William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROTH. At the appropriate time I will make a point of order against the motion to refer on two grounds. Let me point out in the beginning that this is a matter that was not included in the budget agreement. It introduces a new aspect to the agreement that is not consistent with what we have discussed before. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his courtesy. I yield such time as is remaining to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yielded myself, I think it was 3 minutes. Is it not normally the practice to advise the speaker when he has come to that?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is offered by my good friend and colleague from North Dakota, but I do first want to commend him for his perseverance on this issue. I know it is a matter of great interest to him, a matter that he feels very strongly about. As he said in yesterday's statement, he has been sponsoring this type of legislation for many years. Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment for several reasons. First of all, let me point out that the principle purpose for reducing the capital gains tax is to encourage more investment. In this competitive world of today and in this global economy, it is critically important that we make the best utilization of the capital we have so that we are in a strong competitive position. A lower capital gains tax will encourage greater investment. It will encourage better utilization of our assets. Why would we want to impose some kind of arbitrary limit that will have the effect of limiting investments? We are trying to free up hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to the best investment available to help ensure that we are creating in this country an environment of growth, jobs, and opportunity. Let me just look at this matter from another point of view; from the standpoint of small business. I know my distinguished friend from North Dakota is, indeed, a friend of small business. The tax laws currently provide a 50 percent capital gains exclusion from investments in qualifying small business stock. Currently, the tax laws provide that an investor who has gained from qualifying small business stock can exclude up to $10 million of capital gains from a single investment--10 times more than the $1 million cap. I understand that in the Democratic substitute amendment that is ultimately going to be offered, it is provided that we should double this limit; this $10 million limit should become $20 million from a single investment. So the question I must ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who argue a $20 million capital gains exclusion is appropriate from a single small business investment yet, at the same time, argue to limit capital gains from all other investments to only $1 million over a taxpayer's lifetime--the two provisions are totally inconsistent, in my judgment they make no sense, and I hope the Senate will agree with my concern. Let me make one further observation. This amendment also raises some very significant administrative problems. Under the amendment, individuals will have to keep track of all their investment gains, not for 1 year, not for 5 years or 10 years, but for decades--a tremendously burdensome matter. Think of how this amendment would affect the Internal Revenue Service. I doubt the IRS has adequate resources to administer the voluminous information that would have to be maintained if this amendment becomes law. It would be an administrative nightmare for the IRS to have to try to enforce this provision. But let me go back to the first point which I think is most important, that the reason we are reducing the capital gains tax is to encourage more investment. To try to limit it to $1 million makes no sense and is in conflict with the basic purpose of the agreement that was reached by the Senate Finance Committee. It makes no sense. It is inconsistent with the provisions now contained in the law for small business stock, which can be excluded for up to $10 million of capital gains; and, as I already pointed out, it is proposed in the so-called Democratic substitute that this limit be doubled to $20 million. So I oppose this legislation and hope the Senate agrees with this opposition. Mr. President, at this time I am happy to yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROTH. No. I will yield back my time.

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell].

Mr. ROTH. I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have been going around in a circle about 10 times now. I think the best thing to do is to let the Senator from Illinois proceed with the debate of his amendment, and we can try to work out further agreements subsequently.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move the adoption of my unanimous consent.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 1997, to conduct an oversight hearing on Social Security investments in the securities markets.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 1997, to hold a hearing on the prevalence of waste fraud and abuse in the health care industry, with particular focus on Medicare.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing Thursday, June 26, 1997, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), on recent administrative changes and judicial decisions relating to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on international economic policy, export and trade promotion

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 1997, to markup legislation pending in the Committee. The markup will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on clean air, wetlands, private property, and nuclear safety

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, June 26, at 4 p.m. for a business meeting on issues relating to the matter of issuing subpoenas for the special investigation hearings. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on small business

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26 for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on governmental affairs