[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6008-6012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          AMERICA'S PRIORITIES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate are returning 
this week from our Easter recess, many of us spent time in our home 
States talking with our families and leaders, trying to catch the pulse 
of America. I was back in Illinois and had the opportunity to travel 
across my State and have a number of meetings which had a profound 
impact on me in terms of our debate in the Senate. I think these recess 
periods are valuable because, as close as we think we are to people, 
there is absolutely no substitute for sitting down with them and having 
some conversations about the issues we are debating.
  One of the issues we have spent a lot of time debating in Washington 
is the whole question of the tax cut. I think most of us believe a tax 
cut is a good thing to do. This may be a good time to do it. There is a 
lot of uncertainty in America now about our economy. I met a lot of 
people during the course of my time back home who have seen their 
401(k) plans and IRAs and mutual fund savings take quite a battering 
over the last 5 or 6 months. It has happened to virtually all of us who 
were not quite smart enough to get out of the market at the right 
moment.
  I still have a very positive feeling about where we are going, and I 
do believe we can get this economy back on track. But I, frankly, do 
not believe we are going to do it with the proposal we have heard from 
the White House for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. This is a suggestion by 
the President that we will have such prosperity and such surpluses over 
the next 10 years that we can make dramatic tax cuts now and be able to 
pay for them 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years from now.
  It takes a lot of insight and foresight to look ahead and suggest 
where America's economy is going to go. One of the people most 
respected in Washington is Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve. It was only 6 or 7 months ago that Chairman Greenspan 
suggested raising interest rates to slow down a hot economy. Since 
then, the economy has slowed down dramatically, and Chairman Greenspan 
has been racing week-after-week to lower interest rates to try to get 
things moving again.
  So even the best minds at the Federal Reserve and the Chairman 6 
months ago, 8 months ago, were guessing wrong about where America's 
economy would be today. I think it leads to a healthy skepticism by 
many people when President Bush says: I know what America is going to 
look like 5 years from now; I know where we are going to be.
  Take a look at the same economists President Bush is relying on. What 
did they guess 5 years ago for today? They told us America would find 
its economy in such a shape and the Federal budget in such a shape that 
we would have a $320 billion deficit this year. It turns out that our 
surplus is about $260 billion. So they missed it by $580 billion 5 
years ago when they tried to guess where we would be. So I think you 
might understand why this Member of the Senate and many of the people I 
represent are skeptical when the President says the best thing for 
America is to guess we are going to be so well off in 5 or 10 years 
that we can create tax cuts now.
  Many of us believe we are on the right track in terms of the general 
drift of our economy, though we are in a slow period; We do think if we 
make the right decisions now we can get back to see the growth of 
income in families, the increased value of our retirement plans, more 
jobs, more housing. But we have to make the right decisions now.
  If there is going to be a tax cut, and I think there should be, it 
should be a sensible one, one that we can justify, not only today, but 
which might look good a few years from now. If we are going to have a 
tax cut, for goodness' sake, everybody in this country should profit 
from it. Everybody should benefit. All taxpayers should benefit.
  Under President Bush's proposal, the $1.6 trillion tax cut, 43 
percent of the benefits go to people making over $300,000 a year. These 
are people who have a monthly income of $25,000 or more. They are the 
big winners in the President's plan.

[[Page 6009]]

  I am sorry, but I do not believe those are the people on whom we 
should be focusing. Yes, they are entitled to a tax cut, as every 
American family should be, but they should not receive a 
disproportionate share of any surplus.
  Let me give you two illustrations. A man came up to me Saturday night 
in Chicago and he said: You know, Senator, you just don't represent me 
in Washington, DC.
  I said: What do you mean?
  He said: I think you ought to vote for President Bush's tax cut 
because it would help people like me. I am one of those leaders in the 
economy who makes a difference, and you, in fact, have criticized the 
President for the tax cut that would help me.
  I said: Tell me a little bit about your circumstance.
  He says: I pay taxes. I paid a lot of taxes last year. I paid 
$900,000 in Federal taxes last year.
  How many people do you run into who paid $900,000 in Federal taxes? I 
didn't know the man. But just a rough calculation--you don't have to be 
H&R Block to figure this out--suggests that man's income last year was 
$3 or $4 million, maybe more. He paid $900,000 in taxes and he was 
critical that I didn't support the Bush tax cut that would have given 
him over $46,000 of tax breaks last year.
  I said to him: I understand that you have been an important part of 
this economy. Of course you should be considered when it comes to tax 
cuts. But you have done pretty well, haven't you?
  He says: I have, but my portfolio has taken quite a hit over the last 
6 months.
