, millions of taxpayers will no longer face 
the burden of calculating the alternative minimum tax.
  In making the changes that I have just described--whether it is the 
change in the rate brackets or the change in the earned income credit--
we have tried to meet an important objective. That goal, which I talked 
about

[[Page S2510]]

earlier, is to treat all married couples with the same amount of income 
equally. It is a principle that is ignored by using a combined return 
with separate schedules or by using a second earner deduction. With the 
Senate Finance Committee bill, we do not create a new, so-called 
``homemaker penalty.'' Our bill ensures that simply because a family 
has only one wage earner, it is not treated any differently than a 
family where both spouses work. Many people have argued that tax policy 
should not discourage one parent from staying at home and raising the 
family. It is a laudable goal and one that I support.
  How much does this marriage tax penalty relief help? It helps a lot. 
Over forty million families will get marriage tax relief under this 
legislation. In my state of Delaware, over 100,000 families will 
benefit. Every family earning over $10,000 per year will see their tax 
bill fall at least one percent--except those at high income levels. The 
key to this legislation is that it helps the middle class. Sixty 
percent of this bill's tax relief goes to those families making 
$100,000 or less.
  Who are these people? They're two married civil engineers, or a 
pharmacist who is married to a school teacher. They're the policeman 
and his wife who runs a small gift shop in Dover. They are the 
firefighter who is married to a social worker, or a librarian who is 
married to an accountant. These are the families who will benefit.
  And they will benefit even more, as you examine the impact this tax 
relief will have over time. Consider the effect if these tax savings 
were put away for their children's education and retirement. If a 
couple with two children making just $30,000 took their tax savings 
from this bill and put it into an education savings account like the 
one recently passed by the Senate, they would have $40,000 for those 
children's college education. Based on the stock market's historical 
rate of return, that's $40,000 if they did not set aside another penny! 
If the family was that of two elementary school teachers with two 
children and earning average salaries of $70,000 combined, they would 
have $65,000 after 18 years.
  If those two married school teachers then started to put their tax 
savings from this bill into a Roth IRA after 18 years, this same couple 
would have $224,100 when they retired 27 years later.
  By transforming these tax savings into personal savings, we see that 
these real tax savings translate into real opportunities for these 
families.
  And consider the effect on the economy. According to an analysis by 
the Heritage Foundation, when fully phased-in this marriage tax penalty 
relief legislation will result in 820,000 additional jobs. It will 
increase the personal savings rate by three-tenths of a percent, which 
in turn will lower interest rates. It also increase investment by $20 
billion and gross domestic product by $54 billion. So not only do 
married families gain, not only do their children gain, but the entire 
country gains. They gain more jobs, better jobs, and higher wages 
because of this marriage tax relief legislation.

  Mr. President, the marriage tax relief legislation I bring to the 
floor today amounts to just five percent of the total budget surplus 
over the next five years. It amounts to just 17.6 percent of the non-
Social Security surplus over the next five years. It amounts to just 42 
percent of the new spending provided for in this year's budget over the 
next five years. Finally, it amounts to less than half of the tax cut 
that has been allotted to the Finance Committee for tax cuts over the 
next five years in this year's budget. By any comparison or estimation, 
this marriage tax penalty relief is fiscally responsible.
  This bill does all these things for America's working families while 
preserving every cent of Social Security's surplus. These tax cuts do 
not have to pit America's families against America's seniors. Nor does 
it extend a tax cut in a fiscally irresponsible manner. These tax cuts 
fit in this year's budget, along with the other Republican priorities 
that we have already passed for education, health care, and small 
businesses. Our priorities add up to what's good for America, and our 
numbers add up to what's fiscally responsible.
  It is time we divorce the marriage penalty from the tax code once and 
for all. I urge all my colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty 
Relief Act of 2000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 29 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The so-called marriage penalty is not a penalty. It is the result of 
the code. Nobody in Congress decided we were going to penalize married 
couples by making changes in the Tax Code so that married couples would 
pay more than two singles would pay with their respective incomes.
  It is not a penalty in the sense of anyone ever thought of harming 
anybody. Rather, this is a consequence of the complexity of the Tax 
Code. It is a consequence of the mathematical impossibility of trying 
to do all things for all people. Most Americans want a progressive tax 
rate so married couples who have the same income, regardless of who 
earns the income, and how much, are taxed the same; in addition to 
that, have marriage neutrality so married couples do not have to pay 
more than singles.
  It is impossible to do all three. Therefore, the Congress has to make 
choices and judgments according to what it thinks makes the most sense.
  A little history would be instructive. When the income tax was first 
enacted, individuals were treated as a taxable unit, regardless of 
whether they were married or not. If a person had $50,000 in income, he 
or she paid taxes on that $50,000. If he or she married and that person 
had zero income, that individual who earned the income would still be 
treated as the taxable entity and his spouse would not, regardless how 
much the spouse earned. That was the rule for quite a few years.
  The problem arose in community property States when the couples could 
split the income because whatever the major wage earner earned was 
community property and therefore could be split. Courts upheld that.

