[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 18 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1171-S1176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUT PROPOSAL

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to respond to my distinguished 
colleague on his always very insightful observations regarding the 
President's tax cut proposals. I want to strongly commend the President 
for coming out with a well-conceived tax program that will provide 
broad-based tax relief for the American people; for every American 
taxpayer will experience relief from the onerous burden placed upon 
them by this Tax Code and tax burden we have.
  My distinguished colleague spoke of the need for investment. Too 
often when we talk about not giving tax relief because we have to 
ensure we have enough resources to invest in the Federal Government, 
what we are really talking about is: Let's make sure we don't give it 
back to the American people so we have it to spend as we see fit. So 
investment equates to big spending programs. That would be ill-advised.
  If we do not enact broad-based tax relief, as the President has 
proposed, I can assure you that over the next 10 years the projected 
surplus will not go to debt reduction, as everybody would like to see, 
but it will, in fact, be spent by a Congress that enjoys spending all 
too much.
  When Senator Lieberman speaks about a cautious approach, I agree. 
What the President has done and proposed is cautious and prudent. He 
has proposed that we spend one-fourth of the projected surplus by 
returning to the American people tax relief. One quarter of every 
dollar out of the projected surplus would be returned to the American 
people who pay the bills.
  As my friend Senator Enzi has often said, the surplus is a tax 
overcharge, and at least a quarter of it ought to go back to the 
American people.


                       EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a part of the 
President's tax program and part of his education program, which is the 
education savings accounts. My colleague,

[[Page S1172]]

Senator Torricelli, spoke on this earlier today. I join him and am 
pleased to cosponsor the education savings accounts legislation with 
him. I am honored to take up this cause from its previous Republican 
sponsor, the Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell, and it is in his 
honor and memory that this legislation is named.
  Senator Coverdell was an ardent supporter of education savings 
accounts. He worked for years to ensure that families and children 
across America had the best educational opportunities available to 
them. I, with all of my colleagues, am sad that Senator Coverdell is no 
longer here to continue his exemplary work on this issue. He believed 
education was one of the five pillars of freedom. Not only did he work 
tirelessly on this issue, but he coordinated the floor debate on the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act last May. He was dedicated to 
the issue of education and its importance in shaping the future of our 
country.
  While this legislation was passed several times by the Senate under 
the leadership of Senator Coverdell, I will work with Senator 
Torricelli to ensure that his dream of expanded, broader education 
savings accounts is not only passed this year but is signed into law.
  This legislation, which we call the Coverdell Education Savings 
Accounts Act of 2001, allows parents, grandparents, or other 
scholarship sponsors to establish an education savings account to save 
for a child's education expenses. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
allowed families to establish individual education accounts for higher 
education expenses, but it allowed contributions of only $500 per year. 
That is simply not enough. This legislation would build on that 
legislation by increasing the annual limit on contributions from the 
$500 to $2,000 per child per year. Furthermore, and equally as 
significant, it expands the account so that savings may be used for 
elementary and secondary education expenses, including tutoring, 
special needs services, books, home computers, and tuition.

