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      

   There are many of us who believe there is another way to do it, with sound fiscal policy and leadership, not only in the White House but also in Congress. With the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President GORE, we now find ourselves talking about spending surpluses.

   I would like to speak for a moment about the tax bills we have considered over the last 2 weeks, but before I do that, I would like to yield to my colleague from the State of Nevada.

   Mr. REID. I appreciate that very much. I am sorry my friend from Oklahoma is not here. I have here from the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Estimated Revenue Effects of Modification to the Chairman's Mark of the Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000.'' This we received from the Joint Committee. It says the net total impact of this tax over a 10-yea r period is

   $247.8 billion.

[Page: S7221]  GPO's PDF

   Is that what the Senator from Illinois was saying as I walked into the Chamber?

   Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly my point. Before he rushed off for dinner, the Senator from Oklahoma suggested if that was the case, he would eat the paper. I suggest my friend from Nevada save that. Perhaps we can send it along for lunch tomorrow for my colleague because I stand by that estimate. I have no reason to believe it is not true. For him to suggest the cost of this program is $56 billion whether it is 5 years in length or 10 years in length really does not square with my understanding.

   It certainly is going to cost us taxpayers more over a 10-year period of time than it did over a 5-year period of time. I believe that is what the Joint Committee on Taxation is telling us.

   Mr. REID. If I could ask my friend one more question, this is not a question of the Democrats being opposed to the marriage penalty tax relief; is th at true?

   Mr. DURBIN. That is true. In fact, what we have done is present a proposal that says if you are in a situation where two wage earners get married and their joint income raises them to a higher tax rate, we prot ect them. Basically, we voted, if I am not mistaken, to say to those taxpayers: Take your pick. You can file a joint return. You can file a single return. We have a proposal that will protect you from being penalized for your marriage. The Republicans, unfortunately, go one step beyond solving the problem and create a problem. They create a problem because they not only remove what they consider to be the marriage penalty, although their approach is only half hearted--they provide a marriage bonus. In other words, those couples who get married and don't pay higher taxes because of combined joint income receive a tax break under t he Republican plan. So it goes far beyond solving the additional problem that was identified. It creates a new problem because it creates a new expense, a new drain on the Treasury, a new expenditure of our surplus.

   Mr. REID. I say to my friend, also in the form of a question, I hope that he has the opportunity to finish his description here of what the difference is between the two approaches. I also say to my friend, this issue is not over. People can yell and scream and declare victory, but in our Government, I think the Senator would agree, we have something called the Constitution. This tiny little document here establishes three separate but equal branches of Government. One of those branches of Government is called the executive branch. He is going to veto this and then it is going to come back. Then the legislative branch is going to sustain that veto.

   Then they will have an opportunity, if they in good faith want to do something to help remove this marriage penalty tax, to work with the administration and the Democrats and come up with a compromise that would give true marriage penalty tax relief. In fa ct, what it would do is, instead of taking away three of the references where there is a penalty in our Tax Code, it woul d take care of all 67. Am I right, I say to my friend from Illinois?

   Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Nevada is correct. What the Republicans suggest is they end the marriage penalty. We know there are somewhere between 62 and 67 provisions in the Tax Code that pen alize a couple when they are married and have a higher

   joint income. We on the Democratic side address every single one of those penalties and remove them for those who are truly penalized. The Republicans, unfortunately, only addressed three of them. They leave all the other taxes on this married couple. So they not only don't solve the problem, they create a new problem by taking the surplus away for people who are not being prejudiced by being married, and they don't address it in a comprehensive way.

   President Clinton should veto this bill, and in vetoing it send it back to Congress and say if it is your goal to eliminate the marriage penalty, do it in an honest way; do it in a complete way. What we had before us yesterday was very incomplete and, I am afraid, not a very direct way of dealing with this problem.

   Take a look, if you will, at the impact of the Republican marriage penalty tax cut by income because I am going to return to this theme in just a moment. If you take a look at who will benefit from the Republican tax relief plan, you will find that, as usual, those who are in the richest fifth, top 20 percent of wage earners in America, receive 78.3 percent of all benefits under this Republican tax relief. In fa ct, the top 5 percent of wage earners receive 25.7 percent of all of this tax relief. This , unfortunately, has become a recurring theme when the issue of tax relief comes before the Republican-controlled Senate. Time and again they believe the people who are best off in this country, the people who are doing well, are the ones who need a helping hand.

   Many of us come from States and communities where the folks who are making a lot of money are doing very well. They are very comfortable. They have had a very profitable time for the last 7 or 8 years of the Clinton administration. We have seen dramatic increases in the Dow Jones, the NASDAQ. When President Clinton was sworn into office as President, the Dow Jones was about 3,000 or 3,300. Today it is over 10,000. The value of those stocks has more than tripled. In the same period of time, the NASDAQ indicators went up from about 800 when the President was sworn in to around 5,000 today.

