July 20, 1976
Page 22815
TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of the unfinished business, H.R. 10612, the tax reform bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 10612) to reform the tax laws of the United States.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday the leadership informed the Senate that this would be taken up at around the hour of 1:30 p.m. and that at 2 p.m. there would be a vote on the Muskie amendment.
RECESS UNTIL 1:15 P.M.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 1:15 p.m. today.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:28 p.m., recessed until 1:15 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. DURKIN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DURKIN) . The Senate will come to order.
Mr. MUSKIE. 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 2012
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I take it — may I put an inquiry — that the vote is scheduled for 2 o'clock and the time remaining between now and then is to be equally divided between the distinguished floor manager of the bill, Senator LONG, and myself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. From 1:30 to 2 o'clock the time will be equally divided.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is all right with me if we divide whatever time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time remains between now and 2 o'clock be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will state the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for himself and Mr. BELLMON proposes amendment numbered 2012.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 152, beginning with line 11, strike all through line 3 on page 155, and insert the following:
"(2) NINE MONTH RULE FOR 1977.—Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), in the case of taxable years ending after December 31, 1976, and before January 1, 1978, the percentage '1.5 percent' shall be substituted for the percentage '2 percent' in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph and the amount `$26.25', shall be substituted for the amount '$35' in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph.
"(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
"(A) Section 56(a) (2) (relating to imposition of minimum tax), as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out 'and' at the end of clause (iv), by striking out '; and' at the end of clause (v) and inserting in lieu thereof ', and', and by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
"'(vi) section 42 (relating to taxable income credit); and'.
"(B) Section 56(c) (1) (relating to tax carryovers), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out `and'at the end of subparagraph (D) , by striking out 'exceed' at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting in lieu thereof 'and', and by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph:
"'(F) section 42 (relating to taxable income credit), exceed'.
"(C) Section 6096(b) (relating to designation of income tax payments to Presidential Election Campaign Fund), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out `and 41' and inserting in lieu thereof '41, and 42'.
"(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, is amended by striking out the item relating to section 42 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"'SEC. 42. Taxable income credit.'
"(b) STANDARD DEDUCTION:
"(1) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.— Subsection (c) of section 141 (relating to low income allowance) is amended to read as follows:
"'(C) LOW INCOME ALLOWANCE.— The low income allowance is " ' (1) $2,100 in the case of—
"'(A) a joint return under section 6013, or
"'(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a) ),
"'(2) $1,700 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined) , or
"'(3) $1,050 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return.'.
"(2) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION.— Subsection (b) of section 141 (relating to percentage standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"'(b) PERCENTAGE STANDARD DEDUCTION.— The percentage standard deduction is an amount equal to 16 percent of adjusted gross income, but not more than—
" ' (1) $2,800 in the case of—
" `(A) a joint return under section 6013. or
"'(B) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
"'(2) $2,400 in the case of an individual who is not married and who is not a surviving spouse (as so defined) , or
"'(3) $1,400 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return.'.
"(3) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
"(A) Subsection (a) of section 3402 (relating to income tax collected at source) is amended to read as follows:
"'(a) REQUIREMENT OF WITHHOLDING.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary. Until September 30, 1977, the tables so prescribed shall be the same as the tables in effect on June 18, 1976. With respect to wages paid after September 30, 1977, the Secretary shall prescribe new tables which are the same as the tables in effect on January 1, 1975, but modified to the extent necessary to reflect the amendments made by section 101(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. For purposes of applying such tables, the term "the amount of wages" means the amount by which the wages exceed the number of withholding exemptions claimed, multiplied by the amount of one such exemption as shown in the table in subsection (b) (1)'.".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not know that much time is required for debate of this issue.
The Senate, I think, was involved in it for almost 3 days before the recess, but I will undertake to summarize the reasons why I think the Senate ought to support the amendment which has been offered by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) and myself. Its purpose is very simple: To extend the general individual tax credit through fiscal year 1977. That would add 3 months to the provision of the pending bill. Why should it be extended?
The tax reduction should be extended because the economic recovery demands that a substantial increase in withholding rates, or even the threat of such an increase, be avoided.
The tax reduction should be extended because the progressive nature of our personal income tax will soon restore the revenue lost through the tax reductions initiated in early 1975; therefore, the Congress is not likely ever to raise the current withholding rates.
