[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16283-16285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am certain those who were observing the 
Senate Chamber yesterday and perhaps the day before are curious as to 
why absolutely nothing is happening. It reflects the fact that there is 
no agreement between the parties as to how to proceed on the business 
of the Senate, particularly on the appropriations bills.
  At this moment in time negotiations are underway, and hopefully they 
will be completed successfully very soon. At issue is the number of 
amendments to be offered, the time for the debate, and some tangential 
but very important issues such as the consideration of appointments of 
Federal district court judges across America to fill vacancies. These 
judgeships have been a source of great controversy in recent times 
because there is a clear difference of opinion between Democrats and 
Republicans about how many judges should be appointed this year.
  Of course, the Republicans in control of the Senate are hopeful that 
their candidate for President will prevail in November and that all of 
the vacancies can then be filled by a Republican President. That is 
understandable. The Democrats, on the other hand, in the minority in 
the Senate, have a President who has the authority to appoint these 
judges and wants to exercise that authority in this closing year. 
Therein lies the clash in confrontation.
  Historically, the last time the tables were turned and there was a 
Republican President and a Democratic Senate, President Ronald Reagan 
had 60 Federal district court judges appointed in the election year. In 
fact, there were hearings on some of them as late at September of that 
year. This year, we have had about 30 appointed and we have many more 
vacancies, many more pending. We are hopeful, on the Democratic side, 
these will be filled. Those on the Republican side are adamant that 
they do not want to bring them up. I hope they will reconsider that and 
at least give Democrats the same consideration we offered President 
Reagan when he faced a Democratic Senate with many Federal district 
court vacancies.
  The other item of business which consumed our attention over the last 
week or two related to tax relief. It is an interesting issue and one 
that many Members like to take back home and discuss; certainly most 
American families, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, desire 
some reduction in their tax burden.
  The difference of opinion between the Democrats and Republicans on 
this issue is very stark. There is a consideration on the Republican 
side that tax relief should go to those who pay the most. Of course, 
those who pay the most taxes are, in fact, the wealthiest in this 
country. We have a progressive tax system. We have had it for a long 
time. We believe if one is fortunate enough to be successful, those 
taxpayers owe something back to this country. Those who are more 
successful owe more back to this country. You can't take blood from a 
turnip; you can't put a high tax rate on a person

[[Page 16284]]

