[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 61 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4705-S4716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            TAX FREEDOM DAY

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I was glad I had an opportunity to be 
here for at least the last portion of the presentation by my good 
colleague and friend from Virginia where he was admonishing us to be 
courageous and to avoid the proposal to repeal the gas tax.
  It is my intention to support the repeal of the gas tax, and, 
frankly, I believe America is looking for a very different kind of 
courage today.
  I do not think they are looking for courage to keep adding another 
burden, another tax burden, another regulatory burden on the backs of 
the working families.
  Most Americans--in fact, in survey data every social strata of our 
country--feel that the appropriate tax burden should be 25 percent. It 
does not matter whether you ask the very wealthy family or the poorest 
family. It is fascinating; they all come to the same number, that the 
burden of government, their willingness to contribute, is about 25 
percent.
  Tomorrow is May 7. It is an important day in America, because May 7, 
believe it or not--I would never have believed I would be in the Senate 
talking about this kind of crisis, but May 7 is the first day for which 
an American family can earn money and resources for its own dreams. 
Every other day from January 1 through March 15, April, you name it, 
all of those wages that were earned on all of those working days are 
taken from the family. They are taken by the Federal Government at 
about 25 percent, some much higher, they are taken by the State and 
local government 10 to 12 percent, and I might add May 7 does not 
include the regulatory costs to every American family, which is now 
about $6,800 a year.
  I think of that fellow who gets up, his wife who gets up, and they 
get the kids; they take them to school; they get to their two jobs, 
which are necessary now primarily because of the new tax burden on the 
American family; they go day after day like that working through the 
struggles of life, and until May 7 not a dime is available to house 
that family, to buy the home, to transport the family, to feed the 
family, to educate the family --all the things we ask the American 
family to do for America: Raise the country. Raise the country. But 
until May 7, they do not have a dime for their own dreams. They are 
sending all of those wages between January 1 and May 7 to some policy 
wonk somewhere with the task of rededicating where that money ought to 
go and what its priorities ought to be.
  We just heard a presentation by my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle that it would be the opposite of courageous if we were to repeal 
this tax. We have a long way to go to get tax freedom day back from May 
7 to where it appropriately ought to be. Every opportunity we have to 
lower that burden, in my judgment, is appropriate. That gas tax costs 
the average family of four about $100--$100 a year.
  More importantly, the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers pay over 7 
percent of their income on gasoline. If we are concerned about those 
who are disadvantaged, we ought to be concerned about lowering the 
burden on them, letting them keep those resources to do the things they 
need to do. The wealthy only pay 1.6 percent of their income on 
gasoline. This repeal of that gas tax

[[Page S4706]]

primarily helps the more disadvantaged in our society. It has some 
auxiliary effect on those who have more resources. But we have such a 
long way to go, Mr. President, to get this economic burden down. It is 
already double what it ought to be when you add in the reg reforms.

  A family should not be working until May 7 or June or July --
officially it is May 7--for the Government. So I take exception to the 
suggestion that you lack some courage if you come to the floor and 
fight for lowering the economic pressure on American families, American 
communities, and American businesses. That is exactly what America is 
asking us to do, to have the courage to shrink up this Federal 
Government.
  With that, Mr. President, I should like to yield up to 10 minutes to 
my colleague from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as my distinguished friend from Georgia 
has said, tomorrow, May 7, 1996, is tax freedom day.
  What is tax freedom day? Stated simply, it is the day on which the 
average American taxpayer stops working for the Government and begins 
working for himself or herself. It is a dramatic way of pointing out 
that if we divide the share of the income of each one of us as an 
average American into parts, the share that goes to Government will 
take us from January 1 to May 7 to earn and to pay to those governments 
and that only after May 7 are we working for ourselves.
  Again, this is an average. For some, tax freedom day comes a little 
earlier; for others it comes a little later. I regret to say for the 
citizens of Washington State whom I represent, it comes a little later. 
It comes on May 10. Why? Because, of course, we are talking about the 
burden imposed on the people of this country by all levels of our 
Government, here in Washington, DC, and our State and local governments 
as well.

  Mr. President, does it not boggle the mind to think that governments 
take this much of what we earn by our hard work for its own purposes?
  It is vitally important that people learn we are already well through 
the spring of 1996 before we have earned that portion of our income 
which goes to our governments.
  As my distinguished friend from Georgia also said, if we add the very 
real burdens caused by higher interest rates, which are themselves the 
result in part of our huge national debt and all the interest we must 
pay on that national debt, and the cost of regulation, we go into early 
July before we have discharged the real burden imposed on us by 
Government and begin to work for ourselves.
  This is a burden that is too great, even if we ignore interest and 
regulation. The average citizen of the United States does not believe 
he or she is getting his or her money's worth out of the money earned 
until May 7 and turned over to Government.
  That citizen is correct. Our citizens are not getting their money's 
worth from this investment in Government, and the great struggle here 
in the Congress of the United States and with this administration is 
over whether or not those burdens, both from the perspective of taxes 
and regulation, should be increased or decreased. This administration, 
for all of its rhetoric about smaller Government, is a liberal 
administration which believes that its judgments as to how we should 
spend our money are better than our own; that Government bureaucrats 
can set priorities for spending better than can individual citizens of 
the United States. And I am convinced that that thought is perhaps the 
single most important reason that people resent Government and do not 
trust those whom they elect to govern them. People do not believe that 
Washington, DC, bureaucrats are smarter than they are and know more 
than they do about how their money ought to be spent. And the people 
are right. The people are right. They do not.

  There are, of course, many appropriate functions of Government. There 
are a few functions, especially the closer Government gets to the 
people, the more it is localized, that in fact are run effectively. But 
the people do not believe that Washington, DC, is run efficiently and 
effectively, and the people are right.
  So, as we did last year, in spite of the frustrations of vetoes from 
the President of the United States--we on this side of the aisle and 
thinking Members on the other side of the aisle this year will attempt 
to lower that burden of taxation on the American people. Whether 
through a lowered gas tax or a family income tax credit or better 
treatment of investments which create new jobs, we will attempt to 
lower that burden. We will act on the philosophy that, by and large, 
people as individuals know better how their money should be spent than 
do the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC.
  If we are able to come back to this floor next year, even to say that 
tax freedom day is on the 3d of May rather than the 7th of May, or the 
4th of May rather than the 7th of May, we will have done what the 
American people want. We will have acted correctly. We will, not at all 
incidentally, have overcome the objections of the President of the 
United States, and we will at least be on the road toward an 
appropriate balance between the impact of government on our pocketbooks 
and on our day-to-day lives, in exactly the fashion that we were meant 
to be when the people of the United States elected us to these offices.
  May 7 is tax freedom day. May 7 is far too late a date in the year 
for that notable event to take place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from 
Washington for his remarks. I particularly agree with his context that 
it had been the theory of this administration--and we saw this all too 
clearly when they tried to federalize or create Government-run 
medicine--that they believe that they know better how to manage the 
relationship between an employer and employee; they know better how to 
set the priorities for the local mayor or county commissioner. Now it 
has gotten to the point that they know better how to manage the 
financial resources of the American family. It is a very elitist point 
of view, in my judgment. This country was founded on the belief in the 
individual and the entrepreneurial spirit that comes from a free 
individual. That is what made this country.
  Look at countries around the world that have had central or statist 
governments, like we have been working our way to here, and it is never 
a pretty picture. I was Director of the U.S. Peace Corps for a 
considerable period of time, during the Bush administration, and was 
one of the first Americans over the wall. It was not a pretty picture. 
It was a classic example of what central and statist governments do for 
people.
  I remember one night in particular I was in Sophia, Bulgaria. The 
Ambassador asked if we wanted to go to a local opera, and I passed and 
decided to walk through the city. They had been operating under this 
central government for, I guess, nearly half a century. It is such a 
vivid memory. First of all, when I went through the department store I 
saw they had a shelf and it would have one glass on it, on the entire 
shelf. And then I would move to the next display and it would have one 
item on the entire shelf. They had no goods.
  I walked probably 5 miles, and this is the key, I never saw a single 
adult smile--not one. There was not a smile on the face of a single 
person. They had a flea market, or a food market, and they had three 
vegetables; and they had a line that was 4 blocks long so you could 
line up and get the same piece of meat when you got to the window.
  A planned government planned for everything. They planned for all 
their businesses, all their communities, and they had gotten to the 
point where they literally ran everybody's family. It was not a pretty 
picture.
  The American people are the most entrepreneurial, flexible, energetic 
of any in the world. But we have lost some of our edge, because we have 
been piling up one burden after another, to the point that we are now 
asking these families that work from January 1 to May 7--it is actually 
July 3, if you add in the regulatory costs they have to pay. Again, I 
thank the Senator from Washington. It is actually July 3, but we take 
deep note of May 7 because that is the actual day that you start 
earning resources for your own family

[[Page S4707]]

and not the government, which takes me back to the snapshot of a 
Georgia family.

