William Roth

Mr. ROTH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Coverdell for the next amendment. Amendment No. 1426, As Modified

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest a voice vote.

Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is true.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are now ready for final passage. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, there will be 30 minutes for closing remarks with respect to the Bingaman amendment and the Hutchison amendment. Two back-to-back votes will then occur at 9 a.m. Following those two votes, any additional amendments will be limited to 2 minutes of debate. Therefore, numerous votes will occur in a stacked sequence. Consequently, Senators are asked not to leave the Chamber in order to conclude the voting process as early as possible.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Senator Breaux and Senator Chafee have thoughtfully crafted an amendment that offers a $500 billion tax cut. As with the alternative introduced yesterday by my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, Senator Breaux's amendment demonstrates that there is agreement on both sides of the aisle concerning the need to give individuals and families a well-deserved tax refund from the $3.3 trillion surplus. I appreciate the fact that Senator Breaux, with his amendment, offers a deeper cut than the alternative introduced yesterday, but I am concerned that it still does not go far enough. It does not go far enough in providing the much needed relief Americans require to meet the necessary and important priorities in their lives. It does not go far enough to offer broad-based tax relief that will be necessary to gain the bipartisan support needed to pass this bill in the Senate. For example, Mr. President, the Breaux amendment does not lower the 15-percent tax bracket. Instead, it simply expands it by only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for joint returns. And this benefit is only available for people who do not itemize. This means that if you take a deduction for home mortgage interest you will not receive a tax rate cut, under this bill. Additionally, because the 15-percent bracket is not reduced, the tax relief is not felt by middle-income taxpayers in that bracket, nor is there a reduction for those paying taxes in the higher brackets. The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 cuts the 15 percent rate to 14 percent and broadens the 14-percent bracket by twice as much as what the Breaux amendment would do at the higher 15-percent rate. The Breaux amendment also falls short when it comes to providing family tax relief. For example, the Taxpayer Refund Act offers $222 billion for family tax relief. The Breaux bill only provides $43 billion. When it comes to providing families with the relief they both need and deserve, the amendment offered by Senator Breaux is only 20 percent of the relief offered in our more complete package. As with relief to families, this amendment also comes up short in providing health care relief. Where the Taxpayer Refund Act offers $52 billion in health-related cuts, this amendment offers only $32 billion, or roughly $20 billion less. The Shortfall can be seen in specific areas such as long-term care, where this amendment would not allow an employer to provide such long-term care coverage as part of its employee benefits package. Another important difference between the Taxpayer Refund Act and this amendment is the area of estate tax relief. We have heard eloquent and persuasive arguments these past two days concerning how important it is that Congress provide American families with relief from death taxes. And our legislation offers almost $63 billion in relief. This will help countless families save the businesses, farms, and ranches that have been built by parents and grandparents. It is good for these families, and for America, as it protects their work and sacrifice. Unfortunately, this amendment only contains a third of the relief that these families would receive from our legislation. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Breaux for the work he has done on this amendment. It certainly offers more than the alternative that the Senate voted against yesterday. Like yesterday's alternative, it shows that there is bipartisan support for relief, but it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough in the area of family tax relief. It does not go far enough in the area of savings and investment. It does not provide enough health care tax relief, nor does it provide enough relief against death taxes. As I said when I spoke against the Democratic alternative yesterday, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 is built on the proposition that the income Americans earn belongs to them; that when government sets a budget and receives revenues in taxes to meet the budget obligations, government--by the will of the people--receives what it needs to pay the bills; and that when the people have given government more than what the budget calls for, well, then that money should be returned to the people. It's that simple, Mr. President. And with that understanding, Congress passed a budget resolution authorizing the Finance Committee to cut taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. The Finance Committee, with bipartisan support, met that responsibility and, as a result, has offered the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. What we have offered is a broad-based tax relief plan that will benefit all Americans--one that is fair, constructive, and empowering. Our plan will help restore equity to the tax code and provide American families with the relief and resources they need to meet pressing concerns. It 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 under-insured the boost they need to pay for health insurance. It will begin to restore fairness to the tax code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. These are all important goals. And, as with the Democratic alternative, this amendment also falls far short of accomplishing all that we do with our broad-based plan. This amendment will leave many taxpayers without the relief they deserve. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, has all time on both sides expired?

Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes off the bill to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take off the bill. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have attacked the Reagan tax cut. With that I strongly disagree. I have no argument with those who want to bring up history in their attempt to argue against the need for this tax relief package. But I do have an argument when they attempt to change facts and debunk what was--and continues to be--a tremendous economic legacy. First, let me make it clear that cutting taxes to keep the economy strong did not begin with President Reagan--nor is the idea isolated to one political party or the other. In the 1960s, President Kennedy ushered America into economic expansion with his own historic tax cuts. In fact, in recalling our history it might help us to remember President Kennedy's statement to the Economic club of New York in December 1962. On that occasion, he said: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never product enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Second, the facts concerning President Reagan's economic record are very clear: everyone benefited from the broad based 25 percent across- the-board tax cuts signed into law by President Reagan. The facts show that all income groups saw their incomes rise during the period of 1980 to 1989. The facts show that during that period, the mean average of real income rose by 15.2 percent, compared to a 0.8 percent decline from 1970 to 1980. And what of record-setting deficits? Did cutting taxes 25 percent across the board deplete the Treasury revenues? Absolutely not. Again, the records, the facts show that Federal revenues actually exploded. As Americans grew in wealth, Treasury revenues grew. Between 1981 and 1987, they grew 42 percent. The deficits remind my debunking colleagues--were not created by cutting taxes and stimulating economic growth; they were the product of a Congress that refused to hold the line on spending. While revenues increased 42 percent, following those tax cuts, spending increased by 50 percent. And, my colleagues, that is unlikely to happen after this tax relief package becomes law, as Congress is largely controlled by the same individuals who--2 years ago--passed the first balanced budget in a generation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Texas--

Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the time to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are now opening up to the next amendment.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments and motions to recommit to S. 1429 must be filed by 2 p.m. today at the desk and with the bill managers.

Mr. ROTH. Two p.m.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length, and I ask that all the Members of the Senate stay on the floor. We have a full and busy day.

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.