[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15773-15780]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4810, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A conference report to accompany H.R. 4810, an act to 
     provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 30 
minutes equally divided for debate.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, the provisions in this bill will help 45 million 
families, and that is substantially every family in the U.S. Some of my 
colleagues have argued that almost half of those families do not 
deserve any tax relief. I reject that. I reject it because in my home 
state of Delaware it would mean leaving over 30,000 families that 
contributed to our ever-growing budget surplus out of family tax 
relief. They contributed to the surplus and they should benefit from 
the surplus.
  Today's bill amounts to less than 5 percent of the total budget 
surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a nickel on the dollar 
of our total budget surplus. It amounts to just 9 percent of the total 
non-Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a 
dime on the dollar of the non-Social Security surplus. A nickel and a 
dime--by any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax relief is 
fiscally responsible. Those who dispute that are themselves seeking to 
``nickel-and-dime'' America's families out of tax relief.
  I ask those who oppose this family tax relief: just how big will 
America's budget surplus have to get before America's families deserve 
to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? If just 5 
percent of the budget surplus and just 9 percent of the tax overpayment 
is too big a refund, how little should it be? How long do they have to 
wait? How hard do they have to work? How large an overpayment do they 
have to make?
  This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of 
marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the 
rate brackets, and the earned income credit. We have done so in a way 
that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in the 
tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home parent is 
not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both parents 
work outside the home. This is an important principle because these are 
important families.
  Finally, we have made this tax relief immediate for the current year. 
That means when a couple files their tax return next April, they will 
be able to see and feel the results of our work. As a result, I believe 
that we should call this bill the ASAP tax relief bill for America's 
taxpayers--tax relief for America's families now.
  Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way 
of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more 
progressive. As a result, families with incomes under $100,000 will 
receive a proportionally larger tax cut.
  There is no honest way people can claim that this bill is tilted 
towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose 
this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is 
not--but because it is tilted away from Washington.
  While I would rather have seen the 28 percent bracket doubling 
included in the bill, its absence does do one thing. Its absence 
removes any excuse for the President not to sign this bill. If 
President Clinton does not sign this bill, then there is only one 
explanation. No matter how much the amount of surplus, no matter how 
much the size of the tax overpayment, no matter how high the overall 
tax burden, and no matter how much families deserve tax relief, it is 
all less important to him than the fact that Washington wants the money 
more.
  Mr. President, the time for excuses has passed, the time for family 
tax relief has come. Yet some in the White

[[Page 15774]]

House still disagree. Yesterday I received a letter from Treasury 
Secretary Summers in which he tried to raise two new excuses that are 
as transparent as they are late.
  First, he tried to over-estimate the cost of the tax relief passed by 
Congress this year. Despite his exaggerated figures, when Congress 
sends this bill to the President it, along with the other bills we have 
passed, comprise just $120 billion worth of tax relief over the next 5 
years.
  Second, there is only one bill before us today and there will be only 
one bill when it arrives on his desk: family tax relief. When we look 
at this bill, we need to look at its actual provisions--not some 
concocted estimate of what another Congress and another President will 
do. Congress' official estimator scores this bill at under $90 billion 
for both five and ten years. That is the accurate figure and that is 
the appropriate measure of the tax relief before us today.
  Despite what the President's advisers may wish, the issue is whether 
he will or won't grant America's families the tax relief they have 
earned. Let's approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2000 and let's divorce the marriage tax penalty from the tax code once 
and for all.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I first express my gratitude to 
our chairman who suggested that the 10 hours reserved for a conference 
committee report be reduced, in this case, to a half an hour in order 
that we might continue with the Senate's business on appropriations, 
the sooner to reach the issue of permanent normal trade relations with 
China, which is a wholly admirable purpose with which I agree and 
congratulate him.
  Having said that, I cannot wholly recognize the legislation he 
describes. I cannot be entirely certain because, although I was a 
conferee, as appointed by the Senate, to the House-Senate conference on 
the bill, I was never notified of any meeting, and all I really know 
about this legislation is what I read in the newspapers.
  I read this morning in the New York Times on the front page an 
article by Richard W. Stevenson, a well-respected journalist, with the 
headline: ``An Effort to Soften a Tax Cut Only Hardens the 
Opposition'':

       Hoping to make it harder for President Clinton to veto a 
     measure they see as having tremendous political appeal, 
     Republicans have unveiled a new version of their tax cut for 
     married couples, but as the bill passed the House today, they 
     promptly found themselves under fire for making the bill cost 
     $44 billion more overnight.

  Mr. President, $44 billion more overnight. The ways in which this 
happened are obscure, but the outcome is clear. The Senate originally 
passed a $248 billion measure. This now is $292 billion, almost a third 
of a trillion dollars.
  In the Finance Committee and on the floor, the Democratic Members 
made the point that, yes, the marriage penalty needed to be addressed, 
and we had a measure, a device that was simplicity itself. We said in 
one sentence: A couple is free to file jointly or singly, period.
  There are 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code. The measure before 
us deals with one, half of another, and half of yet another, leaving, 
if you count, as you will, 62 or 63 untouched.
  The most notorious and the most difficult, dealing directly with a 
palpable social problem, which is that of single parents, is the 
earned-income tax credit. In this morning's New York Times, also, there 
is an op-ed by David Riemer, who is the Milwaukee director of 
administration and who helped create Wisconsin's welfare replacement 
program, which has received very encouraging notices in recent years. 
It is entitled ``The Marriage Tax on the Poor.'' He describes how this 
works.
  The earned-income tax credit evolved in the aftermath of President 
Nixon's effort to establish a guaranteed national income, family 
assistance plan, and Congress rejected that. The House passed it. The 
Senate did not. The Senate thought at least we should do something 
equivalent for people who work; hence, the earned-income tax credit. It 
has been expanded over the years, and it is our most effective 
antipoverty program, period, if you describe poverty in terms of 
resources, of income.
  I read one paragraph:

       The earned-income tax credit's marriage penalty can be 
     huge. Imagine a young woman and the father of her two 
     children, living together as one household, unmarried but 
     hoping to wed. She earns $12,000 a year; he earns $20,000. 
     Under the tax rules, her credit is the maximum, $3,888. If 
     they marry, the mother's ``family earnings'' will rise from 
     $12,000 to $32,000. Her credit will go from $3,888 to zero--a 
     big loss of income for a couple of such modest earnings.

