[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15958-15962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     LET'S DO THE SENATE'S BUSINESS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Reid from 
Nevada, for his really fine statement. One of the things I most 
appreciate about Senator Reid is, his voice is a quiet voice, but it is 
a very firm and strong voice.
  I come to the floor wondering why it is that on Tuesday morning at 11 
o'clock we are in morning business, which means we can't really do the 
work of democracy. To me, the work of democracy is to focus on issues 
that are important to people's lives and to try to make a difference.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, we have a very simple situation 
here. We in the minority believe we have the right to have a few judges 
approved by the Senate. Our dear friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, 
has had a judge pending for 1,200 days and he has not even had a 
hearing. We would like that person to have a hearing. Senator Harkin 
from Iowa has had a judge pending who already had a hearing. We also 
believe we have some appropriations bills that need to move forward, 
and there are some strings on that. We want to work, but there are some 
things that we think, in fairness, we deserve. As a result of that, 
things have slowed down, which is too bad.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Unfortunately, I am well aware of the situation, and, 
again, I think we have reached a point where this is raw politics. 
People in the country this November can decide about what direction we 
should take. A calculation can be made that a Presidential race is 
coming up and we don't want to move any judges anymore, whether it is 
for the court of appeals or Federal district judges. But when there has 
been such a long wait, as a Democrat, I think it is important that 
Democrats draw the line and insist that some of these highly qualified 
men and women be able to serve in the judiciary.
  I want to very briefly emphasize some of what was said this morning. 
I want to be out here on the floor of the Senate right now but not in 
morning business. I would like to be out here discussing a piece of 
legislation or with the ability to introduce an amendment to a piece of 
legislation that would make a positive difference in the lives of 
people in Minnesota and other people in the United States of America.
  I was at a public hearing with Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee from 
Houston. It was in Houston in Harris County, which I think is about the 
fifth largest county in America. It was about the mental health of 
children. I will never forget the testimony of Matt, who directs the 
county correction system. He spoke within a law and order framework. He 
made it clear that he is a no-nonsense law and order person. But he 
also said people believe these kids who are locked up are locked up 
because they have done something bad. But the truth is--these are his 
statistics--about 40 percent of these kids are locked up because 
parents couldn't get mental help for them. There was nothing available.
  I would like to be out on the floor of the Senate introducing 
legislation and passing legislation that would make it possible for 
these kids to get the help--so they wouldn't be locked up; so they 
could go on and live good lives.
  There is a piece of legislation I have introduced with Senator 
Domenici called the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. I think it 
is shameful that there is for so many people who struggle with mental 
illness still such discrimination in coverage, and their illness is 
treated as if it is a moral failing when they don't get the coverage. 
When it comes to the stays in the hospital, physician visits, and what 
bills are covered, the coverage isn't there. They go without treatment. 
I would like to be on the floor of the Senate doing the business and 
work of democracy by trying to pass this legislation.
  My colleague, Senator Reid, said that a Patients' Bill of Rights is 
just but one step. I agree with him. I think it is important to people 
in the country to make sure that in this health care system they fit 
in; to make sure the providers fit in; and to make sure that the people 
who are denied access to care which they believe they need for 
themselves and their families have a right to appeal when there is some 
protection for them.
  I would like to pass meaningful patient protection legislation. I 
would like the floor right now involved in that debate.
  I introduced a bill for the Service Employees International Union. It 
is a great union. I was at a press conference with Andy Stearn, the 
president, and other members of the union. This is a union that knows 
how to organize workers. It is the fastest growing union in America. 
Probably 70 or 75 percent of the membership is women. Probably 70 or 75 
percent of the membership is people of color. It is a piece of 
legislation that I think speaks to the No. 1 concern of people around 
the country; that is, health security for themselves and their 
families.
  What we basically say in this legislation is, as a national 
community, here is what we can agree upon--that there should be health 
care benefits for the people we represent that is as good as we have in 
Congress. I am determined to introduce a resolution and have a vote on 
that proposition that the people we represent should have the same 
health security that we have.
  In that legislation, we agree nationally, as a community, that health 
care coverage should be affordable; that when you have an income below 
$20,000, you pay 0.5 percent and no more of your annual income; between 
$25,000 and $50,000, you pay no more than 5 percent of your income per 
year; and over $50,000 a year, you would never pay more than 7 percent 
of your annual income.
