[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7220-S7226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, it is probably confusing to people who 
are watching this debate and discussion. I have just withdrawn the 
ethanol amendment. As the minority leader suggested, my plans are to 
reintroduce that amendment at the earliest time feasible, likely first 
thing tomorrow morning.
  What has just happened is that while we were talking about ethanol 
and energy, we were moved to the consideration of something which, yes, 
could be related but it is on child tax credits, another issue that is 
important to the American people. What we have agreed to do is to 
address that issue sometime in the very near future in a way that we 
can consider alternatives to addressing the issues surrounding child 
tax credits.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am disappointed that the underlying 
amendment was withdrawn. That was an amendment offered by the 
distinguished majority leader and myself. We are certainly going to be 
coming back at the earliest possible time to continue the debate.
  We have had a good debate today. A couple of amendments were offered 
to the amendment. This is a revenue bill, and certainly it is within 
the right of the Senator from Arkansas to offer this amendment. This is 
a key amendment that I hope we can address. We have begun discussions 
about how we might address it over the course of the next couple of 
days. It would be my hope that we could get a vote on this amendment, 
whether it is freestanding or it is a part of the bill, and whatever 
our Republican colleagues may wish to offer as well, but we have to 
keep moving along. The sooner we can dispose of this amendment, the 
sooner we can get to some of these other issues.
  I hope we can reintroduce the ethanol amendment at the earliest 
possible date, continue the debate on that, finish it, and then move to 
the other issues as we debate this bill.
  So it is disappointing, but I hope we can regroup and begin again 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I know the distinguished minority 
leader is disappointed, but not as much as the Senator from New Mexico. 
Obviously, we have worked very hard on what we think is a very good 
Energy bill. I think the United States deserves an Energy bill. I know 
there are other issues. I have no quibble with other Senators who have 
issues that they think are of great importance, including tax issues, 
but it is quite a surprise to see an issue of tax significance being 
applied to an Energy bill for the United States, although technically 
one might call it a tax bill.
  Nonetheless, where there is a will there is a way. If I understand 
it, there seems to be a will tonight that we will proceed to try to 
iron out the difficulties between the parties as to the tax matters and 
then tomorrow proceed with dispatch to get the ethanol amendment back 
on board, and hopefully not have to go through the same amendments on 
ethanol that we have already had, and proceed with the lining up of 
some amendments on the Energy bill with which I understand the minority 
has indicated a willingness to help. We will work on our side to do the 
same.
  Whatever time I had remaining under my 10 minutes, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, it is probably confusing to people who 
are watching this debate and discussion. I have just withdrawn the 
ethanol amendment. As the minority leader suggested, my plans are to 
reintroduce that amendment at the earliest time feasible, likely first 
thing tomorrow morning.
  What has just happened is that while we were talking about ethanol 
and energy, we were moved to the consideration of something which, yes, 
could be related but it is on child tax credits, another issue that is 
important to the American people. What we have agreed to do is to 
address that issue sometime in the very near future in a way that we 
can consider alternatives to addressing the issues surrounding child 
tax credits.
  Child tax credits are a separate issue from ethanol and energy, a 
very important issue, one we have been made aware of over the last 
several days that must be addressed. We will, of course, tonight, 
figure out the best way to address that, and it will be done in the 
very near future.
  We will in all likelihood reintroduce the ethanol amendment, my 
amendment, with the Democratic leader, early in the morning, and over 
the course of tonight and this evening and early in the morning we 
will, hopefully, have a series of amendments

[[Page S7221]]

lined up, and we will be able to move directly to ethanol, on energy, 
so that we can progress with this very important legislation, the 
Energy bill, and this ethanol amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I do not quite understand why the 
ethanol provision had to be pulled at this point. I know an amendment 
was offered by my colleague and it deals with the child tax credit. It 
seems to me that could have been dispensed with rather quickly.
  Let me talk for a minute about the child tax credit. First, I think 
the ethanol provisions are very important. I am a member of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and I want this Energy bill done. We 
have a responsibility to get this moving and through here.
  My colleague earlier today offered a unanimous consent request 
dealing with the child tax credit. It is not surprising to me that was 
offered. It probably would have been offered no matter what was before 
the Senate. The reason for that is the announcement in recent days 
regarding the final conference report of the tax package. That told us 
what most know; that is, when those who wrote this package gathered in 
a room someplace, there were not a lot of high-priced folks around 
trying to encourage them to make sure all American children were 
treated right with respect to the child tax credit.
  Now we discover around 12 million children in this country are left 
out of this calculation of child tax credit. Why? Because some people 
allege--in fact, I heard it on a talk show today--some allege they do 
not pay taxes. These people do not pay taxes, we are told. I don't know 
what they are thinking when they say that because these are taxpayers. 
They work hard. Often these are the kinds of people who have to shower 
after work, not before work. They work hard all day long and they pay 
more in payroll taxes than they pay in income tax. And they are told by 
this Senate, they are told by the Congress, they are told by talk show 
hosts, that they do not pay tax and therefore their kids do not count.

