William Roth

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as remains. I think it is 2 minutes. As I said this morning, the fundamental question before Congress these past few weeks, as we have debated the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, is quite simple: Is it right for Washington to take from the taxpayer more money than is necessary to run Government? The issue of tax relief isn't anymore complicated than that, and the outcome of the conference between the Senate and the House makes it clear that Government is not automatically entitled to the surplus that is, in large part, due to the hard work, thrift, and risk taking of the American people. Individuals and families are due a refund. That is exactly what we do with this legislation. We give the people a refund, and we do it in a way that is fair, broad based, and empowering. Mr. President, I am ready to yield back the remainder of time.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, that report language is not correct. The conference agreement adopted section 1317 of the Senate amendment without modification.

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

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

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

Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 additional minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. On behalf of the minority, I yield 1 minute.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2488) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to sections 105 and 211 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the fundamental question before Congress these past few weeks, as we have debated the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999, is quite simple: Is it right for Washington to take from the taxpayer more money than is necessary to run the Government? The issue of tax relief is not any more complicated than that, and the outcome of the conference between the Senate and House makes it clear that we believe Government is not automatically entitled to the surplus that is, in large part, due to the hard work, thrift, and risk- taking of the American people. Individuals and families are due a refund, and that is exactly what we do with this legislation. We give the people a refund. We do it in a way that is fair, broad based, and empowering. We do it in a way that will benefit nearly every working American, a way that will help restore equity to the Tax Code, and provide American families with the relief and resources they need to meet pressing concerns. This tax refund legislation will help individuals and families save for self-reliance in retirement. It will help parents prepare for educational costs. It will give the self-employed and underinsured the boost they need to pay for health insurance, and it will begin to restore fairness to the Tax Code by addressing the marriage tax penalty. How do we accomplish all of this? We begin by reducing our marginal income tax rates by a point. In other words, the 15-percent tax bracket will drop to 14 percent, and the 39.6-percent top rate will drop to 38.6 percent. The new 14-percent bracket will be extended upward to include millions of Americans who are now paying taxes in the 28- percent bracket. These changes will benefit individuals and families across the economic spectrum. For example, an individual with $40,000 of income will save over $700. An individual earning $50,000 will save over $800. Under this bill, a taxpayer with $70,000 of income will save over $1,000. This is significant tax relief. When fully phased in, a middle-class family of four with an adjusted gross income of $80,000 will save almost $3,000 a year. This is real savings, money that can be used by individuals and families to meet their pressing needs and objectives. To restore equity to the Tax Code, this legislation also meets a bipartisan objective by providing relief for the marriage tax penalty, and it does this by doubling the standard deduction and the 15-percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly. We can all agree on how important this is. For too long, husbands and wives who have worked and paid taxes have been penalized by their dual incomes. This plan will address that inequity by giving working American couples greater relief. Let me give an example. Two individuals, each making $35,000 a year, face a penalty of almost $1,500 when they marry. Under this legislation, that penalty will be addressed in two ways: first, by doubling the standard deduction and, second, by doubling the 15-percent tax bracket to include their combined income. The marriage penalty relief offered in this bill retains the Senate position on the amount of relief received, and it even provides relief for people receiving the earned income tax credit. To help families with their education expenses, the legislation before us allows taxpayers to increase their contributions to education IRAs, or what will--under the provisions of this bill--be called education savings accounts. Allowable contributions will rise from $500 to $2,000 annually. And these funds will be available to meet expenses for all students, from kindergarten through college. Beyond increasing the level a family can save for education, this Tax Relief Act also makes interest earned on qualified State and private school higher education tuition plans tax free--a most important development, in my judgment. It also extends employer-provided educational assistance for undergraduate studies, and it repeals the 60-month rule on student loan interest deductions. This will allow individuals to claim tax deductions on interest that they pay on their student loan, without the imposition of a time limit. To help families meet health care and long-term care needs, this legislation provides a 100 percent above-the-line deduction for those who pay more than 50 percent of their health insurance premiums. This, of course, includes the self-employed. The plan also provides an additional