  The bill before us does almost nothing about that, less than the bill 
that left the floor in the middle of this week.
  Our alternative measure is simplicity, one line, which says to that 
couple, as to any other: By all means, get married and choose to file 
jointly or separately. Separately, you retain the mother's earned-
income tax credit.
  This is a great opportunity lost, part of a strategy to have lots of 
individual tax cuts which will cumulate into an enormous tax cut. The 
President has said he will veto it. He should. We can get back to this 
next year. Do the simple thing, the reasonable thing: Get rid of all 
marriage tax penalties, 65 in all, and particularly those on the poor 
deriving a significant benefit from the earned-income tax credit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed, ``The Marriage 
Tax on the Poor'' by David Riemer, in today's New York Times, be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the New York Times, Friday, July 21, 2000]

                      The Marriage Tax on the Poor

                           (By David Riemer)

       Milwaukee.--Congress has agreed on a plan to eliminate the 
     ``Marriage penalty'' long embedded in our tax laws--the tax 
     advantage that the Internal Revenue Code now confers on 
     couples who choose to live together outside marriage, or who 
     get divorced. The House has voted to double the standard 
     deduction and the ceiling on the 15 percent tax bracket for 
     married couples, and the Senate is expected to follow suit.
       Though President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill 
     because most of its benefits go to relatively well-off 
     couples, in the end he may find it hard to resist signing a 
     measure that is popular and is advertised as family-friendly.
       But there's a big flaw in this supposed erasure of the 
     marriage penalty: It doesn't erase the marriage penalty. 
     Lawmakers have barely touched one of the tax law's biggest 
     and most socially damaging taxes on matrimony--the penalty 
     for people eligible for the earned-income tax credit.
       This credit, which benefits the working poor, has done more 
     to reduce poverty than almost any other federal program. But 
     as workers' earnings rise, the tax code imposes a heavy fine 
     on marriage for millions of low-income workers with children.
       The earned-income tax credit pays workers a maximum of 
     $2,353, or $3,888 if the worker has two or more children, but 
     this payment is gradually reduced once earnings increase 
     above $12,690, going down by 16 to 21 cents for each extra 
     dollar earned. The credit phases out entirely at $27,432 in 
     earnings, or $31,152 if there are two or more children.
       The marriage penalty arises because the tax credit 
     calculations use family earnings, not individual earnings. If 
     a single mother lives with her boyfriend, his wages aren't 
     included in figuring her tax credit, since he is not 
     officially a part of her family. Should she marry him, their 
     real joint income will stay the same, but her official family 
     earnings will rise, and her tax credit will go down or 
     disappear.
       The earned-income tax credit's marriage penalty can be 
     huge. Imagine a young woman and the father of her own 
     children, living together as one household, unmarried but 
     hoping to wed. She earns $12,000; he earns $20,000. Under the 
     tax rules, her credit is the maximum: $3,888.
       If they marry, the mother's ``family earnings'' will rise 
     from $12,000 to $32,000. Her credit will go from $3,888 to 
     zero--a big loss of income for a couple of such modest 
     earnings.
       If Congress is serious about eliminating the marriage 
     penalty in the tax code, it must fix the earned-income tax 
     credit as dramatically as it is fixing the standard deduction 
     and the tax brackets. This low-income marriage disincentive 
     probably turns away far more individuals from wedlock than 
     are discouraged by the other disincentives. Low-income 
     workers, who count every penny, are much more likely to avoid 
     marriages that will cost them dearly than are the high-
     salaried live-ins that Congress has its eye on helping.

[[Page 15775]]

       The Senate and House have agreed to trim the earned-income 
     tax credit's marriage penalty somewhat, for some couples, by 
     increasing the income levels where it applies by $2,000. But 
     most of the marriage penalty remains. The only real solution 
     is to reduce significantly the rate at which the tax credit 
     decreases as income goes up--in other words, to expand the 
     upper limit of eligibility. Such a change would cost the 
     Treasury more money, but it would make the distribution of 
     benefits more equitable. Why thwart the marital aspirations 
     of those who work for McDonald's and Walgreen's while 
     rewarding the ties that bind the middle class and rich?

