[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9116-9119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               RELIEF ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I am deeply 
appreciative of the floor staff of this body. They worked late last 
night and late again today. We started some 12 hours ago, so I will try 
to keep these remarks relatively brief, if I can.
  It has been a little frustrating for this Member, and I suspect 
others over the past day or so, as we have dealt with what arguably 
would be the most significant piece of legislation we are likely to 
deal with for the next decade. And that legislation is the tax bill 
that is before us. So I wanted to take a few

[[Page 9117]]

minutes to review the bidding, if I could, over what has happened over 
the last couple of days. I'd like to review where we are and why there 
are so many of us who have expressed our concerns about the direction 
of this legislation, its substance, and its priorities.
  It is not that those of us here object to a tax cut. In fact, the 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans support a tax cut. 
That is not the issue. The issue is the makeup of this tax cut. The 
issue is the fairness of it, its distribution, and its size. And one of 
the most significant issues is the inability to predict with any 
certainty what economic conditions will look like 5 years from now, 3 
years from now, let alone 10 years from now, where much of this bill is 
backloaded and when the effects of it will be felt the most.
  I want to spend a few minutes and just go over, if I could, some of 
the amendments we have considered today.
  First of all, let me point out that it has been said by some that we 
have had stalling amendments--27 amendments considered today, 17 
yesterday, 3 the day before. We had a total of 20 hours of debate on 
this bill, less than 1 calendar day of actual debate on this bill. You 
were allowed to have 1 minute to explain an amendment and 1 minute to 
rebut that amendment. So as we have considered some 47 amendments over 
the last 3 days, there has hardly been the kind of deliberative debate 
one normally associates with the U.S. Senate.
  There has been this abbreviated, truncated approach because that is 
all you are allocated under a reconciliation bill that gives you 20 
hours: 20 hours to debate what arguably may be the single most 
important piece of economic legislation that this or succeeding 
Congresses will deal with for the coming decade or beyond. Twenty 
hours, less than 1 day.
  I am one of a handful of people in this Chamber who was present 20 
years ago. I see my friend from Delaware in the Chamber. He was present 
in the Chamber 20 years ago when we considered a tax cut of equal 
magnitude but of far less divisiveness. In fact, I think there were 10 
or 11 of us who voted against that tax bill for the reasons that it 
would contribute to expanding the size of the national debt; would 
result in consumers paying higher interest rates for automobiles, for 
college loans, for homes; that we would end up in the red ink; and that 
our Nation would suffer economically.
  At least back in 1981 we had 12 days of debate--not 20 hours. We had 
12 days of debate on that bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that one point?
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator, if I am not mistaken, was one of only 10 or 
so who voted no. The Senator from Delaware voted yes on that amendment. 
I have cast over 10,000 votes as a U.S. Senator. It was one of the two 
votes I most regret ever having cast. The other one was voting for a 
fine, decent man, Supreme Court Justice Scalia. I regret that because 
his view turned out to be so fundamentally different than my view of 
the Constitution.
  One of the reasons why I think what the Senator is saying is so 
important is it took the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Delaware--you doing the right thing in the first instance, me making a 
mistake--it took us almost 20 years to bail out. I have the scars on my 
back, as does the Senator. He did not deserve them, I do--for the 
efforts we had to undertake to put the budget back in shape.
  We did that at a time when we had expanding productivity, when we had 
a lot of unmet capacity in the country, when, in fact, we were moving--
there was a chance to rectify it. There will be no chance because when 
this kicks in--and I am going to sit down--when this kicks in, because 
it is the same time guys like the Senators from Connecticut and 
Delaware, the baby boom generation, are going to be retiring.
  Mr. DODD. That is right.
  Mr. BIDEN. We are going to be in real trouble.
  So I hope, I say to the new Senators on the floor, they do not make 
the same mistake this senior Senator did almost 20 years ago; that is, 
vote for something such as this. We will pay a dear price in this 
country for this vote.
  I compliment the Senator on his comments tonight, as well as his vote 
in the 1980s. I wish I had the foresight he had to know what was going 
to happen.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for those comments. Out of those 
10,000 votes he cast, by far, there were many more good ones. I 
appreciate his comments this evening.
  Mr. President, I stood in that debate. I remember the debate well. 
When you compare this week's debate to that debate of 20 years ago when 
we had something like 115 or 116 amendments, maybe more, they were 
fully debated amendments. We had the give and take, back and forth over 
the wisdom or demerits of the various proposals. That is not what has 
taken place here today.
