[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7879-S7884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                TAX CUTS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a number of us this morning want to visit 
about the issue of tax cuts. We are having a debate--I was going to say 
a dispute, but it is more a debate--in Congress, between the House and 
the Senate and between Members of both parties, about how taxes should 
be cut. It is clear now from the votes in the House and the Senate that 
there will be a tax cut. We do have bills in conference that call for a 
tax cut in a number of different ways--cuts in the income tax, cuts in 
estate tax, cuts in capital gains and a range of other areas. But there 
is substantial debate about who gets what.
  Mr. President, the debate is not idle, and it is not just political. 
I suppose there is some partisanship involved in this as well, but when 
you say that the Federal Government has the capability of reducing 
taxes for the American people, the question then is, for whom and by 
how much and with what purpose? The stakes are fairly large because we 
are talking about a fairly substantial tax reduction, and the question 
is how to divide that.
  There has been a dispute on the floor of the Senate about what the 
numbers show and who puts together a chart that shows what part of the 
population will get how much in tax relief. There have been editorials 
written about that in the Washington Post, New York Times, and others 
and a substantial amount of analysis of these charts.
  One thing to me is certain, however. There are impulses in Congress 
to define how we provide a tax cut in a narrow way in order that the 
tax cut ends up providing substantially greater benefits to those at 
the upper end of the economic ladder than those at the lower end of the 
economic ladder. I happen to come from a part of the country that 
largely believes that the economic engine in this country comes from 
work, from people who go out and work and toil all day. That represents 
the economic engine that keeps this country going. They earn a wage and 
they have a view about the future in this country.

  If their view is optimistic, if their view is positive, then they 
make decisions with the money they have earned. They perhaps buy a 
washer or dryer, buy a car, buy a home, take a vacation. If their view 
is pessimistic or if their outlook is less than positive, they make 
decisions to defer those purchases. They don't buy a washer or dryer. 
They defer it. They don't buy a

[[Page S7880]]

