[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6008-S6010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HOLDING CONGRESS TO ITS TAX CUT PROMISE

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few brief remarks 
about tax cuts and the budget, and the promises that have so tightly 
entwined the two.
  The House passed its budget resolution last Friday by a vote of 216 
to 204. The House budget plan would cut $101 billion in government 
spending over the next 5 years. It would also repeal the marriage 
penalty tax, which has unjustly punished 21 million couples just for 
getting married.
  However, the House-passed budget plan failed to provide 
reconciliation instructions for achieving this tax relief, and failed 
to provide clear guidance on how to use any budget surpluses.
  While the efforts by our colleagues in the House represent a move in 
the right direction, Congress must do better by the taxpayers. It now 
falls to the conference committee to ensure we keep our promise to 
offer meaningful tax relief to working Americans.
  That promise must provide the framework for the budget resolution 
produced by this Congress.
  Thanks to the exceptionally healthy economy, our short-term fiscal 
condition has greatly improved in the past few years, not because of 
what Congress did--in spite of what Congress did. But it is the 
economy.
  In fact, we will soon see a unified budget surplus for the first time 
since 1969.
  On May 26, President Clinton announced that this year's budget 
surplus would be $39 billion.
  His figure is significantly less than the $43-to-$63 billion surplus 
forecast by the CBO and contradicts the President's own Treasury 
report, which revealed that through April, revenues were surging into 
the Treasury even faster than CBO thought.
  Treasury officials forecast that the surplus could be as large as 
$100 billion if the revenue flow follows last year's pattern. According 
to some estimates, the budget surplus could reach $1.34 trillion over 
the next 5 years.
  The question is, what do we do with the surplus? Basically, what 
Washington has done is overcharged our American workers and industry.
  I would just like to show in the Washington Post, yesterday's 
edition, June 9, it says: Virginia Power Agrees To Rebates.
  Why is this similar? I would like to read this. It says:

       Virginia's largest power company agreed today to $920 
     million in refunds and rate cuts for 2 million residential 
     and business customers who have been overcharged for 
     electricity, the biggest rate adjustment in State history 
     [and that is under a] deal with utility regulators.

  If a company overcharges its consumers, the Government steps in and 
says: You have to pay it back. You took a surplus. You have to pay it 
back to the customers. Also, you have to drop the rates so we do not 
have surpluses in the future.
  But what does Washington do when it has a surplus? It starts to make 
plans on how to spend it. There is nobody that tells Washington you 
have to give it back, and they should.
  Comparing these numbers with the $100 billion tax cut, when we talk 
about

[[Page S6009]]