  A little later, Congress thought if that was the case in community 
property States, it should be the case all around the country.
  Congress, in 1948, decided couples could split their incomes; that 
is, if the man earned $70,000 and his wife earned zero, they combined, 
and they each paid on $35,000. That was the law in 1948. That helped 
married couples. The trouble was, it hurt singles. In 1969, the 
disparity was so great, in some cases a single taxpayer could be paying 
42 percent more in income taxes than a couple would pay with the same 
income.
  Congress thought that was not right. They came up with different 
rates--one set of rates for singles and another set of rates for 
married couples--and set the proportion of about 60 percent so that 
individuals would not have to pay up to twice as much as what they 
otherwise would pay. That has been the law ever since, although we have 
made some changes. In 1981, there was a deduction for the lower earner 
of a couple, to try to address the marriage penalty; that was changed, 
and another inequity came with the tax bill passed in 1993.
  We are trying to figure out today a solution to be fair to most 
people. There has been a big demographic shift in our country since 
1969. There are a lot more couples who both earn income, many more now 
than was the case in 1969.
  It is important to note that although there is a marriage penalty, 
there is also a marriage bonus. More married couples receive a bonus 
when they get married than receive a penalty. It is pretty close. About 
51 percent of Americans, because they are married, receive a bonus. Say 
the husband earns quite a bit more than his spouse, or vice versa; when 
they get married, they get a bonus. The penalty occurs when both 
incomes are about the same. Again, more Americans receive a bonus 
today--not a penalty--as a consequence of getting married.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, $29 billion was 
incurred by married couples as a penalty and $33 billion was received 
by married couples as a bonus. That problem has emerged because of the 
shifting demographic characteristics of our country, with both man and 
wife now having earned income at equal levels. The more equal the 
earnings of the spouses, the more likely a marriage penalty will occur.
  The proportion of working-age married couples with two earners grew 
from 48 percent in 1969 to 72 percent in

[[Page S2511]]

1995. Also, we have seen a rise in the quality of income of married 
couples. In 1969, only 17 percent of the households of married couples 
had both spouses contributing at least one-third to the income of the 
household, but by 1995 that number increased to 34 percent. In the same 
period, the percentage of households where one or neither spouse has 
earnings decreased from 52 percent to 28 percent.
  Without these shifts, more married couples would receive marriage 
bonuses with few marriage penalties. The unintended problem which has 
emerged is that half of married couples incur this so-called penalty. 
The question is, what do we do? The Finance Committee bill reported out 
by the majority of the committee is a good-faith effort to try to 
address the problem.
  It is only fair to point out, there are significant, in my judgment, 
flaws with the bill that came out of committee. As a consequence, the 
Democrats will have an alternative which we think addresses a lot of 
the flaws.
  What are the flaws? First, one of the big flaws is it is very 
complex. It adds additional complexity to the code. We all know the 
code is complex enough as it is. This adds even more complexity. The 
standard deduction for married couples is double; the brackets are the 
15-percent bracket, the 28-percent bracket, double for marrieds. That 
is a change in the code. The earned-income tax credit ``phased ins'' 
and ``phased outs'' are changed from current law. AMT personal credits 
are exempted in certain areas but not in others. It adds considerable 
new complexity to the code. I am not saying it is fatal to the proposal 
reported out by the Finance Committee, but it is a fact it adds 
additional complexities compared with current law.
  Second, I think it is important to point out there are real problems 
with the amount and size of the proposal. It is fiscally irresponsible. 
It is going to cost a lot of money at a time when I think most 
Americans want to pay down the national debt.

  When I talk to people around my State of Montana, and I talk to 
Senators from around the country, they tell me when they talk to their 
people at home they pose the choice: Do you want to use the surplus 
that we have, wonderfully, now, in the United States of America to pay 
down the debt or do you want to use the surplus to lower taxes? I will 
not say dramatically, but I will say overwhelmingly it is my 
experience, and I think it is the experience of most Members of the 
House and Senate when they ask that question, the answer is: Pay down 
the debt. Americans today would rather pay down the debt.
  Why? Because they are innately smart; they have a sense of things. We 
all trust the good faith and good common sense of the American people. 
There is a conservative element that says: Here we are in times of 
great national prosperity. We have big budget surpluses. It probably 
makes sense to start paying down that $7 trillion national debt. We may 
not have this opportunity again. We would like to think we will, and we 
hope we will, but we do not know we will. So first I think people want 
to pay down the debt.
  The proposal now on the floor is quite large. In fact, the costs for 
more than half the benefits of this bill go to married taxpayers who 
are already in a bonus situation.
  I will state that a different way. More than half of the costs of 
this bill do not address the marriage penalty problem at all because 
the lower tax is given to married couples who are already at a bonus 
situation. They get the bonus because they are married. This bill says: 
You already have a bonus. We are not going to give you more.
  The point, I thought, was to address the penalty situation; to try to 
correct the problem where people, when they get married, pay more taxes 
as a couple than they would pay individually. That is the problem we 
are trying to address. The Finance Committee bill addresses a part of 
that, but more than half of the cost of that Finance Committee bill 
does not. It does something else. Even the other portion, which 
purports to address the marriage penalty, does not totally. There are 
lots of areas in the code where the marriage penalty would still exist. 
Where are they? In about 62 parts of the code.
  There are 65 provisions in our income Tax Code which today create the 
so-called inequities causing bonuses for families--65. The majority 
bill, Finance Committee bill, addresses only three. There are 62 other 
provisions in the code which cause a marriage penalty which are not 
addressed by the Finance Committee bill.
  What are they? They are things such as the child tax credit, Social 
Security benefits, savings bonds for education, IRA deductions, student 
loan interest deductions, and 56 others. The adoption expense credit, 
for example--there are couples who want to adopt kids. They get married 
and because of where they might be in the brackets, the progressive 
rates, they may find themselves paying a penalty because they are 
married as a consequence of the adoption expenses credit--or perhaps 
some of the others. So it is a fiscally irresponsible bill. More than 
half does not address the problem. Rather, it is given to people who 
already have a bonus--not a penalty but a bonus. The remaining part is 
skewed. A good part of it does go to address the problem, but in 62 
cases inequities, disparities, and penalties still exist.

  In addition, about 5 million additional taxpayers will become subject 
to the alternative income tax as a consequence of the majority bill. I 
do not think we want that. We have all heard the problems created by 
the alternative minimum tax, the AMT. It is getting to be more and more 
of a problem as Americans earn a little more income and therefore they 
are more likely to be subject to that, the alternative minimum tax, 
which hits a lot of taxpayers pretty hard. As a consequence of the 
majority committee bill, about a million American taxpayers will now 
become subject to the alternative minimum tax.
  So what is a better approach? Speaking generally, we think a better 
approach is to do something very simple. It has the elegance of 
simplicity--people can understand it--and it is more fair. What is it? 
Essentially, we say to a married couple: You have your choice. File 
jointly or file separately. It is your choice. You just do whatever you 
want to do. Presumably, you will pick the choice that results in a 
lower income tax for you.
  What could be simpler? It is simple to the people of America to 
explain it to them so they can understand it. It does not add 
additional complexities that are in the majority bill, but rather it is 
something very simple. You say to a couple: We don't care what your 
total income is, we don't care how it is distributed, whether the wife 
makes 80 percent and the husband 20 percent--it makes no difference. 
You can have your choice. You file jointly or file separately. 
Obviously, you file the return that results in the lower income tax.
  I might add, this already is the case in many States around the 
country. There are about 10 States today which have just that, to 
attempt to address the marriage penalty in just that way. That is 
optional filing. It is optional to file jointly or you have the option 
to file separately in the States of Arkansas, Delaware, District of 
Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, my State of Montana, 
Tennessee, and Virginia. You see, the mix of States is varied. There 
are high-income States and some low-income States--that is per capita 
income. It is geographically dispersed. But 10 States decided, for the 
sake of simplicity, or whatever the reason, that was what they wanted 
to do, and we have heard no complaints. It is an approach that works.
  The second benefit of the Democratic alternative is this: It 
addresses all of the marriage penalties--not some of them, all of them. 
How? By addressing all of the 65 provisions in the Tax Code today which 
result in marriage bonus/penalty inequity. All of them. You say: How do 
you do that without additional complexity? It is very simple--because 
of the effect of optional filing. You just file optionally, 
individually, calculate your AMT, calculate your child adoption 
expense, whatever it is, or jointly. And you just choose. That way we 
address all of them.
  I might say, the Democratic alternative is also fiscally responsible. 
Why do I say that? Because we are focused only on the penalty part. As 
I mentioned earlier, the majority bill, the Finance Committee bill, 
gives more than half the benefits to people who already have a bonus, 
who do not need

[[Page S2512]]

the help. They already have a bonus. In effect, more than half this 
bill is a general tax cut bill. That is fine. But then we should call 
it what it is, a general tax cut bill more than it is a marriage tax 
penalty reduction bill. It is a general tax cut. If that is the case, 
then we should have a debate on the code and what is the best way to 
lower taxes, to deal with taxes for all Americans. It is truth in 
labeling. It is what we purport to be doing, and that is focusing only 
on the marriage tax penalty.
  I might also say the minority bill, the Democratic alternative, does 
not exacerbate the singles penalty, whereas the majority bill does. 
Don't forget, we have widows, widowers, single people who need tax 
help, too. The majority bill in particular--but in all fairness, the 
minority bill, too--does not address singles, widows, and widowers. It 
basically deals with married people. Think for a moment; if you are 
married with no kids and you are receiving the so-called marriage 
bonus, you get a tax cut in the majority bill. On the other hand, if 
you are a single mom and you have three kids, you get no tax cut. Let 
me state that again. If you are married and have no kids, you are 
already receiving the so-called marriage bonus, you get a tax cut under 
the majority bill. On the other hand, under the majority bill, if you 
are a single mom and you have three kids, there is no tax cut. I do not 
think that is fair. I do not think that is fair at all.
  That is representative of the inequity of the bill coming out of the 
Finance Committee. It is not a marriage tax penalty bill; it is a tax 
cut. If they want a tax cut, then we should have that debate on what 
the distribution should be, what we should do with the brackets, what 
incentives do we want to create? What disincentives do we want to 
address?
  The Tax Code is pretty big. There are lots of provisions of the Tax 
Code that affect people on the corporate side and the income side. If 
we want to cut taxes, let's see how we want to focus that, how to 
manage it, and how to tailor it. Let's call this what it really is.
  We have other priorities we have to address. The majority bill costs 
about $248 billion over 10 years. The minority bill is $151 billion 
over 10 years. The projected on-budget surplus for the next 10 years is 
close to $900 billion. It is $893 billion.
  I will list some of the tax legislation that is pending: This one is 
$248 billion; the Patients' Bill of Rights will cost about $70 billion; 
the minimum wage bill in the House is about $122 billion; educational 
savings is about $22 billion; debt service costs about $100 billion. 
That means the total of the pending tax legislation is about $566 
billion, and what remains is for debt reduction--not very much--and for 
Social Security and Medicare reform, which is probably not going to be 
enacted this year.
  What about prescription drug benefits? Where does that fit in? What 
about debt reduction and prescription drugs? There is not very much 
left.
  When we address the marriage tax penalty, I submit we focus on the 
problem, and the problem is the marriage tax penalty. The problem is 
not the marriage bonus; it is the marriage tax penalty. If we focus on 
the problem, we will solve the problem in a more fiscally responsible 
way. That is clear.
  Second, let's make sure the benefits go to those who are facing the 
problem.
  I know as this debate unfolds, some of these points will become more 
clear, but I urge Senators to think before they leap because this is a 
fairly complex problem.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I believe neither side has any 
speakers. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator yields back the 
remainder of his time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the underlying 
bill. Shortly, I think the majority leader will be in to make a motion 
on the bill.
  First, I wish to compliment Senator Roth, in his leadership, and the 
Finance Committee, for reporting out a good bill. It is my hope we will 
be able to pass this bill in the next couple of days to provide relief 
from the so-called marriage tax penalty. Married couples need relief. 
We need to pass it.
  I have heard the President say he is for it, although he has not come 
to the forefront. I think Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance 
Committee, has come up with a good proposal. I am going to talk a 
little about that. But I also compliment my colleague, Senator 
Hutchison, who has been fighting for this for the last several years.
  I believe this year we have a chance to make this law. I hope we will 
have bipartisan cooperation to make it happen. I compliment the House 
for their leadership in moving forward to make it happen.
  The President recently invited many of us down to the White House for 
the signing of the bill to eliminate the so-called Social Security 
earnings penalty tax. If you were a working senior between the ages of 
65 and 70, and you had an income above $17,000, for every $3 that you 
earned, you would lose $1 of Social Security. We eliminated that 
penalty. The President signed it. I am sure he was taking credit for 
it. I did not make the signing ceremony. He invited me. That was nice.
  But we acted together. We eliminated an unfair provision in the Tax 
Code that for years many of us thought was unfair. We eliminated that. 
That is now the law of the land.
  Now we are looking at another provision, the so-called marriage tax 
penalty. It needs to be eliminated. It needs to be eliminated now, this 
year, not 20 years from now, and not in some token way that is only 
verbal, as the President has proposed.
  I believe my colleague, Senator Roth, and many of us on the Finance 
Committee, have taken the right step to eliminate this unfair tax.
  What we have done is, we have said we should double the 15-percent 
tax bracket for couples. It should be twice as much for couples as it 
is for an individual.
  Many people say: What do you mean by that? Individuals who have a 
taxable income of up to $26,000, they pay 15 percent. Above that 
taxable income, they pay 28 percent. What we are saying is, if it is 15 
percent for $26,000 earned by an individual, it should be twice that 
amount for a couple. So a couple could have income of up to $52,500, 
and that would be taxed at 15 percent.
  What is current law? Current law is, for a couple, the first $43,850 
is taxed at 15 percent, and above that amount it is taxed at 28 
percent. So there is $8,650 which is actually taxed at 28 percent. What 
is the difference? That is a difference of $1,125.
  If you have a couple making $52,500, the bill we have before us would 
offer them relief of $1,125. That is just on the rate change.
  We also double the standard deduction. Basically, the standard 
deduction is $7,350. That would increase to $8,800. That is a savings 
of $218 for a couple in the 15-percent tax bracket.
  So again, we are offering tax relief by simplifying the code, saying 
let's double the 15-percent bracket for couples, as compared to 
individuals. And let's double the 28-percent bracket so we provide that 
relief through the code.
  I think it is important. I think it is fair. I think it provides 
relief for married couples, and it also does not penalize someone if 
they happen to be a stay-at-home spouse. We do not discriminate against 
them either. Maybe it is a farmer who has a spouse who does not receive 
earned income in the form of a check but yet they still work. They work 
on the farm. They work on the ranch. They work raising kids. We provide 
them a modest amount of tax relief as well.
  I think the bill we have before us is a good bill. It is one that 
provides tax relief for middle-income Americans. It is one that 
eliminates the marriage penalty for all practical purposes so we don't 
find discrimination in the code.

