CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET (Senate - May 21, 1997)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
I am proud to rise to join Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy as a cosponsor of this, and to thank them for their leadership on it. Let me say first of all, that it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest to the U.S. Senate that this amendment ought to be voted against or is subject to criticism because it reduces the tax cut by $30 billion.
Every U.S. Senator knows, by virtue of our experience here and the practice on the budget, that we are not allowed to specify the specific source of revenue. But every Senator also knows what the source of revenue would be if we decided to pass this legislation. There is no question about it.
There is no other place that the Finance Committee would go as a consequence of an overwhelming vote of the Senate to say that we should provide this care with the understanding of the sponsors and of all of those proposing that there is one source that we are directing our attention to for the revenue. So that is an entire smokescreen. No Senator can hide their vote behind that kind of smokescreen today.
Second, it is absolutely false to suggest that the $16 billion in the agreement is going to provide health care to even the 5 million children that it claims to, let alone the 10 million children we know do not have coverage today. The math is ascertainable. And the math will tell you that you are only going to cover about 3.7 million children with the amount of money allocated.
The fact is, that last year when Senator Kennedy and I and Senator Rockefeller and others introduced legislation to provide health care for children, we thought we had an approach. And Senator Hatch and others could not find agreement with it. And there have been some changes since then. But let me tell you, Mr. President, what else has happened since then.
There are 750,000 additional children who have lost their private health insurance in this country in that year that we have not seen fit to do what Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch are asking us to do today--750,000 additional kids.
One kid every 35 seconds has lost their health insurance in this country. And the fact is, that most of those 10 million kids are the sons and daughters of parents who are working. Ninety percent of them are working. And the vast majority, about 68 or 69 percent, both parents are working and are working full time.
So why is this necessary, Mr. President? Let me just share with you a real-life story from Massachusetts. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married in 1980. They lived in Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber. They had three children: Leonard, Brianna, and Alyssa.
In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her fourth child when Jim was murdered on his way home from the store. In that one horrible moment, her life changed forever. She not only lost her husband, but, pregnant and alone, she lost her health insurance as well. Her survivor's benefits made her income too high to be able to qualify for long-term Medicaid but it was too low to be able to pay the $400 a month premium that would have extended her husband's health plan so that it would have covered her children. Result--she lost her health insurance, pregnant, and with three children.
And she said, `I've always taken good care of my children. I feed them well; I take them to the doctors immediately when they need it. All of a sudden I couldn't do that anymore.'
That is what this debate is about, Mr. President. It is about families like that that are trying to provide for their children. It is about teachers who will tell us again and again that children in a school who are disruptive in a class are often the children who have not even been diagnosed for an
earache or for an eye problem. We are the only industrial country on this planet that does not provide health care to our children.
That is unacceptable in 1997. It is unacceptable when we are looking at 134 billion dollars' worth of gross tax cuts.
Mr. President, every person involved with children will tell us the value of providing health care to those kids so that you can provide the long-term preventive care and diagnosis necessary to provide them with full participation in our society.
The Journal of the American Medical Association found that children with coverage gaps are more likely to lack a continuing and regular source of health care, so that if you just have a gap in your coverage, the greater likelihood is you are not going to be able to make it up and have any kind of long-term preventative care; and that even when factors, such as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility are factored out, numerous studies by university researchers and by Government agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive preventative care, such as immunizations, more likely to go to emergency rooms for their care, more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care, and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with health insurance.
So, in other words, the fact that we nickel and dime this and we refuse to give them coverage actually winds up costing us a lot more in the long run.
Mr. President, when you really consider the savings in this, this ought to be a no-brainer for Members of the Senate. And the fact is, the reason we are turning to cigarettes is because cigarettes are the greatest saver of all. You can leave aside the fact that the Wall Street Journal did a poll that suggested that 72 percent of Americans favor this 43-cent tax, but just think about it on the merits.