  I said: Numerically, virtually all of us can tell that story.
  But it is hard to imagine that this is the man we should be focusing 
on when we talk about getting America's economy and people moving 
again.
  I had another conversation a few days before that stay in a little 
hotel in Chicago late one night when I went to do some laundry down the 
hall at about 9 o'clock. There was a housekeeping lady who was kind of 
laughing at the Senator who was out doing his laundry. But I said we 
kind of lead ordinary lives when we are not in the spotlight.
  We started talking. This lady is a single mother who raises a few 
children and works as a housekeeper in this hotel. I said: How are you 
doing? She said: I thought I was doing pretty well, Senator. She said: 
I was keeping up with my bills and everything, but this winter the 
heating bills have really hit me hard. I paid the same amount as I did 
last year for my heating bills, and I am $1,000 behind. Now I have to 
pay $1,000 more. I have to pay for the heating bills, and now I am 
working with the gas company to figure out how to do that. She said: I 
really try to pay something on those. I have really tried. I am $1,000 
behind.
  I was thinking to myself, as I was flying back to Washington, about 
those two people I met. Frankly, both of them are good, God-fearing 
American citizens. But I have a great deal of concern about that lady 
who is a housekeeper and is working at night trying to keep her family 
together, paying her bills, and who ran into an unexpected expense of 
$1,000 because of her heating bills. Sadly, the Bush tax cut provides 
no tax benefit for them. If anything, it is about $220 a year. For the 
man who makes $3 or $4 million a year, the Bush tax cut is worth 
$46,000 more. For the lady who is trying to figure out how to pay for 
the $1,000 heating bill, it is $200. That doesn't strike me as fair.
  If there is going to be a tax cut in this country, it should be a tax 
cut that really benefits all the taxpayers and gives everyone a chance 
to have some spending money and have their taxes reduced.
  Another concern of mine is that the Bush tax cut doesn't provide any 
tax relief for people who do not pay income tax but pay payroll taxes. 
Twenty-one million Americans go to work every day, and because their 
income is low, they don't pay income tax but they pay the payroll 
taxes. They pay for Social Security and Medicare. Sometimes it is a 
substantial part of what they earn. To say that these people are not 
taxpayers I don't think is fair. They are working people who pay their 
payroll taxes and see it taken out of their paycheck. I think they are 
entitled to be in this conversation about tax cuts to get America 
moving again.
  When it comes to the tax cut proposals, I sincerely hope that when 
the conference committee meets, it is going to move closer to what the 
Senate suggested and bring the President's tax cut down to a level we 
can justify, that doesn't rely on inflated projections about where our 
surplus might be, and try to make sure we invest in our priorities for 
this country. And when it comes to the tax cut itself, let's try to 
make that fair for all families--not 43 percent of it for people making 
over $300,000 a year but for that housekeeper in that hotel in Chicago 
doing her level best for her family and who just needs a helping hand 
now, and for families who, frankly, have low-income jobs but are going 
to work every day. They may not pay income taxes, but they see those 
payroll taxes come out of every paycheck. Include them in any tax 
assistance you provide.
  One of the most significant votes during the course of the debate on 
the budget came as a result of the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin. He offered an amendment that said President Bush's $1.6 
trillion tax cut should be reduced so that we can put more money into 
two things: First, national debt reduction; and, second, education. I 
think Senator Harkin was right. I am glad his amendment passed on a 
bipartisan basis.
  The national debt is our national mortgage. The national debt is 
about $5.7 trillion. It has never been larger in our history. We 
collect $1 billion a day in Federal taxes to pay interest on the old 
national debt. It doesn't hire a teacher. It doesn't build a road. It 
doesn't protect America. It services the old debt.
  When Senator Harkin suggested that we put more money in debt 
reduction, I think he was right. If there is going to be a surplus this 
year, let's start retiring the national mortgage. The best gift I can 
leave my kids or grandson is to have less of a debt burden for my 
generation. I think that makes sense.
  I am glad Senator Harkin prevailed. The White House did not approve 
of his amendment. They opposed it. But a bipartisan majority on the 
Senate floor supported it.
  The second part of Senator Harkin's amendment also goes to the key 
issue of education. Senator Harkin proposed $250 billion in new 
spending by the Federal Government for education over the next 10 
years. I think Senator Harkin is right on the money.
  As I talk to people across my State of Illinois, they say education 
is very important. For many of us, without education, we wouldn't be 
where we are today. Neither my mother nor father went beyond the eighth 
grade, yet I was able to go through high school, college, and law 
school and stand in this Chamber today. I brought the report card home 
every 6 weeks. It was a big event in our house. My parents may not have 
had a great formal education, but they knew what education was all 
about. I think families across America know that education is really 
the ladder we all climb for success in America.
