[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H614-H615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HANDLING THE SO-CALLED BUDGET SURPLUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, over the President's Day break I had the 
opportunity to travel the length and breadth of my great State of South 
Dakota, and during that time I met with senior groups, with business 
groups, with education groups, with volunteer groups, with student 
groups, with community leaders, all across my State.
  This is the real world. These are real people who are concerned about 
their future, their children's future, about their children's 
education, about affordable health care, about retirement and about the 
deterioration of American values.
  Now, there was an aversion as I traveled across the State, I didn't 
find anybody who was very much in favor of the situation in the Middle 
East of our going to war there. I heard a lot a lot of interest in 
getting a transportation bill passed in the very near future, and I 
also had a lot of skepticism expressed by the people in my State about 
the budget situation in Washington, the so-called budget surplus, and 
what might be the right thing to do with that.
  And what is the right thing? That is a question I asked as I traveled 
the State. And the answer I frequently got from the people of South 
Dakota, according to them, is to use the budget surplus to the extent 
there is one to pay down, begin retiring our $5.5 trillion debt, to 
repay the Social Security Trust Fund. Beyond that, there wasn't much 
appetite for new Washington programs and new Washington spending. 
Instead, people would like to see those dollars, to the extent there 
are any additional dollars available, returned to the taxpayers.
  Now, in deciding how best to do that, I came up with an idea which is 
now in the form of legislation, and I have introduced along with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Dunn) a couple of tax relief bills 
which I think are consistent with two principles that are very 
important as we debate tax relief in this country.
  The first principle is that we ought to be looking at how we can come 
up with tax relief legislation that is broad-based. We hear a lot from 
the White House, from Members even in this body, about targeted tax 
relief, about Washington picking winners and losers. In my own view, 
the best way we can deal with the issue of tax relief is to do it in a 
way that allows everyone in this country to participate from a growing 
economy and benefit from a growing economy.
  So our legislation is based upon the principle that everyone, 
irrespective of what your status is, whether you are married, whether 
you have children or any other issue, that you ought to be able to, if 
you are a taxpayer, have the benefits of tax relief.
  The second principle is this: It ought to lead us toward the goal of 
simplification. As we move to the long-term goal of a new Tax Code for 
a new century, it ought to be about trying to come up with a way in 
which we further simplify, rather than further complicate, the Tax Code 
in this country.
  I, a couple of weeks ago, did my own tax return, and I can tell you 
that even though last summer in the balanced budget agreement we 
lowered taxes on people in this country, we made the Code even more 
complicated than it already is.
  I think an underlying fundamental principle of any tax relief that we 
do ought to be moving us toward the goal of simplification. So, in 
doing that, we came up with a couple of ideas.
  The first raises the personal exemption from $2,700 to $3,400. Again, 
anybody in this country who is a taxpayer claimed as a dependent on a 
tax return gets the benefit of that tax proposal.
  The second proposal actually raises the late rate at which the 28 
percent rate applies to taxpayers in this country. It drops 10 million 
taxpayers out of the higher 28 percent bracket, down to the 15 percent 
bracket.

                              {time}  1430

  That is significant for a number of reasons: because it gives an 
incentive to people, to hard-working Americans, to work harder, to 
produce more, to earn more. Instead of penalizing them by assessing 28 
cents out of each additional dollar they earn, it moves them back into 
the 15 percent bracket.

[[Page H615]]

  More taxpayers in this country--in fact, the estimate is that there 
are 29 million Americans in this country who will have their taxes 
lowered under this proposal, to the tune of about $1,200 per filer. 
That is significant. I think that is a movement in the right direction.
  In a conversation I had last week with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, I 
asked him, what things can we do to continue the economic growth cycle 
we are in? He said two things, one of which was lowering marginal 
rates. That is effectively what our legislation would do.
  These are real choices. This is real relief for hard-working men and 
women in this country because it allows them to decide how they spend 
their savings. Instead of creating new Washington bureaucracies, new 
Washington programs, new Washington spending, we say that as a matter 
of principle and philosophy we believe the people of this country are 
better equipped to make those decisions in their living rooms, in their 
homes. We want to empower people in small town America to make those 
decisions on their own and to quit looking to Washington, D.C.
  I encourage the Members of this body to take a hard look at 
cosponsoring this legislation, and work towards its passage.

                          ____________________