[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5411-S5428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESTORING EARNINGS TO LIFT INDIVIDUALS AND EMPOWER FAMILIES (RELIEF)
ACT OF 2002--Continued
Amendment No. 743
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, time will now be
divided on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Conrad.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I am constrained to ask for another quorum
call. Senator Grassley is someone who has been here the entire time,
and I would not feel right in going ahead without him. So I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
On the question of the Conrad amendment, who yields time?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally on both sides.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this amendment is about fairness and
simplification. Under the bill before us, the very wealthiest taxpayers
get the biggest percentage point reduction in their marginal rates, but
the vast majority of taxpayers, the 70 million, who represent 70
percent of the taxpayers in this country, get no rate reduction.
This chart I show you tells the story. The 15-percent rate, which is
where the vast majority of American taxpayers are, get no rate
reduction. Those at the very top get the biggest rate reduction.
My amendment reduces the unfairness. It reduces the size of the tax
cut for the top 3 percent of income earners. Specifically, my amendment
leaves in place the first percentage point reduction for the top two
tax rates but cancels the next two scheduled reductions, and it uses
the savings from this change to increase the standard deduction by
$1,500 for singles; for couples the standard deduction will be
increased by twice this amount, or a full $3,000 when fully phased in.
This amendment is about fairness and simplification. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, not only is this amendment a bad
[[Page S5412]]
amendment but the information just given out is erroneous. It is wrong.
It is bad.
Every taxpayer who pays income tax gets a marginal rate tax cut under
this bill. Let's make that clear. Every taxpayer gets a tax reduction.
I do not know how many amendments we have had on this bill to kill
the marginal rate tax reductions we have. We have had a flood of
amendments from the other party. Not one amendment from the other party
has been adopted yet. And I have to wonder, what has happened to
bipartisanship? Is bipartisanship dead and buried, when just 5 months
ago we talked so much about it? If so, I and Senator Baucus have not
been invited to the funeral. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the Conrad amendment.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment that has been offered by
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. REID. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Stevens
The amendment (No. 743) was rejected.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 744
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
744 offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this amendment is about fairness and
simplification. If we look at the bill before us, it gives the biggest
rate reduction to the highest income-tax payers of all.
Only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the taxpayers are in the 39.6-
percent bracket, but they get 20 percent more rate reduction than the
36-percent bracket, than the 31-percent bracket, than the 28-percent
bracket. And in the 15-percent bracket, where the vast majority of
taxpayers are in this country, 70 percent of the taxpayers get no rate
relief--none.
My amendment simply takes the additional rate relief that the very
wealthiest receive, the additional six-tenths of 1 percent--that is 20
percent more than the other brackets--and shifts it to the lowest 70
percent of the tax filers in this country. It says: Let's give fairness
when we are giving tax relief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against
the amendment. I am going to offer the rest of my time to the Senator
from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think we have been through some very
excellent debate and discussion and votes. I urge all my colleagues to
recognize it is now time for us to move on. We can vote well into the
night or tomorrow or into the weekend, but I think we all recognize
that with a sufficient number of votes now, the issues are pretty well
decided. I hope we can bring this issue to closure and get back to the
education bill.
We have fought a good fight here, those of us who have some differing
views or different positions, but it is time to move on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
744 offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Stevens
The amendment (No. 744) was rejected.
Amendment No. 747
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment
No. 747, the Carper amendment. The Chair advises the Senator from
Delaware that there are 2 minutes equally divided on his amendment.
Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, this bipartisan alternative reduces taxes by $1.2
trillion over the next 10 years while making available $150 billion for
underfunded education proposals that work.
Our measure provides for modest reductions in each of the marginal
tax rates while establishing retroactively a new 10-percent bracket.
This amendment provides for estate tax relief but not for its
elimination.
We double the child credit and make it partially refundable.
Unlike the committee bill, our proposal makes permanent the R&D
credit.
We extend popular expiring tax breaks and speed up marriage penalty
relief.
We provide greater AMT protection and fund a number of energy
production and conservation incentives now, not later.
I thank Senator Chafee for joining me in offering this comprehensive
alternative. I yield to him.
[[Page S5413]]
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, can we have a copy of the amendment,
please. We do not have a copy of the amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment, I say to my friend from
Kentucky, was filed last night. It has been on file since sometime
yesterday evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment at the desk.
The remainder of the time has been yielded to the Senator from Rhode
Island, Mr. Chafee.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the central tenet of this bill is reducing
the tax cut down to $1.2 trillion. We would devote the other $150
billion towards educational initiatives.
How many of us have heard from our constituents about the high cost
of the property taxes? The main contribution to these high property
taxes is the cost of special education, and that is a Federal mandate.
Let us right now reduce the tax cut and put it towards IDEA and
property tax relief.
I urge adoption of the Carper-Chafee property tax relief amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Delaware for
his substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. While in
my view both the underlying bill and the substitute cut taxes more
deeply than this nation can afford, the Carper substitute is far
preferable to the underlying bill. It is simply fairer than the
underlying bill. It provides a marginal rate cut for the 72 million
middle class taxpayers who were skipped over in the underlying bill. It
includes immediate marriage penalty relief and permanent deductibility
of college tuition. And so, although I would not support enacting a tax
cut of $1.25 trillion, Senator Carper's amendment deserves our support
because it illustrates a far better and more balanced approach to tax
and budget policy.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against
this amendment. This is another effort to cut our marginal tax rate
cuts by $150 billion. I defer to the Senator from Oregon for further
comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, we have had many votes taken on
the issue of the tax bill. We know how people are going to vote. We
know the outcome. It is time to vote on this tax cut so we can get to
education and deal with some of the issues Senators have identified.
For the sake of the American people, it is time to vote.
Mr. CARPER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the amendment is not germane to the
provisions of the reconciliation bill. I, therefore, raise a point of
order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of
the Congressional Budget Act for consideration of this amendment. I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--55
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Leahy
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 43, the nays
are 55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask to speak for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think we have a copy of the next amendment, so I am
not speaking about the next amendment that will be up, but I will plead
with the people on the other side who are stalling to keep us from
voting on this bill to at least, within the spirit of how Senator
Baucus and I have run the Finance Committee, be very open and
transparent with us on what these amendments are going to be. We cannot
expect 100 Members of the Senate to vote yes or no on an amendment
unless we know what that amendment is.
The pattern I set in the Senate Finance Committee is best illustrated
by something I told each of the other 19 members when I went to their
offices to visit with them about how they saw the committee ought to
function and how we ought to do business. That is, No. 1, transparency;
and, No. 2, communication. The bottom line was I told every member if
they wanted to know what was going on in this committee, all they had
to do was ask and they would get an answer. If they didn't get an
answer, at least they were entitled to know why they couldn't get an
answer. And 99.9 percent of the time I figure everybody is entitled to
know what everybody else is doing.
Now we reach a point where the product of this bipartisan effort is
in this Chamber, and I hope in the very same way we can communicate
with each other, we can be very transparent. But most important, on the
issue of what amendments we are going to vote on, we ought to have
those amendments at the desk so we can study them while we are debating
other amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to respond to
the distinguished Senator from Iowa as well as to make a couple of
comments about the next amendment.
I think the Senator from Iowa is absolutely right. We have no
intention of denying him the opportunity to look at the amendments. I
ask our assistant Democratic leader if he could take responsibility for
ensuring that we would have not only the list of amendments, which we
would be happy to share with the Senator, but the text of the
amendments as well. I know he has a copy of the amendment about to be
offered, and we will do our utmost to ensure copies are made available,
as well as the list and the sequence of the amendments to be offered
next.
Amendment No. 722
I now ask that amendment No. 722 be considered at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 722.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
[[Page S5414]]
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many Members have said for some time
while we strongly support a tax cut, we have been very concerned about
the flaws in this tax cut, concerned because it is based on projections
we have grave doubts will ever be realized, budget projections that
will be changed as early as July of this year; concerned about the
magnitude, the size of the tax cut, and what we know it will do to
Social Security and Medicare and how it will take away funds from those
extraordinarily important commitments we made to our seniors; concerns
we have about our ability to pay down the public debt; concerns we have
about our ability to pay for prescription drug benefits or fully fund
our education commitments.