The fact is, the public supports this bill because they want children to have health insurance and they also understand the rationale for increasing the cigarette tax. The cigarette tax is a user fee. For three-quarters of Americans they are not going to pay anything additional. But for the one-quarter of Americans who do smoke, they wind up costing Americans an additional $50 billion in direct costs, health care costs as a consequence of that smoking.
Mr. President, the tobacco taxes in the United States today are the lowest in the industrial world. And even if we passed this 43-cent tax in order to fund health care for children, we would still be far below the tax charged in most of those other countries today.
There is a rationale for doing this, a rationale that is overwhelming.
In the next 24 hours, 3,000 children are going to start smoking.
Every 30 seconds a child in the United States starts smoking. And the problem is getting worse because smoking among students in grades 9 to 12 increased by more than 26 percent from 1991 to 1995.
And although 419,000 smokers die each year of smoker-related diseases, the fact is that 89 percent of those who start to smoke by the age of 18 are going to be replaced today or the fact is those 419,000 are going to be replaced by about 1 million new smokers, which means that you are going to have about 89 percent of those who are 18 will have started smoking before that.
Mr. President, the tobacco tax is known to weed out that early smoking. The tobacco tax, according to the American Cancer Institute, suggests that 835,000 children's lives would be saved. So that is really the choice we face in this vote today. We know that if you raise the taxes on cigarettes, the people with the least amount of disposable income, which are kids, are less accessible to cigarettes. The fact is, if 835,000 lives could be saved and we refuse to take the step today to do that, then ask yourself what the complicity is in those additional 835,000 smokers and deaths that would occur as a consequence.
Mr. President, this makes sense. This is important in terms of our rising to the standards of the rest of the countries in the world, industrial countries. It makes sense to save countless tax dollars that are spent for those people who die, the 419,000 each year, as a result of smoking-related disease. It makes sense because it provides children with the opportunity to have the diagnosis of preventive care that provides them with a full opportunity to participate in our society.
I think Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy are absolutely correct when they say this is one of the most important votes we will cast. This does not blow apart any agreement. Do not let any smokescreen to that effect cloud a vote here. This agreement can hold together because this amendment provides for revenue and it provides for making up the difference of what is taken away. In the end, this agreement could go forward, and America's children would benefit as a consequence of that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
PDFTHE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - July 31, 1997)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the chamber today to support this balanced budget. We have worked for many years, making hard choices, fighting for our priorities, managing this country's budget process--all in order to be able to stand in the Chamber as members of both political parties in support of a balanced budget.
It is not the bill I would have written, but there is a large degree of foolhardiness in rejecting the good in favor of the perfect. A great debt is owed to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and their counterparts on the Budget Committee as well as their staffs who have worked with us over the course of these many months in crafting this plan.
And, there is no question in my mind, Mr. President, that this legislation is better than the deal the Senate passed last month--a plan I opposed because it did not do enough for hard-working American families and largely ignored America's children . This legislation before us now incorporates many of the provisions I and others on this side of the aisle fought to have included.
For that reason, this is a day of vindication for Americans who believe, as Democrats have proven, that it is vital to balance the Federal budget and extend health care to children , provide broader educational opportunities, ensure the future for our senior citizens and safeguard our environment.
Since 1993, we have moved in this direction. In 1993, when the first Democrat in a generation was elected President and Democrats formed the majority in both Houses of Congress, we have worked arduously to break the spiraling deficits which plagued our Nation for a decade and provide a solid economic foundation for our Nation as we move into the 21st century. And, Mr. President, we've succeeded. We have waited for the day when the benefits of our hard work would be as obvious as they are today.
Even the possibility of the legislation before us now--a conceptually balanced budget with tax breaks-- is testament to the application of Democratic ideals to fiscal policy. In 5 years, we cut the deficit from $290 billion to the current level of perhaps less than $50 billion. Interest rates are subdued. We are seeing the lowest unemployment and inflation rates and the largest drop in poverty rates in a generation. Consumer confidence has shown the best improvement since the Eisenhower administration and the value of the stock market has doubled since 1993--the Dow break records every day--and the market itself is experiencing the fastest growth since the Second World War.
