[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 117 (Friday, September 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10716-S10717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE TAX RELIEF PROPOSAL

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, at the end of July, beginning of 
August, the Congress, in an almost unprecedented fashion and with 
speed, passed a very significant tax relief bill in Washington. It has 
been the subject of much discussion and debate.
  We could not find very accurate descriptions of this tax proposal, 
and so Senators and House Members who believed in tax relief went home, 
and for the last month they have held 500, 700 town halls. They have 
been throughout the country describing what the tax proposal actually 
is.
  I remember being in a small city in the northern part of my State, 
Rome, GA, and saying, so far, I had read very little that adequately 
described what the totality of the tax proposal was.
  I have just come from a press conference in the Senate gallery with 
House and Senate Members. I was taken by the fact that of the six or 
seven Members there, they all spoke of this mischaracterization they 
were struggling with when they initially got home. It was characterized 
as a very large tax bill that would disrupt Social Security and 
Medicare. There was very little understanding of the proposal, which is 
this: It is proposed that over the next 10 years, there will be some $3 
trillion in surpluses.
  Now, these surpluses are a product of the fact that over the last 4 
years, a majority of the U.S. Congress has argued for balanced budgets 
and for financial constraint. That has produced a very positive economy 
and, indeed, we are now seeing these numbers that suggest there could 
be up to $3 trillion in surplus over the next 10 years. Well, what are 
Washington policymakers going to do about it?
  At the end of July, the Congress passed this proposal. It said we 
would take 60 percent of all the surpluses and set it aside for Social 
Security. It would either be used for Social Security reform or to pay 
down debt. It assigned 17 percent of all these surpluses to Medicare, 
education, and domestic priorities to make sure that we keep Medicare 
sound and whole. It takes 23 percent of the surpluses and returns it to 
American workers--23 percent.
  Now, Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve is quoted all the time 
on this. He said this is what he would do with it. If he had his first 
choice, he would pay down the debt. Sixty percent of our proposal does 
that. He said his second choice would be tax relief. Twenty-three 
percent of our proposal does that. He said the last thing he would do 
would be to spend it; don't spend it, and even this proposal spends 17 
percent of it.
  So the debate we are having is over whether or not 23 percent of 
those surpluses should be returned to American workers or left in 
Washington to be spent. As Americans have understood this proposal, 
they have begun, in increasing numbers, to support it. A majority of 
Americans now believe the President should sign the tax relief 
proposal. I don't know if that will compel him to do so, but America 
has begun to understand that this is a very balanced, reasoned plan.
  Why do we think this is so important? American workers today are 
paying the highest taxes they have paid since World War II. I will 
repeat that. American workers are paying at the highest tax level they 
have paid since World War II. About half of their paychecks are 
consumed by a government at some level--local, State, and Federal. I 
have said this before. If Thomas Jefferson were here today, he would 
faint; and when he woke up, he would be very mad that we had ever come 
to a point that government was taking half of what labor produces. That 
is what we face today.
  Economic opportunity is a fundamental component of what makes 
American liberty work. It is a fact that Americans have had economic 
independence and they have turned into a people who are so bold, so 
visionary, so entrepreneurial, and so confident. We are a very 
confident people. It goes all the way back to the Revolution. American 
workers at that time were already the highest paid workers in the 
world. Since that time, we have seen what happens to a people who have 
their own independence. We must never take that away from the American 
psyche and culture. If we do, we will threaten the way American liberty 
has worked.
  Therefore, this tax relief proposal is not some disjointed political 
venture. This tax relief proposal is instrumental in the nurturing of 
one of the fundamental principles of American liberty, i.e., economic 
independence. There is not a day in this town--and I have been here a 
little over 6 years, about the same time as the Presiding Officer--that 
somebody hasn't bemoaned the fact that there was something American 
families needed or ought to do that they can't: They don't have enough 
insurance, or some of them don't have any; they don't have enough 
housing; they don't have enough to pursue the educational purposes they 
seek.

  If the government is taking half of the resources away from them, are 
we surprised and shocked that these families don't have enough to 
accomplish the fundamental goals they seek, that they can't pay the 
insurance premiums? If the government would leave the money with the 
persons who earned it, they could solve those problems.
  There is not a wizard, wonk, or bureaucrat in this city who can more 
appropriately determine what a family

[[Page S10717]]

needs to keep itself whole and healthy than the family itself. 
Therefore, there is no public policy that is more important than 
nurturing the economic liberty and keeping the checking accounts of 
American workers healthy so they can do what they have done for the 
last two-plus centuries.
  Economic liberty is a fundamental component of American culture. That 
is what this tax relief proposal is about. It is about making sure more 
of those resources stay in those checking accounts.
  When you take too much out of those checking accounts--which we have 
been historically doing now for about three decades-plus--you change 
the way Americans function. We are not who we are because of our genes. 
We are who we are because we have been free. When you reduce the 
resources American families have, you start seeing things you don't 
like to see.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. This year, for the first time 
since the Great Depression, workers in the United States--our workers--
will have a negative savings rate. What is left to save after the 
Government marches through the checking account?
  If an average family in America is making $50,000 or $55,000 a year, 
and you take half of it away, is there enough left to get the job done? 
The answer is no. So there is nothing to save. So when there is a 
crisis, there is no ability to respond to it or to prepare adequately 
for retirement. If you leave the resources in those checking accounts, 
you will see the savings go up. They will have the resources to do the 
kinds of things they are supposed to do, including saving for problems 
or retirement.
  Here is another one. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high. Credit 
card debt is at an all-time high. There are not enough resources in the 
checking accounts and so the behavior of these families begins to move 
in directions that are not as appropriate. That is going to continue as 
long as we continue to press and constrain and take too much out of the 
check of an American worker, an American family, and an American 
business.
  I see that the distinguished Senator from Idaho has arrived. I don't 
want to infringe upon his time. I will yield the floor. Under the 
previous order, each of us has up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

                          ____________________