We have a great number of concerns given the magnitude of this tax
cut. We also are concerned about its fairness. This tax cut could be
best described as devoting a third, a third, and a third to three very
distinct categories of taxpayers. This tax cut gives one-third of the
entire benefit to the top 1 percent of all taxpayers. Roughly a third
goes to the next 19 percent of all taxpayers. And somewhat less than a
third goes to the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers. That is
ultimately, in the second ten-year period, $4 trillion divided into a
third, a third, and a third--a third for the top 1 percent, a third for
the next 19 percent, and a third for the bottom 80 percent.
The tax bill before us also provides reductions in the tax rates--
that is, to every rate except the 15 percent rate under which 72
million American taxpayers fall. Those 72 million Americans--including
250,000 South Dakota taxpayers--are denied a marginal tax rate cut in
this bill.
We think we can do better than that. Our country deserves better than
that. So we offer our alternative. Our alternative is fiscally
responsible. It dedicates $900 billion to a tax cut, provides adequate
resources for us to continue the effort to pay down the debt, and
leaves adequate resources for us to meet the other obligations we have
in health care, education, and Social Security and Medicare.
This amendment also recognizes the need for fairness. It provides a
tax cut for everybody, but it also provides marriage penalty relief
that starts next year, not in 5 years; a $1,000 child tax credit that
extends to working families with incomes over $8,000; estate tax
relief, providing up to $4 million for couples and $8 million for farms
and small businesses; and it provides a tuition tax deduction for
middle class Americans who send their children to college.
It provides savings incentives to encourage small businesses to
provide pensions for their employees, and a permanent R&D tax credit.
It eliminates the alternative minimum tax for incomes up to $80,000 and
provides for energy conservation and efficiency tax incentives for more
energy efficient homes, appliances, and cars.
I will not belabor this. I will simply say this is the Democratic
approach to meaningful tax relief this year, tax relief that can be
realized this year, not 7 or 8 years from now, tax relief that
recognizes we also have other very important priorities, priorities
involving paying down the debt, priorities involving ensuring our
commitment to education, health, Social Security, and other priorities
that recognize the importance of fairness. I urge its adoption and
yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided. Who
yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, obviously the minority leader has a right
to offer this amendment, even at this late hour and even as thick as it
is. We all know under the rules of reconciliation you can offer
amendments forever.
But I want to remind my colleagues that in 1993 when we were on the
floor of the Senate and we were considering, under reconciliation, a
massive tax increase that was proposed by then-President Clinton, we
could have followed the same strategy. We could have offered amendments
endlessly. We hated that tax increase as much as some of your
colleagues hate this tax cut. But I think wiser heads prevailed,
recognizing that in doing that we were trying to do two things that
were bad: First, we were corroding the basic structure of the Senate in
using our rights in ways that really undercut how the system works in
reconciliation; and, second, we were trying to win on the floor of the
Senate what we had lost in the election.
I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute under the leader's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. I think, second, we would have been trying to win on the
floor of the Senate what we had lost in the election.
I am no happier about the Clinton tax increase today than I was 8
years ago. But I believe we did the right thing 8 years ago and I would
just like to say to my colleagues, the Senate has worked its will. We
know in the end what the outcome is going to be. We voted on virtually
every amendment that can be imagined, at least by the minds of
Senators--maybe not the mind of man but Senators.
I ask my colleagues to let us bring this to a conclusion and to have
the vote. That is the plea. I simply ask people look at where we are
and ask are we serving our institution and are we, in the process here,
really abusing a right that every Senator has. Nobody is saying they do
not have it. Nobody is saying this is foul play. I just think what goes
around comes around.
I urge my colleagues to remember, 8 years ago when we did not do
this, when you had a President and when you were taking the country in
a different direction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to
answer the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes on each side. I think
Senator Gramm somewhat responded to Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, 3 minutes on each side.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I remind colleagues 1993 was fundamentally
different than this year. In 1993 we were using the reconciliation
process for the reason intended. The reason intended for the
reconciliation process was to reduce deficits. That was a plan to
reduce deficits.
This is a plan that many of us believe is totally outside the
reconciliation process, totally outside of what was intended for
reconciliation. This is not a deficit reduction package; this is a tax
cut. It ought to be handled in the way other legislation is handled,
with Senators having the right to debate and to amend.
We are under a very truncated process that takes away the minority's
fundamental rights in this body. If we want to talk about the
institution and what is critical for the functioning of this
institution, and the fairness towards the minority and minority rights,
then that is right at the heart of what is occurring here today because
the rights of the minority have been truncated. The rights of the
minority have been abridged. The rights of the minority have been left
out.
That is why we are in a process in which the only way we can express
ourselves is to offer amendment after amendment so we can make the case
that we believe holds against this tax bill.
There is a fundamental and profound difference between what is
happening today and 1993, when reconciliation was used for deficit
reduction. That was precisely what reconciliation was designed to be
used for. It is not and was never designed to be used for a tax cut.
The rights of the minority have been, in our view, limited. All of us
will pay a price in the future if we allow ourselves to be turned into
a House of Representatives where Senators lose their fundamental right
to debate, their fundamental right to amend.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have 3 minutes?
Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me first say that in 1974 we
changed the law that applies to the Senate with
[[Page S5415]]
reference to how long you take on a budget resolution and what kind of
amendments you can offer in a reconciliation bill. That was a law
changed because we decided for the first time in the history of our
country we would have a budget. We didn't have budgets before then,
believe it or not. That budget process was invented then by that
statute and the Senate, by an incredibly high vote--I think it was
everybody but one--voted for that, including those who do not think we
ought to use reconciliation to raise taxes and lower taxes both. This
was voted in.
You will find since then that on three occasions the Senate has
spoken on the issue of whether or not you can cut taxes in
reconciliation. Three times we voted that that is appropriate. We have,
on this process, this year. There was a vote in this body where
Senators voted on whether we would use reconciliation in this bill for
tax cuts. The whole argument was presented against it, on which my good
friend Senator Byrd took a long time and presented all the history on
it. I did the opposite. We voted. By a 51-49 vote we said let's use
reconciliation and let's use it to cut taxes. Then we voted a
resolution that said how much the taxes should be cut, and we told the
Finance Committee to return the bill, which is now before us.
I do not know how you can claim we are violating anybody's rights. We
have voted on those issues. They are the law of the land. When you want
to repeal or change the 1974 law, do so. It might need amending. It
might need changing.
Three times we voted on a reconciliation bill to cut taxes--three
times. This is the fourth time. But this time we even took up the
issue: Should we do it or not? And we said yes.
With that in mind I must say to my friends on the other side, it
looks to me like, when we have spent a total of 31 and a half hours
including the votes on this bill, and we have had 32 votes and only 1
passed. It was kind of irrelevant--a good amendment; a Senator on this
side offered it, good amendment but actually it had nothing to do with
the budget, the one that passed.
I think everybody in America should know this bill is going to get a
significant majority, bipartisan, of U.S. Senators under this
particular set of facts that I just described.
So, if we have not debated it enough, how long should it be debated?
If we have not done everything can you do on this bill to make the two
major points the Democrats want to make, I don't know how many more
votes, how much more time you need?
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Point of order, Mr. President. This amendment that we
are supposed to know was here overnight, has a point of order against
it. The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the
reconciliation measure. I therefore raise a point of order against the
amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of
the budget act.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--58
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). On this vote the yeas are 41, the
nays are 58. 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 and the amendment falls.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless consent is granted, we will call up
amendment No. 675.
Mr. REID. The Collins amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 675, unless it is agreed to be
set aside.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
Mr. REID. I could not hear the Senator from Utah.
Mr. CONRAD. Could we have order in the Chamber, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah asked unanimous consent
that the Collins amendment be set aside.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the next amendment is Mr. Conrad's,
the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Motion To Recommit
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, anybody who knows and cares about Social
Security reform, knows that it costs money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend so the clerk can
report.
Mr. CONRAD. I am pleased to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] moves to
recommit H.R. 1836 to the Committee on Finance with
instructions to report back within 3 days with the
following changes: (1) reduce the marginal rate cuts in
the top brackets and estate tax cuts by a total of
$350,000,000,000 over the total of fiscal years 2002
through 2011; and (2) add the following new section:
SEC. . STRATEGIC RESERVE FUND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
AND DEBT REDUCTION.
If legislation is reported by the Committee on Finance of
the Senate or the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives, or an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that would strengthen
Social Security, extend the solvency of the Social Security
Trust Funds, maintain progressivity in the Social Security
benefit system, and continue to lift more seniors out of
poverty, the Chairman of the appropriate Committee on the
Budget shall revise the aggregates, functional totals,
allocations, and other appropriate levels and limits in the
conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 83, the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, by
an amount not to exceed $350,000,000,000 for the total of
fiscal years 2002 through 2011, as long as that legislation
will not, when taken together with all other previously-
enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus below the
level of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus
in any of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, every single plan to strengthen Social
Security that has been proposed by any Member on either side of the
aisle costs money. Unfortunately, we don't have the money in this
budget.
