[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S5901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TAX RELIEF FOR AMERICAN WORKING FAMILIES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to briefly address the same subject my 
colleague from Colorado addressed, and that is the proposition that 
Americans are finally going to get some tax relief. The biggest tax 
relief, as a matter of fact, in 16 years is about to be brought to the 
Senate floor for debate. It is uncertain yet precisely what some of the 
details are, but the Ways and Means Committee of the House of 
Representatives has put a plan on the table, the Finance Committee in 
the Senate has put a plan on the table, and the members of that 
committee are working through the details of that bill.
  We do know the general outline so far, and I think we can talk about 
that and begin to lay the groundwork for debate in this Chamber on that 
historic tax cut for American working families. I think that is the 
first lesson to be learned here. I really deeply regret that some 
people at the White House are already beginning to take political pot 
shots at this very worthwhile, bipartisan tax relief to be provided to 
American families. It is the same old political rhetoric that it is a 
tax cut for the rich. That just does not fit this proposed tax cut. 
Most of the tax cuts are for average working families, and all of the 
tax cuts are good for the economy of this country. As a matter of fact, 
under the proposal that the Senate Finance Committee began considering 
yesterday, three-fourths of all of the tax relief goes to families 
making less than $75,000 a year and that is not an atypical, two-parent 
working family in America today. So with three-fourths of the benefits 
going to that income level, it is hardly to be characterized as a tax 
cut for the rich.
  As a matter of fact, 83 percent of this proposed tax relief is in the 
form of relief to families with children, the $500 per child tax credit 
and the educational tax credit and other relief for families struggling 
to send their kids to school; 83 percent of the relief is of those two 
components.
  So let us not begin this important debate with some political 
demagoguery about tax cuts for the rich, especially, Mr. President, 
since the relief here, though historic, is quite modest in total 
amount--less than 1 percent of the budget--because the negotiators, 
under pressure from the White House to keep the tax cut small, agreed 
to a net of only $85 billion in tax cuts over a 5-year period.
  Now, the Republican plan that was introduced at the beginning of this 
year provided for $188 billion in relief and, frankly, that was not 
enough for many of us who felt it should have gone further, but at 
least it was enough to provide meaningful relief in terms of the $500 
per child tax credit, meaningful IRA relief, some capital gains relief, 
estate tax relief, and education relief. These are critical to the 
American economy and to American families.
  The $85 billion that is available to accommodate these five areas is 
not going to provide adequate relief in any of them but at least it 
will provide a start. I am a little disappointed in those who are 
already attacking it as if it is too much for us to afford. It was 
negotiated and agreed to by the White House. Therefore, I hope that we 
will get some support because here in this body there is already 
bipartisan support for it. It involves, as I said, a phased-in $500-
per-child tax credit for families with kids. It involves two different 
kinds of IRA tax relief. There is the $2,000 homemaker IRA relief for 
families which do not have a pension for the homemaker. My wife always 
wondered why she could not fund an IRA the same way that I could fund 
an IRA. She worked just as hard as I did, even though she did not have 
a wage-paying job. And we also have a backloaded IRA relief provided in 
this package, so even in families where there is a pension, that 
doesn't preclude them from the spouse having an IRA and being able to 
save for future years.

  We also provide capital gains tax relief, not as much as we would 
like, but it ought to be enough to at least stimulate key parts of our 
economy so we can continue to grow and provide jobs for all Americans 
families. And, as I mentioned before, the educational component of this 
as well rounds out the relief.
  The one area where we did not get very much relief is in the death 
tax that my colleague from Colorado talked about. I think the answer 
there is simply this is not enough. Phasing in an exemption up to $1 
million over an 11-year period is totally inadequate. But I think what 
this will do is simply sharpen our interest in continuing to engage in 
that debate and ensure that there will be greater relief from the death 
tax in future years. Obviously, it simply cannot all be accommodated 
within the $85 billion that was agreed to.
  So I think as we begin this debate we should do so on a positive 
note, on a constructive note, determining how we can work together to 
provide meaningful tax relief to American families. If we do that, we 
will succeed in helping the very people who need help in our society by 
ensuring continued economic growth and by making good on our promise to 
the American people for historic tax relief, the first in 16 years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. Byrd addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________