Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the leader.

Mr. NICKLES. No.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the leader yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I wanted to make that clarification. For the information of our colleagues, I guess theoretically we could spend a lot of time talking about amendments pending and not allow time to be discussed on Iraq. That is not our intention. I will be happy to share time with my colleague from North Dakota and others who wish to speak on Iraq. We will be here until midnight. If people want to speak longer on amendments, I am happy to do that, too. I want to be as accommodating as possible but still try to complete this resolution by tomorrow night. I will be happy to yield some time if it would help some of our colleagues.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to, out of the time we have in the bank, you might say, for the amendments, to allow Members to speak up to an hour on the Iraq resolution, if they so desire. I don't want to yield all of it, but I will be happy to do that. I don't think that is going to be necessary. I will be happy to work with our colleagues.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on both the economic package and the highway bill, but I see my friend and colleague from Louisiana. Does she wish to speak?

Mr. NICKLES. We will be happy to have you discuss it, but prefer you not send it to the desk immediately. I yield to my friend and colleague before speaking.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself such time on the Breaux amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Most agree we need to do something to grow the economy. There are different ideas, and I compliment my colleagues for some of the ideas. We have some very good ideas on both sides. Maybe we can come up with some of the best. I wish to talk about our plan a little bit and also make a couple of comments on the highway bill, as well. We are dealing with a budget. We have a deficit, and a lot of people ask, why do we have a deficit? Revenues have declined, and declined substantially. In the year 2000 revenues were over $2 trillion, and last year they were $1.85 trillion. That is a reduction of $175 billion. If you look at the history of the United States, almost every year there has been some increase. Hardly ever have we seen a decrease 2 years in a row. That is a decrease together of 9 percent. That is a reason we have a deficit, coupled with the fact expenditures are up. Revenues went down 9 percent and expenditures went up by 12 percent. I am not casting blame. That is the situation and where we are today. Right now we spend more than we take in. That is a $160 billion difference and the projection is worse for this year. How do we get this number to grow? This is a real reduction. What caused that? We look at gross domestic production and the economy really declined. It started declining in the year 2000. We had robust economic growth through the mid-1990s. In 1997, when we reduced the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, that created an economic explosion that helped the stock market and helped the economy grow. More companies were paying more bonuses and the economy had a robust growth. Chairman Greenspan said it is irrational exuberance because the market climbed precipitously. It started falling in the year 2000 and we had negative three quarters which is called a recession, the last part of 2000; it fell down in the first three quarters of 2001. It was negative so we had recession. It bounced up in 2002, but still very soft. If you look at what happened in the stock market, there was a lot of reduction of wealth in NASDAQ which was up to 5,000 in March of 2000, and by December of 2000 it was half that amount, less than 3,000; 2,800 I believe. NASDAQ fell about half in the last 9 months of 2000. Again I am not faulting anyone, but there was a precipitous decline in wealth, precipitous decline in market value and, to some extent, that continued in the year 2001, particularly after September 11. Add those things together and the market falls, revenues fall, we have a big deficit. 2001 caused a lot of increase in expenditures, helping those people who needed help and rebuilding our cities and the Pentagon, and so on, the war on terrorism. A lot happened to cause enormous deficits. Most of us ask, what can we do to improve this? How can we turn the economy around? I mentioned in 1997 we reduced the capital gains rate, we had a very positive increase of revenues to the Government even when we reduced taxes. So we are trying to think, what can we do now to help the economy? That certainly worked in 1997. I don't think anyone disputes that. What can we do in the year 2003 that might help the economy? I think we should eliminate the double taxation of dividends. People sometimes who maybe do not follow the economic markets, tax policy, and so on, are shocked when I say, did you know we tax dividends twice? We tax dividends higher in the United States than any other country in the world but Japan, and Japan and the United States are taxed about the same. Higher than anyone. The effective rate is about 70 percent. The corporate rate is 35 percent. Individual rates could be 38.6 or 35 percent or 27 percent, but the combined rate, if it is 35 percent and the individual rate is 30 percent, is 65 percent. That is two-thirds of the money going to Government. So if a corporation makes money