This bill is dramatically backloaded. It costs $1.3 trillion this
decade. It costs more than $4 trillion next decade, at the very time
the massive surpluses now turn to substantial deficits then.
My amendment says: Take $350 billion out of this tax cut and reserve
it to strengthen Social Security. We all know it costs money. We ought
to reserve it now. We ought to strengthen Social Security for the
future.
I urge my colleagues' support.
[[Page S5416]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had 8 years where we haven't had
any strengthening of Social Security, while there was a Democrat
President. There is no question we need to do that, but there is also
no question that this is a tax bill and we are trying to reduce taxes
so we can stimulate the economy and keep our economy going.
When I got here this year, I thought we were surely going to have
more bipartisanship, but here we go again. This is another in a long
list of amendments meant to slow down and stop this bill. When is this
partisanship going to end?
I urge the defeat of this amendment. The pending amendment is not
germane under the provisions of the reconciliation measure. I therefore
raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of
the Budget Act.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections for
consideration of the pending motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--57
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Jeffords
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 57.
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 and the motion falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 765
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment 765.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 765.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend title II of the Social Security Act to allow workers
who attain age 65 after 1981 and before 1992 to choose either lump sum
payments over four years totalling $5,000 or an improved benefit
computation formula under a new 10-year rule governing the transition
to the changes in benefit computation rules enacted in the Social
Security Amendments of 1977, and for other purposes)
On page 314, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. . NEW GUARANTEED MINIMUM PRIMARY INSURANCE AMOUNT
WHERE ELIGIBILITY ARISES DURING TRANSITIONAL
PERIOD.
(a) In General.--Section 215(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(A) by inserting ``(with or without the application of
paragraph (8))'' after ``would be made''; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``1984'' and inserting
``1989''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8)(A) In the case of an individual described in
paragraph (4)(B) (subject to subparagraphs (F) and (G) of
this paragraph), the amount of the individual's primary
insurance amount as computed or recomputed under paragraph
(1) shall be deemed equal to the sum of--
``(i) such amount, and
``(ii) the applicable transitional increase amount (if
any).
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the term
`applicable transitional increase amount' means, in the case
of any individual, the product derived by multiplying--
``(i) the excess under former law, by
``(ii) the applicable percentage in relation to the year in
which the individual becomes eligible for old-age insurance
benefits, as determined by the following table:
``If the individual The applicable
become eligible for percentage is:
such benefits in:
1979.......................................................55 percent
1980.......................................................45 percent
1981.......................................................35 percent
1982.......................................................32 percent
1983.......................................................25 percent
1984.......................................................20 percent
1985.......................................................16 percent
1986.......................................................10 percent
1987........................................................3 percent
1988........................................................5 percent
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term `excess
under former law' means, in the case of any individual, the
excess of--
``(i) the applicable former law primary insurance amount,
over
``(ii) the amount which would be such individual's primary
insurance amount if computed or recomputed under this section
without regard to this paragraph and paragraphs (4), (5), and
(6).
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C)(i), the term
`applicable former law primary insurance amount' means, in
the case of any individual, the amount which would be such
individual's primary insurance amount if it were--
``(i) computed or recomputed (pursuant to paragraph
(4)(B)(i) under section 215(a) as in effect in December 1978,
or
``(ii) computed or recomputed (pursuant to paragraph
(4)(B)(ii) as provided by subsection (d). (as applicable) and
modified as provided by subparagraph (E).
``(E) In determining the amount which would be an
individual's primary insurance amount as provided in
subparagraph (D)--
``(i) subsection (b)(4) shall not apply;
``(ii) section 215(b) as in effect in December 1978 shall
apply, except that section 215(b)(2)(C) (as then in effect)
shall be deemed to provide that an individual's `computation
base years' may include only calendar years in the period
after 1950 (or 1936 if applicable) and ending with the
calendar year in which such individual attains age 61, plus
the 3 calendar years after such period for which the total of
such individual's wages and self-employment income is the
largest; and
``(iii) subdivision (I) in the last sentence of paragraph
(4) shall be applied as though the words `without regard to
any increases in that table' in such subdivision read
`including any increases in that table'.
``(F) This paragraph shall apply in the case of any
individual only if such application results in a primary
insurance amount for such individual that is greater than it
would be if computed or recomputed under paragraph (4)(B)
without regard to this paragraph.
``(G)(i) This paragraph shall apply in the case of any
individual subject to any timely election to receive lump sum
payments under this subparagraph.
``(ii) A written election to receive lump sum payments
under this subparagraph, in lieu of the application of this
paragraph to the computation of the primary insurance amount
of an individual described in paragraph (4)(B), may be filed
with the Commissioner of Social Security in such form and
manner as shall be prescribed in regulations of the
Commissioner. Any such election may be filed by such
individual or, in the event of such individual's death before
any such election is filed by such individual, by any other
beneficiary entitled to benefits under section 202 on the
basis of such individual's wages and self-employment income.
Any such election filed after December 31, 2001, shall be
null and void and of no effect.
``(iii) Upon receipt by the Commissioner of a timely
election filed by the individual described in paragraph
(4)(B) in accordance with clause (ii)--
``(I) the Commissioner shall certify receipt of such
election to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary
of the Treasury, after receipt of such certification, shall
pay such individual, from amounts in the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, a total amount equal to
$5,000, in 4 annual lump sum installments of $1,250, the
first of which shall be made during fiscal year 2002 not
later than July 1, 2002, and
``(II) subparagraph (A) shall not apply in determining such
individual's primary insurance amount.
[[Page S5417]]
``(iv) Upon receipt by the Commissioner as of December 31,
2001, of a timely election filed in accordance with clause
(ii) by at least one beneficiary entitled to benefits on the
basis of the wages and self-employment income of a deceased
individual described in paragraph (4)(B), if such deceased
individual has filed no timely election in accordance with
clause (ii)--
``(I) the Commissioner shall certify receipt of all such
elections received as of such date to the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury, after receipt of
such certification, shall pay each beneficiary filing such a
timely election, from amounts in the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, a total amount equal to
$5,000 (or, in the case of 2 or more such beneficiaries, such
amount distributed evenly among such beneficiaries), in 4
equal annual lump sum installments, the first of which shall
be made during fiscal year 2002 not later than July 1,
2002, and
``(II) solely for purposes of determining the amount of
such beneficiary's benefits, subparagraph (A) shall be deemed
not to apply in determining the deceased individual's primary
insurance amount.''.
(b) Effective Date and Related Rules.--
(1) Applicability of amendments.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this Act shall be effective as though they
had been included or reflected in section 201 of the Social
Security Amendments of 1977.
(B) Applicability.--No monthly benefit or primary insurance
amount under title II of the Social Security Act shall be
increased by reason of such amendments for any month before
July 2002. The amendments made in this section shall apply
with respect to benefits payable in months in any fiscal year
after fiscal year 2005 only if the corresponding decrease in
adjusted discretionary spending limits for budget authority
and outlays under section 3 of this Act for fiscal years
prior to fiscal year 2006 is extended by Federal law to such
fiscal year after fiscal year 2005.
(2) Recomputation to reflect benefit increases.--
Notwithstanding section 215(f)(1) of the Social Security Act,
the Commissioner of Social Security shall recompute the
primary insurance amount so as to take into account the
amendments made by this Act in any case in which--
(A) an individual is entitled to monthly insurance benefits
under title II of such Act for June 2002; and
(B) such benefits are based on a primary insurance amount
computed--
(i) under section 215 of such Act as in effect (by reason
of the Social Security Amendments of 1977) after December
1978, or
(ii) under section 215 of such Act as in effect prior to
January 1979 by reason of subsection (a)(4)(B) of such
section (as amended by the Social Security Amendments of
1977).
(c) Offset Provided by Projected Federal Budget
Surpluses.--Amounts offset by this section shall not be
counted as direct spending for purposes of the budgetary
limits provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
(d) Revenue Offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
adjust the highest rate of tax under section 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section 101 of
this Act) to the extent necessary to offset in each fiscal
year beginning before October 1, 2011, the decrease in
revenues to the Treasury for that fiscal year resulting from
the amendments made by this section.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of
myself, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Graham of Florida.
