[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 118 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10752-S10753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       A DEMOCRATIC PLAN WITH WHICH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN AGREE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had some good news last week when the 
majority leader, Senator Lott, indicated that if the President vetoed 
the $800 billion Republican tax plan, that would be the end of it.
  That is good news for the American public on the $800 billion attempt 
to cut taxes in this country because, in fact, it really wasn't a tax 
cutting measure. It was something that would give no immediate relief 
to the American taxpayer. There was relief in the outyears. In fact, 
what it would have done is prevent us from directing moneys toward the 
debt, and the debt of $5 trillion is something we need to address.
  If the national debt were lowered, it would be a tax cut for 
everyone, rich and poor. We pay hundreds of millions of dollars every 
year in interest on that debt. If we lower that, it will be good for 
everyone. We are not going to continue to live in this great economy 
where everything is looking good, forever. Hard times may lie ahead, 
and I think we will rue the day we didn't use these good times to pay 
down that debt.

  This massive tax package that was passed on a very partisan basis, 
and then withheld from the American public during the August break so 
there could be a public relations effort to have the American people 
accept this tax cut, never materialized. The American people would not 
accept it because it was not acceptable on its face. They realized 
there was no meaningful tax relief in this package. It was more of a 
public relations ploy. The fact is that there should have been more 
attention focused on paying down the debt and protecting Social 
Security and Medicare. We must pay down the debt. That would be a tax 
cut for everyone.
  We must protect Social Security. The majority touted the Social 
Security lockbox in conjunction with the tax cut. But the Republican 
lockbox fails to extend the solvency in the Social Security trust fund 
by a single day, and it includes, in this so-called lockbox, a 
trapdoor, a loophole, that would allow Republicans to label anything 
Social Security reform and to raid the Social Security trust fund. 
Finally, the Republican lockbox does nothing to protect Medicare.
  So by proposing targeted tax cuts toward working families, the 
minority believes our Democratic plan is able to prioritize paying down 
the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare while still 
providing almost $300 billion in targeted tax cuts.
  What would those cuts do? They would increase the standard deduction 
for all individuals and married couples. They would provide marriage 
penalty relief for those taxpayers who pay more as married couples than 
they would if they were to file their taxes as two single individuals. 
They would provide for a long-term-care tax credit to make it easier to 
care for elderly family members. They would provide for a 100-percent 
deduction for health insurance costs of the self-employed and include 
tax incentives to build and modernize more than 6,000 schools. That is 
important.
  Clark County, Las Vegas, NV, has the eighth-largest school district 
in America, with over 200,000 schoolchildren. We are having to build 
over a dozen new schools every year. In one year

[[Page S10753]]

--and we hold the record--we dedicated 18 new schools in Clark County. 
We have to build one new elementary school every month to keep up with 
the growth in Clark County. We need some help to do that. The 
Democratic tax plan would give us some of that needed help.
  Also, one of the things we have talked about, which is so important, 
is a tax credit for research and development for high-tech companies. 
That is part of the Democratic tax plan--something we hope the majority 
leader and others will take a look at and be willing to compromise on. 
Democrats have been out in front on the issue for a long time. We 
pushed hard for a permanent R & D tax credit. The majority talked about 
how they were in favor of a permanent credit as well, until it came 
time to actually do it. In the end, the minority, myself included, were 
pushing for a ten year R & D tax credit. The majority ended up only 
committing to a five year tax credit in their package. Due in large 
part to initiatives like the R & D tax credit, the high-tech industry 
exists and has flourished. Without knowing whether or not that tax 
credit will be around next year or the year after or the year after 
that, hinders these companies' long term planning.

                          ____________________