[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 109 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6721-H6722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    AN HONEST DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE

  (Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include therein 
extraneous material.)
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read some quotes from one 
of our senator colleagues in the Senate, a Democrat from the State of 
Nebraska. He said this:

       I recently voted with Republican colleagues for a sensible 
     and realistic tax cut. We are projected to run a $2.9 
     trillion surplus over the next 10 years, and I strongly 
     believe that we should return part of that money to hard-
     working Americans. This tax cut will provide Americans with 
     broad-based tax relief and aim squarely at the middle class. 
     To suggest that we cannot afford to cut income taxes when we 
     are running a $3 trillion surplus is ludicrous.

  This coming from a Democrat.
  To say that tax cuts stand in the way of needed domestic spending, 
Medicare, and debt relief is also folly. What is standing in the way of 
debt reduction and a shrinking discretionary spending budget is a 
refusal to make structural reforms to our entitlement programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this comes from a Democrat colleague in the Senate who 
happened to be one of the co-chairs of the Social Security Reform 
Committee, and I think when a Democrat is honest that we should tip our 
hat to him.

               [From The Washington Post, July 27, 1999]

                Why I Crossed Party Lines on the Tax Cut

                            (By Bob Kerrey)

       As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I recently 
     crossed party lines to vote with my Republican colleagues for 
     a sensible and realistic tax cut. We are projected to run a 
     $2.9 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, and I strongly 
     believe that we should return part of that money to hard-
     working Americans.
       This tax cut will provide Americans with broad-based tax 
     relief aimed squarely at the middle class. Not only will it 
     encourage Americans to save more for their retirements, it 
     will also encourage Americans to give more generously to 
     charities.
       I am proud to have participated in and voted for three 
     budget acts--in 1990, 1993 and 1997--which have radically 
     altered the fiscal condition of the federal government and 
     the debate about how the public's hard-earned tax dollars 
     should be spent. After the enactment of these three budget 
     acts--particularly the 1993 and 1997 budget acts--and on 
     account of impressive gains in private-sector productivity 
     and growth, we were able to reverse the deficit trend.
       Deficits have continued to shrink since 1994--and we were 
     able to celebrate our first unified budget surplus (counting 
     Social Security surpluses) of $70 billion last year. The 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now protecting surpluses 
     of $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years.
       Since 1983 working Americans have been forced to shoulder a 
     disproportionate amount of deficit reduction by paying 
     larger-than-necessary payroll (FICA) taxes. Now they are 
     being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of debt 
     reduction. I strongly believe that a portion of these 
     surpluses should be returned to the American people.
       To put it in another context: If, over the next 10 years, 
     Congress projected a balanced budget and I proposed a $3 
     trillion tax increase, people would call it ridiculous. To 
     suggest we can't afford to cut income taxes when we are 
     running a $3 trillion surplus is just as ludicrous.
       To say that tax cuts stand in the way of needed domestic 
     spending, Medicare and debt relief is also folly. What is 
     standing in the way of debt reduction and a shrinking 
     discretionary spending budget is our refusal to make 
     structural reforms to our entitlement programs.
       In 1970 entitlement spending accounted for only 35 percent 
     of federal spending. By 2010, it will account for nearly 70 
     percent of federal spending. During the same period, 
     discretionary spending will have fallen from 58

[[Page H6722]]

     percent of spending to 27 percent. Absent structural reforms 
     or massive tax increases. Social Security and Medicare will 
     continue to eat up ever larger percentages of our budget--at 
     the expense of important investments in our children and our 
     future.
       In the Finance Committee last week, I offered an amendment 
     with Sens. John Breau (D-La.), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), 
     Charles Robb (D-Va.) and Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) to cut the 
     payroll tax, increase retirement savings and restore 
     permanent solvency to the Social Security program.
       This amendment would have provided a $928 billion payroll 
     tax cut to the 80 percent of American families who pay more 
     in payroll taxes than in income taxes. This tax cut would be 
     directed into individual savings accounts for retirement 
     security. Not only does this amendment provide all workers 
     with a massive payroll tax cut, it also substantially expands 
     the ownership of assets in this nation.
       Ownership of wealth is essential for everyone to have a 
     shot at the American dream. The payroll tax is the principal 
     burden on savings and wealth creation for working families. 
     Furthermore, this payroll tax cut would still have left room 
     for Medicare reform, an income tax cut, debt reduction and 
     other spending priorities.
       While I did vote for the Senate finance committee tax bill, 
     I believe that a $500 billion income tax cut is a compromise 
     figure that will leave room to reform and modernize the 
     Social Security and Medicare programs and to invest in 
     important domestic priorities, such as education, defense, 
     veterans and housing.
       I agree a compromise is ultimately doable. That's why I 
     intend to join Sens. Breaux, John Chafee (R-R.I.) and Jim 
     Jeffords (R-Vt.) in proposing a $500 billion income tax cut 
     alternative. While it can easily be argued that the GOP 
     version is too high, it's also as clear the Democratic 
     alternative is too low.

                          ____________________