Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7043-S7055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMENDMENT NO. 3876, WITHDRAWN

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Dodd, that his amendment No. 3876 be withdrawn from
consideration with respect to H.R. 4810.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive by the
Senator from Delaware.

Amendments Nos. 3868 through 3873, Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw all
six of my pending amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I second the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the motion of the
Senator from Delaware to waive.
Mr. REID. I couldn't hear the Chair. What did the Chair say?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
Mr. REID. But the amendments of the Senator from Alaska were
withdrawn. Is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

Modification of Motion

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it was my intention when I moved to raise
this point of order, the waiver for the Lott wraparound amendment, that
it be a comprehensive waiver to this point of order for the different
permutations of the earned-income tax proposals contained in both the
majority and minority proposals. However, the majority leader
subsequently offered an amendment that will be considered later.
I ask unanimous consent that the Lott amendment be included in the
original waiver that I raised.
Specifically, the new motion is to waive all points of order under
the budget process arising from the earned-income credit component in
this pending tax--the amendment by Senator Moynihan, the amendment
offered by Senator Lott, the House companion bill, any amendment
between the Houses, and any conference reports thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has the floor.
Does he yield for a quorum call?
Mr. REID. Isn't his minute up?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, there is no quorum call.
I urge the adoption of the chairman's proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman has requested a modification of
the motion.
Is there objection?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. As modified, sir.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion is so modified.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask that we vitiate the yeas and nays on
the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the substance of the
motion, which is now a unanimous consent request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The revisions are so adopted.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is the spirit. Let's get on with it.
Mr. ROTH. All right.

Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the motion of the
Senator from Wisconsin to commit the bill to the Finance Committee.
Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering
legislation that will provide, at long last, relief from the marriage
tax penalty.
The marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married
working couples. For example, a manufacturing plant worker makes
$30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school
teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they both file
their taxes as singles they would pay 15 percent in income tax. But if
they choose to live their lives in holy matrimony and file jointly,
their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax bracket
of 28%. The result is a tax penalty of approximately $1,400.
The Republican marriage penalty relief bill eliminates this
unfairness without shifting of the tax burden and without increasing
taxes on any individual. Middle and low income families would benefit
as much as earners with higher incomes.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost half of all
married couples--21 million--are affected by the marriage penalty. Over
640,000 couples in Virginia are affected, according to one study.
Most of the tax relief under our plan goes to the middle class. The
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation's distribution analysis
estimates that couples making under $75,000 annually will be the
biggest winners. Additionally, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that
couples earning between $20,000 and $30,000 will receive the biggest
percentage reduction in their federal taxes out of any income level,
with couples making between $30,000-$40,000 fairing almost as well.

[[Page S7044]]

This money belongs to the taxpayers. With a surplus of over $2
trillion, not including Social Security, all taxpayers are entitled to
a return of their tax overpayment. In addition, the federal government,
through tax policy, should not discourage either parent from staying at
home with children. The government should not penalize a family simply
because it takes both spouses working outside of the home to make ends
meet. Being a stay at home parent should be rewarded.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will send
Uncle Sam almost $2 trillion in additional surplus taxes over the next
ten years--after Congress has locked up 100% of Social Security surplus
and paid down the public debt. This proposal gives back to the middle
class families just 10 cents out of every surplus dollar they send to
Washington. As I have said before, the Federal government should not
put a price tag on the sacrament of marriage.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, are there 2 minutes equally divided for
the rest of the evening?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this motion requires we do first things
first. It says we should pass marriage penalty relief, but it also says
we should substantially extend the solvency of Social Security and
Medicare at the same time. By 2037, the Social Security trust fund will
have consumed all of its assets. By 2025, the Medicare HI trust fund
will have consumed all of its assets.
To fix Social Security and Medicare, we can make small changes now or
big changes later. That is why President Clinton was right when he said
``save Social Security first.'' It would be irresponsible to enact tax
cuts this size before doing anything about Social Security and
Medicare. Before the Senate passes tax cuts this size, the Finance
Committee should report a plan to extend Social Security and Medicare.
We should do first things first. That is what this motion requires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, Senator Feingold's motion to commit to the
Finance Committee will not accomplish its stated purpose of Social
Security and Medicare reform. The bill before the Senate is limited
under the budget resolution to tax cuts. As chairman of the Finance
Committee, I can tell you we are actively pursuing a real bipartisan
Medicare reform package. Our efforts are not a political stunt, like
this motion. On Social Security reform, everyone believes that it is a
worthy goal but not one where there is currently a bipartisan
consensus. I urge my colleagues to reject Senator Feingold's motion.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), are
necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Coverdell) is absent due to illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), would vote ``no.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee L.,
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--49

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--6

Coverdell
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Rockefeller
Warner
The motion was rejected.
Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 3849 Withdrawn

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Senator
Brownback's amendment No. 3849.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Democratic alternative, amendment No. 3863, and related amendments and
motions be considered next, and that amendment No. 3863 be considered
germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Motion To Waive

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Roth motion to
waive the Budget Act for the amendments that would strike the sunset
provisions in the bill and the Democratic alternative.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Finance Committee complied with the Byrd
rule by terminating or sunsetting the tax cuts in the bill generally on
December 31, 2004. I note the Finance Committee Democratic alternative
contained a similar sunset provision. The case before us that benefits
a simple, broad-based tax policy change that reduces some of the tax
burden placed on married couples, outweighs the implications of the
Byrd rule.
Frankly, I think there are few more compelling cases for waiving the
Byrd rule. Clearly, though, we differ on how to deliver it. Every
Senator should place an importance on permanent marriage tax relief. I
urge my colleagues to strike a blow for permanent marriage tax relief
and support my motion to waive the Byrd rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I regret that I have to disagree with my chairman. The
Byrd rule has proved such an important measure to maintain budgetary
discipline. It has brought about the present happy circumstances; and
this is no time, in our view, to move back to earlier practices which
were so devastating in their effect during the 1980s.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yes.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S7045]]

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Coverdell
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this motion, the yeas are 48, the nays 47.
Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30
seconds to make an announcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, tomorrow, in S-128, models of the
National World War II Memorial will be on display for all Members and
staff to see. We encourage you to take a look at the models of this new
memorial that will be on The Mall soon, we hope.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield back our time, and I raise a
point of order that the Roth amendment No. 3864 to strike would worsen
the Nation's fiscal position in years beyond those reconciled in the
budget resolution and, thus, violates section 313(b)(1)(e) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained and the
amendment falls.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on amendment No. 3865, I yield back the time
and I will make a point of order that it is in violation of the Byrd
rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield back his
time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. ROTH. Again, I make a point of order that this amendment is in
violation of the Byrd rule of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.