  I was curious, in all this debate we have, with regard to the 
economic pressures on an average family, just what was the situation in 
my own State. I have alluded to this several times. It is certainly 
appropriate to talk about that family here today, when we are talking 
about tax freedom day being May 7. That Georgia family earns about 
$45,000--$45,093. Both parents work and they have a couple of children. 
Their total Federal tax on that income, direct and indirect, is $9,511. 
The total State and local taxes are $5,234, or $14,745 right off the 
top of the $45,000 they are paying out in taxes.
  The estimated cost of Federal regulation on that family is $6,615; 
over $500 a month. That is more than a car payment or a student loan. 
You are paying for your share of the growing regulatory apparatus.
  This family in Georgia is paying excess family interest payments, 
which are caused by excessive Federal borrowing. We have just lifted 
the Federal debt ceiling to $5.5 trillion, so that pushes interest 
rates up on everyone--the interest on their home, the interest on their 
car, the student loan: $2,011.
  So the net effect is, of the $45,000, $23,371 has been removed from 
that family, taken by government or government action, leaving them 
about 50 percent of the gross income to do all the things, as I said, 
we ask them to do. It is no wonder that American families all across 
our land, therefore, are saying this government spending and government 
debt and government management has gotten out of hand. Indeed, it has.
  I am going to yield to my colleague from Oklahoma in 1 second. I 
would just say what is particularly important about this is this 
administration has added about $200 to $225 a month in additional 
economic burden on this Georgia family, and families all across the 
country, which is why I find it very difficult to understand the 
presentation that says you are courageous if you reinforce this burden 
on the American family, as my colleague from Virginia said a moment 
ago.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Georgia for 
his leadership on this and many other issues.
  Today, we are announcing to the American people that tomorrow, May 7, 
is tax freedom day. That means that the average American worker had to 
work from January 1 through May 7 for government--for the Federal 
Government, State government, and local government. May 7 is the latest 
tax freedom day ever.
  For the average American worker, 34.8 percent of their income goes to 
government. I do not make this point to say that all government is 
evil. Not all government is evil, but if workers are working for 
government, they are not working for themselves. As government power 
grows and increases, that means their freedom is diminished. If you 
have individuals working a third of the time for government, then they 
are not working for their families, and they are not able to take care 
of their families.
  It is a very important and, in my opinion, kind of a sad fact that as 
government power continues to increase, people's freedom continues to 
decrease. We need to reverse that.
  Unfortunately, this President has made it worse. This President has 
made tax freedom day later and later in the year because he vetoed a 
tax reduction effort that Congress passed. But even more important than 
that, he signed the largest tax increase in history. In 1993, President 
Clinton signed a tax bill that increased taxes and user fees $265 
billion over 5 years, the largest tax increase in history.
  Keep in mind, President Clinton as a candidate said he was going to 
cut taxes. I remember when he was campaigning in New Hampshire. He said 
something like, ``Yes, we're going to have a tax reduction for 
families; we're going to have a per-child tax credit.'' He did not 
deliver.
  He never said anything on the campaign trail in 1992 about increasing 
gasoline taxes, but that is exactly what he did. As a matter of fact, 
during his first year in office, not only did he pass the largest tax 
increase in history, but passed a tax increase that hit all American 
families. At the time they were playing class warfare and saying this 
was just going to hit the rich--and it did, they hit the rich pretty 
hard, but they also raised taxes on all Americans.
  But also there is a gasoline tax. A gasoline tax is not just for the 
wealthy; that is for anybody who drives a car. I have four kids, all of 
whom are driving and paying that 4.3 cents a gallon. It is not 
inexpensive. It makes a difference.
  My point being, President Clinton's tax increase hit all American 
families. He increased taxes on couples who receive Social Security. 
Their Social Security used to be taxed at 50 percent. He increased it 
to 85 percent, a big hit for individuals who had incomes above $34,000. 
A big tax increase.
  I remember listening to my father-in-law, who was adversely affected 
by this. It cost him well over $1,000 a year. Thank you very much, 
President Clinton. He did not ask for that with his vote, and he was 
not told during the campaign that he was going to have a big tax 
increase, and certainly he was middle-income America.
  My point being, President Clinton, instead of reducing the tax burden 
on American families, has increased the tax burden. Now today total tax 
receipts will hit a record 19.4 percent of the gross domestic product, 
the highest level of taxation since 1982. Ronald Reagan brought it 
down. His tax cuts did not go into effect really until 1983. So now we 
have taxes going up because of President Clinton, because of his tax 
increase.
  A lot of us believe President Clinton was right in Houston when he 
said, ``You know, I think I raised taxes too much,'' or ``You might be 
surprised to find I agree with you, I think I raised taxes too much.'' 
A lot of us agreed with him, and so we wanted to help correct that.
  Last year, we did pass a balanced budget package that not only 
balanced the budget but offered modest tax relief for American 
families. We delivered on our promise. We said, ``We're going to give 
tax relief to children. We're going to give a $500 tax credit for 
families with children under the age of 18.''

  President Clinton said he was going to do the same thing in 1992, but 
he did not deliver. In his proposal before Congress, he said, ``I have 
a children's tax credit too,'' but what he does not tell people is the 
children only get the tax credit if they are up to age 12, not if they 
are 13, 14, 15, 16. I hate to tell the President this, but they cost a 
lot of money at those ages, too. As a matter of fact, it is at those 
ages that you may start getting ready for college.
  The Republican budget allowed individuals, if they have kids, to save 
$500 per child, and the families get to keep it. So the families get to 
make decisions on education. If the families want to, they can take the 
$500 and put it into a savings account to save for that child's 
education. President Clinton vetoed it.
  President Clinton vetoed a tax bill that would have helped the 
economy. We would have reduced the tax on capital gains, because we 
know that not only will that raise more money for the Federal 
Government, but it will help stimulate the economy. The capital gains 
tax is really a tax on a capital transaction. If it is reduced--and the 
United States has one of the highest taxes on capital gains of any of 
the industrialized countries--if we reduce it, we are going to have 
more transactions, more capital moving throughout the economy, more 
capital going where it can be used most efficiently, most effectively 
and it will help stimulate the economy.
  President Kennedy did that in the early sixties, and it helped. It 
raised more money. President Kennedy was right when he said a rising 
tide will lift all boats, and the Republican majority wanted to do 
that. But President Clinton vetoed it, and he was wrong in vetoing it.
  Congress passed a reduction in the inheritance tax for farmers and 
family business owners, and others, so they could keep more of their 
hard-earned money, so they would not have to sell their estate to pay 
an inheritance tax, a very positive provision, supported overwhelmingly 
by this Congress.

[[Page S4708]]

 President Clinton vetoed it, and he was wrong in doing so.
  Congress passed enhanced IRA's, individual retirement accounts, so we 
could encourage people to save. We would use the Tax Code to help 
people start saving for their retirement: ``Don't depend solely on 
Social Security; don't depend solely on a company retirement account; 
save for your retirement.'' We enhanced that.
  We doubled, basically, the income at which people would be eligible 
to receive a tax deduction for their IRA contribution. This was really 
a family benefit, and it was really a family benefit for middle-income 
workers. The benefit right now applies to people with incomes of about 
some $20,000. We doubled that amount. It would not help the very 
wealthy, but it certainly would have helped the hard-working wage 
earner who wanted to start saving more, and we do not save near enough 
in this country.
  Congress passed medical savings accounts, because we recognized that 
a lot of people do not get benefits from the Tax Code to encourage 
health care, and medical savings accounts would have allowed 
individuals the opportunity to put in some before-tax dollars to help 
pay for health care costs.
  If you work for a big corporation, you do not need it because maybe 
the big corporation pays for all your health care and the individual 
gets it tax free.
  Congress helped the self-employed. We increased the self-employed 
deduction from 30 to 50 percent. Recently, we just passed legislation 
to increase that to 80 percent.
  But under our bill, we had medical savings accounts that also would 
have helped the individual who does not work. They need some help too. 
This would have helped them pay for their health care. It was good 
policy. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it.
  Congress passed a provision that would have phased out and eliminated 
the so-called marriage penalty, where right now it is financially to a 
couple's detriment, if you have two wage earners, to file a joint 
return, to file as a married couple. It makes no sense. It is wrong. It 
is inequitable. The Tax Code should not be encouraging divorce or 
separate filings. Congress phased the penalty out. Unfortunately, the 
President vetoed it.
  Congress passed spousal IRA's, recognizing that spouses work, whether 
it is at a job or at home--we know that they are working. So we had 
spousal IRA's so the spouse could also accumulate some money and 
savings in their own name, a very positive provision that would have 
helped a lot of people all across the country. Unfortunately, President 
Clinton vetoed it. Well, he was wrong in vetoing that.
  Mr. President, taxes are too high. Government does spend too much 
money. People should not have to work 34.8 percent of their time for 
government. So we do need tax relief. We need to balance the budget.

