[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 103 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7765-S7766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    IS THERE NO SHAME IN WASHINGTON?

  Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I would like to speak a little bit 
tonight about taxes and the big controversy over tax cuts--and not only 
over tax cuts themselves but who qualifies for these tax cuts--what is 
fair, what is not fair. And really the basic bottom line is there is 
not enough money in the pot for the tax cuts that Americans need.
  Madam President, as negotiators from the House and Senate meet with 
administration officials to hammer out a tax package, I rise today to 
be the voice for the millions of Americans who no longer seem to be 
heard here in Washington: the Nation's hard-working, overtaxed, middle-
class families.
  And I want to ask my colleagues, is there no shame in Washington?
  Madam President, I read the comments made by the minority leader this 
morning, arguing that the $77 billion tax cut bill ``is not fair.''
  I have to say that I agree with the Senator from South Dakota. Any 
bill that cuts taxes by just $77 billion is not only unfair--it's an 
outrage.
  Let me remind my colleagues what happened in 1993.

[[Page S7766]]

  In 1993, after campaigning on middle-class tax relief, President 
Clinton turned around and raised taxes on working Americans by $263 
billion--making his the largest tax increase in the history of this 
Nation. Everybody paid more, including: $114.8 billion in new income 
taxes, $24 billion in additional gas taxes, $34.9 billion in business 
taxes, $29 billion in payroll taxes, and $24.6 billion in new Social 
Security taxes.
  In other words, if you worked, were retired, drove a car, owned a 
business, or paid income taxes, you paid for the President's 1993 tax 
increase.
  Although it was billed as nothing more than a tax increase only on 
the rich, but using this funny calculation called FEI--or family 
economic income--the President was able to say only those who worked 
were rich and, therefore, needed to pay more in taxes.
  So today President Clinton--again, the same President who in 1993 
raised taxes on the American people by $263 billion, and also, by the 
way, Madam President, vetoed two Republican bills to cut taxes for 
Americans--now considers himself to be a champion of the middle class 
because he now wants to cut taxes by a measly $77 billion, and only 
allowing the majority of those tax reductions if Americans--this is 
like your children--if Americans, the people who get up every day, go 
to work to earn this money, now, if they only will do what they are 
told. And that is to ``be seen, not heard.'' That seems to be the 
philosophy that we use out of Washington today. And, what is worse, 
both the House and the Senate are ready to go along with it.
  Again, the question has to be: Is there no shame in Washington?
  It doesn't take a math wizard to calculate that if the taxpayers had 
their taxes hiked by $263 billion 4 years ago, and will only get back 
$77 billion in so-called ``tax relief'' under the plan being crafted as 
we speak--the American taxpayers are still $186 billion in the hole to 
the Federal Government in new taxes in just the last 4 years.
  And the men and women--the working families who have paid dearly for 
that tax increase every day since--are supposed to thank Congress and 
the President for this mere pittance of a tax cut?
  Is there no shame in Washington?
  Madam President, since the last meaningful tax cuts were signed into 
law by President Reagan in 1981, Washington has raised taxes on 10 
occasions--10 different times tax increases have been imposed on 
Americans, and always with the caveat if we can only raise taxes again 
one more time we are going to be able to get our budget under control.
  Every time the Washington politicians have wanted to spend more 
money, so they could brag to the folks back home, Look what I did for 
you. But I need to raise your taxes in order for you to pat me on the 
back for all those projects that I am going to do for you back home. 
But they have raised taxes on working families 10 times. They have done 
that.

  You hear this complaint on the floor many times, ``Oh, that tax cut 
that we had back in 1981 led to all these deficits that we have 
today.'' If you put that in real technical economic terms, you could 
say that is a bunch of hooey. It has not raised the deficit. It has 
been Congress not controlling the spending that has raised the deficit.
  The $77 billion now slated for tax relief amounts to barely one-tenth 
of the amount that taxes were raised in the great tax hikes of 1990 and 
1993.
  You know, this little tax cut that we are talking about--$77 billion 
over 5 years in a $7-plus trillion annual economy in this country--this 
little tax cut would actually be like a car dealer taking one penny off 
the price of a new car and bragging to the buyer that, Boy, I am giving 
you a great deal. That is what Congress is doing. They are saying, We 
are going to knock a penny off the price of this new car for you, and 
you had better come out to Washington and thank us for allowing you to 
keep some of the money that you have worked for.
  With a track record like that, I am afraid the Congress and the 
President have a long way to go before they can claim true victory on 
behalf of the American taxpayer.
  Again, they said that the 1981 tax cut led to all of these deficits. 
If that was the problem, wouldn't you think that the 10 tax increases 
over the last 16 years would have solved that problem? No. No, that 
hasn't done it.
  I have seen enough of the way Washington works to know that if we 
eliminated the tax cuts from this budget entirely--if we could take the 
advice of some on the floor here and say, We don't need any tax cuts at 
all, we can't afford any tax cuts, we have to save this $77 billion, we 
can't let Americans keep any more of the money they make--that $77 
billion would never be dedicated to deficit reduction. The politicians 
would spend it faster than you can say reelection, and they would spend 
it on more Government programs and more pork. It certainly would not go 
toward reducing the deficit and giving our children and grandchildren a 
debt-free future. If you want evidence, you can just ask yourself: What 
happened to that $225 billion that was miraculously found just before 
the budget deal was put together a couple of months ago? It all went to 
spending. Nothing went to tax relief. Nothing went to deficit 
reduction.
  So to say that if we could give up this tax package now of tax relief 
that somehow it would go to deficit reduction, the record doesn't show 
that. I guarantee you that the more we allow Washington to keep, the 
more Washington will spend. And that is what makes the entire debate 
over what is fair and what is equitable in this tax relief package so 
ridiculous. Washington is not willing to give up dollars, and it is not 
willing to give up the power that those dollars represent to the 
taxpayers. Therefore, a $77 billion tax cut will never be fair, and it 
will never be equitable because the pie can never be cut into enough 
pieces to give a fair slice to everyone. The pie is just simply too 
small. And once it is divvied up, working families will be left with 
little more than crumbs.

  Clearly, Madam President, there is no shame in Washington. It is 
absurd to expect the American taxpayers to fall on their knees to 
Washington in thanks for a tax relief plan that offers them dollars 
that were rightfully theirs to begin with.
  Again, giving $10 and getting $1 back I do not think is fair. It is 
not equity. If my colleagues want to talk about tax fairness, we can do 
it. Let us repeal the 1993 tax increase on our senior citizens--$24.6 
billion. If my colleagues want to talk about tax fairness, repeal the 
1993 tax increase on motorists--that is $25 billion. If my colleagues 
want to talk about tax fairness, repeal the 1993 tax increase on 
working families. If we could do even a part of that, only then will 
this Congress and this President have the credibility to discuss 
meaningful tax relief for America's working families. Until then, Madam 
President, it has been just a lot of empty talk.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and 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. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________