Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I do not have very many remarks on this but my remarks have grown just since I have been here this morning. I am fascinated with this accusation that my fellow Senator from Alabama is doing this on behalf of the tobacco folks. I have not seen him do anything that has looked like it was on behalf of the tobacco folks in this settlement. I have not done anything on behalf of the tobacco folks in this settlement, and during my campaign, even though I was desperate for money, I didn't accept any money from the tobacco folks. I am in support of the second-degree amendment and I am in support of the first-degree amendment. I am in support of both of them because they both leave all the money on the table. That is kind of hard to determine. We do not know at this point what the money is that is on the table. The Senator from Kentucky last night went through quite a discussion of how much it might be in addition to $368.5 billion, but this debate is about how much less than $368.5 billion it might be. Quite frankly, I am fascinated with the whole discussion on the tobacco settlement. I hear these comments about whether it is constitutional to limit attorney's fees or not. I cannot tell you for sure that it is constitutional for us to be talking about a tobacco settlement at all. This is an arrangement that the States entered into, through some lawsuits, and then some discussions, and now they are asking us to seal the deal on their behalf. Usually they are asking us to keep our hands out of their business, and I am in favor of doing that. I think the States have some rights that we have infringed on for a long time and that it is our job here to return as many of those rights to the States as we possibly can. So now we have the States saying, ``Please meddle in our affairs and seal this deal for us.'' Quite frankly, I am not hearing them say, ``Meddle in this deal but don't meddle in the attorney's fees.'' They are not saying that. We are not even sure what the attorney's fee arrangements are between the different States. If we have a constitutional right to do one, seal the deal, I think we have a constitutional right, too, to make sure that we understand what the attorney's fees are. When this passes it will not be the final time that it will be debated. There will be a conference committee on it and one of the things I have learned in the short time I have been here in the Senate is that those conference committees can do almost anything they want. When this particular amendment comes back it can have eliminated every concern of the people in the House and the Senate. Everything we have debated here can be changed or it can be left out. I think at this point it is extremely important that we talk about the attorney's fees and not let everybody in the country go running off to hire more attorneys at whatever rate they can entice them. Quite frankly, I think this could turn into one of the biggest lotteries in the United States. I think we need to have some parameters. Now, the parameter that is in this amendment is $5 million, or $250 an hour for each and every hour they put in the process. It was mentioned just a little while ago that you have to have people read the documents and determine what is important out of several million documents. Well, each and every one of those people reading those documents would get $250 an hour, not just the lead attorney, and him having to separate it out to the people reading the documents for him, everybody gets $250 an hour. That is quite an economic boon. The only limitation on it is $5 million per State. Do you think these people went out and obtained $5 million worth of State money or even suggested that attorneys ought to be able to get that through a contingency fee? If they did do that, why are they turning around and asking us to confirm what they did, but saying, ``We cannot give you the details?'' This amendment will bring out the details, and it is not the final action. The first-degree amendment brings out the details. We found that there was a stipulation in the last conference report-- it was not an action we took, it was a conference report action--that there would be a credit against the tobacco tax, and we say, no, we will put that back on the table. I am all for putting that back on the table. We are starting to commit settlement money without having a settlement, without having a deal and without knowing whether the money is for the Federal Government or for the States. It is too premature to make those kinds of deals. I commend the Senators from Maine and Illinois for their effort to get the cigarette tax back on the table so we can decide, and I commend the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for putting the attorney's fees on the table so we can take a look at whether they earned them or not and what part they played in this process. It seems to me to be logical. Another little twist on this whole tobacco settlement is we are talking about several years of payments in the tobacco settlement, but we are talking about upfront, putting them out of business. There is not much clamor against putting them out of business, but you do not get money over a long term from somebody that you put out of business. We want to stop the cigarette sales. We want to get people to quit smoking and having the harmful residuals that are showing up from the tobacco, but are we going to give away the first money that comes in, the money that is most assured of having, to the attorneys? And then when we put them out of business, saying ``What happened to the other $300 billion we were going to get out of the bill? How come we don't get the money?'' We committed that money. So I certainly hope that the Senate will be careful and not commit money that we do not have, commit money that we do not understand how we are going to get, commit money that it may not be constitutional to take. But I do hope we will investigate and work this thing to the greatest benefit possible for stopping smoking and helping the health situation in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I yield.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September 5. I further ask that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate immediately begin debate on the motion to proceed to S. 830, the FDA reform bill, and that the debate time be equally divided in the usual form until 9:50 a.m.

