[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1038-S1039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                TAX CUTS

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I also applaud President Bush for his 
leadership on the tax relief issue. He has come forward with a plan 
that I think will have the support of the American people and will 
provide them much needed relief.
  Senator Enzi very correctly called the huge surplus that is projected 
over the next 10 years a tax overcharge. That is precisely what it is. 
The CBO has estimated the Federal surplus will total $5.6 trillion over 
the next 10 years. Setting aside Social Security surplus revenues, the 
Federal surplus will total $3.1 trillion. So if you take away the 
Social Security--put it in that lockbox--you still have $3.1 trillion 
over that same period.
  Our country and our Government has experienced a surplus for the last 
3 years running, and we have paid down the national debt now by over 
$363 billion. It is clear, we have to continue that path of fiscal 
responsibility. We have paid down the public debt $363 billion.
  President Bush has pointed to a very real problem that exists, and 
that is the increase in personal debt, consumer debt, in this Nation. 
One of the imperatives for providing tax relief to low- and middle-
income working Americans is that that increasing personal debt, 
consumer debt, in this country can be addressed while we simultaneously 
address the problem of the national debt.
  The Government also has an obligation to the American taxpayer who is 
now paying more in taxes than the Government is spending every year. 
The Federal tax burden is the highest ever during our peacetime 
history. Americans, as Senator Enzi pointed out, pay more in taxes than 
they spend on food, clothing, and housing.
  Instead of growing Government bureaucracies, and devising new Federal 
programs on which to spend that surplus, it is incumbent on Congress to 
give taxpayers back some of the money they have overpaid because it is, 
in fact, their money.
  President George W. Bush has proposed that we give back about one-
quarter of the projected surplus, which allows us to pay down the 
national debt, protect Medicare, and ensure the viability of Social 
Security, and not touch the Social Security trust fund--all at the same 
time--and give back to the American people one-quarter of the tax 
overcharge, of the surplus.
  I think that is extremely prudent. It is a smaller tax relief package 
than that which was proposed under President Reagan a number of years 
ago.
  If, in fact, we do not return that money to the American people, the 
temptation will be so great in Washington, DC, that we will most 
assuredly spend it; every day politicians are devising means by which 
we can spend that surplus. So while you will hear those who are opposed 
to broad-based tax relief, no one will say they are opposed to tax cuts 
completely. They are all couching it and saying: I favor tax relief, 
but we want to target it to those who need it most.
  That is Washington-speak for those who really don't want to provide 
tax relief for every taxpayer and who really believe that wisdom 
resides within the District of Columbia and that we can better decide 
where those precious resources should be expended than the American 
people.
  The fundamental question is, when it comes to a tax relief package: 
Whom do you trust more? Do you trust the American people? Do you trust 
American families or do you believe that it is wiser and smarter for us 
to collect the tax revenues and then, in our sense of priorities, 
decide where those revenues will go?
  We can prevent the tax relief debate from degenerating into a class 
warfare debate, and we can keep the focus on: Whom do you really trust, 
do you want to return the surplus to the American people, or do you 
want to keep it in Washington where we will divide it up and decide who 
are the winners and who are the losers and what programs should be 
started and what programs should be increased? That will be the debate 
we ought to have before the American people, and on the floor of the 
Senate.
  President Bush has a number of key reforms in the plan with which he 
has come forward. He replaces the current five-rate tax structure with 
four lower rates--10, 15, 25, and 33.
  I agree with George W. Bush: No American taxpayer should be required 
to give more than one-third of their income in Federal income taxes.
  There was a time, back before Ronald Reagan was elected President, 
when the top rate for some Americans was 70 percent. That was obscene. 
Frankly, 33 percent is too high. No American ought to pay more than a 
third of their income in Federal taxes. President Bush simplifies it by 
replacing the five-rate tax structure with four lower rates.
  The most common complaint about the current Tax Code is its 
complexity. While this isn't a panacea and it is not going to fix all 
of the problems in the Tax Code, at least it is a step toward greater 
simplification. I applaud that. It doubles the child tax credit to 
$1,000. I was the original sponsor, when I was in the House of 
Representatives, of the $500-per-child tax credit which eventually was 
signed into law. President Bush says we must go further; we need to 
double that $500-per-child tax credit. He is right.
  Americans who have the greatest burden from our tax system are those