Notch babies, listen. This amendment helps dissolve the unfair notch
for those born beginning in 1917. Townhalls, e-mails, letters, casual
conversations--Senators, this is your opportunity to say ``yes'' to the
notchers. A ``no'' vote is a stab in the back of America's greatest
generation. Vote ``yes'' to restore dignity to these people who deserve
it. Notch babies are to be protected today.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
While I understand how important the notch issue is to millions of
senior citizens, this is neither the time nor the place to address this
issue.
The bill before us today provides much needed tax relief to hard
working Americans. The amendment offered by Senator Reid is not germane
to this bill.
This amendment has never been reviewed by any committee of
jurisdiction, nor scored by the Congressional Budget Office. No one has
any idea how much it would cost or what new benefit inequities it would
create. In addition, the proposed offset contained in the amendment is
an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury. This is not a serious amendment.
If Congress is going to seriously consider this issue, it must be
done in the context of overall Social Security reform so we can
carefully consider the costs and benefits of any proposed change.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. I yield to the
Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Senator has raised an important issue dealing with the appropriate
treatment of those who are known as the notch babies.
We all know this is not the bill on which to resolve this issue. We
need to take up that issue in the context of modernizing our Social
Security system, and this is just another attempt to delay final
passage of the tax bill. So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this
amendment regardless of their views on the underlying issue, and let's
get on with the vote and approve this bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute on leader time. If this
is not the time to help notch babies, when is it? Some of them are
approaching 84 years of age. Are we going to wait until next year until
more die, or the year after? People go home and say nice things about
the notch babies. Well, let's vote a nice thing for them today. Today
is the day. There is no other day. This is our opportunity to take the
notch unfairness out of our law.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute out of leader time. We
just lived through 8 years of a Democratic President, and no one effort
was successful--or even tried, as far as I can recall--to help the
notch babies. I have always voted in favor of helping the notch people,
but the pending amendment is not germane and those on the other side
know it. They are getting a great kick out of bringing this up. It is
not germane.
I raise a point of order against the amendment under 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under all applicable rules of the Senate and
the law, I ask that there be a waiver of the Budget Act, and I further
say, explain to the notch babies that you are voting on some point of
order.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I claim 1 minute under the procedure to
speak on the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order provides for only 1 minute on each
side.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be
given 1 minute, and that we have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on more than one amendment it has been
said that for 8 years we had a Democratic President and we didn't do
anything about this issue. We spent most of those 8 years working
ourselves out of the deficit box into which we have been placed by the
previous administrations.
It is only now when we have some surpluses that we can start talking
about doing something about these issues. How were you going to do
something when you had a deficit? This is a very worthy cause for using
some of those surpluses that we now have. I urge support for the Reid
amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will use 1 more minute. Well, it seems a
little odd to me that after all these years, all of a sudden on a tax
cut bill where we are trying to stimulate the economy, we get this
issue. It is time to vote to reduce taxes. It is time to reduce the
games. It is time to quit the partisanship. It is time to end this bill
and get a vote up or down. If you can win, you win. If you can't win,
you don't win.
Let's vote on this bill and quit playing partisan politics.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 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 Alaska (Mr. Stevens)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[[Page S5418]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--43
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Durbin
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--2
Jeffords
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 43.
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 and the amendment falls.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 756
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the
reduction in the highest marginal income rate if the discretionary
spending level is exceeded in fiscal year 2002)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 756.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 756.
On page 314, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. . ADJUSTMENT TO RATES IN RESPONSE TO BREACH OF LIMITS.
If, in fiscal year 2002, the discretionary spending level
assumed in the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2002 (H. Con. Res. 83) for such year is exceeded, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the reduction in the
highest marginal tax rate in the table contained in section
1(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
section 101(a), for taxable years beginning in calendar years
after such fiscal year as necessary to offset the decrease in
the Treasury resulting from such excess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wanted the amendment to be read because
it is a short amendment. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. It
is a modest effort at making the bill a little more fiscally
responsible.
The amount of the tax cut is set forth in the budget resolution. That
same budget resolution sets a cap for domestic discretionary spending.
We are not waiting, as we should, to see how big a tax cut we should
put in place to see whether or not we are going to live under those
caps which the budget resolution sets for domestic discretionary
spending.
This amendment says if Congress breaks the spending caps in the
budget resolution, then this 1-percent reduction in the upper bracket,
which is provided for in this fiscal year, will not go into effect to
the extent that it is necessary to pay for the excess in domestic
discretionary spending for which the Congress votes. Otherwise, we are
dipping into the Medicare surplus.
This is an amendment for fiscal responsibility. It is modest and will
help make this bill more fiscally responsible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is the Senate. We do believe in free
and open debate and amendments. But we go on hour after hour after
hour. I have not counted the number of amendments on which we have
voted. We are probably over 40 amendments. It seems we need to move on;
we need to pass this bill and we need to move forward.
This is a bill that has been debated; it has been compromised. I
think the Senate needs to work its will. I know the amendments keep
coming, but at some point we need to pass it and get to conference and
send it to the President.
Mr. HATCH. The Levin amendment is not germane to the provisions of
the reconciliation measure. I, therefore, raise a point of order
against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of
the act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carnahan
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--58
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 58.
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. The amendment falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 767
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Nelson of
Florida, for himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 767.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To aid public health and improve water safety by providing
tax-exempt bond authority to water systems to comply with the 10 parts
per billion arsenic standard recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and adopted by the World Health Organization and European
Union)
On page 314, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. __. TAX-EXEMPT BOND AUTHORITY FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES
REDUCING ARSENIC LEVELS IN DRINKING WATER.
(a) In General.--Section 142(e) (relating to facilities for
the furnishing of water) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
(2) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
[[Page S5419]]
``(1) In general.--For purposes'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Facilities reducing arsenic levels included.--Such
term includes improvements to facilities in order to comply
with the 10 parts per billion arsenic standard recommended by
the National Academy of Sciences.''.
(b) Facilities Not Subject To State Cap.--Section 146(g)
(relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``, and'', and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4), the following new
paragraph:
``(5) any exempt facility bond issued as part of an issue
described in section 142(a)(4) (relating to facilities for
the furnishing of water), but only to the extent the property
to be financed by the net proceeds of the issue is described
in section 142(e)(2).''.
(c) Exempt from AMT.--Section 57(a)(5)(C) (relating to tax-
exempt interest of specified private activity bonds) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) Exception for certain water facility bonds.--For
purposes of clause (i), the term `private activity bond'
shall not include any exempt facility bond issued as part of
an issue described in section 142(a)(4) (relating to
facilities for the furnishing of water), but only to the
extent the property to be financed by the net proceeds of the
issue is described in section 142(e)(2).''.
(d) Revenue Offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
adjust the highest rate of tax under section 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section 101 of
this Act) to the extent necessary to offset in each fiscal
year beginning before October 1, 2011, the decrease in
revenues to the Treasury for that fiscal year resulting from
the amendments made by this section.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in my minute I hope I can convince
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Just
this past weekend, President Bush called for a war on poverty. This
amendment is a step in that direction. It is offered in that spirit.
What we do is help 1.5 million veterans who are now living in poverty
by giving a tax credit to those employers who hire them. This idea was
proposed and is supported by the National Coalition for Homeless
Veterans and the Noncommissioned Officers Association. Veterans groups
tell me the current tax credit, Welfare To Work, is not working for
veterans because they are not on welfare. They need this tax credit.
So we send our people into harm's way and sometimes they come back
and they really are having a tough time integrating into society,
getting a meaningful job. This will reward employers who give them a
job. And, by the way, we pay for it by bringing that top rate down to,
not 36 percent but 36.05 percent. Let's do this for our veterans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I say to the Senator from California, she does not have
a bad amendment. I think in the proper time and place, such as on the
Work Opportunity Training Act or things of that nature, it would be a
good thing to do and for us to take a look at it. I will be glad to
take a look at it. But at this point I am going to have to ask the
amendment be defeated.
I raise a point of order, but it needs to be defeated because of the
changes it makes in the tax rates. We are working on a tax bill. We
have a well-balanced, well-crafted bipartisan bill. We have had 40
votes on amendments. There is too much effort, regardless of the good
faith of this person in offering a good idea, to stall, stall, stall. I
think we have to get this bill passed and get tax relief to the
American people.