Mr. ENZI. I further ask that at 9:50 a.m. the Senate proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. For the information of all Members, tomorrow the Senate will immediately begin consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 830, the FDA reform bill, with the time from 9:30 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. being equally divided in the usual form. As previously ordered, a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the FDA bill will occur at 9:50 a.m. Also, by previous consent, if cloture is invoked on Friday, the Senate will debate for 8 hours on the motion to proceed equally divided between Senators Jeffords and Kennedy. In addition, there will be 4 hours of debate on the motion to proceed remaining on Monday. Also, by consent, a vote is expected Monday at 5 p.m. on an amendment relating to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Any remaining votes will be stacked to occur on Tuesday.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the President be requested to return to the Senate the resolution of the Senate of July 24, 1997, advising and consenting to nominations in the Navy beginning John A. Achenbach, to be captain, and ending Sreten Zivovic, to be captain; further, that the confirmation of the nominations be vitiated, and when returned by the President, the nominations be returned to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I now withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. ENZI. I now move to proceed to S. 830, and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. I object on behalf of Senator Kennedy.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2014, the conference report on tax relief. Through this tax package, we can give the American people the first serious tax reduction package in 16 years. This legislation provides tax relief to families with children, it offers greatly needed relief for small business, and it encourages education and investment. Finally this legislation gives some relief to individuals and small businesses from the punitive Federal death tax. I commend the Chairmen of the Finance and Budget Committees and the other conferees for their hard work on this package. We must realize that we still have a long journey ahead in relieving the tax burden on American taxpayers and in simplifying the cumbersome tax code. Mr. President, our tax burden in this country is overwhelming. We tax income, we tax investment, and we tax savings. In fact, we have pretty well figured out a way of taxing a person from the time he gets up in the morning to the time he goes to bed. From the time you wake up in the morning and have your first cup of coffee, you are paying sales tax. When you get in your car and drive to work, you are paying gasoline tax. As you work all day to support your family, you are also supporting the Government by paying income tax. When you go home and spend time with your family and finally go to bed, you are paying property tax. If you decide to make a telephone call or turn on the light switch, you get taxed for that too. This taxation on almost all your daily activities goes on your entire life and to add insult to injury, we even tax you when you die. It is a tragic situation in this country when most people spend more money on taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined. It is time that we relieve this tax burden on our Americans. Just as our tax burden is too high, our Tax Code is frustratingly complex. Like a critically-ill patient, the Internal Revenue Code is in desperate need of surgery. We have continued to operate our Tax Code with layer after layer of bandages while ignoring the gasps of the dying patient beneath. This complexity has often left even the professional tax preparers in a quandary about the meaning of the myriad of code provisions and revenue regulations. When even the experts cannot understand our Tax Code, it is time for meaningful reform. I had the pleasure of conducting a small business committee field hearing in Casper, WY, this past April in order to find out the concerns facing many of our small businesses. One of the consistent messages I received from the hearing was that the complexity of our Tax Code is strangling small businesses. Even the representatives from the accounting profession testified that our Tax Code is in desperate need of simplification. They are concerned about their own liability because they cannot even count on representatives of the Internal Revenue Service to understand the Tax Code they attempt to enforce. I have found that many of these accountants are reluctant to simplify the code, however, because every time we've attempted to simplify the Tax Code, we have ended up raising taxes. We in Congress must begin by reevaluating our tax policy. We will be able to accurately chart our course only if we know where we are going. This conference report takes an important step in lessening the tax burden on individuals and small businesses alike. This tax package provides broad-based tax relief for America's families. The $500-per- child tax credit would provide over $70 billion in tax relief for families over the next 5 years. The child credit has long been championed by the Republican Party as a means of helping in the evergrowing cost of raising families. Our Tax Code has failed miserably to keep up with the ever-growing demands of raising children. The current exemption for dependent children is less than one-half what it should be to keep pace with inflation. Many of America's families have two parents working with one working to pay the bills and the other working to pay the taxes. We should be working to strengthen our families in any way we can, and this credit will help in that effort. Mr. President, this package moves us a step closer to the eventual repeal of the punitive death tax. This is an area I have taken a special interest in since the Federal death tax adversely impacts a large number of small businesses and farms in Wyoming. The death tax punishes people who work hard their entire lives in order to pass something on to their children. This bill increase the exemption for individuals and provides for a $700,000 exclusion for family owned businesses. This exclusion was an important priority for me. I joined several of my colleagues in urging the conferees to include a provision which excludes the death tax for family businesses and farms. We need to build on this foundation and work toward an eventual repeal of the Federal death tax. Mr. President, this bill gets us closer to leveling the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. Most notably, it accelerates the phase in for the deduction of health insurance for the self-employed and it reinstates the home office business deduction. As a small businessman myself, I was pleased to see some tax relief going to those who form the backbone of our economy. This legislation also encourages education by providing tax credits for tuition and expenses for college and technical school training as well as tax deductions for the interest on student loans. These tuition tax credits will provide the means for many students to pursue a college education or receive technical training. The tax deduction for individuals who have already invested in college or graduate education provide tax relief for one of the largest investments many people will make in their lifetime. Mr. President, this package makes important strides toward encouraging Americans to save and to invest for their future. We currently have a dangerously low savings rate in this country, and this is due in large part to our current tax structure which not only taxes income but it taxes