[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7218-S7223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX RELIEF FOR MARRIED COUPLES
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed legislation
providing tax relief for married couples. We passed a bill that
basically eliminates the marriage penalty tax for most married couples.
The cost of the bill was $55.6 billion over 5 years and over ten years.
The cost of the bill was incorrectly reported in several newspapers
despite the fact that on the floor of the Senate and in a press
conference later, we stated clearly that the bill that we passed was a
5-year bill, and the cost of the bill was estimated by the Joint
Committee on Taxation to be $56 billion. You wouldn't know that if you
read the New York Times.
In today's paper: ``Senate Approves Tax Cut To Help Married Couples.
Clinton Threatens Veto.'' That much is correct, but the next line says,
``$248 billion measure would aid even those who do not pay marriage
penalty.'' I
[[Page S7219]]
dispute that claim, because it is absolutely false. The $248 billion
cost they attribute to our bill is false. It is not correct.
In the article, the second paragraph says the vote was 61-38; eight
Democrats joined Republicans to approve the measure which would reduce
income taxes for nearly all married couples by a total of $248 billion
over 10 years.
The facts are, the bill that we passed was $56 billion over the next
5 years and the next 10 years. Maybe some people didn't know that.
Maybe if some Senators knew that they would have voted differently. I
don't know. I want accuracy. I want people to know the facts.
The Washington Post had an article as well, and it had a chart that
bothers me. The Washington Post headline said the ``Senate Votes
``Marriage Penalty' Relief.'' That statement is true. Then it says, GOP
continues tax cutting drive and the President threatens to veto it. It
talks of the bill being $248 billion and included a chart from the
Citizens for Tax Justice. The chart asks the question: Who would
benefit? It says the benefit for couples who make between $50,000 and
$75,000 is $344. That is not correct.
The Citizens for Tax Justice has a reputation of being quite a
liberal group. Regardless, they are entitled to their own opinion, but
they are not entitled to their own facts. I want my colleagues and the
American people to know what the facts are. Under the Senate-passed
bill, people who have taxable incomes from zero to $43,000 could get a
maximum tax benefit from earned income credit changes of $527, and a
maximum tax benefit from the standard deduction adjustment of $218, for
a total maximum tax cut of $745. For couples with taxable income
between $43,000 and $52,500, they also have a standard deduction tax
cut worth $218, and because of changes to the 15 percent income tax
bracket they could also get a maximum tax cut of $1,125, for total
maximum tax relief for married couples earning up to $52,500 of $1,342.
These are facts about the bill we passed.
The Washington Post chart says people who make $40,000 to $50,000
have tax relief of $148. I believe the facts are that it could be as
much as $1,342. There is a big difference.
Citizens for Tax Justice happens to be wrong. I don't know if they
are using some unreasonable type of income classification that greatly
inflates income so that everyone seems rich. That's what the Clinton
administration does when it wants to attack our tax cuts. I don't know
what they are doing. It bothers me. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe I am a
stickler for facts. We should stick to the facts.
We passed a tax bill yesterday that I believe will become law. If the
President will sign it, married couples with taxable income of $52,500
will get $1,342 worth of tax relief. That is a fairly significant tax
cut. For the local paper the next day to say that couples making
between $40,000 and $50,000 get $148 is wrong, way wrong. It is $1,000
off.
The Washington Post tries to imply that the real benefits of this tax
cut go to people making $200,000 or more. That is not the case, either.
I will have printed in the Record a table for the information of our
colleagues and the information of the press, if they happen to be
interested in what we passed. This table shows the maximum tax benefit
that anyone would receive under our bill by provision and by taxable
income. A couple with taxable income of approximately $127,000 gets the
maximum benefit, which is $2,165. People who made over $127,000 get
less, and that amount would be $1,759.
One might say, why? The difference is because they lose the standard
deduction. Under the law that passed in 1990, they lost a standard
deduction after their income is above a certain level. We didn't change
that. Maybe we should have, but we didn't.
Citizens for Tax Justice says, and the Washington Post says, people
making over $200,000 get a much bigger benefit. They missed it by a
mile. They imply that those over $200,000 get more of a benefit than
those with income between $75,000 and $100,000. They missed it again.
They are wrong. Factually incorrect. They ought to know better. If they
are going to put this information in one of the largest newspapers in
the country, they ought to do a better job and let the American people
know what we voted on. Then maybe they can make the appropriate
judgment: Was this a good bill or a bad bill?
I happen to think it is a good bill. I am delighted we had 61 votes.
I wish we would have had 99 votes. Unfortunately, we didn't. I hope the
President will sign this bill. He should sign this bill. I will predict
he will sign the bill.