  This Congress ought to be embarrassed when it hears news reports 
about what the conference report said: By the way, we will provide a 
child tax credit, but we will decide that 12 million children are left 
out. Why? Because their families earn between $10,000 and $26,000. 
Somehow the Congress has decided they do not work, or they do not 
count, or they do not pay taxes. What a bunch of rubbish. What a bunch 
of nonsense. They deserve to be angry about this. We ought to be angry 
about it. What kind of priority is this? I don't understand it at all.
  The fact is, when they look back at our work 10 years from now, or 
100 years from now, the only thing historians will understand about us 
is what our value system was. What did we value? What did we think was 
important? What did we stand up for? Whose side were we on?
  I watched this tax bill come together, and I waded through crowds of 
people in the Capitol--basement, first floor, second floor. I guarantee 
I have never had to wade through a crowd of people who came to 
Washington, DC, to make sure we were playing fair for these 12 million 
children, to make sure we were standing up for the families who were 
earning $10,500 a year to $26,000 a year. I guarantee the hallways are 
not filled with lobbyists being paid to represent their interests. I 
guarantee that.
  But there are a lot of high-priced people around here protecting the 
interests of the people at the upper end of the income scale. We did 
not hear reports that they were being shortchanged, that children at 
the upper end of the economic ladder were left out. No, they were taken 
right good care of. It is just the folks at the bottom. The folks at 
the bottom, working people, people who work for $10,500 to $26,000 a 
year, who have kids, trying to raise a family, they are the ones who 
know about ``second''--second house, second mortgage, second shift, 
second job. And now they get second-hand treatment in the tax bill 
because they are told they don't count because they don't pay taxes. 
The heck they do not pay taxes. Of course they pay taxes. They pay 
payroll taxes out of every single paycheck. I am offended that people 
say people at the bottom of the economic ladder who find a paycheck 
less than their gross pay--and do you know why? Because they had taxes 
taken out--I am offended when people say they are not taxpayers. I am 
offended when somehow it is told they do not deserve a tax cut like all 
other Americans because the fact that they pay payroll taxes is somehow 
less worthy than others who pay income taxes. One-half of the American 
people pay higher payroll taxes than income tax and somehow this tax 
bill and those who worked on it decided they were not worthy, they were 
not taxpayers. We will tell their 12 million children they do not 
count. We will tell them it does not matter they have kids; they do not 
need the tax credit.
  There is something horribly wrong with that value system. It is not 
surprising to me that someone comes to the floor--and if it had not 
been my colleague from Arkansas, it would have been one of a dozen 
others today--to say this needs to be fixed--not tomorrow, not next 
week, not next month. This ought to be fixed now. It ought not take an 
hour or a day. It ought to take 10 minutes for this Senate to 
understand its responsibility.
  It's our responsibility to say to these people, the working people 
making $10,000 to $26,000 a year, trying to raise kids, working at a 
job, trying to do right, it is this Congress' responsibility to say to 
them: You get the same tax cut as other Americans do. We provide the 
same child tax credit for you as we provide for other Americans. You 
pay taxes; we intend to recognize it. That is the responsibility of 
this Senate.
  I do not, for the life of me, understand why the offering of this 
amendment persuades somebody to take down the amendment in the Energy 
bill. That is nonsense. We can pass this in 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I wonder, does the Senator think any parents of these kids 
earning $10,000 to $26,000 a year, do they benefit from the cut in 
dividend payments from corporations? Do you think they benefit much 
from that, which was in the final version of the bill?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague from Nevada, there is no question, 
these are not families who have dividends. These are not families who 
collect a lot of interest. These are families who live paycheck to 
paycheck, trying to make a living, trying to do right by their kids, 
trying to send their kids to good schools, trying to buy new clothes 
for the kid to go to school in September. These are families trying to 
make ends meet. They are always left out.
  Frankly, I was surprised when I heard the President and others 
advertising the tax bill, saying we support a child tax credit for 
America's children--except he left out the colleagues of mine in the 
Senate who convened in a conference, without our participation. Nobody 
here was invited to that conference. They wrote a bill that said it is 
just some American children; it is not children from those families who 
make $10,000 to $26,000 a year because somehow they are not taxpayers.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator and I have been back in Washington for some 
time. Right out these doors and various other places in the Capitol, 
there are lobbyists, lobbyists who represent interests. Did the Senator 
run into any lobbyists during consideration of the tax bill, the people 
wearing the Gucci shoes, delivered to the Capitol in limousines, 
lobbyists representing these people who were left out of the benefits 
of this tax bill passed 2 weeks ago?
  Mr. DORGAN. To my colleague from Nevada, this hallway in the Capitol 
outside this Chamber is never ever populated by those who are paid to 
represent the interests of people who work at the bottom of the 
economic ladder. They do not have full-time lobbyists crawling the 
Halls of Congress saying: By the way, give us a break on dividends; 
give us a break on this issue or that issue.
  No, unfortunately, it is these families, the families who work hard, 
at the bottom of the economic ladder, struggling every paycheck, trying 
to make ends meet, who get the short end of the stick every time you 
open it up and look at the details.
  I was surprised. I am a Lutheran Norwegian from North Dakota, kind of

[[Page S7222]]

stoic. I don't rise to the passion of some of my colleagues from New 
York, but this makes me angry. That is just because it is fundamentally 
wrong. It talks about our character, that we decide we are going to 
give some tax cuts, we are going to help some people out, but you know 
what. We will take a look at the top people and just give them a thick 
layer of butter on their bread, but to the bottom people we will say 
you don't count.