car. So our economy really rests on a cushion of confidence.
  You can talk to all the economists in the world, you can talk to the 
best trained people in this country in the field of economics, and it 
doesn't matter what they say. What matters is that the American economy 
rides on a pillow of confidence. If it exists, the American economy 
does well; if it doesn't, the American economy retracts.
  People in this country generally feel pretty good today. The economy 
is generally moving in the right direction. Unemployment is down, 
inflation is down, the deficit is down, way down. People feel pretty 
good. Economic growth is up. The result is we have more revenue coming 
in to the Federal coffers, and the decision by Congress is to give some 
back in the form of tax cuts. Then the question is, to whom?
  I come from a town of about 400 people, when I left. It is now 300 
people. If, in my hometown making this decision, a local community 
decision, we had proposed what is proposed in terms of the distribution 
now in Congress of this tax cut, I think it would cause some real 
consternation.
  Let's think just a moment about my hometown of 400 people. When there 
is a meeting, they put a little sign in the middle of Main Street, 
because there is not that much traffic and the sign won't be knocked 
down, that says, ``Meeting tonight, 8 o'clock, the Legion Hall.'' Then 
folks come to the meeting.
  So they come to the Legion Hall, and 400 of them would come and we 
would say, ``All right, now we have some money we want to distribute 
here, and it comes from you because you pay taxes. The question is, How 
shall we give it back?'' And someone in the back of the room stands up 
and says, ``I have an idea. Why don't we give 60 percent of this money 
to those four people sitting up in the front row. Out of 400, we will 
take 4 of them. That is 1 percent. One percent of the people, those 
four people we propose should get 60 percent of what we are going to 
give back.''
  Gosh, I think that would cause real trouble in that room. Let's 
assume they are all working now, all working, all paying taxes, but we 
say, ``Let's have the four people up in front get 60 percent of the tax 
cut.''
  Then we say, ``Let's take the bottom 20 percent, let's take 80 people 
who make the least money in town. They are working, but they make the 
least money in town, the lowest wages. They are having the toughest 
time. Let's take those 80 people and have them move their chair over to 
the left side of the building, and we are going to give them one-half 
of 1 percent of the tax cut.'' Gosh, I don't think that is a decision 
my hometown would make in a million years, not if they are all working.
  Yet, that is what is at the root of the proposals in Congress. It is 
to say, if we are going to give a tax cut, let's give it back only on 
the basis of taxes paid, sufficient so that we say let's have a child 
tax credit of $500 per child, but you don't get it if you don't make 
enough money. It's true if you are working, in two-thirds of the cases, 
the American workers are paying more in payroll taxes, yes, to the 
Federal Government, more in payroll taxes than they are paying in 
taxes. But those in the bowels of this decisionmaking process say, 
``Payroll taxes don't count. We don't want to measure payroll taxes 
that you pay in terms of whether or not you should get a tax cut; it is 
only taxes.''
  The result is this family. Lashawn Buckman is from Washington, DC. 
She works downtown as an administrative assistant in a hospital. She is 
expected to earn about $25,000 this year. She has a child aged 3 and a 
child aged 7. She will pay about $3,250 in income and payroll taxes 
this year, and under the bill that was passed by the House of 
Representatives, despite the fact that it advertises a $500-per-child 
tax credit, she will get no income tax cut. She will get no tax cut at 
all, because she doesn't quite earn enough money. She pays a 
substantial amount of payroll taxes, works hard, but she is defined as 
ineligible.
  To those of us who think she ought to be eligible, we are told by 
those who oppose it that we are proposing welfare. No, we are proposing 
giving some taxes back to someone who works who pays substantial 
payroll taxes.
  Here is another family. Elisa Garcia lives in Fairfax County, VA, and 
works for a technology firm. She makes about $10 an hour, works 40 
hours a week. She works hard. She expects to earn about $20,800 this 
year. She has three children --George, Samantha, and Liz. They are 6, 
10, and 15 years of age. She pays about $2,200 in taxes and payroll 
taxes, and under the tax bill passed both by the House and the Senate, 
she will receive no tax reduction. She works hard, she pays taxes, but 
because of the way we have defined it, we say it doesn't count. Unless 
you are paying a specific amount of income tax and unless you are in a 
specific income category, it doesn't count, you don't count as a 
taxpayer and, therefore, when it comes time to provide some tax relief, 
you don't get any.
  The reason I mention this is we have a lot of occupations in this 
country. This is from Parade magazine describing the incomes of people 
that just get left out. This would not happen in my hometown, I don't 
think. I think if everybody came to a meeting in that town, and 400 
people said, ``Let's decide how to divide up the tax cuts,'' they would 
say, ``Everybody is working and paying taxes, so let's have everybody 
get something back from this tax cut.''
  Here is a store owner, $25,000. They are not going to get anything. 
They don't make enough money. A preschool teacher, $11,000; a medical 
technician, $13,000; an assistant store manager, a nurse, a policeman, 
they do not make enough money. They pay payroll taxes, but they do not 
make enough money to get a tax cut. I am sorry, that is wrong. And we 
have a chance to correct it.
  The opportunity to correct it exists right now in that conference 
committee, the opportunity to say to this country that it is wrong to 
provide 60 percent of the tax cut to the top 1 percent of the American 
people.
  It is right to decide that we ought not continue to decide that we 
should tax work and exempt investment. It is right to decide that we 
ought to have a fair distribution of the tax cuts so that all of the 
American people who are out there working are benefited by this 
proposed cut in taxes.
  Mr. President, my colleague from New Jersey is here, and I appreciate 
him coming to the floor today to speak about this same subject. Let me 
yield the floor to him for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, the 
Senator from North Dakota, for his persistence on this issue and on 
issues of fairness altogether. His leadership on so many issues has 
been, frankly, the motivator for many here to take up causes that he so 
ably leads. And in this case, once again, he has indicated how 
important it is for us to be a fair society.
  Mr. President, I was one of those privileged to be part of the 
negotiating team. I say ``privileged''--some days I am not sure--
because the decisions were tough ones. But as we review the tax cuts 
that are going to be made in the reconciliation bill, the bill to put 
into place the elements of the budget that we prescribed as a 
direction, I want to talk about the importance of ensuring that any tax 
cuts that we make be principally targeted to ordinary middle-class 
families and that we not permit an explosion of the deficit in the 
future as a result of tax cuts.
  Mr. President, we are coming off of a really good period for America. 
The economy is strong. People are working, inflation is down, and we 
are assured by the comments yesterday of the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve that inflation still looks like it is going to stay down. It is 
the kind of scene that almost a writer could produce in terms of what 
you would like to see in an ideal world.
  Our deficit was $290 billion when President Clinton took over, now 
predicted to be $45 billion for this fiscal year ending September 30. 
And it is believed that in the year 1998, if things continue as they 
are, that we will actually be at a zero deficit or perhaps even have a 
surplus in the 1998 year. That is a wonderful thing to be able to think 
about because one of the things that we want to do is relieve the 
burden from our children, our grandchildren in the future to have to 
pay off debts and