savings. This bill expands the availability of tax-free Individual Retirement Accounts to include nonworking spouses and it creates a new ``super IRA'' the proceeds of which can be withdrawn tax- free for purposes such as first time home purchases. We also provide relief for investment by providing for long-overdue capital gains relief. This bill cuts the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent and reduces the 15 percent rate to 10 percent for assets held longer than 18 months. This reduction of the capital gains rate will benefit millions of Americans. A news report just this week showed that nearly one-half of Americans have some current investment in the stock market. Many companies have allowed their employees to invest in their future by buying stock in the company. Many of these employees have counted on this investment for retirement. This package provides relief for people who have planned wisely for their future. Mr. President, I support his tax relief proposal because I believe we need to return some of the Americans' money back to them this year. This legislation will return over $90 million to those who have paid the taxes. It has been far too long since Congress has passed a tax relief package for the American families and small business, and I applaud this effort. We must not, however, believe that our work is done. Rather, it has just begun. We must now focus our attention and effort on the reducing the enormous complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. We need to set our sights on the clearly defining our Nation's tax policy, and then muster the reserve to implement our goals with simplicity and fairness. As the only accountant in the U.S. Senate, I fully realize the need of reforming a tax code so that it strengthens families, encourages enterprise and thrift, and rewards savings. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this most important endeavor. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. tax incentives that promote forestland conservation

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is a great personal pleasure for me to express my congratulations to Ambassador Edward Ghehm, Jr. as the Senate completes its action on his nomination to be Director General of the Foreign Service. I have known Edward Ghehm, or Skip, as his friends call him, since the days when we were in college together. He and I were college roommates for 3 years. Skip has been a brother to me since we first met. I know him better than any investigator could hope--and there isn't anything I know I wouldn't share, from his sense of humor to his work ethic. Skip has always put God and Country first. He has lived a motto that says, ``If what you did yesterday still seems important, you haven't done much today.'' It doesn't seem all that long ago, we were both attending George Washington University here in the Nation's Capital. We used to dream about the future. I can tell you, we never dreamed that ``someday'' we'd both be before a congressional panel, me as the junior Senator from Wyoming, and Skip as the President's nominee for a key State Department post. Through the years, we have kept track of each other. I have been very proud, but not surprised, that Skip has gone on to accomplish great things in his career with the State Department. I've lived around the world through my brother. Skip has been a man for our time. A quick glance at Skip's duty sheet will show that whenever there has been a ``hot spot'' in the world community that warranted the careful attention of the State Department and a search for ``the right one''--someone with a great sensitivity to a tense foreign situation and strong diplomatic skills to help find a solution--Skip was often the one they called. To name a few of his tours of duty with the State Department, Skip has served in the Vietnamese Embassy, he has been in Nepal, and he has been stationed in many posts in the Middle East. Skip was a part of the team that negotiated hostage releases. He has been in charge of evacuating Embassy families. Each change of administration has sought out his expertise, his counsel, and his active participation in our foreign policy. When Operation Desert Storm became necessary, once again Skip was there, serving as our Ambassador to Kuwait. You'll remember the proud moment when the American flag went back up at our Embassy--Skip was the person you saw raise the colors. Most recently, Skip has been serving as the Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations. Ambassador Gnehm is a man of great character, strongly held principles, and the greatest integrity you could hope to find. He has earned the respect of those he works with, and his counterparts in the foreign countries and Embassies in which he has been assigned. Skip is the perfect choice for the Foreign Service. He has always seen the foreign service as his best chance to serve--to make a difference. And he has made a difference. He has the experience and the determination it takes to succeed. He's a proven leader who understands the need to follow orders and the direction of our foreign policy. He possesses the finest of administration skills. I have no doubt that the wealth of talent he possesses will enable him to lead with confidence. As always, Skip will do a fine job and produce results. It is with great pleasure that I support his nomination.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the senior Senator from West Virginia and the junior Senator from Nebraska, of which I am a cosponsor, and which concerns the issue of global warming in general and the impending related treaty specifically. Mr. President, many of us are not surprised by the content of this proposed treaty. We saw the 1992 Framework Convention on Global Climate Change for what it was: The nose of the camel. And now, 5 years later and just as expected, we find ourselves face to face with the whole critter. He's in the tent, he's huge, and he's very frightening. The agreement signed in Brazil 5 years ago was voluntary. It called for the economically developed nations to undertake voluntary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Now the administration wants a legally binding agreement that will require a handful of developed countries to reach 1990 levels of fossil fuels emissions by the year 2010. But here is the amazing part, Mr. President: Though the United States and several other developed countries will be subject to the new enforcement regime, the rest of the world will not. Utterly amazing. Where in the world did this administration learn to negotiate? I see a lot of give, but I am still looking for the take. So we really believe we can place shackles on our economy, leave the economies of our trade competitors unaffected, and not lose countless jobs and industries overseas? It has been all we can do to stop the loss of jobs overseas under the best conditions. Every developing nation has cheaper labor costs than we do. Every developing nation has fewer environmental regulations than we do. Every developing nation has