This amendment also should be approved because the Budget Committee and the Congress must have a realistic estimate of revenues before we begin work on the second concurrent resolution for fiscal 1977.
I will elaborate very briefly on each of these points.
ECONOMIC RECOVERY MUST BE SUSTAINED
The economic recovery is proceeding in an orderly fashion. The economy has grown substantially since the passage of the tax cut last spring. It has grown at a moderate enough pace to have permitted inflation to subside. The recovery must continue.
Termination of the tax credit would mean the end of the largest part of the tax cut for most families. Termination would raise taxes by an estimated $1.8 billion during the last 3 months of fiscal year 1977. However, the general tax credit is worth $9.5 billion over a full year or $180 for most families. A tax increase of this size must be avoided while unemployment remains high.
Some Senators have argued that we cannot be sure that the tax cuts should be extended. They suggest that the recovery appears stronger than expected when Congress passed its first concurrent resolution. But examination of the most recent economic forecasts for 1977 shows that they are very close to economic assumptions used in preparing the first concurrent resolution. Our forecast of an average unemployment rate of approximately 6.5 percent for 1977 is identical to the average of the three most widely used commercial forecasts. It is within one-tenth of a percentage point of the most recent administration forecast.
All recent data point to a slowdown in the pace of the recovery. In the 2 weeks since Congress adjourned, new figures have been released which show that unemployment grew in June while industrial production grew very slowly. Retail sales continued their recent slow growth. All of this points to a slowdown in the pace of the recovery.
The widely publicized increase in the administration's forecast of economic growth in 1976 is largely due to their acknowledgment of the rapid growth that took place in the first 3 months of this year.
Those months are past, however, Mr. President, and figures just released indicate that the growth in the second quarter was something between 4 and 5 percent at an annual rate compared to more than 8.7 percent in the first quarter.
The administration is not forecasting a more rapid rate of growth for the remainder of the year.
For the recovery to continue, withholding rates must not increase at almost a $10 billion rate next summer. It is important that consumers know now that Congress has not planned for this increase in the coming fiscal year.
If consumers are to be able to make long term commitments — to buy houses or cars — they must be confident that their paychecks will not be reduced by higher taxes in the future. If we tell them now that the tax cut will expire shortly, they will refrain from committing their future paychecks to purchases of this kind. But we need these long term commitments if the recovery is to continue.
Business is making its investment plans now. They too need to know that the recovery in consumer spending will not be interrupted. The part-year extension in the Finance Committee bill signals a termination — and that signal is not part of a sound economic policy.
TAXES INCREASE AUTOMATICALLY
My second point concerns the ability of our progressive tax system to provide large revenue increases without increases in tax rates.
Some Senators may wonder if a tax increase ultimately will be needed to slow down the economy when the recovery is complete — in effect, to turn off the stimulus that was provided by last year's tax cut. This fails to take account of the fact that taxes are always increasing as an automatic byproduct of our progressive income tax system. As incomes rise for any reason, the percentage of income that is taxed increases. This automatic tax increase will effectively eliminate the 1975 tax reduction by1977.
Senator MOSS placed in the RECORD yesterday a Budget Committee staff study showing that an average family would pay the same percent of its income in taxes in 1977 with the tax cut as it would have paid in 1975 before the tax cut. A family of four with an income of $1,000 per month would have paid 10.2 percent of that income in personal taxes in April of 1975 before the tax reduction. If that family's income improves at an average rate, it will be receiving $1,230 monthly by the middle of next year. At this higher income, its taxes will again be 10.2 percent of income if the tax cut is maintained.
Putting it another way, revenues in fiscal 1977 are expected to be $61 billion more than in any previous year despite last year's tax cut. It is this automatic growth in revenues that has allowed Congress to reduce taxes four times in the last 13 years without an increase, except for the temporary Vietnam surcharge.
REALISTIC BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977
Mr. President, my third point concerns the job that will face the Budget Committee when the Congress returns after the Republican convention. At that time, the Budget Committee will begin work on the second concurrent resolution. The conference report on the resolution must be passed by the Congress by September 15.
The second resolution is binding. Any subsequent legislation that calls for a reduction in revenues or an increase in spending beyond the levels set in the second concurrent resolution is subject to a point of order. Such legislation would be out of order until a third concurrent resolution is passed. Therefore, the Budget Committee and the Senate will have to be very realistic about the legislative assumptions we use. Otherwise, we will not have a budget we can live with.