  Some people say, those are in contrary positions to each other. I do 
not think so. Certainly not. If you take a position that we have to 
balance the budget before we have any tax cuts you will never pass any 
tax cuts because people in this Congress will keep spending more money. 
There is no limit to the appetite of some people in Congress and this 
administration for spending money. You are a lot more popular spending 
money than you are taking it away.
  So I do not agree with that philosophy--and I am probably as frugal 
or as fiscally conservative as anybody--but I think we should give tax 
relief and balance the budget and do it simultaneously. Let us balance 
the budget. Let us limit the revenue of the Government. Let us pass a 
constitutional amendment that says you cannot spend any more than you 
take in. That makes sense. That is what most Americans do.
  The House passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment last 
year. The Senate came one vote short. I hope that soon, maybe this 
week, we will again be considering a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. I hope some of my colleagues who voted against that 
balanced budget amendment will reconsider. Some of our colleagues on 
the Democrat side of the aisle said, ``Well, I'm not going to vote for 
the balanced budget amendment until I see a real balanced budget 
plan.'' I think we ought to do it anyway. We did it anyway in Congress, 
but unfortunately the President vetoed it. I hope now they realize it 
can be done.
  I have heard President Clinton now say that he supports a balanced 
budget. I hope that my colleagues on the Democrat side, most all of 
whom voted against a balanced budget amendment, will reconsider. I want 
to compliment Senator Simon, and others, who are working to try and 
make that happen. It has to be a bipartisan vote to make it happen. We 
have to have 67 votes. I hope my colleagues realize the gravity of the 
situation. We cannot continue to pile up debt after debt.
  We passed entitlement reform last year, but the President vetoed it. 
I think he was wrong in doing so. I am afraid it is going to take a 
constitutional mandate to tell us we cannot spend any more than we take 
in and that we have sound fiscal policies in this country. I think at 
the same time, we need to be cognizant of the fact that taxpayers are 
taking it on the chin.
  Taxpayers need relief. Taxpayers are kind of bothered by the fact 
that they have to work over a third of the time, an average American 
family has to work over a third of the year for Government; not for 
themselves, not for their family and not for their family's future, but 
for Uncle Sam and for State government and for local government. We 
need to reverse that.
  Mr. President, I am going to put a couple of tables into the Record 
because I think a lot of times people are not aware of how fast 
Government spending and taxation is growing. One of them that I am 
going to allude to maybe surprises people, but it deals with payroll 
taxes. Payroll taxes have been skyrocketing.
  I heard some people say maybe it should be exempt from the 
constitutional amendment or maybe we should not count Social Security 
or Medicare because those are trust funds. Mr. President, those 
programs are funded by payroll taxes. If you work, and you get your W-
2, you find Uncle Sam takes out individual income taxes, and he also 
takes out payroll taxes for Social Security and for Medicare's hospital 
fund.
  Mr. President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield another 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to just look at the growth in these 
taxes. The payroll taxes alone have just exploded. If I put in the 
maximum total contribution under payroll taxes, in 1960 that total for 
Social Security--this includes hospital or Medicare taxes--the maximum 
tax that anybody put in 1960 was $144. Keep in mind, the system started 
quite a bit earlier, but the maximum tax was $144.

  In 1970, the maximum tax was $374. This is just for the employee. The 
employer has to match this. In 1980, it really increased substantially 
and went from $374 in 1970 to $1,588 in 1980. Wow, it went up about 
four, five times. Between 1980 and 1990 it went from $1,588 to almost 
$4,000--$3,924. Keep in mind, your employer is matching that. So for an 
individual--that is maximum; in that case somebody was making $135,000, 
I think--they were paying almost $4,000 and the employer was paying 
almost $4,000. That is $8,000, a big increase.
  It continues to explode. By the year 2000, for that person still 
making $135,000 it goes up to $6,496, almost $6,500, with a total cost 
of $13,000 put in for a person to pay these Social Security taxes. My 
point being, this is just a payroll tax. But this tables shows, if you 
look at it on a curve, that Social Security taxes have gone up 
tremendously. The same thing for Medicare taxes, they just exploded. 
Yet, the Medicare fund is still going broke. Yet, Social Security still 
has a real funding problem. In the year 2013 it is estimated to pay out 
more than it takes in.
  So my point is, Mr. President, some people want to ignore payroll 
taxes. I disagree. Ask any wage earner--ask my son; ask my daughter--
who are paying these taxes. These taxes are high and they are getting 
higher. That means people have to work longer before they can take 
enough home to take care of their needs and their family and their 
future.
  So, Mr. President, I think we have to be cognizant of the American 
working

[[Page S4709]]

family. I am very critical of President Clinton for vetoing our tax 
reduction effort and for pushing through the largest tax increase in 
history. He is responsible for the fact that a lot of people have to 
work a lot longer for Government instead of themselves. We need to 
reverse that. I hope that Congress this year, soon, will pass tax 
reduction for American families. I thank my colleague from Georgia and 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator ask unanimous consent to have 
material printed in the Record?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a couple 
of charts printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, follows:

              PAYROLL TAX DATA FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum annual contribution--
                                         -------------------------------
                                           Total   OASI     DI      HI  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950....................................      30      30     n/a     n/a
1951....................................      54      54     n/a     n/a
1952....................................      54      54     n/a     n/a
1953....................................      54      54     n/a     n/a
1954....................................      72      72     n/a     n/a
1955....................................      84      84     n/a     n/a
1956....................................      84      84     n/a     n/a
1957....................................      95      84      11     n/a
1958....................................      95      84      11     n/a
1959....................................     120     108      12     n/a
1960....................................     144     132      12     n/a
1961....................................     144     132      12     n/a
1962....................................     150     138      12     n/a
1963....................................     174     162      12     n/a
1964....................................     174     162      12     n/a
1965....................................     174     162      12     n/a
1966....................................     277     231      23      23
1967....................................     290     234      23      33
1968....................................     343     259      37      47
1969....................................     374     291      37      47
1970....................................     374     285      43      47
1971....................................     406     316      43      47
1972....................................     468     365      50      54
1973....................................     632     464      59     108
1974....................................     772     578      76     119
1975....................................     825     617      81     127
1976....................................     895     669      88     138
1977....................................     965     722      95     149
1978....................................   1,071     757     137     177
1979....................................   1,404     992     172     240
1980....................................   1,588   1,171     145     272
1981....................................   1,975   1,396     193     386
1982....................................   2,171   1,482     267     421
1983....................................   2,392   1,705     223     464
1984....................................   2,646   1,966     189     491
1985....................................   2,792   2,059     198     535
1986....................................   3,003   2,184     210     609
1987....................................   3,132   2,278     219     635
1988....................................   3,380   2,489     239     653
1989....................................   3,605   2,654     254     696
1990....................................   3,924   2,873     308     744
1991....................................   5,123   2,990     320   1,813
1992....................................   5,329   3,108     333   1,888
1993....................................   5,529   3,226     346   1,958
1994 \1\................................   5,715   3,394     364   1,958
1995 \1\................................   5,752   3,427     367   1,958
1996 \1\................................   5,864   3,528     378   1,958
1997 \1\................................   5,975   3,629     389   1,958
1998 \1\................................   6,143   3,780     405   1,958
1999 \1\................................   6,310   3,931     421   1,958
2000 \1\................................   6,496   4,019     520   1,958
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HI wage base cap was eliminated in 1993, but this table assumes it  
  was continued at $135,000.                                            
                                                                        
Source: Social Security Administration.                                 


                                  PAYROLL TAX DATA FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       OASDI          HI                     Tax rates (percent)--              
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Wage base    Wage base      Total         OASI          DI           HI    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950..............................        3,000          n/a        1.000        1.000          n/a          n/a
1951..............................        3,600          n/a        1.500        1.500          n/a          n/a
1952..............................        3,600          n/a        1.500        1.500          n/a          n/a
1953..............................        3,600          n/a        1.500        1.500          n/a          n/a
1954..............................        3,600          n/a        2.000        2.000          n/a          n/a
1955..............................        4,200          n/a        2.000        2.000          n/a          n/a
1956..............................        4,200          n/a        2.000        2.000          n/a          n/a
1957..............................        4,200          n/a        2.250        2.000          n/a          n/a
1958..............................        4,200          n/a        2.250        2.000         .250          n/a
1959..............................        4,800          n/a        2.500        2.250         .250          n/a
1960..............................        4,800          n/a        3.000        2.750         .250          n/a
1961..............................        4,800          n/a        3.000        2.750         .250          n/a
1962..............................        4,800          n/a        3.125        2.875         .250          n/a
1963..............................        4,800          n/a        3.625        3.375         .250          n/a
1964..............................        4,800          n/a        3.625        3.375         .250          n/a
1965..............................        4,800          n/a        3.625        3.375         .250          n/a
1966..............................        6,600        6,600        4.200        3.500         .350        0.350
1967..............................        6,600        6,600        4,400        3.550         .350         .500
1968..............................        7,800        7,800        4.400        3.325         .475         .600
1969..............................        7,800        7,800        4.800        3,725         .475         .600
1970..............................        7,800        7,800        4.800        3.650         .550         .600
1971..............................        7,800        7,800        5.200        4.050         .550         .600
1972..............................        9,000        9,000        5.200        4.050         .550         .600
1973..............................       10,800       10,800        5.850        4.300         .550        1.000
1974..............................       13,200       13,200        5.850        4.375         .575         .900
1975..............................       14,100       14,100        5.850        4.375         .575         .900
1976..............................       15,300       15,300        5.850        4.375         .575         .900
1977..............................       16,500       16,500        5.850        4.375         .575         .900
1978..............................       17,700       17,700        6.050        4.275         .775        1.000
1979..............................       22,900       22,900        6.130        4.330         .750        1.050
1980..............................       25,900       25,900        6.130        4.520         .560        1.050
1981..............................       29,700       29,700        6.650        4.700         .650        1.300
1982..............................       32,400       32,400        6.700        4.575         .825        1.300
1983..............................       35,700       35,700        6.700        4.775         .625        1.300
1984..............................       37,800       37,800        7.000        5.200         .500        1.300
1985..............................       39,600       39,600        7.050        5.200         .500        1.350
1986..............................       42,000       42,000        7.150        5.200         .500        1.450
1987..............................       43,800       43,800        7.150        5.200         .500        1.450
1988..............................       45,000       45,000        7.510        5.530         .530        1.450
1989..............................       48,000       48,000        7.510        5.530         .530        1.450
1990..............................       51,300       51,300        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1991..............................       53,400      125,000        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1992..............................       55,500      130,200        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1993..............................       57,600      135,000        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1994..............................       60,600     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1995..............................       61,200     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1996..............................       63,000     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1997..............................       64,800     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1998..............................       67,500     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
1999..............................       70,200     no limit        7.650        5.600         .600        1.450
2000..............................       73,200     no limit        7.650        5.490         .710        1.450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Social Security Administration.                                                                         


