William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield the Senator 4 minutes.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, tomorrow this Senate will approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is a great victory for the American family--all of America's families. It is not one that has been won for America's families, as much as it has been earned by America's families. This bill is the centerpiece of our efforts to reduce the tax overpayment by American taxpayers. It is fair, it is responsible, it is the right thing to do for American families. And it is long overdue that they receive it. The provisions in this bill will help 45 million families. That is substantially every family in the U.S. Some of my colleagues have argued that almost half of those families--21 million families located in every state in this country--do not deserve any tax relief. I reject that. I reject it because in my home state of Delaware it would mean leaving over 30,000 families that contributed to our ever-growing budget surplus out of family tax relief. Why should the family in which one spouse stays home to raise the children and keep the house not receive a tax break? Does that spouse not work? Do you imagine that spouse doesn't work just because she or he does not get paid? Does that family not count? They do in Delaware, they do in this country, and they do in this bill. All of these American families have contributed to the record surplus that we have in Washington. They deserve to get some of it back. I believed that three months ago when I first unveiled this package. And I believe it even more so now in light of estimates recently released by the Congressional Budget Office. Today's bill amounts to less than 5 percent of the total budget surplus over the next 5 years. That is less than a nickel on the dollar of our total budget surplus. It amounts to just 9 percent of the total non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. That is less than a dime on the dollar of the non-Social Security surplus. A nickel and a dime. By any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax relief is fiscally responsible. Those who dispute that are themselves seeking to ``nickel-and-dime'' America's families out of tax relief. I would ask those who oppose this family tax relief: just how big will America's budget surplus have to get before America's families deserve to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? If just 5 percent of the budget surplus and just 9 percent of the tax overpayment is too big a refund, how little should it be? How long do they have to wait? How hard do they have to work? How large an overpayment do they have to make? How large a budget surplus do we need to have? This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the rate brackets, and the earned income credit. And we have done so in a way that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in the tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home parent is not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both parents work outside the home. This is an important principle because these are important families. Let's take a look at what all these families will receive under our bill--and just as importantly, let's look at when they will get it. First, our bill increases the standard deduction for married couples filing a joint return to twice the deduction for singles. This benefit, which would reduce a couple's taxable income by $1,450, is effective for this taxable year. That's right--for the year 2000. That means when a couple files their tax returns this coming April, they will be able to see and feel the results of our work. This provision will benefit about 25 million taxpayers. As a result, I believe that we should call this bill the ASAP tax relief bill for America's taxpayers--tax relief for America's families now. Now, I know that those who search for excuses to oppose tax relief will question the immediacy of this tax cut. Before they do, I would remind those people: it was not a problem for them to raise taxes retroactively seven years ago. And of course, when you are raising taxes retroactively, it is a big problem because people have already made their financial commitments. In contrast, giving people an immediate tax cut is only a problem if you object to letting people keep their money. Second, our bill increases the 15 percent rate bracket for married couples so that it is twice the size of the corresponding rate bracket for singles. While we phase in this doubling, we begin the increase immediately. Taxpayers will receive a portion of the benefit as soon as possible--as soon as they file their year 2000 tax returns. And they will see the entire benefit--a total of over $1,100 per family--in the year 2004. This provision will help about 21 million taxpayers. Third, our bill helps married couples who are receiving the earned income credit. We increase the beginning and ending points of the credit's income phase-out for these couples by $2,000. Just like the other provisions in the bill, we deliver this relief immediately--for the tax year 2000. The hard working families who receive the EIC will see the benefit as soon as they file their year 2000 tax returns. This provision helps almost four million families, including an expansion of the EIC to one million families who were previously ineligible for the credit because of their combined income. Finally, our bill ensures that families will continue to receive their family tax credits. Congress has delivered a variety of tax credits to American families--credits like the child credit, the HOPE credit, the Lifetime Learning credit, the dependent care credit, and the adoption credit. This bill extends a temporary provision that carves out these credits from the ever-reaching grasp of the alternative minimum tax. Millions of families will also see this benefit. For them, this tax relief won't be an empty promise. In any House-Senate conference, both sides are forced to make compromises. This one was no exception. I would like to have included the doubling of the 28 percent bracket as we did in the Senate and as 61 Senators supported. I think that these families deserve their full tax break as well. Even the Democratic alternative offered in the Senate accounted for these families by not completely phasing-out their relief until $150,000. I fought hard, but our colleagues in the House did not agree and they refused to budge. I also would have liked to keep our earned income credit provision at $2,500. Once again, the House disagreed. But this is still a good bill and it still delivers the tax relief families have earned and deserve. Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more progressive. Families with incomes under $100,000 receive a tax cut under our bill that is proportionally higher than the amount of taxes they currently pay. In other words, their tax burden will fall. Let's look at a few examples prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation. First, let's take a married couple with two children earning $30,000. When this bill is fully effective, that couple would see a reduction in its taxes of over 143 percent. On the other hand, a two- child couple earning $100,000 would see its taxes drop by 11 percent, and a couple earning $200,000 would see its taxes drop by less than 4 percent. This same dynamic holds true for a couple with no children. Under our bill, a couple earning $20,000 would see its taxes reduced by 28 percent; a couple earning $75,000 would have its taxes reduced by 16 percent, and a couple earning $100,000 would have its taxes reduced by 9.5 percent. There is no honest way people can claim that this bill is tilted towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is not--but because it is tilted away from Washington. As a result, some of America's tax overpayment will flow back to America's families. And while I would rather have seen the 28 percent bracket doubling included in the bill, its absence does do one thing. Its absence removes any excuse for the President not to sign this bill. If President Clinton does not sign this bill, then there is only one explanation. No matter how much the amount of surplus, no matter how much the size of the tax overpayment, no matter how high the overall tax burden, and no matter how much families deserve tax relief, it is all less important than the fact that Washington wants the money more. They are saying to America: those in the White House need your money more than the people in your house do. With the passage of this bill, Congress has met every test that the President has set for tax relief. He wanted it to go to deserving people. Who could be more deserving than America's families? He wanted it to be fiscally responsible. What could be more fiscally responsible than using just a nickel on America's budget surplus dollar and a dime on its tax overpayment? He wanted it to be one provision and not part of a large package. How could it be smaller than the single proposal of family tax relief included here? Every test, no matter how illusory, has been met. With this bill, President Clinton has run out of excuses for not giving American families tax relief. No more if's, and's, or buts. No more excuses. No more obstacles and no more conditions, this Senate will go on record tomorrow: Family tax relief now. Madam President, the time for excuses has passed, the time for family tax relief has come. While President Clinton has been focused on international affairs, families across America have been waiting for us to make good on our promise. For President Clinton to make good on his promise. They have been patient. They are waiting for us to return some of this record surplus to them. There is no reason, none whatsoever, that this bill, the ASAP tax relief bill for America's family taxpayers, should not be immediately signed. Let's approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 and let's divorce the marriage tax penalty from the tax code once and for all.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I will yield back whatever time is not used by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, who wishes to speak.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas, and I will yield back the remainder of our time tonight.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the passing of Tom Maloney. Tom was the former mayor of Wilmington--Delaware's largest city. I am deeply saddened by the death of my friend, Tom. I talked to Tom just last week. During his long battle with cancer, his spirit remained unbroken. To the very end, Tom was full of life and bullish on the future. Tom was a loving husband and father, as well as a committed public servant. His care and concern for the residents of his city of Wilmington, and for the people of Delaware, were unmatched. As mayor, Tom led the effort to bring more people, more jobs, and more development to Wilmington. In many ways, Tom was the originator of the downtown renaissance that continues today. Tom was my opponent in the 1976 race for the U.S. Senate. He was a worthy adversary, but an even better friend. In that unique Delaware tradition of Return Day, Tom and I ``buried the hatchet'' and forged a friendship that flourished for the next 25 years. Tom and I continued to work together on projects and issues important to Wilmington and to all Delawareans. The people of the First State owe Tom Maloney a debt of thanks for all he has done. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Linda, and the rest of the Maloney family.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, often the most difficult moments we have on this floor are not when we're trying to advocate a political philosophy, or debate a legislative initiative, but when we pause to remember friends and colleagues who have left us. Words, which come easily on most occasions, seem suddenly inadequate to express the feelings we have stirring in our hearts--the fond recollections, the abiding respect, and the sudden, overwhelming feelings of loss. Paul Coverdell was a friend to each of us, a leader with a spirit that was as buoyant as it was inspiring. His vision and ability to get things done elevated him quickly into increasingly more important roles in this distinguished body. As a leader, he was unwavering in this dedication to freedom, his support for the bedrock of liberty--family, community, education, and personal responsibility. I fondly remember the many occasions we worked together, the discussions we had, and the ever-increasing sentiment that in Paul I had found something of a kindred political spirit. In fact, I was in Atlanta on Monday, at an event he sponsored on my behalf. As always, it was tremendously successful, indicative of how well Paul is regarded by those he serves. It is easy to understand why. From efforts to make education more affordable, to reforming the Internal Revenue Service, to working to roll back the tax burden, Paul has been a leader, as articulate and convincing as he was constant and unwavering. He intuitively understood the values that bless America. His background and upbringing groomed him to understand the importance of family, the concerns of small business owners, the value of learning, and the ability of government to promote an environment that supports these areas. Just as important, Paul understood the necessity of service and the blessings that come through service. Not only was he a distinguished soldier, but after the Army--as Paul succeeded in business--he gave back through his service in the Georgia State Senate, where he served for many years as the minority leader. His service continued as he led the Peace Corps under President Bush and focused that important organization on building and sustaining the fundamentals of freedom in the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. Because of his service, Paul was well prepared when he came to the Senate in 1993. He knew what he would do here, and I can think of no one with whom I have served who accomplished more than he did in the time he spent among us. His work will remain his legacy. His memory will continue to inspire. And the successes he achieved here will bless the lives and brighten the futures of families and children for years to come. At this time I express my appreciation for Paul and his leadership, and I want to express my condolences to Nancy and the family, along with my gratitude for their willingness to share a great man with all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3875