   There is a suggestion there for everyone that if you happen to be invested with savings accounts and retirement accounts in the stock market, you have had a pretty good time of it over the last 7 or 8 years. I am glad that has happened, and I am happy for all the families who profited and businesses and retirement funds that have seen better times because of this improvement.

   It strikes me as strange, if not odd, that when we talk about tax relief then, the Republicans seem to want to focus on the people who have really done the very best in income and net worth over the last 10 years.

   Take a look at this chart of Republican tax breaks under both the estate tax reform an d th e marriage tax penalty refor m, and you will find again a dramatic difference in the money that is available. For those in the lowest 20 percent--these are people making the minimum wage or slightly more--the Republican idea of tax relief turns out to be $24 a year in reduced taxes, about $2 a month.

   Now go up to the top 1 percent, people making over $300,000 a year, and the Republican idea of tax relief is $23 ,000, almost $2,000 a month. I suggest that anyone making $300,000--which, if my quick calculations are correct, comes out to about $25,000 a month in income--may not notice $2,000 a month. I guarantee the people at the lowest end who are struggling at minimum wage jobs are not going to notice $2 a month.

   It is far more important for us, when we talk about real tax relief, to ke ep our eyes on those in the lower- and middle-income groups who are struggling mightily to do well in this economy. They have had some help. The economy is doing well, but they could use some tax relief, and i f we are going to take the surplus of the United States and give it to families across America, should we start at the top? Should we start with the wealthiest or should we start basically with the lower- and middle-income families who really need it?

   Take a look at this chart, too. This chart summarizes it. It shows the Republican tax plans we have debated over the last 2 weeks, and the impact it has, as I described on previous charts. The top 1 percent of people making over $319,000 a year, people with an average income of $915,000, receive a $23,000 tax break, which represents 43 percent of all of the tax relief that w as included in those bills. We are taking the surplus generated in our economy for tax relief and 43 percent of it goes to people who have an average income of $915,000 a year.

   There is a better way to do it. I hope the President vetoes the estate tax bill and the marriage tax penalty bill suggested by the Republicans because these bills are fundamentally unfair. That we would give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us and ignore families who work hard every single day is not fair.

   If we are going to start a line of people most deserving of assistance in

[Page: S7222]  GPO's PDF

   Tax cuts should b e directed. First and foremost, we need a prescription drug benefit. We just had an interesting debate. Pharmaceutical companies cannot be too happy with this debate because we said on a bipartisan basis that we are so

   upset with drug pricing in America that we are now going to allow companies, pharmacists, and distributors to import drugs from overseas at lower prices so they can sell them to Americans. These are drugs that are basically made and inspected in America, sent to foreign countries, and sold at a fraction of the price.

   It happens in Canada. It happens in Europe. It happens in Mexico. We all know the story. People are getting in buses in some States and driving across the border to Canada to buy American drugs at a fraction of the cost.

   The Senate said there has to be a better way. Absent addressing this problem of pricing drugs head on, we are going to allow the reimportation of these American drugs that have been made in inspected laboratories into the United States so that they can be sold to Americans at a reduced cost. I guess it is obvious from this vote that we know families are suffering because of drug prices, and yet before we have enacted any kind of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the Republicans have insisted we spend half of our anticipated surplus in tax breaks for th e wealthiest in America.

   It makes more sense to me to create a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, a universal guaranteed drug benefit accessible to every American who chooses to be part of it, one that allows a doctor to prescribe a drug that a person needs to stay strong and healthy in their home for as long as they want to be and be able to pay for the drug.

   I have seen cases in Illinois and certainly in hearings across the country and in this city have heard from people who are struggling to pay for prescription drugs. That is the highest priority we should deal with, and we should do it before we break for the August conventions so that both parties can go to their conventions and say: We did something for the families across America. For those who are concerned about the elderly and disabled who are stuck with high drug prices, we did something for fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers, who really cannot afford the drugs their doctors prescribe.

   We did not do that. Instead, we decided people with an average income of $915,000 a year need an additional $23,000 in tax breaks from t he Republicans. I will bet a nickel there is not a person making $915,000 a year who cannot afford prescription drugs. These people know how to pay for virtually everything if they are making that much money, and we gave them more money.