  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
his remarks and his expertise on this subject. He made a very, very 
eloquent statement on the burden of taxation.
  At this time I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, tomorrow is tax freedom day. It is an artificial 
calculation, but it serves to focus our attention on how much of the 
time we spend working as a Nation to pay our taxes, because on the 7th 
of May, finally, if we had paid everything we had earned to the Federal 
Government, we could begin taking something home.
  As I say, that is an artificial calculation. We do it because it 
focuses our attention on one question. This is the fundamental question 
when you address the whole issue of taxes. Whom do you trust to spend 
your money? Do you trust the people in Washington? Do you trust the 
Federal Government to spend your money more wisely than you can or do 
you decide in a free society that you want to hang on to more of it to 
spend for yourself?
  Obviously, we have to trust the Federal Government to spend some of 
our

[[Page S4710]]

money. There are some things the Federal Government does that we cannot 
do for ourselves.
  The most obvious example that I can think of is the Interstate 
Highway System. We could not go out as individuals and contract to 
build the roads, to make the plans, to lay out the routes. All of those 
things are appropriate activity of the Federal Government.
  When the Interstate Highway System was first proposed back in Dwight 
Eisenhower's time it was a Member of this body, Senator Harry Byrd of 
Virginia, who made the decision that we would not pay for the 
interstate highway system with debt. He said, we will pay as we go, and 
that was the beginning of Federal gasoline taxes going into the 
national highway trust fund to pay for the Interstate Highway System. 
And it worked.
  We trusted the Federal Government to spend our money more wisely on 
highways than if we had spent it ourselves. We gave the Federal 
Government that money, and the Interstate Highway System was created. I 
find it interesting, Mr. President, to know that now the tax increase 
that was pushed through by President Clinton 2\1/2\ years ago is a tax 
on gasoline that does not get spent on our roads or on the interstate 
highways. President Clinton is spending that money for something else.
  I am supporting the repeal of the increase in the gas tax because I 
think in this area I trust myself more than I trust the Government to 
spend those extra few cents on gas. If I could be sure the Government 
was going to spend it on roads, I would not be so anxious to be for 
repeal of the gas tax. But we have broken away from that concept that 
was established here in this Chamber by a Member of this body that said 
the money that gets paid for gasoline taxes, gets spent on roads and 
highways and bridges.
  President Clinton has broken that link and said, ``No. Let's tax 
gasoline, but let's trust the Federal Government more than we trust the 
individuals on the issue of how that should be spent.''
  Now, we have heard in this debate the whole discussion of tax rates 
going up. The justification for tax rates going up is that we need more 
tax revenue in order to pay down the deficit. That sounds fine, Mr. 
President, but as Members of this body know--I come from a business 
background and was a businessman until I ran for the Senate, and I 
discovered very quickly what every businessman knows--raising prices 
does not mean increased sales. Raising tax rates does not mean 
increased tax revenue.
  We have all seen the example where Ford Motor has brought out a new 
version of its best-selling automobile, the Ford Taurus. The Ford 
designers were so enthusiastic about how beautiful the Taurus was that 
they raised the price on the Taurus. It stayed at that higher level for 
something like 3 weeks when they discovered that people were not 
willing to pay the higher price. What did they do to get sales moving? 
They lowered the price. Lo and behold, when they lowered the price, 
sales started going up. That is exactly the same principle that applies 
to the Federal Government. If you lower the tax, we can see revenues 
begin to go up.
  Let me be personal about this, Mr. President. During the 1980's, I 
was CEO of a company that started out literally in a basement in a 
suburban town in Utah. It had four employees. Today that company is 
listed on the New York Stock Exchange and has a market value 
approaching three quarters of a billion dollars. It has 2,700 
employees. We built that business at a time when our effective tax rate 
was 28 percent. That meant we were able to make our choices as to how 
the money would be spent in buying inventory, building buildings, 
hiring new people, instead of having the Federal Government make the 
choices as to how that money would be spent.
  Today if we were to start that business again, the effective rate on 
the money we would earn would not be 28 percent as it was in the 
1980's, it would be 42 percent--a 50-percent increase. I say, Mr. 
President, we would not have created those 2,700 jobs if we had been 
facing a 42-percent effective tax rate.
  Now, a study has been done on the impact of the tax increase that 
President Clinton gave us in 1993. President Clinton talks about all 
the new jobs that have been created since he has been President. 
According to the study by the Heritage Foundation, that number would be 
1.2 million higher than it is if President Clinton had not given us 
that tax increase. Yes, we have had some increased jobs because we were 
coming out of a recession. We would have 1.2 million more. From my 
personal experience, the difference between paying 26 percent and 42 
percent can account for that.

  What it boils down to is this, Mr. President: Americans all want to 
earn more, and they want to keep more of what they earn so that they 
can do more with that money they are allowed to keep. In my own 
personal experience, I saw that happen. We earned more as our business 
was successful. We were able to keep more because we had a lower tax 
rate, and we were able to do more, reflected in those 2,700 jobs that 
we created.
  Every one of the people that holds one of those jobs, Mr. President, 
pays taxes. Every one of them is adding to the revenue of the Federal 
Government by virtue of what we did creating that business. The Federal 
Government was a winner all across the board when they allowed us to 
earn more and then keep more that we earned so we could go out and do 
more in creating those additional jobs.
  It comes down, again, Mr. President, to the fundamental question that 
I asked at the beginning. When you address the question of tax freedom 
day, you are asking this fundamental issue: Whom do you trust to spend 
your money? Do you trust the bureaucrats? Do you trust the regulators? 
Do you trust the planners in Washington? Or do you trust individual 
Americans all over this country, taking their money and making the 
decisions as to where it will be invested, where it will be channeled, 
where it will be spent, in a way to build the economy?
  I, for one, Mr. President, think that government does many good 
things. I think I can trust the Federal Government with a good chunk of 
my money to do things like build roads and bridges, defend the country, 
and take care of the other challenges that we have as a nation. But 
when it comes to making the fundamental economic decisions as to what 
will make this country grow, I trust individual Americans more than I 
trust the planners in Washington.
  For that reason, I am hoping that we can move the date back toward 
the 1st of January when Americans can say, ``I have stopped working for 
the government and now I am working for the growth of this country as a 
whole.''
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
remarks from a business perspective on these economic issues. I yield 
up to 10 minutes to my good colleague from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to talk about 
the tax burden on American families, especially because tomorrow is a 
red-letter day. Tomorrow we call national tax freedom day because 
tomorrow is the day that Americans stop working for the government and 
start working for their families. They will pay their taxes tomorrow, 
and all of the work they have done between January 1 and May 7 will be 
money that goes to the Federal, State, or local government. That is 
about 40 cents of every dollar earned by the American family. To put it 
another way, 3 hours of every working day goes to pay Federal, State, 
and local taxes.

  For most American families, making ends meet is getting harder and 
harder. After paying the basics--food, clothing, shelter, and taxes--
there is not much left. With ever-higher costs for education, for 
health insurance, and for retirement, most people have to work today. 
Many families would like to have mom or dad at home taking care of 
children, being home when they get home from school, but they cannot 
afford it because they have to do the extra things to get the extras 
beyond the taxes, the food, and the shelter.
  President Clinton has not eased the burden on working families. He 
raised taxes on seniors who depend on Social Security, on the self-
employed, and on everyone who drives a car. His tax increases in 1993 
and the resulting slower economic growth has cost Americans $227 a 
month in earnings.
  Last year, the Republican Congress tried to do something unusual for 
families. We tried to let them keep their

[[Page S4711]]

own money. We believe that with lower taxes, Americans will earn more 
and they will most certainly keep the money they worked so hard to 
earn.
  The Republican Congress did the following things. We cut taxes for 
families with children by providing a $500-per-child tax credit to help 
parents raise their children and to offset the erosion of personal 
exemption from inflation. With this tax cut, 28 million families would 
pay fewer taxes. In my home State of Texas, 2 million families would 
pay fewer taxes under the bill we passed last year.
  We encouraged families in that bill to save for retirement, with my 
homemaker IRA proposal that I have been working for 2 years to get put 
forward, and other expanded individual retirement accounts. This 
Congress believes in the expansion of IRA's because that is people 
taking responsibility for their own retirement. It is our encouragement 
for them to do so.
  I want the homemakers of this country, Mr. President, to also have 
the ability for their retirement security because I believe the work 
done inside the home is every bit as important, and probably more so, 
than the work done outside the home. We should not penalize the hard-
working family that has the ability for the mother to stay home and 
raise the children or the family, if that is the choice. Many people 
stretch to make that happen. The current Tax Code prevents married 
couples who rely on the one income from equitably providing for their 
retirement security by limiting homemaker deductions to $250.