  Part of the problem with health care is not just the 44 million or 45 
million who are uninsured, but all of the people when it comes to 
paying deductibles and fees just can't afford it any longer. Too many 
people are not old enough for Medicare. Even if they are, they can't 
afford prescription drug coverage. They are too poor for medical 
assistance. Even if they are, it is by no means comprehensive. They are 
not lucky enough to work for an employer that can provide them with 
affordable coverage.
  We also say nationally that we, as a national community, we agree 
there should be good patient protection legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his leadership. I say to those 
listening to this debate that Senator Wellstone of Minnesota has been a 
consistent voice on the floor of the Senate on the issue of health 
care. Many of us visit that issue and believe it is important.

[[Page 15959]]

He has dedicated his life in Congress and the Senate to champion the 
cause of good health care for all Americans and is recognized 
nationally for his leadership on issues such as coverage of those who 
suffer from mental illness.
  To put the agenda of the Senate in perspective for a moment, because 
the Senator raises an important question about 40 million Americans who 
have no health insurance, and many who are underinsured today, and the 
fact that this Congress refuses to even debate the issue or discuss the 
issue when we reach out for a good program that Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Wellstone, and I supported to extend health insurance coverage 
to children of working families in many States, and reaching out in 
other areas, but we seem to be reluctant to address what most American 
families have to address every single day--the lack of security, and 
the lack of peace of mind when it comes to health insurance--I would 
like the Senator from Minnesota to comment on the fact that we are in 
possibly one of the greatest periods of prosperity in the history of 
the United States. We are talking about surpluses under the budget that 
may reach $2 trillion. The only suggestion from the Republican side of 
the aisle is that we should use $1 trillion of the surplus--almost half 
the surplus--to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America 
rather than addressing working families who are uninsured and people 
who are looking for the peace of mind by having some protection when it 
comes to basic health care.
  Will the Senator from Minnesota reflect on what we have done on the 
floor of the Senate over the last 2 weeks in the context of what I 
consider the high priority he has raised?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Illinois that any time he 
wants to raise such a question, continue to do so. He got a little 
ahead of me. This is exactly where I want to go.
  To finish this proposal on this legislation and what I like about 
it--then I will talk about this in a broader context--we are saying to 
States within this framework, go ahead and decide how you want to do 
this. Once we agree on universal coverage, once we have agreed it will 
be affordable with good benefits and patient protection for all 
citizens, then States decide how they want to do it--one insurer, the 
employer pays, pay or play, we decentralize. I think it makes all the 
sense in the world.
  Then the question is, What is the cost? Over the first 4 years, as 
you phase it in, it would be $100 billion. If you are looking at the 
total cost over 10 years, it would be $700 billion a year. That is not 
even a third of the projected surplus. So the question becomes, What 
are our priorities?
  I argue, based on conversations and meetings I have had with 
Minnesotans--some people do not agree with this point of view, but I 
say honestly that I do no damage to the truth on the floor of the 
Senate or any other time. I hope when we summarize all of the 
discussions from people about how to reduce poverty, how to have good 
welfare reform, how to have a stable middle class, how to make sure our 
country does well in the international economy, how to make sure our 
children have opportunities, how to make sure we can reduce the 
violence--over and over and over again, the focus is on a good 
education, good health care, and a good job. That is on what people are 
focused.
  There are two questions. I don't want to monopolize the floor. But 
one of them has to do with priorities. I think what happened during the 
last couple of weeks is, frankly, that there has been a major 
ideological debate, not, in some ways, dissimilar to what happened in 
1981. To the extent that you are now going to have new tax cuts 
disproportionately benefiting, by the way, people at the very top--I am 
not totally against some tax cuts. In fact, I think some tax, targeted 
tax cuts make a lot of sense, especially focused on working families 
and the priorities of our families in the country. But if you are going 
to basically erode the revenue base, and you are going to say over the 
next 10 years here is $800 billion or $900 billion, no longer from this 
floor any kind of investment in children, education health care, 
prescription drug benefits so people can afford those benefits, but 
instead it is going to be tax cuts disproportionately helping those 
people who are already the very top of the economic ladder, then you 
are doing two things.
  No. 1, there is no standard of fairness in terms of who gets the tax 
relief and who gets the help. But even more importantly than that, you 
are eroding the revenue base, making it impossible for Government 
through public policy to make a positive difference in the lives of 
people.