with a low income. But you can certainly say to a successful person: We 
ask you to contribute back to America. We ask you, in the payment of 
taxes, to help maintain this great Nation which has given you, your 
family, and your business such a wonderful opportunity.
  The Republican program from the start, as long as I have served in 
Congress, has always been to reduce the tax burden on those who are the 
wealthiest in this country. I happen to believe the tables should be 
turned and we should have a situation where those who are in the lower 
income groups and middle-income families who are struggling to make 
ends meet should be the ones most deserving of tax relief. That is a 
difference in philosophy, a difference between the parties, and is 
reflected very clearly in the debate we have had over the last 2 weeks.
  This is a chart which I have been bringing to the floor on a regular 
basis. Some House Republicans told me this morning that they are tired 
of seeing my chart. They are going to have to get a little more 
exhausted because I am going to produce it again today. This chart 
outlines what happens with the Republican tax plans, with their idea of 
tax cuts.
  In the area of the estate tax, a tax is imposed on less than 2 
percent of the American population. Of 2.3 million people who die each 
year, only 40,000 end up with any liability under the estate tax. It is 
a tax reserved for those who really have large estates that they have 
accumulated during a lifetime. There are exemptions that people can 
write off when it comes to the estate tax liability, and those 
exemptions are growing, as they should, to reflect the cost of living 
increases.
  By and large, the Republicans have proposed to do away with the tax 
completely, so the very wealthiest of Americans who pay this tax would 
receive the tax relief.
  What does it mean? On the Republican plan, if you happen to be a 
person making over $300,000 a year in income--if my calculations are 
correct, that is about $25,000 a month in income--the Republicans have 
suggested you need an annual tax cut of $23,000 as a result of their 
elimination of the estate tax. That boils down to close to $2,000 a 
month, for those making $25,000 a month, that the Republicans would 
send your way when it comes to tax relief.
  Most American income categories are people making between $40,000 and 
$65,000 a year. Under the Republican plan, if you happen to be with the 
vast majority of Americans paying taxes, you aren't going to notice 
this tax relief; $200 a year is what the Republicans offer to you. That 
comes down to $16 a month they are going to send your way. If you are 
in the highest income categories, you receive $2,000 a month; if you 
happen to be with the vast majority of Americans, you receive $16 a 
month.
  That is the Republican view of the world. That is the Republican view 
of tax relief: If we are going to help people, for goodness' sake, 
let's help the wealthy feel their pain, understand the anxiety they 
must face in making investments, in choosing locations for new vacation 
homes, and give them some tax relief.
  The fact is that 80 percent of Americans are making under $50,000 a 
year. For these Americans, $15 or $16 a month is something, but it is 
certainly not going to change their lifestyle.
  Mr. President, 26 percent of Americans make between $50,000 and 
$100,000 a year. In those two categories of people under $100,000 a 
year and under $50,000 a year, we find the vast majority of American 
families, the overwhelming majority, and the people who will not 
benefit from the idea of tax relief propounded by the Republicans on 
the floor. They suggest to all American families they have them in mind 
when it comes to tax relief. The facts tell a different story.
  Look at what we have suggested instead. The Democrats think we have 
to be much more responsible in spending this Nation's surplus or 
investing. It wasn't that long ago we were deep in deficit with a 
national debt that accumulated to almost $6 trillion. Now we are at a 
point where we have a strong economy, families are doing better, 
businesses are doing better, people are making more money, and the tax 
revenues coming in reflect it. That surplus is what we are debating. We 
have gone from the days of the Reagan-Bush deficits to a new era where 
we are talking about a surplus and what we will do with it.
  Those who are younger in America should pay attention to this debate. 
If you are a young person in America, we are about to give you a very 
great nation. Our generation hopes to hand over as good a country as we 
found, perhaps even better, but we are also going to hand over to you a 
very great debt of $6 trillion. That debt we have to pay interest on. 
It is like a mortgage. You say to your children and grandchildren: 
Welcome to America, welcome to this land of opportunity, here's the 
debt you will have to pay.
  In the late 1980s and 1990s in America, the political leadership in 
this country accumulated a massive debt, starting with the election of 
President Reagan, then with President Bush, and for the first few years 
of President Clinton we continued to see this debt grow. We have turned 
the corner. Under the Clinton-Gore leadership, under the votes that 
have been cast by Democrats in Congress, we now have a stronger 
economy.
  People have a right to ask, What are we going to do with the surplus? 
The Republican answer is: Tax cuts for wealthy people. The Democratic 
answer is much different: First, pay down the national debt. We can't 
guarantee the surplus will be here in a year, 2 years, or 10 years. If 
it is here, shouldn't it be our highest priority? Let's wipe off the 
debt of this country as best we can, reduce the burden on our children, 
invest in Social Security and in Medicare.
  This is not a wild-eyed idea. It is what Alan Greenspan of the 
Federal Reserve recommends. It is what major economists recommend. But 
you cannot sell it on the Republican side of the aisle. They think, 
instead, we should give tax cuts to the wealthy.
  We think we should bring down the national debt and invest in Social 
Security and Medicare. If we are to have tax cuts, let us target these 
tax cuts to people who really need them, not the folks making over 
$300,000 a year. They are going to do quite well. They are going to 
have nice homes on islands off the coast of Maine. They are going to 
have places in Florida and California. They are going to have a very 
comfortable life.
  But what about the people who live in Chicago? What about the people 
who live in Portland, ME? What about those who live in Philadelphia, 
PA? I would like to take to them this proposal, not to eliminate taxes 
on those making over $300,000 a year but to say to working families and 
middle-income families: Here are targeted tax cuts that you can use, 
that will help your life. Let's provide for a marriage tax penalty 
elimination for working families. Let's expand educational 
opportunities by making tuition costs tax deductible. Think about your 
concern of sending your son or daughter through college and the 
increasing cost of a college education. For a family who is struggling 
to try to make ends meet and to give their kids the best opportunity, 
to be able to deduct those college education expenses means an awful 
lot more to them than the comfort in knowing that Donald Trump does not 
have to pay estate taxes under the Republican proposal.
  That is the difference in our view of the world. The Republicans feel 
the pain of Donald Trump, that he might have to pay these estate taxes. 
We believe that families across America face a lot more anxiety and 
pain over how to pay for college education expenses. We had a vote on 
the floor here, up or down, take your pick: Estate tax relief for 
Donald Trump or college deductions for the families working across 
America. Sadly, the Republicans would not support the idea of college 
education expense deductions.
  Let's talk about caring for elderly parents. Baby boomers understand 
this. Everyone understands it. As your parents get older, they need 
special help. You are doing your best. I cannot