personal exemption for those who care for an elderly relative in their home. As you can see, this legislation is, indeed, empowering; it addresses concerns that are vitally important in the lives of our families, coast to coast. It provides across-the-board tax relief. It addresses the marriage tax penalty. It makes education more affordable for all students--kindergarten through college. And it helps our families meet their health care and long-term care needs. But it doesn't stop here; it does much more. The legislation before us phases out the alternative minimum tax. It provides capital gains tax relief, simplifying the rate structure, and reducing the individual capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 18 percent, beginning with the current 1999 tax year. For those individuals taxed at the lowest individual rate, their capital gains tax rate is reduced from 10 percent to 8 percent. In addition, the tax basis of certain assets may be increased by an ``inflation adjustment,'' so that any capital gain attributable to inflation is not subjected to tax. Also, we have maintained the 2 percent capital gains rate differential that is imposed on long-term capital gains from depreciable real estate, by reducing that rate from 25 percent to 23 percent. Another very important measure is the treatment of estate taxes. This legislation completely phases out and ultimately repeals the Federal estate, gift, and generation skipping taxes. It also corrects technical problems in the House provision. Each of these will be a powerful tool in the hands of taxpayers and families who will use these changes--their relief--to meet the needs that are unique to their situation. However, a couple of major provisions in this bill that I would like to outline in some detail will--like the across-the-board tax rate cut--benefit everyone, enabling individuals and families to prepare for self-reliance and success in retirement. These, of course, include the expansion of individual retirement accounts and pension programs. Under the bill, IRA contribution limits will be increased over the next 7 years until they reach $5,000. And taxpayers who are close to retiring will be allowed to make catchup payments in their plans. These changes will in my judgment, be incredibly beneficial. For example, an individual without an employer-provided pension plan, who contributes the maximum amount allowable, as it increases over the next 7 years-- with the magic of compounding interest--will be able to put away over $31,000 for retirement. In year 7 and beyond, he or she will be able to put away the full $5,000 annually. With the catchup provision--applicable for people over the age of 50--if those 7 years pass just prior to the taxpayer's retirement, the amount, for example, he or she could save in those 7 years under this bill would be over $44,000. This bill also increases the income threshold for those who can take full advantage of Roth IRA accounts up to $200,000 for a couple filing jointly. For employer-provided plans, this bill increases the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) plan or a 457 plan. Starting next year, an employee may contribute up to $11,000 to his employer's 401(k) plan In each year thereafter, he could contribute increasing amounts to his 401(k), and in 2005, he will be able to contribute a full $15,000. To show you how empowering this is, if John, a 35-year-old, contributes the maximum amount allowable over the next 30 years, his 401(k) plan benefit at retirement would increase by over $1.2 million. In addition, if John's employer established a newly added Plus Account program under its 401(k) plan, that amount would be nontaxable when John receives it at retirement. The Plus Account program--as addressed in this bill--lets an employer establish an account which has the same tax treatment as a Roth IRA. That means that John would have over $1.2 million in nontaxable income. Finally, this bill gives small businesses a new incentive to establish a retirement plan for their employees. The contribution limits for a SIMPLE plan--a defined contribution plan only for small businesses--have been increased in this bill to encourage small business owners to establish such plans. The incentive to establish a SIMPLE plan is easy to understand. Small business owners who offer SIMPLE plans will be able to save up to $10,000 in the plans they establish. This will be a great benefit to them, but in order to save their own money--as part of the SIMPLE plan--they will have to provide their employees with a contribution to their own plans of up to 2 percent of their salary. At the same time, under this plan the employees could also receive a matching contribution from their employer of up to 3 percent of compensation if they decide to contribute to the SIMPLE plan. Now, I believe this is good policy. It will encourage Americans to take advantage of these opportunities and provide for their retirement future. As with almost every provision in this Taxpayer Refund Act, the catalyst is the individual and the family, using tax relief to meet their needs. Every measure I have outlined as part of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 is important, as each rightfully returns resources that Americans can use to meet their current needs, and the refund being offered comes from surplus funds. In other words, this broad- based tax relief package can be passed, signed into law, and, indeed, still leave sufficient resources in Washington to take care of Social Security, Medicare reform, and other necessary Government obligations. Let me repeat that: This broad-based tax relief package can be passed, signed into law, and still leave sufficient non-Social Security funds available to address comprehensive Medicare reform, including a prescription drug benefit. We can offer this relief and still pay down the debt and keep the budget balanced. We can do all of this for one very simple reason: The work, the investment in job creation achieved by Americans everywhere, has succeeded