[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11076-S11078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 TEXAS

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague from Texas for 
her comments on the floor. It seems that our colleague, Senator Kennedy 
from Massachusetts, has decided that now he wants to come over daily 
and tell people how terrible Texas is. I think my dear colleague from 
Texas has done a very good job answering Senator Kennedy. But I don't 
think, quite frankly, the charges need to be answered per se in any 
other way other than saying that in America, thank God, we have a 
freedom where people can move. So if Texas were this terrible State 
that Senator Kennedy says it is, then we would expect people to be 
exercising their freedom to move out of Texas and to move to paradise 
States such as Massachusetts.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a quick 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am thrilled with the presentation of the Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when he is through I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy would have us believe that 
Texas is a terrible place. But we can look at what is actually 
happening in Texas. We created 1.6 million new, permanent, productive, 
tax-paying jobs for the future since Governor Bush has taken office. 
This is 50% faster than job growth nationwide. And while the Nation has 
lost manufacturing jobs, we have created almost 100,000 new 
manufacturing jobs in Texas under the leadership of Governor Bush.

  But there is a simple, empirical test as to whether people want to 
live in a State and what the quality of life is and how good the 
political leadership is of that State. People vote with their feet. 
People vote with their feet by leaving places that have bad government 
and they come to places that have good government.
  Senator Kennedy wants us to believe that Texas is this terrible 
place. The incredible paradox is, consistently now for over 30 years, 
people have been leaving Massachusetts and moving to Texas. For over 30 
years, Texas has exploded in population as Americans have chosen to 
move there, make their life there, and cast their lot with those who 
were elected to represent them in Texas. And for over 30 years, people 
have cast their lot by picking up, packing up their children in the 
station wagon, and driving out of Massachusetts. It seems to me that is 
the empirical test.
  I personally believe that this silly business about attacking States 
as part of a political campaign doesn't make any sense. I don't know 
why Senator Kennedy feels compelled to talk about it. I don't know why 
he feels compelled to try to attack Texas. The last fellow that tried 
to attack Texas was General Santa Ana. It did not turn out too well for 
him. Maybe Senator Kennedy thinks it is going to turn out better for 
him than it did for General Santa Ana.
  I think the message here is not that Massachusetts is a bad place 
because people are picking up and moving out of it; in fact, it is a 
very nice place. They have very good people. But they have politicians 
who have implemented in Massachusetts the program that Al Gore wants to 
implement in America. They have spent and taxed, spent and taxed, spent 
and taxed. In the process, every time we take a census, every time we 
reapportioned representation in the U.S. Congress for the last 30 
years, relatively speaking, as compared to the population growth of the 
country, people have moved out of Massachusetts and moved to Texas. We 
have gained congressional representation, and Massachusetts has lost 
congressional representation.
  I don't think that says that Massachusetts is a bad place. Everything 
I know about their people, they are wonderful people. But it says 
something about the key issue in the campaign for President of the 
United States. It says that when Americans have the right to vote with 
their feet, they turn their backs on the policies of Al Gore--spend and 
tax, spend and tax, spend and tax--and they vote with their feet by 
walking away from those policies.
  Senator Kennedy has come over today and yesterday and instead of 
defending Gore's policies, which no one can defend, he tries to attack 
Texas. But the plain truth is, the people who have moved out of 
Massachusetts in the last 30 years have moved because they were 
rejecting Al Gore's policies of spend and tax that have been 
implemented in Massachusetts.
  Here is the problem. If we implemented those policies in America, the 
policies that have been implemented in Massachusetts and that Al Gore 
has proposed, with almost $3.3 trillion worth of new Government 
spending, over 70 massive new Government programs and program 
expansions, if we adopted those policies in America, where would you 
move? How would you move with your feet? Who is ready to walk off and 
leave their country?
  The problem is, we can vote with our feet to leave Massachusetts and 
flee bad government and come to Texas. But we can't vote with our feet, 
we don't want to vote with our feet, to leave America. So again we 
don't want to leave America, I say to my dear colleague from Utah; we 
need to turn our back on the policies of tax and spend that have been 
imposed by politicians in Massachusetts and we need to reject them for 
America.