and they want to distribute to their owners, the Government gets two-thirds and the owners get one-third. That is not a big deal. That discourages investment. Who wants to invest in a company if that is what they get back? I owned and operated a company. It does not make sense to distribute earnings in the form of dividends. The Government would be the primary beneficiary, the owner would be the secondary beneficiary. That did not make good sense. The President is proposing eliminating double taxation of dividends. That is exactly right. We would be closer to other countries. It is embarrassing to me to see we tax dividends at a rate greater than the French, greater than Hungary, greater than the Czech Republic, greater than Greece. It is time for a change. People whom I respect, what do they say? Charles Schwab says: I can't think of any other tax policy that would, at one stroke, be more beneficial to ordinary investors. The impact [of dividend relief] would be enormous. I think he is right. I don't think he was doing that for personal interest. Here is the analysis by several analysts in their projection of what they think, by eliminating double taxation of dividends, how much the market might rise. A lot of well-respected individuals--Lehman Brothers--say anywhere from 5 percent to about 15 percent. Most said it would be a positive benefit to the market. Alan Greenspan testified: In my judgment, the elimination of the double taxation of dividends will be helpful to everybody. There is no question that this particular program will be, net, a benefit to virtually everybody over the long run, and that is one of the reasons I strongly support it. That was in his testimony before the House on February 12 of this year. So I just make those comments. I hate to see a proposal that is before us--I should not say that. I welcome the alternatives that are offered by my friends and colleagues, that are supporting the so-called $350 billion proposal. The tax reduction in the 350 proposal is really $323.3 billion. The balance of that is additional refundable tax credits; in other words, the Government is writing a check. I am afraid, if that amendment is agreed to, and we will be voting on it tomorrow--I have great respect for my colleagues, Senators Breaux, Voinovich, Snowe, who offered this amendment, Senator Baucus. I have great respect for them and served with them for many years in my Senate career and have the pleasure of serving with them on the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee will take whatever number we give them out of the budget, and they will fashion together a growth package. I am afraid if we went with a growth package that is limited to tax reduction of $323 billion, we will not be able to do this dividend proposal, we will not be able to follow the advice of Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Schwab and many others who really think this would help grow the economy. I don't want to take the growth out of the growth package. I do want us to be innovative enough to say, wait a minute, if we can change tax policy and grow the economy, let's do it. If you find effective tax rates anywhere above 60 percent, that is very suffocating to economic growth. It dampens it to such an extent, a lot of people say, why make the investment? Why would people invest, if they are primarily interested in dividends, if they realize the complicated and very heavy burden of taxation that is in the present law? Especially when you can invest in other countries and the taxation rate is not nearly as high. Now we have such an international investment system, with the home PC, you can invest anywhere in the world any time of the day you want. It is wonderful, the opportunities we have in the United States. You don't have to invest in the United States. What has really happened as a result, people realize the economic consequences of investing in companies that pay large portions of their proceeds in dividends, so they shy away from those companies, in many cases, and go towards what we would call growth stocks, stocks that do not pay dividends but they have greater growing potential. They may be more volatile, may be a little more risky, but the taxation rate on those companies--not on distribution of dividends, it is on capital gains--taxed at 20 percent. It is not double taxed. Capital gains would be capped at 20 percent, about half the rate of dividends. So you have a real encouragement. Frankly, you have had an explosion in growth of those companies vis-a-vis the companies that pay dividends. Why should we disadvantage companies that distribute the benefits of their earnings to their owners through the form of cash? I think the administration is right on target. I think they have come up with a good proposal that would benefit, not just investors, not just the people who own a lot of stock, they would benefit the fireman, benefit the policeman, the teacher, the civil servant, they would benefit anybody who happened to have money in a retirement fund that happens to invest in stocks. And most all retirement funds do. So, let's do something to help the teachers and the firemen and let's do something that would help government employees and other people, individuals, to help grow the economy. When we do that, we will see the stock market grow and we will see capital gains being paid again; we will see more revenues coming into the Government; we will see more investment, more jobs created. It is