[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7295-S7296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TAX PLAN DIFFERENCES

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the House of Representatives and the 
Senate recently passed tax relief plans that will help every American 
at every stage of life. They are obviously not the solution to all of 
our problems, but they are a first step in the right direction.
  These carefully crafted tax relief packages will not only make an 
immediate difference in the monthly budgets of middle-class families 
but will also encourage the risk taking that will raise the future 
standard of living for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. 
They will accomplish both goals by giving tax credits to people who pay 
taxes and who bear the cost of raising the next generation and by 
reducing taxes on saving and investing.
  Why do we need tax relief now? Consider the following: total taxes, 
Federal, State, and local combined, take up almost one-third of the 
U.S. economy. That means that for every 8 hours of work the average 
taxpayer spends almost 3 hours of work to pay the tax collector rather 
than bringing it home to meet family needs.
  Following our lead, President Clinton has offered a tax relief plan 
of his own. We congratulate him on continuing to move in our direction, 
agreeing to tax credits not just for young kids but for teenagers, too, 
and also for giving families some relief from the death tax. But our 
plan and the President's still have some big differences. Most 
importantly, we strongly believe that his plan sells the middle class 
short. We think he has a much too narrow definition of middle class, 
one that includes as rich too many families that most people would see 
as solidly middle class.
  In particular, we think the President's plan has a strange bias 
against families with working moms. He is much too quick to put 
families with working mothers in the rich category just because they 
need two incomes to make ends meet, to pay their taxes, and to stay on 
top of their bills.

[[Page S7296]]

  For example, let us say dad's a teacher and makes $40,000. Everyone 
knows he is not rich. Now let us say mom's also working and she makes 
$30,000, money that goes to help raise their three kids, pay their 
taxes, and save for retirement. Almost everyone would still say this 
family is not rich. But the President is well out of the mainstream on 
this issue. His plan says that because mom works, this family is no 
longer middle class; that it somehow became rich and does not deserve 
full tax credits for its kids.
  We strongly disagree. Our plans, which got the support of two-thirds 
of Senate Democrats as well as Republicans, do not punish families with 
working moms. These families work hard, play by the rules, and struggle 
to make ends meet. They are overtaxed and they deserve tax relief. If 
the President will not let them get a full share of lower taxes, if he 
thinks they only deserve a portion of the tax cuts others will get, 
then he ought to get out of the tax-cutting business. People who 
pay full-time taxes should not get part-time tax relief. Our tax plans 
live by this code. They would give this family up to $1,100 more than 
the President's plan would.

  Is this situation unusual? Definitely not. In 1995, the typical 
married couple with two or more kids in which both parents worked full 
time earned almost $61,000. This typical family should be making about 
$70,000 next year, assuming economic growth keeps going. Remarkably, 
this income level already disqualifies them for two-thirds of the 
President's tax credits for children, and that is just for being the 
typical family with two or more kids and two hard-working parents.
  This crucial point warrants repeating. Under the President's plan, 
the typical married couple with two or more kids and both parents 
working full time would not qualify for full tax credits. Why? Because 
the President thinks they are rich.
  The ultimate shape of this long-sought balanced budget agreement and 
tax relief package is targeted to be finalized before the August 
recess. I hope that we can take our case to the American public and 
sway the White House with the merits of our argument. Families where 
both parents work to make ends meet hardly fit anyone's definition of 
rich. More accurately, these families are representative of the effort 
it takes to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and the 
bills paid, especially the hefty bill they are obligated to pay to 
Uncle Sam. On this key issue, the President clearly is in the wrong. 
These families are not rich. They are middle class and they deserve a 
full share of tax relief.
  Under the bipartisan congressional plans, that is exactly what they 
will get.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________