  I have thought it is bad policy and bad form to debate the campaign 
for

[[Page S11077]]

President on the floor of the Senate. But given that Senator Kennedy is 
now going to do it every day, apparently, I thought I would take the 
bait and talk for a moment.
  When people were listening to the Presidential debates--the Senator 
from Utah watched them, I know, because we talked about it the next 
morning--they kept hearing Al Gore say: 1 percent of Americans get all 
the benefit. They get all these tax cuts. It is the rich people. It is 
the people against the privileged. And Al Gore is for the people. That 
is what they heard.
  Those, by the way, are the same slogans that destroyed ancient Rome 
and destroyed ancient Athens. And I have to say that Al Gore sounds 
like a socialist candidate running in a Third World country, to stoop 
low enough to use that kind of language.
  I want to explain to people why it is phony. Let me start by talking 
about Al Gore's record on taxes. Everybody knows he is not for George 
W. Bush's proposal to cut taxes. We all know that. Let me talk about 
his record in Congress, and as Vice President, on taxes. How many 
people know that when Jimmy Carter was President he proposed a tax cut 
in 1978, that among other things raised the personal exemption from 
$750 to $1,000 for working families with children, and made the earned-
income tax credit permanent. When Jimmy Carter in 1978 said the 
American people deserve a tax cut and because of inflation--remember, 
Senator Bennett, the inflation was in double digits when Jimmy Carter 
was President--he said we need to raise the personal exemption. What 
did Al Gore say? It is for the rich. It is for the rich. When you raise 
the personal exemption from $750 to $1,000, it will help the rich 
people. So he voted against the tax cut. Apparently, everybody that got 
a tax cut was rich.
  Then in 1981 when Ronald Reagan proposed reducing taxes across the 
board for everybody, taking millions of families off the tax rolls 
completely, Al Gore thought that was a tax cut for rich people, and so 
he voted no.
  Then when we had our effort to reduce the tax burden in 1995, Al Gore 
again had a chance to support tax cuts, but he supported the veto that 
killed the bill.
  Then when we had the Tax Relief Act of 1999, a tax relief that was 
aimed at repealing the marriage penalty, Al Gore again supported the 
veto that killed the bill. He believed that if you make $21,800 and you 
meet another person who makes $21,800 a year and you fall in love and 
you get married, you become too rich to deserve a tax cut, and you are 
going to pay on average $1,400 a year to the Federal Government in 
taxes for the right to be married.
  Why should you do that? Because Al Gore believes that he can spend 
that $1,400 better than your family can spend it. So when he had a 
chance in that tax cut to say yes, he said no.
  When we passed the marriage penalty repeal, free standing, in the 
year 2000, he was opposed to it because we actually stretched the tax 
bracket for couples with each person making $21,925 a year so that they 
didn't go into the higher, 28 percent tax bracket. But Al Gore thought 
they were the 1 percent who were privileged and so he supported the 
President in vetoing the repeal of the marriage tax penalty.
  Then we passed the death tax repeal. This is a tax that small 
business people and family farmers pay. They work a lifetime to build 
up a business or family farm. They scrimp, they sacrifice, they save, 
and they build up the farm or business. They may not have much cash, 
but their land, if they are farmers, is worth a lot of money if they 
sold it. But they don't want to sell it. Their father worked it. They 
worked it. They want their children to work it. But Al Gore said: No, 
you are rich. And, besides, if you have to sell your family business, 
if you have to sell your family farm, it is worth it because the 