estimated that this proposal on dividends alone would create well over a million jobs--I think 1.4 million jobs just in the first year. Also, on family relief, there are a couple of packages we have. We have the investment proposal, and I want to talk about that primarily. Also, the package we have that the administration proposed and that we are hopeful will be reported out of the Finance Committee--again, we don't write the bill on the floor. I think some people think we do that in the budget. We do not, unless Senator Conrad and I can come up with an amendment and change the way we do business. We just give the Finance Committee an instruction. But the instruction we are hoping to give would allow them to eliminate double taxation of dividends and also provide what I would call small business and family relief. We would do, I think, some wonderful, long overdue things that would help grow the economy. We would tax individuals no more than we tax corporations. Why in the world would we tax individuals at a rate about 10 percent higher than we tax corporations? We do that today. We will not if we are able to pass this package. Why in the world would we have heavy taxes on families? The proposal we have before us would provide tax relief to 92 million taxpayers. It is very profamily. We would have marriage penalty relief that would benefit 42 million couples. Marriage penalty relief--somebody says, what are you doing? We are taking the individual tax rate of 15 percent--and individuals who have taxable income of $28,000 pay 15 percent. Above that, they pay 27 percent. We are saying, why don't we double that for a couple. The present law doesn't do that. So we expand the 15 percent bracket for couples from about $46,000 to $56,800. What is the impact of that? That means that for a couple, a married couple, if they have a combined income up to $56,800, their tax rate is 15 percent. That will save them about $1,222. Think about that. I heard somebody say about the tax proposal, I know the bulk of this goes for the wealthy. That is not correct. That is very significant tax relief for a lot of married couples today, $1,200, if they have combined income up to $56,000. If they have two kids, they get an additional tax credit per child. The present law is $600; we would accelerate that to $1,000 per child. My daughter just gave birth to a new son, my grandson Nicholas. They will be able to get a $1,000 tax credit for Nicholas and that's true for every child in America--$1,000. That is significant. If you have four kids, that is $4,000 somebody wouldn't be paying taxes on. They will be able to use that money for their education, for their health care, for taking care of them. This is very family friendly. I think it is also very friendly for growing the economy. We also provide expensing for small business. I used to own and operate a small business. I had a janitorial service with my wife, and that was a small business. We would be able to expense things, not amortize them. That is a positive thing. That means you get to recoup your investment over a very short period of time--actually, immediately. Up to $75,000 you get to expense it, not write it off over years. It makes sense to write it off in the year you write the check, rather than spread it over several years. It makes you more likely to make the investment, which means you would make more investments and create more jobs. It is a very positive, progrowth, probusiness change. If you look at several of these provisions in the President's package, I think they would help the economy, help the stock market, help small businesses, help American families. They would help taxpayers. If we cut it in half, I am afraid we will not be able to do the things either for the family or do the things for investment. We will not be able to grow the economy. We won't be able to create jobs. I am afraid if we cut the package in half, we would basically be taking the growth out of the growth package. It might be some tax relief, but the net result would be, I am afraid, you wouldn't get much growth. You say: Why is that, $350 billion sounds like a lot of money. Over this 10-year period--and that is what we are talking about--the Federal Government is estimated to take in $28 trillion. So if you talk about $350 billion over $28 trillion, that is a very small percentage. We are proposing you need to have a little more if you are really going to have an impact on the economy. Is it too much? Is 725? Well, $725 billion is really not the tax cut. The real tax cut portion is $698 billion--again, spread out over 10. Somebody will say, Wait a minute, your budget proposal is more. The President had $1.5 trillion; you have $1.3 trillion. What we are reconciling is this $698 billion. By reconciling, for those who are not familiar with Senate language, that means we are telling the Finance Committee: Report out a bill that would do such-and-such. We didn't say put the entire package over the next 10 years, this $1.3 trillion in the package. We are telling the Finance Committee, take about half of it and make it law this year because we want to grow the economy this year; we want to do it now. Part of the tax cut could be done anytime up to the year 2010. Because we are basically just extending present law. We have several years to do that. This needs to be done now. This needs to be done now because we need to create jobs now. So I just mention that. I have the greatest respect for my colleagues, some of