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
                Contents Display    

Mr. LOTT. We need to do it because he has been in my office several times explaining it. I would like to get it done because I have heard enough to be convinced.

[Page: S13901]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. BYRD. I remove my objection.

   VICTIMS' TAX RELIEF

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to say on other matters that we passed this afternoon and on which we didn't get to comment too much, I am glad we did what we did with regard to victims' tax relief, the spouses who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. I met with a group of them, most of them women, but a man also.

   It was one of the most cheerful things I have experienced. These are women, most of them young women with children, some of them pregnant, some of them with no income right now; some of them hadn't gotten much in terms of charitable assistance. I was floored to learn that we taxed charitable contributions or receipts to individuals who had been hit by a disaster such as this. I think we should say as to the funds they receive from charitable contributions, these spouses who have lost their loved ones, not only should they not have to pay taxes on the charity they receive but no American should.

   I have gone back and checked on the history now and found out how that happened. At one point there was a budget need for $10 billion. So they said, we can just do a tax on charitable receipts for 5 years and that will take care of this $10 billion hole.

   So I am glad we did that. I appreciate that there were Senators from all over the country on other issues, such as Senator Baucus and the Senator from New York, who were willing to put aside very important issues to them to make sure we didn't leave this issue on the table.

   TERRORISM REINSURANCE

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, another issue I was very sorry we couldn't work out was the terrorism reinsurance. We should have moved that today. We should have moved it a month ago.

   What happened was Senator Gramm, Senator Dodd, and Senator Sarbanes came to agreement on a bill in the committee of jurisdiction, the Banking and Financial Services Committee. It had some limits on liability. But then it was basically taken away from those Senators, and they were told we were not going to do it that way.

   The bill that Senator Daschle asked consent to move this afternoon did not have any limits on attorney's fees or any prohibitions on punitive damages. And Senator McConnell then said: We should move the bill, but we should have at least a vote on whether or not there should be any limits on liabilities. That is all we were asking, not that it just be included, which it should have been because that was what was in the committee, but that we have an opportunity to vote on that.

   And, by the way, as an old whip, I had counted the votes, and the votes were here in the Senate to pass that bill with no punitive damages allowed and some limits on liability.

   Otherwise, we would have lawsuits being settled and attorney fees and punitive damages coming out of the Federal Treasury if we had a terrorist attack that invoked this terrorism reinsurance.

   So I hope we don't have a situation at the end of the year where buildings will not be able to be built because they won't get loans because there won't be terrorism insurance . Maybe too much won't happen between now and the end of January or early February, but we need to address this issue. When we do, it should have some reasonable tort reform included, as the Federal tort claims law now provides.

   One other brief point, and I will yield so others may speak. Mr. President, in the 29 years I have been in Congress, the House and the Senate, we have worked through a lot of difficult issues. We have committee action, we pass things in the House and Senate, we have intense negotiations in conference, but at some point we bring it to a conclusion and we pass it.

   I have never seen an issue that more work went into than this stimulus package with no result. The President was personally involved. The President personally made concessions. The House and the Senate were involved. We set up a system of negotiators involving Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and Senator Rockefeller. We finally had a bill before us this afternoon that would provide stimulus for the economy, tax incentives for businesses, big and small, and for individuals to be able to keep a little more of their taxes, lowering the 27 percent tax bracket down to 25, helping people who make as low as $28,000 for an individual, and $40,000 for a couple--not exactly wealthy people, and not even middle income, if you get down to it--and assistance for unemployed, increased benefits for them, and a new precedent of health insurance coverage.

   We could not even get it up to a vote. I believe if we would have had a vote on that issue today, there would have been 60 votes to override a point of order. I would not want to have to go back to my State and explain how I voted against a bill that provided additional unemployment compensation, health insurance coverage for the unemployed, expensing for small business men and women, and rate cuts for middle-income individuals. I don't think I could have defended that. Therefore, I would have voted for it, and I believe 60 or more Senators would have voted for it. But it is here.

   I hope the economy begins to show continued growth. There is good news for the third week in a row. Unemployment claims are down. We have a robust, dynamic economy in America. Maybe it won't be needed. But if we come back in late January and February and it is still stumbling along, and we are not seeing positive signs of real recovery, we are going to have to revisit this issue.

   We should also revisit the issue Senator Domenici raised--the payroll tax holiday--and put that in place of some of the other provisions in this bill. This bill is pretty expensive already. I think we need to take some things out of this bill. That would provide a quick, immediate impact on the economy. If we didn't collect that 12.4 percent payroll tax for 1 month on individuals and employers, that would have an impact immediately. So that may be something to which we will have to return.

   There will be a lot of accusations back and forth as to why we didn't get it done, but I will say I think for the American people, no matter how it happened, it is a shame we didn't

   complete work on that piece of legislation.

   I hope next year we will start on a positive note and pass a national energy policy bill, and pass an agriculture bill that has better policy in it than the one we considered, and also pass trade legislation that would help the economy. I think we can do those things, a lot of other good things, and a stimulus bill if the economy calls for it.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I yield back the 17 minutes he has. It is my understanding that Senator Lott has the authority to yield back the time of Senator McConnell on the foreign operations bill.

   Mr. LOTT. Yes, and I do so.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference report to accompany H.R. 2506 is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

   Under the previous order, the Senator from Virginia is recognized for up to 5 minutes.

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I spoke to Senator Baucus, and I know he has a measure he wants to discuss and, without objection, I would actually defer to Senator Baucus for his remarks he wanted to make if I may follow right behind Senator Baucus.

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana about the timeframe they are speaking of because I wanted to address the Senate on a matter different from the subject about which they want to speak.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might answer the question posed, it is my intention that the matter I intend to bring up will probably consume 4, 5 minutes maximum.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may ask the courtesy of my friends, Senator Lott and I have something we have been trying to do all day. It will take a short time, a unanimous consent request.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Virginia?

   Ms. LANDRIEU. I do object, Mr. President.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[Page: S13902]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, I would have liked to yield 5 minutes, but I had better take them.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

<<<

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
                Contents Display