We are working in conference and we will come out with a bill that
will be between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House passed
permanent marriage tax relief that cost $180 billion over 10 years. The
Senate bill was sunset at 5 years, and cost $56 billion over 5 years
and 10 years. We are very close to working out a compromise somewhere
between the House and the Senate. We will make that announcement
probably at some point tomorrow.
I urge the President: Do not just issue veto threats; provide tax
relief for American families. The President can help eliminate the
marriage penalty by signing this bill. He should sign this bill. This
bill will provide tax relief in the neighborhood of $1,300 for married
couples making up to $52,000. He should sign that bill and give them
tax relief.
I also urge the media to look at their reports. They are distorted.
In the case of the chart in the Washington Post, it is totally,
factually incorrect.
When we announce our conference agreement tomorrow, I hope people
take another look at it and see that it is fair tax relief that should
become law. My prediction is it will become law. My prediction is the
President will sign it. If not, I hope there will be an overwhelming
vote in the House and the Senate to override his veto.
I believe in accuracy. We should have accuracy in reporting. We, in
the Senate, should be accurate when we present our case. I don't think
it is necessary to embellish one's case by using inaccurate statements
or inaccurate figures.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the
chart included in the Washington Post, a table of the revenue impact of
the Senate bill, and also a table that I have assembled showing the
maximum tax benefit under the Senate bill by taxable income.
If the Washington Post wants some help, maybe they should take a look
at this information. It might be more informative for their readers.
I ask unanimous consent to have all three printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
MAXIMUM MARRIAGE PENALTY BENEFIT POSSIBLE BY PROVISION AND BY TAXABLE INCOME GROUP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum benefit possible by provision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taxable Income Standard Total \1\
EIC deduction 15% bracket 28% bracket
adjustment \1\ adjustment adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0 to $43,850................... 527 218 0 0 745
$43,850 to $52,500.............. 0 218 1,125 0 1,342
$52,500 to $127,200............. 0 406 1,125 635 2,165
$127,200 to $161,450............ 0 0 1,125 635 1,759
$161,450 to $288,350............ 0 0 1,125 635 1,759
$288,350 and over............... 0 0 1,125 635 1,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Taxpayers who itemize deductions, and those taxpayers above the deduction phase-out threshold would receive
no benefit from the standard deduction adjustment.
Note: Staff estimates based on year 2000 tax parameters--Provided by Senator Don Nickles, 07/19/2000.
[[Page S7220]]
ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF A MODIFICATION TO THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK OF THE ``MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000''--SCHEDULED FOR MARKUP BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON MARCH 30, 2000
[Fiscal years 2001-2010, by billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Effective 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2001-05 2001-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. $2,500 increase to the beginning and tyba 12/31/00................. [2] -1.6 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -6.3 -14.4
ending income levels for the EIC
phaseout for married filing jointly [1].
2. Standard deduction set at 2 times tyba 12/31/00................. -4.1 -6.0 -6.4 -6.5 -6.8 -7.0 -7.1 -7.3 -7.5 -7.6 -29.8 -66.2
single for married filing jointly.
3. 15% and 28% rate bracket set at 2 tyba 12/31/01................. ........ -1.7 -4.4 -8.5 -11.4 -12.9 -19.5 -22.0 -21.6 -20.7 -26.0 -122.7
times single for married filing
jointly, phased in over 6 years.
4. Permanent extension of AMT treatment tyba 12/31/01................. ........ -0.3 -1.6 -2.3 -3.5 -4.7 -5.6 -7.5 -8.8 -10.0 -7.7 -44.5
of refundable and nonrefundable
personal credits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Total......................... .............................. -4.1 -9.6 -13.9 -18.9 -23.3 -26.2 -34.0 -38.4 -39.5 -39.9 -69.8 -247.8
=======================================================================================================================
Legend for ``Effective'' column: tyba =
taxable years beginning after--
.............................. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2001-05 2001-10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Estimate includes the .............................. [3] -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3 -5.3 -12.1
following effects on fiscal year
outlays.
[2] Loss of less than $50 million.
[3] Less than $50 millin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: From the Joint Committee on Taxation, 3-30-2000--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
who would benefit
How much married couples would benefit on average if the
Senate ``marriage penalty tax'' bill were phased in fully:
Average tax cut for married couples, by income group:
Less than $10,000...............................................$14
$10,000-20,000..................................................128
$20,000-30,000..................................................220
$30,000-40,000..................................................172
$40,000-50,000..................................................148
$50,000-75,000..................................................344
$75,000-100,000...............................................1,006
$100,000-200,000..............................................1,118
$200,000 and more.............................................1,342
Those who make $50,000 a year or more would receive most of the tax
cut. However, they also pay the most in income taxes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of
Percent total
Income group of tax individual
cut income
taxes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0 to 20,000.................................... 3% -2%
$20,000 to 30,000............................... 5% 1%
$30,000 to 50,000............................... 7% 7%
$50,000 to 75,000............................... 17% 16%
$75,000 to 200,000.............................. 68% 79%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Tax cut percentiles refer to joint returns, income tax percentages
refer to family income. They are not exact comparisons.