I raise a point of order. The point of order is against the amendment
under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am not trying to stall. I am trying to
make this a better bill for our people, including our veterans.
I move we waive the Budget Act.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 49, the nays are 50.
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 and the amendment falls.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Amendment No. 768
(Purpose: To limit the reduction in the 39.6 rate bracket to 1
percentage point and to increase the maximum taxable income subject to
the 15 percent rate)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 768 at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself
and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 768.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 9, in the matter between lines 11 and 12, strike
``37.6%'' in the item relating to 2005 and 2006 and insert
``38.6%'' and strike ``36%'' in the item relating to 2007 and
thereafter and insert ``38.6%''.
On page 13, between lines 15 and 16, insert:
SEC. 104. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM TAXABLE INCOME FOR 15 PERCENT
RATE BRACKET.
(a) In General.--Section 1(f) (relating to adjustments in
tax tables so that inflation will not result in tax
increases), as amended by section 302, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D),
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) in the case of the tables contained in subsections
(a), (b), (c), and (d), by increasing the maximum taxable
income level for the 15 percent rate bracket and the minimum
taxable income level for the next highest rate bracket
otherwise determined under subparagraph (A) (after
application of paragraph (8)) for taxable years beginning in
any calendar year after 2004, by the applicable dollar amount
for such calendar year,'', and
(C) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' in subparagraph (C)
(as so redesignated) and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and
(B)'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Applicable dollar amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(2)(B), the applicable dollar amount for any calendar year
shall be determined as follows:
``(A) Joint returns and surviving spouses.--In the case of
the table contained in subsection (a)--
Applicable
``Calendar year: Dollar Amount:
2005......................................................$1,000 ....
2006......................................................$2,000 ....
2007......................................................$3,000 ....
2008......................................................$4,000 ....
2009 and thereafter.......................................$5,000.....
``(B) Other tables.--In the case of the table contained in
subsection (b), (c), or (d)--
Applicable
``Calendar year: Dollar Amount:
2005............................................................$500
[[Page S5420]]
2006..........................................................$1,000
2007..........................................................$1,500
2005..........................................................$2,000
2009 and thereafter........................................$2,500.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one day after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of
the senior Senator from Arizona and myself, Mr. McCain. It simply says
that, instead of cutting the top marginal rate to 36 percent, cut the
top rate to 38.6 percent. In turn, the savings would be devoted to
expanding the 15 percent income tax bracket. The idea is to make this
bill more fair by shifting more of its benefits to middle class people.
This is an amendment for which there has been some debate. This
amendment is similar to the amendment offered by Senator McCain
earlier. This amendment ought to be adopted and ought to be made a part
of the pending bill. I ask for its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. GRAMM. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The objection is heard.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 768. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 768) was rejected.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 748
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 748.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 748.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide a proportionate reduction in the credit for State
death taxes before repeal, thereby allowing for responsible full estate
tax repeal)
On page 66, before line 2, insert the following:
``(C) Coordination with credit for state death taxes.--
``(i) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of
subparagraph (A) shall apply to the table contained in
section 2011(b) except that the Secretary shall prescribe
percentage point reductions which maintain the proportionate
relationship (as in effect before any reduction under this
paragraph) between the credit under section 2011 and the tax
rates under this subsection.''.
(d) Revenue Offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
adjust the highest rate of tax under section 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section 101 of
this Act) to the extent necessary to offset in each fiscal
year beginning before October 1, 2011, the decrease in
revenues to the Treasury for that fiscal year resulting from
section 2001(c)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as added by the amendments made by subsection (c)).
Beginning on page 70, line 20, strike all through page 79,
line 6.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is an amendment everybody
can vote for because you want to protect your States. The bill phases
out the estate tax for the State portion much quicker than it phases
out the entire estate tax. It is going to put a real financial burden
on our States. Under the existing bill, the State portion would be
repealed much faster, not leaving our States enough time to prepare and
plan for the loss of revenue. That is unfair to our State governments.
This amendment, sponsored by Senator Graham and myself, would result
in the full repeal of the estate tax but would phase out the State
estate tax portion at a rate consistent with the repeal of the Federal
portion and would pay for it through a temporary reduction in the top
marginal rate cuts.
This would provide for a responsible full repeal of the estate tax
while leaving time for our States to plan for this loss of revenue to
the States.
I yield back the time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is another one of those amendments.
It has just a little change from what we voted on last night.
This delegates to the Secretary of the Treasury the setting of tax
rates. I think this very much is an affront to the constitutional
requirement that all revenue measures shall originate in the House.
Senator Nelson's amendment strikes at the heart of the principal
jurisdiction over taxation held by the House Ways and Means Committee
and the Senate Finance Committee. Every year, for 10 years, he
delegates the top marginal income tax rate to the Secretary of the
Treasury to determine.
This amendment sacrifices the American taxpayer for the convenience
of the State treasuries. I urge defeat of the amendment.
I have a point of order I want to raise. The amendment is not germane
to the provisions of the reconciliation measure. That point of order
is, as you have heard so many times: I raise a point of order that the
amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was not aware that a point of
order would lie on this. I would like to know what the Parliamentarian
says.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will rule on the Senator's point of
order if he wishes.
The amendment is not germane.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am sorry, I could not hear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not germane. The point of
order is sustained.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, pursuant to section 904
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is too late at this point.
The Chair has ruled.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Then we are done. Let's move on to the next amendment.
Mr. REID. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S5421]]
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. If this is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senator from Florida be allowed to put in his request for a waiver
of the germaneness rule and have a vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question now is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
NAYS--57
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). On this vote the yeas are 42,
and the nays are 57. 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 and the amendment falls.
Amendment No. 770
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 770.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To accelerate the increase in exemption amount for estates
and reduce the reduction in the 39.6 percent marginal tax rate)
Beginning on page 68, strike line 12 and all that follows
through page 70, line 19, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 2010 (relating
to applicable credit amount) is amended by striking the table
and inserting the following new table:
``In the case of estates of decedentThe applicable exclusion amount is:
2002 through 2010..................................$4,000,000.''.
(b) Lifetime Gift Exemption Increased to $1,000,000.--
(1) For periods before estate tax repeal.--Paragraph (1) of
section 2505(a) (relating to unified credit against gift tax)
is amended by inserting ``(determined as if the applicable
exclusion amount were $1,000,000)'' after ``calendar year''.
(2) For periods after estate tax repeal.--Paragraph (1) of
section 2505(a) (relating to unified credit against gift
tax), as amended by paragraph (1), is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) the amount of the tentative tax which would be
determined under the rate schedule set forth in section
2502(a)(2) if the amount with respect to which such tentative
tax is to be computed were $1,000,000, reduced by''.
(c) GST Exemption.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of 2631 (relating to GST
exemption) is amended by striking ``of $1,000,000'' and
inserting ``amount''.
(2) Exemption amount.--Subsection (c) of section 2631 is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) GST Exemption Amount.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the GST exemption amount for any calendar year shall be
equal to the applicable exclusion amount under section
2010(c) for such calendar year.''.
(d) Repeal of Special Benefit for Family-Owned Business
Interests.--
(1) In general.--Section 2057 is hereby repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (10) of section 2031(c) is amended by
inserting ``(as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this parenthetical)'' before the period.
(B) The table of sections for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 11 is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2057.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to estates of
decedents dying and gifts and generation-skipping transfers
made after December 31, 2001.
(2) Subsection (b)(2).--The amendments made by subsection
(b)(2) shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 2010.
(f) Revenue Offset.--The reductions in the highest marginal
tax rate in the table contained in section 1(i)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 101(a) of
this Act, are eliminated to offset the decrease in revenues
to the Treasury for each fiscal year resulting from the
amendments made by this section as compared to the amendments
made by section 521 of the Restoring Earnings To Lift
Individuals and Empower Families (RELIEF) Act of 2001 as
reported by the Finance Committee of the Senate on May 16,
2001.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is similar to amendment No. 759 at the
desk, but it has been redrafted to avoid the germaneness point of order
which could have rested against it based on giving authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury. It eliminates that authority. It just sets
the rates.
What we do with this amendment is make the changes in the unified
estate taxes immediate instead of waiting 10 years for that $4 million
unified exemption, which is so important to making sure that small
businesses are not caught by the estate tax. This amendment says we
should do that now. We should bring forward these exemptions, these
unified exemptions that are important to eliminate small businesses and
farms from being caught in the estate tax. Ninety percent of the small
businesses that would be caught by the estate tax will not be caught
once we have a $4 million unified exemption. This brings forward that
exemption and pays for it by eliminating the upper bracket reduction. A
lot more people will be benefited--a lot more small businesses.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, unanimous consent for what?