in creating long-term economic growth. As I have said before, it is not right that the reward for this success is that today our taxes are the highest percent of our gross national product of any time in postwar history. After paying for the Government programs for which Congress has planned and budgeted, a refund from the surplus must now be returned to the American taxpayer. I know there is wide agreement that Americans deserve relief. This is the bill that will give them relief. We must and should support it. We must keep in mind that major tax cuts must be done through the reconciliation process. This is, indeed, a lengthy, time-intensive process. We have successfully completed it. I am proud to say that this conference report, as it stands today, carries no provision that was not in either the House or Senate bill. In other words, nothing extraneous was added in conference. It is clean and representative of the direction received by those who crafted the Senate and House bills. Frankly, this is a first in tax history. It represents a tremendous amount of work by our colleagues, Members of the House, and the staff in both Chambers. Those who believe we may be coming back to do this again in September are mistaken. This is the tax bill for this year. We won't have a second chance on this. When we come back after recess, our time and attention will be focused on Medicare reform, a vital issue that concerns us all. For those who are concerned that this major relief package may be too big, please be reminded that there are important trigger mechanisms included in this bill. If we don't continue to reduce the payment on the interest on the national debt--let me repeat that--if we don't continue to reduce the payment on the interest on the national debt, then the tax relief included here will be reduced to compensate accordingly. Well, the bottom line is that this is tax relief in which we can have confidence. It meets the criteria we established before we began. It is fair. It restores equity to the Tax Code and makes education more affordable. It helps taxpayers prepare for self-reliance and retirement. This legislation will help families keep their homes, their farms, and businesses safe from death taxes. It makes health care more affordable. I believe these are objectives that are shared by everyone. They are objectives that can be embraced by Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the political aisle. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote for passage, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. Unrequested mailings are seen by many as a nuisance. But when junk mail makes insupportable and outrageous claims of instant wealth, phantom prices, and bogus benefits annoyance becomes fraud--the small print notwithstanding. Among its provisions, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, S. 335, would place new requirements on sweepstakes offerings and allow fines to be levied on deceptive mailings. S. 335 would also require sweepstakes information to be presented clearly, and grants the Postal Service new authority to halt misleading mailings. I feel strongly that these reforms will benefit an untold number of American families and elderly persons from some unscrupulous elements of our society. It pleases me to remark briefly on the genesis of this proposal. In my experience, the role of oversight and investigation has enabled the Congress to craft its most informed, well reasoned, and thorough legislative proposals. As past chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and current chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I have long used and will continue to use these tools to assess and reform. I commend my successor as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, Senator Susan Collins, for taking a thorough approach to crafting this proposal. Following a process of investigation and hearings, Senator Collins has applied the right tools to a common problem. The people of Maine, Delaware, and the rest of our Nation will benefit from her hard work.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House companion bill, Calendar No. 234, H.R. 2480. I further ask consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of the Senate bill be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill then be read for the third time and passed, with a motion to reconsider laid upon the table. I also ask consent that the Senate then insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House. I finally ask consent that the passage of S. 1429 be vitiated and the bill be placed back on the calendar.

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

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I agree.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is true.

Mr. ROTH. I will keep in mind the concerns of both Senators in this important issue. bringing computers to the classroom

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from North Carolina in working with us to expedite consideration of the Taxpayer Refund Act by not asking for a roll call vote in relation to his amendment. This is certainly an interesting idea, and my staff and I look forward to working with him in the future to explore the possibility of a drycleaning equipment tax benefit. republican tax cut plan

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his comments on this issue. The budget reconciliation procedures do prevent the consideration of some amendments such as the one described by the Senator from Oklahoma. I look forward to working with the Senator from Oklahoma on this important issue on the next non-reconciliation tax bill. tax rules for consolidation of life insurance compensation

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

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his comments and look forward to working with him.

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Missouri and appreciate the commitment of the Senators who have spoken to these important issues.