Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes on each side. I think Senator Gramm somewhat responded to Senator Daschle.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 730

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, for his leadership on this bill, as well as Senator Baucus. I think they have managed it very well, both in committee and on the floor. I also would like to inform our colleagues that we are going to begin a series of rollcall votes at about 6 o'clock. I urge Members to come to the Chamber and stay in the Chamber. We are going to have these amendments within a strict timeframe. My guess is there will be 10 or 12 minutes, and they will be enforced. Again, our colleagues should be aware that these votes will start and begin probably about 6 o'clock, and we are going to have numerous rollcalls, probably a lot more than we need. I urge my colleagues, many of whom offered amendments, to accept voice votes, if possible. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this package. It is not perfect. I have heard some people say it is too big. I disagree. This is a very timid package. This is about one-fourth of the surplus. I heard a couple of our colleagues say: Wait a minute, maybe we are reenacting the mistakes made in 1981, the massive tax cuts in 1981. I looked at the amount of money we raised in 1980 from all sources in the Federal Government. It was $517 billion. In 1990, the Federal Government raised over $1 trillion. It doubled in that 10-year period of time, the revenues that came in. What happened in that interim is that spending went up even faster than revenues. So I don't think it was because of the tax cuts, although we had a very significant tax cut. If you look at the 1981 tax bill, the 1986 tax bill, you saw maximum rates go down significantly. All taxpayers had significant rate reductions. The maximum rate was 70 percent in 1980. It was 28 percent in 1988. So it was a big change. This bill is much more timid. And for those who are saying we have cut too much for the wealthy, I don't think they have read the bill. The maximum tax rate under the income-tax code right now is 39.6 percent. Guess what it will be in December of the year 2004, after this massive tax cut. It will be 38.6 percent. It will go down one point. How much did it increase in the 1993 tax increase? The maximum tax rate then went from 31 percent to 39.6. It went up 8.6 points. In addition, what used to be a cap on the Medicare tax was eliminated. So you can add another 1.45 for an individual. You can double that for a couple, so that is another 2.9. So the effect of the 1993 tax increase was moving the maximum rate from 31 percent to 42.5 percent. That is an 11.5-point increase for maximum taxpayers. This bill, in the first 4 years, reduces that only 1 point, only one- tenth as much as the increase that we had, and it just so happens the increase in 1993 was retroactive back to January of 1993. So my point is, this is a very timid tax cut compared to the tax increase we had in 1993. Those are just the facts. We are slow, very slow in phasing in the tax cuts, the rate cuts for all taxpayers. They are not fully in effect until the year 2007. I hope we can accelerate that. It takes us too long to get there. But I make this point because I keep seeing amendments: We will delay the effective date for the high tax payers. I guess they don't want to give taxpayers tax cuts. I don't follow that. It is like using the Tax Code only for redistribution of wealth. Let's load up more on the low-income side. The bill we have before us does a lot for low-income taxpayers. It creates a 10-percent rate. Those taxpayers were paying 15 percent. That is a 33-percent reduction. That is $600 in savings for taxpayers on the low-income scale, married couples. That is $600 more that they get to keep if they have $12,000 in adjusted taxable income. That is very positive. So that is weighted toward the low income. There is also a $500 tax credit per child. We passed the first $500 tax credit per child in 1997. That is very positive. If you have four kids, as do I--they are grown now, so I don't get it--who are dependents, that is $2,000. Over the period of this bill we double that. So we make it a $1,000 tax credit per child. This bill even makes it refundable. I don't think that is very good policy, but it is in this bill. So my point is, this bill is loaded very much towards low-income groups. For those people who say we want to load it more, I disagree. We ought to have a tax cut for taxpayers. The greatest percentage of tax reduction definitely goes towards low- and middle-income taxpayers in this group. Certainly, individuals who have kids, certainly individuals who are paying that 15-percent rate, who have income on the lower side, they get a very significant rate reduction. And they get it retroactive to January 1 of this year. All other taxpayers don't get a rate reduction until January of next year and only one point. In some cases, that is only one-tenth of the increase they had in 1993. This bill does a lot of other things that will benefit families. It has educational tax provisions. It has savings provisions dealing with IRAs, education, making savings more affordable, enhancing individual pensions. It does other things, including the death tax. I started to say death tax repeal, but that is not until the year 2001. It does increase the exemption amount or the unified credit amount up to $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million in the ninth year--that is a positive provision--and ultimately repeal. So we don't penalize somebody for dying. The taxable event would not be when somebody died. The taxable event would be when the property is sold, and then that tax rate would be at the capital gains rate. It wouldn't be at these unbelievably high and punitive rates of 55 percent that are now present law. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage of this bill. Let's give taxpayers relief. It is long overdue.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator 15 seconds.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), is necessarily absent.