  If you believe when it comes to education--whether it be pre-K, 
whether it be affordable child care, whether it be what we can do K 
through 12, whether it would be higher education and spending for Pell 
grants, or when it comes to health care, or when it comes to a whole 
range of issues that affect people's lives in this way--if you believe 
that there is nothing the Government can or should do, fine. But that 
philosophy works well when you own your own large corporation and you 
are wealthy; it doesn't work for most people.
  Talk to veterans about veterans' health care; talk to families about 
child care; talk to families about health care; talk to families about 
higher education; talk to families about affordable housing; talk to 
families about how they believe life can be better for themselves and 
their children. They don't believe for a moment that there is nothing 
we can or should do that would make a difference. Their discouragement 
is all too often that we don't seem to be on their side, and we don't 
seem to be speaking to them or including them.
  We were in morning business at 11 o'clock this morning. The 
Republicans don't want to go forward with Federal judges. They don't 
want to have opportunities for amendments. They do not want to have 
opportunities for debate. They do not want to talk about minimum wage. 
They don't want to talk about affordable prescription drug costs. They 
don't want to talk about patient protections. They don't want to talk 
about health security for families or about a commitment to early 
childhood development. They don't want to talk about a lot of these 
issues. Therefore, I think the Senate is not doing the work for enough 
people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator has come to this floor repeatedly and 
discussed concerns that I hear in Illinois and that the Senator from 
Minnesota hears in Minnesota from working families and middle-income 
families trying to do their business. They get up and go to work every 
morning. They think ahead for their children. They want to realize and 
live the American dream. The Senator in the parlance of politicians 
feels the pain of families and their anxieties about their future. It 
appears that the Senate in the last 2 weeks feels the pain of the 
wealthy people in America.
  For those who think I overstate the case, this is an analysis of the 
tax cuts that have been proposed over the last 2 weeks in the Senate 
and the people who benefit from them.
  The Republicans proposed that we take over $1 trillion--over half of 
the surplus for the next 10 years--and give it in tax cuts to the 
wealthiest of Americans. We analyzed their tax cut package. Democrats 
support tax cuts. The Senator from Minnesota talked about tax cuts so 
people can deduct the cost of college education; so people can deduct 
and have a credit for quality day care for their kids; for long-term 
care for their aging parents; for prescription drug benefits. The 
Republicans focused on the estate tax and a few other taxes.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Minnesota to comment on this 
distribution chart because we analyzed the Republican tax cut. Who are 
the winners and who are the losers? The good news is that everybody 
gets a tax cut under the Republican plan.
  But look at the tax cut. If you happen to make less than $13,000 a 
year--these are people of minimum wage--

[[Page 15960]]

the tax cut is worth $24 a year, or two bucks a month.
  Move up to $12,400 in income. You are going to see $82 a year, or 
about seven bucks a month. Now you get up to people making $40,000 a 
year. We are up to about $11 a month, or $131 a year. If you are up to 
$65,000, these folks are going to see a tax cut of about $16 or $17 a 
month under the Republican plan.
  Fast forward and jump with me, if you will, to the top 1 percent of 
wage earners in America. People making over $300,000 a year--people in 
the gallery don't have to raise their hands--folks who are making over 
$300,000 a year are going to see an annual tax cut from a Republican 
proposal of $23,000 a year. On average, these people make over $900,000 
a year, $75,000 a month. And the Republicans have proposed giving them 
an additional $2,000 a month in disposable income. For what? For what?
  I can tell Members what these working families would do with $2,000 a 
month. It is fairly predictable. They would be paying for the kids' 
college education. They would be buying health insurance to make sure 
they are covered. They would be paying for quality day care. They would 
be taking care of an aging parent. That is what working families would 
do with a tax break. That is what Democrats support.
  The Republicans say no; give the biggest tax cut to those who are 
making the most money. The response? Well, Senator, you don't 
understand. These people are paying too much in taxes. People making 
under $50,000 a year can use some tax relief, too. They are paying 
payroll taxes and facing a lot of problems every month.
  The Republicans, frankly, won't listen to this. I want the Senator 
from Minnesota to comment on this distribution chart on his proposals 
of what we could be doing to help working families across this country.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this brings into sharp focus yet 
another issue that should be our priority, that the majority party, the 
Republican Party, refuses to take up. That is campaign finance reform.