fewer worker protection expenses than we do. These nations are understandably concerned, first and foremost, with elevating the living conditions of their own people. Their leaders would be derelict if they weren't. Does anyone seriously believe they will not take advantage of the new regime at the expense of our workers? Is a little fairness too much to ask? Does the administration find the concept of simple equity so unreasonable? The AFL-CIO is apoplectic at the prospect of this ill-advised treaty, and with good reason. They understand how many American jobs it will kill. As a representative from the largest coal producing State in the Nation, I know only too well just what it means for the people of my State. This resolution simply calls for all nations to share the burden in the effort to avoid an environmental problem, which, I might add, is supported by a scientific consensus that is generously referred to as unsettled. This resolution, if adopted, would be a treaty enhancer, not a treaty killer. For this reason, if no other, the administration should embrace it. In its current form the treaty will most certainly not survive this body. We want a good treaty. We are not opposed to a global antipollution effort. But we want a fair treaty. You just cannot have the former without the latter. We need to bring developing countries on board in a responsible fashion. And if the Byrd-Hagel resolution is not adopted the administration will have missed a valuable opportunity to do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, many of us returned home to our States to celebrate the Fourth of July and the birth of this great Nation. All across this country, in both urban and rural communities, we joined as one to honor our Founding Fathers and their commitment to freedom as reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Together these two documents form the foundation of our Nation. It seems most fitting and appropriate to take a moment after we have returned from our Fourth of July activities to take note of two groups of Wyoming students that came to our Nation's Capital recently as part of programs celebrating the history of our Nation and its place in the world. To celebrate the Constitution, and its effect on our lives as citizens, a team from Central High School in Cheyenne traveled to Washington to participate in a competition entitled ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution.'' In that event, students from across the United States competed against each other as they demonstrated their remarkable understanding of and sensitivity to the fundamental principles upon which this Nation was founded. They proved that the values that are embodied in our Nation's Constitution still resonate with meaning and importance in our lives today as they serve to fire our children's imaginations and interest in our past. In the process of preparing for this event, those students learned a lot about the Constitution. I would imagine many of them were surprised to learn that it is truly a living document. Through the years it has been changed and amended to address the problems of a growing democracy. It has weathered every storm, including a Civil War and countless crisis faced by our Nation's leaders. Through it all, it has continued to provide the guideposts we have followed to ensure that our Nation remains strong and free. It was very gratifying personally to see such attention focused on our Nation's Constitution. That document holds a great deal of meaning to me personally. I have always drawn inspiration from the words our Founding Fathers used as they drafted the U.S. Constitution. In fact, when I served as the mayor of Gillette, WY, I always had a copy in my coat pocket. I gave copies to the members of the council each year on Constitution Day and every other year we read it as part of our proceedings. Now that I have been elected to the Senate, I have to say it has new meaning for me. It refers to me. It is my job description. It is not just the basic rules for someone way off in Washington. It speaks directly to me and the purpose I serve as a Member of the Senate, a representative of the dreams, hopes, and ambitions of the people of my home State of Wyoming. Just a few weeks ago another group came to Washington as part of a program to promote and encourage our children's interest in and enthusiasm for history. We are all familiar with the famous quote of George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' That is why it is so important that we continue to encourage our children to study the past and learn about the mistakes that were made, and the triumphs, too, that have made this Nation what it is today. Looking over the list of subjects that those who participated in Wyoming History Day had worked on, I was quite impressed by the many different areas of history that had drawn their attention. I am certain they were all amazed by how much they had learned by examining the events they had chosen in detail as they prepared for the competition. Like those young students, I also enjoyed studying our Nation's history when I was in school. I was fascinated by the stories of our past, and I took a special interest in the history of Wyoming and the days of the Old West. I read everything I could get my hands on that had to do with the early days of the West and our State's first settlers. They were brave pioneers and together they faced a great many hardships and trials as they worked to make it out West. They were remarkable people blessed with special skills and strengths. The heritage they passed down to their children is still reflected in the faces of those who have a long history with and strong ties to the land they love and rely on for their lifeblood. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers passed down their great love of independence and freedom to us, and their lifestyles helped shape our character and made Wyoming what it is today: fiercely proud, independent, and strongly self- reliant. These programs are the kind of projects we should continue to encourage our children to pursue as a regular part of their education. By studying and reading about the history of our Nation and the world, we will not only learn how to avoid the mistakes of the past, but we will also learn how to properly plan and prepare for our future. Studying about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the work our Founding Fathers put into this great Nation at its conception is a good place to begin. What better time to take up this subject than now, so close to our Fourth of July celebration. That is what Independence Day is really all about. We take great pride in our history. We celebrate the lives and work of that relatively small group of individuals, banded together by their commitment to freedom, and the dream of democracy; and who saw the reality and reassurance of a new republic. On that day in July in 1776 they began a series of events that have served to change the face of the world forever. I am very proud of these and all our students who are