Sources: Citizens for Tax Justice, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20
minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just listened carefully to my colleague
from Oklahoma correcting the press, and of course I would join him on
many days in that effort. As a public figure, I am often quoted enough
and read things that I think are a little bit different than what I
believe are the facts. I would say in this instance perhaps his
characterization of the information presented by the Washington Post at
least deserves to be discussed for a moment. He made reference to the
Citizens for Tax Justice, a group with which I have worked. He referred
to them as, I believe, a left wing or left leaning group. His
characterization is his own and he is entitled to it. But I suggest to
the Senator from Oklahoma and to anyone who is following this matter,
when we assess how much it will cost for the so-called marriage penalty
tax relief, we usually make assessments on a 10-year basis. Though the
bill may say 5 years, it really strains credulity to suggest at the end
of 5 years we are going to reimpose the tax once we have taken it off.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NICKLES. I just inform my colleague from Illinois, I had printed
in the Record the joint tax statement that had the 5-year cost at $56
billion and had the 10-year cost at $56 billion, my point being we
ought to be accurate. For some people to imply the bill we passed was
$248 is factually incorrect.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I want to show a chart
to the Senator from Oklahoma, and anyone else following this, that was
not prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice. It was prepared by the Joint
Committee on Taxation which is an official body that works for the U.S.
Congress. It is bipartisan, as I understand it. They were asked to try
to determine how much tax relief of the marriage penalty tax relief
bill proposed by the Republicans would be going to certain income
groups in America. It is starkly different than what the Senator from
Oklahoma has said.
If he will take a look at the comparison between the Democratic plan
in yellow and the Republican plan in red, he will see different income
categories. There is a substantial difference in the tax relief
available. In the lower income categories, we find substantial relief
available for those making $20,000 a year--under the Democratic plan
about $2,000; under the Republican plan about $500. At $30,000, it is
substantial help--about $4,000 under the Democratic plan; about $800
under the Republican; At $50,000 a year in income, $1,900 in tax relief
on the Democrat plan, $240 on the Republican.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. When I finish, I will be happy to.
Mr. NICKLES. I don't have all day. I need to run, but I would like to
make a comment. I don't know where the Senator got his chart, but I am
telling him that factually any couple that made $52,000 under the bill
we passed yesterday, the Republican bill, with 8 or 9 Democrats who
voted with you, would get tax relief exactly--exactly as I announced on
the floor or I will eat the paper. It is $1,125, plus $212, and that is
1,300 and some odd dollars, not $300. So the Senator's chart is
factually incorrect.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his comments. I thanked him
before leaving. I don't want him to take this paper with him for this
dinner hour, but I will stand by the comments of the Joint Committee on
Taxation. This is not a political group, not a partisan group. It is a
group authorized by Congress to make these evaluations. The Senator
from Oklahoma is entitled to his opinion. I am going to stick with the
facts given to me by an organization we rely on all the time.
If I can finish the presentation, though, you note when we get to the
highest income categories, the Democratic bill does not provide relief
under the so-called marriage penalty tax relief, and the Republican
plan does, about $1,000 of tax relief for people making $250,000 a
year.
The important thing to keep in mind, too, in putting this in
perspective, is not too many years ago we were laboring with a national
deficit and worries about how we were going to pay it off and balance
our books. Some suggested we needed a constitutional amendment, a
dramatic revision in the budgetary policy here in Congress.
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-year
period is $247.8 billion.
[[Page S7221]]
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 that 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
protect 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 the 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 fact, what it would do
is, instead of taking away three of the references where there is a
penalty in our Tax Code, it would 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 penalize 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 fact, 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 and the marriage tax penalty reform, 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 keep 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 if 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 was 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]]
America, I hardly believe we should start that line with Donald Trump
and Bill Gates and folks who are making millions and millions of
dollars. Better yet, let us try to bring to the front of that line
those who are struggling every single day with the basic challenges
that American families face.
Tax cuts should be 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 the 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 the
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 people
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 for 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 the proposals on the Republican side of the aisle.
This list includes an effort by the Democratic side to provide tax
credits to businesses 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
businesses, a tax credit for those 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 just 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]]
it happened again on this estate tax repeal that the Republicans
support.
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 target 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.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I enjoyed the speech of my good friend from
Illinois. But I also want to footnote it by saying it is pretty tough
to give tax cuts to folks who don't pay taxes. So it is a little on the
rough side to do that.
____________________