Amendment No. 3863

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will exercise a brief 1 minute to
describe the Democratic alternative, which is now to be offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this amendment can be described in one
sentence. There are not many such, and I would hope the body might hear
me: We propose that married couples be enabled to file jointly or
singly, period, end of subject.
There are, sir, 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code. This amendment
abolishes them all. It would not allow the alternative minimum tax to
take away the benefits of marriage penalty relief either. Whereas we
have before us as a basic amendment that which would only take care of
one marriage penalty and touch two others, here is the opportunity to
get rid of them all.
In our tax system, no matter how large or small, whatever we do, we
must see that the American public believes the tax system is fair. If
there is a considerable judgment anywhere that something is not fair,
then it ought to be corrected. Our amendment will do that, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment is the same one we considered
in the Finance Committee. Supporters of this amendment claim it is
preferable because it is more targeted, that it only benefits certain
married families, and that it provides more comprehensive marriage
penalty relief.
I do not shy away from the fact that our bill benefits virtually
every American family. I welcome it. The Joint Committee on Taxation
tells us that our bill will help over 45 million families. They also
tell us the Democratic alternative will assist only 24 million.
Our bill also addresses the marriage penalty without creating a new
penalty--a so-called homemaker penalty. With our approach, all married
couples with the same income will be treated alike. This cannot be said
of the alternative.
Finally, the Democratic alternative includes that income cap. If we
are serious about addressing the inequity of this tax, we should not
make this an issue of rich versus poor. Our bill is fair, it is
comprehensive, and it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this Democratic substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. ROTH. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. ROTH. I so request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we are now having 10-minute votes, under
the previous order; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3863 of the Senator from New York.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--50

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Coverdell
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
The amendment (No. 3863) was rejected.
Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we proceed, I don't want to delay the
proceedings too long, but we are all very

[[Page S7046]]

much aware our friend and colleague is undergoing a difficult recovery
at this time and I know he has been on our mind. I appreciate the
Chaplain including him in the opening prayer this morning. Could I ask
my colleagues to join me now in a moment of silence for our colleague,
a silent prayer, for his speedy recovery.
(Moment of silence.)
Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues.

Amendment No. 3845

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, amendment No. 3845. There are
2 minutes equally divided between each side.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment cuts taxes for 7 of 10
taxpayers who take a standard deduction and ensures that many working
Americans would not owe any income taxes at all. It would increase the
standard deduction for individuals by $250, and would also increase the
standard deduction for heads of households. It would continue to
increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of an
individual. It is paid for by striking the provision in the bill that
benefits only taxpayers in the top quarter of the income distribution
by expanding tax brackets.
My amendment better targets the marriage penalty relief and would
simplify taxes and free many from paying income taxes altogether. The
tradeoff is clear. Strike the new benefits for the best off quarter of
taxpayers to fund benefits for 7 out of 10 taxpayers.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the increase in
the rate brackets of the underlying bill. As my colleagues may know, in
dollar terms, the greatest source of marriage penalty for American
families is the rate brackets. Under current law, for instance, the 15
percent rate bracket ends for singles at $26,250; it ends for couples
at $43,850. Our bill has remedied that unfairness by phasing in a
doubling of the married couples' rate bracket so that it ends at twice
the ending point of the single's bracket.
While I agree that a further increase in the standard deduction is a
good idea, I do not believe we should do it at the expense of the
increase in the rate brackets. Accordingly, I must oppose this
amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3845. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

YEAS--40

Akaka
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Coverdell
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
The amendment (No. 3845) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3846

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). There are now 2 minutes
evenly divided on the Feingold amendment No. 3846.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. The vital program known as COBRA helps ensure that
people who lose their jobs do not lose their health insurance at the
same time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, can we have order in the Senate so we can
hear what the Senator is saying?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will
please take their conferences off the floor.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. The vital program known as COBRA helps ensure that
people who lose their jobs do not lose their health insurance at the
same time. My amendment would expand access to affordable health
insurance through COBRA in two ways. First, it would expand COBRA to
cover retirees whose employer-sponsored coverage is terminated.
Employers who promise retiree coverage and then drop it will have to
allow early retirees to have COBRA-continued coverage until they
qualify for Medicare.
Second, it would create a 25-percent tax credit for COBRA premiums
generally. This credit will improve access to and affordability of
health insurance for this very vulnerable group. The amendment pays for
this health coverage by eliminating an inequitable tax loophole: the
percentage depletion allowance for hard rock minerals mined on Federal
public lands.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. ROTH. I yield such time as the Senator from Nevada may use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment would be devastating to one
of the finest industries in America today: hard rock mining. It is a
net exporter of gold especially. Tens of thousands of jobs will be
wiped out. These are the highest paid blue-collar jobs in America.
This amendment is bad. We should do everything we can to defeat it.
Therefore, Mr. President, I move that the pending amendment is not
germane and raise a point of order that the amendment violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of
that act for consideration of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 30, nays 68, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

YEAS--30

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Collins
Daschle
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Robb
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--68

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett

[[Page S7047]]

Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Coverdell
Hutchinson

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are
68. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment would add new
subject matter to the bill and is therefore not germane. The point of
order is sustained. The amendment falls.
The Senator from West Virginia.

Explanation For Not Voting

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on vote No. 198, I was unavoidably
detained. I apologize for that. I missed the first vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted aye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 3847

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3847 is pending. The Senator has
1 minute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if we are for equal pay for women and men
who do the same work, then this is the amendment to do it--the Paycheck
Fairness Act, which was introduced under Senator Daschle's leadership.
It provides stronger remedies in wage discrimination cases and provides
resources to educate employers on wage discrimination. It ensures that
women cannot be retaliated against for sharing their pay information
with fellow employees.
It is time to stop giving America's women lipservice for equal pay
for equal work, but to actually do something to make it happen. That is
what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we discuss the tax code and the issue
of fairness for families, Senator Harkin has offered an important
amendment to address an issue of fairness faced by millions of working
women and their families. Senator Harkin and I have worked hard to
craft legislation that addresses the wage gap between men and women in
this country. This amendment is modeled after my bill, S. 74, the
Paycheck Fairness Act. In an era characterized by economic opportunity,
it is time for the Senate to consider how America's prosperity can be
broadly and fairly shared.
While much has changed over the past 35 years, one thing has remained
the same: the wage gap between men and women. When President Kennedy
signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, a woman earned only 59 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. This landmark bill reduced the pay gap
and helped women make great strides to narrow the pay gap. Nonetheless,
35 years later, women, on average, continue to earn only 73 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. This disparity is patently unfair. The
time has come to improve and strengthen President Kennedy's landmark
law.
Some have suggested that the pay gap is insignificant, but working
women know better. Even after accounting for differences in education
and the amount of time in the workforce, a woman's pay still lags far
behind the pay of a man doing the same work. This persistent wage gap
doesn't shortchange just women. It shortchanges families. The wage gap
causes the average American working family to lose more than $4000 a
year. In fact, it is women's salaries that often bring children and
families out of poverty. And families suffer more in South Dakota than
in most states because we have the highest percentage in the nation of
working mothers with children under the age of 6. These mothers deserve
equal pay for equal work.
To address this serious problem, the Paycheck Fairness Act uses a
simple approach: we believe that the pay gap will decrease if women and
men have more information about it; we believe the pay gap will
decrease if we enable women to pursue meaningful suits against
employers that have discriminatory practices; and we believe that the
pay gap will decrease if employers are educated and rewarded for doing
their part to end wage discrimination.
My bill is a modest but needed step in the fight against wage
discrimination. The simple fact remains--working families face the
problem of wage discrimination every day and lose billions of dollars
in wages because of it. Instead of the risky tax scheme the Senate is
considering today, we should give women and American families a much
needed raise. We should pass the Harkin amendment today and continue to
work towards the day when the pay gap is eliminated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment that my colleague from
Iowa has offered amends the Fair Labor Standards Act but it has never
had a hearing before the Labor Committee. It has never been marked up
by the Labor Committee. It is legislation that would make the trial
lawyers very happy because it authorizes unlimited punitive and
compensatory damages for discrimination cases brought under the Equal
Pay Act. In fact, it would authorize remedies not available in any
title VII discrimination case or Americans with Disabilities Act case
because damages under those statutes are capped. It would also make it
easier for trial lawyers to create class action lawsuits. It is bad
legislation and it does not belong on this bill. I encourage my
colleagues to support the point of order and reject the amendment.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment offered by
my colleague from Iowa is not germane to the underlying bill and would,
therefore, result in a section 305(b)(2) point of order under the
Budget Act. I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment
pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