  I will tell why. Mark my words. It is because those who wrote this 
bill believe that these are not taxpayers. Do you know why? Because 
somebody who is making $15,000 a year, trying to raise four kids, 
trying to patch up their car, seeing if they have enough money for new 
brake linings, seeing if they can afford to put gas in next week--it is 
because those people are working at jobs where in most cases they are 
not paying an income tax. But they are paying a payroll tax. The fact 
is, as a percent of their income, they pay a higher payroll tax than 
the people at the upper end of the income scale. But when it comes time 
for tax cuts, we have people sitting around a table here who say the 
only people who pay taxes in America are those who pay income taxes. 
That is pure nonsense and they ought to know better. There are 
taxpayers in this country--in fact, more than half of the American 
people pay higher payroll taxes than income taxes.
  I frankly resent it when people say somebody at the bottom of the 
economic ladder who pays payroll taxes is not an American taxpayer. If 
we talk about trying to provide some stimulus to this economy of ours, 
trying to provide some lift to this economy by giving people purchasing 
power--and that is what people talk about, providing some purchasing 
power--the American economic engine is the working families out there. 
Provide them with purchasing power with tax cuts and they will make the 
economic engine purr--except they say those most likely to spend the 
child tax credit, those who need it most, those at the bottom of the 
economic ladder, working every single day, they should be left out and 
they and their 12 million kids should not count.
  I know why it happened. It is because we have colleagues in this 
Chamber who say they are not taxpayers because they do not pay income 
taxes. But they pay payroll taxes. We have colleagues who say payroll 
taxes do not count; you are not a taxpayer.
  I say that is sheer rubbish.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Will the Senator yield? Not only do they pay payroll 
taxes, but they also pay sales tax when they buy new tires for that 
vehicle. They pay excise taxes. For people who live in States like ours 
which are predominantly rural, who have to drive great distances to 
their jobs, perhaps, when they pump gasoline, they are paying an excise 
tax. They pay property taxes and also they have to pay State income 
taxes in some instances that are different from Federal income taxes.
  The Senator from North Dakota makes some very good points. These are 
taxpayers, hard-working people trying to raise a family, playing by the 
rules, and they are paying taxes.
  I would like to ask the Senator, when was the last time you saw 
anybody offer up a tax cut on their sales tax or on their excise tax or 
on the other taxes they do suffer from or that they are burdened with?
  In other words, they are going to see all the tax increases but never 
see any of the tax decreases or the tax benefits, if we do not look to 
making these child tax credits refundable to those 12 million children 
who are out there, in these families who are continuing to pay not only 
payroll taxes but the sales taxes and the excise taxes and everything 
else out there. The Senator makes an excellent point.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Bob Wills of the Texas Playboys back in 
the 1930s had a song with a verse that fits almost perfectly the 
philosophy of those who wrote this bill and left out 12 million 
children.

       The little bee sucks the blossom,
       and the big bee gets the honey.
       The little guy picks the cotton,
       and the big guy gets the money.

  It is a simple verse with an important lesson.
  I followed a car the other day, an old car that had several children 
in it. They had the back bumper taped up but they had a bumper sticker 
that said:

       We fought the gas war and gas won.

  I pulled up behind that car at a four-way stop sign and smiled to 
myself because, you know, in circumstances like that, that family 
trying to raise children, trying to keep an old car together, keep the 
bumper taped on, they figure everybody wins except them. They are 
trying hard but they do not win; somehow they do not count. That 
impression is always reinforced.
  Yes, it is reinforced by Bob Wills in the Texas Playboys' verse, but 
it is reinforced every day in almost every way, especially in the 
policies of this Chamber.
  It is about values. This decision we make about tax cuts is about our 
value system. What do we think is important? What do we hold dear? What 
is our character about?
  Let me yield the floor in a moment by simply saying Mr. Wallis, the 
Convenor of the Call To Renewal, a National Federation of Churches and 
faith-based organizations, said:

       The decision to drop child tax credits for America's 
     poorest families and children in favor of further tax cuts 
     for the rich is morally offensive.

  My whole hope is we just do the right thing and do it quickly. We 
know what the right thing is. It is not the right thing to say these 12 
million children coming from the lower-income households, working 
households that are trying to make ends meet, that they should not 
count with the child tax credit. We know that is wrong. If we know that 
is wrong, and in our heart all of us know that is wrong, then we know 
what is right. What is right is to say we will fix it and we will fix 
it now--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not after we have 
another closed meeting and some secret conference--right now.
  We can do that. That is our obligation, in my judgment, to a lot of 
people in this country who deserve a break from us--taxpayers. Yes, 
they are taxpayers who deserve some tax relief in the form of child tax 
credits, taxpayers who were left out of the original bill but who will, 
with the help of my colleagues, be put in, in this Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I know my friend from Arkansas 
has a very important meeting tonight, on behalf of her children, as it 
turns out. That is why she is the perfect person--I ask my friend, 
before he leaves the floor--to have brought this to us, because she 
knows children's needs very well, after raising the most beautiful twin 
kids who I happen to know personally and consider them friends.
  I guess my question to my friend--and I will be brief on this 
question--is this: Does my friend have any idea--and I don't expect him 
to know--how many of these kids come from California? He talks about 12 
million. Does he have any notion? I would say to my friend the answer 
is about 10 percent, about 10 percent of those kids.

