[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 164 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15491-S15492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        JERUSALEM EMBASSY RELOCATION IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment no. 2940

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind the Senator that 20 minutes of debate 
has begun on the Dorgan amendment, but none of the managers is here.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota is here.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Under the previous unanimous-consent order, the Senator has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield myself 5 minutes of the 10 minutes and then 
reserve the time.
  Mr. President, this issue will be relatively simple. The vote we are 
going to have in 20 minutes is a very simple proposition. It is a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says let us limit the tax cut to 
those whose incomes are under a quarter of a million dollars a year and 
use the savings from that limitation to reduce the cut in Medicare. It 
is very simple. This follows an amendment I had previously that was 
voted on by the Senate--it failed--saying let us limit the tax cut to 
those whose incomes are $100,000 a year or less. That failed.
  So I indicated that I intended to offer another resolution which I 
now offer that says I do not personally think we ought to talk about 
tax cuts at the moment. I think we ought to deal with the budget issue, 
and the Congressional Budget Office has told us there is not a balanced 
budget in this proposal. The deficit in the year 2002 will be $105 
billion. But the majority side says they have reached a balanced 
budget. So they want now to proceed to a tax cut.
  While I wish they would not do that, my amendment is painfully 
simple. It says let us at least agree to limit the tax cut to those 
whose incomes are $250,000 a year or less. If we do that, we will save 
some money and be able to cut Medicare less than is now proposed.
  What does this amount to? I do not have exact figures. But, from 
talking to the Treasury Department and others, my reckoning is that we 
are talking about 20 percent of the tax cut going to slightly more than 
1 percent of the earners in this country, or about $50 billion over the 
7 years. This sense-of-the-Senate would, say, let us save $50 billion 
that will otherwise, during the 7 years, go to those whose incomes are 
over a quarter of a million dollars a year and use that $50 billion to 
soften the blow on Medicare recipients. It is interesting. That $50 
billion over the 5 years is almost exactly the same amount as the $50 
billion increase in part B premiums that senior citizens will be asked 
to pay.
  It is simply about choices. It is not about Republicans, Democrats, 
conservative, or liberal. It is about choices. What is important? Is it 
more important to provide tax cuts to people whose incomes are a 
quarter of a million dollars or greater? Is it more important to do 
that than to try to soften the blow on low-income senior citizens who 
will, I think, get hit fairly hard on the question of these Medicare 
cuts?
  So that is the purpose of this amendment. As the Members of the 
Senate know, the Treasury Department has indicated that the 
reconciliation bill that will come to the floor will provide nearly 
one-half of its tax benefits to those with incomes of $100,000 a year 
or more, and it will at the same time increase taxes on about half the 
families in our country. Which half? The lower half, of course. That is 
the subject of this amendment. It is about priorities.
  I hope that others in the Chamber, having reflected on this and 
having turned down the proposition to limit the tax cut to those under 
$100,000 a year, will now at least agree that those who make over a 
quarter of a million dollars a year really do not need at this point a 
tax cut. So that is the purpose of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has about 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill will come to the 
floor of the Senate tomorrow perhaps, or at the latest Wednesday. We 
will begin debate on the reconciliation bill under a procedure that is 
very restricting and very constrained, as you know.
  It will, by necessity, limit the debate on the amendments, and, 
frankly, we will have an insignificant opportunity to effect what is 
happening in the committees that is brought to the floor under the 
reconciliation bill.
  Tragically, this reconciliation bill really does almost everything. 
It is going to have a farm bill in it. For the first time in history, 
they stick a farm bill in the reconciliation bill. I mean, it has the 
kitchen sink in it--profound, massive changes in Medicaid and Medicare 
and eliminates national standards for nursing homes. You name it. But 

[[Page S 15492]]

especially it deals with choices, and that is the purpose of my sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. The choice that says what we would like to do 
at this point is balance the budget and provide a tax cut.
  I have no objection to a tax cut provided that we have done the heavy 
lifting to balance the budget first. But the Congressional Budget 
Office says that with the reconciliation bill there exists a $105 
billion deficit in the year 2002, and still the majority party wishes 
to proceed with a tax cut, half of which will benefit those families 
with incomes over $100,000 a year, $50 billion of which over the 7 
years will benefit those families with incomes over a quarter of a 
million dollars a year.
  My point is very simple. With the number of people out there in this 
country living on very modest incomes, especially senior citizens, the 
bulk of whom live on less than $15,000 a year, we are saying to them, 
``Tighten your belt, buckle up, you are in for some tough times, 
because we are going to change the programs that you count on because 
we cannot afford to do otherwise.''
  And then we say to the wealthiest families in America, those who earn 
over a quarter of a million a year and more, guess what. We are going 
to stop at your house with an envelope, and guess what is in the 
envelope. A very significant tax cut. So start grinning; it is coming 
your way. Why? Well, it is about pals and pols. It is about choices. It 
is about the wrong choices. My sense-of-the-Senate resolution is very 
simple. It says let us at least make a decision to limit this tax cut 
to those families that earn less than $250,000 a year and say to those 
with a quarter million dollars a year or more income, we think you are 
doing great; you do not need a tax cut, and use the savings, $50 
billion in 7 years, to offset some of the cut that is going to be 
impacting and hurting senior citizens in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be deducted from both sides equally.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 4 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, we are under a unanimous-consent order 
between 5:40 and 6 o'clock. Any unanimous consent would have to use 
part of that time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I would ask that my 4 minutes be charged equally to the 
two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Dakota controls 40 seconds. The rest would have to 
come from the other side.

                          ____________________