  I think it is an outrage in this country. In fact, here is what the 
numbers show. If you work outside the home, you can set aside $2,000 a 
year. If you work inside the home, you set aside $250 a year.
  What this means is that under current law, a single-income married 
couple saving $2,250 a year for 30 years will have $188,000 for their 
retirement nest egg. With the bill we passed in Congress so that both 
spouses are able to set aside $2,000 a year, after 30 years they would 
have a nest egg of $335,000--$335,000, an increase in $150,000 for that 
working family.
  We also helped families by permitting tax-deferred savings in an IRA 
for education costs, for medical expenses, for first-time home 
purchases, and allowing penalty-free withdrawals during times of 
unemployment. That encourages savings, and it also helps people with 
emergency needs that they may have so that they know, if they do set 
aside for their retirement security but they need a little bit extra to 
educate their children, or if they become unemployed, or if they have a 
bigger medical expense than they can afford, or to buy their first 
home, they can take from that tax-free income that has built up without 
the huge penalty that discourages them from providing for their 
retirement.
  That is what we do in the bill that we passed. And we stopped 
penalizing young couples for getting married. We increased the standard 
deduction for married couples filing jointly. In other words, by the 
year 2005, under the bill we passed, the marriage penalty would be 
eliminated for couples that do not itemize their deductions.
  So we encouraged marriage and family rather than discouraging it by 
saying you are going to pay more if you get married than you would have 
to pay if you stay single.
  We cut capital gains taxes to encourage and reward investment. We 
wanted to create new businesses that create new jobs because we 
understand that the small businesses create the jobs in this country. 
It is not the giant corporations; it is the small businesses. A capital 
gains tax reduction helps them to be able to buy that piece of 
equipment or make that capital investment that will create the jobs 
that will get this economy going again.
  We cut estate taxes. We cut estate taxes so that years of hard work 
would not be wiped out in a generation so that a family that inherits a 
small family business or a small family farm will not have to sell 
these unreadily salable assets in order to pay taxes to the Government.

  Our tax cuts would reduce the tax burden on the people who actually 
pay taxes, Mr. President. More than three-quarters of the cuts in the 
first year in the bill we passed go to the middle class making under 
$75,000 a year.
  Who are those people? They are mothers and fathers who will get help 
raising their children with a $500 child tax credit.
  They are homemakers who will get the opportunity to contribute the 
maximum amount to an IRA for retirement security so that, if the 
homemaker loses her spouse, she will be able to have something that is 
her own, that will help her in her retirement years.
  They are married couples who will have the Tax Code's marriage 
penalty reduced.
  They are savers who are trying to buy a first home or pay for college 
for their kids.
  They are small business owners who have spent their lives building a 
business and want to pass it to their children without the huge taxes 
that sometimes require the sale of that small business by the heirs 
because they do not have the cash to pay taxes.
  They are investors who provide the capital to start businesses and 
create jobs.
  Our tax cuts helped all Americans. It would put more money in 
people's pockets, and it would increase jobs. Together with a balanced 
budget, it would lower interest rates and increase the standard of 
living for millions of Americans.
  So why do I keep talking about what the proposals would have done? I 
talk about it as if it did not happen because it did not happen. 
Congress passed everything I have talked about, and President Clinton 
vetoed it. That is why I am still talking about it.
  After running for President in 1992 on a middle-class tax cut, in 
1993 President Clinton raised taxes on middle-class Americans while he 
claimed to only hit the rich. His taxes took what could have been a 
robust recovery and made it a weak, lackluster recovery.
  The economic reports came out last week, and they said the economy is 
getting better. I cannot remember a time when the economic reports were 
coming out saying things were better when people do not feel it. If you 
ask someone what their major concern is, they say job security. That is 
what they say. I do not care what the numbers are showing. It is what 
is in somebody's gut. They do not feel secure because they sense more 
taxes, more regulation, and more encroachment on their freedom and 
independence. They know things are not the way they used to be.

  So why, Mr. President, do people not feel so good when all the 
numbers say things are getting better? Big government. Big government. 
Big government is costing jobs for the American people.
  A report from the Rochester Institute of Technology estimates the 
direct cost of complying with Federal regulations to be about $668 
billion in 1995.
  The bottom line is, Mr. President, tomorrow Americans are going to 
stop working full time to pay taxes. But we have not even talked about 
the hidden cost of regulations. They are going to work until July 3 to 
finish their obligation for all of the cost of government--regulations, 
as well as taxes.
  So, hopefully, on July 3, we can talk about the cost of government. 
But today we are just talking about the cost of taxes.
  I do not think that Americans in general object to taxes. In fact, 
the Reader's Digest poll taken recently shows that Americans believe 
they should pay taxes to live in this great country for what this 
country gives them back in services and freedom. But, Mr. President, 
they believe about 25 percent for a family of four is the maximum that 
government should take from them. They believe they should be able to 
keep 75 percent of what they work every day to earn. In fact, however, 
they are paying about 40 percent.
  We are working every day in Congress to bring that number down. If we 
could just get the President to work with us instead of just talking 
about it, we could make a difference for the American family. We could 
put government in the role that it should have, and we could give the 
people of this country their buying power back. They work for this 
country. They work for their families. We want them to keep what they 
earn.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for her 
remarks on the economic aspect of taxes on the American family.
  I now yield up to 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

[[Page S4712]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas just gave a very 
good explanation of what was in the bill that the President vetoed. I 
think it is a good exercise once in a while to remind ourselves and the 
public--because the public is cynical about whether or not we ever kept 
our commitments of the last 15 years to pass a balanced budget--that we 
passed a bill, a 1,800-page bill. This balanced budget legislation was 
the product of 8 months of work by 13 different committees in this body 
to balance the budget; not only balance the budget but to help lower 
mortgage interest rates down by $2,300 a year, student loan interest 
rates by $603 a year, and interest rates on a car loan by $150 a year. 
You can go on and on about the benefits of balancing the budget by 
reducing the interest rates by 2 percent, according to Greenspan, but 
Congress also offered all of the things that the Senator from Texas 
referred to--IRA's for homemakers, expanding IRA's for everybody, a 
$1,000 tax cut for a family of four, and estate tax reductions, and 
welfare reform that turns welfare over from the Federal bureaucracy to 
the States to administer because the States are doing a better job of 
it than we are in Washington, saving the taxpayers $58 billion, and 
saving Medicare from bankruptcy in 6 years. Medicare is going to be 
bankrupt in 6 years. We knew that a year ago. That is why we addressed 
the issue in this bill. This is the bill that President Clinton vetoed. 
It has been referred to by Senator Nickles and Senator Hutchison. I 
think we ought to think of this as a document that people do not think 
we passed because the President is on TV saying he is for balancing the 
budget and making some citizens ask: Where are the Republicans?

  Well, where was the President last year when we were balancing the 
budget? Now, I will tell you that he was passing the buck. We do not 
want to pass the buck. We just want to get down and get the job done 
again.
  Part of the issue that we are dealing with today, as everybody has 
been hearing, is that we are recognizing tomorrow as national tax 
freedom day. It is a sad commentary that we are to May 7 before people 
are done paying their taxes and can start working for themselves and 
their families. But also it is beneficial to remind people that this is 
a day when they can start working for themselves, if they are average 
Americans, because I think most people feel that Congress is so 
irresponsible that average Americans never get done paying taxes. But 
we have tax freedom day to bring people's attention to the fact that an 
annual point arrives where our people stop toiling away to fund big 
Government and begin toiling away to fund their families and their ways 
of life.
  I am happy to say that in my State of Iowa, our citizens are slight 
winners in this year's tax freedom day lottery. For the people of my 
State, tax freedom day was Saturday, May 4, instead of tomorrow, May 7. 
As you can imagine, the people in my State find this 3-day victory to 
be somewhat shallow in comparison to what others, including the Federal 
Government, expect of them. The fact that we have 3 days more of tax 
freedom than most people, I suppose, is a tribute to Iowa officials 
being more fiscally responsible on State and local spending than we are 
at the Federal level as opposed to other States. For Iowans, it took 
125 days this year, including weekends, to make it to this mock Federal 
holiday. For the first 18 weeks of 1996, working Iowans gave up their 
hard-earned money to fund Federal, State and local coffers. Finally, on 
May 4, Iowans began to keep what they might earn for the remainder of 
1996. They only now begin to work to pay for the things that they must 
to do and what their families want to do and what they have a 
responsibility to do.
  If you remember back to the 1992 Presidential campaign, Vice 
President Gore traveled the country giving his now famous economic 
speech in which he said:

       Everything that should be up is down, and everything that 
     should be down is up.