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. My friend from 
Massachusetts has 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this vote is about our priorities as a 
nation. The price tag on this tax giveaway is almost exactly what we 
need to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to millions of 
senior citizens who desperately need this help: $292 billion over the 
next decade.
  In the past week or so, our Republican friends have passed tax breaks 
that total about a trillion dollars over the next ten years, benefiting 
the wealthiest Americans. We don't just look at it over 5 years, we 
ought to be looking at the consequences of this bill over a 10-year 
period, and even longer. And the record shows that the tax proposals 
are not what they are claimed to be.
  This so-called marriage penalty tax break is a sham. Democrats 
strongly support eliminating the marriage penalty in the tax laws, and 
our Democratic alternative will do that. But less than half the tax 
breaks in the phony Republican bill are actually directed, as the 
Senator from New York pointed out, at the marriage penalty.
  Once again, our Republican friends are using an attractive label like 
``marriage penalty'' as a cover for unjustified tax breaks for the 
wealthy at the expense of urgently needed priorities, such as 
prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens.
  The Republican trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthy mean: No 
Medicare prescription drug benefit for the Nation's senior citizens; no 
new teachers for the Nation's schools; no increase in the minimum wage 
for the Nation's hard-working, low-wage workers; no protections for 
patients across the Nation facing abuses by HMOs; nothing to make the 
Nation's schools or our neighborhoods safer.
  This tax break for the wealthy is a giant step in the wrong direction 
for America. President Clinton is right to veto it.
  Never in the history of the Senate has so much been given to so few, 
with so little consideration for working families in America.
  Mr. President, Republicans say that President Clinton himself called 
for marriage penalty relief in the State of the Union address that he 
delivered five months ago, so he should hurry and sign this bill. I 
wonder whether they heard the same speech that I heard last February. 
President Clinton certainly called for elimination of the marriage 
penalty, but he also urged action on other national priorities that are 
every bit as important--a Medicare prescription drug benefit, support 
for the nation's schools, and many other urgent national needs.
  This is a do-nothing Republican Congress on all of these other 
priorities. The shamefully excessive single-minded focus has been on 
tax breaks for the wealthy, to the exclusion of all other major 
priorities. The GOP tax cuts already approved by this Congress will 
consume about a trillion dollars of the projected surplus over the next 
ten years. The bill that Republicans brought to the Senate today is a 
marriage penalty in name only.
  It fails to eliminate 62 of the 65 marriage penalties in the tax 
code--while the Democrats' marriage penalty alternative eliminates 
every single one.
  In the interest of all Americans, President Clinton offered to 
compromise and sign the Republican marriage penalty bill despite its 
shortcomings, but only if the Republican Congress made progress on at 
least one of the other urgent needs facing the nation--prescription 
drug coverage to end the unconscionable crisis that millions of senior 
citizens face every day--the high cost of the drugs they need to 
safeguard their health. The extraordinary promise of fuller and 
healthier lives offered by new discoveries in medicine is often beyond 
their reach. They need help to afford the life-saving, life-changing 
miracle drugs that are increasingly available.
  Republicans in Congress have rejected this reasonable offer by the 
President and are still pursuing their irresponsible tax-cut agenda. 
Republicans have eyes only for tax breaks. They've attached tax breaks 
to the minimum wage bill in the House, more tax breaks to the 
bankruptcy bill in the Senate, and still more tax breaks to the 
Patients' Bill of Rights in the House. They have tried to pass tax 
breaks to subsidize private school. They even want to eliminate the 
estate tax, the ultimate tax break for the wealthy.
  Earlier this week, the Republican leadership forced through the 
Senate a complete repeal of the estate tax which will cost over $50 
billion a year when fully implemented. Over 90 percent of the benefits 
in that bill will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. In total, 
Republicans in the House and Senate have already passed tax cuts that 
would consume almost a trillion dollars of the budget surplus over the 
next ten years, and far more than that in the next decade, because 
these GOP tax schemes are so backloaded to conceal their true cost to 
the nation's future.
  Fortunately, the nation has a President who will not hesitate to 
stamp ``veto'' on all of these irresponsible GOP giveaways. But what if 
we had a President who would sign these monstrosities?
  The American people have a basic choice to make in November. Do they 
want the record budget surplus to be used for strengthening Social 
Security and Medicare--for providing a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare--and for improving our schools? Or do they want to give 
trillions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in 
the nation?
  These are the basic policy choices for what kind of America we want 
in the years ahead. Democrats do not oppose tax cuts, but we do insist 
that tax cuts must be reasonable in amount and must be fairly allocated 
to all Americans.
  We also want action on other key priorities for the nation's future. 
Taking a trillion dollars out of the federal treasury for tax breaks 
clearly jeopardizes our ability to provide a prescription drug benefit 
for Medicare. It jeopardizes our ability to fix crumbling schools, 
reduce class sizes, and ensure that teachers are properly trained. It 
jeopardizes our ability to help the 4 million Americans who have no 
health insurance today because their employers won't provide it and 
they can't afford it on their own.
  Just one of the Republican bills--the repeal of the estate tax--will 
give $250 billion to America's 400 wealthiest families over ten years. 
$250 billion will buy ten years of prescription drug coverage for 
eleven million senior citizens who have no coverage now. Yet, these 
astronomical tax giveaways are being rammed through Congress by a right 
wing Republican majority in Congress bent on rewarding the wealthy and 
ignoring the country's true priorities that have a far greater claim on 
these resources.
  The prosperous economy is helping many Americans. But those who work 
day after day at the minimum wage are falling farther and farther 
behind. The number of families without health insurance is rising 
alarmingly.
  A recent study by the pro-business Conference Board finds that the 
number of working poor is actually rising, in spite of the record 
prosperity. More and more working families are being forced to seek 
emergency help in soup kitchens and food pantries, and those charities 
are often unable to meet the increasing need. Yet Congress stands on 
the sidelines.
  The result of the GOP tax break frenzy is to crowd out necessary 
spending on priorities that the American people care most about. These 
other priorities for all Americans are being ignored by the GOP 
Congress in this unseemly