whom are sincere deficit hawks, and they believe maybe if we did this, we might not be good for the deficit. I think we need to do something more aggressive to help grow the economy. We have a legitimate difference of opinion. I have great respect for their opinion. I have great respect for colleagues who have different ideas. We have had proposals that will be considered tomorrow, or we have already had them on the floor, from $100 billion, to more than that, $350 billion, $700 billion--you name it. There may be someone who has it for more. I think the President has a pretty good balance. I encourage my colleagues to not vote for the amendment which would cut the growth package in half. Amendment No. 358 Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of other comments. My friend and colleague, Senator Bond, discussed an amendment dealing with transportation. He talked about highways. Frankly, every Member of Congress--probably every elected official in any elected capacity-- happens to be a friend of highways. If you are in a city council, someone is talking to you about roads; if you are the mayor of Minneapolis or St. Paul, people are talking to you about roads. If you are in State government, you spend half your time talking about highways. I used to be in the State senate. They ran me off. But everybody is concerned about highways. Everybody is concerned about infrastructure. And they are right. And particularly after a harsh winter, roads are particularly bad. We are all concerned about bad roads. Somebody was talking about the commutes take too long. Part of it is because of the bad roads. There is a lot of truth in everything that is said. We have a lot of compelling infrastructure needs. But I have some reservations about the amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri, and, frankly, my colleague from Oklahoma, for whom I have the greatest respect, and other people who are supporting this. I think they are as well intended as anybody you will find. But I am concerned about what I am afraid the amendment would do. It would move us away from the idea of user taxes to pay for roads. That is a tradition that we have had certainly since Eisenhower, since we started building the Interstate System. Since we have had a Federal highway program, we have had gasoline taxes pay for highways. And then we take off a percentage of gasoline taxes to pay for mass transit. But basically it is the user fees that pay for the expansion of the program. And looking back, I remember debating, in 1982 or 1983--I think there was a nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax, and we had a filibuster that lasted right before Christmas. It was over whether or not there would be a nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax increase. I was opposing it at that time, thinking the States should have to have the right if they wanted to do it, the State should have the option, not a Federal mandate. I lost that debate, but it was a long and interesting debate. But I can see the demand by people who want to have more highways built, and maybe a Federal gasoline tax, and so on. I am a lot more sympathetic now to listening to the demands. People say: We want more for highways. I certainly want to listen to them, but I think they should be paid by gasoline taxes. Some people are proposing that we now have a significant infusion of general revenue funds to pay for highways. You might say: Why are you opposed to that? Because there is no limit as to how much that would cost the Federal Government. There is no limit to the demand for more money for highways, absolutely no limit, no limit whatsoever. You could take any program before us, and you could multiply it by five, and somebody could legitimately say that is not enough-- legitimately because there are a lot of demands. You can take these figures and multiply them. There are a lot of demands for more highways. But, to me, it is a serious mistake and maybe a budget breach. If you say we are going to use general revenues to pay for highways, then a lot of people think, if it comes from the Federal Government, it doesn't cost anything. It doesn't cost you anything because it is from the Federal Government--especially if you have a highway formula that says 80 percent of it comes from the Federal Government and only 20 percent comes from the State. So the States may decide: let's raise gasoline prices because we want to get four times as much from the Federal Government. You think about that. We have not done that in the past. Now, we made some changes. I look back. In 1990--guess what--the Federal program for highways was $10 billion. Today, it is over $30 billion. This is 12 years later, and we are spending three times what we spent in 1990. In 1997, we were spending less than $20 billion, $18.7 billion. Today, we are spending over $30 billion. That was just about 5, 6 years ago that we were spending $18.7 billion. Now we are spending over $30 billion. Congress even changed the formula when we had gasoline revenues going up. We did, and the economy was really going well. Frankly, when the economy is going well, you have more highway usage, and you have more money coming into the trust funds. So the fund formulas were altered to allow the highways to get more of that money more immediately. I supported that. It seemed good. More money was coming in, so let them have it. It is a user fee. Let the user fee apply. But the formula also said, if the highway