  Senator Harkin said in his amendment, cut back on President Bush's 
tax cut and put the money in education. Where would we put it?
  I had a meeting in Naperville, IL. Naperville is the fourth largest 
city in my State. It is a great community. The mayor took me around. We 
went to a local high school, Naperville Central. They are very proud of 
the fact that they just took an international test in math and science 
and came up first. It is a good school system. But it is a school 
system facing a lot of pressure right now because of cutbacks in funds 
and property tax caps. They are doing their best to keep good teachers 
and to make sure they still have the best students. That is one of the 
better off school districts in my State. In my old home, East St. 
Louis, and parts of Chicago they are really struggling with limited 
funds.
  Senator Harkin said we needed to invest more Federal dollars in 
education

[[Page 6010]]

in the areas they have focused on with these investments. The local 
level I think is what most people understand.
  First, the key to success in education is good teaching. I can recall 
some excellent teachers in my life who made a difference for me. I can 
recall some who weren't so great where I had to kind of weather the 
storm, get through and hope for a better teacher in another course and 
another year.
  Senator Harkin is talking about investing money in teacher training 
so that we have the very best teachers in the classroom. We have a lot 
of teachers who are going to retire very soon. We want to make sure 
they are replaced by young, idealistic, and energetic teachers who can 
really motivate our students to learn. There is no substitute for that. 
If the Federal Government can assist in teacher training, recruitment, 
and retention of good teachers, I think that is money well spent.
  The second thing we are talking about is class size. I have had 
teachers come up to me in the Chicago area and say the Federal 
initiative to reduce the number of students in the classroom is the 
best thing that ever happened to them.
  Imagine yourself as a parent trying to raise your kids at home. I can 
recall when my wife and I had our first child. We doted on that little 
girl. We spent all that time. And then came along a son. Then came 
another daughter. Pretty soon it looked like a mob scene in our house. 
We tried to keep it under control with three kids. Imagine your 
classroom every day with about 30 kids. It is a tough thing to make 
sure you focus on every child's desk and what they are doing and trying 
to give a little help to those needing a little extra help. Teachers 
say, if you can reduce that class size to 20 or so, it makes a profound 
difference in their effectiveness as teachers.
  In Federal investment in education, we want to make sure we put that 
money where it is needed so that we can have smaller classroom sizes.
  I also think we ought to take a look at the schoolday. The schoolday 
that ends at 2:30 or 3 in the afternoon isn't realistic anymore. 
Usually kids don't have people to whom to go home. They have a period 
of 3 or 4 hours where they could stick around school and be involved in 
activities. That is good. But for too many of them it is just dead 
time--time to watch television and hang out at the mall or on the 
street corner. That is not the best time to be unsupervised. That is 
when juvenile crime goes up. I think afterschool programs make sense, 
so kids have supervision.
  We have Gallery 37 in the Chicago public school system in which Mayor 
Daley and his wife have been involved. They are about to expand that to 
provide more opportunities for kids after school. I find that all 
around my State that has happened. That ought to be a national program, 
so that we have afterschool programs for kids who may need extra help 
with their studies or may need an opportunity to learn how to play a 
musical instrument, to get involved in an art class, or perhaps just to 
play basketball. It may be something that will enrich them or enable 
them to learn a little bit more about computers.
  All of these afterschool activities are good, but we really need to 
focus on it to make the schoolday reflect the reality of American 
families.
  The same thing is true with the school year. Three months off in the 
summer so the kids can go work on the farm--there are not a lot of kids 
working on the farm, even in Illinois. The question is whether or not 
there should be a summer school opportunity for enrichment for 
children.
  You find that kids, if they have tested well at the end of the school 
year, and they are gone for 3 months, when they come back they lose 
lots of what they learned. So when we invest money in summer programs 
to enrich kids, and give them new opportunities, and they continue to 
learn, it is a good investment in continuing education.
  I think taking money from the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut, which goes 
primarily to wealthy people, and putting it into education so kids have 
a chance in the 21st century in America makes a lot of sense. That is 
why I was happy to support the proposal from Senator Harkin, the 
bipartisan amendment which passed, to cut it back and make sure we have 
more money invested in education.
  We celebrated Earth Day last Sunday, too. I think that is worth a 
comment or two, as well, because if we are going to make investments in 
America, we certainly ought to make investments in environmental 
protection.
  Some of the things that have happened in the first 90 or 100 days in 
the Bush administration have been very troubling, such as this whole 
debate over arsenic in drinking water. I happen to believe we ought to 
take a serious look at what we breathe and what we drink and what we 
eat to make certain that it is safe.
