RESTORING EARNINGS TO LIFT INDIVIDUALS AND EMPOWER FAMILIES (RELIEF) ACT OF 2002--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 147, No. 71
(Senate - May 22, 2001)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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quorum call be rescinded.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quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________