  Imagine what it looks like to the American public as they watched 
these last couple of days. We were placed in a situation of allowing 
only 20 hours of debate under a reconciliation process that never 
contemplated that a tax cut proposal would be a part of it. 
Reconciliation was used and designed to reduce deficits, not to add to 
them.
  So by choosing the limitation of 20 hours, you have then forced 
Members of this body to offer votes in what they call a vote-arama; 
that is, no time for debate, just offer the amendment and vote.
  So it has been tremendously distressing for Members who believe this 
bill needs to be modified substantially before it would enjoy the kind 
of truly broad bipartisan support of which the chairman of the 
committee speaks. That has not occurred. So we have had 20 hours of 
debate, that is it, on a bill of such magnitude and such significance 
that will crowd out our ability to invest intelligently in the needs of 
this country.
  Let me just briefly describe this tax bill. More than one-third of a 
$4 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years will go primarily to the top 
1 percent of income earners in America. The second one-third goes to 
the top 9 percent of income earners in America. But if you are in the 
15-percent tax bracket, you get no relief. Of all the brackets that 
exist that is the one that gets no tax cut at all. Mr. President, that 
is 72 million middle-income Americans. So if you are watching this 
evening or listening to this discussion and you fall into that 
category, this tax debate has nothing to do with you.
  Two-thirds of this tax debate involves the top 9 percent of income 
earners in America. As a result of wasting $4 trillion, here are the 
things we are deciding are of less significance, just so you know. Most 
Americans were working today probably did not have the chance to tune 
into this debate. So let me just review for them what happened.
  These are some of the amendments that this body considered today. 
This is what some of these amendments asked: Can we reduce the size of 
this tax cut for the most affluent Americans by 1 percentage point in 
order to fund a prescription drug benefit for the millions of seniors 
in this country who are being swamped by the cost of prescription 
drugs?
  This body said: No, we think providing a tax cut for the top 1 
percent of income earners is of a higher priority than providing the 
prescription drug benefit for Americans.
  We asked how about doing something to protect Social Security and 
Medicare, because as my colleague from Delaware just absolutely 
correctly pointed out, the baby boom generation retires when the very 
worst aspects of this bill kick in. This body said no.
  This bill is like a time-release capsule. You have all heard of time-
release medicines. You take the medication, and nothing happens in the 
first 5 hours, or very little happens. Then, in the second 5 hours, the 
time release produces the kind of benefits that would attack whatever 
problem you are suffering from.
  That is what this tax bill is. The first 5 years are relatively 
modest, in terms of their impact. It is when the second 5 years kick 
in, that this tax cut becomes overwhelming in its impact on our budget. 
That is exactly the time

[[Page 9118]]

that you will have an overwhelming majority of baby boomers retiring 
and who will need Social Security and Medicare.
  It is not by accident that this tax bill was written that way. It was 
designed specifically to create the train wreck between the retiring 
baby boom generation and this tax cut. This is not coincidental. This 
is what we have been trying to say over and over, with 1 minute 
discussions of these amendments. It is not the fault of the American 
public. How do you get to understand the impact of an amendment when 
you only have 60 seconds to describe the long-term effects of it?
  Consider, if you will, the full funding for the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. We have debated over and over the importance 
of full funding for elementary and secondary education.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the things that 
were said earlier, just to kind of bring this to closure from this 
Senator's perspective, if I may, and I ask for an additional 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will not object.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a very brief question. Will the 
Senator agree with me that if you want to know what a country values, 
you should take a look at what its Tax Code says--who it makes pay, and 
what its budget is. I respectfully suggest that everything the Senator 
is saying--and I hope he continues to speak--reflects a fundamental 
difference in values--not just priorities, a fundamental difference in 
values between those who support this bill--they are not bad votes. It 
is not good and evil; it is a different value judgment. This tax bill 
neither reflects my priorities nor my values.
  The Senator has laid out a number of items. He is going to lay out 
more. How do we explain that everybody in the Tax Code who is in a 
certain income tax bracket gets relief except people in the 15-percent 
tax bracket? How do you do that? It is a value judgment.
  I assume our friends think, if you give the wealthier people a cut, 
and not the middle-income people and the little guy, that somehow that 
is going to trickle down. That is a value judgment, a fundamental value 
judgment.
