Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have two charts as well. I am not sure I enjoy this battle of the charts.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This legislation is a commonsense approach. Politically, it is bipartisan. In order to get anything through the Senate, you have to have that commonsense approach, something where we produce legislation that will get at least 51 votes. We have legislation here that will get a lot more than 51 votes. So the common sense is that there is a balance here: One, politically it is bipartisan. The other one is that it is balanced between short-term stimulus, immediate help for lower income tax rates, and helping those at the outer income. In the outer years, that is phased in to lower the top marginal tax rate. The Senator's marriage penalty amendment upsets the balance that we have in this bill between short-term, immediate help and the long-term stimulus to the economy. This bill is balanced between a short-term stimulus of $100 billion and then the changes in the higher marginal tax rates which will have a long-term impact on the economy. He pays for his amendment by damaging the balance we have in this bill between short-term stimulus and long-term stimulus because, even though these rates are phased in over the next few years, by reducing the marginal tax rates, we have economic studies that show people will change their investment habits based upon the prospects and known changes of tax law. Even though the money is not in the pockets of the taxpayers, we know there is going to be changes of investment and spending habits, based upon the prospects of the marginal tax rates coming down that are going to be a long-term benefit to this economy--creating jobs, keeping inflation down, and strengthening the economy. I plead with my colleagues, as they consider this legislation--it is fair to look at the equity of the bill, but the equity is between long- term stimulus, short-term stimulus, between partisanship or bipartisan. We have a balance through bipartisanship, and we have a balance between long-term stimulus and short-term stimulus. So what is wrong with the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota? It isn't that he wants to do more about the marriage penalty. We all would. But this is a carefully crafted compromise, both for the political need to get a bill through and for the good of the economy. And we try to be fair in the process. That is why it upsets this very delicate balance. We should keep our eye on the ball, and keeping your eye on the ball means: Where do we want to go? We want to be fair and equitable. We want short-term stimulus. We want long-term improvement to the economy. This bill does all that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We will do everything we can to accommodate Members of both parties. That is perfectly legitimate, particularly considering the fact that Senator Rockefeller has many amendments to the bill and has strong feelings about the bill, and we have a responsibility to let the American people hear that point of view. I think, in visiting about the marriage penalty, it is good to talk about tax relief for married families in the mark that goes beyond just the marriage penalty. The bill provides specific relief for married families. This is at all income levels. First, we expand the earned- income credit. That is a program for married families with children. The phasing in of the earned-income credit, which targets assistance to low-income families, is expanded in our legislation by $3,000. I want to give Senator Jeffords from Vermont the credit for working so hard on this provision. He believes very strongly in a tax bill being equitable between different income levels. He tailored it so this relief happens immediately. This is not one of the portions of the bill that phases in. The next tax year, this provision of $3,000 earned- income credit will take effect. So we are providing, in this section, something that is of immediate impact. In addition to Senator Jeffords, I should give appropriate credit to Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Lincoln from Arkansas for this provision as well. We are providing part of our relief for married families right away. I might add, it is a hallmark of this bill that the benefits provided to low-income families are immediate, while benefits to other income levels are phased in, as you have been told so many times over the course of this debate thus far. The income tax relief for married families is phased in over 4 years and completed in the year 2008. It provides for doubling of the standard deduction for those married filing jointly, and it makes the 15-percent rate bracket for married filing jointly two times that of someone filing single. Income tax relief is provided for both one-earner and two-earner families. For those who want to start providing targeted income tax relief for married families earlier, where were these folks a few weeks ago when we were debating the size of the tax cut, particularly during the period on the budget? What happened when we went from $1.6 trillion down to $1.35 trillion--that was a desire more from the other side of the aisle than just a few on this side of the aisle. That is what makes it difficult to squeeze all these different, very important tax equity provisions into this bill. So anybody who complains about having to phase some of these things in more slowly, they could have taken hold much more quickly if we were dealing with a $1.6 trillion package rather than a $1.35 trillion package. The phase-in of the marriage relief reflects the realities of a budget resolution, then, that is down about $300 billion. I think, also, there is a certain amount of intellectual questioning that is legitimate in this