  All of us are concerned about public health statistics that show an 
increase in cancer, in pulmonary disease, factors that lead us to 
question why is this happening now in an America that is so modern, in 
an America with so many health resources. I think, in many instances, 
it gets down to the basics--the water we drink, the air we breathe, the 
food we eat.
  When the administration came in initially and said they were not 
going to stick with the Clinton proposal of reducing the arsenic 
content in water, there was a cry across America because families said: 
Why are we doing that? Wouldn't we want to make water safer? We know 
that arsenic is a carcinogen. It causes cancer: lung cancer, bladder 
cancer, skin cancer.
  For years now, we know that Europe has had a safer arsenic standard. 
We know the National Academy of Sciences tells us we should move to the 
safer standard. Why would the Bush White House reverse that position? 
But they did.
  Last week you may have heard Christine Todd Whitman at the 
Environmental Protection Agency say they were going to reconsider this 
decision. This debate goes back and forth. But I tell you, when it gets 
down to something as basic as the safety of the water we drink, we 
expect the White House to be listening to families across America and 
not to special interest groups that are pushing for relaxed 
environmental standards.
  Whether we are talking about carbon dioxide in the air--which is part 
of global warming--whether we are talking about lead or whether we are 
talking about arsenic in drinking water, the Environmental Protection 
Agency is supposed to be just that: an agency to protect the 
environment, not a revolving door so that special interests and 
corporate interests can come through and change regulations to their 
liking.
  I am glad they are going to reconsider their position on arsenic in 
drinking water. But I certainly hope that is not an isolated situation 
where they found religion. I hope that it reflects a new idea in the 
Bush White House about true environmental protection.
  We can take a look at some of the energy concerns across America, and 
they are directly linked to the environmental questions. The people who 
have talked to me for the last several months in Illinois about 
increased heating bills and the high natural gas prices now are talking 
about increases in gasoline prices at the pump. I don't know if it is 
happening across America, but it is certainly happening, again, for the 
second year in a row, in Illinois, where we are seeing this runup in 
gasoline prices at the pump.
  Yesterday, two of the major oil companies reported record profits. It 
is no surprise; the families and businesses I represent are paying more 
at the pump, and that must translate into profits for some. The 
question is, When the President's task force on energy policy comes in 
with a report in a few weeks, will they take into consideration the 
consumers, the people who are paying the bills--the higher electricity 
bills, the higher heating bills, the higher gasoline bills? It is not 
appropriate or fair, as far as I am concerned, for them to just look at 
it from the corporate viewpoint.
  I know the President and many of his people in the White House have 
been closely aligned with the oil industry in Texas. I understand that. 
That is part

[[Page 6011]]

of their background. But I think their responsibility now goes far 
beyond the industry. It is time for them to be sensitive to the 
families and consumers who are paying the bills.
  A lady came to see me yesterday in Chicago and talked about the 
increase in gasoline prices. She has a small business, a messenger 
service. She said: Senator, here we go again. It hit us last year and 
it is coming back this year. I have to lay off people. I can't afford 
this.
  I had some people who came to me from a steel company in Chicago, 
Finkl Steel. They have had an increase in natural gas prices, which 
means an increase in the cost of their product. They find it difficult 
to pass along this cost to their consumers as they are struggling to 
keep everybody working in their plant.
  These energy prices, as they are going up, have a direct impact on 
employment. We have to try to find an energy policy that accomplishes 
several things. First, it gives America a reliable source of energy; 
second, it makes certain consumers are not disadvantaged in the 
process; and, third, it respects our environment.
  I certainly hope the Bush administration comes in with a proposal on 
this and that they will, in fact, take all three factors into 
consideration, and not just the profitability of the energy industry.
  So we have an important debate ahead of us in Washington on a number 
of issues related to education, environment, energy policy, and 
certainly health care. I left health care for last because it is 
something that I think we have forgotten, and we should not. The people 
I represent have not forgotten it.
  I went up to Palatine, IL, to the clinic run by the Cook County 
Bureau of Health Services and Northwest Community Health Care. I was 
there with the mayor, Rita Mullins. After we went into this clinic, Dr. 
Rodriguez came up to me and the first words out of his mouth were: 
Welcome, Senator. We need universal health care.
  That was the first thing he said to me. He had a waiting room full of 
people with small children who were uninsured, people who were charity 
cases for that clinic.
  Each day in America more people lose health insurance. At a time of 
prosperity, when those of us in Congress are supposed to be sensitive 
to the real problems of families, we are totally ignoring the obvious. 
