AND I THINK I WOULD CHALLENGE THOSE MEMBERS WHO THINK THAT THE
           SACK CROW SANCTITY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS SUCH THAT WE CAN'T
           MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TO ASK THEMSELVES THE QUESTION, WHY IS
           IT THAT IT'S OKAY TO WAIVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND NOT APPLY
           THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THOSE COMMERCIAL ENTITIES THAT ARE USING

           THE SYMBOL OF JOE CAMEL, BECAUSE THAT IS SO DESTRUCTIVITY TO
           THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF OUR CHILDREN, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO
           BESTIALITY, WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE WORST FORMS OF
           PORNOGRAPHY, THAT'S WIDE POPE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AND
           AVAILABLE TO OUR CHILDREN WITH A CLICK OF A MOUSE, THAT, OH,
           NO, FIRST AMENDMENT MUST APPLY HERE, WE HAVE TO BE PURISTS ON
           THIS?

           AND I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO ASK THEMSELVES, AS PARENTS,
           AND ASK THE PARENTS THAT THEY REPRESENT IN THEIR STATES AS TO
           WHAT THOSE PARENTS THINK IS THE HIGHER PRIORITY ISSUE. WHETHER
           THEY ARE GIVEN THE CHOICE, ARE THEY MORE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR
           CHILDREN MODIFYING THEIR BEHAVIOR AND TAKING UP SMOKING BECAUSE
           THEY SEE A PIFE-SECOND IMAGE OF JOE CAMEL CAMEL, OR ARE THEY
           MORE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN MODIFYING THEIR BEHAVIOR AND

           RESPONDING IN A WAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VIEW SOME OF
           THE MOST CRASS AND INDECENT AND IN MY OPINION OBSCENE SEXUAL
           IMAGES THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN?
           AND I THINK THE RESOUNDING RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE, "SENATOR,
           LET'S DO FIRST THINGS FIRST. LET'S ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT
           ARE REAL PROBLEMS." SO I CONCLUDE BY PLEADING WITH MY
           COLLEAGUES TO LET US RESOLVE WHATEVER PROBLEMS YOU HAVE WITH

           OUR GOING FORWARD WITH THIS. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS.
           WE'VE HOT-LINED THIS TWO WEEKS AGO. BOTH SIDES KNOW WHAT WE'RE
           TRYING TO DO. WE -- IF PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM PROBLEM, WE'LL
           RESOLVE THAT PROBLEM. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE
           AN OBJECTION TO GOING FORWARD WITH THAT TODAY, WHEN THE
           MAJORITY LEADER PROPOUNDS HIS UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST TO
           ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS BILL. IF THERE IS AN
           OBJECTION, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING OTHER

           THAN THE -- AFTER TWO WEEKS OF HOT-LINES, AFTER TWO WEEKS OF
           GOING TO MEMBERS SAYING, "DO YOU WANT AN AMENDMENT?
           HAVE AN AMENDMENT." BUT AT LEAST ALLOW US TO DEBATE THE BILL. I
           CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THERE'S SOME EFFORT HERE TO PREVENT US
           FROM EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT, EVEN BRINGING THE BILL UP. SO WE
           HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID ALL THAT TODAY VERY SHORTLY WHEN
           THAT UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS PROPOUNDED AND I'LL TRUST THAT WE
           WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLO FLOOR.

           MR. BENNETT: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
           

           MR. BENNETT: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE ONE UNANIMOUS CONSENT
           REQUEST FOR A COMMITTEE TO MEET DURING TODAY'S SESSION OF THE
           SENATE. IT HAS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINORITY LEADER. AND I ASK
           UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS REQUEST BE AGREED TO AND THAT THIS
           REQUEST BE PRINTED IN THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
           

           MR. BENNETT: MR. PRESIDENT, IT WAS MY INTENTION AT THIS POINT
           TO PROPOUND A UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT -- REQUEST THAT THE
           SENATE PROCEED TO S. 231 -- 2137, WITH A LIST OF THE AMENDMENTS
           TO BE IN ORDER. AT THE MOMENT, FULL AGREEMENT ON THIS HAS NOT
           YET BEEN WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY. AND
           NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL GOING ON TO THAT END, AND IT'S MY HOPE
           THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO OFFER SUCH A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

           AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE. LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT TIME LATER
           TODAY, WHEN WE CAN GET UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON PROCEEDING TO THE
           BILL, I WOULD LIKE TO OUTLINE FOR THE SENATE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF
           THE BILL, AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHERS WHO
           MIGHT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT THEY WOULD OFFER TO
           THE BILL IF WE WERE, INDEED, ON IT. AND THEREBY HAVE SOME OF
           THE DISCUSSION THAT WE COULD DEAL WITH PRIOR TO THE BILL. MR.

           PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE A ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
           
           
           
           QUORUM CALL:
           
           

           MR. BENNETT: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
           

           MR. BENNETT: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE NOW GO INTO A
           PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS WITH SENATORS ALLOWED TO SPEAK UP TO
           TEN MINUTES EACH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BENNETT: I FURTHER ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BEAL WILL
           YOUED TO EXCEED THE TEN-MINUTE -- THAT I BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED
           THE TEN-MINUTE PERIOD IN DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
           BILL THAT WILL BE PROCEED POUPEDED AT SOME POINT IF, INDEED, MY
           TIME GOES BEYOND THAT SPOT.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BROWNBACK: MR. PRESIDENT, RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. I
           WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MAN CONSENT THAT I BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE
           TEN-MINUTE LIMIT IN SPEAKING AS WELL.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BENNETT: I THANK THE CHAIR. AS I SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, I WAS
           PLANNING TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WE PROCEED TO S. 2137
           AND OUT OUTLINE A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN ORDER,
           AND WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MAJORITY
           LEADER AND THE MINORITY LEADER, WHOM I UNDERSTAND ARE TALKING
           ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW. WHEN WE DO GO TO THAT APPROPRIATIONS
           BILL, I WILL MAKE A POINT OF THANKING SENATOR DORGAN FOR HIS

           ASSISTANCE AS THE RANKING MEMBER. SINCE I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF
           THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBCOMMITTEE AND HE HAS BEEN MY RANKING
           MEMBER, WE HAVE OT HAD, IN MY MEMORY, A SINGLE POINT OF MAJOR
           DISAGREEMENT. SENATOR DORGAN HAS BEEN MORE THAN DILIGENT IN
           ATTENDING ALL OF THE MEETINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. HIS STAFF
           HAS BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE WITH THE MAJORITY STAFF IN WORKING
           OUT THE DIFFICULTIES. AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN THE KIND OF
           LEGISLATIV RELATIONSHIP THAT I LOOKED FORWARD TO WHEN I RAN FOR

           THE SENATE BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES.
           LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BILL WILL PROVIDE $1,585,021,425 IN NEW
           BUDGET AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVE OF HOUSE ITEMS FOR FISCAL 1999.
           COMITY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES ALLOWS THE HOUSE TO SET THEIR
           AMOUNT, THE SENATE TO SET ITS AMOUNT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY FROM

           EACH OTHER. THIS IS A $53,704,925 INCREASE INCREASE, OR 3.5%,
           ABOVE THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 LEVEL PUT IT IS $72,359,575 BELOW
           THE AMOUNT INCLUDED IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. AND THE MAJORITY
           OF THE INCREASES IN THE BILL ARE FOR COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
           ESTIMATED AT 3.1%. THE SENATE PORTION OF THE BILL INCLUDES A
           1.8% INCREASE OVER THE FISCAL YEAR 1998 FUNDING, WHICH I THINK

           DEMONSTRATES SOME FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ON OUR PART. THE
           LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND THE G.A.O. WERE PROVIDED FUNDS FOR
           ADDITIONAL F.T.E.'S TO ASSIST THE CONGRESS IN THE INFORMATION
           TECHNOLOGY AREA, PARTICULARLY ADDRESSING THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER
           PROBLEM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS IN THE CHAMBER KNOW
           THAT I'VE MADE THIS SOMETHING OF AN OBSESSION. AND THE SENATE
           HAS CREATED A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY

           PROBLEM, WHICH I CHAIR. WE'VE RECOGNIZED THAT MOST OF THE
           EXPERTISE TO PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE WITH THE GUIDANCE THAT IT
           NEEDS WILL COME FROM DETAILEES TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AND
           FROM THOSE EXPERTS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND THE G.A.O.
           WHO ALREADY HAVE A BACKGROUND IN THIS AREA. SO TO MAKE SURE
           THAT THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM IS NOT EXACERBATED BY LACK OF FUNDS,
           THESE ADDITIONAL F.T.E.'S WERE INCLUDED IN THIS BILL. THAT IS
           PART OF THE 3.5% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR'S LEVEL. APPROXIMATELY

           21% OF THE ARCHITECT'S BUDGET IS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. THE
           BALANCE, OF COURSE, OF 69% IS FOR THE -- 79%, OF COURSE, IS FOR
           THE BALANCE OF THE OPERATING STATEMENT. THESE ARE THE OUTLINES
           OF THE OVERALL BILL. AS FAR AS I KNOW AND SENATOR DORGAN KNOWS,
           THE BILL IS NONCONTROVERSIAL EXCEPT R THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT
           SOME SENATORS HAVE INDICATED THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO OFFER.
           AND SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND OF THE BILL THAT WE HAVE IN MIND, I
           WILL YIELD THE FLOOR. I UNDERSTAND SENATOR BROWNBACK WILL BE
           TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE WOULD OFFER ONCE

           THE BILL DOES COME BEFORE US AND WE CAN PROCEED THEN IN MORNING
           BUSINESS WITH THAT MATRIX. I SEE THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
           KENTUCKY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
           

           MR. FORD: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD JUST --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
           

           MR. FORD: COULD I ASK SENATOR BROWNBACK HOW LONG HE THINKS HE
           WILL TAKE. WE'VE GOT SOME SENATORS IN TIME PROBLEMS HERE AND I
           WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM. IF I KNEW HOW LONG YOU
           WOULD BE SPEAKING AND OTHERS, I COULD PROBABLY ACCOMMODATE
           THEM.
           

           MR. BROWNBACK: I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHO ALL WOULD BE
           INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON THIS, BUT I THINK THINK 30 MINUTES.
           

           MR. FORD: THAT YOU WOULD BE MORE THAN TEN MINUTES.
           

           MR. BROWNBACK: I'M THINKING IT WILL PROBABLY BE AROUND 30
           MINUTES.
           

           MR. FORD: WOULD THE SENATOR BE WILLING TO SAY NO LONGER THAN 30 MINUTES?
           
           

           MR. BROWNBACK: NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME BUT I THINK THAT WILL
           PROBABLY --
           

           MR. FORD: WELL, SENATOR, IF THAT'S THE WHERE WE'RE GOING, THEN
           NO ONE ELSE WILL GET MORE THAN TEN MINUTES.
           

           MR. BENNETT: I YIELD THE FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS IS RECOGNIZED
           UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER.
           
           BACK: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. FROM UTAH AND WHAT HE TOOK THE
           TIME TEXPLAIN OF WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO GO TO NEXT, LEGISLATIVE
           BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS BILL. AND I HOPE WE CAN DISCUSS AS A PART
           OF THAT LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION BILL, WHICH IS
           SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS 21 MILLION AMERICAN FAMILIES.
           

           MR. BROWNBACK: IT INCREASES THEIR TAXES AN AVERAGE OF $1,400
           PER FAMILY. IT WAS DONE TO THEM IN 1969, THE SAME YEAR -- THE
           LAST YEAR WE BALANCED THE BUDGET UNTIL THIS YEAR. AND THAT WE
           HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH NOW, AND THAT'S A THING CALLED
           THE MARRIAGE PENALTY. AND THE MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX. AND I DON'T
           KNOW HOW MANY AMERICAN -- HOW MUCH OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS
           AWARE OF THIS TAX, BUT IN 1969, THERE WAS PLACED A TAX --
           ACTUALLY A CHANGE IN THE TAX CODE TO THE POINT THAT MARRIED

