[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15033-15035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            TAX CODE CHANGES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who have followed the proceedings of 
the Senate over the last 2 weeks understand we have been debating 
changes in the Tax Code. The two changes we have focused on are changes 
in the estate tax and changes in what is known as the marriage penalty. 
These are two very interesting proposals that have been before the 
Senate but they really tell the story about the priorities of the 
Senate when it comes to dealing with the economy and helping families 
across America.

[[Page 15034]]

  The estate tax, which we have considered and passed in a version last 
week to ultimately repeal it, is a tax which affects a very small 
percentage of Americans. In fact, fewer than 2 percent of American 
families will pay the estate tax. Those who end up paying it are the 
wealthiest people in America.
  It is curious to me that when we established our list of priorities 
in this Congress as to tax relief, the first people in line were the 
wealthiest people in America. That is not to say we should not consider 
tax relief that involves them, but I think everyone understands that 
average families, smaller businesses, and family farms have priorities, 
too, when it comes to tax relief.
  Take a look at what the Republican proposals under the estate tax, as 
well as the so-called marriage penalty tax, would do in terms of the 
people in America and their income groups.
  For the 20 percent of American families lowest in income, the 
Republican proposals, two of them--the estate tax as well as the 
marriage penalty--result in tax breaks of $24 a year. Then, as you 
start moving up in income, you see that not until you get up to the 
level of the next 15 percent here, of the top wage earners in America, 
do you find people even seeing a tax break of about $900 a year--about 
$75 or $80 a month.
  Now look at what happens when you go to the top 1 percent of wage 
earners in America, the wealthiest people in America: $23,000 in tax 
breaks coming from this Republican-led Senate under these two bills, 
estate tax reform and marriage penalty.
  So if you happen to be in a working family, down here, you are not 
going to notice what has been going on in the Senate because, frankly, 
the tax relief they are sending your way hardly pays for a magazine. 
But look what happens at the highest income levels: $24 for the lowest 
wage earners, the people struggling to survive in America; $23,000 for 
the wealthiest people in this country. Time and time and time again, 
the Republican leadership, given a chance to deal with tax equity in 
America, decides the best thing that can be done is to give to the 
wealthiest Americans more tax breaks.
  This tells the story as well. I will not go through it in all detail, 
but the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country, people making 
over $300,000 a year--those folks are going to see a tax break of 
$23,000; 43 percent of all the tax relief coming in these two 
Republican bills goes to people making over $300,000 a year.
  There are people who will say perhaps they need it. I am not one of 
them. Frankly, I can tell you who needs it, as far as I am concerned. A 
working family trying to figure out how they are going to pay for their 
kid's college education expenses, those are the folks who need a tax 
break. When we put on the floor a measure sponsored by my seatmate 
here, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, to allow people to deduct 
$12,000 a year in college education expenses instead of giving tax 
breaks to the wealthy, it was rejected by the Republican majority. A 
$12,000 deduction for college education expenses was rejected while we 
give a $23,000-a-year tax break to the wealthiest among us.
  Then Senator Dodd of Connecticut, who has been a leader in child 
care, stood up and said we have a lot of people going to work in 
America every day worried about the safety and quality of child care; 
let's give them a tax break so they can pay for good, professional, 
safe child care and have peace of mind while at work that their kids 
are in good hands. It was rejected by the Republican majority. The idea 
of helping working families take care of their kids was rejected.
  Then Senator Kennedy and others offered a prescription drug benefit 
for seniors and the disabled under Medicare, struggling to pay for 
their drug bills. We said we think that is a higher priority than a 
$23,000 tax break for the wealthiest people in America. The Republican 
majority said no, it is not a higher priority; it is a much higher 
priority to keep in the front of the line at all times the wealthiest 
people in America. That is what this debate is all about.
  The question is, Whom do we stand for? Do we stand for working 
families in this country or do we stand for the financially articulate 
who, frankly, lord over this political process with their 
representatives who come in expensive suits, well dressed, standing in 
the corridors here saying we have to help the wealthy of America.
  For good Heaven's sake, for the last 8 years this economy has been on 
such a roll, the wealthiest in America have done very, very well. I 
don't begrudge them that. But when we talk about helping people in this 
country, why don't we remember the folks who get up and go to work 
every single day, who worry about their kids' education expenses, who 
are concerned about day care where they can leave their kids safely, 
who want to make certain their parents can afford the prescription 
drugs they need to stay healthy?
  That is not a priority among the Republican leadership here. They 
don't want to talk about it. They want to go to their convention in 
Philadelphia in 2 weeks and talk about how they have worked so hard for 
tax cuts and President Clinton and the Democrats have stopped them. 
Don't forget to ask them the question, Who are the winners under your 
tax cuts? The winners are those who turn out always to win when the 
Republicans are in control. The wealthiest win again and again in 
America.
  I see Senator Harkin. Senator Harkin came in with his own proposal, 
trying to help those concerned about tax equity. I am happy to yield to 
him at this point.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his very eloquent 
and decisive statement. I think my friend has really put his finger on 
it.
  I would add one other thing to what we attempted to do here with the 
future surpluses the Senator was mentioning, the various things we 
wanted to do to try to help average working people. I had offered an 
amendment a couple of weeks ago to fully fund the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act so we could help the States help families 
with children with disabilities to send them to school to get them the 
best possible education. We were stymied by the Republicans. Most of 
them voted against it.
  Yet they find it within themselves to give, as the Senator pointed 
out, to the top 1 percent of this country 43 percent of the tax breaks. 
The surplus we have coming in the next 10 years is being used up by 
these tax breaks. I might ask the Senator if that is not so. It is my 
information, just this year, up until right now, this Senate, under 
Republican leadership, has passed something over $1.3 trillion in tax 
cuts. Am I in the ballpark, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Iowa is correct. As these charts 
indicate, those tax breaks are going to the wealthiest people in 
America. I think the Senator from Iowa, from my neighboring State, 
believes as I do: Hard-working people in this country are not looking 
for a handout; they are looking for an opportunity. Give them a chance 
to pay for their kids' college education; give them a chance to pay for 
prescription drugs; give them a chance to pay for day care. And the 
Republicans say consistently: That is not a priority. That is not 
important.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. The 
other day, Senator Kennedy was pointing out that the Republicans have 
passed $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. Yet we have not purchased one book; 
we have not reduced the size of one class, we have not hired one new 
teacher, modernized one school, brought one prescription drug for the 
elderly. Yet they spend $1.3 trillion of the surplus that is there 
because of hard-working Americans the Senator from Illinois is talking 
about.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say in response to the Senator from Iowa, to 
think we live in a nation where 30 percent of our population cannot 
read any higher than a fifth-grade level, this is a waste of resources 
in our country. We will need to be a productive society in the 21st 
century. The fact is that this Republican-controlled Congress does not 
even view education as a high enough priority; they would rather put 
our time and our effort into tax breaks for people who are doing very 
well under our economy.

[[Page 15035]]

  I will be happy to yield again to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator knows that next week we 
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
A recent court decision upheld the ADA, trying to get people with 
disabilities the right to live independently in their own communities. 
That is going to require us to make some changes in this country. It is 
going to require us to invest in making sure people with disabilities 
have the kind of support they need so they can get education and jobs 
and independent living and transportation. If we do that, they are 
going to be wage earners and taxpayers and not living in institutions.
  I say to the Senator from Illinois, as we celebrate the ADA next 
week, we ought to think about that, where all the money is now going, 
because the Republicans are giving it all to the top 1 percent and 
there will not be anything left to help make our country more fair and 
just, and to make sure we live up to our obligation to people with 
disabilities so they are fully integrated into our society.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just before the Senator leaves that thought about the 
need for support for special education, this is something the Senator 
from Iowa has been particularly interested in and in which he is 
strongly supported by the Senator from Illinois and myself.
  We have heard a lot of lectures out here about the importance of 
helping local communities who have these extraordinary challenges of 
families who have children with these special needs, and it places a 
very special burden on local communities. I think the Senators from 
Iowa and Illinois and others understand the importance of giving help 
and relief to these communities all across this country. We hear about 
the need out there.
  I am wondering whether the Senator shares my belief that after giving 
$1.3 trillion away, whether we should not have used some of those 
resources to try to help local communities and help families who have 
these kinds of special needs for their children?
  We are going to be hard pressed to find the resources to do that. 
Perhaps the Senator would also tell me why it is now that we have gone 
all of this last year, all of this year, and we still can't get a 
minimum wage up to look out for the interests of 13 million Americans 
who are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, who take pride and 
have a sense of dignity, that we can't have an opportunity to address 
it, when in the last 5 days we have given $1.3 trillion away to the 
wealthiest individuals.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, if you take a 
look at this chart, this is what the Republicans want to do for those 
who are working for the minimum wage, for less than $13,000 a year. 
They want to give them a tax cut of $24. Two dollars a month is their 
response. We are trying to give them a dollar an hour increase under 
Senator Kennedy's leadership in the minimum wage. Yet those at the 
highest level, those making over $300,000 a year, under the Republican 
proposal, will see a tax break of $23,000 a year. That is almost double 
what people making minimum wage are receiving in income. We are going 
to give that much in a tax break to those making over $300,000.
  So instead of raising the minimum wage for the millions that the 
Senator refers to--and the 350,000 people who get up and go to work 
every day in Illinois at minimum-wage jobs--we are, instead, giving a 
tax break to the wealthiest among us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator respond to another question?
  Is it the Senator's position--and we have been joined by the Senators 
from California and New York--that there is a greater priority to 
provide a prescription drug program for the 40 million Americans who 
need prescription drugs than there is to grant the $1.3 trillion to the 
wealthiest individuals, that the Senator from Illinois shares the 
belief that we ought to be addressing that particular issue prior to 
the time that we give away all of these funds to some of the wealthiest 
individuals?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree completely.
  When Senator Feingold offered his amendment that said anyone with an 
estate over $100 million a year will have to pay estate taxes, it was 
rejected by the Republicans. To think people that wealthy should not 
pay their taxes, while many seniors have to choose between filling 
their prescription drug prescriptions or filling their refrigerators 
with food, I think tells the difference between the two parties when it 
comes to helping America.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not know if the Senator has mentioned this, but it 
seems to me this Republican Congress wants to take care of the top 2 
percent of income earners in this country; and as far as the other 98 
percent, they don't seem to care.
  Why do I say that? Because you have to look at the action. I ask the 
Senator to again hold up that chart. What is happening here? If you 
asked the average person in the higher income brackets, who is doing so 
well in this particular time--thanks to the policies, I would say, of 
the Clinton-Gore team, supported by those of us in Congress--they don't 
need to get back $23,000 a year. They are doing extremely well.
  Does my friend think it is time to take a little of this emotion--I 
watched the debate when Senator Feingold offered his amendment to 
exempt estates of any taxes up to $100 million. I thought at least on 
that point our friends on the other side could join hands with us. But 
no, the emotion on the other side of the aisle, defending the people, 
the ``poor'' people who are worth more than $100 million, was so 
powerful that I only wished we could take a tenth of that emotion and 
address it to the minimum wage and prescription drugs and good public 
education.
  I wonder if my friend noted the strong emotion and feeling on the 
other side of the aisle when it came to defending and protecting the 
wealthiest in this country, rather than the 98 percent of the people 
who need it. Did he take note of that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from California, time and again, the 
Republican Senators here have felt the ``pain'' of being wealthy in 
America. They can feel the ``pain'' of those who make over $1 million 
each year, over $300,000. They don't seem to feel any pain or any sense 
of emotion when it comes to the working families.

                          ____________________