[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S53-S54]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WHO SPEAKS FOR THE TAXPAYER?

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief because I have spoken 
earlier. I see there is another Senator wishing to speak. But I would 
like to respond directly to some of the comments just made with regard 
to taxes. I will hold it down. We are trying to go back and forth.
  Mr. President, there is a lot of complaining about tax cuts in the 
budget negotiations. I ask the question again, who, here, is going to 
speak for the taxpayers of America? There are a lot of Americans out 
there getting up every morning at 5 o'clock, going to work, pulling 
their share of the load, paying taxes. They think a little more 
fairness in the Tax Code, a little incentive to save, a little 
incentive for growth in the economy to create jobs is a good idea. 
Everybody around here seems to be worried about this program or that 
program, this welfare program, that program. What about the people who 
are paying the taxes on all these programs? Why do they not get a 
little help?
  As I understand it, one of the points that was indirectly referred to 
was the earned income tax credit. I do not know much about what has 
been going on in the budget negotiations at the White House, but I 
understand that is one area where they are very close to agreement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point? 
  
[[Page S54]]

  Mr. LOTT. The earned income tax credit program is one that most of us 
have supported in the past. The problem has been it has exploded, like 
so many Federal programs. Now, I understand, people who have an income 
of up to $30,000 a year are getting a tax credit. We are not saying 
eliminate it. We are not saying wipe it out. We are saying control the 
explosive growth, make sure it is applicable and provided to those who 
are at the low-income, entry level, and not begin to move it on up into 
the beginnings of middle-income people.
  Another point, let us talk about the specifics of the tax proposals. 
I have asked this question here on the floor and nobody has really 
responded to it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Senator this question, why is the 
Senator----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why is the Senator so concerned about providing some 
offset for the EITC program, for the increases in the Social Security 
and the excise taxes and other FICA taxes, for families that are making 
$30,000, yet so unwilling to try to provide also some belt tightening 
for those who are making $400,000? I have not heard the Senator talk 
about that. I am stunned by his silence. I am sure he is going to 
address that issue. That is what this is about.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time belongs to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I would ask this of the Senator, is he opposed to 
eliminating the marriage penalty in the Tax Code? For years we have 
talked about the unfairness of the marriage penalty. That is one of the 
things we propose to eliminate, and it is not cheap. It costs a good 
bit of money. Why should a couple living apart pay more when they get 
married, under the Tax Code, even though they are making the same 
money?
  Who among us opposes the option of the spousal IRA, the spouse 
working in the home being able to have an individual retirement 
account? I do not think anybody is opposed to that. Most of us would 
like to see the IRA expanded because we would like to encourage 
savings. When we had the individual retirement account provisions in 
the 1980's it worked. It encouraged people to save. Part of what is 
going on in these negotiations would allow for an expansion of IRA and 
then allow it to be used for education and for medical purposes. I 
think those are good ideas.
  And should we not allow for changes in the estate taxes so people who 
have small farms and small businesses do not wind up having to sell the 
farms that have been in their families for years to pay for the estate 
taxes--how in the world did we ever get in a position of taxing death, 
anyway? I think most American people would like to receive some relief 
there, whether they are wealthy or poor, frankly.
  Also, you want to help families, a family of four? How about helping 
them by allowing them to keep a little of their own money with a tax 
credit for children? We are trying to encourage and help families with 
children provide for their own needs, and not everybody just look to 
the Federal Government to do it for them.
  Yes, the capital gains tax rate cut. This is something most people 
will acknowledge, if it is done properly, will encourage growth in the 
economy and the creation of jobs. Even the President has said as much. 
He has said that if other tax provisions can be worked out, and the 
spending disagreements can be worked out, that this is something that 
he could support.
  So it is one thing to bash the tax cuts en bloc, but when you take it 
apart and look at what is in the package that passed the Congress 
overwhelmingly, there is an awful lot of good in there. I hope it will 
remain in the final package.
  Maybe the magic number is not 240 or 245, maybe it is less than that. 
But I think we need to look at the specifics of what we are trying to 
do and who we are trying to help in the economy. If we need to make 
changes to make sure it is directed more to the middle-income families, 
fine. I would support that. I think that is the way the talks will 
eventually go.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I yield the floor I yield for a 
question.
  Mr. SARBANES. Yesterday AT&T announced they were going to fire 30,000 
people. Why in the world would you cut the taxes, in some instances in 
half, on the CEO's getting the stock options, who are not on their way 
out the door, and then turn to these fired, these families who have 
been fired, and say it is going to be harder for you to get a tuition 
loan to send your son and daughter to college. Or, if they are----
  Mr. LOTT. It is not going to be harder for them to get a tuition 
loan.
  Mr. SARBANES. Low-income people, they are not going to get the tax 
credit.
  Mr. LOTT. Everybody who wants to go to college will be able to get a 
loan or grant or work-study program or scholarship. They will be able 
to go to college in America.
  Mr. SARBANES. Not under the plan you put forward. You are cutting 
back on that.
  You are having senior citizens finding themselves unable to get 
medical care and, at the same time you are doing all this, you are 
going to give a big tax break.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I reclaim my time. If the Senator is going 
to make that kind of statement about what we are going to do, throwing 
senior citizens off of Medicare, that is just not the case. It is not 
the intent and it would not be the result.

  As a matter of fact, I think the Senator from Maryland knows that in 
the alternative budget that has been proposed by the majority in 
Congress, more money is added back for education. Even these direct 
loans are being increased.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on the issue of education?
  Mr. LOTT. I still maintain, when you look at the Federal programs we 
have with the NDSL, the Pell grants, the other grants, the myriad of 
programs to help people who want to go to college, the money is there 
for people that need it. The only ones who may not be getting enough 
help are those in the upper-middle-income category that cannot qualify 
for the loans or the grants.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask, just on that question----
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why does the Senator, who believes in competition and 
also in choice, why does he defend the Republican position in insisting 
that students get their aid and assistance through colleges through the 
guaranteed loan program, which provides, over the period of the next 7 
years, a guaranteed profit of between $7 and $9 billion over that 
period to the banks in this country, rather than letting the college 
and the student make their choice whether they want that or the direct 
loan program?
  Mr. LOTT. Let the Government do it. That is always the answer. Let 
the Federal Government become the lender of first resort.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why not let the schools and students choose the loan 
program that provides the best services at the lowest cost, rather than 
writing in, as the Republicans have done, an arbitrary cap on direct 
loans?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I reclaim my time to say this. The answer is 
always let Uncle Sam give the money, direct the money, loan the money. 
I say the private sector can do it and they will do a better job of 
collecting the loans that are owed than the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government has a terrible record in collecting money that is 
owed on these loans that have been made.
  I say we should have a greater emphasis on loans, as a matter of 
fact. I have always supported the NDSL Program. But now we are going to 
a program that, in my opinion, is going to wind up costing a whole lot 
more and, for a lot of kids in the future who will need that help, the 
money will not be there to help them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________