  I am not making a one-to-one correlation between what any Senator 
says on the floor or how he or she votes or the position he or she 
takes on an issue. I am talking about the overall bias of big money and 
the way in which it dominates politics. When people see this chart and 
hear the distribution of who benefits and who does not, the benefits 
are in inverse relationship to need. It violates every standard of 
fairness people have. People are all for some tax relief, if it is for 
families, if it speaks to the concerns of working families.
  This chart is, to most people, a little outrageous. This feeds into 
the skepticism that people have. Most people would say that is exactly 
what the majority party is all about. The folks they represent are the 
folks who can; they are the heavy hitters. They are the contributors, 
the players, the investors. They are the ones who have the clout. They 
are the ones who hire the lobbyists. They are the ones who know how, 
who march on Washington every day. The rest are left out.
  By the way, all too often, people unfortunately have that perception 
of both parties. What we have seen over the last week or 2 weeks only 
reinforces the skepticism and cynicism people have about who gets 
represented in the Senate and who doesn't.
  I say to my colleague from Illinois, there is another issue. The 
issue is, above and beyond not meeting any standard of fairness, and 
above and beyond huge benefits but in inverse relationship to need, 
there is another issue. I believe part of what the majority party is 
doing--and, by the way, every Republican has a first amendment right to 
believe this is the right thing to do for the country--is essentially 
eroding the revenue base, giving away $1 trillion in money so when it 
comes to health security for families, when it comes to long-term care 
for our parents or our grandparents or when it comes to how you can 
help a child so he or she by kindergarten can come ready to learn and 
does not fall behind and can do well in school, they don't believe 
there is anything the Government should be doing. I don't agree. I 
don't think most of the people in the country agree. I think in that 
sense that is clearly where the differences between the two parties 
make a difference.
  I am a critic of the timidity of our own party quite often. The 
differences right now between Democrats and Republicans make a real 
difference in the lives of people in this country.
  I conclude by mentioning another issue. I want to make sure I don't 
do this in a cheap shot, bashing way. I don't want to. There is a 
bitter irony because we will have an appropriations bill on the floor--
maybe--this week where we will be raising our salaries and, by the way, 
what is tricky for me is our salaries are above the Federal employees, 
including support staff who work hard. I am not interested in bashing 
away at people. But we are not interested in raising the minimum wage. 
We don't want to raise the minimum wage for people. If there is one 
proposition that people in the country agree on, people ought to be 
able to make enough of a wage so they can support their families and 
give their children the care they know their children need and deserve.
  We are now at the point where we want to have a minimum wage bill on 
the floor; we want to raise the minimum wage. I say to Senator Durbin, 
75 to 80 percent of the people in the country believe that is the right 
thing to do.
  Disproportionately, it is women in the workforce out there every day, 
people who are working 40 hours a week, almost 52 weeks a year, still 
poor in America, and still can't support their families. We are going 
to have an appropriations bill out here where we are going to be 
raising our wages--and we don't do badly--but this Senate, this 
Republican majority, is not willing to even entertain a debate and let 
us vote on whether or not we think we should raise the minimum wage.
  These are big issues because they crucially affect the quality or 
lack of quality of the lives of the people we represent.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. This chart shows what is happening to families of three 
trying to survive on a minimum wage. There are lots of people trying to 
live while earning a minimum wage. It usually means multiple jobs. 
There are 350,000 in Illinois alone who get up and go to work for a 
minimum wage. They usually have a second job. One of my friends who 
works in the Watertower Place across the street from the hotel I stay 
in Chicago--she is a great friend of mine--is trying to take care of an 
aging mother. She has two jobs. She works in a parking garage as an 
attendant and then when she gets off that job she is a hostess in a 
restaurant. This lady works harder than most of us who think we are 
hard workers, and she is working for a little bit above the minimum 
wage.
  What we see on this chart, I say to Senator Wellstone, is when we 
judge what the poverty line is in America, look what happened in about 
the year 1989. All of a sudden the minimum wage fell below the poverty 
line. Those of us who wanted to make sure people who get up and work 
hard every day get a decent paycheck and a chance to have a livable 
wage have asked to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour 
over a 2-year period of time. I guarantee you will not live a life of 
luxury at $6.15 an hour, but you may be able to take care of some basic 
needs such as school uniforms for the kids, and shoes, maybe a decent 
place to live, a safer and cleaner place to live. Yet we cannot seem to 
get that issue before the Congress.
  Republican leadership--in what has been a departure from the past 
where they said this is a bipartisan issue--has now said this is a 
partisan issue. Republicans oppose a minimum wage increase. The 
Democrats support it and the Republicans have stopped us.