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, evidently the proponent of the amendment does not believe any marriage tax relief is in order. Let me say that I find this position to be incredible. The Federal Government is taking a record level of the economy in revenue over 20 percent. The Federal take has not been this high since World War II. Income taxes have doubled since the Clinton administration came to office. Clearly, it is the taxpayers--especially America's hard-working families--who have caused the surplus. This bill returns less than 3 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to virtually every married couple in the country. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that marriage tax relief is an appropriate use of the non-Social Security surplus. We differ on how the relief is delivered. I urge my colleagues to reject Senator Hollings' amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are poised to approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. This is a great victory for the American family--all America's families. It is not one that has been won, as much as it has been earned. This bill is the centerpiece of our efforts to reduce the tax overpayment by American families. It is fair, it is responsible, it is the right thing to do for American families. And it is long overdue that they receive it. The provisions in this bill will help over 45 million families. That is virtually every family in the U.S. Some of my colleagues have argued that almost half of those families--21 million families located in every state in this country--do not deserve any tax relief. I reject that argument. I reject it because in my home state of Delaware it would mean leaving over 30,000 families that contributed to our ever- growing budget surplus out of family tax relief. All of these American families have contributed to the record surplus that we have in Washington. They deserve to get some of it back. I believed that three months ago when I first unveiled this package. And I believe it even more so today with the new numbers released by the Congressional Budget Office. Today's bill amounts to just 3 percent of the total budget surplus over the next five years. It amounts to just 8 percent of the total non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. That is less than a dime on the dollar of American's tax overpayment. By any comparison or estimation, this marriage tax relief is fiscally responsible. I would ask those who oppose this family tax relief: Just how big will America's budget surplus have to get before America's families deserve to receive some of their tax dollars back? If not now, when? if 8 percent of just the overpayment is too big a refund, how little should it be? How long do they have to wait? How hard do they have to work? How large an overpayment do they have to make? This bill is fair. We have addressed the three largest sources of marriage tax penalties in the tax code--the standard deduction, the rate brackets, and the earned income credit. And we have done so in a way that does not create any new penalties--any new disincentives in the tax code. We have ensured that a family with one stay-at-home parent is not treated worse for tax purposes than a family where both parents work outside the home. This is an important principle because these are important families. Despite the red flags thrown up by those who want to stand in the way of marriage tax relief, this bill actually makes the tax code more progressive. Families with incomes under $100,000 pay less than 50 percent of the total federal taxes; yet under our bill, these same families receive substantially more than 50 percent of the benefits. I do not understand how people can claim that this bill is tilted towards the rich. I believe that the real complaint of those who oppose this bill is not that it is tilted towards the rich--because it is not--but because it is tilted away from Washington. As a result, some of America's tax overpayment will flow back to America's families. Mr. President, it is time for us to act. Families across America are waiting for us to make good on our promise. They are waiting for us to return some of this record surplus to them. Let's approve the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 and let's divorce the marriage tax penalty from the tax code once and for all.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes off the majority leader's time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ROTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH

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

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with those conferees being Roth, Lott, and Moynihan.

Mr. ROTH. Therefore, there will be no further votes, as already has been announced, this evening. Up to 11 votes will occur in a stacked sequence beginning at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it was my intention when I moved to raise this point of order, the waiver for the Lott wraparound amendment, that it be a comprehensive waiver to this point of order for the different permutations of the earned-income tax proposals contained in both the majority and minority proposals. However, the majority leader subsequently offered an amendment that will be considered later. I ask unanimous consent that the Lott amendment be included in the original waiver that I raised. Specifically, the new motion is to waive all points of order under the budget process arising from the earned-income credit component in this pending tax--the amendment by Senator Moynihan, the amendment offered by Senator Lott, the House companion bill, any amendment between the Houses, and any conference reports thereon.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask that we vitiate the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. ROTH. All right. Motion to Commit

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, Senator Feingold's motion to commit to the Finance Committee will not accomplish its stated purpose of Social Security and Medicare reform. The bill before the Senate is limited under the budget resolution to tax cuts. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I can tell you we are actively pursuing a real bipartisan Medicare reform package. Our efforts are not a political stunt, like this motion. On Social Security reform, everyone believes that it is a worthy goal but not one where there is currently a bipartisan consensus. I urge my colleagues to reject Senator Feingold's motion.

Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Senator Brownback's amendment No. 3849.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Motion To Waive

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Finance Committee complied with the Byrd rule by terminating or sunsetting the tax cuts in the bill generally on December 31, 2004. I note the Finance Committee Democratic alternative contained a similar sunset provision. The case before us that benefits a simple, broad-based tax policy change that reduces some of the tax burden placed on married couples, outweighs the implications of the Byrd rule. Frankly, I think there are few more compelling cases for waiving the Byrd rule. Clearly, though, we differ on how to deliver it. Every Senator should place an importance on permanent marriage tax relief. I urge my colleagues to strike a blow for permanent marriage tax relief and support my motion to waive the Byrd rule.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?