Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the underlying bill. Shortly, I think the majority leader will be in to make a motion on the bill. First, I wish to compliment Senator Roth, in his leadership, and the Finance Committee, for reporting out a good bill. It is my hope we will be able to pass this bill in the next couple of days to provide relief from the so-called marriage tax penalty. Married couples need relief. We need to pass it. I have heard the President say he is for it, although he has not come to the forefront. I think Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, has come up with a good proposal. I am going to talk a little about that. But I also compliment my colleague, Senator Hutchison, who has been fighting for this for the last several years. I believe this year we have a chance to make this law. I hope we will have bipartisan cooperation to make it happen. I compliment the House for their leadership in moving forward to make it happen. The President recently invited many of us down to the White House for the signing of the bill to eliminate the so-called Social Security earnings penalty tax. If you were a working senior between the ages of 65 and 70, and you had an income above $17,000, for every $3 that you earned, you would lose $1 of Social Security. We eliminated that penalty. The President signed it. I am sure he was taking credit for it. I did not make the signing ceremony. He invited me. That was nice. But we acted together. We eliminated an unfair provision in the Tax Code that for years many of us thought was unfair. We eliminated that. That is now the law of the land. Now we are looking at another provision, the so-called marriage tax penalty. It needs to be eliminated. It needs to be eliminated now, this year, not 20 years from now, and not in some token way that is only verbal, as the President has proposed. I believe my colleague, Senator Roth, and many of us on the Finance Committee, have taken the right step to eliminate this unfair tax. What we have done is, we have said we should double the 15-percent tax bracket for couples. It should be twice as much for couples as it is for an individual. Many people say: What do you mean by that? Individuals who have a taxable income of up to $26,000, they pay 15 percent. Above that taxable income, they pay 28 percent. What we are saying is, if it is 15 percent for $26,000 earned by an individual, it should be twice that amount for a couple. So a couple could have income of up to $52,500, and that would be taxed at 15 percent. What is current law? Current law is, for a couple, the first $43,850 is taxed at 15 percent, and above that amount it is taxed at 28 percent. So there is $8,650 which is actually taxed at 28 percent. What is the difference? That is a difference of $1,125. If you have a couple making $52,500, the bill we have before us would offer them relief of $1,125. That is just on the rate change. We also double the standard deduction. Basically, the standard deduction is $7,350. That would increase to $8,800. That is a savings of $218 for a couple in the 15-percent tax bracket. So again, we are offering tax relief by simplifying the code, saying let's double the 15-percent bracket for couples, as compared to individuals. And let's double the 28-percent bracket so we provide that relief through the code. I think it is important. I think it is fair. I think it provides relief for married couples, and it also does not penalize someone if they happen to be a stay-at-home spouse. We do not discriminate against them either. Maybe it is a farmer who has a spouse who does not receive earned income in the form of a check but yet they still work. They work on the farm. They work on the ranch. They work raising kids. We provide them a modest amount of tax relief as well. I think the bill we have before us is a good bill. It is one that provides tax relief for middle-income Americans. It is one that eliminates the marriage penalty for all practical purposes so we don't find discrimination in the code. I will give a different example. You have a married couple with two differing incomes, where one income is $40,000, maybe one is taxed or has income of $20,000. Let's say the $20,000 is earned by an occasional worker who might work one year but might not work the next year. The practical impact is that $20,000 is added to the $40,000 income, and they are taxed at a higher bracket, the 28 percent, instead of 15 percent. For that additional work they do under the present code, they are penalized by paying at their spouse's highest tax bracket. That is current law. We want to change that. The bill we have before us does change that. I compliment Senator Roth. I urge my colleagues not to play games. Let's make this law. Let's have a signing ceremony at the White House in another couple of weeks. Let's have Democrats and Republicans and even the White House take credit for it. It is a positive change. It is a good change. It is a needed change. It is a change that should become law this year. It is an accomplishment on which all of us can congratulate ourselves and say we got something done: We eliminated the Social Security earnings penalty, and we eliminated the unfair marriage penalty. Married couples should not be penalized to the tune of $1,400 a year for the fact they are married. That is a fact; that is what is happening under the present law. We should eliminate that. We do that with the bill that is before us today. I urge my colleagues to support it when we come to that time. I hope we will pass it by tomorrow. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 11. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then be in a period for morning business until 12:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski or his designee, for 75 minutes, and Senator Daschle or his designee, for 75 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. In addition, it was my hope that today we could have reached agreement for the consideration of the marriage tax penalty. That is not possible today; however, I still hope that we will be able to begin consideration of that measure during tomorrow's session. I will continue to work toward that result. If an agreement is not reached on Tuesday, it may be necessary to begin the process to move that bill forward. I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 10 a.m. and be in a period for morning business until 12:30 p.m. A number of Senators have indicated they would like to speak prior to the cloture vote on the gas tax repeal legislation. Therefore, there will be up to 2\1/2\ hours for that debate. Following the policy luncheons, there will be an additional 10 minutes of debate, to be followed by the vote on invoking cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday. I now ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 2:20 p.m. on Tuesday in order to file timely second-degree amendments to S. 2285.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. This is the same amendment we passed in November. This is an amendment that says we should have 100 percent deductibility for self-employed individuals. Right now they only get 60 percent. This is an amendment that says we should give an above-the-line deduction for individuals so they can deduct health care costs. This is not a big tax cut. This is a tax cut targeted towards small business and people who would have a hard time paying the minimum wage. It also says we should stretch out the minimum wage, instead of doing it over 13 months as proposed by Senator Kennedy. The language we passed will do it over the next 24 months or 28 months.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I now send the second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we voted on this amendment in November. It didn't pass. What we did pass on November 9 was the Domenici amendment. It passed 54-44. It was an amendment that would increase the minimum wage not over 13 months, as proposed by Senator Kennedy, but over 28 months. In addition, we provided for some small business tax relief, those businesses that would be negatively impacted by a big increase in the minimum wage. We did that. That passed. I will be sending a second-degree amendment to the desk that would reiterate our support for that. I hope our colleagues will join us in a request to move that amendment, which was attached to bankruptcy, to the House-passed minimum wage so we can go to conference and pass a minimum wage package with tax relief. Amendment No. 3078 to Amendment No. 2951 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that any increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by tax relief for small businesses)

Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2939 (Purpose: The amendment would reduce the GOP tax cut by less than 1 percent in FY2001, and 1.8 percent over 5 years, to increase the Pell grant maximum by a total of $400--raising the basic Pell grant from the current $3,300 to $3,700. This increase is over the Committee increase of $200 to $3,500)

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.--

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I hope my colleagues vote no. If the Senator from Massachusetts wants to support minimum wage, he should support the unanimous consent request Majority Leader Lott has made twice, saying let's break it apart from bankruptcy and go to conference with the House. What the Senator's amendment says is increase minimum wage 20 percent in 13 months with no tax relief. We just passed an amendment that said we should pass minimum wage with tax relief. That is the right position. I urge my colleagues not to vote on this big minimum wage increase with no tax relief for small business.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, my colleague was incorrect on his figures. The net cost of our tax cut was $25 billion over the next 5 years. The budget resolution before us says $150 billion over 5 years. It is clearly within the budget. It is affordable. It is targeted. I don't know where he got the $100 billion. Maybe that is over 10 years. Over 5 years, the net tax cut targeted toward small business is $25 billion. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) is necessarily absent.