  I will give an example. If I'm not mistaken, Governor Bush from 
Texas, his position is States ought to be able to opt out of the 
minimum wage increase.

[[Page 15961]]

That is what he would do. So you would have certain pockets in the 
United States which would not have a minimum wage increase. That is 
cold comfort for people who get up and go to work and try to keep 
things together for their family. But the Senator from Minnesota is 
correct. The minimum wage has been plummeting in its buying power. 
Congress has the authority to take care of that issue. Congress has 
refused.
  Instead of dealing with a minimum wage and giving people basically $1 
an hour increase, which comes out to about $2,000 a year if my math is 
correct, here we decide to give $2,000 a month in tax breaks to people 
making over $300,000 a year. We cannot give $2,000 a year to people who 
work hard every single day, but we can give folks making over $300,000 
a year under the Republican tax break plan, a $23,000-a-year tax cut--
almost $2,000 a month. Those are the priorities. Those are the 
differences.
  I think we try our best to feel the pain of working families. The 
Republicans feel the pain of the wealthy, the pain they must go through 
every day trying to decide what to do with another $2,000 when they 
have a paycheck coming in of $25,000 a month. What anguish, what pain, 
what frustration it must be to try to figure out another mutual fund or 
another vacation place.
  How about the families worried about having a few bucks in the bank 
and paying for their kids' education?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague--and I am breaking my promise on 
last words, but on the whole issue of Governor Bush, talking about 
compassionate conservatism, I have no doubt he says it with sincerity. 
I am fond of this old Yiddish proverb--I think it is a Yiddish 
proverb--about how you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. 
Frankly, you can talk about compassion. But the other problem is you 
cannot make a difference unless you are willing to, in fact, reach into 
your pocket and invest some resources.
  My colleague mentioned minimum wage. It occurred to me that one of 
the truly awful things is there are two groups of citizens we say we 
care the most about--let's talk about compassion--the very young 
children and the elderly, the people who built the country with the 
strength of their backs, who now, toward the end of their lives, may be 
struggling because of illness. Think about it for a moment, I say to my 
colleague from Illinois. Let's talk wages and then let's talk 
investment. The men and women who take care of small children, who work 
in child care, or take care of elderly people--either home-based care 
or nursing homes--are the most miserably paid workers in our country. 
We devalue the work of adults who take care of small children. We 
devalue the work of adults who take care of the elderly and those 
people struggling toward the end of their lives. They have the lowest 
wages and the worst--among the worst--benefits.
  Raising the minimum wage would help. It would make a difference. So 
would affordable health care coverage. We could make a difference, I 
say to my colleague from Illinois, and we should. But we do not.
  Is there any wonder at the turnover in both of these fields? I know 
in child care there is a 40-percent turnover every year, because if you 
graduate from school, college, you probably are going to have a debt. 
If you want to work in the child care field, you are looking at a $9-
an-hour job maybe with no health care benefits, or a $7-an-hour job. 
The same goes for home-based care or for nursing homes.
  My final point. The problem with this chart is that you are talking 
about the top 1 percent getting the lion's share of all of these tax 
benefits. You are also talking about eroding the revenue base over the 
next decade to the point where, in certain decisive areas of life, we 
will not be able to make the investment. I want to shout this from the 
mountaintop on the floor of the Senate and finish with these words.
  When it comes to child care, if you want to talk compassion and you 
talk so much about small children and you care so much that there is 
nurturing care and they are challenged and come to school ready to 
learn, this is not going to be done on the cheap. This is going to 
require real investment if we are serious.
  When it comes to the elderly--I went through this with my parents. 
Now I will be critical of us for a moment. I am all for tax credits. It 
is fine. But both my mom and dad had Parkinson's. We moved them to 
Northfield. We actually lived here and we moved them to Northfield, MN, 
to try to keep them at home. We did. We kept them at home for a long 
time. It got to the point where we would spend the night with them, our 
children would, and then we were just exhausted.
  I sent a note out. It was the best day I ever had teaching at 
Carelton. I was desperate. I sent a note out to students and I said: 
Here is the situation with my parents. My dad in particular, he was 
from Ukraine, then Russia, and speaks 10 languages fluently and I think 
you would enjoy him. But we need some help. Would anybody be interested 
in spending the night?
  The next day I got 170 letters back from students saying they would 
be more than willing to help. It was wonderful. Then at the very end he 
fell and broke his hip and we no longer could keep them at home.