funds decline, they will be reduced. That was agreed to. That is part of law. That was part of the agreement. Well, guess what? Revenues declined, and then everybody said: No. Whoa. We can't take a decline. And so, in the last year's appropriations bill--actually this year; we just passed it in January-- it said, instead of going down, according to law, what, to $24 billion, it came in at $31.6 billion. It was supposed to go down to $24 billion. Congress said: No, no, no. We don't want to have a reduction of that percentage even though we agreed to it. We decided to put more money in more quickly, but we were supposed to reduce it if it started falling. Highway revenues started falling because of different reasons, maybe because of terrorism or gasoline prices, but the total money coming into the fund went down. But Congress said: No. Let's spend more money. So we went from $31.3 billion. The administration requested $29.3 billion in 2004. And I will tell you, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, we squeezed every way we could. We came up with: Can we squeeze the trust fund down quicker? Can we move some money into the trust fund that should have been in there? Yes, we found some gasohol money going into general revenue funds. We put that in. That was about $700 million per year. We did some other things. If it is a legitimate user fee concept, I am willing to consider it. I think there are vehicles driving around today that are tax exempt, that do not pay taxes, and, by golly, they ought to pay a tax. They are tearing up the road like everybody else. Some of them Senator Bond alluded to that I agree with. Some have new technology and maybe Congress tried to encourage that by saying they will be tax exempt. But I don't think they should be, if they are tearing up the road. We have some cases where maybe even some groups do not pay highway taxes and they are on the highway. Let's stop that. They are using the highways. They should pay for them. Some people in my State will not like me saying that because we have a lot of individuals who are doing that today. So let's close whatever loopholes we can and get whatever money could come into the highway fund as a result. But the proposal that is before us now, that we will be voting on-- and it may well pass; I can count votes around here probably as good as some--would increase that $31 billion program. The President's request was $29 billion. We were able to scrape it around and come out with, what, $32.1 billion. That is about the best we can do out of the money that is coming into the fund. I am open to ideas. If we can do better, I am happy to consider that. We put in language that says, if we in the Finance Committee raise more money one way or another through a user fee, whatever they would do, great, they get the money. Power to them. If they raise gasoline prices, they index gasoline prices, they put on an excise tax on tires, whatever the committee might do, if they close the loophole because they find out certain groups are on tax-exempt vehicles that ought to be paying taxes, power to them. Whatever they can get, they should come in. And maybe we have underestimated it. The Finance Committee does a great job or the Ways and Means Committee. If they can find more ways of closing loopholes, power to them; they get 100 percent of the money. But the proposal we have before us now just basically let's you increase that by about $8 billion. Let's take that $32 billion and make it a $40 billion program. It increases costs over what we have proposed in the first 6 years of our budget, about almost $60 billion for 6 years. Our budget is a 10-year budget. But for the first 6 years, it is about $10 billion a year. Now, that is a big increase: $10 billion a year being highways and mass transit. That is a big increase. And it is not paid for by gasoline taxes. It is basically paid for by an increase in the deficit. And maybe even worse than that, it breaks this tradition of paying for roads and highways through user fees. I will say again, the reason why I am speaking very strongly about this is that I think that is a terrible precedent to set. If we are going to be general funding highways, we are opening ourselves up to unlimited demands on Federal money, especially if you stay with the 80-to-20 ratio. The 80-to-20 ratio is 80 percent the Federal Government and 20 percent States. And there is no limit to the demands at that kind of ratio. If we are going to be paying 80 percent of the cost, you are going to do general revenue funds, I will tell you right now, Congress will be besieged with more requests and put in more general revenue funds. I understand the highway lobby is powerful. I understand they are out in the Halls. I understand they have lots of cosponsors. I understand they are making phone calls: We need this to get our road; we need this to get a better ratio for our State, our State has been a donor State for years. I want to see that corrected. Some people see this as a solution for correcting it. If you go general revenue funds, we will regret it. At least if you have a user fee concept, it is limiting the growth of the program because there is a negative on raising gasoline taxes. People can see it, and they are having a hard time paying their gasoline prices right now, with gas line prices at $1.75 and $2, in some cases. Maybe the war in Iraq will go well and can be over soon. I hope and pray that it does. God bless our troops and our leaders. They