Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on my side?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is a revote of a vote we had earlier in the day. If you supported the estate tax reform then, obviously you would want to do it now. I appreciate the last vote. This is a better approach. This is an approach which is supported by groups such as the NFIB, which asked us--we only have 1 year to go before the estate tax is totally repealed. In the year 2010, there is no more estate tax, and then the year after that, it comes roaring back with a rate of 60 percent and an exemption of $1 million. Clearly, we have to provide some certainty. The only way to do that is to adopt a rate not to exceed 35 percent, an exempted amount of $5 million per spouse, and to ensure that we can actually get it done this year, not require that we find some permanent tax to increase in order to offset it. If that is what we are asking for, we know it won't happen, the outside groups know it won't happen, and they know this budget exercise then is a game rather than a serious attempt to reform the estate tax.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. The reason is very simple. The provisions are essentially the same as the amendment I offered earlier and will be offering again with the 5 and $5 million exempted amount and not to exceed 35 percent rate. There are minor differences. The bottom line is that the bulk of it, all but $22 billion, is not paid for with any explicit taxes. The question has to be, what tax are you going to raise permanently in order to offset the cost of this estate tax relief? It is not real if we are not willing to answer that question. You can't say there is going to be an amorphous fund out there that somehow or other we are going to raise some taxes for. We all know it is not going to happen that way. The question is, are we serious about tax relief for estates? The reason the NFIB and other groups support the approach I have taken is they know it is an exercise in futility if all we do is say we are going to pay for it with a tax increase, when, in fact, everybody knows we are not going to raise taxes permanently for estate tax relief.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. While we are getting order, Mr. President, this amendment, I gather, had not been technically called up, amendment No. 4348.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his courtesy. One of the questions we are most frequently asked is, are we, for sure, going to do the tax extenders--the R&D tax credit, the sales tax deduction, the $250 teacher deduction, and the tuition deduction. These already expired at the end of last year, and there are three more that will expire at the end of this year. We need to provide a definitive answer--yes, we are going to do the extenders package. Now, the budget accommodates generally expiring tax provisions.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the problem is we are in the game here, spending the same dollar three or four times, it appears. Under the Sanders amendment, it is paid for by raising taxes another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the rates on the highest level go from 35 to 39.6, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the current environment.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we need to defeat this amendment. This is not the usual AMT fix we are used to. This actually repeals rates of the AMT that were put into effect in 1993. The reality is we are not going to increase taxes in order to pay for the relief that would be provided to taxpayers here. This points out the difference between the Specter amendment, which we will deal with next, and the Conrad amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Specter amendment because it is the real deal. It is the real way we will deal with AMT, rather than the phony way that is presented by a mere indication that we will find revenues somewhere to offset against this tax cut. The question the majority would have to answer is: What taxes are you going to raise in order to pay for this rate reduction for the people who would otherwise pay the AMT? There is certainly no suggestion that there is a spending cut in the offing. Therefore, what taxes would be raised to pay for this?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the question here is whether we are serious about estate tax reform. We went through the exercise last year and passed it in the budget, and we didn't do anything. We are going to repeat that same thing this year unless we commit ourselves to actually passing a bill, saying we are going to raise taxes--because I am sure we are not going to reduce spending--and that is akin to saying it is not going to happen. Once again, we would be passing an amendment we know we are not going to act on. We need to be accountable to the American people and pass something in the budget that we know we are going to do, with real legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to vote for the next amendment, which is the real vote in favor of estate tax return.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last year this amendment received 56 votes, Democratic and Republican votes. It was then in the form of a motion to instruct conferees, but the provisions are the same. This is the amendment on the estate tax that has a top rate not to exceed 35 percent, and it has a $5 million exemption for each spouse, for a total of $10 million. This amendment is endorsed by small business groups such as the NFIB and by other pro-estate tax reform groups. I hope my colleagues will agree it is a way to send a very strong signal through the budget process that we are serious about reforming the estate tax this year. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KYL. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments. The question is what taxes are we going to raise in order to provide tax relief. I don't think it is realistic that we are going to raise taxes, and I certainly don't expect we will reduce spending. If we are serious about it, we need to send a signal through this amendment if we want to reform the estate tax.