  I want to say to my friend that in this tax cut, if we do not fix it 
the way my friend from Arkansas wants to fix it--and make no mistake, 
it could have been done already, all this rigmarole and parliamentary 
procedure aside. In California people who make between $10,000 and 
$20,000, their average tax cut--does my friend have any idea what it 
might be?
  Mr. DORGAN. I don't think it is fair for the Senator from California 
to ask me questions she assumes I can't answer. The correct answer is 
no.
  I have to leave the floor.
  Let me ask consent that my colleague from California be recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will just take a minute. I would say it is important to 
note that the people in California--and I assume this is true of the 
people in the State of Tennessee, in the State of Arkansas, and perhaps 
New York as well--the people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a 
year, their average tax cut, which the President signed into law and 
most Democrats voted against and most Republicans voted for--their 
average tax cut is $7. These are working people. They are working. They 
are getting their hands dirty. They are keeping this country going. The 
top elite few get hundreds of thousands back and these people get $7 a 
year.

[[Page S7223]]

  If they have children, they are suffering, and all my friend from 
Arkansas is saying is: Give these families a little fairness. They pay 
payroll taxes. They pay sales taxes. They have to live. And, by the 
way, giving them a check is going to stimulate this economy, not by 
giving it to people like Leona Helmsley. She has everything she needs, 
thank you very much. I don't mean to pick on her particularly--but 
Warren Buffett has said it well himself. He doesn't need it. He has his 
kids and their kids and their future kids and their future kids 
covered. He has every generation of Buffetts covered.
  All we are doing is fighting for the people who need us the most.
  I thank my friend from Arkansas for her courage and I want to say how 
much I support her and how much I am looking forward to voting in favor 
of her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a statement?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been waiting to be recognized so I 
could lay on this Record a compliment from me, the people of the State 
of Nevada, and the country for the brilliant statement the Senator made 
this past Saturday on national radio. Rarely are the statements of the 
Democrats who follow the President's weekly address picked up on the 
weekly and hourly news shows on the weekends. But the statement of the 
Senator from Arkansas was on the news all Saturday afternoon and all 
day Sunday, the reason being that it was such a timely statement the 
Senator made. It is obvious that it had a tremendous impact because we 
have now heard from the majority. Paraphrasing the statements we have 
heard over here today: Yes, I guess we could have done a little better, 
and we will work something out so there will be some adjustments made 
on how children in America are treated for tax purposes.
  The Senator from Arkansas, I believe, can take much of the credit for 
our being here today. I told her personally, and I want to say 
publicly, she did a tremendous job representing the people of Nevada 
and the rest of the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Nevada and 
California, and all of those who have come to the floor today to talk 
about a very important issue.
  I also compliment my colleague, Chairman Domenici, as well as the 
ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for an incredible effort on our 
Energy bill. There is no doubt that we need to address the energy needs 
of this country. We have for the last 25 years tried to modernize what 
we do in energy. I think this bill is an incredibly important bill. I 
hope my amendment does not in any way diminish my support for what the 
chairman is doing in moving forward on the Energy bill. It is equally 
important to the working families of this great Nation that we address 
those issues and look at ways of finding alternative fuels. Lord knows, 
for those who pay the bill at home--the last time I paid my gas bill, 
it was enormously high, and for American families as well. When we look 
at an opportunity for an energy package, such as the chairman is 
bringing to us, we can certainly provide for our families some of their 
capabilities to raise their family and be productive and strengthen 
this great country in which we live.
  I hope the chairman can understand. I noticed his disappointment as 
we shifted off that amendment. I, too, was disappointed. I was 
disappointed when this child credit bill was taken out of the bill in 
the dark of the night--something that was important to so many families 
across this Nation.
  I also want to plead with those who are disappointed. We have shifted 
off only for a moment. We will return tomorrow and go vigorously at 
this Energy bill. We only have a limited amount of time.