process of a well-tailored bipartisan bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, that the Senate Finance Committee had to fit into a $1.35 trillion package, and then complaining about the phase-in being so slow. Somehow, I doubt my colleagues who mention these things would join me in offering an amendment that would increase the tax reduction by the amount necessary to provide immediate tax relief on the marriage penalty. So we get back to something that is a familiar part of this debate today, and will be until we get done on Monday, and that is this bill is balanced. It is balanced in fairness and equity. It is also balanced in a political way. This is a bipartisan bill. I hope when this amendment comes up, we have strong bipartisan opposition to changing a very carefully crafted portion of the bill, the marriage penalty. The bill also provides immediate tax reduction for all marginal tax rates as a means of helping to strengthen our economy and balances that with good tax policy of supporting the institution of marriage. If the economy is not strong, everyone, whether it is families, children, the elderly, or other groups of Americans, suffers. The economy comes first, although I will say again, we do provide benefits for low-income married people with children right now. This is a figleaf amendment to cover up the fact that many people did not answer the call when the Senate was considering marriage penalty relief last year. This amendment harms our efforts to strengthen the economy. That is why I am urging its defeat. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My purpose for rising is to discuss the amendment before the Senate, an amendment from the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Colorado what time he might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will take the opportunity to address some of the issues the Senator from North Dakota addressed. I accept his graciousness about how we have run this process, and also confirm that on many things we work together--and I think of two: agriculture and rural health care. Those are two very important issues for our constituents. The Senator from North Dakota has heard me speak on this point, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks. We did hear him say, as one Member who will probably say this several times today and throughout this debate, that this is a very risky road we are going down. There again, I think that caution is the responsibility of every Member of this Senate. I do not regret that he makes that caution. On the other hand, we also appropriate a lot of money. We pass a lot of programs that obligate this Congress and the taxpayers of this country to pay a lot of money several years down the road based on the same Congressional Budget Office projections of what the future income of this Treasury is going to be. All I would say is, if it is risky to consider this when we have tax cuts, then we ought to use the same adjectives and implore the Senate of the United States to use the same caution as we are adopting other programs down the road. We never hear that. It is OK to pass spending bills and not worry about what the future holds; can we meet those obligations? But if we incur obligations letting the people of the country keep their tax money and decisions relating to them, then obviously that is an entirely different story and we hear the word ``risky'' used. Another point of contention with the Senator from North Dakota deals not with the statistic he used, or not with the point he is trying to make, but when he says 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans are going to benefit by the repeal of the death tax--this is such a complicated issue to deal with, who benefits from the death tax. Our own nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee does not even figure estate tax and who benefits and who loses in the distribution tables they put out. That is because, for the death tax, the person who benefits has died. So it is ridiculous to talk about the death tax benefiting 2 percent of the most wealthy in America, because the people who made the money are gone from the face of this Earth. There is an assumption here that may be partly correct--but I bet you would never prove if it were correct--that the people who inherit from the person who died happen to be wealthy. There is some effort by some think tanks in this town to figure that equation into the distribution tables of whether we are benefiting the wealthy or the not so well off. I think it is intellectually dishonest--the Senator is not intellectually dishonest, but the people who do this figuring. If our own professional people who are nonpolitical can't do it, why should we listen to some think tank that is politically oriented to make that judgment for us? It is wrong. You cannot trace the money. One other thing I ask the Senator from North Dakota to consider is that his picture of America, of the rich and the poor, just does not exist. Dividing America into the rich and the poor, as if somehow you are born poor and you stay poor all your life; you are born rich and you stay rich all your life--that America does not exist. It is a never-never land. Mr. President, 150 years ago the French nobleman, De Tocqueville, who came to our country to study democracy--he was here about 3 years and wrote a lot about it--wrote: The rich are constantly becoming poor. The rich daily rise out of the crowd and constantly returneth thither. That was 150 years ago, and it has not changed now. All you have to do is look at the University of Michigan studies on this point and you will find economic status in this country is always transient. We do not have two distinct, unchanging groups in America, the rich and the poor. These are generally, as