  I think this theme can also be applied to President Clinton's 
budgetary policy.
  Common sense tells us that when things go up, something else comes 
down. So when the Government's budget for spending grows, obviously, 
the family budget shrinks. Another way to describe this bloated 
economic policy is by means of the Washington tax-and-spend syndrome. 
Some folks in Washington fail to understand that most Americans are not 
satisfied with the way their tax dollars are spent. Again, I should 
like to remind my tax-and-spend colleagues that money does not grow on 
trees.
  Unlike the retail and service sectors of our private economy, the 
dissatisfied taxpayer, in dealing with the Federal Government, cannot 
demand a Government refund for poor services rendered. Many Americans 
feel shortchanged for helping to support programs that they do not 
believe in or use. When it comes to spending money on families, the 
choice should belong to taxpayers, not to the Federal bureaucrats.
  Washington deficit spending is the public's greatest outrage of all. 
Taxpayers want to know why the Federal Government has spent more money 
than it has collected for each of the last 27 years. Ending this trend 
of 27 years of spending more than we take in is what balancing the 
budget last year was all about--the budget that the President vetoed. 
Because unlike the Federal Government, working families live on limited 
budgets and balance a checkbook. Not the Federal Government. But those 
same working families expect the same of Uncle Sam, to balance the 
checkbook and to be in the business of life and operating profitably.

  Because Iowans are economically conservative by nature, most of my 
citizens are outraged by the fact that Washington cannot get its fiscal 
house in order. The willingness to pay their share of Government 
services becomes harder to swallow when wasteful and inefficient 
Government programs continue to expand.
  I should like to give you an example that I had something to do with 
bringing to the public's attention last year. Consider the estimated 
$200,000 expense for a flight from Naples, Italy, to Colorado Springs, 
CO, U.S.A., last year by an Air Force general. About 36 taxpaying 
families in Iowa worked all of last year just to pay for General Ashy, 
an aide, and his cat to jet nonstop across the Atlantic with two 
inflight refuelings. He could have taken a commercial airline flight 
for $1,500.
  This disconnect between elected officials and the public will 
continue to widen if Washington clings to the fiscally irresponsible 
status quo. Last fall, Republicans made many tough decisions in order 
to pass the first Balanced Budget Act since 1969.
  And again, I do not think we can hold this up too often to say, 
``Here it is. We passed it.'' One person stands in the way of this 
being law or not, and that is the President of the United States, Bill 
Clinton, because he vetoed it.
  When the smoke from last year's budget battle cleared, it was obvious 
that no one won. We passed it, but we did not win. The President vetoed 
it, and you might say he won the public relations battle because he is 
on television having everybody believe that he thought of the balanced 
budget. It was 6 months past the last election when we won an election 
on a promise to balance the budget that the President said, ``Well, I 
am for a balanced budget, but we will do it in 10 years.'' It has only 
been since January 13 that he came around to doing it in 7 years as we 
are doing it with this legislation that he vetoed.
  The President still leaves about 87 percent of his expenditures to be 
made in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. That is a long way off and is 
difficult to plan for.
  The American people do not have a balanced budget, so I still have to 
say even though we passed it, the public has not won yet. In fact, they 
are losing every day that we do not balance it for next year. More 
importantly, faith in Government suffers yet another setback.
  As the Senator from Texas said, we have to work to restore the $500-
per-child tax credit. In addition, we are going to repeal Clinton's 
1993 gas tax, and we are going to do that because the President ran on 
a platform in 1992 in which he stated so often that an increase in the 
gas tax is sticking it to the low- and middle-income working people of 
America and the retirees. The President said that he is not for doing

[[Page S4713]]

that, and yet he did it within 6 months. We voted against it, so 
obviously we are still sticking by our convictions not to be for the 
President's gas tax increase because it is regressive. We have a chance 
now with high gasoline prices to make the point and to repeal something 
the President said in 1992 he was not going to do anyway. So that is 
why we are doing it. But we are also in the process of trying to free 
working poor and middle-income families from excessive tax burdens.
  So Iowans, the people of my State, marked tax freedom day on May 4, 
1996, and the rest of the country tomorrow, May 7.
  During this period, and especially today, I believe it is the duty of 
the President to agree with Congress to cut spending and to provide tax 
relief so that Iowans, and their friends in every other State in the 
Union, can commemorate this day earlier next year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, the Senator 
from Iowa. He reminds me of what I said in my opening remarks when I 
was rebutting the statement by the Senator from Virginia, who thought 
the courageous thing to do was to keep the gas tax in place. And he 
reminds us that the President himself came to the American people in 
1992 and said, as you just heard from the Senator from Iowa, that a gas 
tax is not the thing to do and it is particularly harmful to people 
with low income, the middle class, and seniors. That whole episode is 
interesting to me because it was such a center point of the President's 
campaign, that he would lower taxes on America's middle class. The bags 
were not unpacked before that promise was forgotten. Then, by August 
1993, as the Senator from Iowa has alluded to, we were confronted with 
the largest tax increase in American history.
  So you go to the American people and say I am going to lower your 
taxes. Then you come up here and raise them the highest they have ever 
been raised. And no wonder a cynicism begins to set in across the land 
about the way Washington works. The bottom line here is that Americans 
are working 40 to 50-plus percent of a work year for a government. I 
know Thomas Jefferson, if he were here today, would be astounded. If 
you read back through his remarks, time and time again he warns and 
points to the egregious behavior of governments when they consume too 
much of the fruits of labor. He said it throughout his life and 
throughout his working in the founding of the Government. He also 
warned us that governments by their nature do just that. I do not 
believe a single Founder could ever conceive that our Government would 
be a government that sweeps half the earnings away from an American 
family.
  I have spent a good bit of my time talking about this average family 
and what the burden of taxes does to them. I would like to visit on 
this just a little bit more. I often refer to Ozzie and Harriet as the 
quintessential family of the 1950's. When Ozzie and Harriet were 
working in the workplace, Ozzie sent 2 cents out of every dollar he 
earned to Washington. But if he were here today, he would send up to 24 
cents; from 2 cents up to 24 cents out of every dollar of his wages 
being sent to Washington.
  That fact raised several questions in my mind. All of us in the 
country are very concerned, deeply concerned about the behavior of our 
families and the changes that have occurred. It created a deep worry. 
We have heard Senators say here: If you ask parents today if they are 
better off than their parents, they say yes. But for the first time in 
American history if you ask them do you think your children will be 
better off than you, they say no. That is the first time that has ever 
happened in America.

  What has been the force that created this sense of pessimism? My 
argument is that there is no single institution or structure or force 
on the American family that has so profoundly affected the way they 
live and function as has had their government; more than Hollywood, 
more than pop music stars--government. What other force sweeps through 
the family and takes half of everything those bread earners earn?
  When I was a kid I was told the largest single investment I would 
ever make is my home. My guess is the Presiding Officer was told the 
same thing. But that is not true anymore. We have to change the 
rhetoric. We now have to tell America's children the single largest 
investment you will ever make is government. It now surpasses housing; 
your home, clothing, education, and transportation combined. So no 
institution has had a more profound effect on the way the American 
family functions than the government.
  There is a lot of discussion in today's workplace about both parents 
having to work and not, therefore, having the opportunity to spend 
enough time with the family in setting the standards, in monitoring 
what is going on in the family. I would allege that the single greatest 
force in our country that has caused families to have both parents in 
the workplace is the government, too. In fact, I was so curious I 
wanted to know, from 1950--Ozzie and Harriet--to now, the increasing 
number for which both parents work each succeeding year. Then I tracked 
that scale or growth against the increased tax burden. Mr. President, 
you will not be surprised, nor would anybody else, that those two lines 
on a graph track each other almost simultaneously. In other words, 
every year, as the Government added yet another gas tax or raised the 
income tax or some other scheme to get more of the revenue of that 
working family, each time they did that another so many thousands of 
American families were forced to make the decision that both spouses 
had to work.
  In fact, both parents today work on each day longer earning taxes to 
give to the government than they spend with their own family. They are 
now investing more of their workday working to pay off this tax burden 
and the debt and the interest on the debt and all the commensurate 
effects of taxation and regulatory burdens--they are spending more time 
doing that than they are raising their own families. Is there any 
wonder, then, that the behavior of that family is changed? It should 
not be a surprise to any of us.

  If you ask the second spouses today if they are working on their own, 
voluntarily, 85 percent say no. Mr. President, 85 percent would do 
something differently. A third of them would stay home. If they had 
their option, they would stay home. They cannot. They cannot make ends 
meet without both of them being in the workplace. A third of them would 
volunteer, they would like to be in the workplace as volunteers. And 
another third would modify the amount of time that they are in the 
workplace.
  So I wonder, you almost wish that we could cause the Federal 
Government or all governments to put on the tax form: ``This is how 
many days your family has to work to meet this obligation,'' because I 
am convinced that there are not many families who think they are 
working from January 1 to May 7--or, as the Senator from Texas pointed 
out, to July 3, if you add the regulatory burden in--that they work 
until midyear before they have the opportunity to keep one dime for 
themselves, one dime to pay for what they are responsible for 
accomplishing for the country. This is a sad state of affairs and I 
believe all of us need to be engaged in absolutely sound, fundamental 
policy to push that burden back.
  If America were picking the date, they would pick March 1; that they 
would have worked from January 1 to March 1, and that is a fair deal 
between that family and the Government: March 1. But, instead, because 
of all these pressures--I guess courage has been alluded to by the 
Senator from Virginia--they now work until May 7 instead.
  Mr. President, we have just received a white paper from the 
Manufacturing Institute called ``Improving the Economic Condition of 
the American Worker.''
  I would like to read just a small piece of what this report says. It 
is entitled: ``Government Obstacles to Wage Growth and Job Creation.''

       Taxes, particularly payroll taxes, account for much of the 
     slowdown in compensation growth.