I didn't hear the unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a quorum call requested by the
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. REID. I don't understand.
Mr. KENNEDY. Was all the time used up, Mr. President? I thought there
was time on each side. The time hasn't all been used up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has not been used up. That is why it
required unanimous consent.
Mr. REID. I object.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the unanimous consent was
granted by the Chair.
Mr. REID. You can't grant something if you can't hear him. Reserving
the right to object, we have spent now, this afternoon, probably close
to 2 hours in quorum calls. There is going to come a time shortly when
we are going to be blamed. We haven't held anything up. We didn't
suggest the quorum call and here we are again. I have no problem with a
quorum being called, but we have 30-some amendments left to vote on and
I want to make sure we can't be blamed for not moving the bill forward.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like clarification. I believe I
suggested the absence of a quorum. The President asked if there were
any objections. I believe the quorum call was in order; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S5422]]
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment costs billions, and
Senator Levin plans to pay for it by slashing any rate relief at the
top rate. He proposes no estate tax and no capital gains tax on
estates, and he pays for it with a denial of any tax break at all to
the top rate.
This simply is not fair. This amendment will require a tax increase
of billions of dollars, according to the Joint Tax Committee. It will
increase taxes tens of thousands on small businessowners, and these
folks throughout the country are the ones who create the jobs.
I urge everyone to vote against this amendment. Once again, I raise
the point that this is probably the second, third, or fourth time we
have voted on similar amendments. At some time, we ought to say enough
is enough. I think now is time to say enough is enough.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Michigan.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--57
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The amendment (No. 770) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 771
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 771.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make the maximum amount of the deduction for higher
education expenses fully effective immediately, to repeal the
termination of such deduction, and to provide an offset for revenue
loss)
On page 314, after line 21, add the following:
SEC. __. ACCELERATION OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF TUTITION
DEDUCTION AND REPEAL OF TERMINATION.
(a) Deduction for Higher Education Expenses.--
(1) Maximum amount of deduction.--Section 222(b)(2)
(relating to applicable dollar amount), as added by section
431(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicable dollar limit.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable dollar limit shall be
equal to--
``(i) in the case of a taxpayer whose adjusted gross income
for the taxable year does not exceed $65,000 ($130,000 in the
case of a joint return), $5,000,
``(ii) in the case of a taxpayer not described in clause
(i) whose adjusted gross income for the taxable year does not
exceed $80,000 ($160,000 in the case of a joint return),
$2,000, and
``(iii) in the case of any other taxpayer, zero.
``(B) Adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this
paragraph, adjusted gross income shall be determined--
``(i) without regard to this section and sections 911, 931,
and 933, and
``(ii) after application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219,
221, and 469.''.
(2) Repeal of termination.--Section 222(e) (relating to
termination), as added by section 431(a) of this Act, is
repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001.
(c) Revenue Offset.--The reductions in 2005 and 2007 in the
highest marginal tax rate in the table contained in section
1(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
section 101(a) of this Act, are eliminated to offset the
decrease in revenues to the Treasury for each fiscal year
resulting from the amendments made by this section.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when one looks at the deduction for college
tuition in the bill, one finds, at least to my amazement, that it does
not get fully phased in until 2004 and then it sunsets; it gets wiped
out in 2006.
We should do a lot better than that for this important deduction, and
this amendment will provide the full deduction immediately and pays for
it by using part of the top tax bracket reduction.
An awful lot of people will benefit from this amendment helping to
get students through college by having a real college tuition
deduction, not just rhetoric but real, and be available now and not
sunsetted 2 years after it is fully phased in.
I ask that the Senator from New York be recognized, if I have any
time on my minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment for those
who care about paying for college.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. We should make it permanent, and I urge support of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan described his
amendment. I am not going to go back through that. We have a very good
package of educational assistance, tax incentives in our bill, of which
the deduction of tuition is a major portion, and that major portion was
put in to make this a more bipartisan bill, particularly under the
leadership of Senator Torricelli.
What is wrong with this amendment is not that it does not do more but
the fact that it increases billions of dollars for small business men
and women. The revenue loss for the tuition deduction in our bill is
$11 billion. We don't have this one scored, but this would be much
higher.
Once again, I plead with people. We have a bipartisan bill. How many
times do we have to defeat the same amendment? It has been 37 times
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 771.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I annouce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas, 44, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
[[Page S5423]]
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--55
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The amendment (No. 771) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 1 minute. Is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator calling up an amendment?
Amendment No. 699
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I call up amendment No. 699.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 699.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To condition the reductions in the 39.6 percent rate in 2002,
2005, and 2007 on the Federal Government funding certain increases in
the maximum Federal Pell Grant amounts)
On page 9, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
``(4) Reduction in top rate contingent on increases in
federal pell grant funding.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2),
the reductions in the 39.6 percent rate bracket which
(without regard to this paragraph) would take effect for
taxable years beginning in 2002, 2005, or 2007 shall not take
effect at all unless the Secretary of Education certifies to
the Secretary of the Treasury before November 1, 2001,
November 1, 2004, or November 1, 2006, whichever is
applicable, that during the fiscal year ending in 2001, or
during each of the 2 fiscal years ending in 2003 and 2004 or
2005 and 2006, whichever is applicable, the Federal
Government honored its commitment to fund the Federal Pell
Grant program under subpart I of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) in an amount
sufficient to increase the maximum Federal Pell Grant amounts
awarded under such program to--
``(A) $4,250 for the 2002-2003 school year,
``(B) $4,650 for the 2003-2004 school year,
``(C) $5,050 for the 2004-2005 school year,
``(D) $5,450 for the 2005-2006 school year,
``(E) $5,850 for the 2006-2007 school year,
``(F) $6,250 for the 2007-2008 school year,
``(G) $6,650 for the 2008-2009 school year,
``(H) $7,050 for the 2009-2010 school year, and
``(I) $7,450 for the 2010-2011 school year.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we hear a great deal during the
discussion that we can afford the tax cut. We can also afford
investments in education. This debate is really about choices. In this
instance, we are offering the choice of getting the full funding of the
Pell grants and deferring the reduction at the highest tax rate until
we have the full funding.
This Nation made enormous progress through the GI bill. That was paid
$8 paid back for every dollar that was put in. We made great progress
in the cold war GI bill after the Korean war. In 1972, we enacted the
Pell grant. The average Pell grant goes to a family with an income of
$14,500. At the beginning of the Pell grant it paid for 80 percent of a
public education and 40 percent of a private education. Today it is 40
percent of a public education and 18 percent of a private education.
This will bring it up to 50 percent and 20 percent, in terms of public
and private.
It is the best investment we can make in our Nation's future. I hope
we will have support for expanding the Pell Grant Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Can we afford? Can we afford? How come we always hear
the question, can we afford the tax cut? but we never hear, can you
afford when it comes to spending money?
Mr. President, this may be a very well-intentioned amendment. It is
very appropriate to bring up these educational issues. But it is not
appropriate on a bipartisan tax reduction bill that this Senate
requested in the budget resolution adopted 2 weeks ago. I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.
The Kennedy amendment finances the increase in Pell grants by
delaying marginal rate reductions if the Secretary of Education
determines that Pell grants are not fully funded.
So this is not germane. I raise this point then: The amendment is not
germane because it should not be on a reconciliation measure. The point
of order against the amendment is under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget
Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive applicable sections
of the act on the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--54
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 54.
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 and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 700
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 700, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 700.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To condition the reductions in the 39.6 percent rate in 2005
and 2007 on the Federal Government sufficiently funding Head Start to
enable every eligible child access to such program)
On page 9, between lines 14 and 15, insert:
``(4) Reduction in top rate contingent on head start
funding.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the reductions in
the 39.6 percent rate bracket which (without regard to this
paragraph) would take effect for taxable years beginning in
2005 or 2007 shall not take effect at all unless the
Secretary of Education certifies to the Secretary of the
Treasury before November 1, 2004, or November 1, 2006,
whichever is applicable, that during each of the 2 fiscal
years ending in 2003 and 2004 or 2005 and 2006, whichever is
applicable, the Federal Government honored its commitment to
fund the Head Start Act in an amount sufficient to enable
every eligible child access to such program.''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is another amendment about
priorities.