was in these graphs divided here--you know, the lowest income one-fifth, the next highest income one-fifth, the middle income one-fifth, and then the next highest income fifth, and then the very wealthy fifth, 20 percent. Only one-half of 1 percent of the American people--year after year-- are in the lowest one-fifth. So when he talks over here on the lowest 20 percent benefiting in so minuscule a fashion from this tax bill, he could be talking about one-half of 1 percent of the people. The people who are in that bottom one-fifth today, most of them in 1 year are going to be in other levels of income, who are going to benefit from our tax bill. Only one-half of 1 percent, I want to repeat, are in the lowest one-fifth year after year. One-third of the lowest one-fifth rise to the second, third, fourth, or fifth quintile by next year--just 1 year away from being in that lowest 20 percent. Mr. President, 80 percent move out of the bottom one-fifth--80 percent of the bottom one-fifth move to the middle class and above, and 30 percent of those people who were in that lowest one- fifth rise to the highest one-fifth; in other words, the wealthiest one-fifth in America. This is America. That is what America is all about, the ability to move up as you use your talents. The other end of the scale is probably even more surprising. If you take the very wealthiest one-fifth of America at any one time, the rich do not always stay rich. That is another way of saying what De Tocqueville said 150 years ago: If you take the top 1 percent of Americans, 10 years later more than one-half had dropped out of the top 1 percent and also dropped out of even the top one-fifth. So what we have here is an America that has always existed, never an America of people who were always poor, and never an America of people who were always rich, but people who were moving up the economic ladder, and some who had the misfortune of moving down the economic ladder even if they were at one time in the top 1 percent of the most wealthy. So when you see a chart that says the lowest one-fifth and the top one-fifth, remember, that is today; tomorrow, that picture will not be the same. As people move up that ladder, they are going to benefit from the tax reduction regardless of the fact that there is a lot in this bill for the lowest income people. We have a very dynamic society, an America that is ever-changing, an America where the poor, except for one-half of 1 percent, are much better off at various times in their life. Then, for those who are very fortunate to be born in wealth or to grow wealthy, very few of them always stay wealthy. So I hope these things are taken into consideration as we hear about the ``winners'' and the ``losers'' because with this tax bill there are not any losers. Everybody is a winner. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Oklahoma whatever time he wants to consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we will start consideration right now, and there will be up to 20 hours of debate and action on the bill that is before us under the reconciliation provisions of the Budget Act on what will be the largest tax cut that has been given to the American people in the past 20 years. In this process, we are going to take a considerable and substantial sting out of the Federal tax bite. This is the third-largest tax reduction in the last 50 years, to put it in some other perspective as well. Before I get to the issues that are before us, I will say a little bit about the process of putting this legislation together. I know we are all going to be thinking about what kind of tax bill we have, how much taxes are going to be reduced, the fairness of it all, and the equity of it all. But I would like to have my colleagues spend a little bit of time thinking in terms of how we got here. First of all, almost 12 months ago, the President of the United States gave a speech saying that one of the foundations of his campaign was going to be a very substantial tax reduction because taxes have reached the highest point they have ever been in the peacetime history of the United States. He campaigned on that and did not back off one iota when pundits made fun of it, when economists maybe took exception to it. It was very well thought out and intellectually honest. He pursued full steam ahead through the highs and lows of the campaign--through times when you might be depressed with the campaign going against you, through times when you were on a high in the campaign, and right through that campaign--through the election, through the period of time when there was some sort of question as to who might be the next President because of what was going on in Florida and the counting of ballots, and from the time he was announced the winner to the time he gave his inaugural address on the day of swearing in. So we are here today because we have a President who wants to make a difference, a difference for the taxpayers in this country, a difference for the economic advancement of our people, the creation of jobs, and the encouragement of investment. Without this Presidential leadership, we would have tax bills before the Congress this year but they would not be as substantial as what we now have before us. For the President of the United States, it is not substantial enough because, as we know, he proposed almost 20, 25 percent more than we are dealing with. Here again, the President must accept the will of the people expressed through the Congress. There was a compromise, a necessary bipartisan compromise on a level somewhat less than what the President proposed, but the $1.35 trillion we are dealing with in this bill. The bill we have before us is a product of the process: The Presidential election, the extremely important leadership of a President who is