THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
And those numbers represent only the arms agreements and deliveries
[Page: S11327] GPO's PDF
And during those eight years, the United States delivered a total of more than $124 billion worth of arms worldwide. Russia again came in second with $21.6 billion in deliveries.
In both instances--arms transfer agreements and arms actually delivered--the vast majority of United States arms transactions were conducted with the countries of the developing world.
As you can see from these numbers, Mr. President, the United States has no real competitors in the arms transfer business. And the United States will continue to lead the world in arms sales into the foreseeable future, because those who would buy arms want to buy them from American manufacturers. It is that simple. These companies are already making millions and millions of dollars from these sales each year. And they are already receiving substantial tax benefits. There is no need to double that benefit.
In fact, as I noted earlier with regard to the entire FSC export tax subsidy, I would argue that we should actually be talking about eliminating this benefit entirely. At the very least, we should maintain the current level--we should not double this subsidy.
This 100 percent increase in the tax benefit for arms sales is opposed by such groups as the Council for a Liveable World Education Fund, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ, NETWORK, the Church of the Brethren, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Mennonite Central Committee, and the Maryknoll Mission Association of the Faithful.
The world is already a very dangerous place. The Congress should not be increasing the subsidy for U.S. companies to sell weapons abroad.
Make no mistake about the importance of this piece of legislation to arms manufacturers and other business interests who would benefit from the various tax subsidies contained in this bill. As you know, wealthy interests don't just sit idly by on the sidelines waiting for us to act on this kind of legislation. They
lobby to insert favorable provisions into a bill, and once they secure a special deal, they lobby to keep it in the bill. And when I say ``lobbying,'' I mean more than a visit or a phone call to staff--I mean campaign contributions, Mr. President, millions upon millions of dollars worth.
As we discuss the legislation before us, we cannot ignore the presence of powerful monied interests. I have often likened campaign contributions to an 800-pound gorilla that's in this chamber every day--nobody talks about him, but he cannot be ignored. On this issue as well, I refuse to ignore the 800 pound gorilla who's throwing his weight around in our political process. Instead I choose to Call the Bankroll, to inform my colleagues and the public of the contributions made by wealthy interests seeking to influence what we do here on this floor.
On this provision of the bill, I feel it is once again very important to take a moment to review the campaign contributions of the defense industry. As I have said, this bill would double the tax benefit currently enjoyed by U.S. companies that sell weapons abroad. This bill means a huge bonanza for arms manufacturers. It is only appropriate to take a look at the bonanza of contributions they have provided to the political parties.
Many members of the Business Roundtable, an organization which has urged the passage of this legislation, are some of the biggest arms manufacturers in the U.S., and some of the biggest political donors. I'd like to review the contributions of some of these companies. These figures are for contributions through at least the first 15 months of the election cycle, and in some cases include contributions given more recently in the cycle.
Lockheed Martin, its executives and subsidiaries have given more than $861,000 in soft money, and more than $881,000 in PAC money so far during this election cycle.
United Technologies and its subsidiaries have given more than $293,000 in soft money and more than $240,000 in PAC money during the period.
During that period, Raytheon has given more than $251,000 in soft money to the parties and more than $397,000 in PAC money to Federal candidates.
Textron has contributed more than $173,000 in soft money and more than $205,000 in PAC money.
And last but not least, Boeing has given more than $583,000 in soft money since the election cycle began, and more than $593,000 in PAC contributions.
Mr. President, these defense companies are getting a one hundred percent increase in an already unnecessary tax break, and frankly I wonder why. I wonder why we would double a tax break for the defense industry, when we haven't passed a Patient's Bill of Rights, when we haven't provided Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and when we haven't passed so many other important measures that Americans really care about.
Sadly, it appears that there is a pretty simple way to figure out why we dole out corporate tax breaks while we neglect the priorities of the American people. All you have to do is follow the dollar.
Mr. President, this bill thus amply proves the adage that ``a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.'' We should revise the procedures that allow such a monstrosity to be loaded into a conference report on an unrelated matter. And we should reject this bill, whose rotten provisions outnumber its sound ones.
Exhibit 1
Say Goodbye to the Surplus
Congressional Republican reached agreement yesterday on the contents of the tax cut bill they intend to send the president before adjourning. They suggest it's a relatively minor measure, but it's not. If it becomes law atop all the spending increases also agreed to in this session, Congress and the president will have used up, before the election, well over a third of the projected budget surplus--the $2.2 trillion over 10 years in other than Social Security funds--that the presidential candidates are so busily distending on the campaign trail. It's an astonishing display of lack of discipline and misplaced priorities.
