Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple and straightforward. It is no different in its intent than the amendment I offered when the President some months ago requested $87 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as the support of American forces.
The bottom line is it says we should stop borrowing to cover the cost of our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this mission is as important as the President says it is--and I believe it is--then we should pay for it. We should not make my kids pay for it. We should not make my grandchildren pay for it. We should pay for it.
Before I get into the details of the amendment, because it relates to my finding the money to pay for the $25 billion asked for in this authorization by the President, let me remind people what the state of the Tax Code is now relative to the highest bracket.
In the year 2001, the highest bracket of individual taxpayers was 39.6 percent.
With President Bush's tax cut that was passed, that bracket, along with others, was reduced from 39.6 percent to what it will be and what it is in 2004, 35 percent. So it has come down from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.
The way the Bush tax cut proposal works, when it became law--and I see the chairman of the Finance Committee here who, as the old joke goes, has forgotten more about the Tax Code than I am going to know--is that top bracket will stay at 35 percent in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the taxable year of 2011, under the present status of the Tax Code, it will go back to 39.6 percent.
I realize there is a move in the House and among many here to ``make the tax cut permanent'' so the 35-percent tax bracket would remain in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2018, and so on, but right now, unless it is made permanent in the taxable year 2011, it will go back to what it was in 2001, 39.6 percent.
One other statistic, to be in this top tax bracket, the people in the 35-percent tax bracket, which used to be 39.6, have on average a taxable income of a million dollars a year. Now, obviously, there are people in there making a billion dollars a year, but no one is in that bracket unless their taxable income is $319,000.
That means after all of the deductions are taken, after all of the things one is able under the law to deduct, so one is likely to have an income of closer to $450,000 or $500,000, they end up with a taxable income of $319,000. OK? So it is taxable income.
That is after one deducts for medical costs they are able to deduct, deduct for their children, for all the things one is entitled to deduct, and people in that category can deduct for a lot of things that average folks do not get to deduct.
So what does my amendment do? How do we have $25 billion so that these bright young pages--and I am not being solicitous; I am not joking--sitting down at the base of the podium there, whose average age is probably 16 or 17 years old, how do we act responsibly enough to say that they should not be paying for this war, that those of us who voted for it, my generation, those who are paying taxes now, should pay for it?
What happens with this $25 billion? It is essentially paid for by the deficit. This all goes to the deficit. This is going to be paid for. It is going to be added. I predict before the year is over--and I do not claim to be an expert on our budget, but I have been around long enough that I think I am pretty knowledgeable--this year's deficit will end up being closer to $600 billion than $500 billion. Everybody knows it is going to be over $500 billion. So why are we going to ask them, why are we going to ask my granddaughters, who range from age 3 to 10, to pay for this war, when we are fully capable of doing it?
One might say: OK, BIDEN, how are you going to pay for this war? Are you going to take money away from education? Are you going to take money away from things that affect these kids? No.
I am going to ask my colleagues shortly to do what I think every patriotic American is fully prepared to do. At the United Way they talk about, this guy gave at the office, but what do we give at the office in this war? What are any of you people, and what am I, giving at the office?
None of us are in Iraq. We are not in the military. We
are not getting shot at. We are not away from our families. We are not that National Guardsman or Guardswoman who is taking a pay cut of 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent to serve their country right now.
I mean, this is never a healthy thing for a nation. We are in the midst of a war when the bulk of America is not asked to do anything about it. There are very few people sacrificing for this war. Like our grandparents or our parents, no one has asked us to put tape over our headlights when we drive at night or use ration cards or have to pay higher taxes to support the war. There is no draft.
So what happens? Well, there are a lot of patriotic, young women and men--and some not so young, meaning in their thirties and forties--who are over in Iraq right now. What are we doing?
The idea that if we ask the wealthiest Americans among us to contribute to the war effort, that they are unwilling to do that is preposterous.
I sometimes get mad at some in my party--not those on the Senate floor but some in my party--and some liberal commentators. What frustrates me sometimes is they assume that only poor, middle-class people are patriotic; that they are the only ones willing to make sacrifices for their country. I am here to say that wealthy Americans, the wealthiest among us, the wealthiest 1 percent, are as patriotic as the lowest 1 percent.