[[Page S7048]]

NOT VOTING--2

Coverdell
Hutchinson

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment would add new
subject matter to the bill and is therefore not germane. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the two managers to yield to the
Senator from Louisiana for a unanimous consent request.

Amendment No. 3888

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment I send to the desk be in order and that it take the place of
a Dodd amendment that was removed from the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 3888

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the
adoption credit to provide assistance to adoptive parents of special
needs children, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. EXPANSION OF ADOPTION CREDIT.

(a) Special Needs Adoption.--
(1) Credit amount.--Paragraph (1) of section 23(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of
credit) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter--
``(A) in the case of a special needs adoption, $10,000, or
``(B) in the case of any other adoption, the amount of the
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the
taxpayer.''.
(2) Year credit allowed.--Section 23(a)(2) of such Code
(relating to year credit allowed) is amended by adding at the
end the following new flush sentence:

``In the case of a special needs adoption, the credit allowed
under paragraph (1) shall be allowed for the taxable year in
which the adoption becomes final.''.
(3) Dollar limitation.--Section 23(b)(1) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)(B)'', and
(B) by striking ``($6,000, in the case of a child with
special needs)''.
(4) Definition of special needs adoption.--Section 23(d) of
such Code (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special needs adoption.--The term `special needs
adoption' means the final adoption of an individual during
the taxable year who is an eligible child and who is a child
with special needs.''.
(5) Definition of child with special needs.--Section
23(d)(3) of such Code (defining child with special needs) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Child with special needs.--The term `child with
special needs' means any child if a State has determined that
the child's ethnic background, age, membership in a minority
or sibling groups, medical condition or physical impairment,
or emotional handicap makes some form of adoption assistance
necessary.''.
(b) Increase in Income Limitations.--Section 23(b)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income
limitation) is amended --
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$63,550
($105,950 in the case of a joint return)'', and
(B) by striking ``$40,000'' and inserting ``the applicable
amount'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Applicable amount.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the applicable amount, with respect to any taxpayer, for the
taxable year shall be an amount equal to the excess of--
``(i) the maximum taxable income amount for the 31 percent
bracket under the table contained in section 1 relating to
such taxpayer and in effect for the taxable year, over
``(ii) the dollar amount in effect with respect to the
taxpayer for the taxable year under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(D) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning
after 2001, each dollar amount under subparagraph (A)(i)
shall be increased by an amount equal to--

``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2000'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

``(ii) Rounding rules.--If any amount after adjustment
under clause (i) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount
shall be rounded to the next lower multiple of $1,000.''.
(c) Adoption Credit Made Permanent.--Subclauses (A) and (B)
of section 23(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining eligible child) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) who has not attained age 18, or
``(B) who is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 23(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``(1)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.
(2) Section 23(b)(3) of such Code is amended by striking
``(a)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(a)(1)(B)''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Members,
these 10-minute votes have been going much closer to 15, 16, or 17
minutes. At this late hour, I ask the Senators to stay in the Chamber
or someplace nearby. We are having to vote long periods of time with
people coming from offices and other places. We can do better and save
a lot of time if we can vote within the 10-minute period.

Amendment No. 3848

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Kennedy amendment No.
3848.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are talking about relief from the so-
called marriage penalty in the Tax Code. But low-income married parents
face a more serious marriage penalty under Medicaid. Under the current
law, parents who are married lose their health coverage under Medicaid
in some 14 States. In other States, they lose their health coverage
under Medicaid if they work more than 100 hours a month. That is wrong.
Our answer to this problem is to provide States with the resources
and authority to expand S-CHIP and Medicaid to the parents of the
children who are covered under these programs. It is a sensible system.
The President has paid for it in his budget. It provides needed relief
from the health marriage and work penalty under Medicaid. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the FamilyCare initiative prematurely
doubles the size and scope of the new State Children's Health Insurance
Program. S-CHIP has been enrolling children for less than 3 years--and
it has not reached its goals in terms of covering eligible children.
Let us make sure the S-CHIP model works before we expand it so
dramatically.
In fact, Mr. President, it is worth noting that if the states want to
extend coverage to parents, they may do so now under Medicaid waivers,
or even under S-CHIP, if that coverage is ``cost-effective''.
In addition to program concerns, FamilyCare raises a fundamental
question. Should parenthood be the driving factor in terms of
eligibility for health insurance coverage? FamilyCare rewards
parenthood and disadvantages working poor individuals who decide to
postpone having families until they are better able to afford to raise
a child.
Finally, this new initiative is extremely costly. We are talking
about creating a new program with a cost of $50 billion over ten
years--all without holding hearings on the bill and without any
discussion of priorities.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Kennedy amendment is
neither germane nor relevant to the reconciliation bill, it is in
violation of 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is
absent due to illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?