Most of us know that the credit will be extended through the fiscal year. That is surely the assumption we will use in September. So let us face the facts now and extend the tax cut.
CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY
In conclusion, Mr. President, let me add this:
An argument has been advanced in some quarters that Congress should let the next President decide whether the tax cut should be extended beyond next July 1. The argument is pernicious. It proposes to abandon a basic purpose of the Congressional Budget Act, as stated in the declaration of purposes contained in section 2:
To assure effective congressional control over the budgetary process and to provide for the congressional determination each year of the appropriate level of Federal revenues and expenditures.
Congress has already decided pursuant to the budget process that the tax cut should be extended for the full fiscal year.That judgment was not based on the decision of any President but was a judgment of Congress itself and will stand until Congress changes the congressional budget.
The argument that Congress should surrender back to the executive branch the making of the Federal budget is to suggest a return to the dark age from which we worked so hard to escape in which the Congress had surrendered the power of the purse to the executive branch.
It is hard to believe that anyone could seriously advance in the summer of 1976 the argument that Congress should surrender determination of the Federal budget to the President again. The views of the President, whoever occupies the White House, are entitled to and will be given great weight by the Congress, but the notion that Congress should abandon its judgment, expressed in this year's congressional budget, that the tax cut should be extended for the full fiscal year and leave that question to a President who has not even been elected, is repugnant to the congressional budget process and undermines it.
The best we can do for the next President is assure him an economy steadily on the mend and a Congress determined to meet its constitutional responsibilities.
We can vote for both today.
Mr. President, I think that is a sufficient addition to whatever I have said on this floor before about the wisdom of extending the tax cut.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DURKIN). Who yields time?
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, we on the Finance Committee have been concerned with a single figure, that is, $15.3 billion stated in the budget resolution as the amount of overall tax reduction proposed in the budget resolution.
We have undertaken to live with that and we have tailored our bill to meet that problem.
I know that some would like to raise taxes more than we raise taxes. We actually did raise more than $2 billion. But I think there are other areas in which tax reform would dictate that there should be some tax reductions.
So the overall tax increase that the committee proposed was in the area of about $1 billion over and above the tax cuts that we suggested.
In order to meet the budget resolution, we propose to extend the $35 tax credit forward to the middle of next year. It is our thought that if we are ever going to balance the budget, we are not going to be able to do it and continue all these temporary tax cuts. It seemed to us that this one item that affects every taxpayer, $35 for each person, could be terminated 1 year from now. It was only a 1-year temporary tax cut when we first put it into effect. We suggest extending it forward another year. At the end of that year, if the economy has recovered, as we hope it will — that was the whole purpose of the temporary tax cut — then our thought would be that here is a major savings that would help move us toward a balanced budget if Congress wanted to insist upon it.
In the event that should not be the case, if Congress in its wisdom wants to extend this $35 tax credit forward for another year, or any period less than that, of course, it is within the power of Congress to do it.
The problem that it gives me and the problem that it gives the majority of us on the Finance Committee, if this amendment is agreed to, is that it pushes us above the $15.3 billion tax reduction figure of the budget resolution.
We have in good conscience tried to stay with that total. The bill at this point does stay with it. If this amendment is agreed to that puts it beyond the $15.3 billion figure.
As the manager of this bill, it is no new experience to have someone offer a tax cut amendment that would benefit every taxpayer in America and have that voted onto the bill, even though it would upset the budget. And even though it would break the budgetary target the Congress had theoretically agreed to and the President had recommended, even before we had a Budget Committee. I have found it nigh on to impossible to successfully resist an amendment that proposed to reduce taxes for everybody. That is what this amendment proposes to do, of course.
If the chairman of the Budget Committee is to lead the charge to pass a major amendment further reducing revenues, that would completely depart from the budget target that his committee had recommended to us, that is a very difficult thing to oppose.
I know this Senator in good faith proposed that we should extend this $35 tax credit forward for an additional year, from this July until the following July, a year from now, and at that point Congress would take another look and see if the economy has recovered. If it has, it might well want to consider that this is an area where, rather than increasing taxes to try to balance the budget, we could simply let a temporary tax cut expire.
So the committee has in good faith recommended that result.