studying the world's history, and our place in it. As the father of a schoolteacher, I know the commitment that is necessary to provide our children with a good education. For that process to be successful, we must all do our part--teachers, students, and parents. We should all continue to encourage our children to participate fully and actively in the programs and projects offered by their schools. The resulting challenges they will face and the rewards they will receive will have a dramatic effect on their lives. Congratulations to all those who won awards in these programs, and to those who gave their best efforts as participants. We are very proud of each one of you--and counting on you for the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for S. 1037, the Creating Improved Delivery of Child Care: Affordable, Reliable, and Educational Act of 1997--better known as the CIDCARE Act. I want to commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for his steady work on this important measure and for his commitment to enhancing the quality of child care throughout the Nation. I firmly believe that Senator Jeffords has crafted a measure that would stimulate the demand for higher quality child care and I am proud to join Senator Dodd as an original cosponsor of this bill. Our society has braved a storm of changes during the last five decades. Our Nation's work environment has changed, too, with the introduction of personal computers, high-speed modems, cellular phones, pagers, and fax machines. American suburbanization has created a need for audio and video conferencing, satellite offices, and most importantly, telecommuting. In addition, there has been an influx of women into our nation's work force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76 percent of mothers now work. Moreover, 63 percent of two parent households now see both parents working outside of the home. While the number of working women in our country continues to rise, so has the number of children enrolled in child care. Unfortunately, the quality of this care has not risen to match the rapid increase in enrollment. That is why we must modernize the way we provide child care assistance by allocating our scarce resources more efficiently. By doing so, our children will benefit. That is clearly an investment in our Nation's future. Congress must legislate with the times to provide opportunities for our Nation's parents and child care providers to make that investment. It is often the case with a lot of families that one parent works to pay the bills while the other one works to pay the taxes. A lot of people are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and often, both parents are working two jobs. The resulting increase in the number of employed women in the work force has dramatically expanded the number of child care providers. This expansion is truly beneficial to parents who need available child care, but the ratio of children to providers and the ensuing reduction in the quality of that care when staff and resources are stretched is still troubling. A recent nationwide study indicates that 40 percent of the child care provided to infants poses a potential risk of injury. Moreover, 15 percent of the care at center- based providers is so deficient that a child's health and safety are threatened. In Wyoming, the quality of the care provided to our children is taken very seriously. Child care providers licensed by the State of Wyoming must have 12 credit hours in education, CPR training, meet fire marshal standards, and have a minimum amount of floor space for the children entrusted to their care. The State ensures that all licensed providers comply with these requirements and would continue to do so if this bill is passed --but they would do so much more effectively. This legislation would provide a $260 million competitive grant program to assist States in improving the quality of care we provide our children. States must use at least 30 percent of the grant funds awarded to establish a subsidy program to provide salary increases to licensed child care providers. The remainder of the grant funds awarded could be channeled toward establishing a scholarship program to help child care providers meet the costs of education and training; expanding State- based child care training and technical assistance activities; improving consumer education efforts including the expansion of resource and referral services and child care complaint systems; providing increased rates of reimbursement provided under Federal or State child care assistance for children with special-needs; or even for purchasing special supplies, equipment, or meeting other expenses necessary for the care of special needs children. Moreover, this legislation would further expand the Community Development Block Grant to States to help renovate existing child care facilities. Equitable distribution of resources based on the percentage of income a family uses to meet child care expenses must be represented in any change to the current system. This legislation reduces, but does not eliminate, the dependent care tax credit for upper income taxpayers by changing the way the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit is administered. The income level for the receipt of the highest percentage of employment-related child care costs would be increased from $10,000 to $20,000. The percentage would be decreased at a rate of 1 percent for each additional $2,500 in adjusted gross income and a minimum percentage of 10 percent would be set for incomes of $70,000 and above. Employers would be allowed to contribute more to a dependent care assistance plan account. Moreover, families who qualify for the earned income tax credit [EITC] would receive a refund of the child care tax credit on a quarterly basis. The EITC was originally geared to assist families with dependent children--not couples without any kids at all. Clearly, changes are in order. Small businesses are fighting an uphill battle in meeting the child care needs of their employees. Having played the small business owner role for over 25 years, I can appreciate the need for giving such employers a break. This legislation creates a tax credit for employers providing, or otherwise supporting, child care arrangements for their employees. Fifty percent of the expenses incurred by a business to meet the child care needs of employees would be credited toward the business' Federal tax liability. Included in this provision are startup costs, renovations to meet accreditation standards, professional development for child care providers, general operating expenses, and subsidized child care for lower paid employees. Small businesses need incentives in order to be more involved in meeting the child care needs of employees. After all, Congress is placing more parents into the work force following last year's welfare reform legislation. We should provide some tax incentives to employers who are providing those jobs. This legislation would also authorize $50 million a year to establish and operate a