William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to expedite the consideration of this amendment. But it is important that we move ahead with the legislation so that it can be referred expeditiously to the President. For that reason, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I begin by recognizing the important contributions of Senator Kerrey, both to the Finance Committee and to the Senate. In particular, he is a unique and important voice in the national debate on Social Security and Medicare reform. He has taken thoughtful but not always popular positions on how these programs should be reshaped, both to better serve our Nation's seniors and to ensure that these programs can be sustained. Indeed, much of the current debate over Social Security reform dates to 1993, when Senator Kerrey conceived and then later chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. On the Finance Committee, his energy and expertise are highly regarded by his colleagues. Having said that, I must oppose this amendment. I understand why Senator Kerrey has offered it. And on a more appropriate bill, I might support it. Certainly, as a nation, we need to rethink carefully what we mean by retirement. However, I believe instead we should act to move this legislation to the President as quickly as possible. That means no other amendments other than the managers' amendment, which fixes a technical problem of the House bill. I have received a letter from Chairman Archer and Congressman Rangel saying that any other extraneous amendments will require a conference. Needless to say, other issues might be raised in the conference. Mr. President, I trust my friend from Nebraska will understand why I oppose this amendment. I hope he will accept my pledge to continue to work with him on these important issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me briefly describe the managers' amendment. This amendment would fix a technical problem with the House bill that would inadvertently impose a more stringent earnings limit on certain Social Security beneficiaries age 64 than provided under current law. I ask unanimous consent that a description of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back all time on this side.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I was going to make a statement first.

Mr. ROTH. In light of this agreement, I announce on behalf of the leadership the 4 p.m. vote today will be the last vote of the day.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Hagel.

Mr. ROTH. One minute.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment.

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

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the vote occur on or in relation to the pending Kerrey amendment at 4 p.m. and the time between now and the vote be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that passage of H.R. 5, as amended, occur at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 22, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived. Finally, I ask unanimous consent the time between 9:45 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Wednesday be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Finance Committee for closing remarks on the Social Security earnings bill.

Mr. ROTH. We are happy to have the vote at 4 o'clock. There is no unanimous consent stated.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