committed to principle and performing in office what he said he would do during the campaign--and that is a rarity in politics, but this President is doing it--and the legislative process in the Congress. Compromise is always necessary in any Congress, whether it is overwhelmingly controlled by one party or the other party or whether it is evenly divided, as it is now in the Senate--absolutely evenly divided, 50 Democrats/50 Republicans--or in an almost evenly divided House of Representatives with the Republicans being the clear majority. Process is pretty important. I want people to think of this process as we debate very controversial amendments over the next 2 days. The Senate Finance Committee is kind of a microcosm of the entire Senate, and perhaps people will think of the hard work Senator Baucus and I, and my colleagues on the Republican side and almost half of the Democrats, have put into crafting this legislation. It didn't happen in one 10-hour meeting on Tuesday, when we considered all the amendments that were in dispute, about the product Senator Baucus and I put together. It didn't happen in 10 hours. It happened over a long period, starting about mid-January. I will refer to some of the substantial things that happened to get us where we are today from where we were last January. That is not to detract from what I said about the President of the United States contributing greatly to where we are today as well, maybe not in the specifics of the bill but the overall questions--are taxes too high, and should they be reduced--the President winning on the process that they should be reduced, and now going through the process of actually giving the American working men and women the tax relief they deserve. People will get tired of my saying it, but this is a bipartisan tax bill. My friend Senator Max Baucus, ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, worked with me to put together a package of tax cuts that would receive solid support on both sides of the aisle. We knew this would not be easy, getting the people's business done, unless it was a bipartisan product. That, again, is a reality of a 50/50 Senate. This bill came together after the Senator from Montana and I heard from our respective caucus members about their priorities. You don't put together the biggest tax cut in two decades without considering all points of view. As we start this debate now, it is not just Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley who are at the table--where maybe that was the situation from time to time over the last several months--every Senator, all 100, is at the table as we now consider the product of the Finance Committee and its bipartisan cooperation. That is the nature of the Senate. We talked to our members about their priorities, and then we put this product together. Two days ago, our efforts yielded the results we hoped for when we started out 4 months. ago. This bill was approved by the Senate Finance Committee by a 14-6 margin, a clear demonstration of solid bipartisan support. I hope the work that has gone into this product over the last 4 months is respected. Even though Members might not agree with it, could they do better? Each time people are down here casting a vote--and they are going to vote yes or no--I ask my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side, to think in terms not that they like everything that is in here but could they have done better. If they can't do better, I hope they will show respect for the bipartisan approach we used. More importantly, I hope they will respect the transparency that has been the hallmark of the Finance Committee's work throughout the first 4 months and the communication that has gone into this by individual Members communicating with others to say, ``What do you think about tax legislation,'' to get specific points of view from specific Members and, most importantly, the people on this committee as well as others outside the committee. It was not easy to arrive at a final agreement. Among the Finance Committee's 20 members, there were many opinions on what is important. In the end, no one got everything he or she wanted, including this chairman. Most of us got something we can support. We got a bill that will reduce taxes, will bring about tax relief for American working men and women in a meaningful way, in a way that taxpayers are going to notice and notice soon--by this summer--and they then will see it in fatter wallets. I am very pleased Senator Baucus and I and other members of the Senate Finance Committee have been able to put together this truly bipartisan package. It is a testament to the Finance Committee that within 1 week after the budget resolution was passed, we now are on the Senate floor to vote on comprehensive tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes in America. I hope the Senate will express--not to me, not to Senator Baucus, but to other members of the committee--the cooperativeness and the spirit of cooperation that was evident throughout that process Tuesday. I want Members to know that I am proud of the Finance Committee in this process as well as the substance of this legislation. Now I will turn to what is in the bill. The heart of the bill is across-the-board tax cuts in individual income tax rates. Again, a little bit about the process: Senator Baucus and I have met at least weekly for a long period of time since January. I met with individual members of the committee in their office--not in my office, in their offices--throughout the month of January and February, both Republicans and Democrats. I have had my staff meet with other staff on an ongoing basis, but very intensively, during and since the Easter break. I have also had an opportunity to visit with Members outside of my caucus and also Democrat