  How do we stand around and say, somebody who receives $100 million in 
inheritance should get a tax break when, at the same time, it is going 
to be paid for out of Social Security and Medicare surpluses? This is 
about values.
  So I guess it is less a question than a statement. I hope the Senator 
lays out every one of these things because I think it is important the 
public understand so they can make clear choices. What do they value 
the most? This is a value judgment.
  My friends on the other side always talk about values. Well, let me 
tell you, this is where the rubber meets the road. This reflects our 
values. I am where the Senator from Connecticut is. I hope he continues 
to educate me and the public about it. Make no mistake about it. It is 
not just priorities; it is about our basic values, what we value most.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes at 
this point to complete my thoughts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With great indulgence, the Chair consents.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, to continue with these charts behind me, I mentioned 
the rate cut for 72 million Americans, from 15 to 14 percent. We cut 
the top rate of income earners at the very top of the income brackets 
of America, and every bracket on down, except the lowest one, which 
affects 72 million Americans.
  You go on down the list. College tuition deductibility: The Senator 
from New York, Mr. Schumer, suggested, why not provide deductibility of 
the high cost of college tuition? That amendment was rejected.
  You go on down the list. Immediate marriage penalty relief: How often 
have we heard about the penalties of the marriage penalty tax? We want 
to provide immediate relief for that. We are told no.
  So offering these amendments during the day in this Chamber is not 
dilatory. These are not amendments that are designed to stall at all. 
Twenty hours of debate on a bill of this size, of this importance, is 
inadequate. This is not the House of Representatives. This is not some 
chamber in which just a handful, if you will, even a slight majority, 
should be able to dictate entirely what they will at the expense of 
those who have other points of view--even if it were only one. But when 
the points of view reflect almost 50 percent of this body, shouldn't 
those points of view be taken into consideration? We have been told 
repeatedly throughout consideration of this bill that we have to get 
this done. I don't disagree. But I don't think that we should rush 
action on this important legislation without taking thoughtful 
consideration of its potential impact on the future health and growth 
of our economy. I do not think that is quite right.
  Some of the most important debates we have had in this Chamber have 
been lengthy. They have been unfettered with time constraints on 
offering amendments over a 60-second period. We had a debate a few 
weeks ago on campaign finance reform. It took 2 weeks. Most Members, I 
think, recognize it as one of the better debates in this Chamber. We 
did not do it in 20 hours. We did it in 2 weeks.
  We have had debates in the past on any number of issues that have 
taken days. That is the unique nature of this body. That is the role of 
the Senate: not to act as some body where it is only a question of 
getting it done as fast as you can. This is the middle of May. It is 
not the end of the session. We have had a new administration in town 
for 16 weeks. This is a bill that we are considering that will have 
impacts for 10 years.
  So when Members bring up these alternative ideas of fair and fiscally 
responsible tax cuts, the answer has been no. When we say, Social 
Security reform and debt reduction are important, the answer has been 
no. When we say we want to take care of spending caps, veterans 
benefits, middle-class tax benefits, the answer has been no.
  That is not being frivolous. That is not being petulant. That is not 
being people who are in a tantrum, as someone said today. This is not 
about Democrats and Republicans. It is not a battle about the 
Presidency and the Senate Democrats here. It is about the American 
public. They are the ones who will live with the circumstances and the 
decisions that we make in this body over the next few days for many, 
many years to come. They are the ones who we have to keep in mind as we 
draft this legislation.
  There is no argument about having a tax cut. There is room in this 
surplus for a tax cut. But there ought to be room, as well, to reduce 
the national debt.
  We pay $220 billion a year in interest payments on the national debt. 
Think how many classrooms could be built, how many people who could be 
made healthy, how many houses could be constructed, how many water 
systems or sewage systems could be repaired or built with the $220 
billion that goes to interest payments on the national debt. It does 
not construct anything. It does not help anybody. All it does is pay 
down on our financial obligations.
  There is a great risk with the adoption of this tax proposal that we 
will be back in red ink and in debt again. Interest rates will begin to 
climb just as we saw in the 1980s. As those interest rates go up, the 
cost of an automobile, the cost of a home, the cost of a child going on 
to college, goes up. Then remember this debate and remember what this 
body did. This body has acted in a way, in my view, that is 
irresponsible and unmindful of the cost to this society.
  That is why it is important for us to take some time and think about 
what we are doing, and offer some alternative ideas that can improve 
the quality of life for people.