technology-based training infrastructure to enable child care providers nationwide to receive the training, education, and support they need to improve the quality of care they provide. We must reap the benefits of the Internet to enhance the quality of child care. We spend a lot of time talking about how the Internet can be harmful to children. Here's a chance to show how it can dramatically help them. By creating a child care training and education interactive network, child care credentialing and accreditation entities for training, skills testing, and other activities needed to maintain child care credentials would be greatly enhanced. Moreover, a no-interest revolving loan fund will be established to enable child care providers to purchase computers, satellite dishes, and other equipment which would enable them to participate in the child care training provided by this technological infrastructure. The current system for funding child care in our nation yearns for improvement. This legislation does not reinvent the wheel, it changes the tires. States must continue to receive assistance in order to achieve a higher quality of care for our children. This legislation simply provides more efficient and pragmatic methods for administering that assistance. I believe that this legislation provides the proper incentives for enhancing the quality of care we provide our children. Our society's work force is driven by changing trends. I can comfortably argue that our society is one of the most trendy in the world--a fact that has kept America on the leading edge of technological innovation. I hope that before people begin making up their minds on this bill they will take a close look at the language and what it really calls for--better care for our kids. Our Nation's work force is calling for this much-needed change. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1037, the CIDCARE bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer a sense of the Senate amendment that calls for a repeal of the Federal estate tax on family owned businesses by 2002. I commend Chairman Roth and the Finance Committee on the progress they have made by increasing the estate tax exemption for individuals and by excluding the first $1 million family owned businesses from Federal death tax liability. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward repealing the death tax on family businesses. I introduce this resolution because I believe there is still much work to be done. The Federal death tax on family owned business tax punishes those who have worked hard their entire life building up a small business or a family farm only to have their children see it disappear in order to pay the Federal death taxes. The death tax discourages thrift and pierces the very heart of the American economy-- small businesses. Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. The simple fact is that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Out of the nearly 5\1/2\ million employers in this country, 99 percent are businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Almost 90 percent of those businesses employ fewer than 20 employees. Since the early 1970's, small businesses have created two out of every three net new jobs in this country. This remarkable job growth continued even during periods of slow national growth and downturns when most large corporations were downsizing and laying off workers. Small businesses employ more than half of the private sector workforce and are responsible for producing roughly half our Nation's gross domestic product. By punishing small businesses, the Federal death tax stifles our economy, discourages ingenuity, and threatens the economic security of many of our families. The Federal death tax also tears at the bonds that unite parents and children and families and communities. The family business has historically been one of the primary means for children to learn skills and virtues that help throughout their entire lives. Many of the small business in Wyoming are ranches and farms, and I know many of the hard- working men and women in Wyoming who run these family ranches and farms. The whole family pitches in to harvest the crops, feed the livestock, mend the fences, fix the irrigation ditches, plow the roads, herd the sheep and cattle, and plan for next year's yield. Children learn that hard work and responsible planning are necessary ingredients for success in work as in life. They learn respect for the land that is their livelihood. They learn to appreciate the labor of their parents and grandparents and they realize their own labor is an investment in their future and the future of their children. I myself ran a small family owned shoe store in Gillette, WY. We didn't have a separate division for merchandising and marketing. We didn't have an accounting department to sort out the complicated Tax Code. We all wore many hats. We had to sell the shoes, balance the books, keep track of our inventory, and straighten out the shelves. Let me tell you that we all learned to pitch in to get the job done. We learned to work together and we learned to appreciate the hard work and sacrifices each of us made to keep the store running smoothly. We also learned firsthand the importance of living by the golden rule. If you don't treat your customers well in the retail business they don't forget. This is especially true of folks in small towns where there are always a few people who remember what you did as a kid and who can even tell you stories about your parents and grandparents. The joy is, they also remember you when you treat them well. The family owned business is an important medium through which we pass on our heritage from one generation to the next. Mr. President, our Tax Code represents our tax policy and we should be ashamed at a code which punishes families and stifles our economy. Every year our Tax Code forces thousands of families to sell their businesses just to pay the repressive Federal death tax. It is time we correct this injustice by providing meaningful relief for America's families and their small businesses. I commend the chairman for his diligent work in crafting a tax bill that takes an important first step toward reforming the death tax. I look forward to working with my colleagues in repealing this burdensome tax in the near future. This sense of the Senate resolution expresses our firm intent to work together toward this end. I ask for your support in this important endeavor. I thank the chair and yield the floor. amendment no. 558 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the treatment of cancellation of student loans) On page 77, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12 noon. By previous consent, at 12 noon, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 947, the budget reconciliation bill. Amendments will be offered to the reconciliation bill today. However, no rollcalls will occur during today's session of the Senate. All votes ordered today with respect to amendments to the reconciliation bill will be stacked to occur on