Government can spend this money better than you can spend this money.
  Now look, here are all of the tax cuts since Al Gore has been a 
Member of Congress, or Vice President, that have been considered--major 
tax cuts by the U.S. Congress in all the years since Al Gore came to 
the House of Representatives. Guess what. He thought every one of these 
tax cuts was for rich people, because he never voted for a major tax 
cut. Not once since he came to Congress has he believed, on a major tax 
bill, that we ought to be cutting taxes.
  I guess he thought, when we were raising the exemption for children 
from $750 to $1,000, that all those children were rich. When Reagan cut 
taxes across the board, took millions of people off the tax rolls, I 
guess Al Gore thought they were all rich, because he was against it. 
The point is, he has been against every major tax cut since he has been 
in public life; every one of them has been a dangerous scheme, to Al 
Gore.
  Now that is only part of the story. You see, we have raised taxes 
since Al Gore has been in Congress. In fact, I have here every major 
tax increase that has been voted on since Al Gore came to Congress and 
while he was Vice President. Guess what. One thing you have to give him 
credit for, he is totally consistent; he has never voted against a 
major tax increase since he has been in public life. He voted for the 
major tax increase in 1983, 1984, 1987, in 1990, and 1993, and let me 
talk briefly about 1993.
  You heard, if you watched all those debates, that Al Gore wants to 
tax rich people. He loves capitalism, but he seems to hate capitalists. 
He loves economic growth, but he seems to hate people who create it. He 
wants to pit people against each other, so if somebody is creating 
jobs, you ought to resent them if you are a worker.
  I do not know about our colleague from Utah, but neither of my 
parents graduated from high school. No poor person ever hired me in my 
life. Every job I ever got was from somebody who had a lot more money 
than I had. I was glad to have the job. Those jobs made it possible for 
people such as me to be successful in America. But Al Gore supported 
every major tax increase that has been voted on since he has been in 
public life--he voted for it.
  Do you remember the point in the debate where he said: I am proud to 
have cast the deciding vote on the 1993 Clinton economic program. He 
did not tell people that that deciding vote was for a gasoline tax 
increase. The rhetoric of Al Gore and Bill Clinton was their 1993 tax 
bill only taxed rich people--it did not tax anybody but rich people. 
But listen to their definition of rich.
  If you drove a car or a truck in America, you paid a higher gasoline 
tax, so, by Al Gore's definition, you were rich. If you remember, in 
the bill that was voted on in the House, that Al Gore supported, it had 
a Btu tax that would have taxed everybody's utility bills. Guess what. 
If you have heating or air-conditioning, if you use electricity or 
heating oil or natural gas, Al Gore believes you are rich, because he 
said he was only taxing rich people. Yet he supported taxing 
everybody's utility bill.
  The final one, which was the ultimate, it seems to me, was the tax on 
Social Security. You know, it is funny. When you are not in these 
debates, you watch them on television, and you are brilliant. If you 
were just there, you would know exactly what to say. It is funny, when 
you are there, you never quite know what to say. But when Al Gore was 
talking about Social Security and he was accused of never having done 
anything about it, he didn't defend himself. But in fact he has done 
something. Al Gore, in fact, cast the deciding vote on something that 
profoundly affected Social Security, and that deciding vote was to tax 
the Social Security benefits of people who make over $25,000 a year--in 
fact, to tax 85 percent of the benefits of every retiree in America who 
made over $25,000 a year.

