[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7012-S7014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX BREAKS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, between last Friday and today, in the 
span of just 4 days, Republican Senators will pass tax breaks, 
overwhelmingly targeted for the wealthy, that will cost the Treasury 
one and a half trillion dollars over the next 20 years. You would think 
that careful attention would be paid to the merits of these 
astronomical tax giveaways before they are passed. Instead, they are 
being rammed through by a right-wing Republican majority in Congress 
bent on rewarding the wealthy and ignoring the country's true 
priorities that have a far greater claim on these enormous resources.
  What about prescription drug coverage for millions of senior citizens 
under Medicare? I have just returned from Massachusetts where I met 
with the elderly people. They are asking, Will the Senate of the United 
States, will Congress, take action to provide some relief to the 
elderly people in my State and across the country? Really, the 
unfinished business of Medicare is the prescription drug program. We 
did not debate that last Thursday and last Friday. We are not debating 
that issue today. We have basically said, let's find out how we can 
give the one and a half trillion dollars away over the next 20 years, 
instead of dealing with the Medicare issue on prescription drugs.
  What about greater Federal aid to education to help schools and 
colleges across the country and the students who attend them? We put 
into the Record last Friday the most recent studies of the 
Congressional Research Service that showed that by moving to smaller 
class sizes, there was an enhancement of academic achievement and 
accomplishment by students in California. That supports the STARS 
Program of Tennessee. Senator Murray of the State of Washington has 
been our leader championing for smaller class sizes, because we believe 
that that can be enormously important in enhancing academic 
achievement. If we do that, plus ensure that teachers get training and 
professional advancement in their classrooms, working to enhance their 
professionalism, we will see a very important, significant gain in 
academic achievement and accomplishment.
  We also know the value of afterschool programs, tutorials, and 
accountability, as Senator Bingaman has talked about; the newer digital 
divide that Senator Mikulski has talked about; construction, the need 
to make sure our schools will be safe and secure and not crumbling, as 
so many of them are. But, no, we have set that aside. We are not going 
to have the resources to do that. Make no mistake about it, I say to 
American families, we have made enhancing academic achievement for our 
teachers, smaller class sizes, afterschool programs, a lesser priority 
than providing $1.5 trillion from the Federal Treasury to the 
wealthiest individuals.
  What about health insurance for the millions of hard-working 
Americans who have no coverage today? We made a downpayment in terms of 
the children in the CHIP program in a bipartisan way. We reach out to 
try to get coverage for their hard-working parents, an increasing 
number of Americans, who do not have health insurance. But we have not 
put that on the agenda. We are not debating that here on the floor of 
the Senate. There will not be the resources to try to do that. We are 
saying we want $1.5 trillion for the wealthiest individuals. Health 
insurance for hard-working Americans is put aside.
  What about raising the minimum wage for millions of low-income 
Americans, the 13 million Americans, the majority of whom are women who 
have children? It is a women's issue, it is a children's issue, and it 
is a civil rights issue because so many of these men and women are men 
and women of color. It is a fairness issue. People who work 40 hours a 
week, 52 weeks a year, should not have to live in poverty. No, we 
cannot debate that up here in the Senate. We can get tax breaks for the 
wealthiest individuals in this country, but we will not debate an 
increase in the minimum wage. We will not do it.

  I hope we are not going to hear long lectures from the other side 
about how we ought to be funding, now, the special needs programs. We 
had great statements from the other side: We have failed in meeting our 
responsibility to special needs children, to help local communities in 
the area of education. We have heard that time in and time out, while 
we have been trying to do some of these other actions for children in 
this country. We had an opportunity to pay for all those special needs 
children, but I did not hear from the other side that this is a 
priority. We did not hear it when they had the $780 billion tax cut 2 
years ago, and we could have taken a fifth of that tax cut and funded 
special needs education for every child in this country for 10 years. 
No, no, that is not enough of a priority. We are not going to do it. 
Our tax cut is too important. We are going to give $1.5 trillion away 
without spending a single nickel on special needs children.
  The list goes on about protecting Social Security and Medicare. Right 
now, I am sure there are scores of Members of the Congress and the 
Senate going on about how we ought to protect Medicare and Social 
Security. It is very clear what the priority has been in the Senate: 
$1.5 trillion, not to protect Medicare, not to protect Social Security, 
but to provide it to the wealthiest individuals in this country.
  That is what has happened over the period of these last 4 days, 
including a Sunday when we were not even here. All of these priorities 
and many more are being blatantly ignored by this Republican Congress 
in their unseemly stampede to enact these tax breaks for the wealthy. 
Never, in the entire history of our country, has so much been given 
away so quickly to so few with so little semblance of fairness or even 
thoughtful consideration.
  I make that statement. I wait to be challenged on that. Never, never 
in the history of this body has so much been given away to so few, in 
such a short period of time, with such little semblance of fairness and 
even thoughtful consideration.
  I hope we are not going to hear from the other side: We need to study 
these

