[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 127 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11459-S11461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TAX DECREASE VETO

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the President of the United States 
vetoed the largest tax decrease bill to pass the Congress since 1981. 
By doing this, he wants to continue the tax overpayment that working 
Americans are paying into the Federal Treasury.
  The President is saying in his veto that we ought to continue to tax 
the taxpayers at the 21 percent of gross domestic product level, where 
taxes are now, the highest level in the history of our country, as 
opposed to the last 50 years when taxes fell in the range of 18 to 19 
percent of gross domestic product.
  The people of the United States have been willing and, through 
consensus, settled on the level of 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic 
product, both from the standpoint of what they are willing to pay into 
the Federal Government and also from the standpoint of how that is, at 
a lower level of taxation, better for the economy.
  The President said in his veto message we would put in jeopardy 
several government programs if we did not continue to tax at this 
level. The President didn't say in so many words, but he has a plan for 
spending the $792 billion that the Congress would let the American 
taxpayers keep. By spending it, he would do it in a fashion that would 
end up with a $200 billion additional national debt than what we would 
have by giving the $792 billion to the taxpayers. He would, in a sense, 
jack up the level of expenditure of the Federal Government to well over 
the present level of expenditure and put in jeopardy balancing the 
budget if we had a downturn in the economy and the taxes did not come 
into the Federal Treasury at the rate of 21 percent of gross domestic 
product.
  Even though the bill passed in a bipartisan way when it first went 
through the Senate, on final passage it ended up being a Republican tax 
reduction that went to the President because there were not any people 
on the other side of the aisle who voted for it.
  We were saying that this tax overpayment ought to be left with 
working

[[Page S11460]]

Americans because only the people spending the money or investing it do 
it in a way that creates wealth in America and creates jobs as a result 
of the creation of wealth.
  Anybody who thinks money is better left in the Federal Treasury--at 
the highest rate of taxation in the history of the country, at 21 
percent of GDP--ought to realize that there are not jobs created as a 
result of that money going into the Federal till because the Federal 
Government is not a creator of wealth. Our involvement with the 
creation of wealth is to leave as many resources as we can to the 
ingenuity of American working men and women to invest and to spend 
because it turns over so many more times in the economy than when it is 
spent by us in Washington.
  So this tax decrease, the largest since 1981, was our effort to give 
a tax refund to working Americans by returning the tax overpayment. We 
do it in a responsible manner, by devoting 75 percent of the $3 
trillion surplus that is going to come into the Federal Treasury over 
the next 10 years to Social Security, Medicare, paying down the 
national debt, and other domestic priorities. We would leave three-
fourths of that extra dollar that people pay in taxes that do not need 
to be paid, with the Federal Government for paying down the national 
debt, strengthening Social Security, $505 billion that could be set 
aside for strengthening Medicare and other domestic programs, and we 
would leave 25 percent of that surplus with the taxpayers because we 
know that hard-working men and women in America can use that money 
better than it can be misspent here in Washington.
  It seems to me the President was intellectually dishonest last week 
when, in his veto message--that was on television; everybody heard it--
he said we were threatening Social Security, we were threatening 
Medicare, we were not paying down the national debt when we had this 
tax cut. I say that is intellectual dishonesty because the plan we sent 
to the President had in mind reserving all of the Social Security 
payroll tax money to Social Security, paying down the national debt, 
with $505 billion for strengthening Medicare and other domestic 
priorities within our Government, and still leaving $800 billion to the 
taxpayers.
  It is only fair to give the taxpayers this money because it is their 
money that created the surplus in the first place. It is not the hard 
work of bureaucrats in Washington, it is not the hard work of Members 
of Congress that created this surplus, it is the ingenuity of the 
American people. For that ingenuity, they are being overtaxed at this 
particular time to the tune of 21 percent of gross domestic product 
compared to the 50-year history of somewhere between 18 percent and 19 
percent. It is only fair to give them their money back.
  Even Democrats agree that the surplus should be returned to the 
taxpayers. One Member of the other side of the aisle said this:

       I strongly believe we should return part of that money 
     [meaning the surplus] to hard-working Americans. To suggest 
     we cannot afford to cut income taxes when we are running a $3 
     trillion surplus is ludicrous.