Tuesday, June 24, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Senators should, therefore, be prepared for a series of stacked votes beginning at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. Under the rules, the budget reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours for debate, and it is the majority leader's hope that the two leaders will be able to reach an agreement to yield back some of that time. Once the Senate completes the action on the first reconciliation bill, we will begin consideration of the second reconciliation bill, which is also limited to 20 hours for debate. The leader has stated for the past several weeks that Senators should be prepared for a busy week of session. It is the leader's intention to remain in session until both reconciliation bills are completed. The Senate will adjourn for the Fourth of July recess once we finish our business this week. But the majority leader warns his colleagues that we will remain in session into the evening throughout this week and into the weekend, if necessary, until the reconciliation process is completed. I thank all Senators for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on behalf of the present occupant of the chair, I will yield myself 10 minutes and also ask unanimous consent the order be extended by the same amount.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I congratulate you and thank you for providing this opportunity for us to talk a little bit today about taxes to our colleagues and to the American people. I do rise in support of the tax reform proposals that have been offered by the Republican Congress. Yesterday I presided over the Senate for an hour and listened to an hour of Republican bashing on taxes. I am here today to proudly say that if it were not for Republicans in this body, we would not be debating tax cuts for the American people at all. We would only be talking about increased spending--not increased spending that the American people helps to decide on, just increased spending. And increased spending leads to increased taxes. So, I am proud to be working on a tax cut proposal for this Congress. The American people have not received serious tax relief for 16 years. Earlier this year I had the pleasure of chairing a committee hearing in Wyoming on small business. One of the groups that appeared there was the Society of CPA's. They asked for tax simplification and tax cuts for the American people. You might say that's kind of a strange bunch to want tax simplification, but I have to tell you it is so complicated that their liability is hanging out. It is difficult for them to meet the needs of the people. If you call the Internal Revenue Service on successive days with a tax question, you will most likely get different answers on that tax question. But they were reluctant to ask for the simplification because every time they have worked on simplification in this country, we have wound up with tax increases. That is one of the things we are here to guard against, is tax increases. And we are proposing a tax package that provides for nearly $85 billion in net tax cuts over the next 5 years. It is the first step in providing the American people with the tax relief they so richly deserve. This tax package provides broad-based tax relief for America's families. This is just the first step toward peeling back the monumental tax hike passed by the Democratic Congress and President Clinton in 1993. It should come as no surprise that the administration and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle began bashing the Republican's tax proposal almost as soon as it was unveiled. A brief review of the last 5 years illustrates that this administration believes that a bloated Federal Government knows better how to spend your money than you do. President Clinton's tax hike in 1993 punished the American people by burdening them with more than $240 billion--billion--in new taxes. The President's tax increase was the largest in American history and it came after--after--the President had promised that he would offer middle-class tax relief. The Republican tax package would give Americans back some of the hard-earned money that was taken from them 4 years ago. We in Washington must never forget that we are talking about the people's money. As an accountant--and I am the only accountant in the U.S. Senate, which I like to humorously say probably accounts for the difficulty in getting tax cuts and balanced budgets--I hear people talk about how happy they are that the Government gave them a tax refund this year. I have to remind some of them that that wasn't the Government giving them a tax refund, that was them overpaying their taxes, the already overexorbitant taxes overpaid, and they were getting back their own money. We get confused, particularly in Washington, and we have to remember that we are talking about the people's money. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have forgotten this. They apparently believe it is the job of the Federal Government to take as much money away from the private citizens as they possibly can and then set themselves up as a ``committee of Government'' who divides that money up to take care of everyone as they see fit. Mr. President, this is wrong. We should allow citizens to keep more of their own money and make their own decisions on how it should be spent. Government often purports to know more about our own needs than we do. But you know best how to spend your own money. History has demonstrated that the American people will use their money more wisely and more efficiently than we in Congress will. While they are doing that, they will be very compassionate, as well as constructive. The Republican tax package is aimed at providing broad-based tax relief for the majority of the American people. The $500-per-child tax credit would provide $81 billion in tax relief for America's families over the next 5 years. This idea has been championed by the Republican Party as a means of helping America's families. The President thought it was such a good idea that he has even campaigned on it. Many families today have two parents working: one of them works to pay the bills, the other one works to pay the taxes. We should be working to strengthen our American families in any way that we can. Taxes are our tax policy, and we should be disappointed and embarrassed by what our tax policy says. We should not be strangling American families with a punitive Tax Code that penalizes marriages. It provides very little tax relief for families with children. It punishes people with a further tax on interest income when they try to save for their kids' college educations or for their own retirement. To add insult to injury, we even tax people when they die. We kind of have this tax policy in the United States that if it moves, you tax it, and if it won't move, you tax it; when you buy it, you tax it; when you sell it, you tax it; and if you happen to die owning something, we're going to tax half of that, too. I listened to much of the debate yesterday