[[Page 15776]]

stampede to enact tax breaks so heavily skewed to the wealthiest 
Americans. Never in the entire history of the country has so much been 
given away so quickly to so few, with so little semblance of fairness 
or even thoughtful consideration.
  If we are serious about ending the marriage penalty, instead of using 
it as a fig leaf for enormous tax breaks for the wealthy, we can easily 
do so at a reasonable cost that leaves ample room for other high 
priorities. I strongly support tax relief to end the marriage penalty. 
The marriage penalty is unfair, and it should be eliminated.
  But I do not support the GOP proposal. That proposal is a trojan 
horse. Marriage penalty relief is not its real purpose. Only 42 percent 
of the tax benefits--less than half of the total--goes to persons 
subject to the marriage penalty. The rest of the tax breaks--58 
percent--go to those who pay no marriage penalty at all, and many of 
them are actually receive what is called a marriage bonus under the 
law. Republicans who claim their bill is intended only to eliminate the 
marriage penalty either haven't read the bill, or they are violating 
the ``Truth in Advertising'' laws.
  Most married couples today do not pay a marriage penalty. A larger 
percentage of couples actually receive a marriage bonus than pay a 
marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is paid by couples in which both 
spouses work and also have relatively equal incomes. They deserve 
relief from this penalty. They deserve it immediately, and we can 
provide it modest cost.
  But the Republican bill does not target its tax cuts to those who 
actually pay a marriage penalty. The cost of their bill is highly 
inflated and heavily backloaded to make the cost in the early years 
seem low. The current bill will cost nearly fifty billion dollars more 
over the next ten years than the bill which the Senate passed earlier 
this week. In just three days, the price tag has risen from $248 
billion to $293 billion. That's an inflation rate which should alarm 
every American.
  As with all Republican tax breaks, the bill earmarks the overwhelming 
majority of its tax benefits for the wealthiest taxpayers. The final 
bill sandpapers one of the roughest edges by deleting a provision that 
would have solely benefitted taxpayers with six figure incomes. But the 
overall bill is still grossly unfair to middle and low income working 
families. More than two thirds of the total tax savings go to the 
wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers.
  An honest plan to eliminate the marriage penalty could easily be 
designed at much lower cost. House Democrats offered such a plan, and 
so did Senate Democrats. Our Democratic proposal would cost $11 billion 
a year less, when fully implemented, than the Republican plan, yet 
provide more marriage penalty tax relief to middle income families.
  The problem is obvious. Republican colleagues insist on using 
marriage penalty relief as a cover for large tax breaks that have 
nothing to do with the marriage penalty and that are heavily weighted 
to the wealthiest individuals in the nation. The message to all 
Americans is clear and unmistakable--Beware of Republicans bearing tax 
cuts. They're not what they seem, and they're not fair to the vast vast 
majority of the American people.
  This GOP Congress is a dream Congress for the very wealthy and their 
special interest friends, but it is a nightmare Congress for hard-
working families all across America. Whether the Republican tax breaks 
arrive at the White House in smaller prices or in one big mess, their 
trillion-dollar tax breaks will eminently deserve the veto that 
President Clinton is about to give them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I guess we are reading different bills 
here. The bill that we have is a 5-year bill. It sunsets in 5 years. It 
is scored at $89 billion. At the end of 5 years, it sunsets. We don't 
know what happens at the end of that. It is only on the 15-percent tax 
bracket. It doubles the standard deduction over a period of years from 
$26,250 per individual to $52,500. I hardly see how that is wealthy. It 
is 5 percent of the on-budget surplus, not Social Security. It does not 
steal money from other priority programs. I guess I am confused. I 
guess he is talking about a different bill than I will vote on this 
morning.
  My final point is, this will pass with a large margin. It will pass 
with over 60 votes. Then it is up to the President of the United States 
and the Vice President--President Clinton and Vice President Gore--
whether this tax cut will reach our working families across America. It 
will be up to them. I call on them to sign this bill and not penalize 
our people across this country for the simple act of being married.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I keep hearing the Democrats talk 
about tax breaks for the wealthy. I have talked to couples who make 
$30,000 apiece. I have asked them directly: Do you think that you are 
wealthy? Do you think that you do not send enough money to the 
Government? Do you think you are paying more than your fair share?
  The answer is, they do not think they are wealthy. They do think they 
are doing their fair share. And they are trying to do something for 
their children that they will not be able to do if they send $1,400 
more to Washington, DC, instead of being able to save it for their 
children's education or taking a family vacation or giving them extra 
computers or books or clothes that they would want to have for their 
own families.
  A couple that earns $30,000 each is not wealthy. We must understand 
they are hard-working Americans. Many times the spouse who wants to 
stay home to help their children does not do so because they think they 
need to work to bring in the extra income. We are talking about tax 
relief for the hardest hit among us--people who make $25,000 a year, 
$30,000 a year, $40,000 a year. They are paying 28 percent in Federal 
income taxes. And they do not think they are wealthy. They earn this 
money, and they deserve to keep more of it.
  We are talking about 50 million Americans who would benefit from the 
tax relief we are giving today. Twenty-five million couples will get 
relief from the marriage tax penalty.
  Over 60 percent of the House of Representatives voted to pass this 
bill. Over 60 percent of the Senate will vote to pass this bill. Is the 
President going to fly in the face of the elected Representatives--in 
those numbers--who want to give relief to hard-working Americans?
  If we were saying that this was going to take up all of the surplus, 
that we were not going to be able to pay down debt this year, that 
would be one thing. That is not the case. Instead, we are being good 
stewards of our taxpayer dollars. We are putting a fence around the 
Social Security surplus so that it stays in Social Security. We are 
going to pay down the debt by billions this year.
  But we think it is time to return to the people who earn the money 
more of the money they earn to keep for the decisions in their 
families.
  Mr. President, tear down this unfair tax. It is time to have a tax 
correction for the hard-working married couples in this country.
  We are sending the bill to the President today to do just that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as we say, ``yea'' today on this historic 
vote, Congress pays its respects to the venerable institution of 
marriage. It is as simple as that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 15777]]