We have been successful, because, since the Great Depression, our party has stuck by the fundamental belief that sound economic and social policy go hand-in-glove, that our Nation is stronger when all Americans have equal economic opportunity.
Thomas Jefferson taught us that ours is a Nation of the common man and enshrined this belief in one of our most treasured documents when he wrote of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.
Andrew Jackson echoed this creed when he restated the party's commitment to the humble members of our society--the farmers, mechanics and laborers. That commitment, that core set of beliefs, is in fact, Mr. President, the essence of the American dream and the foundation of what has become the greatest contribution this Nation has provided to the world's social economic history--the growth of a vibrant middle class. Universal economic opportunity, sound fiscal policy based on equitable distribution of benefits and assistance to those most in need--those are the fundaments of Democratic economic policy. That is the goal of the program we put in place in 1993, and that is the end to which our fiscal policies are directed. Franklin Roosevelt reminded us of our commitment to expanding opportunity when he said: `the spirit of opportunity is the kind of spirit that has led us as a Nation--not as a small group but as a Nation--to meet very great problems.'
Mr. President, as Democrats, we believe that deficit reduction is a means to an end. We believe that tax breaks are a means to an end. But, unlike the Republicans, we do not subscribe to the callow notion that deficit reduction is an economic policy in and of itself or that tax breaks are an end which justify any means. We do not believe that cutting vital programs is a courageous or visionary act. We believe that courage lies in advancing economic opportunity: this requires wisdom, innovation and prescience. It is chilling that this dichotomy of political and economic philosophy remains as obviously demarcated today as it was 100 years ago. I re-read the cogent description by William Jennings Bryan of the two opposing ideas of government: he separated the parties into those who `legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous and wait for their prosperity to leak through on those below, or those who legislate to make the masses prosperous and ensuring that their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.'
Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I have an obligation to the constituents who elected me to represent their interests, to act on their behalf and to present their views to this body. At times here, there is often a temptation to acquiesce ones core set of beliefs to the majority. It is easier to be hidden by the crowd than to stand alone and dissent, simpler to obey the tenets of a deal than the core of ones belief, more politic to do what is possible than do what is right, and more efficient to save time by agreeing. But remember the words of Harry Truman, Mr. President, when he said that `whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.'
I am pleased that our provocation, our urging, our insistence in crafting this compromise that helps working class Americans was successful. I cannot turn away from the long history which has shaped my essence sense of fairness, my overarching insistence on making government work for the common good and the needs of my constituents. Mr. President, for that reason, I voted against the tax portion of the reconciliation bill as I voted against the spending portion when they passed the Senate the first time, and because these bills were dramatically improved, I am able to support the conference report today.
Mr. President, I am grateful for the work of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth who chairs the Finance Committee and my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, who serves as that committee's ranking member. They have improved a gravely flawed piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate the first time.
During the course of the initial debate, I attempted to shape the legislation so it would do more for more average citizens, but time and again we were rebuffed. I said at the time, Mr. President, that before I could approve it when it returns from conference, this legislation needed significant improvement, especially as regards the treatment of children and hard-working American families.
In the original Senate package, nearly 43 percent of the breaks went to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans--those who earn more than $120,000. In the original plan, Mr. President, 60 percent of hard-working poor and middle class Americans got only 12.7 percent of the tax breaks, while the richest 1 percent of Americans get 13 percent of the benefits. In the original Finance Committee proposal, the poorest 60 percent got as much as the richest 1 percent. This was a new standard of
unfairness. This was anathema to the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Truman and Roosevelt. I tried to change it; I was unsuccessful and I rejected it.