Members outside of the committee as well. And you always wonder when you go down this process--it takes over 3 or 4 months--whether it is time well spent. I wondered, as I would go to the next meeting, whether it was really worth my time. Let me say, in looking back to all the time I have put in on this, and I think of my background as a farmer; you put the seed in the ground, as we are doing in Iowa, to grow the biggest corn crop that any State produces--because we are No. 1--and for the first period of time before it emerges above the ground, three-fourths of that growth that first month is below the ground. You don't see it unless you dig in there with your fingers and inspect it. And so Senator Baucus and I sowed that seed in January and that seed sprouted. I know now it sprouted; I didn't know then that it would sprout. It sprouted for those days between the middle of January and last Friday at 1:30, when we finally had an agreement. So I conclude that whatever time I spent on this--and I am going to conclude for Senator Baucus, and maybe I should not do that--and whatever time he spent on that process was time well spent. Even though we are going to have honest disagreements, I hope we can be cordial and polite in this process of debate. I will have to remind myself of that from time to time as well. Now to the process. The heart of this bill, as I said, is across-the- board tax cuts of individual income tax rates. This bill creates a new 10-percent rate that will apply retroactively to the beginning of this year. This new low rate will apply to income that is currently taxed at a 15-percent rate. So people who are hit first by the 15-percent rate now can already count going back to January 1 this year, that on their first dollars made they are not going to pay 15 percent; they are going to pay 10 percent. It will give immediate tax cuts to millions of American taxpayers and provide an immediate stimulus to the economy. For married persons, the upper end of the 15-percent rate bracket will be expanded to include income currently taxed at the 28-percent rate. So for those people being taxed at 28 percent, they are going to see more of their income taxed at the 15-percent rate. The current 28- percent rate will drop to 25 percent. The current 31-percent rate will fall to 28 percent. The existing 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates will be lowered to 33 and 36, respectively. This legislation also includes immediate death tax relief and its eventual repeal. This bill expands the child credit and earned-income credit, enhances pension protection and incentives to save, and creates over $30 billion in educational incentives--full deductibility of interest on student loans, deductibility on college tuition, and on educational savings accounts. It provides marriage penalty relief and relief from the individual alternative minimum tax. Everyone in America will share in this tax cut. It is across-the- board relief for those who pay income taxes. That means that this tax cut will flow to every wallet on every Main Street in America. Over 100 million individuals and families will have their tax relief; 14 million elderly individuals will receive tax reduction, resulting in 12 million paying less tax on Social Security benefits; over 40 million couples will benefit from the marriage penalty relief; 3 million couples will no longer itemize deductions as a result of the standard deduction increase; 9 million individuals and families will benefit from the increased individual retirement account contribution limits from $2,000 to $5,000; 30 million families will benefit from the increased child credit. This is a tax bill for everyone, regardless of income level, size of family, your age, your marital status. I will give you a few examples of what we expect next year. A married couple with two children and $15,000 in income will pay no income tax because we expanded the earned-income credit and per-child credit. This family will receive an additional $1,000 from the Government. A married couple with two children and a $90,000 income will receive an additional tax reduction of $1,050. A couple, age 65, married and filing jointly, with a $30,000 income, will have a $600 reduction. A single mom with one child and a $25,000 income will receive a tax cut of $400. Keep in mind, these examples are for the year 2002, which is just the beginning of these tax savings. The tax rate cuts, child credits, and other benefits will greatly increase as they are phased in over the next several years. I know most of us in this Senate also have personal stories about what this tax relief for working men and women will do for those same people back home. I will tell you about some of the people in Iowa and what this tax cut will mean for them. Maurice Colby, Vinton, IA, retired after processing waste water for the Navy for 28 years. He works part time for his neighbor, a family farmer, during planting season. I will bet he works there during harvesting season as well. He does that to earn extra money. As retirees, Mr. Colby and his wife worry about expenses. Their total tax bite is tough, especially when heating fuel and high gasoline prices are considered. The Colbys usually take a driving vacation most summers but not this year. Mr. Colby said this to me: ``It's time for relief. It has been a long time.'' Ronald Harless, 76, and his wife Jean, 72, of West Des Moines, are retirees on a fixed income. Mr. Harless worked as a printer making telephone books. Mrs. Harless was an office worker. Mr. Harless says he lived frugally and saved his money for retirement. Despite a series of heart surgeries, he has never used the Veterans' Administration's health services, even though he is a Navy veteran who landed at Normandy during World War II. Mr. Harless