[[Page S7881]]

to pay the debt service that incurs with deficits.
  But, Mr. President, despite all of the good news--and I come out of 
the corporate world. I spent 30 years of my life building a business. 
And I know lots of people who have been successful in business, and I 
still talk to them. And I have learned in my informal polling that lots 
of people who have been successful, corporate leaders, CEO's, chief 
operating officers, chief financial officers, marketing managers, they 
will say to me in public, ``Frank, I don't need a tax cut. What I need 
is an America that's going in the direction that it is going, that 
people can count on jobs, where people can believe that inflation and 
that deficit growth will not be a burden to their children.'' That is 
hardly the legacy that we want to leave.
  As I heard one CEO I had occasion to meet over this weekend describe, 
who runs a giant, giant company, with over 30,000 employees, he said, 
``I don't need a capital gains tax cut and I don't need an income tax 
cut. We don't pay enough,'' he said--this is a corporate executive--
``We don't pay enough in this country for the benefits we get out of 
this Nation of ours.''
  And so as we talk about our tax cut, we know where we have to direct 
it. It has to go to the middle-class families. It has to go to the 
people who find that two of them have to work in order to do what one 
was able to do in the past, that they pay the price in many ways for 
their two-job requirements. They neglect their children, not 
intentionally, not the kind of neglect that comes with abuse, but they 
just do not have the time or the energy to put into their families when 
mother works and dad works and they meet only as they pass through the 
door.
  I had occasion to meet with one of the service organizations across 
this country that does mentoring where they tie an adult and child and 
make sure that child has someone to answer to, someone to converse 
with. And I asked them about the profile of the children that they see. 
A lot of them are obviously from poor families, but not all. They said 
to me a lot of the kids that they are seeing are kids whose families 
are so beset with the need to earn a living that they do not have time 
for them. And the kids resort to strangers' encouragement to just get a 
lift and to get some attention.
  So as we discuss these tax cuts, I plead with my colleagues, make 
sure that we put them in the hands of the middle class so people can 
talk to their kids about their education in the future and know very 
well that they have a chance to get out of the economic difficulties 
that they may see their parents in, that they can get the education 
they need, they can get the skills that they need.
  These families love their children. They do not see them much. And 
they want to plan for their future. And we can help them, Mr. 
President. We can help them by directing these tax cuts primarily to 
the middle class so that they can help their kids with their education 
and provide for their own retirement. These are the people who need the 
tax relief.
  But, unfortunately, these are not the people who are going to get the 
bulk of the relief in the House and the Senate tax bills. Those bills 
provide roughly 45 percent of their tax cuts to the top 10 percent of 
income earners in the country. And it is just not right. There is a 
better way, Mr. President. And President Clinton has shown us how. His 
plan provides many of the same types of tax cuts that are included in 
the Republican plan, and the total amount of tax relief is roughly the 
same but the provisions in the President's plan are structured 
differently to give most of the benefits to ordinary hard-working 
Americans.
  Under the President's plan, the middle 60 percent of income earners 
receive two-thirds of the tax cuts, the middle 60 percent get two-
thirds of the tax cuts. By contrast, under the Senate and House plans, 
the middle-income working families receive only one-third of the 
benefits--one-third.
  The President's plan provides a $500 tax credit for children, but 
unlike the Senate and the House plans, it makes the credit available 
for working families with little or no tax liability. In fact, the 
Senate and the House plans deny the child tax credit to millions of 
hard-working families who pay taxes and earn less than $30,000 a year, 
the subject that the Senator from North Dakota was addressing just 
moments ago.
  Some in Congress are claiming that providing tax breaks to teachers 
and police officers, firefighters somehow amounts to welfare. It is 
ridiculous and it is an insult to millions of hard-working American 
families.
  The President's plan cuts capital gains taxes. It cuts estate taxes, 
and it provides new incentives for savings. But the President does it 
in a fair way that benefits primarily the middle class. And that is the 
key difference. Another advantage of the President's tax plan is its 
costs do not explode in the outyears, the years after those that we are 
talking about with our budget prescription now.
  The Senate and House bills include several provisions with costs that 
increase substantially in the future. Why should we give a tax break 
today and have to pay for it doubly in the 5- to 10-year period after 
this?
  Yesterday, the Treasury Department released an analysis showing that 
the House's capital gains rates balloon from $35 billion in the first 
10 years to almost $200 billion in the subsequent 10 years--from $35 to 
$200 billion. And that is an exploding tax cut if there ever was one. 
There is no way for us to function.
  Mr. President, I have heard it argued there is no way to cut taxes 
without disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. Some serious people 
make that argument, but it is an absurd argument. Surely, if we can 
plan to get to Mars and do all the great things that this country has 
the capacity to do, we can find a way to target tax cuts to the middle 
class. It does not take a rocket science. It is much simpler. It does 
take, however, a commitment not only from the head but from the heart 
as well. And President Clinton's plan proves it can be done.
  So, Mr. President, I want to continue working with all of my 
colleagues to make the tax bill as fair as possible. I would like to 
cut the taxes for the middle class and working Americans, the people 
who need it the most. And I would like to see it done in a fiscally 
responsible way that does not burden future generations with the 
exploding deficits in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I have come this morning to join my colleagues in talking about the 
issue of tax fairness that this Congress is now working toward in the 
conference committee between the Senate and House, working with the 
White House, to move us toward the final parts of the budget 
reconciliation and tax package.