[[Page S7049]]

The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--47

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Coverdell
Hutchinson

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, and the nays are
47. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting, not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not agreed
to. The amendment would add new subject matter to the bill and is
therefore not germane. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3851 to Amendment No. 3850

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bond
second-degree amendment to the Durbin amendment.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is not fair that a self-employed person
cannot deduct 100 percent of health care costs when a large business
can. A self-employed person is denied that deductibility, even though
we have worked since 1995 when this body accepted my amendment at that
time to increase the deductibility of insurance costs for the self-
employed. Still, only 60 percent of the health insurance cost is
deductible by the self-employed.
I have talked to a lot of these people. They cannot wait until 2003
when they will get 100-percent deductibility. My amendment says there
is 100-percent deductibility this year and makes sure that the 5
million Americans in households headed by self-employed can get health
care coverage, including 1.3 million children.
It also corrects a disparity in current law which says if a self-
employed person is eligible for health coverage from another plan, a
second job, or a spouse's plan, they cannot deduct. This says you can
deduct so long as you do not participate in another health care plan.
I thank my colleagues on both sides and my colleague from Illinois.
I urge this body to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Missouri has taken a very good amendment
and made it even better. I hope Members will join in supporting the
second-degree amendment by Senator Bond to my amendment, for the full
deductibility of the health insurance premiums for the self-employed. I
hope you will resist efforts, if we are successful, to remove this
amendment at a later time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
The amendment (No. 3851) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3850

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the first-degree amendment?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield back my time and ask for a
favorable vote on the Durbin amendment, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as amended.
The amendment (No. 3850), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3852

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I have another amendment at the desk, which if I am not
mistaken, is next in order on the list for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment 3852.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are 44 million Americans without
health insurance. Among uninsured workers, most of them work for small
businesses. This amendment creates a tax credit for small businesses
which will offer health insurance for their employees. The tax credits
especially favor those businesses which have not offered it in the
past. I think it is a good investment to help small businesses take
care of their No. 1 concern: health insurance for the owners of the
business, health insurance for the employees of the small business.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I look at my colleague's amendment, and
he says for health care we will make it a tax credit. That means it is
more valuable than wages; that means it is more valuable than any other
expenditure for an employer.
We passed several tax provisions to encourage employers and
individuals to buy health care. We passed that with the Patients' Bill
of Rights. We passed it with minimum wage. The amendment of my
colleague from Illinois, in my opinion, is misdirected and very
expensive. We have not had a hearing in the Finance Committee. I think
it happens to be bad policy. It says for this type of expenditure, it
is more important than any other that an employer would make.
I make a budget point of order under section 305 that it is in
violation of the Budget Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of the act for consideration of the pending bill, and I seek
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). Is there a
sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell)
is absent due to illness.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--49

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison

[[Page S7050]]

Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Coverdell
Torricelli

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment would add new
subject matter to the bill and is, therefore, not germane. The point of
order is satisfied. The amendment fails.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3853

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 3853
offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a moment? It
is my understanding this is going to be the last vote tonight, is that
correct, I ask the Chairman?
Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. REID. There are going to be some other votes that do not require
rollcalls after this?
Mr. ROTH. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, recognizing this is the last rollcall vote
of the evening, I will not take the time of this Chamber. It is a very
simple amendment. A majority of this body has already gone on record
saying that we will make certain we pass a prescription drug benefit
for seniors before we pass all of these other tax cuts. We passed a
major tax cut on Friday. We are proposing to pass tomorrow morning
another major tax cut.
All this amendment says is, before these tax cuts go into effect, we
will have actually delivered on the promise to provide a prescription
drug benefit.
I hope it will be the pleasure of this Senate to adopt this amendment
and keep the faith with our seniors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is an amendment that undermines, not
advances, progress on two important issues. Its only effect will be to
stop tax cuts for families while not advancing by a day Medicare reform
that should include a prescription drug benefit. If anything, it slows
down Medicare reform by politicizing the issue.
Prescription drugs should not be pitted against family tax cuts. We
can and should be for both. The budget surplus allows for both. The
budget passed by Congress allows for both and both are necessary
policies, but they must first each be correctly thought through.
Now is the time to pass marriage tax relief, an issue on which we
have been working for years. Now is the time to be working together on
Medicare reform, as we are in the Finance Committee. Working together
we can succeed on both policies. Seeking division we will fail on each.
Notwithstanding any policy objections, the pending amendment offered by
the Senator from Virginia is not germane to the underlying bill and
would, therefore, result in a section 305(b)(2) point of order under
the Budget Act. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the
amendment pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell)
is absent due to illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Coverdell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The amendment makes
provisions of this act contingent upon enactment of other legislation.
Therefore, it is nongermane. The point of order is sustained and the
amendment falls.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3854, 3855, 3859, 3860, 3877, and 3888

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements relating to the amendments be printed in
the Record. The amendments are the following: Nos. 3854, 3855, 3859,
3860, 3877, and 3888.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3854, 3855, 3859, 3860, 3877, and 3888) were
agreed to.

amendment no. 3859

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, The Cleland Savings Bond Tax-Exclusion
for Long-Term Care Services Amendment would exclude United States
savings bond income from being taxed if used to pay for long-term
health care expenses. Current law provides an income exclusion for
savings bond income used to pay for qualified higher education
expenses. This amendment expands the tax code section 135 to allow the
savings bond income exclusion for eligible long-term care expenses as
well. This measure will assist individuals struggling to accommodate
costs associated with many chronic medical conditions and the aging
process. A staggering 5.8 million Americans are afflicted with the
financial burdens of long-term care.
This legislation will assist families by:
Providing a tax exclusion for savings bonds used to pay for long-term
care;
Allowing families to use their savings bond assets to face the dual
challenge of paying for long-term care services and higher education
expenses.
Thank you and I urge you to support this proposal to provide tax
relief to Americans burdened by the financial constraints of providing
long-term care and higher education expenses. I yield the floor.

amendment no. 3860

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, we have on the books today a special
enhanced tax deduction for individuals and corporations which donate
computers to our nation's elementary and secondary schools. This
deduction--which helps to keep America on the cutting-edge in
technology--is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The
amendment I am offering is twofold: it would extend this tax deduction
for five years and it would expand it to include computer donations to
public libraries and non-profit and governmental community centers as
well.
My amendment will help to close the ``digital divide'' which exists
in this

[[Page S7051]]

country by providing a viable alternative for Americans who are being
left behind because they do not have access in their homes to computer
and Internet use. We know, for example, that Americans earning less
than $20,000 who use the Internet outside the home are twice as likely
to get their access through a public library or community center. And
Americans who are not in the labor force, such as retirees or
homemakers, are twice as likely to use public libraries for on-line
access.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It would extend a tax
deduction which has proved invaluable in boosting efforts by
individuals and companies to donate computer equipment and web access
to our Nation's schools. And it will help to keep this Nation a leader
in the global economy by helping to close the gap between the
technological haves and the have nots.

Amendments Nos. 3856, 3857, 3861, 3862, 3866, 3867, 3876, 3879, 3880,
and 3882 Withdrawn

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be withdrawn: Nos. 3856, 3857, 3861, 3862, 3866,
3867, 3876, 3879, 3880, and 3882.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Daschle and Johnson be added as cosponsors of the Dorgan amendment No.
3877.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Johnson be added as a cosponsor of the Moynihan amendment No. 3863.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about the
reconciliation bill before us containing marriage penalty tax relief.
This is an issue about fairness, Mr. President for around thirty
years our Tax Code has been penalizing people just becuase they happen
to be married. This is a perfect example of how broken our Tax Code is.
Just like the earnings limitation that discriminated against older
Americans, this unfiar Tax needs to be dumped. It took a Republican-led
Congress to repeal the Social Security earnings limit.
And now, it's the same Republican-led Congress that's talking the
lead in repealing the marriage penalty tax. We tried it a couple of
months ago, but we were blocked by the Democratic side from passing the
bill. Now, we're back under reconciliation instructions that prevent
the other side from gridlocking the Senate.
Of course, the minority side wants you to believe they're all for
getting rid of the marriage penalty tax. Of course, they had control of
the Congress for decades and never once tried to repeal it.
What's worse, now they're using the old bait-and-switch routine. They
say they're for this tax relief, but not until Social Security and
Medicare are fixed.
We all know neither the administration nor the Democratic side have
comprehensive proposals to fix Social Security and Medicare, so this is
just a delyaing tactic to kill the bill so, they say they're for
marriage penalty relief--but only sometime in the unknown future.
That's Washington D.C. double-talk.
Delaying this tax relief really means no tax relief at all.
Mr. President, we've heard other misleading arguments that under the
majority bill, married couples would get a tax cut, but single mothers
with kids would not get one. However, an important part of our bill
repeals the alternative minimum tax for over then million people. Many
of those helped will be single mothers. But, guess what's even more
interesting? The Democrat alternative bill is the bill that doesn't
help single mothers at all.
In addition, it's important to note that the Democrat alternative
discriminates against stay-at-home moms. That's right, the Democrat
proposal only helps two earner couples. So, it not only doesn't helpt
those single mothers the other side was crying crocodile tears over--it
hurts those families where one partent decides to stay at home with the
children.
I hope all of you stay-at-home parents out there listening understand
what the Democratic alternative will do to them.
Mr. President, we're going to pass this tax relief measure anad send
it to President Clinton.
This begs the question--where is the Clinton-Gore administration on
providing this tax reljief to working Americans? Well, a few weeks ago,
the administration offered to accept mariiage penalty tax relief for a
Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is the same tax relief bill
the Clinton-Gore administration and Democrats have been attacking and
deriding for months. Now, they're saying, forget all those bad things
we said, we're ready to deal.
This just shows the Clinton-Gore administration either doesn't have
any principles, or they're willing to trade them to the highest bidder.
Of course, for years this administration has been saying they would
work with Congress to save social security and medicare. But, here we
are near the end of this administration, and it has no comprehensive
plan to save either program. They're reduced to trying to salvage a
legacy by creating a hugely expensive entitlement program that could
end up draining the hard-earned surplus. This is a surplus earned bythe
American people, not the Government, who wants to spend it all.
Interestingly, a recent polly said that 60 percent of Americans credit
American workers and businesse for our successful economy. Only 39
percent credit the administration, who would like you to believe they
did it all.
I think the American people are finally figuring out the Clinton-Gore
charade.
We're going to see more and more of these con-games as sthe Year
winds down, and this tired, worn-out administration desperately tries
to reshape its disappointing place in history.
Mr. President, the time for delay is over. The time for gridlock is
over. Now is the time to pass this important tax relief measure, and I
urge the members of this body to come together and do what's right, by
passing this legislation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4810--
legislation that would dramatically reduce one of the most insidious
aspects of the tax code: the marriage penalty.
As my colleagues are aware, there are several primary causes of the
``marriage penalty'' within the tax code, including different tax rate
schedules and different standard deductions for joint filers versus
single filers.
In terms of the impact of these differing tax provisions, the
marriage penalty is most pronounced for two-earner couples in which the
husband and wife have nearly equal incomes. While this may not have
been as noticeable in society 30 or 40 years ago, the demographic
changes that have occurred since the 1960s--with more married women
entering the workforce to help support their families--has led to a
significant increase in the share of couples who suffer from the
marriage penalty.
Make no mistake, the impact of the marriage penalty is severe.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 42% of married
couples incur marriage penalties that average nearly $1,400.
When measured by income category, fully 12% of couples with incomes
below $20,000 incurred a marriage penalty in 1996; 44% of couples with
incomes of $20,000 to $50,000; and 55% of couples with incomes above
$50,000.
In addition, according to CBO, empirical evidence suggests that the
marriage penalty may affect work patterns, particularly for a couple's
second earner. Specifically, because filing a joint return often
imposes a substantially higher tax rate on a couple's second earner,
the higher rate reduces the second earner's after-tax wage and may
cause that individual to work fewer hours or not at all. As a result,
economic efficiency is harmed in the overall economy.
Furthermore, while I would hope that the tax code would not be a
factor in a couple's decision to marry or stay single, the simple fact
is that a couple's tax status could worsen if married and could,
therefore, impact a couple's decision to marry. Therefore, we should
eliminate this potential barrier to marriage and ensure that couples
make one of life's biggest decisions based on their values and
beliefs--not on the federal tax code.
As a strong opponent of the marriage penalty, I am an original
cosponsor of S. 15, legislation introduced by Senator

[[Page S7052]]

Hutchison that eliminates the marriage penalty through a proposal known
as ``income splitting.'' Under this approach, a married couple would
add up all their income and then split it in half. Each spouse would
then file as a single individual and pay taxes on his or her half of
the total income, with exemptions, deductions and credits being split
evenly between the two spouses.
Last year, to advance this legislation or any other proposal that
would provide marriage penalty relief, I offered an amendment during
the markup of the FY 2000 budget resolution that ensured a significant
reduction in--or the outright elimination of--the marriage penalty
would be a central component of any tax cut package adopted during last
year's reconciliation process.
Later that summer, in accordance with my budget amendment, the $792
billion tax cut reconciliation package that was passed by the Senate
included such relief, as did the final House-Senate conference report.
However, just as President Clinton vetoed the tax bill in 1995 that
included marriage penalty relief, last year's tax bill was vetoed as
well.