More and more people are uninsured. Fewer and fewer families have peace 
of mind when it comes to health insurance. More and more employers are 
cutting back on health insurance coverage for their employees, and they 
are making it difficult for those employees to protect their families.
  I know a fellow who had a small business with only about 10 
employees. One of the children of one of his employees had a serious 
health problem. As a result of that health problem, the employee 
incurred very expensive medical bills. The health insurance company 
came back the next year and said: We are increasing your premiums by 
over 50 percent because of the one child in the one family. Because of 
that, the business was forced to drop health insurance coverage and to 
merely give their employees the amount of money they had traditionally 
spent for health insurance policies in the past. At least they did 
something, but it was of little or no help to the one man and his 
family who had been hit by all these medical bills.
  That is the reality of the America in which we live. There are 
virtually no proposals before Congress to deal with this problem. We 
cannot overlook it because the people who get severely ill in this 
country end up showing up, at some point, at the hospital when they are 
facing an acute illness. They do get treatment, at the expense of the 
system, at the expense of everyone else who pays for health insurance 
premiums across this country.
  There are several things I think we can do. First, I believe we 
should provide tax benefits, deductions, and credits for small 
businesses that offer health insurance. Give them a helping hand in the 
Tax Code. If the President can find $1.6 trillion for a tax cut, 
primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, for goodness' 
sake, can't we find a tax break for small businesses so they can 
provide health insurance for their employees? I think that is good for 
the family who owns the business as well as those who work there.
  Secondly, I have introduced legislation called caregivers insurance. 
This is what I am trying to achieve. We entrust the people we love the 
most in our lives to those who are paid a minimum wage.
  Who am I talking about? Our children and grandchildren in daycare, 
our disabled friends and relatives who need a personal attendant, our 
parents and grandparents in nursing homes. They are primarily attended 
to and watched by those making the minimum wage, and these people who 
are keeping an eye on the folks we love the most generally don't have 
any benefits; they certainly do not have any health insurance in most 
instances.
  The plan I propose, caregivers insurance, would make all of these 
licensed workers in daycare facilities, personal attendants to the 
disabled, and those working in nursing homes eligible for Medicaid 
coverage in their States. The State of Rhode Island is doing this. I 
think every State should do this--so that it is part of that job.
  The turnover in these businesses is 50 percent or more each year. If 
we are going to keep good daycare workers, if we are going to keep good 
working people at nursing homes, we ought to give them the peace of 
mind of having health insurance. That is something we should do in this 
Congress. I hope the caregivers across America to whom we say we are 
willing to entrust our children and our parents can come together and 
prevail in this Congress for this health insurance protection. So as we 
get into this debate, the serious part of it in the appropriations 
bills, we have an important agenda ahead of us.
  The President will have completed his first 100 days as of next 
Monday. At that time, people will make an assessment. I think the 
President deserves good marks in some areas even though I sit on the 
other side of the aisle from his party. I certainly acknowledge that he 
has shown a sensitivity to many issues to which the American people are 
sensitive as well.
  But I think the basic question is whether this White House is really 
focused on the average family, the working family, the people who are 
good citizens in their neighborhoods and in their parishes and churches 
and synagogues and temples, people who are paying their taxes, obeying 
the law, doing their best to raise their kids, whether this 
administration keeps them in mind when it talks about a tax cut plan 
that should be benefiting these families as much as the wealthy--sadly, 
the Bush tax cut really is focused on helping the wealthiest among us 
and not these families who make up the core values of America--and 
whether the President's plan on education really thinks about families 
across America in the cities and rural towns in Illinois and the 
suburbs around Chicago, families who want their kids to have the very 
best education, whether the President is really prepared not only to 
give a speech about education but to provide a budget which funds 
education at levels so that education quality is maintained and 
improved for this country.
  Finally, of course, when it comes to the environment, that the people 
at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the 
Interior will think about their public responsibility to the legacy we 
are leaving our children. This Earth should be cleaner. It should be 
safer. There should not be questions about the water we drink, the 
arsenic levels in it, the air we breathe, and whether or not we are 
doing our share in America to deal with global warming. We need to have 
the courage and the leadership in the White House to be sensitive to 
environmental issues that will affect generations to come.
  The assessment of the first 100 days will be made by many, but the 
most important assessment will be made by that family back in Illinois, 
or whatever State they may be from, who will ask this basic question: 
Does this administration, does this White House,

[[Page 6012]]

and does this Congress really care about me and my family? Are they 
making decisions for special interest groups or for those who have all 
of the power in Washington or are they remembering the real America, 
the families in each community who make this the great nation it is?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________