William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin the final votes on the Death Tax Elimination Act. There are nine votes on amendments and a vote on final passage of the bill. Senators should be aware that all votes after the first vote will be limited to 10 minutes in an effort to expedite the process. Following the votes, the Senate will begin consideration of the reconciliation bill. Under a previous agreement, all Senators who have amendments must debate their amendments during today's session with votes scheduled to occur at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Monday, July 17. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I do understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment in the second degree on behalf of Senator Bond, to the amendment offered on behalf of Senator Durbin.

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

Mr. ROTH. We yield back our time on the amendment. Amendment No. 3852

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Grams.

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

Mr. ROTH. I yield back the time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Abraham, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROTH. I yield back the Republican time.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would just like to echo the kind remarks made about Senator Moynihan. There is no man who better serves his State. There is no Senator who provides greater insight and brilliance. I am honored to be associated with him.

Mr. ROTH. This alternative amendment would allow married couples the option to file as two singles on their joint return. It is the same amendment that Senator Moynihan offered in the Finance Committee a few weeks ago. It is a concept I have endorsed in the past, primarily because it has the capability to deliver complete marriage penalty relief to all taxpayers, both at the low end and at the high end. It was a principled approach to ending the marriage penalty in our Tax Code. But the amendment the Senator offers today cuts away from that principled approach. Today's amendment imposes arbitrary income limits on the marriage penalty relief and begins to phase out the benefits at $100,000 of income, and then completely shuts them off at $150,000 per couple. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1999, there were about 7.5 million joint returns with an adjusted gross income greater than $100,000. And 56 percent of that group, or 4.2 million couples, suffered from a marriage penalty. The total amount of marriage penalty suffered by those couples is almost $12 billion, which is more than one-third of all the marriage penalties caused by our Tax Code. The average marriage penalty faced by each one of these families is about $2,800. Yet despite these significant marriage penalties encountered by these couples--and they claim that this is a targeted tax bill to eliminate the marriage tax--this substitute amendment turns its back on those taxpayers. The amendment tells these folks they make too much money and should not receive complete relief. A few weeks ago, during the Finance Committee markup on the marriage penalty, and the subsequent procedural debate on the Senate floor, the Democratic alternative was a separate filing regime with no income limits. Now the substitute amendment has arbitrary income limits. What has happened in the last 3 months? The surplus estimates have outgrown even the rosiest expectations. We continue to see the accumulation of tremendous on-budget surpluses. We have continued to see more and more evidence of America's tax overpayment. Especially in this environment, I cannot see any rationale for creating some arbitrary income level. Yet that is precisely what this amendment does. It seems to me that we are going in the wrong direction. This is just not right. Over the past few years, all of us--both Democrats and Republicans-- have talked at length about the fundamental unfairness of the marriage penalty in the Tax Code. But if we really believe it is a policy that needs to be changed--I believe that it does--then we should change it for all Americans. I do not see how we can justify solving the marriage tax penalty for some but letting it remain for others at an arbitrary income level. This does not have to be--and should not be--an issue of the rich versus the poor. While I do not agree with this amendment, I do want to commend my colleague for recognizing American families deserve substantial tax relief. Over 5 years, this alternative costs the same as the marriage tax relief reconciliation bill of 2000--a total of $55 billion. It is nice to see many Members have recognized that we should return the income tax overpayment to families across the country. This amendment takes what could be a good framework and destroys it with income limits. I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to strike the sunset provisions in the underlying bill on page 8, lines 6 through 14. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I also move to strike the sunset provisions in the substitute offered by Senator Moynihan, on page 9, lines 23 through 25, and send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. I yield back any time we may have on that amendment. Amendment No. 3867 to Amendment No. 3861

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, I send an amendment to the desk.