  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this issue is really quite simple. It is 
unfortunate that it has been confused by lots of statements, which are 
somewhat true but not entirely true.
  The goal here is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Remember, 
there is nothing in the code that we enacted to create the penalty. It 
was not an intentional act. It is just a consequence of the way the 
code has worked. It is a necessary consequence if we want to have 
progressive tax rates and also have the same taxation for American 
citizens with the same income.
  We also have to remind ourselves that there is a bonus in the Tax 
Code; that is, certain people who get married get a bonus. In fact, 
there are more taxpayers receiving a bonus than there are taxpayers who 
receive a penalty. That is indisputable. That is a solid fact. But we 
are here to try to find a way to help eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty for those who get a penalty as a consequence of getting 
married.
  There are two approaches here. One is the approach by the majority, 
and one is the approach by the Democratic side of the aisle. The 
majority eliminates only 3 of the 65 provisions in this code that 
create a penalty--only 3. The Democratic proposal eliminates them all, 
all 65. There is a big difference between the two.
  In the Democratic alternative, taxpayers have the right to choose. 
They can choose which way to file their taxes so it benefits them. On 
the majority side, the taxpayer does not have a choice. That is just 
the way it is.
  I might also say, if we say we are going to pass marriage tax penalty 
relief, we should pass marriage tax penalty relief. That is what the 
Democrats have tried to do. The Republicans are doing some of that--
albeit only 3 out of the 65--but they are also giving a tax cut, 
irrespective of marriage, which widens the disparity between married 
couples and singles.
  A lot of single people in this country, when they see what is passed 
by the majority party, are going to wonder what in the world is 
happening. Why are we giving the 60 percent of married people who don't 
even have a marriage penalty such a big tax break and not giving a tax 
break to them simply because they are single? That is not fair at all. 
Again, the Democratic proposal says, we will give a break, a true break 
for marriage, but not widen the discrepancy between marrieds and 
singles.
  The long and short is, we have a conference report. The battle has 
been waged and the battle is over.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Has he seen the conference report?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my good friend from New York, no, I have not. I 
have heard there is one, but I have not seen one.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Did the Senator hear there was a conference?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I heard there was, but I don't know who was there.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, I am a conferee, and, while I heard there was a 
conference, I wasn't told about any meetings.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That sometimes happens. Conferees on our side of the 
aisle hear of a conference, but they are never asked to attend.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. This is one such instance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that has 
happened under this Republican majority.
  To sum it up, Mr. President, we on this side are definitely for tax 
cuts, very significant tax cuts. We are for eliminating entirely the 
marriage tax penalty. We want to reduce the Federal estate tax 
dramatically. But it is unfortunate that the conference report before 
us goes way too far. It is unbalanced. It is unfair. If the American 
people truly see all the components of it, compare it to all the other 
tax provisions going through here, I think they will say: Wait a 
minute, this is kind of a funny thing the Congress is doing. It is not 
what they say it is. Why don't they fess up and be honest and say what 
is really in the conference report.
  That is sometimes the way this place operates. It is up to us on this 
side of the aisle to get the facts out, to allow more sun to shine on 
the conference report so that more married American people will know 
exactly what is in it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield the Senator 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has only 3 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will take the 3 minutes then. I thank 
my colleague.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 1 minute from our 
side.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think the world of my colleague from 
New York, and I am very grateful.
  I want to make a couple comments. First, I compliment Senator Roth. 
This is really his proposal. He is greatly responsible for making this 
happen. He introduced this in the Finance Committee, and it is going to 
pass today. I hope, and will even say I expect, it will become law. It 
will be a shame if it doesn't become law.
  I also compliment Senator Hutchison for her leadership, Senator 
Brownback, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Santorum, and Senator Abraham. 
They have been working tirelessly on this. They have been pushing in 
caucuses and conferences. They said: We need to pass marriage penalty 
relief. We have a chance to do that today. I thank the House leaders 
for doing it.
  I heard some people saying they are against this. I heard my friends 
speak against it. They kept saying it is $290 billion. It is not. We 
are voting today on a $90 billion tax cut, period. Those are the facts. 
If it is to be extended--and I hope it will be--Congress is going to 
have to pass another bill, and it is going to have to be signed by a 
President, a different President. That is another action. That may 
happen 3 or 4 years from now. I hope it does. We will have to see what 
the circumstances are at that time. The bill we have before us is $90 
billion.
  I read the President's letter--at least it came from his Secretary of 
the Treasury--which said: We provided significant marriage penalty 
relief. In his bill, in his budget proposal, he has a $9 billion tax 
increase for next year--not a tax cut, a $9 billion tax increase. His 
marriage penalty relief over the next 5 years is $9 billion. It doesn't 
do it. It won't work. It won't happen. He has more tax increases in the 
first year than tax cuts. Over 5 years, he has a net tax cut of only $5 
billion.
  We are going to have a surplus of $1.8 trillion in the next 5 years, 
$4.5 trillion over the next 10. The only tax cut we are talking about 
right now is marriage penalty relief totaling $90 billion. That figure 
loses people.
  Let's talk about what it means for families. Some people say this 
targets the wealthy. That is not true. People are entitled to their own 
opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The fact is 
what we do is double the standard deduction, $4,400 for an individual, 
$8,800 for a couple. The fact is, people pay taxable income up to 
$26,000, an individual at 15 percent. That is $26,000. We say for 
couples, that should be $52,000. We double it for couples, whether both 
are working or not. We don't penalize stay-at-home spouses. The 
Democrat proposal provided no relief for stay-at-home spouses. We say 
the 15-percent bracket should be twice as much for couples, income 
adjusted, as it is for individuals. So we don't penalize people if they 
happen to stay at home.
  We provide tax relief for millions of American families. How much? It 
is a couple hundred. By doubling the standard deduction, that is a 
couple hundred dollars for all married couples. Then by doubling the 
15-percent rate, that equals the $1,125, if somebody makes up to 
$52,000. That is the maximum benefit. The maximum benefit is basically 
$1,125 if somebody makes up to $52,000. It is weighted towards the low-
income people, middle-income people. There are millions of American 
families with one or two wage earners making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, 
who will save