[[Page S7013]]

issues more carefully in our committee; this hasn't been carefully 
considered by the committee--when they come out with that $1.5 trillion 
tax cut, that never even saw the light of day in committee, on the 
estate tax. Think of having a committee report, think of having a 
committee discussion, think of having some debate about what the 
implications of this might be in terms of a wide range of different 
issues? Absolutely not. We just took it, faced it, and passed it.
  So it goes on. Plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else will 
be the epitaph of this Republican Congress. It's a dream Congress for 
the superwealthy and their special interest friends, and a nightmare 
Congress for hard-working families across America.
  The Republican's trillion-dollar tax breaks will eminently deserve 
the veto that President Clinton is about to give them. The Republicans 
fail to honestly weigh the nation's priorities, and I believe that this 
is an irresponsible and reckless way to legislate. Some may view it as 
good political theater, red meat for the Republican right wing on the 
eve of the Republican convention. But it is a disservice to all 
Americans because it prevents action on the many true priorities facing 
this Nation.
  I suspect that Americans who see and understand what is happening 
here this week in Washington will ask a single question: What if George 
W. Bush were in the White House? He would sign these irresponsible tax 
break monstrosities, and the nation would suffer for years to come.
  I suspect that millions of Americans who see what is happening here 
would say: No thanks, we don't need a Congress that would pass such 
irresponsible legislation--and we certainly don't need a President who 
would sign it.
  Last Friday's estate tax bill gave $250 billion to America's 400 
wealthiest families, yet this same $250 billion would buy 10 years of 
prescription drug coverage for 11 million senior citizens who don't 
have access to coverage now. Our senior citizens face a crisis today. 
The extraordinary promise of fuller and healthier lives offered by new 
discoveries in medicine is often beyond their reach. They need help to 
afford the life-saving, life-changing miracle drugs that are 
increasingly available. Cutting a trillion dollars from the federal 
budget clearly jeopardizes our ability to add a prescription drug 
benefit to Medicare.
  Today, in schools across the country, students face over-crowded 
classrooms, teachers go without adequate training, school buildings are 
crumbling, and violence is a constant threat. One would think that at 
some opportunity over these past few days we would have debated what 
most families are concerned about, as well as insuring academic 
achievement for their children in a safe and secure area.
  No, we are denied that opportunity. We cannot debate that. We are 
told somehow that it is not relevant. It is relevant to what parents 
care about, which is their children in school. I daresay it is a lot 
more relevant than the fact that we will be giving $1.5 trillion, $250 
billion of which will go to the 400 wealthiest families. It is a lot 
more relevant to their lives than that other factor, the giveaway.
  Yet, Republicans are rushing through a trillion dollars in tax cuts 
without serious consideration of what it means for the nation's unmet 
education needs. Today, the booming economy is helping many Americans, 
but those who work day after day at the minimum wage are falling 
farther and farther behind. A recent study by the pro-business 
Conference Board finds that the number of working poor is actually 
rising, in spite of the record prosperity. The number of working poor 
families who seek emergency help in soup kitchens and food pantries 
across the nation is far ahead of the ability of agencies to meet their 
needs.
  Read the reports from last week about what is happening to children 
in our society. The total number of poor children has gone down by 
about a percentage point, a point and a half, maybe, in the last 2 
years. But the ones who are living in poverty are living in deeper 
poverty than they have ever experienced.
  We are finding an increased number of children who are not being 
immunized against basic diseases, and here we are cutting $1.5 
trillion, when we are not immunizing our children and cannot find ways 
to make those programs workable and effective. We are not debating that 
and trying to find ways to improve it.
  The cost of rental housing is skyrocketing in most cities because of 
the economic boom, but the wages of millions of families who need that 
housing has failed to keep pace.