           COUPLES WERE TAXED MORE FOR BEING MARRIED THAN IF THEY WOULD BE
           SINGLE. AND IT AMOUNTS ON AVERAGE $1,400 PER FAMILY. IT AFFECT
           AROUND 21 MILLION AMERICAN FAMILIES. AND IT'S WRONG. IT'S THE
           WRONG KIND OF TAX. IT'S THE WRONG KIND OF NOTION. IT IS TELLING
           PEOPLE, WE'RE GOING TO PENALIZE YOU FOR BEING MARRIED IN THE
           TAX CODE. THIS IS A WRONG IDEA WHEN WE'RE STRUGGLING SO MUCH IN
           AMERICA TODAY WITH MAINTENANCE OF FAMILIES, WITH TRYING TO KEEP
           FAMILIES TOGETHER, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT THE

           FOUNDATIONAL UNITS OF A CIVIL SOCIETY IS THE AMERICAN FAMILY
           AND THEN WE'RE SAYING, WELL, YEAH, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAX YOU.
           AND WE SEND BY THAT SIGNAL THERE THAT WE THINK LESS OF MARRIED
           FAMILIES. WELL, IT'S TIME THAT WE GO BACK AND DO WHAT WE DID
           PRIOR TO 1969 AND THAT IS NOT TAX MARRIED COUPLES MORE THAN IF
           THEY WERE JUST SINGLE PEOPLE LIVING TOGETHER. WE WERE UP UNTIL
           1969, WE OPERATED THAT WAY, AND THEN IN THAT YEAR, IN ATTEMPTS

           TO GET MORE REVENUES INTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE PUT THIS
           TAX IN PLACE TAXING MARRIED COUPLES. IT'S WRONG. IT'S THE WRONG
           IDEA. IT'S THE WRONG SIGNAL. IT'S SOMETHING THAT NOW WE HAVE
           THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH AS WELL. AND C.B.O. THIS
           WEEK, THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE THIS WEEK, STATED THAT
           OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WE WILL HAVE $520 BILLION IN SUR
           POLICES OVER THE NEXT FIVE -- SURPLUSES OVER THE NEXT FIVE
           YEARS. $520 BILLION IN SURPLUSES OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, A

           HFL A TRILLION DOLLARS. AND I JUST -- A HALF A TRILLION
           DOLLARS. AND I JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES AND OTHER MEMBERS, MY
           GOODNESS, IF WE'VE GOT THAT RESOURCE THERE, WE HAVE FAMILIES
           STRUGGLING SO MUCH, IF THE FOUNDATIONAL UNIT OF A CIVIL SOCIETY
           IS THE FAMILY AND WE'RE TAXING THAT FAMILY MORE, LET'S GIVE
           THEM A LITTLE BREAK. AND THIS IS THE RIGHT VEHICLE TO DO IT ON.
           WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDING THE LEGISLATIVE SHOP HERE. LET'S
           HELP FUND THE FAMILIES A LITTLE BIT. AND WE'VE GOT THE ABILITY
           TO DO IT AND IT WOULD SEND THE RIGHT SIGNAL, IT WOULD SEND A

           GOOD SIGNAL, IT'S THE TIME WE CAN SEND THE SIGNAL AND WE OUGHT
           TO DO IT. AND WE OUGHT TO DO IT NOW. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE
           HOPING TO PROPOSE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATES BILL,
           IS THE ELIMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY FOR THE WORKING
           FAMILIES. AND THIS HITS MOST FAMILIES BETWEEN A COMBINED INCOME
           OF $20,000 PER YEAR TO $75,000 PER YEAR. THAT'S THE CATEGORY OF
           FAMILIES THAT ARE HIT BY THIS MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY. THE
           AMENDMENT THAT I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE AND WAS SPONSORED BY

           SENATOR ASHCROFT AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS, SENATOR INHOFE,
           SENATOR SMITH, AND I THINK A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD JOIN
           ONTO THIS BILL. THE BILL I WAS GOING TO PUT FORWARD DOES A VERY
           SIMPLE THING. IT JUST MAKES THE STANDARD DEDUCTION THE SAME FOR
           MARRIED
{END: 1998/07/17 TIME: 11-45 , Fri.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}