In the last time out, when I tried to do this--and I will get to the detail in a minute--to pay for the $87 million, I happened to be with a group at an exclusive country club in Wilmington, DE. We are a wealthy little State. We have some very wealthy people in our State. All States do, but as a percentage we have some very wealthy people. I happened to be with a group of them for an outing. We got to the time that we had the buffet, and it was outside. A couple started asking me about the war. The next thing I know, as every Senator knows and as every staffer has observed their Senators being engaged, all of a sudden it was like a roving press conference. It went from 1 press person to 2, to 5 to 10 to 15, and all of a sudden there was a group of people standing around. Before I knew it, literally, standing outside on this beautiful evening, on this patio of this magnificent club, there were no fewer than 40, mostly men, who are among the wealthiest--not literally the wealthiest, but some were probably in the top 20 or so in my State--some of the wealthiest people in my State, and they are asking about the war. [Page: S6956]
I said: Let me ask you all a question--and in fairness I want to acknowledge, maybe they were intimidated because no one wanted to be the one to say, no, do not count me in, but I said I am going to go down to the Senate, and I am going to offer an amendment that would require you people right here on this outside patio to give up 1 year of the 10 years of your tax cut to pay for this war. Does anybody here think that is unfair?
I give my word, my honor as Biden, not one person raised their hand. Then people started to chime in. They said, no, it is fair. They started talking about what other people are doing.
When have we ever gone to war when we simultaneously have suggested, as we have gone, to say this is going to be a long, tortuous undertaking to fight terror, and at the same time any President in the past, some 200-plus years, has said: And by the way, as we go, I am going to give you the biggest tax cut in the history of the United States of America?
Now, again, try to be objective about this. Let's assume--I do not, but let us assume for the sake of argument that we badly needed this tax cut in order to spur on the economy. Let me accept that as a given for the sake of this debate.
I asked these people: Does anyone here think if the top 1 percent of the people paying taxes in America were to forego 1 year of the tax cut that, in fact, that would slow the economy?
The economy would stall? Sputter? Assuming they were the reason it was growing. I didn't hear anybody tell me that. I have not heard any reputable economists tell me that.
So here I am, back on the floor again, finding it fascinating, absolutely fascinating--and I expect this will be voted on party lines again--why the overwhelming number of my colleagues, for whom most of these wealthy people likely vote, are unwilling to do what the wealthiest among us are fully willing to do.
This time around what I am suggesting is even less ``painful.'' In order to come up with $25 billion to pay for this piece of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, you know the only thing you have to do? You have to say: In the year 2005, the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, who in fact cannot have a taxable income less than $319,000, will go back up from 35 percent to 36 percent. The 1-percent solution.
I can't fathom any wealthy person in America, even at the low end--and, by the way, the average income of this top 1 percent is over $1 million. I can't fathom a single one of these people not having enough patriotic instinct to say: No, no, no, no, I am unwilling. I am unwilling to pay, in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, 1 percent more than I would otherwise have to pay.
What does that mean? Does it mean 1 percent less investment in their portfolio? Does it mean they buy a Lexus instead of a Mercedes? What does it mean? What does it mean?
While we are now saying, as I think the President probably has no choice, to the people who signed up volunteering in the military: No, no, you are staying another year because your patriotic responsibility is we need you. The President is probably right about that.
Or he is saying to what will be approaching 40 percent of the forces on the ground being shot at or subjected to car bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan who are reservists and National Guard: You have to go twice.
He is saying to the physician who is in the Guard, whose income may have been $150,000 or $200,000 whose pay as a colonel may be $80,000 but he still has the same mortgage payment, the same tuition payment, the same ``nut'' to pay, as they say: It's your patriotic responsibility.
How can we in this country at this moment say we can ask that of those people and we can't say to people whose average income is $1 million: Do us a favor, pay 1 percent more to pay for this installment on the war?
What have we become? Can you imagine that being said in 1943? No, no, no, no, don't ask it of them.
Can you imagine that being said if the income tax had been in place in 1915 or 1916?
Can you imagine that being the case in the Korean war? Can you imagine that?
What is the second logical argument as to why this is a bad idea? If you all agree with me that these Americans are as patriotic as anyone else and that it could not possibly hurt them in any material way, then you have to say: Here is the deal. This will slow economic recovery. This is bad for the economy.
I got a letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying this is going to hurt small business.
My friend from Iowa is here, the chairman of the committee. As the old thing goes--in this case, it is
true--he is my friend.
The Chamber of Commerce says it is going to hurt small business. What they mean by that is there are some small businesses that pay their taxes as if they were individual taxpayers. Do you know how many of them pay at the top 1 percent? Of all the small businesses in America? For every 100 small businesspersons in America who claim and pay as individuals, 2 percent--t-w-o percent--of them are in this category where they would be affected.
I am sure the Senator will be able to tell me--I suspect he is here to engage in debate--how taking 1 percent of the American individual taxpayers and asking them to pay 1 percent more in the next 5 years, and taking 2 percent of the small businesspersons in America and asking them to pay 1 percent more for the next 5 years, when each of them fall in a category where they have a taxable income of at least $319,000 a year--how this is going to slow the economy.