  This tax package was signed into law. Many individuals will reap its 
benefits come the first of July. But these 12 million children and 
their families will not get those benefits on July 1 unless we act 
quickly.
  Certainly, we all know that when we have made mistakes, or when we 
have done something which we think we could have done better, what do 
we do? We immediately try to correct it. We don't sit around as it 
becomes worse; we deal with that issue.
  That is all I have been asking. This is an appropriate bill. It is a 
revenue measure, and it is appropriate for me to bring up an amendment 
such as this.
  Again, I don't want those who are working so hard and who have 
invested so much time, as I have, too, on the Energy bill to think we 
are trying to divert any of that attention. We are simply trying to 
correct something that was done incorrectly.
  We only have a limited amount of time. We want to make sure that 
these families are given the same benefits and the same opportunities 
this tax bill will give other Americans to infuse the economy, to help 
grow the economy of this great country and, thus, strengthen our 
Nation.
  We talk about it time and time again. I hope as we reflect on these 
families that we are actually trying to help those working families who 
are making between $10,500 and $26,625. These are the families who have 
been left out. I promise you, these people do pay taxes. Although they 
may not fall into the category of paying enormous income taxes, think 
of the sales taxes they pay, think of the excise taxes they pay, think 
of the property taxes they may pay, and think of some of the State 
taxes they may pay. They are paying taxes that are consuming a lot of 
their take-home pay. The problem we have is that they are trying 
desperately and passionately to raise their children with the same 
values you and I have.
  Why does it come to my attention? It is because of the time I have 
spent at home over the past 2 years shadowing welfare moms as we were 
debating the welfare reform package, recognizing that it is as painful 
for that welfare mother leaving a crying child at daycare as it is for 
me, a Senator.
  This past spring break, I spent my time traveling around the State of 
Arkansas visiting with workers. But then I, too, had to put on my hat 
and became a mom. I had to go and purchase blue jeans for my children. 
I had to buy tires for my car because my husband told me I had to--not 
because I wanted to spend my money there but because he told me it was 
for the safety of our family. We needed new tires. I had to put a new 
battery in my car--all of these things, none of which I did that was 
any different than any other working mom, no matter how much that 
working mom makes.
  All we are doing is asking for fairness in a package that is there to 
stimulate the economy. And for what reason? So we can strengthen our 
country. Not only do we want to give these families the capability to 
provide for their children in a way that is going to make their 
children stronger Americans, smarter Americans, healthier Americans, 
more safe Americans, but we want to give them the opportunity to 
participate in strengthening this country. This is not a handout. This 
is reaching a hand to our neighbors--those who are doing the same 
things we are doing: Raising our children and strengthening our 
families.
  I plead with my colleagues. If we notice something that we haven't 
done as best we could do it, let us fix it. Legislation is not a work 
of art; it is a work in progress.

  A lot of my colleagues agree with me. I have 49 cosponsors since we 
introduced the bill yesterday. Six of them are Republicans. It is 
bipartisan. I don't want this to be a partisan issue. I want this to be 
a strengthening issue; that we in the Senate believe our working 
families mean enough to us that we are going to share with them less 
than 1 percent of this tax bill to help them raise their families, to 
buy those tires, that washing powder.
  I paid the bill for my children's lunch tab at the school. None of 
these things is any different for these working families. We have to 
know that. We as a Senate have to know that. We can't sit on the 
pedestal and forget there are people out there trying to raise their 
families. We talk about values. We talk about how we want these 
children to be healthy, we want them to be tomorrow's leaders, we want 
them to have the compassion and the values that we talk about on the 
floor of this Senate.
  My friends, the best way we can teach them that is to walk our talk, 
to

[[Page S7224]]

live these issues, to reach out to these working men and women of 
America, and say that our families are not just important to us, but 
your family is just as important; giving you this assistance to be the 
best families you can possibly be is a priority for us, a priority 
enough that we are going to take a few minutes out of our busy day on 
the floor of the Senate and correct something that we could have done 
better. We are going to take those few moments and make that happen. 
Then, we are going to resume our business with this Energy bill, and we 
are going to go back to our business of making the energy policy of 
this country even better for you, too.
  So I hope my colleagues will not take this incorrectly. This is not 
about slowing down a train or missing the train stop. This is about 
reaching out to the working men and women of this country and saying: 
My children are not only important to me, but your children are equally 
as important to me. And I want to do all that I can to give you the 
ability to be the best parent and for you to have the best family that 
you possibly can.
  To affect the lives of 12 million children--12 million children of 
working American families--is our opportunity this evening and 
tomorrow. These are people who are working. They are bringing home a 
paycheck, sometimes working two jobs, with both parents working 
perhaps. They have children.
  I hope that as a body we will not miss that opportunity to move 
forward, show our great Nation--and other nations, too--that when we 
talk about our children and their future, when we talk about the future 
of this country and the role we have to play globally in the future 
workforce of America and the future leaders of America, that we do 
believe it is a priority, priority enough to stop for a few moments and 
correct something we could have done better.
  Mr. President, I hope we will have multitudes of opportunities, as we 
move forward, to make a lot of things better, but in this opportunity 
here today and tomorrow as we begin to look at this issue and the bill 
that I have introduced, and that many of my colleagues have joined me 
in, I hope they will continue to join me in moving forward and doing 
what we can for the 12 million children who live in the working 
families of this great Nation, who have been left out of this tax 
package, to give them the relief and the opportunity to help grow and 
strengthen our country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves--
I know she has a meeting for her children--I want to add my accolades 
to that of my friends from Nevada and California. She has done a good 
deed. The Bible says: The best thing to do is do a good deed for those 
who are in need. She has done that, not only tonight but by her efforts 
in the Finance Committee and on the floor of the Senate because the 
children her amendment is aimed at are the ones who most need our help. 
So I know she has to attend to her own children. I thank her. All of 
America owes the Senator from Arkansas a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. President, I am in full accord with what was said before about 
bringing this amendment to the floor. I do not like class warfare 
arguments. And I certainly believe there are certain tax cuts for 
people regardless of their income that stimulate the economy. I thought 
a tax cut was appropriate. But what really burns me is this idea that 
is circulating now that the people left out of the tax bill do not pay 
income taxes and, therefore, they are not entitled to a tax cut.
  When you look at the working class, the people earning $10,000 to 
$26,000, they pay a much higher percentage of taxes than we do. They 
pay tax on gasoline. They pay a payroll tax. They pay property taxes, 
if they own a home. They pay the property tax in a passthrough when the 
home is rented. And their percentage is much higher than anybody 
else's.
  If you want to talk about class warfare, look at this Wall Street 
Journal editorial today, ``Even Luckier Duckies,'' talking about these 
people who don't pay income taxes.
  America, who would you rather be, a family with $22,000, paying no 
income tax--but paying a payroll tax, paying a sales tax, paying tax on 
gasoline--or somebody worth $1 million, God bless them, who pays 
$150,000 or $70,000 or $100,000, or whatever they pay in income tax? 
Give us a break. Who is doing class warfare? Who? I would say this 
editorial is class warfare. It is misleading as well.
  ``Luckier Duckies''? Well, if you want to define the world just by 
income taxes, you can. But ask any American--not just those making 
$10,000 to $26,000--ask any American making $60,000 or $70,000--at 
least from New York State--what is the tax they hate the most. It is 
not the income tax. It is not even the sales tax. It is the property 
tax. Do we define those people as well off because they pay little in 
income tax? Absolutely not. When a green dollar goes out of your hands 
for a tax, it is a green dollar, and it can buy food and it can pay 
rent and it does not matter if it is an income tax or a sales tax or a 
payroll tax. And, of course, the payroll tax is a Federal tax.
  So this is not fair. This argument that these folks pay no taxes is 
bogus. The argument that they pay no Federal taxes, if they are 
working, is bogus. The idea that they escape the system scot-free while 
all the other wealthier people are struggling hard and paying money 
into the Treasury is bogus. They generally pay, as has been said 
before, a greater percentage of their income as taxes than more well-
to-do people.
  I read an article the other day in the New York Times. It wasn't 
about Federal taxes, but it took one census tract in Southern Queens in 
Ozone Park. It was an average census tract. I read about a family. They 
were talking about how tax increases in New York City--property tax 
increases, the increase in subway fare, which is not a tax increase but 
has the same effect--and the family was making, I believe it was 
$34,000. The mother worked in a beauty parlor and the father was a 
janitor at the library, and they had been saving $5 a week, I think it 
was, to have a party for their child's communion.