   Before we directed our attention to those who were struggling to get by on fixed incomes--people on Social Security taking home a check of $800 or $1,200 a month looking at drug bills of $200, $500, $600--we learned from a public hearing in Chicago of a woman who had gone through a double lung transplant. It was a miracle she stood there before us and looked very healthy. Years after that transplant, she still worried because she needed to take immunosuppressant drugs that cost over $2,000 a month. There was no way on her fixed income she could afford it.

   Frankly, if she stopped taking them, she could have irreversible lung damage. She faced that prospect, she made that decision, she stopped taking the drugs for a period of months because she could not afford them, and did face irreversible lung damage. She got back on the welfare rolls long enough to resume prescriptions and living month to month trying to afford the drug she needed to stay alive. That is a

   real story of a person whose income is little more than $12,000 a year who literally worries from month to month as to whether or not they will be able to buy the drugs to keep them alive.

   Did we remember that lady when we talked about tax relief here? No. We focused 43 percent of our attention and 43 percent of our surplus on people making over $300,000 a year, people making $915,000 average income. For those in the category above them, $130,000 to $319,000, we gave them another 14 percent of the surplus as well.

   There is another group we forget, and when we had an opportunity to vote for an amendment, unfortunately, we could not muster a majority to support them: families who are paying for college education expenses for their kids.

   We believe--the Clinton administration and Democrats believe--that families who want to put their kids through school should be able to deduct their college education expenses up to $12,000. It means a helping hand from the Government in the range of $3,000 a year. Most families would welcome that so they could pay the tuition expenses and the room and board for the kids who finally are accepted at good colleges and universities. It is a strain for a lot of families, and a lot of kids go deeply into debt to pay for college.

   We believe tax relief should be directed to those families so they can send their kids to college. We brought it up for a vote, and it was rejected by the Republican side. That is not their idea of tax relief. Their idea of tax relief is $23 ,000 a year in tax breaks for pe ople making over $900,000 a year.

   We wanted to address another problem. What about day care? So many working families worry about where their kids are going to be during the course of a day--whether they will be in a place that is safe, clean, and healthy, someplace where a child might have a chance to learn--and they struggle to find that place they can afford. Day care is a real human, family problem. We came up with a proposal to increase the credit that a family can claim for the cost of day care.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 20 minutes.

   Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that was rejected as well. The idea of helping families through the Tax Code to pay f or day care was rejected.

   I can tell you with no doubt in my mind, with an absolute degree of certainty, that if you are making $915,000 a year, you probably do not worry too much about the weekly day care costs, but that is the group the Republican majority decided needed help,

   not the working family, struggling to find a safe, clean, affordable day-care center for their kids. No.

   The group making over $900,000 a year will get $23,000 in tax breaks from t he proposals on the Republican side of the aisle.

   This list includes an effort by the Democratic side to provide tax credits to bu sinesses offering health insurance to their employees. You know as well as I do that 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. We believe the best way to help them afford health insurance is to help the small business employers provide that benefit. Of course, that insurance is more expensive. Those who buy it in smaller groups, such as the small businesses, have to pay more for the health insurance premiums and their employees are in lower income categories.

   So I proposed an amendment that said we would give a tax credit to bus inesses, a tax credit for th ose who would offer health insurance not only to the owners of the businesses but also to those who work there. That was rejected by the Republican side of the aisle. That is the kind of tax relief they j ust do not think is necessary.

   I can tell you, you will not find a single person working for a small business in America making over $900,000 a year--the people we were trying to help with that amendment.

   I can guarantee you, as well, that people making over $900,000 a year probably don't lose a single moment's sleep each night worrying about whether there will be health insurance.

   So it comes down to this. The President has proposed he is going to veto these proposals by the Republicans because, once again, as they have done historically, the tax cuts proposed on the Republican side of the aisle have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy. It happened in August of 1999; again, in May of 2000 under George W. Bush's plan; it happened with the House action recently in March of this year; and

[Page: S7223]  GPO's PDF

   Time and time again, the vast majority of relief goes to the wealthiest people in America. When will this Congress and this Senate listen to the 98 percent of the families in America who are hoping that we share their concerns about their future and their kids' future? Whether it is college education expenses, prescription drugs for their parents, prescription drugs for the disabled and their families, an effort to pay for child care, an effort to make certain they have health insurance on the job, when will this Congress put that as a high priority?

   The Republican leadership said: Those people can go to the back of the line. We will wait for some other day, if ever, to discuss their needs. First we have to take care of the wealthiest. First we have to make sure that those making over $900,000 a year get about $2,000 more a month so they can be a little more comfortable in their lifestyle.

   I think that is wrong. The President's veto is right. Let us provide tax relief and ta rget it for the people who really need it. If there is a surplus in America, let working families, 98 percent of whom were ignored by the Republican tax cut plan, be first in line.

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