  I will give a different example. You have a married couple with two 
differing incomes, where one income is $40,000, maybe one is taxed or 
has income of $20,000. Let's say the $20,000 is earned by an occasional 
worker who might work one year but might not work the next year. The 
practical impact is that $20,000 is added to the $40,000 income, and 
they are taxed at a higher bracket, the 28 percent, instead of 15 
percent.

[[Page S2513]]

  For that additional work they do under the present code, they are 
penalized by paying at their spouse's highest tax bracket. That is 
current law. We want to change that. The bill we have before us does 
change that.
  I compliment Senator Roth. I urge my colleagues not to play games. 
Let's make this law. Let's have a signing ceremony at the White House 
in another couple of weeks. Let's have Democrats and Republicans and 
even the White House take credit for it. It is a positive change. It is 
a good change. It is a needed change. It is a change that should become 
law this year. It is an accomplishment on which all of us can 
congratulate ourselves and say we got something done: We eliminated the 
Social Security earnings penalty, and we eliminated the unfair marriage 
penalty.
  Married couples should not be penalized to the tune of $1,400 a year 
for the fact they are married. That is a fact; that is what is 
happening under the present law. We should eliminate that. We do that 
with the bill that is before us today. I urge my colleagues to support 
it when we come to that time. I hope we will pass it by tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to try to be brief because I want 
Senator Hutchison and others to be able to speak.
  I have been having some discussions with Senator Daschle trying to 
work out an agreement as to how to proceed on amendments. We are going 
to continue to do that. We had asked for a list, a description of the 
amendments they might have in mind. We don't have that yet. I assume it 
is just a physical problem for right now. We will continue to discuss 
that and see if there is a way we can come to an agreement that will 
allow us to vitiate cloture, but we need to go on with the debate.
  We have Senators here ready to speak. We have the chairman of the 
committee here who would like to get on record on this issue. So we 
could go ahead and have cloture filed so, if necessary, we would have a 
vote on cloture on Thursday, but we could go ahead then with debate 
only. While we are doing that, we can continue to have discussions 
about how we can work out an agreement.
  Let me emphasize again, I think we can work out an agreement that 
would allow for a substitute to be offered, or substitutes for that 
matter, that are relevant to the marriage tax penalty. I understand 
these amendments may relate to Medicaid. They may relate to 
prescription drugs. It may be a complete prescription drug proposal. I 
don't know how that would be relevant or how we would have time to 
evaluate that. I fear we are headed off down a trail that is not in 
line with what I had offered or hoped for. I repeat, substitutes 
or relevant marriage penalty elimination amendments, we can work that 
out. I don't want to say what we won't do at this point. I will say we 
are going to go forward. We will continue to try to work to get a fair 
agreement.

