[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 3 (Thursday, January 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S157-S159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 126. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend 
future reductions of the highest income tax rate if there exists a 
Federal on-budget deficit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, with 
Senator Chafee, to freeze the top income tax rate at its current level 
of 38.6 percent, until such time as the Federal budget returns to 
surpluses. We believe the ballooning deficit is bad for the economy, 
bad for interest rates, and bad for the health of the Nation.
  Under current law, the top income tax rate is scheduled to drop from 
38.6 percent to 37.6 percent in 2004 and then to 35 percent in 2006. 
This rate is applied to the adjusted gross income of those who earn 
over $312,000. This top rate freeze would save $88 billion between now 
and 2010, and $132 billion through 2012, every penny of which would go 
toward reducing the Federal deficit.
  Everyone should understand that this top tax rate is paid by just 
908,000 of the more than 128 million taxpayers nationwide, just 0.7 
percent of American taxpayers. This is not a time for tax policies 
which benefit only a small portion of the population. It is a time for 
fiscally responsible policies that will ensure long-term growth and 
provide an immediate stimulus to our economy.
  In June 2001, I voted for the President's tax plan. It was truly a 
different time: 9/11 had not taken place; war had not appeared on the 
horizon; revelations of corporate fraud had not surfaced; and a 
recession was not evident.
  Those times are as different from today as day is from night. At the 
time, Senator Chafee and I, along with twelve other Senators from both 
parties, supported a ``trigger'' on the 2001 tax reduction. This would 
have frozen future tax reductions under the Bush Tax Cut if the budget 
returned to deficit. Unfortunately, we were able to attract only 49 
votes on the amendment. I wish we had that trigger today.
  Now, it is estimated that we face $1.4 trillion in cumulative budget 
deficits between now and 2012. And that is why we return to the idea of 
the trigger. I believe that we should not allow the rate reduction for 
the top rate to proceed, until we return to budget surpluses.
  And that brings us to the Bush Administration's $674 billion tax cut 
and economic stimulus package. In my view, this is the wrong plan at 
the wrong time. It digs the Nation deeper into debt. It is not a 
stimulus. It is skewed to the wealthy. And it severely limits the 
government's ability to pay for needed programs, like education, 
transportation, and law enforcement.
  First, the President's plan would be a major contributor to massive 
budget deficits. The proposal would result in a budget deficit of 
approximately $482 billion this year alone, if the social security 
trust fund surpluses were not used to fund the budget. Using the social 
security trust fund, the deficit would still be $312 billion. This does 
not include the costs of a possible war with Iraq, an extension of 
Federal unemployment benefits, and the FY 2003 and FY 2004 
appropriations bills.
  Furthermore, as the Federal debt increases, the government will spend 
billions more in tax dollars on servicing the debt, instead of 
priorities like homeland security, healthcare, education, 
transportation, or the environment. Interest on the debt over ten years 
is already projected to be $1.3 trillion higher than expected, even 
before this new package, and this package would add more than $100 
billion in new interest payments over the next ten years. Unlike home 
mortgage payments, interest on the debt is rolled over and compounds, 
which makes a rising debt extremely dangerous over the long-term.
  Second, the President's tax cut is skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent 
of Americans. Taxpayers with income over 1 million would receive an 
average of more than $88,000 in benefits, while the typical middle-
income taxpayer would only benefit by $265. This is clearly unfair. In 
fact one-third of all benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent, 
while less than 10 percent of the benefits would go to the 60 percent 
of taxpayers making under $54,000.
  Third, the proposal is not stimulative. The central feature of the 
Administration's plan, an elimination of

[[Page S158]]

taxes on corporate dividends, would not begin to be felt until April 
2004. And when those savings do kick in, they would largely benefit the 
wealthiest people--with more than half the benefits, $225 billion, 
going to the top five percent of taxpayers. So to say this is a 
stimulus is simply inaccurate and misleading.
  So, today we are urging the Senate to consider freezing a single 
element of the 2001 tax package. I urge my colleagues to approve a 
fiscally responsible package of tax proposals that reduce the deficit 
and stimulate the economy, instead of a massive tax cut which will do 
neither.
  Mr. President, I request that the attached table be included for the 
Record with my statement of support for the Feinstein-Chafee Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2003.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Records, as follows:

