William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. The Senator is correct. TANF does have some restrictions on vocational education activities, however States may use these funds or their own State funds for the education and training activities described by the Senator.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Simply put, according to most experts, Medicare today overpays for indirect medical education, which is a special Federal subsidy for training new doctors. We have substantially but responsibly reduced those payments in our bill, and, indeed, these payments will remain very generous. This amendment is not needed and would prevent us from meeting our budget instructions.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. States may provide funding to these types of organizations.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in my opening statement, I thanked my good friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, my colleague on the Finance Committee, and our staff for their excellent work. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to conclude without again expressing my appreciation for these diligent professionals--men and women who work into the wee, wee hours, late nights, early mornings, and weekends to help us craft a bill that could find the kind of success that this has found on the Senate floor. I would like to particularly thank the following majority and minority staff of the Finance Committee who worked so hard on this bill, including Lindy Paull, Frank Polk, Julie James, Dennis Smith, Gioia Bonmartini, Alexander Vachon, Dee Dee Spitznagel, Joan Woodward, Brig Gulya, Mark Patterson, David Podoff, Faye Drummond, Kristen Testa, Doug Steiger, Rick Werner, and Rakesh Singh. Again, I am grateful for the outstanding work that they did. And I believe that it merits the thanks and gratitude of all of us.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. That is my thought now, yes.

Mr. ROTH. It is my plan to continue for several hours this evening, probably until 9, 9:30, 10, come back in the morning around 9:30 and proceed throughout the day.

Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, earlier this month I read an article by Dana Mack, a mother and the author of a new book, ``The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture Undermines the Family.'' It was powerfully persuasive. Her thesis was that parents today love their families as much as, if not more than, ever--that today's parents are attentive and even more committed than those of an earlier generation but that they are pressed economically. In her studies, Ms. Mack discovered that the most serious challenges faced by parents today are economic challenges. Listen to her statistics. It costs the average American couple today twice--twice--the proportion of their yearly household income to pay the mortgage than it cost their parents; average Federal income payroll taxes rose from 2 percent of family earnings in 1950 to 24 percent in 1990; health costs have skyrocketed in the past 20 years, sending 4 to 5 million women to work for medical insurance alone. Consider these statistics along with the one that has been repeated often in the debate over real tax relief--that American families pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined-- and it becomes apparent how important this Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is. Tax relief is no longer a partisan issue, and I was encouraged by the spirited cooperation that was exhibited in the Senate Finance Committee as we deliberated and then reported this bipartisan bill out of committee. Such a bipartisan effort allows me to stand on the floor and say without hype or hyperbole that today is, indeed, a historic day. It is historic because this proposal is truly bipartisan, and, as a consequence, Americans can look forward to their first significant tax cut in 16 years. It is historic because the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is part of a budget reconciliation that will lead our Nation to a balanced budget in 2002. And because of our efforts to ensure bipartisan cooperation, the Finance Committee bill we consider today contains a balanced and fair package of tax relief measures. It includes proposals important to both Democrats and Republicans, and it is structured to provide major tax relief--relief to America's hard working and overburdened families. There were three criteria that guided our work. We wanted tax relief for middle-income families, tax relief to promote education, and tax relief to stimulate economic growth, opportunity, and jobs. With these objectives in mind, we crafted a bill that includes a $500 per child tax credit, and an increase in the exemption amount for purposes of the alternative minimum tax, a provision that will save millions of middle-income families from experiencing the headaches of AMT. We crafted a bill that contains tax measures to assist students and their parents in affording the cost of postsecondary education. These include the $1,500 Hope scholarship tax credit, a $2,500 student loan interest deduction, and a permanent extension of the tax-free treatment of employer-provided educational assistance. We also included the tax-free treatment of State-sponsored prepaid tuition assistance plans, a new education IRA serving both education and retirement needs, tax incentives for teacher training and school construction, and a repeal of the tax exempt bond cap. To promote savings, investment, and economic growth, we expanded IRA's. We did this by doubling the income limits on the tax deductible IRA so that more families can set up an IRA. We expanded the spousal IRA. For the first time, homemakers will be able to save up to $2,000 annually regardless of their spouse's participation, in an employer pension plan. And we also created a new nondeductible IRA Plus account. A very important part of this IRA Plus is that it will allow penalty- free withdrawals for first-time home purchases and periods of long-term unemployment. And to promote investment and jobs we included a capital gains tax cut, dropping the top rate to 20 percent. This will create new incentives for venture capital. For families, this bill offers relief from the estate tax, the tax that can rob a family of its farm or business when a father or mother passes away. To help these families, we raise the unified credit to $1 million per estate by 2006, and we provide tax-free treatment for family-owned farms and businesses for up to $1 million. Each of these is an important step, Mr. President. The fact that these were included in a bipartisan proposal indicates that business as usual is changing in Washington. The Senate is willing to lay aside partisan politics to provide Americans with the kind of tax relief they need. As with any bipartisan effort, not everyone will be fully satisfied with this proposal. For my part, I would like to see greater tax relief, and I consider this the first in a series of steps that I hope will lead to deeper tax cuts and eventual long-term reform. But this bipartisan effort signals an important beginning, one which is built upon a foundation of principles we share, whether we be Republican or Democrat. Eighty-two percent of this tax relief is made up by our family tax cut and education assistance, priorities that we all share. As I have said, it represents the biggest tax cut in 16 years, tax relief that is focused on middle-income families. But beyond these major tax cuts, our proposal contains a number of important smaller items. These include the extension of certain expiring tax provisions. For example, we extend the R&D tax credit, a credit that helps our exporters compete in world markets to maintain our leading edge in several key industries. We make the orphan drug credit permanent and allow for contributions of full value of appreciated stock to charitable foundations. We also extend and expand the work opportunity tax credit to assist welfare recipients and others in getting jobs. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 contains a package of measures to help the District of Columbia get on its feet, including a reduced capital gains tax rate and a first-time homebuyer tax credit. It contains a guaranteed and secure source of funding for Amtrak to enable our national rail passenger system to move to privatization. And it also has a measure allowing taxpayers to expense the cost of cleaning up brownfields, as well as several measures to help taxpayers who have been victims of floods in the Upper Midwest. And finally, we offer tax simplification in the pension, individual, foreign, and small business areas. Mr. President, this package includes several revenue raisers that partially offset the cost of the tax cut. The most prominent is an extension and improvement of the funding stream for our national aviation system and a 20-cent tax on cigarettes. Beyond these, we close loopholes in the foreign tax area, as well as in the area of corporate- owned life insurance and tax shelter reporting. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the spirit of bipartisanship that prevailed as we crafted this tax relief package. It has been a successful, productive experience because we have worked together, taking the recommendations and concerns of each member of the Finance Committee, as well as the recommendations of our colleagues outside of the committee, and we have put together a package that is workable, a package that will go a long ways toward offering relief, especially to America's overburdened middle class. Now, I realize that in the course of debating this proposal in the Chamber there will be those who stand against this bipartisan bill. In a partisan effort, there will be those who attack this tax relief bill. Before they begin their arguments, however, I want to put them on notice. I want them to understand that the lion's share of the tax package--82 percent--goes for the family tax credit and the education package. Eighty-two percent is directed to middle-income families. I want them to understand that according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, at least three-quarters or 75 percent goes to families making $75,000 or less, and at least 90 percent goes to families making $100,000 or less. These are the facts, and they are understood on both sides of the aisle. They are understood by those who believe that the time has come to provide real, meaningful tax relief to hard-working families that have been overburdened for too long. They are understood by those who realize, as President Clinton has said, that the era of big Government is over and now Washington must promote an environment where the genius of enterprise and the market economy can sustain long-term economic growth and bring jobs and security to families everywhere. I began my remarks by quoting an article that highlights the economic strain placed on families today, and let me close by using three hypothetical Delaware families and show how the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 will benefit each of them. Let's begin with a single mother whom we will call Judy Smith. Judy has two young children. She works as a legal secretary in Wilmington making $35,000 a year. Currently, she pays over $3,000 in Federal income taxes--over $3,000. Now, to put that into perspective, $3,000 is what her family of three will pay all year to buy the food they eat at home. In other words, Judy's paying the Federal Government what it costs to feed her family. Now, when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 becomes law, Judy's taxes will be cut by $1,000--$500 for each child. A third of her Federal tax liability will be gone. And what can Judy do with that extra $1,000? I am sure she can think of a number of good uses, but if she wants-- again thanks to the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997--Judy will be able to set up education IRA's for her two children. The second hypothetical family I want to introduce you to is a married couple, Jim and Julie Wilson. The Wilsons own a farm in Sussex County. They have three children. Jim works the farm and Julie is a homemaker. They earn $55,000 per year from their farm. Of that $55,000, they pay over $5,500 in Federal income taxes--fifty-five hundred dollars. That, Mr. President, is more than they will pay for all the food they consume at home during the year. After the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997, however, the Wilson's taxes will be cut by $1,500--$500 for each child. Julie Wilson will be able to set up a homemaker IRA to save for her retirement. If Delaware adopts a State-sponsored prepaid tuition plan, the Wilsons will be able to participate in the plan and save for their children's college education. Looking far ahead, if the farm prospers, Jim and Julie will be able to pass it on to their children free of the burden of the estate tax. All of these benefits to this middle-income family are contained in the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997. Finally, Mr. President, let's look at a young two income couple. We'll call then John and Susan Jones. They live and work in Dover, DE. College graduates, John is a veterinarian and Susan is a physical therapist. They make $75,000 and have one young child. Under current law, the Jones family pays about $11,500 in Federal income taxes. After we pass the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997, the Jones will be able to deduct a portion of the interest on their student loans. They will receive the $500 per child tax credit, and they will be able to set up IRA Plus accounts for themselves and an education IRA for their child. It is for families like these that we have created the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997. It is because of its fairness that this bill received strong bipartisan support in committee. I believe the Finance Committee fairly reflects the Senate as a whole--as well as the broad interests and concerns of the constituents our Members represent. This is their package. It delivers to the American people what they asked us to do in the last election--a bipartisan and fair return of the fiscal dividend accruing from a balanced budget. I am grateful to all who worked so long as so well to draft this bill. I am grateful for Senator Moynihan's leadership, as well as for the other members of the committee who allowed bipartisan cooperation to prevail throughout the process. And again, Mr. President--as I did yesterday--I thank the professional capable staff of the Senate Finance Committee for their countless hours and lost sleep. This was, indeed, an heroic effort, and it is my honor to bring it to the floor. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee staff members be granted full floor access for the duration of floor consideration of S. 949, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. I include Mark Prater, Doug Fisher, Brig Gulya, Sam Olchyk, Rosemary Becchi, Tom Roesser, Joan Woodward, Julie James, Dennis Smith, and, in addition, I request full floor access for Ashley Miller and John Duncan of my personal staff.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 949, the Tax Fairness Act.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. That is, I guess, part of the basic structure of the reconciliation. I think, to be candid, that was deliberately done at that time.

