Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I suppose it's time. I was sweating anyhow.

Mr. FORD. Are we on 20?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, since it has been laid on me--and I do not mind that at all. I have always heard when you tear the hide off it comes back--you are tougher. And I will agree to the 20 minutes. I do not want to, but I will agree to it. All I hear for the last week is banging my State and my farmers and my tobacco. And I think I ought to have an opportunity to defend myself and my people. If I am going to be limited to 10 minutes, you know, I am not sure that my colleague and I, with 5 minutes each, can do it adequately. We can do as well as anybody else in 5 minutes. But I hope they would give some consideration to it. Mr. President, I will agree to the 20 minutes equally divided, since I have used 5.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to inform my colleagues that as ranking member on the Committee on Rules and Administration, committee Democrats can no longer participate in a joint investigation of allegations of election fraud in the 1996 Louisiana Senate race as alleged by Louis ``Woody'' Jenkins. We reached this decision, because what we have learned to date suggests a possible fraud on the U.S. Senate and illegal tampering with witnesses by agents of Mr. Jenkins. This is nothing short of an embarrassment to the Senate and an affront to the people of Louisiana. This investigation is over budget, it has exceeded the timeframe agreed to, and none of Mr. Jenkins' claims have been substantiated by any credible witnesses. We come to this decision after waiting 7 months for Mr. Jenkins to provide the committee with credible evidence of multiple voting and of thousands phantom votes, which he has failed to do. Not only have agents to the committee been unable to locate credible witnesses, but Government Accounting Office auditors have also been unable to substantiate Mr. Jenkins' claims of phantom votes. Most disturbing, committee members have learned today that there has been continued interference with witnesses to the investigation in Louisiana by agents of Mr. Jenkins. I can't imagine any Member of the Senate, regardless of the party, who would not find this alarming, unacceptable, and certainly nothing the Senate should be party to. On behalf of Democratic Rules Committee members, I have referred information to the U.S. Department of Justice and asked for an investigation into the incidents of witness tampering and interference with the U.S. Senate investigation. The results to date have shown that the fraud on which Mr. Jenkins' allegations rest, were not only solicited by a convicted criminal, but involved payment for testimony and are otherwise not credible. There is no way that we, in good conscience, can or should proceed with this investigation. Mr. President, the fraud has been committed against the U.S. Senate, not against Mr. Jenkins, and the investigation should be terminated now and stop any waste of taxpayers dollars.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Would the chairman give me a couple of minutes to make a statement as it relates to the Durbin amendment?

Mr. FORD. Two minutes. Mr. President, no one here in the Chamber is opposed to helping children. We have tried our best over the years, and we are trying our best now. It seems like every time you want some money you go to tobacco. We have had Senators from the other side of the aisle that voted against tax on tobacco or any other excise tax because they thought that was the prerogative of the State, and the Senator from Illinois just laid out how much additional tax is going on. So we have a negotiated agreement that people are getting something they never thought they would be able to get. We have to get that through Congress. Now, if we had 10 cents from this committee, and 20 cents there, and 43 cents tomorrow, we have killed the agreement and there is no way the income can equal the projection because with a dollar additional on a pack of cigarettes we lose 20 percent of production and have a 20 percent reduction. We are trying to get in this package reduction of teen smoking or underage smoking. We have a criteria there if they do not do it, they pay more money. Yet we are putting it where they cannot do that. I say to my friends, I am from a tobacco State, absolutely, and I plead guilty to that. I am going to represent them the best I can, but pile on, pile on, pile on--you are not going to have any money left. The States won't be able to get any money and their budgets will be behind, our projections will not reach that total, we will be behind, so everybody piles on tobacco. I hope you will take a step back with all these crocodile tears I see around here. I understand those. But there is some point where we have to meet reality, and reality is do you want to complete a job that is started or do you want to do something that will unbalance this budget within a very short period of time. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator for allowing me the time.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 427

