[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6399-S6401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Motion to Refer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of business is the motion made by
the Senator from North Dakota, a motion to refer to the Budget
Committee with instructions.
I believe 10 minutes of debate, equally divided, are in order, am I
not correct?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Chair is always correct.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be brief. This motion is relatively
simple.
My concern about where we are heading is this. I am concerned that we
will decide to have balanced the budget and provided substantial tax
cuts. And then, because the tax cuts are so backloaded, in the second 5
years our country will find itself back in a deficit.
I propose that we remedy that by having a trigger mechanism that
would sunset the provisions of capital gains
[[Page S6400]]
and the IRA's in the following circumstances: First, if the estimated
loss as a result of the tax cuts exceeds our current expectations; and
second, if the Treasury Department says we are running a deficit in the
previous fiscal year.
My point is very simple. If we begin to run a deficit, and if running
a deficit is because the cost of these tax cuts exceeds what we now
think it will be, I would like us to trigger them off so we can get the
budget back in balance. I just do not want to get into a circumstance
that we have found ourselves in previously. We do not want to think we
will turn out all right, and find 7 years down the road a huge Federal
deficit.
I point out that the tax cuts in this bill are fairly well
backloaded, and the upper-income tax cuts, just as an example, $17.8
billion in 2002, the same tax cuts will cost nearly $100 billion in the
year 2007. My fear is because the tax cuts are backloaded we could find
ourselves in a circumstance where we are right back into a deficit.
Again, the two points are this: If the cost of the tax cuts
significantly exceeds what we estimated them to be, and if we have had
a deficit in the previous fiscal year, then my motion would trigger a
repeal, temporary repeal, of four provisions of the tax cut dealing
with capital gains and IRA's.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, we discussed all of these
issues in the very lengthy negotiation with the White House. Their
packages in the past have been gifted by having the tax cuts be
temporary. That is the way the President's budgets have been in the
past. He finally came to the realization that that was not fair to the
American taxpayers. So that concept was eliminated from the budget
agreement. We are going to give taxpayers a tax cut, period.
But also the argument that is being made that this may somehow
explode in the outyears, we have an agreement that for the first 10
years it will not exceed $250 billion. I understand the valuation of
this package is that we have done that in this finance bill. It is only
$247 billion over 10 years. That is the best we can do. We are right on
the money.
I believe we ought to leave the agreement alone and leave this very
good tax bill alone.
Mr. ROTH. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes and 17 seconds remaining.
Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion. This
motion basically says if we do not meet the targets we will have
automatic tax increases. You did not hear it the other way around--you
did not hear if we do meet the targets, we will have automatic
decreases.
The question is, are we spending too much, or are we taxing too
little? The Senator from North Dakota obviously thinks if there is a
deficit we need more taxes. We need to reach in and take more away from
taxpayers. I disagree with that. That is the President's position.
As the Senator from New Mexico said, he had automatic tax increases
in the outyears. We did not agree with that in the leadership package
with the President. We said no, the tax cuts will be permanent. They
will be real, and they are not stacked toward higher income. Despite
what some of my colleagues said, 82 percent of tax cuts are directed
towards families with children and for education. That is family
friendly.
So I will just urge my colleagues, if we are going to have an
automatic deficit reduction, make sure we meet the targets. Let's work
on the spending side. Let's have something automatically that will
reduce Government spending. I really do believe the problem is not that
we are undertaxed. I really believe that the problem is we are
overspent.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.
Mr. ROTH. Has all time been yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has not been yielded back. The
Senator from Delaware has 1 minute and 45 seconds and the Senator from
North Dakota has 2 minutes, 54 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am
not suggesting that we should increase taxes. I am saying to the extent
that we now reduce taxes and reduce revenue, and to the extent that
that helps cause another Federal deficit in the second 5 years because
the cost of those tax cuts explodes, I say we should put an insurance
or safety mechanism in this bill to prevent us from running a deficit
again.
Now, I hope that we will have learned from the last decade. There is
merit, and I compliment the Members of this Congress who care about the
Federal deficit, there is merit in fiscal discipline in dealing with
the deficit. I just urge if we have a circumstance where we can provide
protection in the outyears against an exploding of the Federal deficit,
again we try to do that.
I am somewhat concerned that the chairman will make a point of order
against my motion. I understand that there will be a budget enforcement
mechanism offered by the Senator from New Mexico. Will a point of order
will be made against them? Enforcement mechanisms that provide
protection against an explosion of the Federal deficit make great sense
to me. That is the proposal that I offer with this trigger.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I just say that there are two
sides to the question. We started some new spending programs. We have a
program called Kid Care, and the agreement was for it to be $16
billion. It has grown already to $24 billion. Guess what? That
additional $8 billion is only for 5 years. We do not even pretend it
goes the next 5 years. So what about if that program explodes?
My point being, the motion of the Senator from North Dakota is if we
do not meet deficit targets we have automatic tax increases, or we will
tell people they can have capital gains for 5 years but not beyond, or
tell people they can have an IRA this year, but not in the future?
I think we should restrain spending, not increase taxes. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on this motion.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. DORGAN. Well, let us suppose that in 7, 8, or 9 years we see the
deficit begin to explode on us. Is the Senator suggesting that we cut
health care for kids, but that we retain tax cuts that are backloaded,
that are six and eight times as large in the year 2007 than in the year
2002, and are for the largest income earners in this country? I would
like to see us vote on that in the U.S. Senate.
My point is we are making deliberate decisions about the Tax Code
here, some good decisions, some I think are not so good.
We need to think about the consequences of these decisions. This
motion would help us do that. If the tax cuts exceed the expected
amount and if we are also running a deficit in the outyears, four
provisions of this tax cut bill would be temporarily suspended.
That is my motion to refer today. I hope the Senate would consider it
favorably.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the motion
to refer on two grounds. First, that it is not germane to the bill
under section 305 of the budget, and second that the motion includes
budget process matters not reported from the Budget Committee, in
violation of section 306.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive Section 305(b) to Section 306
of that act with respect to my motion.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
[[Page S6401]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]
and the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--64
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
D'Amato
Roberts
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 34, the nays are 64.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained on both grounds.
The motion to refer is not in order.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________