Mr. ROTH. I think that is correct.

Mr. ROTH. I would certainly be agreeable at this stage, I would say to the distinguished Senator. Once we utilize the full time, it is something I might want to review from time to time. But I understand what the former majority leader is saying, and I appreciate his reasoning behind it. So, as far as the morning is concerned, I assure him there will be 4 minutes equally divided on any amendment.

Mr. ROTH. No. I appreciate what the Senator is saying.

Mr. ROTH. No, I can't really answer that. Going back to your question about tonight, if we could bring up six tonight, that would be a maximum and I would be pleased at that.

Mr. ROTH. I suspect our real problem is going to be to get people down here to offer them. But I don't want to discourage anyone in the course, so I would prefer not to try to limit it, for that reason.

Mr. ROTH. I think the situation, of course, arose on the legislation we just passed upon because people did not bring their amendments in until the last minute and then, under the rules, there is no more time. You know better than I, in a sense, giving 2 minutes goes beyond the rule.

Mr. ROTH. Yes; 10 minutes.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet in Executive Session today at 5:30 p.m. in order to vote to report out routine military nominations.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I agree with the suggestion of the chairman of the Energy Committee.

Mr. ROTH. How does the chairman of the Energy Committee suggest we proceed?

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

Mr. ROTH. I am happy to answer the question raised by the distinguished Senator. I understand the concerns he has expressed. I understand the impact it has on small business. I say to him that this is an aspect of our proposal that was recommended by the administration, but I will certainly, in going into conference with the House Members, keep in mind the concern the Senator has expressed and look at this matter very carefully.

Mr. ROTH. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.