  Wait a minute. Al Gore said, when he was for this bill, that it only 
taxed rich people. If you make $25,000 a year and you are drawing 
Social Security, to Al Gore you are rich.
  A final thing, and then I will stop. I thought it would be 
interesting. We heard all this business about who gets Al Gore's tax 
cut. I decided to do a little experiment. It is a little bit clever--it 
is not too clever--but here is the basic point. I decided to take a 
page out of the Washington Post. This is a want ads page of the 
Washington Post. It is page D11, on Tuesday, October 24. I have 
reproduced it up here.
  I went through this list of jobs and asked: Who taking a job in this 
list would not be too rich to get Al Gore's tax cut? I am not talking 
about a tax cut you get if you do what Al Gore wants you to do. I am 
talking about a

[[Page S11078]]

cut in your income taxes, where you get to keep more of your money. So 
follow with me, if you will. This is page D11 of the want ads. Here are 
all the jobs: From Fairfax Yellow Cab, ``cash daily''; dispatcher; we 
have here a sports entertainment local branch office for a national 
sports marketing firm; we have here a newspaper carrier; we have a 
driver for a warehouse chain--pretty much typical jobs in America.
  If you go through this and you say, OK, take off every job that was 
on the want ads page in the Washington Post on Tuesday so that you just 
leave those jobs that, if you take those jobs, you get Al Gore's tax 
cut, there it is.
  Now look. This is page D11 of the Washington Post. These are jobs 
that are out there right now for people: Landscape foreman and laborer, 
janitorial; interior design, sales; driver, class A tractor-trailer; 
drafter, 2 years of experience needed. These are real jobs in the real 
world. If you took one of these jobs, would you be too rich to get Al 
Gore's tax cut? When you take all the job ads off that would make you 
too rich for Al Gore's tax cut, that is what is left. Those are the 
jobs you could take and you would get Al Gore's tax cut. Here they are: 
Dry cleaning, pants pressers.
  You can take a job in Vienna. Let me make it very clear, I am not 
denigrating these jobs. These are tickets to success in America. Thank 
God people are creating these jobs.
  I do not want to go too far in reading it. Here is the point: You 
could get a job pressing pants, you could get a job as a lifeguard and 
cleaning a swimming pool, you could get a job as a newspaper carrier, 
and you could get Al Gore's tax cut. But if you have any of these other 
jobs--one can see the difference between them--if you got any of those 
other jobs, you do not get Al Gore's tax cut. I guess this says you are 
in the 1 percent. That comes as a big surprise to people as to who is 
rich and who is not rich.
  I will sum up, make my point, and then yield to Senator Bennett.
  Al Gore has served in public life for a long time. In fact, he took 
pride in it. Look, it is God's work to be involved in public life. The 
point is, on every tax increase since Al Gore has been in public life, 
every one of any size or significance, he has voted for every one of 
them. Every tax cut voted on since Al Gore has been in public life, he 
has opposed every single major tax cut.
  He has written a so-called tax cut that 89 percent of the jobs in the 
Washington Post on page D11 on Tuesday, if you took one of those jobs, 
your income would be too high to qualify for his tax cut.
  If you did something he wanted you to do, that there was some kind of 
favorable tax treatment for, you might get some benefit, but in terms 
of getting to keep more of your own money to spend, which is what most 
people call a tax cut, this is what you are down to.
  Why? Why has Al Gore in his whole public life never voted against a 
tax increase, never voted for a tax cut, and why does he want to 
exclude almost anybody who would get any job at random out of the 
newspaper? Because he believes in his heart that Government can spend 
the money better in Washington than you can spend it at home.
  Al Gore is not against married couples. He is not against love. I 
know he loves his family, and he has a wonderful family. He should love 
them. But he believes that having working couples in America pay $1,400 
a year in a marriage penalty is OK, it is a good thing, it ought not to 
be repealed, because he believes Government can spend the $1,400 better 
than they can spend it.
  He believes it is OK to make people sell the family farm or sell the 
family business and destroy their parents' life's work and everything 
their family has worked for in America to give Government 55 cents out 
of every dollar they earn, not because he does not like small business 
or does not like family farms, he likes them, but he believes with all 
of his heart that Government can spend the money better than they can. 
If you have to sell your family farm and you have to give the life work 
of your parents and grandparents to the Government, he believes the 
Government will do the right thing in spending it and you will be 
better off.
  If you believe that, your choice in this election is very clear. If 
you believe that Government, by spending $3.3 trillion on new 
Government programs, which is what Al Gore has proposed, can make your 
life better, then you ought to vote for him. If you believe it is not 
risky to spend $3.3 trillion in Washington but it is risky to give back 
$1.3 trillion in tax cuts to working Americans, Al Gore is your man.
  On the other hand, if you believe the Government is probably about as 
big as it ought to be, if you believe that you can do a better job 
spending your money than the Government can do, then you probably ought 
not to vote for Al Gore. You probably ought to vote for George Bush.
  To tie it all together, what does this have to do with bashing Texas 
and Massachusetts? It has to do with people who have already made these 
decisions. Millions of people have moved to Texas because they wanted 
lower taxes, because they wanted more opportunity, because they wanted 
to decide. It was not that they hated Government. The Government does a 
lot of good things. It is they believe they can do things for their 
family better than the Government can do things for them.

  Senator Kennedy does not believe that. He thinks Al Gore is right. He 
believes we need to spend all this money. He believes we need a bigger 
Government. His State historically--it has changed; it is getting 
better, I believe--but historically, his State believed the same thing, 
which is why so many people moved to Texas, because they were voting 
for freedom instead of Government.
  Quite frankly, I would rather we not debate the Presidential campaign 
on the floor of the Senate, but as long as Senator Kennedy is going to 
debate it, I am going to debate it. I want to debate the real issues, 
and the real issue is, do you want more Government or do you want more 
opportunity for your family? It is just about as clear as the issue can 
be clear.
  Al Gore voted for every tax increase of any significance, against 
every tax cut of any significance since he has been in public life for 
one reason: He believes that Government can spend your money better. I 
do not. George Bush does not. The question is: What does America think?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized under the 
previous order.

                          ____________________