  They kept an envelope, and every week Mom put the $5 in. And she 
started several years before because she knew the date of her child's 
communion and she wanted to have enough money to have a party for the 
whole family.
  And now, because of these tax increases, because of the increase in 
the subway fare, and because of a rent increase on the block--and 
another family who was struggling was told by their landlord he would 
have to increase the rent because the property tax increased--there 
would be no party for the young child. It touched me. I wish every one 
of my colleagues could read that story.
  This idea that people making $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 are 
``Lucky Ducks,'' that is so unfair. It is not right. I would argue that 
is class warfare. And there are many people in America who are 
struggling and working hard. A lot of the people in the New York Times 
article I am talking about are immigrants. There is a very mixed group 
on those few blocks and around 101st Avenue in Ozone Park, NY. And 
every one of our families probably came here poor as church mice. Mine 
did. And every generation that starts here in America struggles. Mine 
did. And probably yours did too, Mr. President, at some point in the 
past.
  No one is saying they are oppressed or beleaguered. They are fine 
people. They are the people who have made this country strong, along 
with so many others. But to say they are in great shape in terms of the 
Federal tax law, given the payroll tax they pay, to say they are in 
great shape, despite all the other taxes they pay--sales tax and 
property taxes, whether they own their property, or if not, the 
passthroughs--is just not fair. It is not right. It is not the best of 
America.
  And I am not surprised this Chamber is empty. I am not surprised, 
during the course of this whole debate, not a single Senator from the 
other side, with the exception of you, Mr. President, who might have 
been here not quite by choice----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. How long did my friend serve in the House of 
Representatives?

[[Page S7225]]

  Mr. SCHUMER. Eighteen years.
  Mr. REID. During that period of time, you served, as did I, with the 
now majority leader in the House of Representatives, Mr. DeLay; is that 
true?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is true.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware of a statement made by the Republican 
majority leader in the United States House of Representatives today 
that said:

       They had their chance. There is a lot of other things that 
     are more important than that. To me it is a little difficult 
     to give tax relief to people who don't pay income taxes.

  Is the Senator aware that the majority leader of the House of 
Representatives has made this statement today?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I was not aware of it. I am glad my friend from Nevada 
has brought it to my attention. It is what I was talking about. It is 
so unfair to say there were other things more important in the bill 
than helping struggling families. Before my friend from Nevada came in, 
I was talking about an article in the New York Times about working 
families, about the income level we are talking about, and how one 
family had been saving $5 in an envelope every week so that their son 
might have a party at his holy communion for all his friends and 
family. And now they can't save that $5 anymore because taxes are going 
up and the costs are going up. To say that family is not struggling is 
amazing.
  I also am interested to hear my colleague say that there were other 
things in the bill more important. If I heard him correctly, it seemed 
to me that the majority leader is not going to want to change this. Did 
he say that as well?
  Mr. REID. The majority leader said:

       They had their chance. There is a lot of other things that 
     are more important than that. To me it is a little difficult 
     to give tax relief to people who don't pay income taxes.