In an effort to address this issue outside a broader tax package, the
House of Representatives passed legislation earlier this year--by a
bipartisan vote of 268 to 158--that would reduce the marriage penalty.
The Senate considered its version of the legislation in April, but a
Democratic filibuster prevented us from bringing the bill to a final
vote. Today, we are considering nearly identical legislation yet again,
but--thanks to the budget reconciliation process--we are assured it
will come to a final vote.
Mr. President, H.R. 4810 would dramatically reduce the marriage
penalty by doubling the standard deduction for married couples relative
to single filers; expanding the 15 percent and 28 percent income tax
brackets for married couples to twice the size of the corresponding tax
brackets for single filers; increasing the phase-out range of the
Earned Income Credit for couples filing joint returns; and permanently
exempting family tax credits from the individual Alternative Minimum
Tax.
I am especially pleased that the legislation does not penalize
families in which a spouse foregoes an income to raise children.
Unfortunately, the proposal that is being espoused by the minority
would do just that.
Specifically, by allowing married couples to file their taxes as if
they were single, the substitute proposal would provide relief only to
families in which both spouses have taxable incomes. As a result, if a
spouse has no earned income by virtue of the fact that he or she is
working at home to raise the family's children--but doesn't actually
earn a salary for each of the myriad of tasks this profession entails--
the couple would receive none of the benefits of the larger tax
brackets or standard deduction that a single taxpayer currently
receives because only one-half of the couple has an income to report.
I believe a spouse's decision to work outside the home and utilize
daycare, or work at home to raise children, should be made with only
the best interests of the family in mind--not the tax code. We should
not take a significant step to eliminate the marriage penalty only to
replace it with a ``homemaker penalty''--and I'm pleased that H.R. 4810
ensures that the benefits it provides can be used by all couples,
including those in which a spouse foregoes an income to raise a family.
It is my hope that, by considering this package of marriage penalty
relief proposals as a stand-alone bill--and not as part of a broader,
and potentially controversial, tax cut package--we will not only pass
this legislation with strong bipartisan support, but ultimately send a
bill to the President that he will sign for the benefit of all married
couples.
The bottom line is that we should not condone or accept a tax code
that penalizes married couples or discourages marriage, and this bill
provides the Senate with the opportunity to correct this inequity in a
straightforward manner.
Ultimately, the bill we are considering is not simply about providing
the American people with a reasonable and rational tax cut--rather, it
is about correcting a gross discrepancy in the tax code that unfairly
impacts married couples. Accordingly, even though individual members of
this body disagree on a wide variety of tax cuts policies, I would hope
we would all agree that the act of marriage should not be penalized by
the Internal Revenue Code--and would support S. 4810 accordingly.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for this pro-family, pro-economic growth legislation. It is unfortunate
that government continues to burden its citizens with excessive and
unfair taxation. Indeed, America's income tax system reduces freedom
and economic growth. An embarrassing example of this inequity is the
marriage penalty--essentially, a quirk in the income tax code that
causes some married couples to be penalized and taxed at higher rates,
simply because they marry.
The treatment of marriage provides an important example of why we
need to support equity in the tax code. Consider that two couples who
are exactly the same--except one is married and the other couple is
not. A peculiar feature in our tax code is that these two couples may
pay different taxes. Simply put, when a man and woman get married,
their tax liability can rise and the federal government can take more
of the married couple's money. This is a fundamental problem in the tax
code. I believe in fairness and simplicity when it comes to taxes. A
married couple should not pay more taxes than an unmarried couple with
the same total income. This is poor policy.
Marriage neutrality is the principle that when two people get
married, their total bill should not change. Unfortunately, the U.S.
income tax is not marriage neutral. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, almost half of all married couples--22 million--suffered
from the marriage penalty last year. In my home state of Idaho, 129,710
couples were adversely affected because of this system. These married
couples on average paid an extra $1,500 in income tax. Moreover, as
women are working hard to achieve salary equity, it is unfortunate that
as women approach income levels similar to their husbands, the marriage
penalty increasingly kicks in and the federal government simply takes
their money back.
Under this bill, beginning next year, Congress will restore marriage
neutrality to the code. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation
Act will increase the standard deduction for married couples to
approximately $8,800. This is twice the basic standard deduction for a
single tax filer. The bill will also widen the 15 percent and 28
percent income tax brackets for married couples filing a joint return
to twice the size of the corresponding rate brackets of single
individuals. This is a commonsense solution to ending any disparity for
married couples who find they are paying a penalty. Fortunately for
them, the rules under which we are debating the Marriage Tax Penalty
Relief Reconciliation Act will also shield senators from excess delay
and we will have an up-or-down vote. True to the bill's name, we are
here to reconcile an unfair tax provision that is counterproductive to
our goal of equity and fairness.
Today, we have finally put an end to expensive entitlements and the
reckless fiscal behavior that created large deficits in the 1970s,
1980s, and early 1990s. Indeed, the surging U.S. economy has produced
an unprecedented tidal wave of federal tax receipts. This year, the
country will see a $76 billion dollar surplus--over the next ten years
the non-social security surplus is estimated at $1.9 trillion. This
raises the question: when will the government start returning money to
the people? With these surpluses there is no doubt that there is room
for marriage tax relief and additional debt reduction. Therefore, we
should seize this opportunity to return these surplus dollars, before
the bureaucrats in town start spending them. If we do not, an
opportunity to restore horizontal equity to the tax code will be lost,
because surpluses--like we have today--will certainly invite an
irresponsible flurry of new spending.
Americans have historically and consistently expressed their
discontent for excessive and unfair taxation. I have stacks of letters
in my office from honest and hard-working Idahoans who rightfully want
to know where their

[[Page S7053]]