[[Page 15778]]

$1,300, $1,350, if this becomes law. The only reason it won't become 
law is if the President vetoes it.
  I urge the President to sign this bill and provide marriage penalty 
relief as he said he would.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. My friend and colleague gave me a nice note. The other 
day I said if I am factually incorrect, I will eat this paper. He gave 
me a paper that was a March proposal; the proposal we passed in the 
Senate was $56 billion. The proposal we will pass today is $90 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am afraid my time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the best economic and budget times in 
our country's history, I believe that we should provide American 
families with tax relief. That is why I supported this bill when it 
passed the Senate earlier this week, and that is why I will vote for it 
again today.
  But I vote today knowing that this bill will be vetoed by the 
President. Everyone here knows that. I hope that passage here today 
will lead to the kind of eventual compromise between the President and 
Congress--maybe a grand compromise that will include a prescription 
drug benefit under Medicare--that we can all support.
  If that kind of compromise is not reached, Mr. President, I will vote 
to sustain that veto.
  Since we voted just a few days go, the cost of this bill has gone up 
over $40 billion--that is the wrong direction. I still prefer an 
alternative that would cost less and that would be better targeted at 
the marriage penalty and at those families with the greatest need, one 
that would give families more flexibility to deal with their own 
circumstances.
  Passage of this bill today is the beginning of the debate on this 
issue, Mr. President, not the end.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this conference report is evidence of a 
missed opportunity. It is, in fact, yet another in what is becoming a 
series of missed opportunities. Today, the majority is missing the 
opportunity to enact marriage penalty relief.
  The majority is missing that opportunity by insisting on its poorly-
targeted, expensive tax breaks. It is missing that opportunity by 
rejecting the better-targeted, more responsible Democratic alternative. 
And it is missing that opportunity by rejecting President Clinton's 
offer to enact both marriage penalty relief and prescription drug 
benefits.
  Everyone in this chamber wants marriage penalty relief. The question 
now is how we transform that wish into law.
  By presenting the Senate with this conference report, the majority 
shows that it would rather have marriage penalty relief next year than 
this year. For now, they appear to prefer an old issue to a new law.
  The majority continues today to pass poorly-targeted, expensive tax 
breaks. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department released a study 
that analyzed all the major tax cuts that the majority has passed in 
this Congress this year to date.
  That study found that more than three-fourths of the benefits of the 
Republican tax bills would go to the best-off fifth of the population--
those making more than $82,000.
  The study found that those in the best-off fifth of the population 
would get an average tax cut of more than $2,000 a year, while those in 
the middle fifth would get less than $200. Republicans want to spend 10 
times as much on the best-off than on middle-income families.
  The study found that almost half of the benefits of the Republican 
tax bills would go to the best-off 5 percent, those with incomes over 
$150,000.
  The study found that more than a quarter of the benefits of the 
Republican tax bills would go to the best-off one percent--those with 
incomes over $346,000--who would get an average tax cut of more than 
$15,000 a year.
  And as an op-ed piece in this morning's New York Times by Milwaukee 
director of administration David Riemer points out, the conference 
report before us today fails to solve the marriage penalty for working 
families who get the Earned Income Tax Credit. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  And yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation released distribution 
tables on the conference report before us today. Those tables indicate 
that in 2004, nearly four-fifths of this conference report's benefits 
would go to those with incomes over $75,000. The conference report's 
benefits are thus more skewed to the better off than the Senate bill we 
considered earlier this week. In the Senate bill, 68 percent of 
benefits in 2004 would have gone to the best-off, while in the 
conference report, 79 percent would.
  And because the majority's bills are so poorly targeted, they cost 
more than they should. The conference report before us today would join 
the other bills passed to date, spending more than it should because it 
gives more to the very well-off than it should. According to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, the conference report before us today would 
spend $34 billion more than the costly bill that the Senate considered 
earlier this week.
  Wednesday, the White House estimated that the tax bills considered by 
the House and Senate this year to date have already sought to spend 
roughly $700 billion over the next 10 years, a price tag that would 
increase to $850 billion when one accounts for financing costs on the 
debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
President's Chief of Staff on this subject be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The majority continues today to reject the better-targeted, more 
responsible Democratic alternative. The Democratic alternative would 
have focused its relief on those who actually endure a marriage 
penalty. That is, after all, how the majority chose to name the bill 
before us. The Democratic alternative would have held the majority to 
its word. It was a truth-in-advertising amendment.
  The majority shows again today that they did not really want to cure 
the marriage penalty. That is not what most of this conference report 
does. Three-fifths of the benefits of this conference report go to 
people who do not experience marriage penalties. And that's another 
reason why this conference report costs more than it should.
  The majority shows again today that it does not really want to enact 
a law to relieve the marriage penalty. By moving this conference 
report, the majority rejects President Clinton's offer to work out an 
agreement that would allow enactment of both marriage penalty relief 
and needed coverage for prescription drugs on the other. That's what 
the majority could have done if it really wanted to enact marriage 
penalty relief this year.
  Sadly, by bringing this conference report before us today, the 
majority shows that what it really wants is something that the 
President will have to veto right before the Republican Convention. The 
enterprise upon which they have embarked has more of theater than of 
law about it.
  The President will veto this bill, and he should. The majority should 
pass better-targeted marriage penalty relief, but apparently they'd 
rather not.
  They miss another opportunity today. Mr. President, I hope they do 
not miss the next one.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial and letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      The Marriage Tax on the Poor