says he paid taxes all of his life, has never been a drain on the taxpayers and wants to keep it that way. Mr. Harless of West Des Moines, IA, wants to support himself and stay out of the taxpayer-funded nursing homes as long as he can. However, he says he and his wife are, in their words, ``barely getting along'' on their retirement income and, hence, would welcome the tax provisions of this bill to give them some needed relief. Joseph McBride, Jr., of Fort Dodge, IA, works in sales and marketing for a food service company. His wife is a registered nurse. They have four children, ages 14, 12, 10, and 8. Mr. McBride says he would welcome a tax cut because he would like to have more money in his pocket to secure his children's future. He is very interested in saving money for his children's college tuition and will see that increase from $500 up to $2,000. The tax cut will be very beneficial. He also wants to put a little extra money in the local economy. Fort Dodge's economy is not as good as he would like, and he wants to do his part to help it get better. Another concern is energy costs. Mr. McBride in Fort Dodge says he remembers the recession and gas shortages during the Presidency of Mr. Carter. Mr. McBride said he paid more money in taxes last year than he ever has. Mr. McBride is right; he did pay more taxes last year than he ever has. That is because the Federal Government's collection of individual income taxes is now at its highest level in history. As I have said many times, today's tax surplus in our Federal Treasury is caused by excess collections of individual taxes. During the height of World War II, the tax collection from individuals was 9.4 percent of gross domestic product. Today income tax collection from individuals is an astounding 10.2 percent of GDP, nearly a full percentage point above World War II. More importantly, not just a little bit above World War II, but we have seen a 50-percent increase in individual tax collections in the last 6 years, from about just a little over 7 percent of gross national product to 10.2 percent now. I might have a chart during the debate, but I can show where the revenues into the Treasury from the estate tax have been about level for the last decade. Corporate taxes have been level for the last decade. Taxes from fees and services have been about level. But we see a great spike in the individual income taxes coming into the Federal Treasury in the last 6 or 7 years. It is beyond belief in a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity that individual tax collections exceed the level required to defend the entire world, which is what the United States did 56 years ago. That is why we must move decisively to give working men and women this tax relief. We must not keep the money in Washington where there is a tendency for it to burn a hole in the pockets of Members of Congress to a point where they have to spend it. This will help in several ways. It will not build up Government spending to a level that is unsustainable so that if we ever go into a recession, income goes down but spending does not go down, and then we again have a deficit. Also, since the Federal Government does not create wealth--it only provides an environment for working men and women of America to create wealth--we move the money from Washington back to the individual taxpayers of America, and there it is going to turn over many more times, because of the freedom of the marketplace, than it will if it is left in the Federal Treasury. There is a political decision of what ought to be done with it. There is a lot of efficiency with a political decision, but it does not have the potential for economic growth that it will have if my constituents in Iowa spend it and/or invest it. Too often Members of Congress think this is not the people's money; this is the Government's money. It is the taxpayers' money, and Washington has simply collected too much of it, particularly too much from the income tax. There has been a 50-percent increase of gross national product over the last 6 years. So we are going to return this money. It is even wrong for me to say that because there is some implication that it is my money. We are going to let the American people keep more of the money they earn by passing this tax bill. Over the next few days, we are going to hear a lot of talk about population demographics and about how this tax relief for American men and women is going to compromise our national priorities. Let me set the record straight at the very beginning. This tax relief for American working men and women in no way endangers our national priorities. The President has said that. I have said it. It is a fact. A majority of the Congress said that when they adopted our budget last week. We are here because a majority of the Congress, and a bipartisan majority of the Congress, said we ought to put more money in the pockets of working men and women than into the Federal Treasury. The budget resolution did that. It did it through a blueprint for how the Government will fund its priorities. That blueprint provides record levels of funding for education, prescription drugs, and defense. I want to make very clear that we pay down every dollar that is possible to pay down on the national debt over the 10 years of this budget resolution. That blueprint also says we have more than enough surplus to enact the tax relief for working men and women that is before us in this bill today. In fact, the bill before us refunds only 24 cents of each dollar of projected surplus. How many people who are listening now or who will read this in the paper are going to say: How come you can't do better than that? The only answer I can give them is, it is part of the process of compromise by which we work in a bipartisan way to do the