The president sent a letter implying that he might sign the tax bill even while objecting to major parts. He ought instead to veto it if congressional Democrats won't block it first. As with the other Republican tax cuts he vetoed earlier in the year, this would cost too much--an estimated quarter-trillion dollars over the 10 years--and too much of the money would go to the part of the population least in need.
In the name of increasing access to health care, the legislation would grant a new tax deduction to people who buy their own insurance . The deduction would mainly benefit those in the top tax brackets who tend already to be insured. The president observed that, far from increasing access, it would have the perverse effect of inducing employers to drop insurance they now maintain for their employees. Among much else, the bill would also increase the amounts that can be contributed annually to tax-favored retirement accounts, a step that by definition benefits only those who can afford to save the maximum now.
The health insurance deduction was part of the Republicans' price for the $1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage that the bill also contains. The price is too high. Also in the bill will be so-called Medicare givebacks, increases in payments to providers that the president earlier objected were tilted in favor of managed care companies already overpaid. This is on balance a bad bill dusted with confectioner's sugar and offered up at year's end on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The right response would be to vote it down.
--
Exhibit 2
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES,
Washington, DC, October 26, 2000.
Leadership's Tax Plan Reinforces Inequities in Health and Pension Coverage
TAX CUTS PRIMARILY BENEFIT HIGH-INCOME HOUSEHOLD AND COULD REDUCE HEALTH AND PENSION COVERAGE FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME WORKERS
Congress will shortly consider a significant tax package developed by the House and Senate Republican leadership. Despite some beneficial provisions in the bill, such as the $1 increase in the minimum wage phases-in over the next two years, the bill's tax provisions will primarily benefit those-with high incomes. In developing the package, the leadership dropped bipartisan provisions--such as the retirement savings tax credit and the small business tax credit adopted by the
[Page: S11328] GPO's PDF
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the cost of the package to be $240 billion over 10 years. But when combined with anticipated discretionary appropriations, the repeal of the telephone excise tax, new health benefits for military retires, and Medicare give-backs as well as the resulting interest costs, this bill brings the 10-year cost recent of congressional actions to close to $1 trillion (see box at the end of the paper). This Congress will therefore use a substantial share of the available surplus without addressing key priorities, such as reducing the ranks of the uninsured or funding prescription drug benefits. The benefits of the leadership's plan remain focused on these who have benefitted the most from the economic boom, offering little to those who continue to struggle to get ahead.
Nearly two-thirds of the tax cuts in the bill go to the 20 percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes. The top five percent of taxpayers receive a greater share of the tax cuts than the bottom 80 percent. Thus the benefits of the bill are concentrated on those that already have high rates of health insurance and pension coverage. These estimates were calculated by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy.
The bill's health insurance deduction is expensive and poorly targeted. This deduction is most valuable to those in the highest tax brackets, yet those most in need of coverage have no tax liability or are in the lowest (15 percent) bracket. Taxpayers with incomes too low to pay income taxes would receive no assistance from this deduction. For most taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket, the 15-cents-on-the-dollar subsidy that the deduction provides is unlikely to be sufficient to make costly health insurance affordable.
According to the Joint Tax Committee, approximately 94 percent of the cost of the health insurance tax deduction would go to subsidize taxpayers that already have health insurance , with only 6 percent of the tax benefits going to further the goal of extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured.
The Council of Economic Advisers, among other researchers, found that tax deductions are a very inefficient way of extending coverage to the uninsured. A more cost-effective approach is the Administration's FamilyCare plan, which, at a lower cost, would provide coverage to more than twice the number of uninsured than the proposed tax deduction.
Because the health care tax deduction would provide a far deeper percentage subsidy for purchasing health insurance to higher-paid business owners and executives than to lower-wage earners, it could encourage some small business owners to drop group coverage (or not to institute it in the first place) and to rely on the deduction for their own coverage. As a result, some workers could be forced to buy more costly and less comprehensive insurance on the individual market, and the ranks of the uninsured and under-insured could rise.
The bill also includes tax deductions for long-term care insurance and long-term care expenses that would provide the largest benefit to higher-income taxpayers. Most low- and middle-income taxpayers would get no more than a 15 percent subsidy; this is too little to enable most of these families to afford costs related to long-term care.