I really cannot buy the Senator's argument, though I am sure he is in good faith about the matter, that people are going to hold up their spending because the $35 tax credit might come to an end a year from now. I do not think that any family doing their Christmas shopping in December of this year is going to decline to buy some toys for the children because the $35 tax credit that they are enjoying at that time is scheduled to expire in July 1977. I think any family buying things for their children will spend as much as they can, and will borrow money in addition to that. That is what most of them do. They do not mind going into debt to see their children happy on occasions like that. They do not deny themselves things their incomes will support just because it might be a little bit less because of the expiration of a temporary tax cut, or whatever reason, a half a year away.
I very much doubt the Senator is correct in saying that people will hold up on their spending because a $35 temporary tax cut would expire a year from now. We did not buy that argument when we first put the tax cut into effect — it was only a 1-year proposal when we initiated it in the beginning — and I do not think that will be the case now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. LONG. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
I want to point out, Mr. President, that, as committee chairman, I have proposed and voted for measures which in my view would constitute reform. I voted for nearly $2 billion of tax collections by simply withholding on interest and dividends. It was my supreme misjudgment that we would have the support of all those liberal Senators who had admired and applauded John F. Kennedy because goodness knows he fought his heart out to try to put that proposal into effect while he was President of the United States during that last important year in the history of this country. I had thought surely we might be able to persuade the Democrats to vote for that. That would have given us all the money we needed to afford this tax cut here and to have been well within the budget target.
This tax amendment, if agreed to now, would break the target that we in good faith agreed to and that we have tried to comply with in good faith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time has the floor manager remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could the Senator use more time?
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
Mr. LONG. I yield the Senator 4 minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is such that no further amendment is in order to the Finance Committee amendment, nor is an amendment in order to the Muskie amendment, but an amendment is in order to the House bill, the House language.
What we have here is the Finance Committee extending the tax cut until July 1 of next year, 6 months into the next calendar year. Then the Muskie amendment carries that extension on to the first of October. What does that figure out to in dollars and cents?
That is found on the first page of the Muskie amendment. The tax cut is figured at $26.25, instead of $35, because it is three-quarters of the $35. The 2 percent up to $9,000, which is allowed as analternate credit, is reduced to 1.5 percent. Ninety-nine plus percent of the American taxpayers do not operate on a fiscal year tax year basis. They operate on a calendar year. If we are talking about allowing $35 per exemption, we are going to have to extend this on for the full calendar year of 1977.
The distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has said the taxpayer needed to know. He needs to know whether this tax cut is going to be extended. Well, it is not going to help the taxpayer a great deal to know that it is extended from July 1 to October 1. What he needs to know is that the tax cut is extended for the full calendar year. That is all that means anything to him.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. On the Senator's time. I have only 4 minutes.
So it is not in order at this time to offer this amendment, but when 2 o'clock arrives, the Senator from Alabama will offer the amendment.
It extends the tax cut for the entire calendar year of 1977. That is what would be of benefit to the taxpayers. It gives the full $35 per exemption cut. They would be assured of that. Under the Muskie amendment, all they would be assured of, as Senators will remember on the first page of his amendment, would be $26.25. My amendment would guarantee the taxpayer $35 per exemption tax credit.
I feel that that would be the best solution of the dilemma we now find ourselves in. If, as the Muskie amendment would indicate, 9 months is better than 6 months, then 12 months, being the full loaf, is better than the 9 months suggested by the Muskie amendment.
I shall offer this amendment at the hour of 2 o'clock. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suppose, traditionally, I ought to try to get the last 3 or 4 minutes to attempt to influence the vote of Senators coming in at the last minute, but since that is all the time I have left, I will use it now.
I offered the amendment through fiscal 1977 because it is my purpose to implement the first concurrent budget resolution, and that is what the first concurrent budget resolution provides for, just simply giving the Senate an opportunity to put in place or reaffirm the policy already adopted.
The Senator listened to my prepared remarks. He knows I believe the tax cut will never be eliminated because of the progressive nature of the income tax, which will restore the revenues to the percentage of the taxpayers income that they were before the tax cut. For that reason, I will support the Senator's amendment.
The second point I would like to make is to the Senator from Louisiana. The Senator keeps looking at the budget process as simply a budget game. I mean it is also a vehicle for making economic policy, yet when I seek to enforce the economic policy that the first budget resolution incorporated, the Senator accuses me of busting the budget.