people's business. Twenty-four cents out of each dollar is hardly what I would call a risky tax measure. We are going to hear this from a lot of our colleagues: Risky, risky. We are going to hear people say that the projections in the budget for the next 10 years are so uncertain that we should not be giving a tax cut. This caution by my colleagues is perfectly legitimate. We ought to always be cautious on almost every public policy decision we make. But check with those same Members to see that when they want to spend more money, do they worry about whether the budget projections are accurate for the next 10 years? No, it is only when we want to let the American people keep their hard- earned money that this issue arises. For those who want to use the word ``risky,'' those who want to say the projections could change and want us to be cautious, the only thing I ask--it is perfectly legitimate for them to say that, but as they are talking about a new spending program that is going to spend out over the next 10 years, I encourage that same caution before people vote on that issue. This is a responsible tax cut. We are at the highest level of individual taxation in history. It is a time to end that. Let's also get another thing straight. This bill in no way touches the Social Security or Medicare trust fund. This is a bipartisan tax bill that represents the best thinking from both sides of the aisle. It is a victory for the process of the Senate. The problem we now face is that some people around here preach bipartisanship but then turn around and attack the bipartisan compromise reflected in this bill. They will work to obstruct this bill's enactment, and they will demean the great efforts and political risks that Republicans and Democrats alike take to reach this bipartisan agreement. I imagine we are going to see plenty of this sort of thing on the Senate floor over the next few days. I don't think it will work because today we are about doing the President's business. This bill only contains tax relief for individuals. It is not larded with favors for special interests. You cannot draft bipartisan legislation such as that very easily. I think there is some purity of cause and purity, consequently, of content. This bill before the Senate is a historic opportunity to prove we can join together, on a bipartisan basis, as common Senators, with a common purpose, to relieve a heavy burden from the people who sent us here. The Finance Committee has shown this can be done. Our committee has done what the Constitution and the rules of the Senate require. We have led the way. I am very proud of our Members and their efforts. I urge all Senators to be vigilant in our deliberations, circumspect in rhetoric. The relief ordered by this bill is too needed by too many to be demagogued by the few. America is watching. America is waiting. What America is going to see over the next 3 or 4 days in this Senate is a product of a process that started about the second or third week of January when the Senator from Montana, then for a short period of time chairman of this committee, as the Democrats controlled this body for 17 days back then, said: I would like to meet with you and talk with you about the functioning of the committee. That was an hour and a half discussion. But some important few words were said by Senator Baucus on that day, which were that we could have a bipartisan tax bill if we worked at it. I thank Senator Baucus for that suggestion. I thank Senator Baucus for spending so many hours with me since then to make it happen. Most importantly, I thank him for his handshake at 1:30 last Friday when we had an agreement. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is, at the desk, a committee amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, it be considered original text for the purpose of further amendments, and all points of order be considered preserved.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns of the Senate Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the tax RELIEF bill: Michael Whitmore, Zachary W. Paulson, and Paul Raak.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following employees of the Joint Committee on Taxation be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the tax RELIEF bill: Robert Bailey, Thomas A. Barthold, Ray Beeman, John Bloyer, Roger Colinvaux, H. Benjamin Hartley, Harold E. Hirsch, Deirdre James, Lauralee A. Matthews, Patricia McDermott, Brian Meighan, John Navratil, Joseph W. Nega, Samuel Olchyk, Lindy L. Paul, Oren S. Penn, Cecily W. Rock, Mary M. Schmitt, Todd C. Simmens, Carolyn E. Smith, and Barry L. Wold.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. In executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 47, 49, and 78. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2001 to conduct a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 17, 2001 from 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 10 a.m., in SD-226.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Addressing Direct Care Staffing Shortages during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 10 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nominations of John D. Graham to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, Stephen A. Perry to be Administrator of the General Services and Angela Styles to be Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2001, at 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to hold two hearings as follows: at 2 p.m., in room SD-419, the Honorable William J. Burns, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs; and at 4 p.m. in room SD- 419, Mrs. Christina B. Rocca, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs; and Mr. Walter H. Kansteiner, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.