                           (By David Riemer)

       Congress has agreed on a plan to eliminate the ``marriage 
     penalty'' long embedded in our tax laws--the tax advantage 
     that the Internal Revenue Code now confers on couples who 
     choose to live together outside of marriage, or who get 
     divorced. The House has voted to double the standard 
     deduction and the ceiling on the 15 percent tax bracket for 
     married couples, and the Senate is expected to follow suit.

[[Page 15779]]

       Though President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill 
     because most of its benefits go to relatively well-off 
     couples, in the end he may find it hard to resist signing a 
     measure that is popular and is advertised as family-friendly.
       But there's a big flaw in this supposed erasure of the 
     marriage penalty: It doesn't erase the marriage penalty. 
     Lawmakers have barely touched one of the tax law's biggest 
     and most socially damaging taxes on matrimony--the penalty 
     for people eligible for the earned-income tax credit.
       This credit, which benefits the working poor, has done more 
     to reduce poverty than almost any other federal program. But 
     as workers' earnings rise, the tax code imposes a heavy fine 
     on marriage for millions of low-income workers with children.
       The eared-income tax credit pays workers a maximum of 
     $2,353, or $3,888 if the worker has two or more children, but 
     this payment is gradually reduced once earnings increase 
     above $12,690, going down by 16 to 21 cents for each extra 
     dollar earned. The credit phases out entirely at $27,432 in 
     earnings, or $31,152 if there are two or more children.
       The marriage penalty arises because the tax credit 
     calculations use family earnings, not individual earnings. If 
     a single mother lives with her boyfriend, his wages aren't 
     included in figuring her tax credit, since he is not 
     officially a part of her family. Should she marry him, their 
     real joint income will stay the same, but her official family 
     earnings will rise, and her tax credit will go down or 
     disappear.
       The earned-income tax credit's marriage penalty can be 
     huge. Imagine a young woman and the father of her two 
     children, living together as one household, unmarried but 
     hoping to wed. She earns $12,000; he earns $20,000. Under the 
     tax rules, her credit is the maximum: $3,888.
       If they marry, the mother's ``family earnings'' will rise 
     from $12,000 to $32,000. Her credit will go from $3,888 to 
     zero--a big loss of income for a couple of such modest 
     earnings.
       If Congress is serious about eliminating the marriage 
     penalty in the tax code, it must fix the earned-income tax 
     credit as dramatically as it is fixing the standard deduction 
     and the tax brackets. This low-income marriage disincentive 
     probably turns away far more individuals from wedlock than 
     are discouraged by the other disincentives. Low-income 
     workers, who count every penny, are much more likely to avoid 
     marriages that will cost them dearly than are the high-
     salaried live-ins that Congress has its eye on helping.
       The Senate and House have agreed to trim the earned-income 
     tax credit's marriage penalty somewhat, for some couples, by 
     increasing the income levels where it applies by $2,000. But 
     most of the marriage penalty remains. The only real solution 
     is to reduce significantly the rate at which the tax credit 
     decreases as income goes up--in other words, to expand the 
     upper limit of eligibility. Such a change would cost the 
     Treasury more money, but it would make the distribution of 
     benefits more equitable. Why thwart the marital aspirations 
     of those who work for McDonald's and Walgreen's while 
     rewarding the ties that bind the middle class and rich?
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The President is increasingly concerned 
     about the spending binge under way in Congress as we approach 
     the summer recess. With the political conventions drawing 
     near, both the House and the Senate are voting every day on 
     bills that deplete the projected budget surplus at a rapid 
     rate.
       In the last few weeks, the House and Senate have already 
     considered tax bills that spend roughly $700 billion of our 
     surpluses over the next ten years, a price tag that will 
     increase to $850 billion when we account for financing costs 
     on the debt. Moreover, Republican leaders promise that these 
     tax cuts are a mere a ``down-payment'' on massive, trillion-
     dollar tax breaks to come. At the same time, Congress has 
     passed several spending bills that have exceeded the 
     President's request.
       It is time to answer some simple questions about this tax 
     and spending frenzy: what does it all cost, and can we afford 
     it? The President's budget team cannot, in good conscience, 
     advise the President to sign various spending or tax bills 
     until we have a fuller accounting of Congress's overall 
     spending plans for the year. Let me be clear: Congress has 
     embarked on a course to obliterate a surplus that is the 
     hard-won product of nearly eight years of fiscal discipline. 
     We cannot and will not let that happen.
       Fiscal discipline has been critical to the prosperity we 
     enjoy today, and prosperity in turn has created a brighter 
     outlook for tomorrow's budget surpluses. But projections are 
     simply that--projections. Now is not the time to abandon 
     responsible budgeting by spending money before it even comes 
     in the door. Congress should provide the American people with 
     a more complete accounting of just how much it intends to 
     spend this year.
       We can cut taxes for the middle class, while maintaining 
     fiscal discipline and making critical investments in our 
     future. The President's budget does just that--strengthening 
     Social Security and modernizing Medicare with a prescription 
     drug benefit, while cutting taxes for education, retirement, 
     and health care and paying off the debt by 2012. The right 
     way to get things done is to work together within a balanced 
     framework so that we honor our commitment to fiscal 
     discipline.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Podesta,
                                  Chief of Staff to the President.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today, the Senate passed the Conference 
Report reflecting the agreement between the House and Senate to provide 
needed relief to American families from the onerous marriage tax 
penalty. I am pleased to support this agreement.
  For too long, the current tax code has been at war with our values, 
penalizing the basic social institution: marriage. The American people 
know that this is unfair--they know it is not right that the code 
penalizes marriage.
  25 million American couples pay an average of approximately $1,400 in 
marriage penalty annually as a result of the marriage penalty. Ending 
this penalty will give couples the freedom to make their own choices 
with their money.
  The conference agreement between the House and the Senate will make 
the standard deduction for married couples double that of singles. This 
is especially important to families that do not itemize their tax 
returns. It will also make the 15 percent tax bracket double the size 
of that for single people and fix the marriage penalties associated 
with the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Earned Income Credit. Doubling 
the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples will benefit all married 
couples. It is just and fair that all couples benefit from this bill, 
whether one spouse works outside the home, or both do so. Most 
importantly, it will begin to provide this much-needed relief this 
year, so that the American people will see that their government 
recognizes and values the institution of marriage.
  The President has indicated that he will veto this bill. That is 
unfortunate. If the President is truly for ending the marriage penalty, 
as he has said, he will sign this bipartisan bill, which passed with 
the support of 60 percent of the House of Representatives. The Senate 
has also voted on this bill in a bipartisan manner, approving the 
Conference Report by a vote of 60-34. I hope the President will change 
his mind and join us in bringing this historic tax relief to American 
families.
  This bill will help 830,000 couples in Missouri, couples like Bruce 
and Kay Morton, from Camdenton, MO, who have written to me and asked 
for me to help bring an end to this unfair penalty. With this 
conference agreement, the House and Senate stand united in trying to 
help couples like the Mortons. I respectfully ask the President to join 
us.
  This conference agreement demonstrates our support for an important 
principle: that families should not be taxed extra because they are 
married. Couples choosing marriage are making the right choice for 
society. It is in our interest to encourage them to make this choice.
  Unfortunately, the marriage penalty discourages this choice. I 
believe that the government, in its policies, should uphold the basic 
values that give strength and vitality to our culture. Marriage is one 
of those values, and it is time for the government to stop punishing 
this value.
  The marriage penalty has endured for too long and harmed too many 
couples. It is time to abolish the prejudice that charges higher taxes 
for being married. It is time to take the tax out of saying ``I do.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the conference report.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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 clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the