  First of all, I want to say it is really incredible to me that I 
stand here today in the summer of 1997 talking about a tax cut. When I 
came to the Senate, back in 1992, I came at a time when we had a $300 
billion deficit. And I remember campaigning back in that year, when 
Ross Perot was running around the country showing us his charts of the 
exploding deficit, and for all of us who were elected in that year and 
since that time our No. 1 goal has been to come here to balance the 
budget.
  As one of those people who came here in 1992, with a $300 billion 
deficit, I have continually told my constituents, the families that I 
represent, the people that I work for, that my No. 1 goal here is to 
get to a balanced budget, and that although I agree that tax cuts are a 
good thing to have, that we need to do it in a rational way and we 
should not do it until we get to a balanced budget.
  I remember back in 1993, when we passed our first budget here, it was 
a budget that we all remember well, that passed by one vote here in the 
Senate, that began us on the road today to where we are now in the 
summer of 1997 able to talk about a tax cut because we made a tough 
decision 4 years ago to work us toward that balanced budget.
  We now have a deficit that is less than $70 billion. And in fact, 
some predict that without Congress doing anything, we will be at a 
balanced budget within a year because of the tough votes that we have 
taken over the last 5 years. Because of the Members here

[[Page S7882]]

who were willing to say no to many of the special interests who came to 
us and wanted more and more, we were able to say no. And we have worked 
very, very hard to get ourselves to this point.
  Having said that, I am a member of the Budget Committee. I have 
worked very hard since the beginning of this year to put together the 
budget reconciliation package, to work with my fellow members on the 
Budget Committee, to work with the White House, to work through the 
conference, to get to the point of having a balanced budget to present 
to this country.
  As part of that agreement, we do have a tax cut package. Because I 
have worked hard on that, because I am committed to the reconciliation 
package that the Budget Committee agreed to, I did vote for the tax cut 
package that came out of the Senate.
  That tax cut is now being debated by the conference committee again 
between the Senate and the House and the President, the White House, 
and I think the most important thing we can do at this point as we work 
to the final negotiation of this package is make sure we do the right 
thing for this country.
  When I fly home to my State of Washington 2,500 miles away from here, 
every weekend I spend time attending town hall meetings, going around 
to small communities in my State. Where I get the best input is when I 
go to the grocery store on Sunday afternoons with my family and people 
walk up to me and talk to me about what they are hearing about what is 
happening in Congress. Time and time again I have young people coming 
to me--a young teacher this past Sunday, a policeman, a young family--
and their question is the same as every other American: What am I going 
to get out of the tax cut? What will I get? I hear the Members of this 
Senate and this body asking the same question as well: What am I going 
to get out of this tax cut?
  I think the important question is not what am I going to get out of 
this tax cut, but what will this tax cut do to strengthen the America 
that we all worked so hard here for, and what can we do so that 10, 15, 
20 years from now we are not having another Ross Perot run around the 
country with charts and graphs showing a deficit that is out of 
control.
  As I talk to my constituents around my State, what I hear most often 
is that if we invest in our young people, invest in our children, we 
will do the right thing for the country's future. When I look at this 
tax package, those are the questions I ask. Are we doing the right 
thing so that young children, as they grow up and get out and start 
their own families, have the money they need to make sure that their 
children get a good education, that they have access to health care, 
that they are able to send their children to college. That is how we 
are going to make our country strong.
  So when I look at this tax package that we are now debating, I see 
that the President's tax package will actually do the most for those 
young families, for that young teacher, for that young policeman, for 
that young law clerk, for that family that is just starting out, for 
those families who are earning less than $30,000 or $40,000 a year. 
That is why I believe so strongly that the refundable tax credit has to 
be part of this package.
  I see my colleague on the floor, Senator Landrieu, who is new here, 
from Louisiana, who has worked very hard to ensure that the tax cut is 
refundable. Yet, I hear this being debated, I hear it characterized as 
the people who are on earned income tax credit, those who are earning 