  But my point is, home-based care, enabling people to stay at home as 
long as possible, live with dignity, it is not done on a tax credit of 
$3,000. It is a lot more expensive than that. But if we are serious 
about this, we are going to have to make some investment. I can think 
of a better use of $1 trillion over the next decade for our country, 
the United States of America, than tax cuts that disproportionately go 
to the top 1 percent of the wealthy. I think we can do better for 
people like my mom and dad, who are no longer alive today. And I know 
we can do better for these small children.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, he may recall we asked the Members 
of the Senate to take their choice, make a pick, make a decision. That 
is what we are sent here to do, cast a vote. Senator Dodd stood up on 
day care and said: Shouldn't we help working families who are 
struggling to find a safe, quality place to leave their kids when they 
are off to work so they can have peace of mind and the children can 
grow in a positive learning environment, a safe environment?
  He said: Instead of giving a tax break of $23,000 a year to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, why don't we talk about targeting 
tax cuts so families can have more of a tax credit to pay for day care? 
He took another step the Senator from Minnesota, I am sure, remembers. 
Senator Dodd said: What about those families where the mother, for 
example, decides to stay home and raise the kids? Shouldn't we be 
encouraging that family? They are making an economic sacrifice for the 
good of their children. Shouldn't they have a tax break?
  I agree with him. My wife stayed at home. I am glad she did. I guess 
we did not buy all the things we could have in life, but we sure ended 
up with three good kids, thanks to her hard work. She stayed home and 
helped raise those kids.
  A lot of families make that decision, that economic sacrifice. 
Shouldn't our Tax Code help those mothers? Frankly, we are going to 
help you whatever your choice. Whether you go to work and need help 
with day care or stay home with your children, we are going to give you 
tax relief targeted to those families. The Republicans said: No, no, 
that is not a priority. Here is the priority. The priority is giving to 
people who make an average income of $900,000 a year about $2,000 more 
a month to figure out what they are going to do with it.
  That is the difference. That is what the debate came down to.
  The Senator from Minnesota, as he talks about long-term care, touches 
my heart, too. My mother passed away a few years ago. Thank goodness, 
she was able to stay independent for a long period of time, usually 
watching her son on C-SPAN and calling him in the evening to correct 
him on some of the things he said. I understand what families go 
through when they start making these decisions--and they are

[[Page 15962]]

heartbreaking decisions--about their parents and grandparents. We 
believe tax breaks should be available to those families who want to 
take care of their parents and grandparents, who are willing to 
sacrifice. But not on the Republican side. They are more concerned 
about this estate tax which, as my colleague from Minnesota says, 
disproportionately helps the very wealthiest people in the United 
States.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I remember the 
amendment well because I offered it with Senator Dodd. But there was 
one other important feature to it. It was a refundable tax credit. It 
was going to provide some help for those families who did not come 
under $30,000, which is critically important.
  I say the same thing about higher education. If we want to do tax 
credits, make sure they are refundable. Again, think of our community 
college students. I have reached the conclusion that the nontraditional 
students have become the traditional students. I have reached the 
conclusion that the majority of students today in higher education are 
no longer 18 and 19 living in a dorm. The majority are 30, 35, 40, 45, 
50, going back to school, many of them women, many of them with 
children. And, again, I can think of a better use of this money than a 
tax break for the top 1 percent of the population.
  I far prefer to be out here on the floor passing legislation which 
will assure affordable higher education, affordable child care, and 
make a real investment in health care than some of these other areas.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield before he yields the floor, 
most of us in the Chamber are well aware of Senator Wellstone's 
background. Having been involved in teaching in Minnesota and higher 
education in his professional career before his election, he 
understands, if not better than most of us, what higher education is 
about, what it offers, and also what it costs.
  The Senator from Minnesota raises another point. We offered an 
alternative to this estate tax break which comes down to $23,000 a year 
for the wealthiest Americans. We said we are going to help for the very 
first time in America working middle-income families. We are going to 
allow them to deduct the cost of college education expenses from their 
income taxes. It is not a major deduction, but it helps. It said, for 
example, up to $12,000 a year could be deducted, and it would be 
treated in the 28-percent rate, which means a little over $3,000 a 
year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The time for the minority has 
expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is anyone seeking recognition on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming. I 
thank him for all his efforts in organizing information to be shared 
with fellow Senators and with the American public.

                          ____________________