  We read every day articles concerning the anxiety in the American 
family from economic pressures in the family. But this report says:

       Taxes, particularly payroll taxes, account for the slowdown 
     in compensation growth.

  It says:


[[Page S4714]]


       Had the relative tax burden remained at the level of 40 
     years ago, today's typical family would have an extra $8,847 
     in disposable income each year.

  Eight-thousand dollars. Now remember, Mr. President, a moment ago I 
said that average family is earning about $40,000 a year. This is the 
equivalent of a 20-percent pay increase, $8,847 in additional income.

       Based on an analysis of Census Bureau figures by the Tax 
     Foundation, the median two-earner family paid about 20 
     percent of its income in 1955. In 1995, taxes took an 
     estimated 37 percent. The change is even more apparent when 
     it comes to payroll taxes which represent the largest tax on 
     many employees. Social Security and Medicare taxes are 45\1/
     2\ times higher today than in 1955.

  These are the reasons Ozzie was only sending 2 cents to Washington 
and today he is sending 24 cents.

       Median income, on the other hand, is only 10 times higher. 
     Companies today are burdened by heavy, nonproduction costs 
     largely created by government--

  Just as we have been saying all afternoon.

       The major ones are government regulations, legal services 
     and taxes. If these costs could be reduced significantly, 
     companies would have more resources available to expand and 
     hire more workers and pay higher wages. The current 
     regulatory system is too costly.

  The Senator from Utah was talking about this very point.
  In my closing minutes, I want to point out that elections have 
consequences. President Clinton's efforts on the economy in 1993 really 
had a major effect on the American family.
  It is important to note that since this administration came to office 
in January 1993, virtually everything they have done has pushed and 
mounted the economic burden on the American family and American 
business. In other words, with all the American people saying, ``We're 
being taxed twice what we should be, we should be free to earn our own 
money on March 1, not May 7,'' but this administration came here and 
has pushed the tax burden higher, blocked regulatory reform by arguing 
against it here on the floor, so the regulatory burden is mounting.

  Since Clinton has been President, regulatory costs to the American 
family have risen about $300 per year. Their taxes have gone up. They 
are working even more for the government than they were when this 
administration came to office, even though this administration said, 
``You will be working less for the government. That's our promise to 
you. You'll work less. It won't be May 7; we're going to go back the 
other way.''
  Wrong. Wrong. That promise was left at the doorstep of the White 
House, Mr. President, and they work more than when this administration 
came to office and they have more regulatory burden today than they had 
then. As we said earlier, the largest tax increase in history--$255 
billion in higher taxes--gas taxes, Social Security taxes, a $31 
billion increase in the gas tax, and, as we have all alluded, that has 
a particularly regressive effect on low-income Americans; less family 
income.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, after-tax median family 
income for a single-earner family has fallen $803 during the Clinton 
Presidency. If real after-tax incomes had grown at the average rate of 
the Reagan expansion, 1983 to 1989, single-earner median family income 
would be $1,274 per year higher.
  People are spending less time at home with their families and more 
time working to pay for big Government. According to the Tax 
Foundation, Americans will spend 2 hours, 47 minutes--3 hours--of each 
working day laboring to pay taxes, and they will work this year until 
tomorrow, May 7, just to pay Federal, State, and local taxes.
  Mr. President, the 1993 budget has cost America dearly. It has cost 
her 1.2 million in additional private sector jobs between 1993 and 
1996; a total of $2,600 in after-tax income for every household in 
America between 1993 and the end of 1996; roughly $465 in wages and 
salaries in 1996 alone. The list goes on.
  The point we are making is that American families work too long for 
the government and not enough for themselves, and this administration 
has made that situation worse, not better. They promised to make it 
better. They did not. Worse yet, they made it worse.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am sure there will be more conversations 
today, as there should, about the fact that this is tax freedom day. 
This is the day that has been determined that each of us on the average 
has worked since the first of the year until now to pay our taxes to 
this country.
  A typical family of four pays 38.2 percent of their income in taxes. 
That is for all governments.
  In Wyoming, and this is the U.S. Census estimate, the median income 
for families is about $47,000. Federal taxes are about $10,000; local 
and State taxes are another $5,000 or $6,000, for a total of $16,000 in 
direct taxes. The estimated cost of Federal regulation for a family is 
about $6,600. Excess family interest payments caused by Federal 
borrowing are approximately $2,000 for a total of $24,000 that goes to 
taxation.
  So, Mr. President, it is an appropriate day for us to take a look at 
what we do with taxes. I would like to approach it from just a little 
different angle. Of course, taxes are dollars, taxes are numbers when 
we talk about those, but I think also there is a concern that we ought 
to have that taxes also are related to the size of Government. They are 
more than money. They have to do with the kind of Government we have. 
They have to do with the number of Government programs that we expect, 
and there is a relationship between spending and taxes.
  Of course, we ought to be willing to pay for the programs that we 
want. We have not done this. For 40 years, we have not balanced the 
budget. What we have done is said, ``Yes, we want more programs, but we 
are going to charge them to our kids; we're not going to pay for 
them.'' We ought to be willing to pay for the programs that we want.
  I think that the message in the election of 1994, and we are coming 
up to another one in 1996, the message was, ``government is too big, 
the Federal Government is too big, it costs too much and we are 
overregulated.''

  Too often in the past 40 years, we have said, ``Well, we have all 
these programs. The question is, how do we pay for it,'' instead of 
taking a look each time at what programs we have, how effective those 
programs are, where should those programs be cared for, do they, 
indeed, need to be there at all.
  One of the problems is we have been sort of distanced from the idea 
of paying for them. The best relationship between a taxpayer and his or 
her Government is that as a taxpayer in a school district where the 
proposition is we need a new school or we need a new science lab, we 
say, ``All right, it costs x amount of dollars to have this new science 
lab. It is going to cost you this much on your taxes next year,'' and 
you make the decision whether or not you are willing to pay a cost-
benefit ratio. Is it worth it to you to pay for that program?
  The Federal Government removes us from that. It removes us in several 
ways. That is, most of us have our taxes withheld, and so we talk about 
after-tax dollars, and for some it is really hard to understand how 
many dollars we do pay in taxes.
  I think it is great to have a tax day and say we have worked this 
year until now with nothing for ourselves, paid entirely for taxes. 
That is part of the problem.
  The other, of course, is the Federal Government is removed to the 
extent that seldom do we have a chance as taxpayers to say, ``Here's 
the program, here's what it costs. Is it worth it to me? Am I willing 
to pay what it costs?'' We do not have that same kind of cost-benefit 
ratio opportunity that we have on the local level.
  So I think it is appropriate that when we talk about taxes and we 
talk about the burden and we talk about the debt and we talk about the 
future, that we also take a look at government; take a basic, long 
look, some introspection of you and me as taxpayers and citizens, 
saying, ``I suspect in our form of government, those who put together 
the Constitution did not envision that 40 percent of our earnings, of 
everyone's earnings, on average, would go to pay taxes for government 
functions.'' Do you think? I do not think so.
  They so clearly defined in the Constitution those things that the 
Federal Government should do, and there are many things, indeed, that 
the Federal Government should do. There are many things that only the 
Federal Government can do--defense, interstate commerce, highways--many 
things.

[[Page S4715]]

  They also put in the Constitution the 10th amendment which says that 
only those things enumerated in the Constitution would, in fact, be 
carried out by the Federal Government and others would be reserved to 
the States and to the people. So we find ourselves with a great 
relationship between the taxes we pay and the amount of Government that 
we have.

  Big spending and big taxes go together. We have done a number of 
things this year to seek to work at this. When the Republicans came in 
and took control of the House and Senate, they changed the debate. We 
have changed the debate from talking about how do we get more money to 
continue to grow, to taking a look at the programs that are there.
  We have changed the debate to one of examining programs instead of 
simply saying they are going to grow some more, how do you charge it or 
how do you put it on the debt or how do you get some more taxes.
  We have changed the debate to balancing the budget. The budget has 
not been balanced in 25 years. For the first time, the conversation now 
is toward balancing the budget. We presented a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution which says, as it does in almost all 
State constitutions, that you cannot spend more than you take in. It 
lost by one vote. I hope we get another chance, Mr. President, to take 
a look at that issue, and I think perhaps we will this week.
  In that debate, frankly, we forced the President to deal with 
balancing the budget. The President did not send up any balanced 
budgets until this year. Now, of course, we do not agree with the way 
it has been balanced. It does not do anything about those things that 
drive it. But nevertheless, the discussion now is how do you balance 
the budget, not if you are going to balance the budget. We have reduced 
the number of programs in Government. We have to do that if we are 
going to do anything about taxes. We sought to reduce taxes in a couple 
of instances. We had regulatory reform.
  Mr. President, I guess what I want to emphasize is we do pay a great 
deal of taxes. I think we pay too many taxes. I think we expect too 
much from the Federal Government; that there are other ways to 
accomplish those things more efficiently either through local 
government, State government, the private sector, that we ought to take 
our taxes and orient them, direct them toward those things that only 
the Federal Government can do.
  But I hope that we do not simply talk about the amount, because taxes 
have a great deal to do with the concept, with the principle of what 
you do in the Federal Government. I think that is a legitimate debate 
that each of us ought to undertake as we move into this election 
season. Each of us ought to evaluate in our judgment what role we think 
the Government ought to have at the Federal level, what role should the 
centralized Government have, how much money should we spend, how do we 
become responsible morally, physically to balance the budget, and that 
seems to me is what tax day is about. I am delighted that there will be 
discussions about it, there will be considerable interest in it.