  It is clear, in answer to the Senator's question, that the majority 
leader in the House of Representatives, the person who controls what 
comes and goes on that floor, has said that these people are out in the 
cold, for lack of a better description. They had their chance. As I 
discussed with the Senator from North Dakota, they had their chance. 
These people who make from $10,000 to $26,000 a year, their chance is 
weighed with the problems of people who make much more money. They have 
no one representing them. As I discussed with the Senator from North 
Dakota, there is no more populated area than the Halls of this Capitol 
Building when there is a tax bill up, with lobbyists who are looking 
for a little niche to help the elite of the country.
  These people are not the elite. These people we are trying to help 
are not elite. They are people who, as Senator Dorgan said, take 
showers after work, not before. I am terribly disappointed that already 
the person who sets the agenda for the Republican House of 
Representatives has said these people are finished. They had their 
chance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I agree with my colleague. What is the purpose of saying 
they are doing OK because they don't pay income taxes, when they are 
paying 7.5 percent of their check into the payroll tax? That is 
something most Americans support, but they are sure paying a lot. Right 
then and there, when you have a $15,000-a-year job, and 7.5 percent 
comes out for the payroll tax, that is food off the table. That is not 
going without the second vacation or buying some special gift for your 
wife, that is food off the table.
  When you pay that dollar to the Federal Government, to the State 
government, to the local government, do you think most Americans say it 
doesn't count because it is not an income tax? It doesn't count to pay 
property taxes? It doesn't count to pay sales taxes? It doesn't count 
to pay excise taxes?
  That is the kind of logic that is what I call outcome determinative. 
You look at what you want to do: Help the wealthier classes for 
whatever reason. And then you come up with the argument that income tax 
is the only tax that counts.

  I wonder if my friend saw this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, 
``Even Luckier Duckies.'' Basically, it says this tax bill has made a 
lot of people very lucky because they won't have to pay income tax. And 
I asked my colleagues who were not here, how lucky do they think 
someone making $20,000 a year is compared to somebody making $200,000 
or $2 million? Who would trade places? Who of those who make $200,000 
or $2 million would trade places with the person who is making $20,000 
so they could be a lucky duck and not pay income tax? Give me a break.
  This is not America. This is not the generosity of spirit that this 
country has always shown. This is not the fairness that this country 
has shown. As I mentioned earlier, I don't like the class warfare 
arguments. I have supported tax cuts on individuals with some money to 
stimulate growth in the past and will continue to in the future. But to 
make it seem as the majority leader did, as did the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page, which often reflects the majority leader's view, that 
someone making $20,000 is lucky because they don't pay income tax, and 
someone making $1 million is unlucky because they pay significant 
income tax, that is turning logic, fairness, goodness of spirit, and 
having a good soul on its head.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is aware that the tax bill, according to this 
White House, was passed to create jobs. The Senator has heard that?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have indeed.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is also aware of people like Warren Buffett who 
said: I am going to get hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of 
this tax bill. I don't want the money. I don't need the money. I won't 
invest the money. You have heard him say this?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have indeed.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator acknowledge that any amount of money that 
people who are making $10,000 to $26,000 a year receive, whether it is 
$100 or $500, will be immediately spent to buy things that create jobs 
for people?
  Mr. SCHUMER. The likelihood is much greater than somebody who is 
given the money who has a large income.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is aware that here in Washington Members of the 
Senate every 6 years have to raise money talking to people to see if 
they will help us; is he not?
  Mr. SCHUMER. People have said I am aware of that.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator think many Senators will go to this group 
of people who make from $10,000 to $26,000 a year for campaign 
contributions?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I doubt it. Forget the raising of the money. I worry 
that they don't sit down and talk to somebody who is making that amount 
of money, ever. Yes, you may shake hands at a county fair. But how 
about sitting in a living room and talking to the family who is making 
$27,000 and has dreams for their children and is struggling to do the 
best for their kids and can't make ends meet? Again, that story about 
the communion touched me. But there was another one in that New York 
Times, an article about a family, a husband, wife, and two kids who 
were going to have to move out of the house they always lived in 
because their landlord got an 18-percent increase in property tax and 
he didn't want to pass it on. They were friends. It is a two-family 
house in a neighborhood in Queens. He didn't want to pass the property 
tax on as a raise in the rent for the people in the apartment. He had 
no choice because he couldn't make ends meet. He was not well off 
either.
  Here is a family--they probably don't pay much, if any, income tax; I 
don't remember exactly what their income was, probably in the $30,000 
range--who is going to have to move. They don't know where to find a 
place to live. The kids will have to be uprooted and go to a different 
school. Who in this Chamber would not choose to help that family out a 
little bit? I mean, create jobs? I have to tell you, a lot of these 
families have jobs. They had jobs. The hard-working sort of bottom-of-
the-ladder jobs that they are starting out at. But not to give them a 
little break for their children because there is no room in the Tax 
Code and it is loaded with things for other people? Where are our 
values? Where are our priorities?
  I wish every single person on both sides of the aisle would just go 
to three homes of someone making between $10,000 and $26,000 a year.
  Spend a half hour with them and talk about their struggle and then 
come back and say we could not reduce the top rate by a little bit 
less.
  I thank my colleague from Nevada for his questions. I think he hit 
the nail on the head. I am just saddened by this. If it were truly just 
a mistake,