I am pleased the conference report has a more equitable distribution by allowing more working class Americans to take advantage of the child-tax credit, for example. By most measures, Mr. President, this proposal has moved closer to our ideals and is unquestionably more equitable.
There is no more obvious improvement in this bill, Mr. President, from the original Finance Committee plan than the treatment of hard-working middle class families raising children . During the initial debate, I attempted to give more help to the American families on the lower end of the economic spectrum--young families with young children --who will be doing the most for our country in the future.
Mr. President, I attempted to correct this basic inequity by offering an amendment which would have improved the bill by granting a refundable child tax credit to all working families. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Income taxes have remained stable for most Americans in the past 10 years while payroll taxes have increased 17 percent.
My distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, attempted to amend the original plan so families who receive the earned income credit would not be penalized. She is a new member of this body, Mr. President, but she has already made an enormous contribution. She is a young mother and as such speaks with a clear voice on the difficulties of raising children today, and Mr. President, because this proposal incorporates her vision and my vision, it is a better deal for all Americans.
I am pleased also that this conference report allows Americans to off-set the credit against these payroll taxes. Now, it applies to all Americans even those receiving the earned income credit. This is in distinct contrast with the original Finance Committee plan under which nearly 40 percent of America's children were excluded from the tax credit. Those 40 percent are the children of working class Americans, children of young teachers, police officers, farmers and nurses who work hard and are the backbone of this country.
Now, Mr. President, the Democrat proposal--more measured and fair--has prevailed. And, more Americans will be afforded a share of the great economic success this country has enjoyed since 1993. I could tell you that this bill provides a tax break for 5.9 million more American families with children than the Senate bill and 7.5 million more families than the House bill, but instead of relying dry statistical analyses and distributional tables, let me take a moment to show you some real people and compare how the different plans affect them.
The Richards family from Sioux Falls, SD, Charlie and Karen and their two children , will receive $975 from the child tax credit and both their children will be covered by health insurance. Under the House plan, the family would have received no child tax break; under the Senate plan, $418. This legislation, incorporating my amendment, will give them twice as much in the child tax break.
Under this plan, the Ussinger family from Albuquerque, NM will receive $1500 in child tax breaks. The House plan would have given them $6 and the original Finance Committee plan would have provided $458. This plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Ussingers three times as much.
The Buckman family from Washington, DC, will now receive $594 in the child tax break. Under the House bill, the Buckmans would have gotten nothing and the Senate version would have given them only $143. So, this plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Buckmans here in our Nation's capital four times as much in child tax breaks.
All of those children , Mr. President, every one of them, and 5 million more, will have health insurance thanks to our insistence and the leadership of Senator Kennedy that we deliver the largest investment in the health of our children since the enactment of Medicaid, a generation ago.
This plan invests an unprecedented $24 billion for uninsured children , and since it is funded by a tax on cigarettes, it is, in fact, a double health benefit. This plan serves as a financial barrier--a powerful disincentive for children to start smoking in the first place. It supplements, not supplants, current health care coverage. Our plan requires that States maintain their current Medicaid eligibility levels of spending to access Federal dollars to ensure that this investment is not used to replace public or private money that already covers children .
Mr. President, simply put, this is the embodiment of the Democratic principles I mentioned earlier. This victory for America's children and middle-income families is a victory for America itself. We will all benefit from a healthier generation of children .
Mr. President, there are some elements of this package about which I am unsure. I would have preferred the approach to capital gains reduction for which Senator Bumpers and I have fought for a decade--a measured, targeted approach instead of the broad-based cut this bill contains. I would have rejected the large back-loaded expensive IRA provision. But, at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves if this legislation meets the basic standards of fairness to which we attest; does it help average, hard-working American families? The answer is yes. Does it provide assistance for America's children and the young families struggling to raise them--those who have as yet not enjoyed the fruits of the economic boom? The answer is yes.
I am pleased to be able to join the majority of our colleagues, Mr. President, in supporting this plan.
PDF
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