  In the end, this is the point: For 10 years we have talked about the 
unfairness of the marriage penalty tax. Ever since the Senator from 
Texas has been in the Senate--now for 6 years--she has been relentless 
on the subject. So we are going to have a vote on the marriage penalty 
tax, and we are going to see who is for eliminating it and who is not.
  I hope we can do it without getting tangled up in procedural 
questions. If necessary, we will have a vote on cloture and we will 
know where we are. I hope we will have the votes on cloture to cut off 
the filibuster and then move on to the final vote. For now, I want us 
to make sure we get time this afternoon to have a good debate on this 
issue, and so I will go ahead and go through this process.
  I am still hopeful we can reach agreement on the number of 
amendments. It could be as many as three or four, it could be six, all 
dealing with the marriage tax penalty or closely relevant issues. We 
will keep working on that.


                           Amendment No. 3090

              (Purpose: To provide a committee amendment)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the 
Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Roth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3090.

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

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage 
     Tax Relief Act of 2000''.
       (b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act 
     shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of 
     section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard 
     deduction) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under 
     subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'';
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.''; and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows 
     through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with 
     respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be 
     applied''.
       (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT AND 28-
                   PERCENT RATE BRACKETS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax 
     tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent and 28-
     percent rate brackets.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2001, in prescribing the tables under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the maximum taxable income amount in the 15-percent 
     rate bracket, the minimum and maximum taxable income amounts 
     in the 28-percent rate bracket, and the minimum taxable 
     income amount in the 31-percent rate bracket in the table 
     contained in subsection (a) shall be the applicable 
     percentage of the comparable taxable income amounts in the 
     table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment 
     under this subsection), and
       ``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table 
     contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts 
     determined under clause (i).
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in 
     accordance with the following table:

``For taxable years be-                                                
  ginning in                                             The applicable
  calendar year--                                       percentage is--
        2002.....................................................170.3 
        2003.....................................................173.8 
        2004.....................................................180.0 
        2005.....................................................183.2 
        2006.....................................................185.0 
        2007 and thereafter.....................................200.0. 

       ``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),'' 
     before ``by increasing''.
       (2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such 
     Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty 
     in 15-Percent and 28-Percent Rate Brackets;'' before 
     ``Adjustments''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

     SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and 
     amounts) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting 
     ``Amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     earned''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the 
     phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     increased by $2,500.''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32( 
     j) of such Code (relating

[[Page S2514]]

     to inflation adjustments) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined--
       ``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and 
     (i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and
       ``(ii) in the case of the $2,500 amount in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''.
       (c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating 
     to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under 
     subparagraph (B) thereof)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. 5. PRESERVE FAMILY TAX CREDITS FROM THE ALTERNATIVE 
                   MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 26 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation based 
     on tax liability; definition of tax liability) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate 
     amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable 
     year shall not exceed the sum of--
       ``(1) the taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable 
     year reduced by the foreign tax credit allowable under 
     section 27(a), and
       ``(2) the tax imposed for the taxable year by section 
     55(a).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h).
       (3) Section 904 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (h) and by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and 
     (k) as subsections (h), (i), and (j), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     amendment (No. 3090) to the marriage tax penalty bill.
         Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Judd Gregg, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Rick Santorum, Connie Mack, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Craig Thomas, Robert F. Bennett, Chuck Grassley, 
           Jim Bunning, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Wayne Allard, Jeff Sessions, and Bill Roth.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to 
the pending bill itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the marriage tax 
     penalty bill:
         Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Judd Gregg, Tim 
           Hutchinson, Rick Santorum, Connie Mack, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Craig Thomas, Robert F. Bennett, Chuck Grassley, 
           Jim Bunning, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Wayne Allard, Jeff Sessions, and Bill Roth.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote, if necessary, if it is 
not vitiated, would occur then on Thursday of this week at a time that 
would be announced after consultation with the leaders on both sides. 
It is, again, my hope that we can work out an agreement that would 
provide for full debate and discussion of amendments and swift passage 
of the bill itself. But while these negotiations are going on, I will 
stay in touch with the minority leader, and we will make sure all 
Members are notified as to how the proceedings are going.
  I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 
waived and the bill be pending for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the leader has not made a request yet that 
we be here for debate only on this bill, has he?
  Mr. LOTT. I just did.
  Mr. REID. Objection is made. I respectfully say to the leader, we 
believe, very clearly and without any equivocation, it is time we 
started acting like the Senate, started debating bills. We will in good 
faith for the majority leader try to come up with a list of amendments 
we believe should be offered. We will try to do that. In the meantime, 
we want to start off on amendments to this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, ordinarily when we file cloture, at the end 
of that proceeding we ask for the mandatory quorum under rule XXII to 
be waived and the bill be pending for debate only so that we make use 
of the time to begin debating the substance of the bill or the 
alternatives. That has been objected to.
  As an alternative, so we can make use of the time we have this 
afternoon--surely we can spend another hour and a half or so allowing 
Senators to discuss their positions on the marriage penalty or any 
other issue--I proposed that we go into a period for the transaction of 
morning business.
  I am told there may be objection to that, which kind of surprises 
me--that we will not even allow morning business to go forward so 
Senators can speak.
  You talk about the Senate. The way the Senate works is Senators get 
to speak when they need to and want to on any subject certainly in 
morning business.
  But it was suggested, since that apparently was going to be objected 
to, that maybe we were ready to go forward with debate on the bill and 
debate on the Moynihan substitute, or one of the Democratic 
substitutes, and that maybe you are ready to go with that.
  In an effort to be fair and get the debate to go forward, and to 
address one of the issues that certainly is a legitimate one--Senator 
Moynihan, and probably Senator Baucus, offered this in the Finance 
Committee, and we talked about it, had votes on it--so we can go ahead 
and engage the discussion about what is the best way to deal with the 
marriage penalty tax, this is a different way of doing it, and I think 
it merits being addressed by the Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be open for one amendment, the 
so-called Democratic alternative by Senator Moynihan, Senator Baucus, 
or their designee, with no other amendments or motions to commit or 
recommit being in order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my 
friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, the majority leader, that 
this isn't really senatorial activity. This is make-believe senatorial 
activity. We are not really being Senators. My friend, the majority 
leader, is treating us as if we are in the House and he is the Rules 
Committee--the one-man Rules Committee. He is now being so generous to 
us that he is saying we can offer one amendment, and he designates what 
the amendment is. We, the minority, believe that we have rights that 
have been developed in this body for over 200 years, and we are tired 
of playing make-believe Senators.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since objection is heard, I want to make 
sure people understand this didn't in any way foreclose any other 
agreement that might be involved with making other amendments in order 
and having amendments considered. I presume there will be other 
amendments that are relevant on the marriage tax penalty provision--I 
assume on the Democratic side and perhaps on this side, also. This 
doesn't foreclose any agreement. All I am trying to do is to facilitate 
the debate and discussion on this very important piece of legislation.
  There was an indication from the Democratic side that you were 
interested in going forward with your