[[Page 16285]]

tell you how many of my friends this affects. I am in that generation 
of baby boomers--slightly older, I might add--but in a generation where 
a frequent topic of conversation for my age group is how are your mom 
and dad doing? The stories come back, and some of them are 
heartbreaking, about Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and complications with 
diabetes that lead to amputations and people finally having to make the 
tough decision of asking their parents to consider living in a place 
where they can receive some assistance.
  It is expensive. We, on the Democratic side, believe that helping to 
pay for those expenses the families endure because of aging parents is 
a good tax cut, one that is good for this country and good for the 
families. Not so on the Republican side. When we offered this, they 
voted against it. They would rather give estate tax relief to the 
wealthiest people.
  How about child care? Everybody who got up this morning in America 
and headed to work and left a small child with a neighbor or at a day-
care center understands that this is tugging at your mind constantly 
during the day. Is my child in safe hands? Is this a quality and 
positive environment for my child to be in? How much does it cost? Can 
we afford it? Can we do a little better?
  We, on the Democratic side, think we ought to help these families. 
They are working families who should have peace of mind. Senator Dodd 
offered an amendment that proposed tax credits, not only for day care, 
but also tax credits for stay-at-home moms who decide they are going to 
forgo working, to stay with the children and try to raise them. We want 
to help in both of those circumstances. We think those are the real 
problems facing America. The Republicans instead believe that estate 
tax relief for the superrich is much more important.
  Expand the earned-income tax credit for the working poor, help 
families save for retirement, provide estate tax relief--particularly 
to make sure that a family-owned farm or a family-owned business can be 
passed on to the next generation. I think the estate tax needs reform. 
We support that. We voted for it. But we think the Republican proposal 
goes way too far in proposing we abolish it.
  I see my time is coming to a close. We think the agenda before this 
Congress is an agenda of missed opportunities. The Republicans are in 
control in the House and Senate. They decide what will be considered on 
the floor, if anything. They have failed to bring forward commonsense 
gun safety legislation after Columbine, to try to keep guns out of the 
hands of kids and criminals. We passed it in the Senate with Al Gore's 
vote, sent it to the House--the gun lobby killed it. We lose 30,000 
Americans every year to gun violence; 12 children every single day. For 
the Republicans, it is not a priority to bring this bill forward.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights, so your doctor can make the call on 
your medical treatment or your family's medical treatment--most people 
think that is common sense. The insurance companies do not. They want 
their clerks to make the decision based on the bottom line of profit 
and loss. It is not a medical decision for them, it is a financial 
decision. And for a lot of families it is disastrous when they cannot 
get the appropriate care for their kids and their families. We think a 
Patients' Bill of Rights makes sense. The insurance lobby opposed it. 
The insurance lobby prevailed. The special interest groups won on the 
floor and we have gone nowhere with this proposal.
  Minimum wage: $5.15 an hour for a minimum wage that affects some 10 
million workers across America. It is about time for a pay raise. These 
folks deserve to do better. It used to be bipartisan. We didn't even 
argue about it. Now the Republicans say: No, no no, we can't give a 50-
cent-an-hour pay raise to people making $5.15 an hour. Do you realize 
that 50 cents an hour comes out to, what, $1,000 a year that we will 
give these people?
  Yet we are going to turn around and give Donald Trump a $400 million 
tax break on his estate? You cannot give working families a thousand 
bucks a year, but you can give the one of the superrich $400 million 
tax relief? Is something upside-down in this Chamber? I think so.
  Take a look at the prescription drug benefit. Ask Americans--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--the one thing we ought to do 
this year? A guaranteed universal prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare. The pharmaceutical companies oppose it. They are pretty 
powerful characters in this town. They have stopped this Senate and 
this House from considering it. Here we are, languishing, doing 
nothing, when it comes to a prescription drug benefit.
  Finally, something for our schools. Seven million kids in America 
attend schools with serious safety code violations; 25,000 schools 
across our country are falling down. Are we going to be ready for the 
21st century? Will our kids be ready? Will our workforce be ready? You 
can answer that question by deciding at this point in time whether 
education is truly a priority and, if it is such a priority, then for 
goodness' sakes we should invest more than 1 percent of our Federal 
budget in K-12 education. That is what we invest. The Democrats, under 
the leadership of Senator Kennedy, believe that investment is overdue. 
We think that is what families in America are looking for, not for tax 
relief for the wealthiest among us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2924 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I see that the Senate majority leader has 
come to the floor, so I yield to him. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
comments, her leadership on so many important issues in the Senate, and 
for yielding to me at this time so we may proceed.

                          ____________________