[[Page S1039]]

who are trying to rear their children, trying to pay for their clothes, 
trying to keep food on the table, and trying to plan for college 
tuition. Those Americans facing the greatest economic challenges 
deserve that commitment to the American family that the child tax 
credit provides.
  When the per-child deduction was originally passed and put into the 
Tax Code, the goal was, the statement was, that our Tax Code was to say 
families are important. And they are important. But over time, the 
effects of inflation so eroded tax deduction that it became less than 
significant. The $500-per-child tax credit is a move in the right 
direction, and doubling it, as President Bush has proposed, is a big 
step in providing relief for American families. He reduces the marriage 
penalty. And he eliminates the death tax altogether.

  This has been an effort of Senators and Congress men and women on 
both sides of the aisle for years. It is a provision in our Tax Code 
that is widely recognized as being inequitable and anti-American: 
Penalizing savings, penalizing investments, penalizing the American 
dream of passing on part of what you accumulate in your life to your 
children and to your grandchildren. I applaud the fact that that death 
tax would be pulled up by the roots to no longer be a part of our 
American tax system.
  He expands the charitable tax deduction. This is very much needed as 
part of the faith-based initiative the President came forward with and 
will unleash charitable giving in this country.
  Contrary to the claims of critics that the Bush plan only benefits 
the rich, in fact low- and middle-income families will receive the 
greatest reduction in the amount of taxes they must pay each year 
relative to their income.
  There are going to be a lot of linguistic games played. It is true 
that those in higher income brackets may see a greater relief in terms 
of dollars because 5 percent of wage earners in this country pay 40 
percent of the taxes. Even though President Bush's plan is highly 
progressive, it is going to benefit low- and middle-income taxpayers 
more in percentage terms, in raw dollar terms, because they pay so much 
more of the tax revenues of this country, they will receive more of the 
benefit. But every American taxpayer will receive relief. And those in 
low- and middle-income brackets are going to receive the highest 
percentage of relief relative to their income.
  A family of four making $50,000 a year would receive a 50-percent tax 
cut, which means an extra $1,600 in their pockets every year, enough 
money to pay the average monthly mortgage payment, depending upon where 
you live, or several months' worth of grocery bills for an average 
family. A family of four making $75,000 a year would receive a 25-
percent tax cut, and a family of four making $35,000 a year would have 
a 100-percent tax reduction.
  Yet you will hear time and time again echoed on the floor of this 
body, as we debate this issue in the coming weeks, that this is a tax 
cut for the rich. You tell that to the family making $35,000 a year who 
will owe zero in their Federal tax liability; you tell that to the 
family of four making $50,000 a year who will see their tax burden cut 
in half, that this is a tax break for the rich.
  President Bush's tax plan would use approximately one-fourth of the 
surplus for tax relief while reserving a portion for debt reduction, 
Medicare, and for Social Security preservation. The Bush plan would 
decrease total Federal revenue by no more than 6.2 percent each year.
  By comparison, President Reagan's tax plan reduced Federal revenues 
by over 18 percent. My favorite Democrat, President Kennedy's tax 
proposal would have cut Federal revenue by over 12 percent. He saw the 
value of what tax relief would mean not only to the American people but 
to the economy itself.
  President Bush is proposing fair and responsible tax relief. The 
surplus doesn't belong to the Federal Government; it belongs to the 
hard-working Americans who pay taxes every year. I wholeheartedly 
support the President's plan and look forward to seeing it passed very 
much intact.
  May I inquire, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator spoke for 11 and a half minutes. 
The time until 12:30 is under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, 
Mr. Thomas.

                          ____________________