[[Page S2515]]

amendment or amendments, and the one that was clearly identifiable is 
the one that had been offered in the Finance Committee as an 
alternative on how to proceed. I certainly don't feel as if that is 
foreclosing any Senators the opportunity to be heard and to offer 
amendments. But objection has been heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield, but let me finish this.
  I offered to have a period for the transaction of morning business 
with Senators to talk about any subject they chose. It could be the gas 
tax bill. It could be the budget resolution. It could be stock options. 
It could be anything. That has been objected to, which I find highly 
unusual.
  Then I offered, to try to accommodate what I thought may be a way to 
get the debate started and some progress to be made, to go with the 
Democratic alternative.
  Again, in terms of one-man action here, all I am trying to do is to 
get debate on this very important issue, the marriage penalty tax.
  Does the Senate want to have a debate and vote on that or not? We 
have been talking about it for years. Now we are up to the point where 
we would like to go forward. We haven't been able to get a list of 
amendments or enter into an agreement. But I am still hopeful we will 
be able to get a list of amendments and agree to proceed. But I was 
trying to go ahead and protect our rights to file cloture, if it is 
needed, on Thursday. That is being objected to.
  Does Senator Dorgan wish me to yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Obviously, Senator Daschle would like to propound a 
question.
  Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield to Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say that I talked briefly to the 
majority leader about an hour or so ago. He made the request at that 
time for a list of our amendments. I must say I want to accommodate the 
majority leader. But here we are on a bill of some consequence, a bill 
that has not yet had any time for debate on the Senate floor. It was 
the subject of good consideration and discussion in the committee. But 
now, on the very first day, we are on this bill on the Senate floor and 
cloture has been filed. We don't object to proceeding to the bill. That 
was done by unanimous consent. But now the majority leader has chosen 
already to file cloture on the bill. I remind my colleagues that filing 
cloture is to end the debate. Once again, for the second time in the 
same day, we are ending debate before it even begins.
  We don't want to hold up a good debate and a good discussion with 
some other ideas with regard to how to proceed on the marriage tax 
penalty. We can do that. But a good debate entails offering 
alternatives, other ideas, and other suggestions.
  All we are simply saying is, why don't we have the opportunity to 
offer some amendment? Let's lay down the amendments. Let's get on with 
it. But what the majority seems to be saying is we will not have the 
debate at all. We will move on to morning business, if we can't have a 
list of amendments defined and specified prior to the time the debate 
even begins.
  I am sure the majority leader can empathize with our frustration at 
being given yet another situation where we do not have the opportunity 
to have that debate, and we are closing the debate before it even 
starts.

  I will work with the majority leader. We will see if we can't come up 
with a list. We want to pass marriage penalty reduction, but we think 
we can do it in ways that aren't as costly and that could be a lot more 
focused. We will deal with that.
  But I am disappointed, frankly, that we aren't able to offer 
amendments. That is why the objection is made to the request made by 
the majority leader.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know Senator Daschle wasn't on the floor. 
I was hoping we could maybe mark a little time until he got here. He 
may not be aware that we asked when we filed the cloture that the 
mandatory quorum under the rule be waived and the bill be pending for 
debate only. And there was objection to that.
  Then I suggested a period for the transaction of morning business 
because there are Senators who may want to speak on this or any other 
subject. That was objected to.
  Then I suggested we go to the Democratic substitute offered by 
Senator Moynihan and others and begin debate on that, which I thought 
was a good usage of time; It didn't foreclose other amendments being 
offered or agreed to at a later point.
  Perhaps others in his stead were trying to make a point. But my point 
is that I want us to have time for debate. I want us to use this 
afternoon and tomorrow. For those who may not be aware, when I file 
cloture, all I am doing is protecting our right to have a vote on 
ending the filibuster, which doesn't ripen for 2 days. We could and 
would be having debate this afternoon and all day Wednesday. If we work 
out an agreement on a list of amendments, we could vitiate that at any 
time.
  I note we have already done that several times this year. In fact, in 
the first of the year we vitiated the cloture I had filed on the 
education savings account legislation, as I recall. Several times we 
have done it as a protection to make sure we get a vote before the 
week's end. But we wound up working something out and thought we didn't 
need to do it. I am hoping that is what will happen here.
  But also, if I don't do it now this afternoon, since we haven't 
gotten a list of the amendments, this is not a surprise. It has been 
around a long time. Everybody knew the marriage tax penalty would be 
coming up this week. The Finance Committee marked it up a couple weeks 
ago.