  That is from a Member of the Senate from the other side of the aisle. 
That same Member said:

       To say that tax cuts stand in the way of needed domestic 
     spending, Medicare and debt relief, is also folly.

  It is too bad the President of the United States does not listen to 
Members of his own party.
  The President wants you to believe he vetoed just a $792 billion tax 
bill--and that is a 10-year figure. But when you look at the bits and 
pieces of it, I think it will demonstrate the President did not veto 
just a $792 billion tax bill, but he vetoed lower taxes for middle- and 
lower-income Americans, he made health insurance less affordable, and 
he took away incentives to save more. Let me go through what the 
President vetoed to be very specific, so people know exactly what we 
planned in this Congress when we passed this tax bill.
  We planned to encourage savings, to encourage entrepreneurship, and 
to give hard-working families the money they need to support 
themselves. We reduced tax rates for middle- and lower-income 
Americans. The President vetoed that.
  Our tax bill made health insurance more affordable by providing 100-
percent tax deductibility for all premiums for the self-employed and, 
starting for the first time in the history of our tax laws, gave 
employees who work for corporations, who do not have a corporate health 
plan, the same tax deductibility for their own individual plans that 
employees of major corporations have had since World War II. The 
President vetoed both of those items.
  Our bill made it easier for children to care for elderly parents by 
giving some tax incentives for family caregiving and also making tax 
deductibility possible for long-term care insurers. The President 
vetoed that.
  One thing we hear about more than any other injustice in the Tax Code 
is the marriage tax penalty. That correction was in the bill. The 
President vetoed the provisions to do away with the marriage tax 
penalty.
  We hear from farmers and small businessmen how wrong it is to break 
up a business to pay a death tax. This bill did away with the estate 
tax, so there was no tax on death, so you could pass on the family farm 
and the family business. The President vetoed that.
  We had increased incentives for retirement savings because everybody 
knows Social Security has never been intended to be a sole retirement 
plan and is not adequate today. So we have to have more encouragement 
for families to save for retirement. The President vetoed that.
  We hear from families, particularly from women who work outside the 
home, that child care ought to be more affordable. The President vetoed 
that.
  We had full tax deductibility of interest on student loans in this 
bill. The President vetoed that.
  We expanded the Individual Retirement Account opportunities. The 
President vetoed that.
  In short, President Clinton vetoed tax relief measures that would 
benefit men and women nationwide.
  The President has vetoed it, and I do not think there will be a 
compromise with the President on this because the $800 billion is such 
an infinitesimal amount of money--only 3.5 percent of all the revenue 
coming into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years--that how do 
you compromise between zero and 3.5 percent when the 3.5 percent is so 
puny that we in the Congress ought to be embarrassed we could not find 
ways of saving money and giving even a larger tax cut?

  This means this issue will be taken to the country, and we will let 
the Democratic candidate, presumably Vice President Gore, campaign next 
year on a platform of spending this money, as President Clinton 
proposes to spend it, and we will let the Republican candidate for 
President run on a platform of, hopefully, backing at least this much 
of a tax cut and more of a tax cut. We will take this issue to the 
country. Let the people decide, and in letting the people decide, let's 
have a clear mandate for spending the $792 billion or letting the 
taxpayers keep it.
  The President, in his veto message and all during the month of 
August, has been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, as far as 
this tax cut issue is concerned. He has suggested that $800 billion is 
a mountain of money--and it is a lot of money--but as I said, it is 3.5 
percent of all the money that is going to come into the Federal 
Treasury over the next 10 years that we could let the taxpayers keep in 
their pockets or spend it or invest it to create jobs and wealth in 
America to expand our economy. But, in fact, the mountain is the $23 
trillion that is coming into the Federal Treasury over the next 10 
years, and the $792 billion tax cut is the molehill.
  On this chart, we have the mountain over here, the $22.8 trillion 
that the working men and women of America are going to pay into the 
Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. Mr. President Clinton, that is 
the mountain, but right here is the $792 billion tax cut that you 
vetoed last week, and that is truly the molehill. Mr. President, you 
can't make a mountain out of a molehill.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S11461]]

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________