[[Page S5424]]
We are now funding half the eligible children for Head Start. This
amendment says, after we fund the rest of the children who are eligible
for the Head Start program, then the top rate can be lowered from 39.6
percent to 36 percent.
We have had three Carnegie Commission studies that talked about the
importance of investing in Head Start. We had a report issued in
January of last year by the National Science Foundation entitled ``From
Neurons to Neighborhoods.'' It is an evaluation of all the Early Head
Start Programs, saying this is the best investment that we can make in
terms of helping children develop their brains.
In a few days, we are going to deal with the education bill. This may
very well be more important to the children of this country than that
legislation. Let's say we believe in investing in our future, investing
in our children. Let's fund the Head Start Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand in for the chairman of
the committee.
This amendment for full funding of Head Start has no place in this
bill. The chairman has made the point over and over again that this
bill is carefully constructed to include a variety of interests on both
sides of the aisle. Each of these amendments is an attempt to upset
that balance, in many cases, as in this one, with no estimate of the
cost whatsoever. As a result, of course, a point of order lies, a point
of order which I will make in just a moment.
It ought to be clear to everyone that this is boiling down to a
question of who is for tax cuts and who isn't. Time after time,
amendments are presented on that side of the aisle, and they are
defeated by this side of the aisle. I think it ought to become clear to
people after a while what is really occurring on. It is a stall tactic,
and it really defines who is for tax cuts and who isn't.
Mr. President, because of the point I made, the pending amendment is
not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation measure. I,
therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment under section
305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of the Budget Act for the consideration of the pending
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--54
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45, the nays are 54.
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 and the amendment falls.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay in the Table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 698
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has authorized me to offer
amendment No. 698.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 698.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To allow the Hope Scholarship Credit for all costs of
attendance and to decrease the reduction in the 39.6 rate)
On page 9, strike the matter between lines 11 and 12, and
insert:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The corresponding percentages
shall be substituted for the
``In the case of taxable years following percentages:
beginning during calendar year: -----------------------------------
28% 31% 36% 39.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002, 2003, and 2004................ 27% 30% 35% 39%
2005 and 2006....................... 26% 29% 34% 38.2%
2007 and thereafter................. 25% 28% 33% 36.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 62, between lines 7 and 8, insert:
SEC. __. HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT AVAILABLE FOR COSTS OF
ATTENDANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 25A(f)(1) is amended by adding at
the end the following subparagraph:
``(D) Costs of attendance.--For purposes of determining the
amount of the Hope Scholarship Credit under subsection (b),
such term shall include the cost of attendance (as defined in
section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1087ll), as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subparagraph) of the eligible student at an eligible
educational institution.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, this is an
amendment I am offering for Senator Kennedy. The HOPE scholarship tax
credit is valuable to students but not to those who are attending
community colleges and public universities. It is limited to tuition
and fees.
This amendment expands the reach of the HOPE scholarship tax credit
to include other costs of college, such as transportation, daycare,
cost of computers, books, and the like. This will mean the HOPE
scholarship tax credit will help children of limited means from
families who aren't wealthy receive a college education.
I hope Members of the Senate will consider a change in the upper tax
rates to bring it to the same level as all other tax rate reductions,
the benefits of that savings going to the kids in community colleges so
they can qualify for the HOPE scholarship tax credit.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, compared to the bill that is before us, this
amendment is a tax increase for a large segment of middle America.
Families making $50,000, $60,000 a year would not see rates reduced.
Relative to the bill, the rates are effectively increased. We believe
it would be a very expensive addition to a $30 billion package of
education proposals already included in the bill. As a result,
obviously, it not only upsets the bipartisan agreement that has been
crafted between Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and the committee
but in fact would represent a huge revenue loss --the estimate not
being before us.
As I said before, what we are seeing is amendment after amendment
being presented which do not pass but which clearly make the point that
there are some folks here who are for tax cuts and some folks who are
not for tax cuts.
This is the 43rd amendment on which we have voted. Of those presented
today, almost half of them have not even been relevant. It is time to
call this to a stop. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Massachusetts.
[[Page S5425]]
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--56
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The amendment (No. 698) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Motion to Recommit
(Purpose: To provide for a fully refundable HOPE education tax credit)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to
recommit H.R. 1836 to the Finance Committee, with
instructions that the Committee on Finance report the bill
to the Senate within three days, with the following
amendments that:
Provide a fully refundable HOPE tax credit beginning in
2002; and
Strike the reductions in the 39.6% bracket.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this cuts the tax cut from the top .7
percent and instead puts the money into the HOPE Scholarship Program
which would make it refundable. It would make a refundable tax credit,
which means your community college students, who are about the hardest
working group of students one will ever find--many are going back to
school; many of them are men and women in their thirties and forties
with children--would then be able to afford this.
Right now, if their income is below $26,000, $27,000 a year, they do
not get any benefit unless it is refundable.
We could not do anything more important for higher education,
especially if you care about the working class, these community college
students. I hope there will be great support for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has well described
his amendment. It is very similar to the last amendment, but this is a
motion to recommit. There is no estimate of the revenue loss of the
proposal, though it will be huge.
The bill already, as we all know, has a $30 billion package of
education tax incentives. Given the amount of money available for the
various pieces of relief within the bill, we think that is quite
generous.
The proposal, obviously, will raise the taxes of individuals and
small businesses by the billions that would be necessary to pay for it.
It is almost 8:30 p.m. This is the third day we have been taking up
amendments. We have now considered 44. This will be 45. Almost half of
them today have not been relevant. Why do we keep having the same
amendments over and over? This is virtually the same amendment as the
last one.
I appreciate those on both sides of the aisle who have supported the
committee bill. It is important we continue to do that. This all boils
down to who supports tax relief and who does not. If you support tax
relief, vote no on this crippling proposal.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and the nays, and I
say to colleagues, all this does is cut the tax cut for the top .7
percent. I do not know where my colleague gets these figures. I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--60
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The motion was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 730
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Johnson, I
call up amendment No. 730.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr.
Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 730.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the
income tax rates and to provide a credit to teachers and nurses for
higher education loans)
At the end of subtitle D of title IV, add the following:
SEC. __. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits), as
amended by section 432, is amended by inserting after section
25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. CERTAIN HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a qualified
individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount
equal to the interest and principle paid by the taxpayer
during the taxable year on any qualified education loan.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for a qualified individual shall not exceed $2,000.
``(c) Dependents Not Eligible for Credit.--No credit shall
be allowed by this section to an individual for the taxable
year if a deduction under section 151 with respect to such
individual is allowed to another taxpayer for the taxable
year beginning in the calendar year in which such
individual's taxable year begins.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
[[Page S5426]]
``(1) Dependent.--The term `dependent' has the meaning
given such term by section 152.
``(2) Nurse.--The term `nurse' means--
``(A) an individual who is--
``(i) licensed or certified by a State to provide nursing
or nursing-related services, and
``(ii) employed to perform such services on a full-time
basis for at least 6 months in the taxable year in which the
credit described in subsection (a) is claimed, or
``(B) any other licensed or certified health professional
practicing in a health profession shortage area, as defined
in section 332(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254e(a)(1)).
``(3) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified
education loan' has the meaning given such term by section
221(e)(1).
``(4) Qualified individual.--The term `qualified
individual' means a teacher or a nurse.
``(5) Teacher.--The term `teacher' means--
``(A) a certified individual who is a kindergarten through
grade 12 classroom teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or
principal in any State, Federal, or tribally licensed
elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for an
academic year ending during a taxable year, or
``(B) a head start teacher in a licensed head start program
recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section if any amount of interest or principle on
a qualified education loan is taken into account for any
deduction or credit under any other provision of this chapter
for the taxable year.
``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the
taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the
credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the
taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for
the taxable year.
``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined
in accordance with section 7703.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 25B the
following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Certain higher education loans.''.
(c) Revenue Offset.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
adjust the highest rate of tax under section 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by section 101 of
this Act) to the extent necessary to offset in each fiscal
year beginning before October 1, 2011, the decrease in
revenues to the Treasury for that fiscal year resulting from
the amendments made by this section.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made under subsection
(a) and (b) shall apply to any qualified education loan (as
defined in section 25C(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as added by this section) incurred on, before, or after
December 31, 2001, but only with respect to any loan interest
or principle payment due in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Health Committee heard testimony last
week by 2010 there will be a shortage of 725,000 nurses. This will grow
to 1.2 million nurses by 2020 as the baby boom generation retires and
needs more care.
