May 17, 2001 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the great thing about our country is we can have honest differences of opinion, and we do. The Senator from Oklahoma says he is against redistributing income through the Tax Code. That is exactly what this bill does. Only this redistributes it up. We have a circumstance in which the wealthiest 1 percent are getting a greater share of the tax reduction provided in this bill than they pay in Federal taxes. Now the Senator wants to talk just about income taxes. People don't only pay income taxes; they pay income taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent don't pay 33 percent of Federal taxes--they don't. They pay 23 percent to 26 percent in Federal taxes, but they get 33 percent of the benefit in this plan. That is not fair. It is not fair. The Senator talks about the estate tax. The fact is, the estate tax is paid by the wealthiest 2 percent of the estates in America. We agree there is a problem with the current estate tax because it bites at much too low a level--$675,000 for an individual, $1.3 million for a couple--before you start paying any tax. That is too low given what has happened to the value of financial assets, real estate and other assets. I have supported increasing the estate tax to $5 million for an individual, $10 million for a couple, but eliminating the estate tax is fiscally irresponsible given the cost the Federal Government is going to face when the baby boomers retire. It costs $750 billion the second 10 years. From where is the money going to come? The Senator from Oklahoma is going to shift that burden on to everybody else. The tax policy is fundamentally a question of, what is the fairest way of distributing the burden in society? What is the fairest way? The Senator from Oklahoma apparently has a difference with this Senator, at least on what is fair. I don't think it is fair to take the people's money and give 33 percent of the benefit of this tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it demeans the Senate one bit to have that debate. I think it is exactly the debate the people of this country, who sent us here, expect us to have. What is the fiscally responsible thing to do? What is the fair thing to do? That is exactly what we ought to be debating. We also have a difference on what the historical record is. The Senator goes back to the 1980s and talks about a doubling of tax receipts. But I think that is misleading because it doesn't take account of inflation. The way to best compare what happened to revenue and expenditure in different historical periods is by looking at revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product and outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product. When you do that, it is very clear what happened in the 1980s. The spending went up with the big defense buildup the President proposed and Congress enacted. The spending went up as a percentage of GDP. The revenue went down sharply as a percentage of GDP. That opened up this massive chasm, which was deficit. The yearly difference between what we took in and what we spent multiplied the debt. The debt quadrupled, putting this country in a deep hole. And the same folks who designed that package are coming back with the one we see today. The question is, what is the fiscally responsible thing to do? I don't believe it is responsible to pass this package. I don't think it is a fair thing to do, either. I rise to offer an amendment to deal with one of the issues that I think is most unfair in terms of the bill that is before us. Every Senator has talked about the need to fix the marriage penalty. Indeed, we should fix it because some couples pay more taxes simply because they are married. That is not right. That is not fair. I think we all agree with those propositions. But this bill doesn't do anything about it for 4 years. There is no marriage penalty relief in this bill for this year. There is no marriage penalty relief in this bill for next year. There is no marriage penalty relief in this bill for the year thereafter. There is no marriage penalty relief for 4 years. I don't think we can leave this legislation without addressing the marriage penalty now. The amendment I am offering would simply say, let's put in place those elements of this legislation that address the marriage penalty now. Let's do it this year. Let's put it in place immediately. I believe marriage penalty relief should begin as soon as possible--not 4 years from now, not 5 years from now, but now. Under my amendment, the two key components of this legislation dealing with the marriage penalty would be put into place immediately: One, the standard deduction for married couples would double the deduction for single individuals; two, the top income limit in the 15-percent bracket for married couples would be double the limit for single individuals. This does not solve the marriage penalty, but they are the provisions that are in this bill. These are the provisions in this bill that do not take effect for 4 years. I am simply saying let's move them up and have them take effect immediately. By providing marriage penalty relief more quickly, we are helping middle-class Americans, strengthening families, and removing tax disadvantages to marriage. I think we can all agree on that. We also help simplify tax filing for the many families who will no longer have to itemize their deductions. We are improving the fairness of the package. The bottom line is, without this fix, a couple who got married last year will have to wait until their eighth wedding anniversary to get full marriage penalty relief. I don't believe that is right or fair. We can do better. This amendment is an attempt to do that. My amendment is paid for by delaying the rate reductions for the top two brackets, so that the rates will drop to 35 percent and 38 percent in 2009, and to 33 and 36 percent in 2010. In essence, we are saying, put marriage penalty relief as a top priority. AMENDMENT NO. 654 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.