The economic policy is as important an element in the congressional budget as the revenue number to which the Senator keeps referring.
The third point I would wish to make, in response to the Senator from Louisiana, is this: He denigrates the stimulative effect on the economy of this amendment. Well, if this amendment is not stimulative, then the tax cut of last year could not have been stimulative.
We take credit in Congress for having turned the economy around with the tax reduction of last year. Now, when I seek to extend that policy, Senator LONG says it is not that much of a stimulus, it does not work all that much.
Is the Senator telling us that the tax cut of last year, which Congress has regarded as a centerpiece in its economic policy, was a fraud? Or does he believe, as I believe, that it was a major factor in turning the economy around?
Mr. President, the issue is very clear. If Senators are worried about the addition to the deficit that may be the result if we do not add any revenue raising amendments to the pending bill, let me say this: If it is the deficit that you are concerned with, why are we focusing on something between $1 and $2 billion? Why not eliminate the whole $50 billion deficit? We do not, for a very simple reason: Because the economy would be plunged into a tailspin if we tried to do it, and it is not possible.
This tax cut was not recommended for the purpose of stimulating tax reform. It was approved for the purpose of stimulating the economy. It stands on its own merits. It stands on its own feet.
And the $2 billion represented by this extension is an important part of the total stimulus represented in one way by the deficit of $50 billion, but more important, by assuring consumers that their incomes are not going to be cut back by a tax increase a year from now.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield for a quick question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do.
Mr. PASTORE. Did I correctly understand the Senator from Maine to say that he will support the amendment to extend it to a full calendar year?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; because I think it is needed for that length of time, but the congressional budget process can only act for a year.
Mr. PASTORE. I understand the Senator's reason for limiting his amendment; but he is going to support it for the full year?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am going to support it for the full year, because I think we are going to have to continue it for the full year, granted the unemployment projections we face down the road.
Mr. PASTORE. I see.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve whatever time I have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has none.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this budget busting amendment. Any way you figure it, we will go home tonight, if we adopt this amendment, having added $1.7 billion to the deficit.
I believe the amendment is offered in the best of faith, but let us consider our procedure here in the Senate.
Up until 1865, in the House of Representatives, the Ways and Means Committee handled appropriations and taxes. So whenever they spent money, they took the steps to raise that amount of revenue. That was carried on throughout the early history of the Republic. The Ways and Means Committee is older than the Republic itself. The first such committee was organized by the Continental Congress.
About 1815, steps were taken that led to the establishment of the Finance Committee. All through that period, through the Civil War until 1867, the Finance Committee handled both appropriations and taxes, when the record shows that the load got so heavy that they created the Appropriations Committee to handle appropriations.
They had fine men on both committees, but they no longer had the one committee having control of both the amount of expenditures and the amount of taxes. Consequently, that may have had something to do with the deficit practice that has sprung up.
Now, because we went ahead and spent and spent and never raised the question, "Do we have the money," or "Where are we going to get the money," there arose all over the country a demand that we do something about the control of expenditures, and out of that countrywide demand for action there resulted the formation of the Budget Committee, to narrow the gap, or possibly to create a balance between expenditures and intake.
Today we have the irony of that committee coming in here and proposing to widen the gap between appropriations and revenues. I realize that there are many scholarly people who like to "fine tune" the economy. They would like to shift that function to their particular doorstep. But that is not what the country had in mind when they bought the concept of a Budget Committee.
They talked about control of the budget, not control of the economy. They talked about controlling expenditures, and requiring enough revenue to bring the money in.
This amendment is rather ridiculous. The Finance Committee, just as surely as they have a right to fix the amount of a tax cut, can surely fix the duration of it.
Here is something else that Senators ought to know: When we realized that this temporary $35 credit was to come to an end, we did not want it to hurt people with the lowest incomes, so an adjustment has been made by the Senate Finance Committee in the low income allowance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CURTIS. As a result, the Muskie amendment will not help anyone, or scarcely anyone, because there is a peculiar circumstance. The Muskie amendment will not help anyone who makes less than $12,000 a year. Why argue that there is virtue in ending a tax cut the first of October but it is terrible to end it the first of July?
Let us let the appropriate committees face this as the time comes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.