[[Page S7226]]

then we would not have heard the language statement issued by Tom 
DeLay, the majority leader in the other body; if it were just a 
mistake, we would not have pulled an amendment that a lot of people 
care about--I am glad it was pulled, myself, because I am not for it--
but it would not have just run off the floor. If it was a mistake, they 
could say, great, the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas was pulled 
out at the last minute and we are going to put it back in and show that 
it was a mistake. But, no. There will be a lot of concerns, and maybe 
we will get it and maybe we will not. I hope we will.
  I am troubled--very troubled--by the fact that we have a view here 
that those making $20,000, or $25,000, or $15,000 are lucky ducks 
because they don't pay income tax. That is a view some in this Chamber 
seem to have taken.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that today's Wall Street 
Journal editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2003]

                          Even Luckier Duckies

       The new tax bill exempts another three million-plus low-
     income workers from any federal tax liability whatsoever, so 
     you'd think the nation's class warriors would be pleased. But 
     instead we are all now being treated to their outrage because 
     the law doesn't go further and ``cut'' income taxes for those 
     who don't pay them.
       This is the essence of the uproar over the shape of the 
     child-care tax credit. The tax bill the President signed last 
     week increases the per child federal income tax credit to 
     $1,000, up from the partially refundable $600 credit passed 
     in the 2001 tax bill. But Republican conferees decided that 
     the increase will not be paid out to those too poor to have 
     any tax liability to begin with.
       Most Americans probably don't realize that it is possible 
     to cut taxes beyond zero. But then they don't live in 
     Washington, where politicians regularly demand that tax 
     credits be made ``refundable,'' which means that the 
     government writes a check to people whose income after 
     deductions is too low to owe any taxes. In more honest 
     precincts, this might even be called ``welfare.''
       But among tax cut opponents it is a political spinning 
     opportunity. ``Simply unconscionable,'' says Presidential 
     hopeful John Kerry. The Democratic National Committee 
     declares that the ``Bush tax scheme leaves millions of 
     children out in the cold .  .  . one out of every six 
     children under the age of 17, families and children pushed 
     aside to make room for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy.''
       Senator Olympia Snowe, the media's favorite Republican now 
     that John McCain isn't actively running for President, says 
     she is ``dismayed.'' ``I don't know why they would cut that 
     out of the bill,'' adds Senator Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.). 
     Those last two remarks take chutzpah, because if either woman 
     had been willing to vote for the tax bill, a refundability 
     provision would have been in it.
       Senator Lincoln introduced the idea in the Senate Finance 
     Committee, but then announced she wasn't going to vote for 
     the bill anyway. Ms. Snowe was also one of those, along with 
     Senator George Voinovich (R., Ohio), who insisted that the 
     bill's total ``cost''--in tax cuts and new spending--not 
     exceed $350 billion. Something had to give in House-Senate 
     conference to meet that dollar limit, and out went 
     refundability. The bill passed by a single Senate vote, with 
     Vice President Dick Cheney breaking the tie.
       As it happens, the tax bill does a great deal for low-
     income families even without the refundable child credit 
     addition. It expands the 10% income tax bracket, meaning that 
     workers can earn more before leaping into the 15% and 25% 
     brackets. This is a far better way to provide a tax cut than 
     is a refundable credit, because it lowers the high marginal 
     tax rate wall that these workers face as their credits phase 
     out at higher income levels.
       There's also $10 billion in the bill earmarked for 
     Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the 
     poor. And any family that actually has any remaining tax 
     liability benefits from the extra $400 in child tax credit.
       More broadly, the critics want everyone to forget how 
     steeply progressive the tax code already is. IRS data 
     released late last year show that the top 1% of earners paid 
     37.4% of all federal income taxes in 2000. The top 5% paid 
     56.5% of federal taxes, and the top half of all earners paid 
     96.1%. In other words, even before President Bush started 
     slashing taxes on the poor by increasing the child tax credit 
     in 2001, the bottom 50% of filers had next to no federal 
     income tax liability.
       But don't low-income workers have to cough up the payroll 
     tax? They certainly do, but don't forget that the federal 
     Earned Income Tax Credit was designed to offset payroll taxes 
     and is also ``refundable.'' In 2000, the EITC totaled $31.8 
     billion for 19.2 million Americans, for an average credit of 
     $1,658. Some 86% of that went to workers who had little or no 
     income tax liability.
       Republicans who just voted for the tax cut could be less 
     defensive and try to explain all of this. But instead too 
     many of them are heading for the tall grass, with Senate 
     Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley already promising to cave as 
     early as this week on the child tax credit. This is the kind 
     of political box Republicans walk into when they endorse tax 
     credits that favor one group over another. Democrats are 
     better at playing favorites.
       We raised some hackles last year when we noted this growing 
     trend that more and more Americans paid little or no tax. 
     ``Lucky duckies,'' we called this non-taxpaying class at the 
     time. Notwithstanding liberal spinners, after this tax bill 
     they're even luckier.

                          ____________________