tax cut is. Let us take this opportunity to return something to those
American families who are married and working to support families and
loved ones. Let us make good on our constituent promise by voting to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty and let us give the President an
opportunity to honor his State of the Union promise by signing this
bill.
The federal tax code remains intrusive, overly complicated, and
excessively burdensome. As part of my effort to bring tax relief to the
American people, I have co-sponsored or voted for legislation to reduce
the death tax, gas tax, beer tax, and telephone excise tax. Today, we
have an opportunity to vote for a bill that I hope will have broad
bipartisan support. Senators should be mindful of the opportunity to
provide needed relief to married couples. Death and taxes are
certainties in life. Let us vote to ensure that fairness is too. I urge
my colleagues to support repeal of the marriage tax penalty. It is the
right thing to do.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it was about two-and-a-half years ago that I
came to the Senate floor to call on the Senate to repeal two of the
most egregious and unfair taxes imposed by the nation's Tax Code: the
steep taxes imposed on people when they get married and when they die.
The good news is, for the second time in two years, the Senate has
cleared legislation to repeal the death tax. And this week, for the
third time, we will clear a measure to repeal the marriage penalty.
In 1995, Congress passed legislation that would have provided a tax
credit to married couples to offset this penalty somewhat. President
Clinton vetoed that bill.
In 1999, Congress again approved a measure to provide married couples
with some relief. Last year's bill would have set the standard
deduction for couples at twice the deduction allowed for singles. It
would also have set the lowest income-tax bracket for married couples
at twice that allowed for single taxpayers. President Clinton vetoed
that measure last September.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the total tax burden
borne by American taxpayers dipped slightly in 1998. That is the good
news. The bad news is that Americans still spent more on federal taxes
than on any of the other major items in their household budgets. For
the median-income, two-earner family, federal taxes still amounted to
39 percent of the family budget--more than what they spent on food,
housing, and medical care combined. One of the reasons why they paid so
much is the continuation of the marriage penalty that exists in the
Nation's tax code.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half of all
married taxpayers--about 21 million couples--filing a joint return paid
a higher tax than they would have if each spouse had been allowed to
file as a single taxpayer.
The marriage penalty hits the working poor particularly hard. Two-
earner families making less than $20,000 often must devote a full eight
percent of their income to pay the marriage penalty. Eight percent is
an extraordinary amount for couples that count on every dollar to make
ends meet.
Let me stop here and give an example of the marriage penalty at work.
In this example, the penalty comes about because workers filing as
single taxpayers get a higher standard deduction, and because income-
tax bracket thresholds for married couples are lower than the threshold
for singles. Consider a married couple in which each spouse earns about
$30,000 a year. They would have paid $7,655 in federal income taxes
last year. By comparison, two individuals earning the same amount, but
filing single returns, would have paid only $6,892 between the two of
them. That is a marriage penalty of $763.
The average penalty--average penalty--paid by couples is even higher
than that--about $1,400 a year, according to the Congressional Budget
Office. Think what families could do with an extra $1,400. They could
pay for three or four months of day care if they choose to send a child
outside the home--or make it easier for one parent to stay at home to
take care of the children, if that is what they decide is best for
them. They could make four or five payments on their car or minivan.
They could pay their utility bill for nine months.
The bill before us is the most comprehensive effort yet to eliminate
the marriage penalty. It would expand the standard deduction for
married couples filing jointly; widen the tax brackets for such
couples; and increase the income phase-outs for the earned income
credit.
Unlike President Clinton's so-called relief bill, the plan Chairman
Roth brings to us today does not neglect married couples who choose to
have one parent stay at home to raise the children. It gives them
relief, and, in so doing, it lets them know we value the choice they
have made to stay home and raise a family.
Unlike the Clinton plan, which would preserve the penalty for many
couples, our plan would eliminate the marriage penalty in its entirety.
Sure, that means the revenue loss associated with this legislation is
greater than the President proposed, but the smaller cost of providing
relief under the Clinton plan is also indicative of just how little it
would do to solve the problem. We should not be stingy when attempting
to ensure fairness in the tax code.
Passage of this legislation would continue the good progress we have
made this year in making the tax code fairer. First, we passed the
measure to repeal the Social Security earnings limitation, a tax that
has unfairly penalized seniors for more than 60 years, simply because
they wanted to earn some extra income to supplement their monthly
retirement checks. That measure is now law.
Last week, we voted to eliminate the death tax, which unfairly taxes
people simply because they die. We voted to substitute a capital-gains
tax so that inherited assets are taxed at the appropriate time--when
they are sold, and when income is actually realized.
Hopefully, the marriage-penalty repeal bill, like the death-tax
repeal, will pass with a strong, bipartisan majority, and President
Clinton will rethink his opposition and sign it when it reaches his
desk.
We can debate the merits of any number of changes in the tax code:
whether a flat tax is preferable to a sales tax; whether tax rates
should be reduced across the board; or whether we should make the tax
code more conducive to savings and investment. There are legitimate
points to be made on both sides.
But when it comes to fairness, we need to do what is right. The
marriage penalty, like the earnings limit and the death tax, is wrong,
it is unfair, and it is time to put it to rest. I urge support for the
marriage-penalty repeal bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider legislation
to address the anomaly in the tax code known as the marriage penalty.
The Senate will consider this legislation in light of recent budget
projections that show a windfall in federal budget surpluses over the
next ten years, and under expedited rules that will almost guarantee
passage of some form of marriage penalty relief.
First, I am, as are many other Senators, concerned about the so-
called marriage penalty. I can think of no reason why a married couple
should have a higher tax liability simply because they have chosen to
make a lifelong commitment together through the sacred bond of
marriage. I doubt that any Senator would refute the assertion that the
promotion of marriage and family stability benefits the nation at
large. Indeed, the marriage bond as recognized in the Judaeo-Christian
tradition, as well as in the legal codes of the world's most advanced
societies, is a cornerstone on which societies build their morals and
values. The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 to ``. . . let every man
have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the
husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the
wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body,
but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent
for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.'' The
institution of marriage was prized in the Bible, and likewise, by the
ancient world in Rome, and more particularly, in Greece. ``There is
nothing nobler or more admirable than when two people who see

[[Page S7054]]

eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and
delighting their friends,'' wrote Homer in The Odyssey (9th Century
BC).
Our federal government has no official policy on marriage with
respect to taxing or subsidizing the institution. Still, what can only
be referred to as a quirk in the tax code causes some married couples
to pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. I have always
believed that the federal income tax code should, at the very least, be
marriage neutral. Unfortunately, marriage neutrality has proven to be
an elusive goal. The reason is that marriage neutrality is incompatible
with a progressive tax system that allows for joint tax returns. When
two single taxpayers are married, their incomes increase and can, in
some cases, push the couple into a higher tax bracket than when they
filed as separate singles. The opposite can also happen, where married
couples find themselves in a lower tax bracket than when they were
single.
Both the Republican and Democratic proposals before the Senate today
attempt to balance the competing interests of progressive taxation,
joint tax returns, and marriage neutrality in the best way possible.
The Republican proposal, for example, reduces the marginal tax rates
for married couples so that recently married couples would not be
bumped up into a higher tax bracket. This would effectively eliminate
the marriage penalty relating to marginal tax rates. The trade-off is
that marriage bonuses, which occur when a married couple pay less in
taxes than they would if they filed as two single taxpayers, would be
increased.
While some Senators would argue that the Republican proposal is a tax
giveaway to households that already receive favorable tax treatment
because of marriage, marriage bonuses provide increased assistance for
families who make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or
career and for one parent to stay at home with their children. Families
in this situation ought to be extended tax incentives just the same as
those families with a limited income and a child in the child care
system. Raising children to be responsible, caring, law-abiding adults
is one of the most important tasks that any of us will ever undertake.
As we can see daily from the steady stream of frightening newspaper
headlines on schoolyard shootings and gang activities, it is also one
of the hardest. The fabric of our society, the warp of family closeness
and the woof of community, is torn and frayed. If a family makes the
increasingly difficult choice to allow one parent to stay at home and
focus on child rearing, then, frankly, I think we ought to make it
easier for them to do so. We certainly should not make it harder, or
more financially punitive! It is too important for the continued
strength of our society. I am pleased that this bill takes this
important step of recognizing the role of the stay-at-home parent by
providing these families with a small amount of relief to assist with
the costs of raising a child.