  Any Member who had or has amendments probably had an idea of what 
they wanted to do. We have not asked to be given the final amendment, 
but to be given at least some descriptive paragraph as to what the 
amendments might do before we enter into an agreement.
  If I didn't file cloture and we went out of session Thursday night, 
if we completed our business, completed the stock options bill and 
completed the budget resolution conference report and went out Thursday 
night, if I didn't file cloture now but waited until tomorrow, if we 
couldn't reach an agreement, then the marriage penalty issue would not 
have come up until after the recess.
  I worked on my income tax last night and I am not in a happy mood 
about taxes. I know a lot of other people, coming up on April 15, would 
like to know the marriage tax penalty at last will be coming to an end 
in whatever form, either by a formula developed by the Finance 
Committee majority, Senator Moynihan, or others.
  I emphasize for those who may not be aware of all the Senate rules, 
we have to file cloture now to be assured to have a vote on that by 
Thursday. I will work with Senator Daschle. We have worked out some 
pretty thorny issues and some knots in the past that looked as if they 
were unsolvable and we were able to agree and move to a final 
conclusion. I hope we can do that.
  We do not want to get far afield and start debating Medicaid issues, 
Medicaid reforms, which the Finance Committee has never considered--or 
somebody suggested a complete prescription drug package--without 
overall Medicare reform and without looking at the details of that 
package. I understand it may be a pretty detailed package, but the 
amendment may not be ready. How can we possibly agree to an amendment 
when we are not even sure of its structure, let alone what the details 
are. Maybe by tomorrow that amendment will be available and we can take 
a look at it and other amendments and maybe come to an agreement to get 
to a conclusion sometime tomorrow during the day, tomorrow night, or 
Thursday.
  Senator Hutchison has been very patiently waiting. She has put a lot 
into this. I yield for a question or comment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader to yield for 
a question.
  I am confused. It appears the distinguished deputy minority leader 
suggested you were not conducting the Senate like the Senate. Yet you 
have offered to go forward on the bill, you have offered to have the 
Democratic amendment that is a substitute come forward, and you have 
offered to go into morning business so that no one is obligated.

[[Page S2516]]

  The alternative, it seems to me, is to shut down the Senate entirely. 
I don't think that is conducting the business of the Senate as the 
Senate should be conducted.
  I ask the distinguished leader, does it appear that the distinguished 
group from the minority doesn't want to debate the marriage tax penalty 
at all and would prefer to shut down the Senate rather than talk about 
this very important tax correction for the hard-working people of this 
country?
  Mr. LOTT. If we can't get an agreement to have consideration of 
amendments or to have general debate or to have a morning business 
opportunity, the only other option I have now is to move to close the 
Senate for the day.

  I hope we can find some way to work that out.
  Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend from Texas, I think maybe 
we have watched the Senate operate the way it is not supposed to for so 
long, we think the way it has operated the past year is the way it is 
supposed to operate. The way the Senate is supposed to operate is when 
bringing a piece of legislation to the floor, it is open for debate and 
amendment--not morning business, not debate only.
  We have the opportunity under the Standing Rules of the Senate to 
offer amendments to pieces of legislation. That is all we are asking. 
We have been here for some time. This session of Congress is about 
over. We have had two opportunities to offer amendments to pieces of 
legislation, two amendments that were agreed upon by our distinguished 
majority leader, and also the ad hoc chairman of the Rules Committee in 
the Senate.
  I think it is time we have legislation brought to this floor and we 
treat it the way the Senate has always treated it for 200-plus years.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to Senator Reid's 
comments and will yield further to Senator Hutchison, I believe just 
last week we had the budget resolution, and we had well over 100 
amendments. Some of them were voted on, some of them were accepted, 
some of them were voted on in the vote-arama. A number of them didn't 
relate to the budget for the year. Everything imaginable was thrown in. 
I don't think Senators have felt as if they haven't had a chance to 
offer amendments on any kind of extraneous matter.
  This issue of the marriage tax penalty is clear and understandable: 
Are Members for it or against it?
  I fear my colleagues on the Democratic side are trying to change the 
subject. I cannot believe they don't want to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. Let's have a full debate, let's have amendments on the 
marriage penalty. But to get off into every other possible issue as a 
way to try to distract attention from doing what the American people 
support overwhelmingly, I don't understand that.
  I think what we are trying to do makes good, common sense. Let's have 
a full debate on the issue. Let's have relevant amendments. There are a 
lot of amendments that could be construed as being relevant.
  I remember the Democrats came up with a way to offer a gun amendment 
to the education savings account, as I recall. They went way around the 
corner to get it done, but we had a vote on it, and we moved on.
  Senator Hutchison wants to comment or ask a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was going to ask the distinguished leader if the 
comments made are correct that he has approved every amendment that 
came forward. It seems to me we have voted on a number of amendments 
that wouldn't have been the choice of the majority leader, but the 
majority leader has tried to accommodate the minority. I can't think of 
anything we haven't voted on this year. Frankly, I can't think of one 
issue that we haven't addressed, whether we wanted to or not.
  The idea being put forward that somehow the majority leader is 
running the Senate as if it is under his control, I think, is so far 
out of bounds it is almost laughable. I hope we could at least have 
morning business to talk about whatever issues Members want to discuss.

  I want to talk about the marriage tax penalty. My distinguished 
colleague from Illinois wants to talk about organ transplants. I can't 
imagine why the distinguished minority would object to morning business 
so Members from his side and Members from our side could talk until, 
hopefully, the majority and minority leader are able to come to an 
agreement on some kind of reasonable timetable so we can enact marriage 
tax penalty relief for the 21 million American couples who pay a 
penalty, who are going to be writing their checks to the U.S. 
Government this week, realizing they are paying $800, $1,000, $1,400 or 
more just because they are married and because the Tax Code clearly has 
an inequity that we have the ability to address.
  We can have legitimate disagreements on this issue. If we are going 
to have irrelevant amendments, I ask the American people to look at the 
issue for what it is. Let Members debate, let Members talk about our 
differences on the issue. I hope the distinguished minority won't shut 
down the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for her comments.
  Let me add, perhaps it is just that Senator Daschle and the Democrats 
need more time to work on amendments and to get to our side some 
description of the amendments. Maybe we can go ahead and go out 
tonight. That way, we have the rest of the evening and the night to 
work on amendments and pick up again tomorrow.
  I am trying to find a way to keep the discussion going. We could use 
another hour or so to debate this or other issues.
  If we can think of a way to do that, I am open to considering other 
options.
  I indicated to Senator Dorgan I would yield to him.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the majority leader yielding. I want to make 
an observation with the question: As I understand, the majority leader 
has sent to the desk two cloture motions, one on the underlying bill 
and one on the substitute, for purposes, as he described, to shut off a 
filibuster which I suggest does not exist. That is all right. That is 
within the rules. We have all read the rule book in the Senate.