  My colleague and friend from Massachusetts, John Kerry, made this 
case so well last week to, effectively, a deaf audience in the Senate. 
Cutting tax revenues by a trillion and half dollars jeopardizes our 
ability to respond to these needs.
  The American people cry out for action on many other basic 
priorities, but the tax breaks being passed by the Republican Congress 
would make fair action on all those priorities virtually impossible. 
Republicans are well aware that their tax-cutting extravaganza would 
not survive if it were honestly weighed against the nation's real 
priorities. That is why Republicans resort to gross distortion of the 
facts.
  They apply the phony label ``death tax'' of trying to deal with 
family farms and small businesses. Republicans told story after story 
about how the estate tax hurts owners of small businesses and family 
farms. Our Democratic alternative would grant them protection, but it 
wasn't enough for Republicans. Their position was to basically hold 
small business owners and small farmers hostage until they could get 
the larger breaks for the largest estates and the wealthiest 
individuals in the country.
  They know this President is going to veto this measure, and instead 
of truly doing something that would benefit those small family farms 
and small businesses, they say: Oh, we would rather have it vetoed. We 
will serve those small family farms up rather than deal with them. They 
know this is true in the marriage tax penalty as well.
  Listen to this: They apply the phony label ``marriage tax penalty'' 
to the current bill even though 58 percent of the tax cuts go to 
couples who pay no marriage penalty at all. Do my colleagues hear that? 
Fifty-eight percent of the benefits of this measure, according to the 
Joint Tax Committee, a measure which we will start voting at 6:30 this 
evening, will go to couples who pay no marriage tax penalty at all.
  The Democrats have a simple alternative to address the marriage 
penalty: Let them file as a single person if it will mean it lowers 
their taxes. What in the world could be simpler than that? If one is 
paying more because of their marriage situation as a result of 
commingling of the funds, Democrats say: OK, file as single 
individuals. That will solve it. There is no red tape and no 
administrative bureaucracy. It is simple. It meets a particular 
challenge.
  The Republicans: Oh, no. We want our program which will provide this 
extraordinary windfall to the wealthiest individuals.
  Our Democratic alternative would cost $11 billion a year less than 
the Republican bill--but it would provide greater marriage tax penalty 
relief to families with incomes below $150,000 a year. But, our 
sensible Democratic approach does not overwhelmingly benefit the 
wealthy so the Republicans reject it. Republicans intentionally 
designed their bill to give 78 percent of the total tax savings to the 
wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers.
  Ending the marriage tax penalty is a thinly veiled pretext to their 
latest installment of massive tax breaks for the wealthy. We saw the 
same tactics during the debate on the estate tax. We heard story after 
story of how the estate tax will hurt owners of small businesses and 
family farms.
  I found Senator Conrad's presentation of our Democratic alternative 
compelling and effective, virtually unchallenged on the floor of the 
Senate. Oh, yes, there was a challenge saying: Look, why are we 
supporting that because all of the various groups evidently support the 
Republican position?
  I thought that was very interesting coming after our debate on HMO 
reform where we had 330 organizations support our HMO reform, and this 
particular Senate voted against it when they did not have a single one 
supporting their proposal and the responses by Senator Conrad were 
responsive to this challenge.

[[Page S7014]]

  They are holding small businesses and farmers hostage to their 
flagrant scheme to help the super-rich even while they talk piously of 
helping the middle class.
  This Republican Congress is the trillion-dollar-travesty Congress. 
Fortunately, President Clinton and Al Gore are here--in this case, 
President Clinton--with a veto pen to burst their bubble. But thank 
goodness that working families, middle-income families, have a 
President who really cares about the economic and financial situation 
in this country.
  I take pride that I was one of 11 Members of the Senate who voted 
against the Reagan tax cut that took us from $400 billion to $4 
trillion in debt. That is why I am always interested in listening to 
those on the other side talk about what wonderful economic programs we 
have had over the recent times.

  Let me finally use these charts to demonstrate, once again, what this 
repeal of the estate tax will cost. It is $55 billion per year that we 
are effectively giving the wealthiest individuals by the year 2010. 
This could fund every program in the Department of Education.
  We are not saying that just throwing money at it answers all the 
problems. But it is a pretty clear indication about what a nation's 
priorities are, about how we are going to allocate resources. We could 
have fully done that, funded all of education, on this. We could have 
funded the total cost of prescription drug medicines for every 
beneficiary and had $15 billion left over. We could have had funding 
for all the beneficiaries, for all of our senor citizens. We could have 
provided the funding for the $20 billion which takes care of all the 
medical research in the National Institutes of Health, and you would 
still have $35 billion left.
  This is an indication of priorities. This is another indication.
  This chart depicts that from the Republican estate tax, those who are 
going to benefit from it, benefit from it to the average of $268,000. 
All we are trying to get is a Medicare prescription drug benefit that 
will be valued for our senior citizens at $900.
  Here it is: $268,000, by 2010, for those who will benefit under the 
Republican tax cut. All we are trying to do is get $900 for our senior 
citizens, our 40 million senior citizens we will have at that time. Or 
to put it another way, the beneficiaries will have the estates worth 
$2.3 million. The people we are trying to help average $13,000 a year. 
They are the people we are trying to look out for.
  This is the contrast. I believe, as I have said, never has so much 
been given to so few in such a short period of time--without, I think, 
the fair, adequate national debate or discussion in terms of what is 
really necessary, in terms of meeting the human needs of families in 
this country, the educational needs, the health needs, of what is 
needed in terms of housing for working families and what is necessary 
in terms of prescription drugs.
  How are we going to have clean air? How are we going to have clean 
water? How are we going to clean up the brownfields? How are we going 
to make sure people are going to continue to have an opportunity to 
work in employment and have the training and the skills in order to be 
able to compete in the new economy?
  All of those priorities have been washed away. With $1.3 trillion, we 
would be able to provide the investments for the American people. We 
have given that away. We have given that away without adequate and fair 
consideration of these priorities. I welcome the fact that we have a 
President who is going to veto those measures.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________