a projected budget surplus, there could be as much as $1.3 trillion or 
more; or if we even look at just this surplus, it would be less than 10 
percent of that projected surplus. I can assure you, there are plans 
already being made around this Congress of what to do and how to spend 
the other 90 percent.
  Americans, I believe, should be outraged, and a growing number are. 
They do not want Washington to grow even bigger--they want their money 
back.
  Mr. President, regardless of all these different surplus estimates, 
one thing is clear: it is not any action by the Federal Government that 
is producing this budget surplus. We must credit that turnaround to the 
working men and women who are fueling the robust American economy. 
These unexpected dollars have come directly from working Americans 
through taxes paid by corporations, individuals, and investors. This 
money belongs to the people. Washington should not stand first in line 
to take this money. It is only moral and fair to return it to them. 
Washington again, has no right to spend it on their behalf.
  With total taxation at an all-time high, it is critical that Congress 
cut taxes for working Americans. Taxes consumed about 19 percent of GDP 
when President Clinton took office. It now stands at 21.5 percent, the 
highest rate since World War II. This means every American, not just 
the rich, are paying more in taxes today than they did just 5 years 
ago.
  As proof of just how heavy the tax burden has become, taxpayers did 
not mark the arrival of Tax Freedom Day this year until May 10.
  That is the day on which working folks stop punching the clock just 
to pay Uncle Sam and begin working for themselves, and that is a full 
week later than when President Clinton took office. We all gave the 
Government another week of our time and money in the last 5 years to 
pay those higher taxes. This year, the taxpayers had to work 129 days 
before they could count a single penny of their salary as their own. In 
fact, it marks the latest-ever arrival of Tax Freedom Day.
  And that is not the whole picture, because if the cost of complying 
with the tax system itself were included in the calculations, Tax 
Freedom Day would be pushed forward another 13 days.
  As proof of just how far we have traveled--in the wrong direction--
Tax Freedom Day in 1925 arrived on February 6. This year it was May 10.
  After 16 major tax increases over the past 30 years, the need for tax 
relief has never been more pressing.
  Do I need to remind my colleagues that Republicans gained control of 
Congress in 1994 and retained control in 1996 because we were the 
champions of the taxpayers, the champions of the American workers?
  Did not the taxpayers elect us with the expectation that the new 
Congress would seize every opportunity to lessen the tax burden on 
America's families and shrink the size of Government?
  They did not elect a new majority expecting that Congress would be a 
collaborator in the President's tax-and-spend policies, that Congress 
would build a bigger, more expensive Government at the first chance it 
got and completely give up on its promise of significant tax relief.
  Unfortunately, that is exactly what Congress did. And if we do not 
slow it down now by providing some larger tax cuts, the Federal 
Government is going to explode in both size and cost. Again, that is 
not what I believe working Americans are asking for.
  Last year, after spending by the way, the $225 billion unexpected 
revenue windfall and busting the 1993 spending caps, Congress cut a 
deal with President Clinton and delivered tax cuts only one-third as 
large as what we had promised and worked for in 1994.
  The tax relief amounted to less than one cent of every dollar the 
Federal Government took from the taxpayers.
  With its measly $30 billion in tax cuts over five years, this year's 
Senate-passed budget resolution is no better.
  It spends more taxpayer dollars while continuing the path of the 
flawed budget deal struck between the Congressional leadership and 
President Clinton last year.
  Tax relief I believe is the right solution because it takes power out 
of the hands of Washington's big spenders and puts it back where it can 
do the most good and that is with America's families and job providers.
  When the much-bragged about Clinton tax increase of 1993 was passed 
by the Democrats, again, no Republican votes, but with this much-
bragged about tax increase no one was out there asking working 
Americans how they were going to survive with less money in their 
paychecks. They were evidently going to have to try to do more with 
less, or go without. Congress did not go out and ask working Americans, 
if we raise your taxes, how are you going to do with less money? 
Americans were expected to do more with less or go without.
  But now, when we talk of even taking one penny for every $10, 
Congress says ``We cannot go without.'' To borrow a phrase from Ohio 
Congressman Traficant, ``Beam me up, Scotty!''
  I am proud that during this year's budget debate, five Senators, 
myself included, reached agreement with the Senate leadership to 
include more tax relief in the budget for hardworking Americans.
  We agreed to take the higher tax relief number in either the House or 
Senate-passed resolution. We also agreed there should be reconciliation 
legislation to achieve those tax cuts.
  Carrying out these principles will improve the FY 1999 budget 
resolution, and it will help to forge a compromise between those who 
want massive tax relief and those who want massive spending.
  This will eventually help us not only to balance our budget and keep 
it balanced, but to reduce the size of the government and also let the 
American taxpayers keep a little more of their own money. With our 
improved fiscal condition and a large budget surplus, it should not be 
hard to achieve these goals.
  Then why is tax relief such a battle?
  Mr. President, there is a special interest group to represent every 
disgruntled, oppressed, and persecuted group of Americans to plead 
their case in the media and in the Halls of Congress.
  But where is the special interest group that represents the 
taxpayers? Where is the chorus of voices speaking up for the 
discontented multitude? Who will come to the Senate floor and plead the 
case of the taxpayers?
  I submit, Mr. President, that the American taxpayers are poorly 
represented by their Congress. Not only are the taxpayers heavily 
burdened, but their burden has been imposed by their own Government.
  Congress takes the taxpayers' precious dollars and spends them 
lavishly, at times recklessly. Congress demands more and more with 
little consideration for the sacrifices of those it taxes. Congress 
never seems to be satisfied.
  So is it any wonder that when the opportunity arises to give 
something back to the taxpayers, Congress balks? The taxpayers fuel the 
fire of government spending, and Congress demands that the furnace 
remain fully stoked.
  These are real people we are talking about, not faceless Social 
Security numbers. Yet Congress chooses not to see the faces of the 
families it taxes.
  By a single vote, this Congress can tell working Americans that it is 
going to take even more, and you can either work more--both spouses, 
overtime, two jobs--or go without, without money for your children's 
education, without health care insurance or child care, without a 
family vacation, without a night out.
  ``But wait,'' you can just hear Congress say, ``maybe we can create a 
new government program to help you. By the way, we will have to raise 
your taxes a little to pay for it.''
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I who demanded that tax relief be an 
integral part of the Senate budget must not and will not back off from 
our commitments.
  We made those commitments in good faith, not only to each other, but 
most importantly, to America's taxpayers. Senators Ashcroft, Brownback, 
Inhofe, Smith, and myself are prepared to vote against any budget that 
fails to provide the full $101 or more billion in tax relief called for 
in the House budget resolution.
  We have made our intentions known to the Senate leadership. It is 
time that this Congress delivers on its promises to the taxpayers. We 
must not forget the lessons we learned in the past.
  In the 1950s, the Republican Party leadership deviated from the basic

[[Page S6010]]

principles that distinguish us from the Democrats by adopting a fiscal 
policy of ``Republican austerity.''
  This slowed the economy and therefore, the voters tossed out the 
Republican Congress and declined to elect a Republican president. The 
American people instead chose John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who promised 
tax cuts--and kept that promise.
  President Ronald Reagan also promised tax relief, and he delivered by 
proposing tax cuts totaling $747 billion. That equals $1.6 trillion in 
today's dollars. These massive tax cuts propelled the economy forward. 
President Reagan stood with Republican principles, and today we are 
still benefiting from his sound economic policy. This was done while 
the Congress faced deficits, not surpluses that we are enjoying today.
  In 1990, President Bush, unfortunately, reached a budget compromise 
with the Democrats to spend more and tax more. As a result, the 
American voters tossed him out for abandoning his promise not to raise 
taxes.
  Finally, history is a mirror. If we cannot keep our promise to the 
American people, we will lose a Republican Congress, and more 
importantly, a unique opportunity to create a sustainable economy, 
increase real income, and improve the living standard for working 
Americans.
  Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the 
reluctance of the Congress and the congressional leadership to provide 
substantial tax relief, despite projections of huge surpluses. Nothing 
I believe, can justify this.
  This Senator intends to stand firm on his promise to work for lower 
taxes that allow the working men and women of Minnesota and the 49 
other states to keep more of their own money. I urge our leadership to 
follow.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.

                          ____________________