less than $25,000 or $30,000 a year, if we give them a tax credit, it 
is giving tax credits to people who are on welfare. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. These are working families. They go to work 
every day. They are struggling to make ends meet. They are paying for 
day care. They are working to make sure they have nutritious food on 
the table. They are trying to save a few dollars for their children to 
go on to higher education so they can contribute to our economy. Those 
are the people we need to help. Those are the people that the 
President's tax cut really goes to, and that is what we have an 
obligation as a Senate and a Congress today to make sure that we take 
care of in the future.
  We will do the wrong thing if we pass a tax cut that merely inflates 
the income of those at the top, that gives away tax dollars to people 
who are already able to send their children to college, who are already 
able to take vacations in exotic places, who are already able to ensure 
that their family has a good home and a safe neighborhood to live in. 
We will do the right thing if we make sure that the tax cuts we pass 
help those young families who are struggling today, because if we lift 
them up and make sure that their children are healthy and well-educated 
and secure and that they have a good quality of life, then this country 
will be stronger in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to step back from this big debate about who is 
going to benefit and how the tax package will be put together, and say, 
what do I want this country to look like 10, 15, 20 years from now? Do 
I want to see it strong? Do I want to see a lot of young people with 
hope in their eyes who know they will be able to go to college? Do I 
want to see young families who are saying, I can save enough to buy a 
home and feel secure? Do I want to see a country where children have 
the nutrition that they need, that have the health care that they need? 
If that is the country we want, we will ensure that we move toward the 
President's tax cut, that we have a refundable tax credit in here, that 
we put our tax cuts where they will make the most difference.
  That is why I support the President's tax cut plan and urge my 
colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am happy to be here this morning to join my colleague from 
Washington State and so many of our colleagues to talk about the issues 
regarding this tax package and the budget that we are debating.

  I will be setting up in just a moment a picture of a family, Mr. 
President, from Shreveport, LA, the Meyers family. It is Lois and Scott 
Meyers, their son, Clayton, and Jessica, their daughter, who is 17. 
Their son Clayton is 5, the same age as my son Connor. This family 
works very hard, Mr. President. They only make, however, $17,000 a 
year. She, Mrs. Meyers, has a master's degree, but she works at a 
homeless shelter as a counselor. He has a $7-an-hour job. Of course, it 
is not full-time, but he also is a counselor and does not work a full 
40 hours, but under contract has a flexible schedule. They are 
struggling hard to raise these two children.
  If we do not make this change that so many of us have talked about, 
expanding this $500 tax credit, this family in Louisiana, the Meyers 
family, and so many families like them in your State, in the State of 
Washington, in Texas, in South Carolina, will simply be left out. I 
believe, as so many of our colleagues do, that everyone in America, 
frankly, deserves a tax break. I really believe that, and I believe 
there are ways for us to provide tax breaks for those at the higher 
end, for those at the middle end, and for those working hard and 
struggling to make ends meet at the lower income levels. This family is 
not a welfare family. They are a hard-working, lower income family.
  In Louisiana, 95 percent of the people in my State--95 percent--make 
less than $75,000. Ninety-five percent of the households in Louisiana 
make less than $75,000. As their Senator, it is my job to argue that 
all of them, I believe, deserve some sort of tax relief. If we do not 
make this child credit stackable against the earned income tax credit, 
families like this, the Meyers family, will simply be left out. I just 
think that is not right. I believe they need to have tax relief.
  Now, this family, at $17,000 income, is frankly not going to be able 
to take much advantage of the capital gains tax relief, although I 
support capital gains tax relief. They are not going to take advantage 
of the estate tax relief. Their estate is not anywhere close to 
$600,000 in assets. They will be able to take advantage of, hopefully, 
the HOPE scholarship for Jessica as she gets ready to go into college, 
but if they don't get the $500 tax credit, they will not be a part of 
this tax plan.
  Now, it is true that they did only pay $200 in income tax last year 
because of the earned-income tax credit. They received a credit of 
about $1,200, but this