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 473, Withdrawn

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues and other interested persons, a letter from the campaign finance Project. As my colleagues are aware, this project is being led by two of our former colleagues, Nancy Kassebaum Baker and former Vice President Walter Mondale. They were asked by President Clinton earlier this year to lead a bipartisan effort to develop a solution for reforming our campaign finance laws. Last week, they issued an open letter to the President and to the Congress about their observations and what they believe should constitute real and meaningful reform. They have identified several key areas that they believe are essential to these reform efforts: a complete ban on ``soft money;'' refine and sharpen the definitions of ``issue advocacy'' and ``independent expenditures;'' improve disclosure of campaign finances; and strengthen enforcement and leadership at the Federal Election Commission. I have the privilege to meet with both Vice President Mondale and Senator Kassebaum Baker. They are sincere in their efforts to reform our campaign finance system. They believe, as I do, that our failure to act in this issue will only fuel the public's cynicism about the institutions of the Congress, the Presidency, and the electoral process as a whole. I commend this letter to my colleagues attention and ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we do need order, I say with all respect.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let's not cook the books. Let's have a straightforward debate about who is getting the tax breaks that have been proposed, and whether we can do better. We hear a lot about income tax, but what about payroll tax? Let's not ignore payroll taxes when we talk about who is carrying the tax burden today. Workers in this country pay a 7.65-percent payroll tax to finance the Social Security Program. They pay an additional 1.45 percent payroll tax to finance the Medicare Program. Social Security taxes are collected on the first dollar earned--up to $62,700. Medicare taxes are collected on all earned income. The majority of workers in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. So it is insulting for many of these workers to hear some around here talk about low income workers as if they pay no taxes. You will actually hear some Members come to this floor and argue that lower income workers do not get much of a tax break because they do not pay many taxes. They will say lower income workers do not get a full $500 per child tax credit because they do not pay enough in taxes. This is just not true. A tax is a tax for most folks--whether they are income taxes or payroll taxes or estate taxes or something else. But by counting only income taxes and ignoring payroll taxes, it means that upper income taxpayers get more of the tax breaks, while lower and middle income workers get less. So we have to do better. Now, we will also hear that the top 10 or 20 percent get most of the tax benefit because they generate most of the income. Well, let's put that in perspective as well. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1994 the wealthiest 20 percent of families made about 48.1 percent of family income in this country. Yet under the Senate Finance Committee bill, they get 67 percent of the tax breaks. Or let me put it another way--from a middle class perspective. Again according to CBO, in 1994 the bottom 60 percent of families made 27.3 percent of the income. Yet under the Senate Finance Committee bill, they get only 12 percent of the tax benefit. So I think we are a little out of balance. When the bill reaches the floor, I hope we can do better. I hope we can make it a little more fair. It is the least we can do. Last, Mr. President, when we talk about the fairness of this package, we need to talk about how the revenue raisers in the Senate Finance Committee tax package affect different income groups. Last night, the Finance Committee voted to increase excise taxes on cigarettes by 20 cents per pack. I understand that it's politically correct to attack the tobacco industry. And we're going to see plenty of piling on over the next few months regarding tobacco. But let's talk for a minute about how this cigarette tax affects various income groups. It's well documented that cigarette excise taxes are the most regressive of all taxes--meaning they hit poor folks a lot harder than they hit upper income folks. According to a 1997 KPMG Peat Marwick study, U.S. families earning about $30,000 or less earned about 16 percent of all income generated, but paid 47 percent of all tobacco taxes. Let me say it again. Families earning less than $30,000 pay 47 percent of all cigarette excise taxes. The changes in the tax bill made last night will make the disparity among poor families even greater. On average, low income persons pay 15 times more in tobacco taxes than upper income individuals. And what was this tax increase on low income people going to be used for? To accelerate the increase in estate tax relief, which goes primarily to upper income individuals. This is a reverse-Robin Hood amendment. We are taxing the poor to help the wealthy. The amendment will also reportedly be used to provide $8 billion in additional spending for health insurance. Just a couple of weeks ago we heard how this would violate the budget agreement. We voted 55 to 45 against an amendment that would raise taxes in order to raise spending on health insurance. Phone calls were made to the President of the United States to tell him how this would violate the budget agreement and how he better announce he was opposed to the amendment. Yet last night, some of the very same Senators who made those arguments on the floor a few weeks ago apparently voted in favor of a very similar amendment. How could it violate the budget agreement a few weeks ago and not now? Last, Mr. President, the timing of this tax increase is most interesting. Later today we may hear an announcement of a ``global settlement'' of tobacco litigation. The agreement will require congressional action. As I understand it, this agreement completely fails to address the interests of tobacco farmers and factory workers, nearly all of whom are low to moderate income workers. But we will have that debate on another day. What is interesting today, however, is the impact of that agreement on all these proposed cigarette tax increases. The tobacco settlement, if implemented, will have an immediate impact on prices, raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by somewhere in the neighborhood of a dollar. This, of course, will depress consumption--which in turn will reduce revenues by about 20 to 25 percent, or maybe even higher. So any proposals in the reconciliation bill to raise revenues by raising cigarette taxes will prove to be overly optimistic as soon as any global settlement is implemented. This means less revenue will actually be raised, and our deficit problems will be worse--particularly in the out years. So there is a great ripple effect as work here if these tax increase proposals succeed. But last, Mr. President, let me return to my initial point. The tax package considered by the Finance Committee benefits upper income individuals too heavily. The cigarette tax adopted last night makes matters even worse, because it is primarily a tax on low income individuals. So not only do low income folks get virtually none of the tax breaks--but they will now get a tax increase. I hope my colleagues who claim great concern for low income people will keep this in mind as they prepare to vote on the tax reconciliation bill. As for this Senator, I think a bad bill was made worse by the Finance Committee last night, and it is simply not a package I can support in its current form. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, when we start debating tax legislation on the floor, I hope our debate will be governed by a few basic principles. Let me state those questions which are most important to me personally. Each of these questions needs a satisfactory answer. Are the tax benefits spread evenly across all income levels? Is the tax legislation consistent with the budget agreement? Does the tax package undermine a balanced budget after 10 years? We need answers which meet basic standards of fairness and sound public policy. These are the standards I think we should use to judge any tax bill that comes to this floor. Today, I would like to talk a little more about the first concern I have mentioned how evenly the benefits of the proposed tax bills will fall across income levels. A distribution table put out by the Senate Finance Committee claims that 74 percent of the tax benefits in the proposal pending before that Committee go to those making under $75,000; 74 percent. That sounds pretty good. On the other hand, our analysis shows that 43 percent of the benefits go to the wealthiest 10 percent, and two-thirds of the benefits go to the top 20 percent. How can the two analysis be so different? Well, let's look at some of the differences. First, the Republican claims about who gets the tax cuts are based only on 5-year projections--before many of the backloaded tax breaks are fully implemented. Our analysis looks at the tax cuts when fully implemented. Let me repeat that. They cut their analysis off after 5 years, before many of the tax breaks are fully implemented. You can play a lot of games by cutting off the analysis after 5 years. What happens after 10 years? Under the Republican income distribution, they will never tell you. But why not? Our income distribution looks at these new tax breaks when they are fully implemented. What a difference it makes. Apparently the most backloaded tax breaks provide very little benefit for low and middle income workers. Second, because the Republican claims are only based on 5 years, they treat capital gains cut as hardly any tax cuts at all. In fact, the Republican analysis of the House tax package claims that the capital gains tax cut is actually a tax increase for upper income taxpayers during the first 5 years. Imagine that--a capital gains cut that counts as a tax increase. Third, the Republican claims about who gets the tax cuts ignore the impact that estate tax cuts will have in individual taxpayers. It simply ignores them. They don't count estate tax benefits at all. The Republican claims about who gets the tax cuts ignore the fact that many of the proposed tax cuts are backloaded--meaning that the full impact is not felt until well after the first 5 years, and in some cases not until well after 10 years. This means they have essentially ignored not only the impact of capital gains cuts, but also the backloaded IRA's, and the phase-in of estates taxes. Mr. President, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has produced a more detailed analysis of the distribution tables prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation on the House tax bill. That analysis contains essentially the same flaws as the Senate analysis. I ask unanimous consent that this document, entitled ``Joint Tax Committee Distribution Tables Produce Misleading Results,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on Sunday, May 18, a soldier was laid to rest in a small Kentucky community along the banks of the Ohio River. But this wasn't to be any small affair. Billy Stephens had served his country and community with distinction and he would be honored for those contributions by a 17-man team from Ft. Knox. Once the rifles were fired, the bugle sounded taps, and the flag from the casket was presented to his widow, those present couldn't help but feel the enormity of his life. A son of Hawesville in Hancock County, if you met Billy Stephens on the street, you might not suspect him of greatness. But it is because of him and others like him, that you and I enjoy freedom today. In 1940, he joined the Army and served for the duration of the war. Before the war ended, he would participate in seven campaigns and earn seven battle stars. In addition to the EAME theater with seven Bronze Stars, his military decorations included the American Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Ribbon. When he left the Army his commitment to service continued, not only as the Hancock County Sheriff, but also in his dedication to seeing the community grow, while preserving its solid rural values. It was that unyielding devotion that earned him the Citizen of the Year award in 1992 by the Hancock County Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps his commitment to country should come as no surprise. His father served in the Army during World War One, and both of his brothers served in World War II, where one narrowly escaped death at Pearl Harbor. Both of his sons served in Viet Nam, as did his daughter's husband. His grandson continues the tradition as an Air Force Academy graduate. Mr. President, Billy Stephen's contributions will be felt for generations, both as soldier and community leader. He was a good father, husband, friend, and fighter for America, and his presence will be sorely missed.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I understand we are in a period of morning business?

Mr. FORD. I may take a little longer. I don't see anybody here to object--excuse me, the Senator from Pennsylvania may, but we will start.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD. No comments, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesy that the majority leader has shown me in the absence of the Democratic leader. I am trying to fill in as best I can, and hopefully we can be accommodating. And I am sure the majority leader will be accommodating to us. We both have to work together. I think Monday we can work out something that would be amenable to both sides. Hopefully, tomorrow we might look at the DOD authorization bill with amazement.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is absent due to a death in the family. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] would vote ``aye''.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there will be other amendments, at least one other amendment, before final passage. So that will take us well beyond that. If the Senator would not object, we would probably like to stack his vote, if that would be agreeable?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from Minnesota have from now until 2 o'clock on his amendment; at the end of that time, no vote will occur until we have an opportunity to work out maybe back-to-back votes. The other one amendment I think we can work a time agreement on.

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time is on this side.