Many other crucial professions are also in short supply. The number
of unfilled pharmacist positions in community practice nationally rose
from 2,700 vacancies in February of 1998 to over 7,000 by February of
2000.
Relative to education, over the next 10 years we must hire 2.2
million new teachers to replace those who are retiring or leaving the
classroom.
My amendment will go a long way to improving the supply of teachers,
nurses, and other health professionals. It would provide a 50-percent
tax credit of up to $2,000 a year for the cost of repaying educational
loans for nurses, teachers, and other health professionals who serve in
federally designated health professional shortage areas.
It would be paid for by eliminating the huge tax break for the
wealthiest of Americans provided in this bill. It would strike the
reduction in the top rate. Again, that is precisely what this amendment
does.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the NEA.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2001.
Senator Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Education
Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we would like to
express our support for your amendment to the tax bill that
would provide a tax credit to offset the costs of teachers'
student loan payments.
As you know, providing every child the opportunity to excel
requires ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every
classroom. To meet this goal, America must meet the
challenges posed by record public school enrollments, the
projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers, and
critical efforts to reduce class sizes. Given these favors,
public schools will need to hire an estimated 2.2 million new
teachers by 2009.
Despite these urgent needs, recruitment of high-quality
teachers remains a significant challenge--one exacerbated by
low salaries. A recent NEA report found that during the
decade from 1989-90 to 1999-2000, average salaries for public
school teachers increased by less than one percent, in
constant dollars. Often, therefore, talented individuals
facing high student loan costs simply cannot afford to enter
or remain in the teaching profession.
By providing a tax credit to offset student loan payments,
your amendment will help attract and retain high-quality
teachers. We thank you for your leadership in addressing this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is now 8:45. I believe this will be the
46th amendment we will have considered. This amendment also deals with
the subject that about half of the recent amendments have dealt with--
education--which I have already discussed we have done a lot about in
the bill already.
There is a point at which I think our colleagues are going to have to
conclude that the continued offering of these amendments over and over
and over again is for the purpose of dragging this out and preventing
the Senate from passing an important bill for tax relief for the
American people. It also depends upon whether you are for tax relief or
not. For those who continue to offer these amendments, it is apparent
that they are not for the bill, they are not going to support the bill,
they continue to try to drag this out so we won't complete this bill
before the Memorial Day recess.
The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation
measure, and therefore I raise a point of order against the amendment
under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. HARKIN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act,
I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Is there a sufficient second? There
is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--56
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 43, the nays are 56.
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 and the amendment falls.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S5427]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next amendment in order will be that of
the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, the ranking member on the
Budget Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 781
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment improves our debt reduction
by ending the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is ended just
before we begin the second decade, right at the time the baby boomers
start to retire and the cost of this tax bill then explodes to about $4
trillion.
My amendment is simple. It continues all of the provisions to
increase the unified credit so that a couple could pass $8 million with
no estate tax.
In addition, we preserve stepped up basis so that you pay future
taxes on the basis of the value of the property when you inherit it,
not on the basis of what your grandfather paid or what your father
paid.
I believe this is a sound amendment and one that deserves the support
of our colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Is the Senator going to send up the amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an
amendment numbered 781.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: to reduce debt by eliminating the repeal of the estate tax)
Strike the following sections of the bill: Sections 501,
541, and 542.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is a bit confusing when these amendments
are taken out of order. At the moment, if I could ask for my
colleagues' indulgence, we do not have a copy of this amendment. We may
have to get it from the sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it appears that we have not been given this
amendment. I know that my colleagues on the other side have made it
clear that it was their intent that we receive all copies of all
amendments prior to the time of their presentation. As of right now, in
any event, it does not appear we have this amendment.
I would ask for my colleagues' indulgence for a moment. If the
Senator from North Dakota wishes to offer the amendment, then we are
going to have to have an opportunity to review it.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a
statement for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank my great friend
and long-time companion, Senator Inouye, for his kindness in pairing
with me on two votes during the last 2 days. I had made a commitment to
my granddaughter to be present at her graduation from high school, and
I decided to keep that commitment. But we knew there would be close
votes. I talked to my good friend, and he gave me this commitment he
would pair on votes on which my absence might make a difference.
There are few friendships in this world that are stronger than my
love for my great friend from Hawaii, a committed and dedicated
American, and one who has been recognized by our country for his
heroism at war. But he showed last night, once again, that he is a true
friend as far as I am concerned.
I publicly thank him for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska is certainly one to
talk about friendship. I say that very seriously. When I was a Member
of the House of Representatives, a man by the name of Alan Bible, who
was 20 years a Senator here, died. And, of course, the procedure was
that an airplane was supplied to Members of Congress to go to Nevada
for the funeral.
The only person on that airplane, other than me, was Senator Ted
Stevens. He was there as a result of his friendship with Alan Bible.
Particularly, one vote that Senator Stevens remembers was very hard for
Alan Bible to cast. As a result of that, Senator Stevens traveled 1 day
6,000 miles to repay what he felt was a debt he owed to a dead man. So
Senator Stevens is gracious in extending compliments to Senator Inouye,
which Senator Inouye deserves. But Senator Stevens, in my book, is
someone who knows what friendship means.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is an amendment pending. I believe
that we have a copy of it now. We should be ready to go to the vote
momentarily. It would be our intent, on both sides of the aisle, to
make this the last vote tonight and resume voting again in the morning
at 9:30, at which point I am hoping that Senator Daschle and I can work
together and get an agreement as to how we would proceed in the morning
and as to how we would complete action on this legislation.
I am not going to propound a unanimous consent request now, but we
want Senators to know this will be the last vote of the night. We will
be back at 9:30. Our intent is to work together to find a way to
successfully complete action on this legislation.
Mr. BYRD. May we have order.
Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield to Senator Byrd or to Senator
Reid.
Mr. BYRD. May we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order.
Cease all conversations.
Mr. REID. I say to the majority leader----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order yet.
Mr. REID. I say to the majority leader, in the morning at 9:30 we
would intend to vote first on amendment No. 780 offered by Senator
Durbin.
Mr. LOTT. I believe we have other amendments that would be in order.
I believe Senator Snowe has indicated that she will have one in the
morning.
Mr. REID. I believe it is your turn.
Mr. LOTT. If we do not have one ready to go at 9:30, we would go to
the Durbin amendment, and then one--have we offered one today?
Mr. REID. Three days ago.
Mr. LOTT. We might want to have one every other day until we can
complete action.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to take the minute now in
opposition to the amendment. We have had an opportunity to review it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Thank you.
Mr. President, this amendment uses repeal of the death tax to pay
down the debt further. We already defeated amendments which would help
with HOPE scholarships and Head Start and a variety of other things.
This now would use it to pay down the debt. Obviously, it is something
we have considered and rejected in the past.
I urge my colleagues to reject it again. This would make, I believe,
something like the 46th amendment. There does not appear to be anything
new under the Sun here, and, as a result, I hope my colleagues will
join me in defeating the amendment.
[[Page S5428]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Conrad amendment No. 781.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--57
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Kohl
The amendment (No. 781) was rejected.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
balance of power
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during the course of this week's debate,
several amendments have been offered that would direct the Treasury
Secretary to adjust marginal tax rates in a way that would provide the
necessary savings to fund particular tax benefits.
I opposed these amendments because the U.S. Constitution explicitly
vests that power in the legislative branch. It is the responsibility of
the Congress--the people's representatives--to determine the
appropriate level of taxation and, consequently, the proper marginal
rates. By delegating such duties to the Treasury Secretary, the
Congress would continue a dangerous pattern of recent years of ceding
congressional responsibilities to the executive branch. Placing these
powers in the legislative branch was part of the Framers' carefully
crafted constitutional design, comprised of an intricate system of
checks and balances and separation of powers.
I hope that the Senate will continue to protect the balance of powers
by rejecting any amendment that would attempt to transfer its
Constitutional responsibilities to the executive.
amendment no. 695
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak of my
opposition to the amendment offered yesterday by Senator Dodd, which
would replace the estate tax repeal in order to partially pay for
nontransportation infrastructure programs and save for debt reduction.
I strongly support responsible tax cuts and a full repeal of the estate
tax.
Even though paying down the national debt is one of my top
priorities, I could not support an amendment that does not reflect my
position of support for total repeal of the estate tax. I opposed this
amendment because the revenue offset did not meet this criterion.
vote on amendment no. 747
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 143. If
I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to waive
the Budget Act on amendment No. 747 offered by Senator Carper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________