[[Page S7883]]

family paid approximately $1,300 in payroll taxes, and that is what is 
important--for them to get this child tax credit against their payroll 
taxes, as well as the credit against the income tax.
  The President is fighting very hard, along with many, many of the 
Democrats. I hope some of the Republicans will join us in saying that 
we want tax relief for these families.
  In other States, the average schoolteacher salary, preschool and 
kindergarten teacher, is $18,700. The average sales occupation in 
America today is $24,000. Bookkeepers and accountants make on an 
average $20,000. Dental assistant, about $18,000. If this tax credit is 
not corrected in the way we believe it should be in conference, all of 
these families that I have mentioned--firefighters, bookkeepers, 
teachers, and this Meyers family--will not get the tax relief I think 
they deserve.
  I am here this morning to speak for them. They are not able to speak 
on this floor. They are only able to write letters and to call in. I am 
here this morning, along with many of my colleagues, to speak for these 
families, to say, ``Let's make this tax package fair.''
  We also need, as you know, Mr. President, and so many of our 
colleagues, to make sure that we move toward a balanced budget, that we 
do it in a fair way, by giving tax relief broadly in the ways that we 
can, also cutting back where we can to make sure that we are running 
this Government in a very fiscally responsible way that promotes 
growth, that promotes job development, but also promotes fairness.
  When we can give a tax cut, let's give it to the families that 
deserve it. This is a hard-working family. They are not on welfare. 
They never have been on welfare, and they deserve a break today.
  Another subject of the tax bill that is important to me and so many 
on both sides of the aisle is the provision for a tax exemption for the 
State-sponsored savings plans. Florida has an extensive plan: 450,000 
families have been able to join the Florida prepaid tuition plan. 
Senator Graham has been very supportive of this provision.
  In Louisiana, before I was elected to the Senate, as State treasurer 
I helped to institute a Start Smart plan, where families of all incomes 
up to $100,000--which includes just about everybody in Louisiana--would 
be able to set aside a small amount of money, as much as they were able 
to, sometimes as little at $10 a week, into a savings plan, and in our 
State, our general fund in Louisiana matches. For every $1 that a 
family is able to put up--it can be a parent, a guardian, a 
grandparent, a corporation can set up a savings plan for a child so 
they could go to college--whatever amount they are able to save, the 
State general fund matches that savings. For those at the lower income 
level, as the Meyers family, $18,000 to $20,000, the State makes a 
greater match, but the State gives some help or match to families 
making up to $100,000 on a progressive scale.