                           TABLE 2.--TOP FEDERAL TAX BRACKET TAXPAYERS, BY STATE 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              All tax units
                                                       --------------------------    Total tax     Units not in
                         State                           No. in top   Percent in       units        top bracket
                                                          bracket    top bracket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................................       10,805          0.5       2,057,000       2,046,195
Alaska................................................        1,731          0.6         282,000         280,269
Arizona...............................................       13,843          0.7       2,112,000       2,098,157
Arkansas..............................................        4,607          0.4       1,217,000       1,212,393
California............................................      133,060          0.9      14,398,000      14,264,940
Colorado..............................................       16,717          0.8       2,024,000       2,007,283
Connecticut...........................................       16,019          1.0       1,595,000       1,578,981
Delaware..............................................        2,917          0.8         371,000         368,083
District of Columbia..................................        2,845          1.1         256,000         253,155
Florida...............................................       58,928          0.8       7,645,000       7,586,072
Georgia...............................................       23,853          0.6       3,756,000       3,732,147
Hawaii................................................        2,409          0.4         567,000         564,591
Idaho.................................................        2,876          0.5         565,000         562,124
Illinois..............................................       52,255          0.9       5,730,000       5,677,745
Indiana...............................................       17,112          0.6       2,821,000       2,803,888
Iowa..................................................        7,244          0.5       1,389,000       1,381,756
Kansas................................................        7,174          0.6       1,244,000       1,236,826
Kentucky..............................................        8,237          0.4       1,884,000       1,875,763
Louisiana.............................................        9,534          0.5       1,981,000       1,971,466
Maine.................................................        2,858          0.5         611,000         608,142
Maryland..............................................       16,578          0.7       2,494,000       2,477,422
Massachusetts.........................................       20,520          0.7       3,092,000       3,071,480
Michigan..............................................       29,601          0.6       4,600,000       4,570,399
Minnesota.............................................       20,447          0.9       2,307,000       2,286,553
Mississippi...........................................        5,989          0.5       1,296,000       1,290,011
Missouri..............................................       15,772          0.6       2,631,000       2,615,228
Montana...............................................        1,422          0.3         421,000         419,578
Nebraska..............................................        4,373          0.5         803,000         798,627
Nevada................................................        8,494          0.9         934,000         925,506
New Hampshire.........................................        4,121          0.7         589,000         584,879
New Jersey............................................       42,379          1.1       3,909,000       3,866,621
New Mexico............................................        2,367          0.3         768,000         765,633
New York..............................................       68,372          0.8       8,700,000       8,631,628
North Carolina........................................       21,201          0.6       3,778,000       3,756,799
North Dakota..........................................        1,241          0.4         293,000         291,759
Ohio..................................................       26,723          0.5       5,630,000       5,603,277
Oklahoma..............................................        7,007          0.5       1,483,000       1,475,993
Oregon................................................        9,264          0.6       1,623,000       1,613,736
Pennsylvania..........................................       39,987          0.7       5,833,000       5,793,013
Rhode Island..........................................        3,100          0.6         486,000         482,900
South Carolina........................................        8,710          0.5       1,858,000       1,849,290
South Dakota..........................................        1,693          0.5         340,000         338,307
Tennessee.............................................       15,216          0.6       2,686,000       2,670,784
Texas.................................................       54,705          0.6       8,922,000       8,867,295
Utah..................................................        5,646          0.6         896,000         890,354
Vermont...............................................        1,412          0.5         287,000         285,588
Virginia..............................................       21,366          0.6       3,318,000       3,296,634
Washington............................................       23,391          0.8       2,799,000       2,775,609
West Virginia.........................................        2,213          0.3         842,000         839,787
Wisconsin.............................................       15,597          0.6       2,517,000       2,501,403
Wyoming...............................................        1,211          0.5         229,000         227,789
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Totals.......................................      907,990          0.7     128,869,000     127,961,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: US totals include returns filed from other areas.
Source: ITEP Tax Model, Preliminary.
Citizens for Tax Justice, May 7, 2001.

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 127. A bill to allow a custodial parent a bad debt deduction for 
unpaid child support payments, and to require a parent who is 
chronically delinquent in child support to include the amount of the 
unpaid obligation in gross income; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the child Support 
Enforcement Act. This bill will bring much-needed relief to the 
millions of families who are not receiving the child support they 
desperately need.
  The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of 
the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than 
the amount they are due. And more than 30 percent receive no payment at 
all. California is no exception; preliminary findings from the 2000 
Census Report found that of more than 2.3 million Californians who were 
owed child support, only 39 percent received those payments.
  Clearly, millions of individuals, largely women and children, are in 
crisis when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent 
child support the same way all other bad debt is treated in the tax 
law.
  The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to 
deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted 
gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers, 
regardless of whether they itemize.
  This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not 
paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the 
deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income.
  This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on 
bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.
  The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single 
parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference 
between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting 
food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the 
difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.
  I am pleased to be joined in the effort by Senator Snowe. And 
Representative Cox has introduced the House version of the bill this 
week as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue. This is a 
family issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 128. A bill to assist in the consernation of cranes by supporting 
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with 
expertise

[[Page S159]]

in crane conservation, financial resources for the conservation 
programs of countries in activities of which directly or indirectly 
affect cranes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane 
Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from 
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I 
propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to 
protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and 
popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to 
the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to 
several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants 
to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing 
countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact 
that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is 
similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which 
was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but 
unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress 
adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by 
the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this 
bill can be swiftly reported and passed.
  In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided 
support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the 
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. 
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF 
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation 
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its 
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover 
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
  Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to 
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds 
in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of 
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation 
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial 
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying 
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The 
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008.
  In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this 
bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five 
years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation 
should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds 
carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology 
Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. 
The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds 
it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the 
Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to 
make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its 
effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend 
resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.
  I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant 
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without 
conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, 
the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by 
these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire 
world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence 
today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to 
the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists 
in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North 
American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its 
winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being 
reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the 
Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
  This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to 
regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and 
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from 
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude 
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National 
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in 
the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional 
watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, 
disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, 
and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite 
the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation 
is still very much in danger of extinction.
  While over the course of the last half-century, North American 
whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of 
crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of 
Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.
  The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the 
wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, 
open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive.
  Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin 
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent 
in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in 
decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population 
concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs 
through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population 
growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. 
Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences 
of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg 
stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane.
  Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in 
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one 
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the 
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In 
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
  The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation 
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found 
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the 
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of 
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, 
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of 
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further 
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or 
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of 
oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and 
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which 
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in 
these regions.
  If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the 
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the 
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit 
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local 
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest 
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile 
habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these 
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, 
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.
                                 ______