[[Page 15780]]

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Kerrey), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Murray
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, let me say this vote on the 
marriage penalty represents a great victory for working Americans. I 
think we can all take great satisfaction that, for the typical 
American, it will mean something like $1,300 to $1,500 in a tax cut.
  I thank my friends and colleagues who supported this legislation. I 
think it is only fair, it is only right. I believe this has, indeed, 
been a great week for the working people of America.
  Mr. President, it has been a busy two weeks for the Members of the 
Senate Finance Committee and our staff. I would like to take a moment 
to thank the staff who worked on this conference report and also H.R. 
8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000.
  With respect to both bills, I thank John Duncan, my Administrative 
Assistant. On the Majority Staff, I thank Frank Polk, our Staff 
Director and Chief Counsel, J.T. Young, our Deputy Staff Director, and 
members of the tax staff, including Mark Prater, Brig Pari, Bill 
Sweetnam, Jeff Kupfer, Ed McClellan, and our newest tax counsel, 
Elizabeth Paris. I thank our Finance Committee press team of Ginny 
Flynn and Tara Bradshaw. I note that Connie Foster, Amber Williams, and 
Myrtle Agent also provided valuable assistance to the tax team.
  I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking Democratic 
member of the Finance Committee, Senator Pat Moynihan and his able 
staff. I refer to David Podoff, Russ Sullivan, Stan Fendley, Cary Pugh, 
Jerry Pannullo, Mitchell Kent, John Sparrow, and Lee Holtzman.
  Republican Leadership staff also deserve thanks for helping to bring 
these bills together. I refer to Dave Hoppe, Sharon Soderstrom, Keith 
Hennessey, and Ginger Gregory of Senator Lott's office and Hazen 
Marshall, Lee Morris, and Eric Ueland of Senator Nickles' office.
  Chuck Marr and Anita Horn of Senator Daschle's and Senator Reid's 
staff also worked hard on this legislation.
  The Budget Committee staff also deserve praise. I refer to Bill 
Hoagland, Beth Felder, and Cheri Reidy. I also thank Marty Morris and 
Bruce King of the minority staff.
  None of this legislation would have been possible without the 
valuable work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
including Lindy Paull, Rick Grafmeyer, and the rest of the Joint Tax 
team.
  A special thanks also is due to Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, and 
Janell Bentz from Senate Legislative Counsel.
  With respect to the marriage tax relief legislation, I also thank 
Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sam Brownback, and John Ashcroft and 
their staffs, including Jim Hyland, Karen Knutson, and Brian Waidmann.
  On the death tax repeal bill, a special note of thanks to Tim 
Glazewski of Senator Jon Kyl's staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, once again, I express my gratitude for 
the graciousness of our chairman and his generosity in these matters, I 
thank him for his diligence and his scrupulousness and his integrity, 
as always. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________