[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S8226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE BUDGET AGREEMENT

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just a few thoughts about the budget 
agreement. There is still a lot of drafting going on, so to a certain 
extent I think all of us are at a little bit of a disadvantage in that 
we have not seen all of the specifics, but I would like to raise a 
couple of questions about this agreement, and I raise these questions 
given what I think is the important standard of fairness.
  First of all, I hope that all Senators, Democrats and Republicans, 
will have before them the distributional data, that is to say some 
understanding as to who will benefit from these tax cuts, before we are 
asked to vote on the tax-cut part of this bill. It seems to me this is 
kind of a prerequisite for good public policy. I remain very skeptical 
that, indeed, these tax cuts, when you look at who is really going to 
benefit with each passing year, will not disproportionately go to those 
people who are least in need of any assistance. At the same time, I see 
a tradeoff that seems quite unacceptable. Every single time it looks 
like low-income and moderate-income families get the short end of the 
stick. I think we should set the bar at a higher level, and I think 
those families should count. Let me just give but a couple of examples.
  Mr. President, the child credit, we are now hearing from the White 
House, will go to families with incomes under $30,000 a year or under 
$28,000 a year, the argument being that, indeed, these families pay 
Social Security taxes and they should receive a child credit as well as 
those families with incomes over $30,000 a year. But, as it turns out, 
families with incomes under $16,000 a year are not going to receive any 
child care credit. I have had a chance to travel some around the 
country and visit with poor children, visit with low-income families. I 
don't understand how in the world we could be talking about fairness 
if, in fact, those families are not going to receive any of the child 
care credits, those families most in need.
  Another example is on the higher education piece. I have said this 
over and over again, and I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. I 
was a teacher for 20 years. I spent a lot of time at the community 
colleges. Mr. President, if the tax credits are not refundable, then 
those students or those families with incomes under $28,000 a year or 
$27,000 a year, that are not going to have any tax liability, they are 
not going to receive any of the assistance. So when it comes to those 
students who have been least able to afford higher education, they are 
still going to be waiting for some of this assistance.
  Add to that some of the concerns that I think all of us have to have 
about the cuts or reductions in payment in Medicare and medical 
assistance, in particular those of us--and I come from such a State--
where we have strong rural communities. We have to worry about the 
negative impact this is going to have on rural health care providers. 
If we don't have hospitals or clinics, then we are not able to deliver 
the care out in our communities. We have to have concerns about the 
disproportionate effect this is going to have on our children's 
hospitals and public hospitals that have received a disproportionate 
amount of medical assistance because they serve a disproportionate 
number of low-income and moderate-income people.
  So, the question really becomes: Where is the standard of fairness if 
the tax cuts still, in the main, go to the very top of the economic 
population and at the same time the benefits don't go to many, many 
hard-pressed families? We have not invested, in this budget agreement, 
one penny in rebuilding crumbling schools. As it turns out, families 
with incomes under $16,000, with children, receive no help by way of 
the child credit. Those students from families with incomes $23,000, 
$24,000, $25,000 a year are not going to benefit from the Hope 
scholarship unless it's a refundable tax credit. We are not investing 
in the schools, and at the same time we don't even have the 
distributional data on who exactly is going to benefit from these tax 
cuts.
  So I count myself as a skeptical Senator. And if I was going to be 
voting today, I would vote against this package. I do not think it 
meets the Minnesota standard of fairness. I think we should do better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?

                          ____________________