by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who claim this is a tax cut for the wealthy. This claim has absolutely no basis in fact unless you play with statistics. I watched the charts yesterday. We should have truth in advertising on the Senate floor. We saw charts that indicated that people earning $30,000 a year would only get a $50-a-year tax credit. That is playing with the truth. They said that people who earned $400,000 would get $7,000 in tax relief. That is also lying with statistics. Take the $500 tax credit all by itself. If you earn $30,000 and you have kids, you would get a tax credit of $500 per child, and as I heard so eloquently explained earlier by my colleague from New Mexico, that is a tax credit. That means you don't take it off the income part of your tax statement, you take it off the taxes that you owe. You get to fill it out clear down to the balance first, and that is where you get the biggest tax cut. You figure your tax bill, and then you get to subtract from your tax bill this $500-per-child tax credit. I assure you that people who are earning $30,000, as most of you know, pay taxes, and if you pay taxes and you have kids, you get the tax credit, you get a $500-a-year credit for that child. That is quite a bit bigger than the $50 that was claimed here yesterday. If you take and lump everybody together, there are a whole bunch of people who are earning money who are not even married yet and don't have kids. They are looking forward to that tax credit, but they are not earning it. If you combine all of those, maybe you can get it down to an average of $50 per person who pays taxes in the $30,000 tax bracket. I would like to see a lot more detail on the kind of charts that we saw. We did pass welfare reform. That was the American people saying that we do expect people in this country to work and pay taxes. The credit would not go to people who do not pay taxes. We are not going to pay people not to work. What we are talking about here is the ability of the people in the United States to still enjoy the American dream. The American dream of owning their own home, their own car, to be able to be an entrepreneur; have an idea, go out and start a business and have that business grow into one of the biggest in the country. When they start that business, they are hoping that they can be doing it for their kids as well; that there will be money that can go to their kids. They are hoping to be able to pass some money on to the next generation. They are worried about their kids. I know a lot of people who have homesteaded in the West and spent every dime that they have earned off their farm or ranch to buy more land so that they would have land to pass on to their kids. Something interesting is happening out in the West, and that is, a whole bunch of people are moving into Wyoming from other States, and they are willing to pay a lot more for land than what the cows will produce on the land. The price of land has been increasing greatly. That is what they have to pay an inheritance on. They are taking away their ability to pass it on to their kids, a way of life, a way their kids anticipated earning money. I saw a program the other night about the new millionaires. Millionaires, we consider them to be rich. I can tell you--not from personal experience I can't--but from looking at people's returns, today's millionaires are not nearly as rich as years-ago millionaires. It is happening today, and the way it is happening is people who are working on assembly lines or in small business are taking a little bit of money out of their check--I know it is difficult to do--but they are taking that money and investing it, and when they get to retirement age, some are now finding because of these investments they have been doing for years and years, the business has been successful enough, they worked hard enough at their job to make that business successful, that the stock they bought is worth over $1 million. And then they die just at the time they get to their retirement, and the Federal Government says your kids aren't entitled to that, even though you worked for it for yourself and your kids all of that time. We, the Federal Government, are entitled to almost half of that money. We didn't do anything to help it, but we get it. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the tax cut contained in the Senate's tax package go to middle-income families. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is Congress' official tax estimator, 74 percent of the benefits of the tax relief bill will go to individuals and families making $75,000 or less. Moreover, 82 percent of the benefits would go to families with educational needs, these middle-income families who were hardest hit by the Democrats' radical tax hike in 1993, and this is the group that is in most need of serious tax relief. What many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to return to is welfare. They want to raise the taxes on people who are now paying taxes to give more money to those who aren't paying any taxes at all. That is not tax relief, it is welfare. Moreover, the budget proposal already provides for $1\2/10\ trillion in spending for the next 5 years. The tax proposal would be a good first step in allowing families and small businesses and those who save to keep more of their own. We need to get beyond the misstatements and distortions and give the American people meaningful tax relief. As we prepare for the debate on the tax package next week, I ask my colleagues to join me in this endeavor. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in light of the assurances I have received from the chairman of the committee, and from his staff regarding the Presidential reporting requirements contained in the bill, I will withdraw my amendment. I look forward to debating this issue again when we receive the Presidential reporting information. Let me say before I close that this bill is a good example of a bipartisan effort to reduce the size of the Federal Government by consolidating agencies into the State Department. Furthermore, reform of our policies with regard to the U.N. are long overdue. The chairman has shown great leadership in negotiating this important bill. I yield the floor. The amendment (No. 394) was withdrawn.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. today. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 903, the State Department reauthorization bill. By previous consent, there will be two stacked rollcall votes beginning at 12 noon. The first vote will be on the DeWine amendment dealing with Haiti, followed by a vote on the Lugar amendment regarding U.N. funding. Also by consent, following the stacked votes, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will resume the State Department authorization bill and hopefully complete action on the bill at a reasonable hour this evening. In addition, this week the Senate may begin consideration of the defense authorization bill following disposition of S. 903. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.