  Circumstances in the Senate should exist in the following manner. You 
bring a piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate. Every Senator 
here has a desk. You come here and you have certain rights and certain 
opportunities. One of those is to offer an amendment to legislation 
brought before the Senate. As I understand the Senator from 
Mississippi, he is saying he wants to see amendments Senators are going 
to offer. He would like to see them before he makes a judgment about 
whether in fact they will be allowed to be offered.
  I say the reason there is a substantial amount of anxiety building up 
in this Senate is that people were not elected from various States to 
say: Go and do your thing in the Senate under the rules, and, by the 
way, we would like the majority leader to decide which amendments you 
offer shall be in order.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to that particular point, 
it is a common practice around here, as I am sure the Senator knows, to 
give the courtesy of identifying what amendments we have and even the 
amendments. We are not asking to see the amendments. We are asking to 
have some idea of the general parameters of what is being proposed.
  I do not believe that is asking too much. We do that for each other. 
Senator Daschle wants to see what we want to offer, and we want to see 
what you want to offer. That is a common practice around here.
  Mr. DORGAN. Except, if the majority leader will yield further, that 
is not what you are trying to do. What you have indicated is you want 
to limit the amendments. It is not a case of being curious to see what 
we are going to offer. This goes on bill after bill after bill that is 
brought to the Senate. You want to limit the amendments.
  My point is this. When we deal with legislation on the floor of the 
Senate, everyone here has a right, it seems to me, to come and offer 
amendments and have a debate on them. You have just filed two cloture 
motions to shut off debate on a filibuster that doesn't exist. This 
happens time and time again, and we are getting tired of it.
  Mr. LOTT. I can understand the Senator's frustration. Also, I am sure 
he can understand that, as the majority leader, I have to pay attention 
to the schedule, the time that is available,

[[Page S2517]]

and the fact that there are, I think, an overwhelming number of 
Americans--and Senators--who would like to get this marriage tax 
penalty removed from the Tax Code.
  This is the week we can do it. When we come back, we will have other 
important issues to deal with: The agriculture sanctions issue; we have 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; we have appropriations 
bills; we have the China permanent trade status--we have a long list of 
things we need to try to do. We have not said it has to be three or 
six, but we are saying we would like to see what we are talking about.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might I make a suggestion then?
  Mr. LOTT. What is really at stake is, once again, we want to get the 
marriage tax penalty eliminated. We can talk schedules, procedures, 
rules, quorums, and all the other stuff into which the Senate gets 
caught.
  On occasion, I hear from my mother. She says: You know, what is all 
that stuff you all talk about up there, all those rules and all the 
extraneous things? Get to the point.
  The point is, we want to get rid of the marriage tax penalty. Let's 
see if we can find a way to do that this week.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might I offer a suggestion, briefly? Discussion earlier 
was, by Senator Reid: Why do we not just have it open for amendment? 
The leader objected to that. You did not want that to happen. Why don't 
we proceed and have it open for amendments and proceed on that basis?
  Mr. LOTT. Can we get agreement we can proceed on the bill and all 
relevant amendments to that bill? To the American people, and I think 
to most Senators, that makes good sense, to have the requirement that 
it be relevant to a marriage tax penalty. Again, I have not said we 
could not go with something that moves afield from that. All I am 
saying is we would like to see what we are talking about and know it is 
fair, we have thought it out, and the committee of jurisdiction has had 
an opportunity to review it.
  So that is what I am trying to work out. Senator Daschle has been 
patiently waiting while we have exchanged pleasantries. I must say 
this. I, a little bit, kind of enjoy finding someone else getting 
frustrated trying to find a way to make this move forward. I know how 
you feel.
  I yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one thing we all agree is we want to 
resolve the problem of the marriage tax penalty. I think that is 
unanimous. Republicans and Democrats want to find a way to end the 
marriage tax penalty.
  I think there is also a possibility we can reach agreement on how to 
proceed on this bill. We are not going to do it today under the 
confines that have been laid down. I think the majority leader's 
suggestion we go out now is appropriate. Let's go back, try to define 
the list, let's share lists, let's look at what we have, let's see if 
we cannot resolve this procedurally first thing in the morning, and we 
will go from there.
  I share the frustration expressed by my colleague. We are not going 
to resolve this matter this afternoon. In the interests of expediting 
this bill, and in consideration of the debate, why don't we just go out 
and pick it up first thing tomorrow.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield for a brief comment? I can't pass 
this up. The example my friend, the majority leader, used is the budget 
bill where we had all these amendments. I say, first of all, that is 
not substantive in nature. The President has no right to veto that 
bill. The amendments are basically set by statute. So that is not a 
good example.
  I think you would have to hunt hard to find another example.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just remind my colleagues, tomorrow is 
Wednesday and the next day is Thursday. If we do not get the marriage 
tax penalty done in those 2 days, then it will be pending until after 
tax day, April 15, when we come back. That may be all right.
  Let me say we are going to eliminate the marriage tax penalty this 
year. We are going to do it on this day, and this week, or we will do 
it later and we will do it with another procedure. We have talked about 
getting this done too long and haven't gotten it done. So we are going 
to come back to this one repeatedly this year. But it would be, I 
think, very helpful to the people involved and to all of us if we could 
find a way to go ahead and do it this way.

                          ____________________