are doing a fantastic job. If that happens, my guess is oil prices will come tumbling down as will gasoline prices, and maybe then it will be more palatable to be raising gasoline taxes. If my colleagues vote for a gasoline tax increase, power to them. I hope every dime of it goes into highways. But to get something started where you end up having about 25 percent of highways being built with general revenue funds, I think would be a mistake. I also don't think the President will sign the bill. So I mention these things. It is important for us to pass a highway bill and to get it passed. I make a commitment to work with my friends and colleagues, Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond, others who have a very strong interest in this. I want to work with them. I want a good highway bill to be signed by the President, and I would like to think that we would put one on his desk that would be responsible as well. I am afraid that the bill we have before us, going from basically $10 billion in 1990 to $18 billion in 1997 and now we are at $31, $32 billion, to try to jump that up immediately at 40 with general revenue funds is wrong. If we do it through some other type of a user fee, that might be more palatable. I encourage my colleagues. I don't think this is really sustainable, if we don't do something different. I know there is some flexibility among some of the proponents. I commit that I will work with them to try to come up with something that will be agreeable, sustainable, and something that can be signed. I mention those reservations with the greatest respect to the proponents. I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment tomorrow. I apologize to my colleague from Delaware because he has been waiting for a few minutes. I didn't mean to speak at that length, but I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. That is percentage of GDP. We have a much bigger percent of GDP, but a tax rate is a tax rate. I ran a corporation. When I made profits, I paid that rate. Maybe somebody was able to figure out some Enron-type schemes and things. This corporation didn't. Most corporations, a lot of corporations do not. I wanted to make sure, the percentage GDP, because we have the largest GDP in the world, I don't think is the relevant type of analysis to use.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. We have now completed the debate and discussion time for consideration of the budget resolution. The statute calls for 50 hours. We have yielded back a few hours, but for the most part we have probably spent some 40-odd hours on the floor of the Senate debating and discussing various amendments. It has been a very high level debate. We considered several amendments. We have adopted amendments. We have agreed to adopt additional amendments. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in budget resolutions, when we conclude the scheduled time for debate, the 50 hours, we have not dealt with all the pending amendments. We still have many amendments. Sometimes that leads to a lot of votes. So tomorrow we will begin that. We will begin it at 9:45. I urge all my colleagues to be here and, for the most part, to stay on the floor. We will work with all of our colleagues who have amendments filed or pending or feel that they are compelled to offer amendments. We encourage them not to. But knowing a little history, I would expect a lot of rollcall votes tomorrow. I will say on behalf of colleagues on my side and others, we will be happy to work with colleagues. I would hope that maybe we could get some amendments accepted by voice vote, or maybe the sponsors of the amendment might decide it might be a better time to offer their amendment at another date for which we would give them great credit and applause. Regardless, I expect that we would have a lot of votes beginning at 9:45 tomorrow morning. I expect the time for the votes will be limited to 10 minutes for the information of our colleagues. We will provide periodic breaks for individuals so they can have maybe some chance for us to regroup and reconsider the order and priority of amendments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 9:45 the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order mentioned: Schumer amendment No. 299; Cochran on homeland security; Feingold on war reserve; Lautenberg on defense; Hollings on no tax cut; Sarbanes on a water related amendment; Crapo on a water related amendment; Conrad on IDEA, Gregg on IDEA; and Senator Mikulski on long- term care.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad. He has been a pleasure to work with through the first several days of this resolution. I expect that we might have a long day tomorrow. I hope not. But we will be in as long as necessary to complete this resolution, and I encourage all of our colleagues, tomorrow is a good day to attend if you want to improve your voting record. It is not a good day to miss if you want to have a good voting record for the year.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He is exactly right. There are 90-some amendments. I would hope most of them would not be called up, and I hope the balance will be voice voted, and maybe we will have a couple rollcall votes and finish at decent hour. I would like the Senate to conduct itself in a way that we would be proud. In years past that has not always been the case, when we are doing these rapid fire amendments.

Don Nickles

Speeches

Manage analytics