The Democratic proposal also attempts to balance the goals of joint
tax entities and progressive taxation with marriage neutrality. This
proposal would allow married couples to calculate their income tax as
either a married couple or as two singles, depending on which method
would be less costly. The effect of this approach would be the
elimination for eligible couples of all sixty-five marriage penalty
provisions in the tax code, while maintaining the existing marriage
bonuses.
Both proposals provide marriage penalty relief to families of all
income levels. In the Republican proposal, lower-income families who
receive the earned income tax credit would benefit from marriage
penalty relief, while the elimination of the marriage penalty caused by
the standard deduction would benefit middle-income households. The
Democratic proposal, however, is more targeted to lower- and middle-
income households because the marriage penalty relief is phased out for
couples with an income above $150,000 per year.
But, make no mistake, both proposals, even in the glow of recent
surplus projections, would be extremely expensive. The Republican
proposal would cost $248 billion over ten years, and $39 billion per
year thereafter. The Democratic proposal is slightly less expensive
because of the income cap, but would still cost $54.2 billion over five
years. My concern is not so much the cost of these proposals, because I
think that the cost would be justified by the marriage incentives
provided in each, but that marriage penalty relief could open the
floodgates to other, more massive tax cuts. Most Senators are aware
that the Office of Management and Budget announced during the week of
June 26 that projected budget surpluses would exceed estimates made
just four months ago by $1.3 trillion, and the Congressional Budget
Office is close to releasing its projections that are likely to predict
similar results. These new projections raise the estimate of surpluses
that will be collected by the government over the next ten years
(excluding Social Security) to $1.9 trillion, and, consequently, have
fanned the furor for massive tax cuts.
These surplus projections can have an intoxicating effect, so much so
that massive tax cuts seem suddenly affordable. What is forgotten is
the fact that these surplus projections are highly volatile, and
subject to dramatic change. Just since last year, these ten-year
surplus projections have increased by almost $2 trillion. Some of that
increase stemmed from an increase in tax revenues from the strong
economy, but most resulted from simple changes in expectations about
how well the economy would perform five and ten years out into the
future. These expectations could easily change in the next few years so
that, just as quickly as these surpluses appeared, they could
disappear.
I think that it is unfortunate that higher-than-expected surpluses
have paved the way for the enactment of massive tax cuts. The repeal of
the estate tax, for example, which was recently passed by this body, if
enacted into law, would cost $105 billion over ten years, and then $50
billion per year thereafter. No hearings were held on this proposal in
the Senate. Little consideration was given to an alternative plan that
would have been less costly and would have more expeditiously addressed
the plight of farmers and small businesses by eliminating most from
estate tax rolls. Little, if any, consideration was given to the
negative effect that repealing the estate tax would have on charitable
contributions, which are deductible from the gross value of an estate
under current law. Yet, this body repealed the estate tax under the
guise that it was necessary to protect small family farmers and
businesses, when much less costly proposals might have done the job
just as well.
Let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that all tax cuts are good
policy because they are politically popular. They are not. It is easy
to vote for tax cuts. It does not require courage. And, in the end, the
American people will not thank us for acting in a fiscally
irresponsible manner. As I have said on many occasions, while budget
projections look rosy now, the future is fraught with peril as the
baby-boomers exit the economy, and the Social Security and Medicare
programs become unable, as presently structured, to pay full benefits
to recipients. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees
projected last March that Social Security payroll taxes by themselves
would not be enough to cover benefit payments by 2015, and that the
Social Security trust fund would be insolvent by 2037. Likewise, the
trustees projected that the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund
would be insolvent by 2025.
While I support eliminating any marriage penalties that may exist in
the tax code, my preference would be to delay enactment of these costly
proposals until the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare
have been addressed. However, in order to meet the political deadline
of the upcoming Party conventions, the Senate is acting on this
legislation today, which is unfortunate.
I support marriage penalty relief, and I believe that both the
Republican and Democratic proposals would provide substantial relief.
However, I object to the fashion in which these proposals are being
considered. As I said before, these proposals are extremely expensive.
They should be debated in a way that would allow for many amendments
and ample debate time. Unfortunately, they were brought up under

[[Page S7055]]

reconciliation protections to avoid such restrictions. While the intent
of the legislation may be worthwhile, I object to legislation being
pushed through in this manner. The fast-track reconciliation procedures
that were enacted in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 were never
intended to be used as a method to enact massive tax cuts that could
not be passed without a thorough debate and amendment process. I know,
because I helped to write the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and it
was never my contemplation that the reconciliation process would be
used in this way and for these purposes--never! I would not have
supported it. I would have voted against it.

In fact, I would have left some loopholes in the process that would
have saved us from this spectacle every year, where tax legislation
with wide-ranging ramifications on domestic and defense spending
priorities that should be debated at great length and amended many
times is rushed through this Chamber in order to fulfill a political
party's agenda. Reconciliation has become a bear trap that cuts off
senators from debate and ensures that legislation will be voted upon
regardless of whether there has been ample debate. Reconciliation
typically allows for only twenty hours of debate, equally divided
between the two leaders, which can be yielded back by the leaders under
a nondebatable motion. This year, the reconciliation bill will be voted
upon after only two hours and twenty-two minutes of debate. Less than
two and one-half hours on a measure that would cost $248 billion over
ten years. We owe the American people the assurance that their
representatives are enacting legislation that will substantively
address the marriage penalty problem in the most cost-efficient method
possible.
I spoke in April on marriage penalty relief and the majority party's
insistence on pushing this particular legislation through the Senate.
While I supported marriage penalty relief then, I still opposed cloture
to end debate on the underlying bill to allow senators to offer
amendments, debate those amendments, and then vote on those amendments.
Incidentally, this legislation was withdrawn from the floor after the
minority party insisted on these rights, which is why this marriage
penalty relief bill is now being considered in this fashion, under
reconciliation protection. I made remarks in April on the marriage
penalty relief bill, and made reference to James Madison's ideas on
popular government, and the irony of how pushing through marriage
penalty relief based on the notion that it is politically popular
represented Madison's most profound worries about the character of
republican politics. A fear of impulsive and dangerous influence that
runaway public opinion could exert over legislation lay at the core of
his thinking in 1787 and 1788. Indeed, Madison searched for the proper
mechanics for the safe expression of public opinion to prevent popular
majorities from pursuing their purposes through means that wore away
the bonds that might otherwise restrain them. I think it is also fair
to say that Madison would have opposed legislating in this fashion, and
the enactment of tax legislation under reconciliation instructions
because it removes the bonds that ordinarily would prevent the majority
party from pushing through legislation which happens to be the hot
political issue of the moment. The Senate will learn one day the
detrimental cost of legislating in this fashion.
Nonetheless, as I have said before, I will support both marriage
penalty relief proposals in order to eliminate what can only be
described as an unintended and unfair consequence of the income tax
code. However, I do so with a certain degree of reluctance out of
concern that my support would, in any way, be considered an endorsement
of this style of legislating or that it would indicate my willingness
to forsake fiscal responsibility relating to Social Security and
Medicare in order to finance massive tax cuts.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes occur in
relation to the following amendments in the following sequence,
beginning immediately after the adoption of the Interior appropriations
bill, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation: Burns No.
3872, Hollings No. 3875, Lott No. 3881, final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that
following passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate, with those conferees being Roth,
Lott, and Moynihan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Therefore, there will be no further votes, as already has
been announced, this evening. Up to 11 votes will occur in a stacked
sequence beginning at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday.

____________________