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

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit a managers' amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Moynihan and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment to S. 1134, the Affordable Education Act. First, my amendment makes this legislation a true tax cut bill for education. My amendment removes all the bill's tax increases. We should not be taxing away with one hand what we return with another in a time of Federal budget surplus. Americans should not be taxed again to pay for a national priority. Second, my amendment makes permanent the increase from $500 to $2,000 in the annual contribution amount for a kindergarten-to-college education IRA. Without these permanent increases in contribution limits and spending flexibility, both would end after the year 2003. My amendment removes that sunset because I believe that we should not be sunsetting our Nation's future, which is the education of our children. Education IRAs are extremely important. Not only does the increase to $2,000 I propose make these accounts more attractive to families who want to use them, but to institutions who want to offer them. And even more important than these additional incentives to adults is the one they give to children. As experts have testified, there is something special about knowing that money is being put away for your future education. It is an incentive to excellence for both today and tomorrow. Third, my amendment fixes a trap for the unwary. Currently, a student who takes money from an education IRA is not able to use the HOPE or Lifetime Learning Credit--even if they are for different education expenses. That is wrong, and it is downright deceptive to families who need both. My amendment allows parents to use both and to use both permanently. Finally, my amendment makes the tax-free treatment of employer- provided educational assistance permanent--both undergraduate and graduate. Something as important and necessary as continuing education should not be wrapped up in the uncertainty of frequently needed legislative action. Why is the permanency of my amendment's provisions so important? Because they would allow parents to contribute up to $2,000 annually toward their child's education--from the day of birth to the first day of college. Even that may not seem like a lot but, like a train, it may start slowly but it is very powerful. It will gain speed. It is a savings express to college. By putting their child on the savings express, after 18 years when that child is ready to go to college, the parents will have over $65,000. And that just assumes a 6-percent rate of interest--the rate on a government security. Of course, other investments could yield even more. Parents would have at least $65,000 toward their child's education. Twenty-nine thousand dollars of that would be solely due to the power of compounding interest. And every cent of that $29,000 would be tax-free--it would go straight into education. Maybe that still does not seem like a lot to some folks, but it sure seems like a lot to parents who are struggling today to insure college for their children tomorrow. The national average annual cost of college--tuition, room, and fees--is roughly $10,000 per year or $40,000 for the cost of college education. My amendment before us today will cover this. It will give parents and students peace of mind and a piece of the American dream. My amendment is a powerful incentive to save. It is an engine. It is the engine that can pull a long train of savings--and dreams. Like the ``Little Engine that Could,'' my amendment makes this legislation the ``Education Savings Plan that Will.'' Parents and children getting on this savings train, will get off at college to a better future. America has waited for this education savings plan for three long years. This legislation brings it home today. My amendment makes sure it stays there for families--not just for today, but for tomorrow and all the days that follow. It is time that the President got on board. I urge my colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan effort to make education affordable for America's families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida has offered an amendment he claims will offset the cost of this bill by keeping in place its current tax increases. It will not and what's more it should not, even if it did. Senator Graham claims this education savings bill must be paid for. Let me say the bill is already paid for. It has been paid for by a surplus in income tax revenues from America's families. According to the Senate Budget Committee, federal revenues, not counting a cent of Social Security's surplus, will be $1.9 trillion higher over the next ten years than this year's level of federal spending. That means a $1.9 trillion overpayment by America's income taxpayers. Are we saying that despite a $1.9 trillion overpayment that we cannot afford to let families keep less than one percent of it for their children's education? Second, leaving these tax increases in this bill will still not pay for it fully. They are simply tax increases then--not offsets. Finally, when Senate Democrats offered their tax relief package last July, it amounted to $290 billion over ten years. None of this was offset. Why now, when the issue is education and the tax relief is just a fraction of the amount that Senate Democrats supported last year, must we now raise taxes to pay for it? This is simply inconsistent. Perhaps an even better question is: Why must we raise taxes to constitute this offset? Why could those wishing to pay for this, not find the small amount of money necessary from a $1.8 trillion budget? To pay for this from Washington's budget rather than the American taxpayer's? I am sympathetic to the argument of fiscal responsibility. However at a time of substantial tax overpayment, why should it be so hard to allow families to keep some of their own tax overpayment for their children's education? If we cannot say that when the federal government is running federal surpluses worth, according to our Budget Committee, almost $2 trillion over the next ten years; and we are seeking to return less than half a percent for education, when can we ever have a reason to cut taxes? The federal tax burden as a percentage of the economy is the largest that it has been since World War II. The federal income tax burden as a percentage of the economy is the largest in history. Those are not my estimates but the President's. Once again I ask: if we cannot cut taxes when they are at historically high levels, when can we cut them? The tax overpayment is huge, the tax burden is historically high, and the cost of this education provision is small, if we cannot cut taxes now and for education--when and for what can we ever cut them? Sadly, I cannot help but believe that there are some Senators who must think that we can never cut taxes. That taxpayers' money is always better spent in Washington than by the people who earned it. I am one Senator who does not believe this is true. I intend to vote against this amendment to raise taxes. Furthermore, I intend to bring more legislation to the floor that will cut taxes-- not raise them. I believe that this education legislation is precisely what America's income tax surplus should be used for: America's families. I urge my colleagues to join with me and reject the Graham amendment and keep my proposed permanent tax relief for education.

Mr. ROTH. My amendment increases from $500 to $2,000 the annual ESA contribution. It makes the educational savings account permanent. It would make employer provided educational assistance permanent. It removes all tax increases and makes this a pure education tax cut bill. America has waited for this education savings plan for 3 long years. This legislation brings it home today. My amendment makes sure it stays there for families, not just for today but for tomorrow and all the days that follow. I yield the remaining time.