I have said this to the President and I have said it publicly--Senator McCain was on the floor earlier--what I am about to say. Senator McCain was on the floor earlier talking about the end strength amendment of Senator Reed. He said we need this. He said mistakes happen in war. That is why--and he went on from there.
I believe, and I am confident, this President has made some very serious mistakes in the conduct of this war. I am also confident were I President I would have made mistakes. I am confident, had it been President Gore, he would have made mistakes. I am confident that Senator Kerry will make some mistakes if he is President. I don't think this President will be judged harshly for the mistakes he has made.
But I do think history will judge him fairly harshly for the opportunities he has squandered. One of the opportunities squandered here is the ability to have united this Nation in common purpose after 9/11.
Let me ask a rhetorical question. Can you imagine if immediately after 9/11, when the President had that big economic summit down in Crawford, TX, or near Crawford, with some of the most prominent, significant, and patriotic businessmen in America, and some of the most wealthy men and women in America--what do you think would have happened, as that broke up, if he said: By the way, I want to ask the following of all of you. I would ask each one of you in the spirit of unity and harmony in this country, when you leave this room after hearing me speak, I strongly urge you--I ask you to take out your cell phone and call your accountant at home and ask him to go out and find four of the most worthy young women and men, eligible for college, who are unable to pay for college for 4 years, and commit to pay their tuitions.
Would any of my colleagues on the Senate floor think there would have been a single solitary man or woman in that room who would not have walked out, dialed up their cell phone, and said to their accountants, find those people? I mean it sincerely. I am not joking about this. I can't fathom that group of women and men not responding to the call for unity--not just to deal with the war on terror but to deal with healing and uniting this country. Nothing has been asked of these people, not because they have refused, not because they are unwilling, but because of an ideological disposition that somehow in any way to alter the tax structure beyond what we have just done is ipso facto wrong, bad, counterproductive. We are a slave to ideology on this floor.
There is not a single person in here who can say this $25 billion because it is all fungible is not going to be added to the deficit. Why don't we pay for it [Page: S6957] fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly? When have we ever succeeded in the great noble causes of this country without engaging all segments of society?
I would make the rhetorical point--I suspect you will not do this, but I will make you a bet. If you were to call your State's 10 wealthy people who fall into this category and ask them whether they would support having to pay at a 36-percent rate rather than a 35-percent rate to pay for the war, I am willing to bet you that 8 out of 10 or more of them will say, I am willing. I am betting--and I trust all of my colleagues would--if you do that, you will come and tell me you found in your State more than 2 out of 10 said they wouldn't do that, I will buy you dinner anywhere you want to go to dinner. It is on me. My financial disclosure statement shows, unfortunately, that I am one of the least well positioned in this body to pay for dinner.
There is something wrong, there is something not sensible about failing to be more responsible. How can it be called responsible to say we are going to make these pages, these kids, pay the $25 billion? I don't get this. Every one of us, Democrats and Republicans, comes to the floor of the Senate and talks about the need for a culture of responsibility. I truly don't get it, other than ideology.
I respectfully suggest that if, in fact, we do this to set a precedent that engages more people in the outcome of this war on terror--I am not making a populist argument--the group that is in the top 1 percent will get, out of the total tax cut of $1.8 trillion, $88.9 billion.
Again, I am not making a populist argument. That may be arguably justified on the merits. But it is the idea that 1 percent can't give up 1 percent of $688.19 billion. It is not even 1 percent; it is actually $688.19 billion over 10 years--that they will not give up 1 percent for 5 of those years. It is the equivalent of asking them to give up one-half of 1 percent of that number when 99 percent of the American people pay--not all 99 percent; some don't pay taxes--but 99 percent of the American people get a tax cut of about $1.1 billion dollars.
A couple of my Republican colleagues have said it is unfair to pick on the wealthy. It is not picking on anybody. I am trying to find the most equitable way to do this. What I am trying to do is make sure we are in a position to act responsibly, and it is not responsible to pile the debt upon our children for an endeavor we chose to
undertake when it is fully within our power to pay for it without in any way being unfair to any single group of taxpayers and without having any rational argument that it will, in fact, negatively impact on the economy.
Were I in my 27-year-old populist mode, I would say it is greed. But I have learned a lot in my 32 years here. It is that we have not asked. For every wealthy group of businessmen and businesswomen in my State that I have approached, I have yet to have one tell me there is something unfair or unequitable about this.
I urge my colleagues. I will conclude this portion by saying I urge my colleagues to let us be responsible, what I define as responsible. It doesn't mean if you disagree you are irresponsible, but let us be responsible here. Let us pay for something we can easily pay for and not pile more debt for an elective judgment we made in this body--and I made it as well--to take on the dictatorship and the maniacal leadership of Saddam Hussein, to take down the Taliban, and to seek al-Qaida in its hovel.