[[Page 9119]]

  So when it comes to prescription drugs, the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
elementary and secondary education, Medicare, Social Security, the 
infrastructure of this country, the defense needs of America, the 
environmental needs of America, there will be no room in the budget of 
the United States if this tax proposal is adopted.
  I am alone in this Senate Chamber this evening, with the exception of 
the Presiding Officer. It is late. It has been a long day. I am tired, 
as my colleagues are. But I wanted to take these few minutes to review, 
as I said, what occurred here today and yesterday because I think it is 
so fundamentally and profoundly important.
  My hope is that people might speak up in the remaining 24 or 48 hours 
that we have before we vote on final passage of this bill and leave for 
the recess. I hope that people can express themselves and ask their 
Members to think twice before they adopt a $4 trillion tax cut, the 
effects of which are cloudy at best, and is predicted by many to have 
dire consequences 10 years down the road. Who can say in 10 years what 
the economy will look like?
  There is an energy crisis looming on the horizon. What will be the 
impact of that on this economy? We are told the administration wants to 
increase defense spending by as much as $100 billion or $200 billion. 
What is the impact of that on this economy? And here we are adopting a 
$4 trillion tax cut. All of these events are coming together, and yet 
we are also told we need to invest in education, in health care, and 
the infrastructure of America. But where are the resources going to 
come from?
  It just doesn't add up. The math isn't there. We are told under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act that we are going to have a math 
test for every third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grader. 
I suggest we need a math test here because these numbers don't add up. 
A third, fourth, fifth or sixth grader would tell you that: Add these 
numbers, and they don't produce a balanced budget or a surplus. They 
put this country in great economic peril.
  That is why I take the floor this evening, to express my outrage and 
concern about what we are doing: 20 hours of debate, and then a vote-a-
rama with 1 minute to describe or offer some explanation of an 
amendment that might make a difference on prescription drugs, on 
education, on Medicare, on middle-income Americans, 1 minute.
  These amendments and these votes will not be forgotten. They will not 
be forgotten.
  It has been said by philosophers that those who fail to remember the 
mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, or words to that effect. 
Not unlike Cassandra of mythological note, for those of us who were 
here 20 years ago, I beg and beseech my colleagues who are relatively 
new: We don't tell you these things out of some sense of nostalgia. 
Twenty years ago, I heard the same arguments being made about the 
wisdom of a tax cut that was too big, too excessive. The overwhelming 
majority of our colleagues in the Senate and in the other Chamber 
disregarded those warnings and voted for a tax proposal that ultimately 
put this economy in a tailspin. As the Senator from Delaware has noted, 
it has only been during the last few years that we have recovered from 
it.
  I deplore what is occurring here. I plead with my colleagues: Modify 
this tax cut proposal. There is room for a decent, strong tax cut that 
would provide benefits to almost all Americans while also providing 
room to pay down the debt and to invest in the needed investments of 
our country in education and health care and the infrastructure of 
America, to mention just three. There ought to be room to do all three 
of those things.
  Adopting a tax cut that is too big is not unlike adopting a spending 
program that is too big. Imagine what we would be saying here today if 
someone were talking about a spending program of $4 trillion over the 
next 10 years. We would be saying: How do you know whether or not we 
can afford it 10 years from now? What will the economic conditions be 
in America 10 years from now?
  It would be foolish to commit the resources of this country without 
having some idea of what the economic circumstances would be in our 
Nation.
  Is it any less foolish to commit ourselves to a $4 trillion tax cut 
unknowing of what the economic circumstances will be 2, 3, 4, or 5 
years from now? The answer is obvious.
  For those reasons, I hope Americans across this country will raise 
their voices, will let Members know how they feel about this proposal, 
will express their worry that we may be adopting a proposal that will 
cause this country serious harm.
  I apologize for taking a few minutes this evening, but we have not 
had time today to engage in debate. All we have had is 1 minute to 
offer amendments.
  There are now recorded votes on where people stand on the issue of 
health care, education, Medicare, Social Security, transportation, and 
a variety of other issues about which the American public cares.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to rethink this proposal. It 
is only May. Step back, rethink this, develop a truly bipartisan 
proposal. Come back and ask us to rethink how we might fashion a 
proposal that would provide tax cuts for Americans as well as leave 
room for the other necessities of this Nation: Its defense needs, its 
educational needs, its health care needs. Those needs contribute to the 
long-term security of America as well. Leaving them to be crowded out, 
as we are on this day in May, this early on in this new century, is a 
mistake of historic proportions.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________