  The bottom line, in our conference, we have a possibility, which I 
understand the President supports--and I hope the American people will 
support this, too--to give tax-exempt status to those savings plans. We 
want more children, Mr. President, to be able to go to college. We want 
everyone to have the education they need to compete in a world very 
different than the world we grew up in. They need those technical 
skills. If they are not able to go to a 4-year college or a 2-year 
community college to at least get the technical training, post high 
school--12 years of education is no longer what is required. They need 
to go the extra 2 or 4 years to get the education they need to compete. 
Families need to be able to save.
  One of the other great provisions in this tax bill, but it is not a 
done deal yet, another great provision, which will cost about $1 
billion, but it will be the best $1 billion we will ever spend, is 
leveraging the great will and great hope and great aspiration that 
families have to be able to have their children and grandchildren do 
better than themselves, to enable them to set up these savings 
accounts. I hope we will urge the President and urge the Republicans 
and Democrats to support this one provision in this tax bill that will 
make these savings plans tax exempt, encourage more States outside of 
Florida and Louisiana--and only a few others have set up these 
programs--urge them to set them up.
  This is supported by the National Treasurers Association, which has 
been a very strong advocate for this savings plan. This is not a 
handout, Mr. President. This is a handup. This says to families, if you 
are willing to set aside $10 a week or $50 a month or even $100 a 
month, we will match that effort, we will allow that fund to grow, tax 
exempt, so you will have that money.
  Mr. President, $500 a year, $17,000 a family would be able to save, 
almost $30,000 under a savings plan, even a modest savings plan, which 
is a good amount of money, actually a very large amount of money to be 
able to have that young person attend school. Also, this is for adults 
who set up in Louisiana this savings plan which allows them to go back 
to school to get the degree they need to have a higher salary and a 
more productive income level.
  So, besides the $500 tax credit that we on this side feel so strongly 
about making fair, this provision that allows and actually encourages 
families to save and increases the savings rate of America--which any 
economist and any person that is involved in the financial sector will 
tell you, America's savings rate is too low. It is not good for our 
country.
  So we do two things at once. We help families do the right thing by 
saving for their children. We also increase the savings rate for 
America, which helps our business to have more capital to invest. It is 
a win-win for everyone. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
the change in the $500 child tax credit, as well as the provision for 
the statewide savings plans which would be so helpful to thousands, 
millions, of American families.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the next few days could make the 
difference between every working family getting the benefit of the 
child care tax credit in the budget--or the benefit of the child credit 
only going to families earning more than $30,000. The next few days 
could make the difference between whether or not more than 25,000 West 
Virginia families get the benefit of child tax credit or not. 
Nationwide we're talking about almost 5 million families who could get 
left out if we don't make the child credit fairer to all families. 
Democrats want all hard working families to get the benefit of the 
child credit--under the tax bills that passed the House and Senate they 
won't. As congress and the President try to wrap up the bipartisan 
budget deal and its family tax cuts, we need to improve the child tax 
credit so it helps American families that need it most.
  The average family in West Virginia has an income of $27,500. What 
that means is that about 25,000 West Virginia families won't benefit 
from the Republican child credit plans under consideration unless we 
change the tax bills so that all working families share in the benefits 
of the child tax credit just like middle income families do. The 
President has a child tax credit proposal that benefits all working 
families.
  We should adopt it as part of our tax cut package or too many West 
Virginians and lower-middle income families across the country will be 
left out.
  For the average hard-working American family to get a direct, real 
benefit from this year's budget agreement, we need to make sure that 
all working families get the benefit of the $500 child tax credit.
  Average American families don't have multi-million dollar estates, 
and they're not playing the stock market. They don't have enough money 
to invest in IRA's. They go to work every day, often both parents work 
full time, and they have a tough time paying their bills, putting food 
on the table, making the mortgage, and seeing to it that their kids 
grow up safe and healthy. Those are the families who I think this 
budget agreement should deliver for first and foremost--before we give 
the wealthy a chance to save tax-free, benefit a handful of the 
wealthiest Americans with big estates, or provide a capital gains tax 
cut.
  Extending health care coverage to the children of working families 
who don't qualify for Medicaid is the other major benefit of this tax 
bill for working families.
  Right now, we don't know if these families will get real health care 
coverage from the final agreement, with

[[Page S7884]]

health care benefits they can count or not. That is another major issue 
which could be decided in the next few days. I am here to tell my 
colleagues and the American people that there is simply no choice but 
for us to stand up for hard working American families and give them the 
family tax credit they were promised, and the health insurance coverage 
their children need.
  It defies common sense to allocate $85 billion in net tax cuts--as 
called for under the bipartisan budget agreement--and leave out the 
working families who need it most. The President's proposal directly 
benefits families who work and who pay taxes--it is not welfare--it is 
the helping hand they need.
  These families deserve to share in the benefits of the tax cut. These 
families are the families of a rookie cop in West Virginia, a public 
school teacher, a bank teller, or a fireman. Middle class families 
deserve a break, so do families who are lower-middle class, and we 
don't have to choose between them. Working families all can benefit 
from the child tax credit as it is constructed in the President's child 
tax credit proposal. It would treat the children of all working 
families equally--all the families who are working hard and pulling the 
proverbial wagon should benefit from the child tax credit.
  The Children's Commission unanimously endorsed this kind of child tax 
credit. This tax bill is where we can deliver.
  I am here to report that in the next few days or over the next few 
weeks as we complete our work on this historic budget agreement, I will 
not stop fighting for the families in West Virginia who deserve a child 
tax break, who deserve health care coverage for their kids, and who 
deserve our help, now.

                          ____________________