Most of the bill's pension benefits would accrue to higher-income workers who already enjoy high rates of pension coverage. An analysis by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy of the bill's pension and IRA provisions found that 77 percent of the benefits would go to the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes. In sharp contrast, the bottom 60 percent of the population would receive less than five percent of these tax benefits.
Moreover, the bill would likely lead to reductions in pension coverage for some low- and middle-income workers and employees of small businesses. For instance, it would weaken ``non-discrimination'' and ``top-heavy'' rules that ensure company pension plans treat low-income workers fairly and are not skewed in favor of highly compensated workers. It also increases the IRA contribution limits to $5,000, which could make IRAs more attractive than company pension plans for owners of small businesses, possibly leading them to drop plans that benefit their workers.
Exhibit 3
CENTER ON BUDGET AND
POLICY PRIORITIES,
Washington, DC, Revised October 18, 2000.
Health Insurance Deduction of Little Help to the Uninsured
House Speaker Dennis Hastert held a press conference last week in which he called for including in the minimum-wage package a new tax deduction for health insurance premiums. The deduction would be available to taxpayers that pay at least 50 percent of the cost of their health insurance .
This proposal, which would cost nearly $11 billion a year in fiscal year 2010, is a poorly targeted and expensive way to help the uninsured obtain coverage. Those most in need would receive little or no subsidy to help them buy insurance . Moreover, the proposal could have the effect of raising the cost of insurance for some workers.
According to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, approximately 94 percent of the cost of the Speaker's tax deduction would go to subsidize taxpayers that already have health insurance , with only 6 percent of the tax benefits going to further his stated goal of extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured.
The proposed tax deduction is most valuable to high-income taxpayers, who are in the higher tax brackets. Nine of every 10 people without health insurance , however, have no tax liability or are in the lowest (15 percent) tax bracket. Taxpayers with incomes too low to pay income taxes would receive no assistance in purchasing insurance from this deduction. For most taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket, the 15-cents-on-the-dollar subsidy that the deduction provides is unlikely to be sufficient to make insurance affordable.
Because the deduction provides a far-deeper percentage subsidy for the purchase of insurance to higher-income business owners and executives than to lower-income wage earners, it could encourage small business owners to drop, or fail to institute, group coverage and to rely instead on this deduction to help defray the cost of their own coverage. As a result, some workers could be forced to buy more costly and less comprehensive insurance on the individual market, and the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured could increase.
New research shows that a far more cost effective way to assist the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, would be to extend publicly-funded health insurance coverage to low-income parents. The Administrator's FamilyCare plan relies on this approach. At his press conference, however, the Speaker inappropriately compared his proposal to the Administration's small business health insurance tax credit. The Administration's tax credit is a very small scale proposal compared to the Hastert tax deduction. The Speaker's proposal costs $10.9 billion a year by 2010, while the Administration's small business tax credit would cost just $319 million over 10 years, according to JCT. The more-appropriate comparison would have been to the Administration's FamilyCare plan, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cost $8.7 billion in 2010.
Available estimates show that the FamilyCare approach would result in a substantially larger number of currently uninsured people obtaining insurance coverage than would the Speaker's proposed tax deduction. This is the case despite the somewhat lower annual cost of the FamilyCare plan, when both proposals are fully in effect.
A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisers concludes that tax deductions will do little to improve tax health insurance coverage and that approaches like FamilyCare are better at targeting the uninsured.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?
Mr. President, I would want the question to be on my time, not on his, because he has been given 30 minutes.
May I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Prior to asking a question, I personally appreciate what the Senator from Wisconsin has done on campaign finance reform. Would he think it is a fair statement to say one of the gross failures of this Congress is that we have done nothing to get the money out of politics?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is just a shame that we have managed to get to the year 2000 election without having any significant action on campaign finance reform. We did take the first tiny step in the right direction on a strong bipartisan vote by doing something about disclosure by these 527 groups that were sort of a scam in the making, but we did not address the need to ban soft money which the overwhelming majority of both Houses support and the President is ready to sign. It is a glaring failure of this Congress.
Everybody else in the country knows, including those who supported the campaign of the Senator from Arizona for President on the Republican side, that soft money is a real cancer on the system. But somehow, again, the Congress is behind the people. I can't help but note, in answer to the question, that we are going to make a very important decision in the next few days on who the next President of the United States should be. The candidate of the Democratic Party, AL GORE, has pledged to make the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money the first piece of domestic legislation he will introduce, and he has pledged to work for it and sign it when Congress passes it. The candidate for the Republicans, Governor Bush, apparently is prepared to veto it.
[Page: S11329] GPO's PDF
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents