[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15436-15440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     TAX RELIEF FOR MARRIED COUPLES

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed legislation 
providing tax relief for married couples. We passed a bill that 
basically eliminates the marriage penalty tax for most married couples. 
The cost of the bill was $55.6 billion over 5 years and over ten years. 
The cost of the bill was incorrectly reported in several newspapers 
despite the fact that on the floor of the Senate and in a press 
conference later, we stated clearly that the bill that we passed was a 
5-year bill, and the cost of the bill was estimated by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation to be $56 billion. You wouldn't know that if you 
read the New York Times.
  In today's paper: ``Senate Approves Tax Cut To Help Married Couples. 
Clinton Threatens Veto.'' That much is correct, but the next line says, 
``$248 billion measure would aid even those who do not pay marriage 
penalty.'' I dispute that claim, because it is absolutely false. The 
$248 billion cost they attribute to our bill is false. It is not 
correct.
  In the article, the second paragraph says the vote was 61-38; eight 
Democrats joined Republicans to approve the measure which would reduce 
income taxes for nearly all married couples by a total of $248 billion 
over 10 years.
  The facts are, the bill that we passed was $56 billion over the next 
5 years and the next 10 years. Maybe some people didn't know that. 
Maybe if some Senators knew that they would have voted differently. I 
don't know. I want accuracy. I want people to know the facts.
  The Washington Post had an article as well, and it had a chart that 
bothers me. The Washington Post headline said the ``Senate Votes 
``Marriage Penalty' Relief.'' That statement is true. Then it says, GOP 
continues tax cutting drive and the President threatens to veto it. It 
talks of the bill being $248 billion and included a chart from the 
Citizens for Tax Justice. The chart asks the question: Who would 
benefit? It says the benefit for couples who make between $50,000 and 
$75,000 is $344. That is not correct.
  The Citizens for Tax Justice has a reputation of being quite a 
liberal group. Regardless, they are entitled to their own opinion, but 
they are not entitled to their own facts. I want my colleagues and the 
American people to know what the facts are. Under the Senate-passed 
bill, people who have taxable incomes from zero to $43,000 could get a 
maximum tax benefit from earned income credit changes of $527, and a 
maximum tax benefit from the standard deduction adjustment of $218, for 
a total maximum tax cut of $745. For couples with taxable income 
between $43,000 and $52,500, they also have a standard deduction tax 
cut worth $218, and because of changes to the 15 percent income tax 
bracket they could also get a maximum tax cut of $1,125, for total 
maximum tax relief for married couples earning up to $52,500 of $1,342. 
These are facts about the bill we passed.
  The Washington Post chart says people who make $40,000 to $50,000 
have tax relief of $148. I believe the facts are that it could be as 
much as $1,342. There is a big difference.
  Citizens for Tax Justice happens to be wrong. I don't know if they 
are using some unreasonable type of income classification that greatly 
inflates income so that everyone seems rich. That's what the Clinton 
administration does when it wants to attack our tax cuts. I don't know 
what they are doing. It bothers me. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe I am a 
stickler for facts. We should stick to the facts.
  We passed a tax bill yesterday that I believe will become law. If the 
President will sign it, married couples with taxable income of $52,500 
will get $1,342 worth of tax relief. That is a fairly significant tax 
cut. For the local paper the next day to say that couples making 
between $40,000 and $50,000 get $148 is wrong, way wrong. It is $1,000 
off.
  The Washington Post tries to imply that the real benefits of this tax 
cut go to people making $200,000 or more. That is not the case, either. 
I will have printed in the Record a table for the information of our 
colleagues and the information of the press, if they happen to be 
interested in what we passed. This table shows the maximum tax benefit 
that anyone would receive under our bill by provision and by taxable 
income. A couple with taxable income of approximately $127,000 gets the 
maximum benefit, which is $2,165. People who made over $127,000 get 
less, and that amount would be $1,759.
  One might say, why? The difference is because they lose the standard 
deduction. Under the law that passed in 1990, they lost a standard 
deduction after their income is above a certain level. We didn't change 
that. Maybe we should have, but we didn't.
  Citizens for Tax Justice says, and the Washington Post says, people 
making over $200,000 get a much bigger benefit. They missed it by a 
mile. They imply that those over $200,000 get more of a benefit than 
those with income between $75,000 and $100,000. They missed it again. 
They are wrong. Factually incorrect. They ought to know better. If they 
are going to put this information in one of the largest newspapers in 
the

[[Page 15437]]

country, they ought to do a better job and let the American people know 
what we voted on. Then maybe they can make the appropriate judgment: 
Was this a good bill or a bad bill?
  I happen to think it is a good bill. I am delighted we had 61 votes. 
I wish we would have had 99 votes. Unfortunately, we didn't. I hope the 
President will sign this bill. He should sign this bill. I will predict 
he will sign the bill.
  We are working in conference and we will come out with a bill that 
will be between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House passed 
permanent marriage tax relief that cost $180 billion over 10 years. The 
Senate bill was sunset at 5 years, and cost $56 billion over 5 years 
and 10 years. We are very close to working out a compromise somewhere 
between the House and the Senate. We will make that announcement 
probably at some point tomorrow.
  I urge the President: Do not just issue veto threats; provide tax 
relief for American families. The President can help eliminate the 
marriage penalty by signing this bill. He should sign this bill. This 
bill will provide tax relief in the neighborhood of $1,300 for married 
couples making up to $52,000. He should sign that bill and give them 
tax relief.
  I also urge the media to look at their reports. They are distorted. 
In the case of the chart in the Washington Post, it is totally, 
factually incorrect.
  When we announce our conference agreement tomorrow, I hope people 
take another look at it and see that it is fair tax relief that should 
become law. My prediction is it will become law. My prediction is the 
President will sign it. If not, I hope there will be an overwhelming 
vote in the House and the Senate to override his veto.
  I believe in accuracy. We should have accuracy in reporting. We, in 
the Senate, should be accurate when we present our case. I don't think 
it is necessary to embellish one's case by using inaccurate statements 
or inaccurate figures.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
chart included in the Washington Post, a table of the revenue impact of 
the Senate bill, and also a table that I have assembled showing the 
maximum tax benefit under the Senate bill by taxable income.
  If the Washington Post wants some help, maybe they should take a look 
at this information. It might be more informative for their readers.
  I ask unanimous consent to have all three printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               MAXIMUM MARRIAGE PENALTY BENEFIT POSSIBLE BY PROVISION AND BY TAXABLE INCOME GROUP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maximum benefit possible by provision
                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------
         Taxable Income                              Standard                                        Total \1\
                                        EIC          deduction      15% bracket     28% bracket
                                                  adjustment \1\    adjustment      adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0 to $43,850...................             527             218               0               0             745
$43,850 to $52,500..............               0             218           1,125               0           1,342
$52,500 to $127,200.............               0             406           1,125             635           2,165
$127,200 to $161,450............               0               0           1,125             635           1,759
$161,450 to $288,350............               0               0           1,125             635           1,759
$288,350 and over...............               0               0           1,125             635          1,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Taxpayers who itemize deductions, and those taxpayers above the deduction phase-out threshold would receive
  no benefit from the standard deduction adjustment.
 
Note: Staff estimates based on year 2000 tax parameters--Provided by Senator Don Nickles, 07/19/2000.


        ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF A MODIFICATION TO THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK OF THE ``MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000''--SCHEDULED FOR MARKUP BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON MARCH 30, 2000
                                                                        [Fiscal years 2001-2010, by billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Provision                            Effective              2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010     2001-05   2001-10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. $2,500 increase to the beginning and   tyba 12/31/00.................       [2]      -1.6      -1.5      -1.6      -1.6      -1.6      -1.6      -1.6      -1.6      -1.6      -6.3     -14.4
 ending income levels for the EIC
 phaseout for married filing jointly [1].
2. Standard deduction set at 2 times      tyba 12/31/00.................      -4.1      -6.0      -6.4      -6.5      -6.8      -7.0      -7.1      -7.3      -7.5      -7.6     -29.8     -66.2
 single for married filing jointly.
3. 15% and 28% rate bracket set at 2      tyba 12/31/01.................  ........      -1.7      -4.4      -8.5     -11.4     -12.9     -19.5     -22.0     -21.6     -20.7     -26.0    -122.7
 times single for married filing
 jointly, phased in over 6 years.
4. Permanent extension of AMT treatment   tyba 12/31/01.................  ........      -0.3      -1.6      -2.3      -3.5      -4.7      -5.6      -7.5      -8.8     -10.0      -7.7     -44.5
 of refundable and nonrefundable
 personal credits.
                                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net Total.........................  ..............................      -4.1      -9.6     -13.9     -18.9     -23.3     -26.2     -34.0     -38.4     -39.5     -39.9     -69.8    -247.8
                                                                         =======================================================================================================================
Legend for ``Effective'' column: tyba =
 taxable years beginning after--
                                          ..............................    2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010     2001-05   2001-10
                                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      [1] Estimate includes the           ..............................       [3]      -1.3      -1.3      -1.3      -1.3      -1.4      -1.4      -1.4      -1.4      -1.3      -5.3     -12.1
       following effects on fiscal year
       outlays.
      [2] Loss of less than $50 million.
      [3] Less than $50 millin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: From the Joint Committee on Taxation, 3-30-2000--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

                           who would benefit

       How much married couples would benefit on average if the 
     Senate ``marriage penalty tax'' bill were phased in fully:
Average tax cut for married couples, by income group:
    Less than $10,000...............................................$14
    $10,000-20,000..................................................128
    $20,000-30,000..................................................220
    $30,000-40,000..................................................172
    $40,000-50,000..................................................148
    $50,000-75,000..................................................344
    $75,000-100,000...............................................1,006
    $100,000-200,000..............................................1,118
    $200,000 and more.............................................1,342

Those who make $50,000 a year or more would receive most of the tax 
cut. However, they also pay the most in income taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Share of
                                                   Percent      total
                  Income group                      of tax    individual
                                                     cut        income
                                                                taxes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0 to 20,000....................................         3%          -2%
$20,000 to 30,000...............................         5%           1%
$30,000 to 50,000...............................         7%           7%
$50,000 to 75,000...............................        17%          16%
$75,000 to 200,000..............................        68%          79%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Tax cut percentiles refer to joint returns, income tax percentages
  refer to family income. They are not exact comparisons.
 
Sources: Citizens for Tax Justice, Congressional Budget Office.

  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just listened carefully to my colleague 
from Oklahoma correcting the press, and of course I would join him on 
many days in that effort. As a public figure, I am often quoted enough 
and read things that I think are a little bit different than what I 
believe are the facts. I would say in this instance perhaps his 
characterization of the information presented by the Washington Post at 
least deserves to be discussed for a moment. He made reference to the 
Citizens for Tax Justice, a group with which I have worked. He referred 
to them as, I believe, a left wing or left leaning group. His 
characterization is his own and he is entitled to it. But I suggest to 
the Senator from Oklahoma

[[Page 15438]]

and to anyone who is following this matter, when we assess how much it 
will cost for the so-called marriage penalty tax relief, we usually 
make assessments on a 10-year basis. Though the bill may say 5 years, 
it really strains credulity to suggest at the end of 5 years we are 
going to reimpose the tax once we have taken it off.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I just inform my colleague from Illinois, I had printed 
in the Record the joint tax statement that had the 5-year cost at $56 
billion and had the 10-year cost at $56 billion, my point being we 
ought to be accurate. For some people to imply the bill we passed was 
$248 is factually incorrect.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I want to show a chart 
to the Senator from Oklahoma, and anyone else following this, that was 
not prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice. It was prepared by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation which is an official body that works for the U.S. 
Congress. It is bipartisan, as I understand it. They were asked to try 
to determine how much tax relief of the marriage penalty tax relief 
bill proposed by the Republicans would be going to certain income 
groups in America. It is starkly different than what the Senator from 
Oklahoma has said.
  If he will take a look at the comparison between the Democratic plan 
in yellow and the Republican plan in red, he will see different income 
categories. There is a substantial difference in the tax relief 
available. In the lower income categories, we find substantial relief 
available for those making $20,000 a year--under the Democratic plan 
about $2,000; under the Republican plan about $500. At $30,000, it is 
substantial help--about $4,000 under the Democratic plan; about $800 
under the Republican; At $50,000 a year in income, $1,900 in tax relief 
on the Democrat plan, $240 on the Republican.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. When I finish, I will be happy to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I don't have all day. I need to run, but I would like to 
make a comment. I don't know where the Senator got his chart, but I am 
telling him that factually any couple that made $52,000 under the bill 
we passed yesterday, the Republican bill, with 8 or 9 Democrats who 
voted with you, would get tax relief exactly--exactly as I announced on 
the floor or I will eat the paper. It is $1,125, plus $212, and that is 
1,300 and some odd dollars, not $300. So the Senator's chart is 
factually incorrect.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his comments. I thanked him 
before leaving. I don't want him to take this paper with him for this 
dinner hour, but I will stand by the comments of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. This is not a political group, not a partisan group. It is a 
group authorized by Congress to make these evaluations. The Senator 
from Oklahoma is entitled to his opinion. I am going to stick with the 
facts given to me by an organization we rely on all the time.
  If I can finish the presentation, though, you note when we get to the 
highest income categories, the Democratic bill does not provide relief 
under the so-called marriage penalty tax relief, and the Republican 
plan does, about $1,000 of tax relief for people making $250,000 a 
year.
  The important thing to keep in mind, too, in putting this in 
perspective, is not too many years ago we were laboring with a national 
deficit and worries about how we were going to pay it off and balance 
our books. Some suggested we needed a constitutional amendment, a 
dramatic revision in the budgetary policy here in Congress.
  There are many of us who believe there is another way to do it, with 
sound fiscal policy and leadership, not only in the White House but 
also in Congress. With the leadership of President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore, we now find ourselves talking about spending surpluses.
  I would like to speak for a moment about the tax bills we have 
considered over the last 2 weeks, but before I do that, I would like to 
yield to my colleague from the State of Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate that very much. I am sorry my friend from 
Oklahoma is not here. I have here from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
``Estimated Revenue Effects of Modification to the Chairman's Mark of 
the Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000.'' This we received from the Joint 
Committee. It says the net total impact of this tax over a 10-year 
period is $247.8 billion.
  Is that what the Senator from Illinois was saying as I walked into 
the Chamber?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly my point. Before he rushed off for 
dinner, the Senator from Oklahoma suggested if that was the case, he 
would eat the paper. I suggest my friend from Nevada save that. Perhaps 
we can send it along for lunch tomorrow for my colleague because I 
stand by that estimate. I have no reason to believe it is not true. For 
him to suggest the cost of this program is $56 billion whether it is 5 
years in length or 10 years in length really does not square with my 
understanding.
  It certainly is going to cost us taxpayers more over a 10-year period 
of time than it did over a 5-year period of time. I believe that is 
what the Joint Committee on Taxation is telling us.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask my friend one more question, this is not a 
question of the Democrats being opposed to the marriage penalty tax 
relief; is that true?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is true. In fact, what we have done is present a 
proposal that says if you are in a situation where two wage earners get 
married and their joint income raises them to a higher tax rate, we 
protect them. Basically, we voted, if I am not mistaken, to say to 
those taxpayers: Take your pick. You can file a joint return. You can 
file a single return. We have a proposal that will protect you from 
being penalized for your marriage. The Republicans, unfortunately, go 
one step beyond solving the problem and create a problem. They create a 
problem because they not only remove what they consider to be the 
marriage penalty, although their approach is only half hearted--they 
provide a marriage bonus. In other words, those couples who get married 
and don't pay higher taxes because of combined joint income receive a 
tax break under the Republican plan. So it goes far beyond solving the 
additional problem that was identified. It creates a new problem 
because it creates a new expense, a new drain on the Treasury, a new 
expenditure of our surplus.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, also in the form of a question, I hope 
that he has the opportunity to finish his description here of what the 
difference is between the two approaches. I also say to my friend, this 
issue is not over. People can yell and scream and declare victory, but 
in our Government, I think the Senator would agree, we have something 
called the Constitution. This tiny little document here establishes 
three separate but equal branches of Government. One of those branches 
of Government is called the executive branch. He is going to veto this 
and then it is going to come back. Then the legislative branch is going 
to sustain that veto.
  Then they will have an opportunity, if they in good faith want to do 
something to help remove this marriage penalty tax, to work with the 
administration and the Democrats and come up with a compromise that 
would give true marriage penalty tax relief. In fact, what it would do 
is, instead of taking away three of the references where there is a 
penalty in our Tax Code, it would take care of all 67. Am I right, I 
say to my friend from Illinois?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Nevada is correct. What the Republicans 
suggest is they end the marriage penalty. We know there are somewhere 
between 62 and 67 provisions in the Tax Code that penalize a couple 
when they are married and have a higher joint income. We on the 
Democratic side address every single one of those penalties and remove 
them for those who are truly penalized. The Republicans, unfortunately, 
only addressed three of them. They leave all the other taxes on this 
married couple. So they not only don't solve the problem, they create a

[[Page 15439]]

new problem by taking the surplus away for people who are not being 
prejudiced by being married, and they don't address it in a 
comprehensive way.
  President Clinton should veto this bill, and in vetoing it send it 
back to Congress and say if it is your goal to eliminate the marriage 
penalty, do it in an honest way; do it in a complete way. What we had 
before us yesterday was very incomplete and, I am afraid, not a very 
direct way of dealing with this problem.
  Take a look, if you will, at the impact of the Republican marriage 
penalty tax cut by income because I am going to return to this theme in 
just a moment. If you take a look at who will benefit from the 
Republican tax relief plan, you will find that, as usual, those who are 
in the richest fifth, top 20 percent of wage earners in America, 
receive 78.3 percent of all benefits under this Republican tax relief. 
In fact, the top 5 percent of wage earners receive 25.7 percent of all 
of this tax relief. This, unfortunately, has become a recurring theme 
when the issue of tax relief comes before the Republican-controlled 
Senate. Time and again they believe the people who are best off in this 
country, the people who are doing well, are the ones who need a helping 
hand.
  Many of us come from States and communities where the folks who are 
making a lot of money are doing very well. They are very comfortable. 
They have had a very profitable time for the last 7 or 8 years of the 
Clinton administration. We have seen dramatic increases in the Dow 
Jones, the NASDAQ. When President Clinton was sworn into office as 
President, the Dow Jones was about 3,000 or 3,300. Today it is over 
10,000. The value of those stocks has more than tripled. In the same 
period of time, the NASDAQ indicators went up from about 800 when the 
President was sworn in to around 5,000 today.
  There is a suggestion there for everyone that if you happen to be 
invested with savings accounts and retirement accounts in the stock 
market, you have had a pretty good time of it over the last 7 or 8 
years. I am glad that has happened, and I am happy for all the families 
who profited and businesses and retirement funds that have seen better 
times because of this improvement.
  It strikes me as strange, if not odd, that when we talk about tax 
relief then, the Republicans seem to want to focus on the people who 
have really done the very best in income and net worth over the last 10 
years.
  Take a look at this chart of Republican tax breaks under both the 
estate tax reform and the marriage tax penalty reform, and you will 
find again a dramatic difference in the money that is available. For 
those in the lowest 20 percent--these are people making the minimum 
wage or slightly more--the Republican idea of tax relief turns out to 
be $24 a year in reduced taxes, about $2 a month.
  Now go up to the top 1 percent, people making over $300,000 a year, 
and the Republican idea of tax relief is $23,000, almost $2,000 a 
month. I suggest that anyone making $300,000--which, if my quick 
calculations are correct, comes out to about $25,000 a month in 
income--may not notice $2,000 a month. I guarantee the people at the 
lowest end who are struggling at minimum wage jobs are not going to 
notice $2 a month.
  It is far more important for us, when we talk about real tax relief, 
to keep our eyes on those in the lower- and middle-income groups who 
are struggling mightily to do well in this economy. They have had some 
help. The economy is doing well, but they could use some tax relief, 
and if we are going to take the surplus of the United States and give 
it to families across America, should we start at the top? Should we 
start with the wealthiest or should we start basically with the lower- 
and middle-income families who really need it?
  Take a look at this chart, too. This chart summarizes it. It shows 
the Republican tax plans we have debated over the last 2 weeks, and the 
impact it has, as I described on previous charts. The top 1 percent of 
people making over $319,000 a year, people with an average income of 
$915,000, receive a $23,000 tax break, which represents 43 percent of 
all of the tax relief that was included in those bills. We are taking 
the surplus generated in our economy for tax relief and 43 percent of 
it goes to people who have an average income of $915,000 a year.
  There is a better way to do it. I hope the President vetoes the 
estate tax bill and the marriage tax penalty bill suggested by the 
Republicans because these bills are fundamentally unfair. That we would 
give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us and ignore families who work 
hard every single day is not fair.
  If we are going to start a line of people most deserving of 
assistance in America, I hardly believe we should start that line with 
Donald Trump and Bill Gates and folks who are making millions and 
millions of dollars. Better yet, let us try to bring to the front of 
that line those who are struggling every single day with the basic 
challenges that American families face.
  Tax cuts should be directed. First and foremost, we need a 
prescription drug benefit. We just had an interesting debate. 
Pharmaceutical companies cannot be too happy with this debate because 
we said on a bipartisan basis that we are so upset with drug pricing in 
America that we are now going to allow companies, pharmacists, and 
distributors to import drugs from overseas at lower prices so they can 
sell them to Americans. These are drugs that are basically made and 
inspected in America, sent to foreign countries, and sold at a fraction 
of the price.
  It happens in Canada. It happens in Europe. It happens in Mexico. We 
all know the story. People are getting in buses in some States and 
driving across the border to Canada to buy American drugs at a fraction 
of the cost.
  The Senate said there has to be a better way. Absent addressing this 
problem of pricing drugs head on, we are going to allow the 
reimportation of these American drugs that have been made in inspected 
laboratories into the United States so that they can be sold to 
Americans at a reduced cost. I guess it is obvious from this vote that 
we know families are suffering because of drug prices, and yet before 
we have enacted any kind of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, 
the Republicans have insisted we spend half of our anticipated surplus 
in tax breaks for the wealthiest in America.
  It makes more sense to me to create a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare, a universal guaranteed drug benefit accessible to every 
American who chooses to be part of it, one that allows a doctor to 
prescribe a drug that a person needs to stay strong and healthy in 
their home for as long as they want to be and be able to pay for the 
drug.
  I have seen cases in Illinois and certainly in hearings across the 
country and in this city have heard from people who are struggling to 
pay for prescription drugs. That is the highest priority we should deal 
with, and we should do it before we break for the August conventions so 
that both parties can go to their conventions and say: We did something 
for the families across America. For those who are concerned about the 
elderly and disabled who are stuck with high drug prices, we did 
something for fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers, who 
really cannot afford the drugs their doctors prescribe.
  We did not do that. Instead, we decided people with an average income 
of $915,000 a year need an additional $23,000 in tax breaks from the 
Republicans. I will bet a nickel there is not a person making $915,000 
a year who cannot afford prescription drugs. These people know how to 
pay for virtually everything if they are making that much money, and we 
gave them more money.
  Before we directed our attention to those who were struggling to get 
by on fixed incomes--people on Social Security taking home a check of 
$800 or $1,200 a month looking at drug bills of $200, $500, $600--we 
learned from a public hearing in Chicago of a woman who had gone 
through a double lung transplant. It was a miracle she stood there 
before us and looked very healthy.