  I think one of the things sometimes we do not even recognize 
ourselves is the amount that taxes have increased. Corporate tax 
increases between 1992 and 1995 have gone up 55 percent. Who pays 
corporate taxes? Corporations? I do not think so. It is the people who 
use their products, of course. They are passed on.
  Personal taxes have gone up 25 percent. Total receipts have gone up 
23 percent. At the same time total receipts and taxes have gone up 23 
percent, the GDP has only gone up 16 percent.
  So tax increases have outstripped our growth by at least 1.5 times. 
Payroll taxes have gone up 15 percent, and indirect taxes up 11 
percent.
  I am not opposed to taxes. Taxes are how we fund our Government. We 
have to pay taxes, should pay taxes. We should pay them fairly. The 
real issue is, what do you want to pay for? What are you willing to 
pay? What should we pay for? How do we do it efficiently? Tax day ought 
to cause us to consider those things and consider them as we come into 
this election cycle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize tax freedom 
day; a day marking the people's emancipation from government taxation; 
a day after which the American people begin working for themselves and 
their families instead of for the Government; a day which continues to 
recede further and further every year.
  This year, Mr. President, America's tax freedom day arrives on May 7. 
In my own State of Michigan it arrives even later--on May 9. Michigan, 
thanks to its friendly atmosphere for economic growth and investment, 
is relatively affluent. Thus Michigan pays a significantly higher 
portion of its income in Federal taxes than do other States. We are 
13th in the Nation in total taxes paid, again in large measure because 
the Federal Government takes more from our citizens' paychecks than 
from those of citizens of other States.
  But let us look at the overall tax picture.
  As tax freedom day approaches, Mr. President, I believe it is 
appropriate for us to ask ourselves how much of their time, what 
proportion of their paychecks the American people feel it is fair for 
them to be asked to pay to the government.
  When I first saw the results of the Roper Poll on this subject I was 
surprised to note that Americans of all stripes--whatever their race, 
sex, income level, or political persuasion--felt it was fair for them 
to pay a full 25 percent or one quarter of their income taxes. More 
astounding, however, is the proportion they actually must pay in 
taxes--over 38 percent.
  Americans are willing to pay a quarter of their incomes in taxes, Mr. 
President, but that is not enough for our government. No, our 
government taxes away over 38 percent of the income of the average 
American family.
  And the trend is toward more, not less. The government imposes ever-
higher taxes on America's working families. Commerce Department data 
reveal that in 1995 total taxes as a share of the gross domestic 
product were the highest in U.S. history. Federal, State, and local 
government receipts consumed a record 31.3 percent of GDP.
  Mr. President, this figure is simply astounding. Even at the height 
of World War II, with America fighting for her very existence, total 
taxes only consumed 25 percent of GDP. In 1992, only 4 years ago, taxes 
consumed 30 percent of GDP.
  What does this mean? It means that taxes have risen by 1.3 percent of 
GDP--of the size of our entire domestic economy--since Bill Clinton 
became President.
  And what does our President propose to do about this deplorable 
situation, in which our economy is operating under the highest tax 
burden in history?
  Recent experience does not provide much hope for relief. In 1993 
President Clinton signed into law the largest tax increase in history: 
$241 billion. The President raised taxes on gasoline. He raised taxes 
on Social Security recipients. He also hit our senior citizens by 
reinstating the highest estate and gift tax rate of 55 percent. He 
raised taxes on small business owners. And he passed a retroactive tax 
increase on the incomes of America's working families--not only 
increasing taxes on their future incomes, but actually taking a portion 
of the incomes they already had earned.
  The President's tax hikes directly and indirectly increased the tax 
burden on millions of middle-class taxpayers. Small wonder he recently 
admitted that he ``may have'' raised taxes too much.
  But President Clinton's contribution to higher taxes does not end 
there. When we Republicans sought to emancipate American families from 
some of their tax burden--to make their tax freedom come earlier in the 
year--President Clinton was ready, with his veto.
  Americans should judge for themselves the effects of Clinton tax 
policies on their ability to keep what they earn for themselves and 
their families. They should ask themselves a few simple questions.
  First, do you have children?
  If so, President Clinton's veto of our Balanced Budget Act is costing 
you $500 per child in tax savings--the amount of the tax credit we 
attempted to give you.

[[Page S4716]]

  Second, are you married?
  If so, President Clinton's veto is denying you tax savings from a 
higher joint standard deduction. Married couples with average incomes 
of $50,000 who claim the standard deduction are paying $217 more than 
they would otherwise, because of the President's veto.
  Third, are you trying to save for your retirement?
  If so, and you earn more than $40,000 a year or have a nonworking 
spouse, President Clinton's veto cost you $1,120 in IRA tax savings.
  Fourth, are you planning to adopt a child?
  If so, President Clinton's veto cost you a credit of up to $5,000 to 
defray adoption expenses.
  Fifth, do you care for an elderly parent at home?
  If so, President Clinton's veto is denying you savings from a $1,000 
eldercare deduction--that's between $150 and $280 out of your pocket 
and into the Government's.
  Sixth, do you plan to earn taxable capital gains--for example by 
selling your house when you retire?
  If so, President Clinton's veto is preventing you from keeping more 
of your profits. The GOP reforms would have seen that you were taxed on 
only half of your net capital gain.
  And finally, are you paying off a student loan?
  If so, President Clinton's veto is costing you savings from a maximum 
$2,500 deduction on the interest paid for the first 5 years of 
repayment.
  This veto delayed tax freedom day to May 7--the latest date ever. 
This veto extended to 3 hours, out of the typical 8-hour workday, the 
time Americans must work just to pay taxes, the longest ever. This veto 
means that the value of the dependent exemption continues to decline. 
Our families are having a harder time supporting their children, in 
part because the exemption has lost much of its value. For the 
dependent exemption to be worth the same it was worth in 1960, it would 
have to be $3,800 today--$1,300 more than the current $2,500.
  In short, President Clinton's policies have chained America's working 
families to ever-higher taxes, making it harder and harder for them to 
support themselves.
  His policies have cut the growth of Americans' real personal 
disposable income. They have hurt the economy, increased taxes and 
reduced by nearly $2,600 the amount of money every American household 
can use to support itself. They have contributed to a situation in 
which more and more families have two working parents not out of choice 
but out of economic necessity. At the same time these policies have 
reduced the size of parents' paychecks--even as parents face increased 
costs for their children's education, worries over their own retirement 
and concern that they are spending enough time with their kids.
  Americans today are, and have every right to be worried about their 
jobs, concerned about their future, and angry that the American Dream 
of moving up through hard work seems to be slipping out of reach.
  In one generation, Mr. President, the Government has doubled the 
amount of money it takes from the American people. It has severely 
restricted our freedom from taxation. And what have we gotten in 
return? Certainly not safer and better schools. Certainly not safer and 
cleaner streets. Certainly not reduced drug-use and juvenile crime. 
Certainly not lower levels of welfare dependency and hopelessness.
  No, Mr. President, what Americans have bought with their tax freedom 
is nothing more than increased Government control over their lives. And 
this must end.
  We must free our people from the chains of overtaxation and 
overregulation.
  We must see to it that Americans earn more and keep more of what they 
earn so that they can do more for their families and communities.
  We must institute reforms that will encourage economic growth, lower 
tax burdens, and empower America's working families to once again take 
charge of their own lives, helping themselves and their neighbors.
  What does this mean in practice?
  To begin with, Mr. President, it means relieving American families of 
the burden imposed by the Clinton tax increases. This is why we must 
pass the $500 exemption for all children under the age of 18.
  It also means reducing the amount Americans must pay for gasoline by 
rolling back the 1993 Clinton gas tax increase that unfairly burdens 
lower income working families.
  It also means we must create more and better paying jobs through 
incentives like a capital gains tax cut that will encourage businesses 
to invest in resources that create jobs.
  And it means helping people save for the future by encouraging 
retirement savings and portability.
  Finally, Mr. President, it means balancing the budget and stopping 
Government from overspending. It means regaining control over the cost 
and size of Government so that the tax burden and regulatory burden 
both may be lifted from the shoulders of the American people.
  America always has been the land of freedom and opportunity. In large 
measure this has been true because we have recognized that 
opportunity--the chance to build a decent and rewarding life for 
yourself and your family--depends on freedom.
  Only with the freedom to work, move, and invest as we see fit can we 
make the most of our capacities.
  It is our job, Mr. President, to restore Americans' opportunity by 
freeing them from a Government that taxes too much and prevents them 
from pursuing their own good, and the good of their families and 
neighbors.
  Tax cuts, growth incentives, and renewed responsibility in government 
spending and regulation will emancipate the American people from the 
chains of taxation and overregulation.
  More than this government cannot provide. Less than this, Mr. 
President, we dare not provide.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before we get into the Billy Dale bill, 
because it is a very important piece of legislation, as far as I am 
concerned, I thought I would spend a few minutes, as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, talking about habeas corpus reform because of the 
extraordinary action taken by the Supreme Court last Friday, and then I 
will launch into the Billy Dale legislation.

                          ____________________