[[Page 15440]]

Years after that transplant, she still worried because she needed to 
take immunosuppressant drugs that cost over $2,000 a month. There was 
no way on her fixed income she could afford it.
  Frankly, if she stopped taking them, she could have irreversible lung 
damage. She faced that prospect, she made that decision, she stopped 
taking the drugs for a period of months because she could not afford 
them, and did face irreversible lung damage. She got back on the 
welfare rolls long enough to resume prescriptions and living month to 
month trying to afford the drug she needed to stay alive. That is a 
real story of a person whose income is little more than $12,000 a year 
who literally worries from month to month as to whether or not they 
will be able to buy the drugs to keep them alive.
  Did we remember that lady when we talked about tax relief here? No. 
We focused 43 percent of our attention and 43 percent of our surplus on 
people making over $300,000 a year, people making $915,000 average 
income. For those in the category above them, $130,000 to $319,000, we 
gave them another 14 percent of the surplus as well.
  There is another group we forget, and when we had an opportunity to 
vote for an amendment, unfortunately, we could not muster a majority to 
support them: families who are paying for college education expenses 
for their kids.
  We believe--the Clinton administration and Democrats believe--that 
families who want to put their kids through school should be able to 
deduct their college education expenses up to $12,000. It means a 
helping hand from the Government in the range of $3,000 a year. Most 
families would welcome that so they could pay the tuition expenses and 
the room and board for the kids who finally are accepted at good 
colleges and universities. It is a strain for a lot of families, and a 
lot of kids go deeply into debt to pay for college.
  We believe tax relief should be directed to those families so they 
can send their kids to college. We brought it up for a vote, and it was 
rejected by the Republican side. That is not their idea of tax relief. 
Their idea of tax relief is $23,000 a year in tax breaks for people 
making over $900,000 a year.
  We wanted to address another problem. What about day care? So many 
working families worry about where their kids are going to be during 
the course of a day--whether they will be in a place that is safe, 
clean, and healthy, someplace where a child might have a chance to 
learn--and they struggle to find that place they can afford. Day care 
is a real human, family problem. We came up with a proposal to increase 
the credit that a family can claim for the cost of day care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that was rejected as well. The idea of 
helping families through the Tax Code to pay for day care was rejected.
  I can tell you with no doubt in my mind, with an absolute degree of 
certainty, that if you are making $915,000 a year, you probably do not 
worry too much about the weekly day care costs, but that is the group 
the Republican majority decided needed help, not the working family, 
struggling to find a safe, clean, affordable day-care center for their 
kids. No.
  The group making over $900,000 a year will get $23,000 in tax breaks 
from the proposals on the Republican side of the aisle.
  This list includes an effort by the Democratic side to provide tax 
credits to businesses offering health insurance to their employees. You 
know as well as I do that 40 million Americans do not have health 
insurance. We believe the best way to help them afford health insurance 
is to help the small business employers provide that benefit. Of 
course, that insurance is more expensive. Those who buy it in smaller 
groups, such as the small businesses, have to pay more for the health 
insurance premiums and their employees are in lower income categories.
  So I proposed an amendment that said we would give a tax credit to 
businesses, a tax credit for those who would offer health insurance not 
only to the owners of the businesses but also to those who work there. 
That was rejected by the Republican side of the aisle. That is the kind 
of tax relief they just do not think is necessary.
  I can tell you, you will not find a single person working for a small 
business in America making over $900,000 a year--the people we were 
trying to help with that amendment.
  I can guarantee you, as well, that people making over $900,000 a year 
probably don't lose a single moment's sleep each night worrying about 
whether there will be health insurance.
  So it comes down to this. The President has proposed he is going to 
veto these proposals by the Republicans because, once again, as they 
have done historically, the tax cuts proposed on the Republican side of 
the aisle have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy. It happened in 
August of 1999; again, in May of 2000 under George W. Bush's plan; it 
happened with the House action recently in March of this year; and it 
happened again on this estate tax repeal that the Republicans support.
  Time and time again, the vast majority of relief goes to the 
wealthiest people in America. When will this Congress and this Senate 
listen to the 98 percent of the families in America who are hoping that 
we share their concerns about their future and their kids' future? 
Whether it is college education expenses, prescription drugs for their 
parents, prescription drugs for the disabled and their families, an 
effort to pay for child care, an effort to make certain they have 
health insurance on the job, when will this Congress put that as a high 
priority?
  The Republican leadership said: Those people can go to the back of 
the line. We will wait for some other day, if ever, to discuss their 
needs. First we have to take care of the wealthiest. First we have to 
make sure that those making over $900,000 a year get about $2,000 more 
a month so they can be a little more comfortable in their lifestyle.
  I think that is wrong. The President's veto is right. Let us provide 
tax relief and target it for the people who really need it. If there is 
a surplus in America, let working families, 98 percent of whom were 
ignored by the Republican tax cut plan, be first in line.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I enjoyed the speech of my good friend from 
Illinois. But I also want to footnote it by saying it is pretty tough 
to give tax cuts to folks who don't pay taxes. So it is a little on the 
rough side to do that.

                          ____________________