  Education savings accounts place the power of education in the hands 
of those who should be in control, and that is the parents. These 
accounts allow parents to invest their own money over time to plan for 
their children's future. Parents would have a real incentive to save 
for their children's education expenses, and as these accounts grow and 
accumulate interest, they build compound interest so parents can have 
significant resources to pay for many of the services associated with 
educating their child.
  My colleagues, even public education is no longer free. Parents often 
have to pay for tutoring, for afterschool programs, for uniforms in 
many schools, home computers and software, and they pay that out of 
their own pockets. These accounts can help pay for that.
  May I say, as an aside, public school teachers are going to be big 
beneficiaries of these Coverdell accounts. They are going to benefit 
because those who are hired to do tutoring, those who will provide 
additional help for children who need that special time are going to be 
the public school teachers who are going to see their incomes and 
limited salaries oftentimes supplemented by these education savings 
accounts.
  In addition, this legislation would expand who can contribute to the 
education savings accounts so that corporations, charitable 
organizations, foundations, and labor unions can contribute to these 
education savings accounts in the name of a particular child. So I can 
certainly envision major employers deciding this would be an ideal 
benefit to employees and their children by establishing these education 
savings accounts, making contributions to them. I certainly can imagine 
labor unions being supportive of this and seeing this as a wonderful 
benefit for their members and ensuring that their members are going to 
have the resources necessary for their children's education and for 
their employees to have all of the options available as they look at 
what is best for their children.
  So this proposal will inject billions of new dollars into education 
that would not have been spent previously. I think it is a wonderful 
opportunity for companies and unions to offer education savings 
accounts as benefits for their employees--a benefit particularly 
helpful to low- and middle-income families who otherwise could not save 
much.
  According to a previous analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
70 percent of the families expected to take advantage of this 
legislation have incomes of $75,000 or less. These accounts are only 
available to taxpayers making less than $95,000 or $190,000 jointly. 
The Joint Committee on Taxation also estimated that 75 percent of all 
families using these accounts will have children enrolled in public 
elementary or secondary schools. That means public schools aren't the 
losers; they are the winners under education savings accounts.
  The injection of billions of dollars, 75 percent of which is going to 
be benefiting families with children in public schools, is a tremendous 
boon to public education. So education savings accounts benefit low- 
and middle-income families who currently struggle to meet the education 
needs of their children, and they benefit families not only of lower 
income but those who are enrolled in public schools.

  One of the arguments against these savings accounts is that you are 
going to take the cream of the crop out of the public schools because 
in their education savings accounts, they can save the resources for 
private school tuition. Yes, they could, but the fact is, this 
legislation is really targeting low- and middle-income families, those 
who otherwise don't even have those choices. An affluent family can 
look at private schools, parochial schools, all kinds of options. They 
can afford tutors. It is the low- and middle-income families who 
heretofore have not had those options, but with education savings 
accounts they can look at these options.
  Public schools, private schools, and parochial schools are all 
enhanced by that competitive atmosphere. This legislation leaves public 
money in public schools. Only private resources could ever be used for 
tuition in a private school.
  We are going to have a healthy debate about the ``V'' word--
vouchers--this year, and I commend the President for his portability 
provision on title I so disadvantaged children don't have to remain in 
a failing school, trapped in a school not meeting their needs, and 
parents will be able to take a portion of Federal money out of title I 
and move to another school. We are going to have a heated debate on 
that. There are Republicans for and against it, and some Democrats are 
for and against it. This is something Republicans and Democrats, 
provoucher and antivoucher forces, can agree upon because it is only 
private money that would be utilized in going to other public schools, 
and only public money would go to the public schools. Instead of 
creating a new Federal education program, should we not allow parents 
to realize a maximum return on their savings by allowing for these 
accounts?
  It is estimated that education savings accounts will infuse more than 
$12 billion of additional funding into education. That far outweighs 
the cost of the bill. What better way to stress the importance of 
education than by allowing parents the opportunity to make their 
dollars count.
  I look forward to working on this bill with the original cosponsors--
Senators Gregg, Frist, Enzi, Sessions, Thompson, Hagel, Brownback, 
Santorum, and Breaux--as well as the chief cosponsor, Senator 
Torricelli of New Jersey, who has fought this fight and who has been on 
the floor with Senator Coverdell in past years and has taken a 
courageous step for something that in the time since it began was 
controversial. I commend him and look forward to working with him as we 
move this legislation forward.
  Parents deserve this chance of empowerment to provide a better 
education for their children.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss 
some of the benefits of the tax plan that President Bush has sent to 
Congress. I believe everybody is beginning to understand the 
significant benefit families would receive under this tax reduction 
plan.
  A family of four living in my State--St. Louis, Kansas City, Sedalia, 
Moberly, Maryville, or Kennett--if

[[Page S1173]]

they earn $35,000, would have all their taxes eliminated, a 100-percent 
tax cut. That has to be good news.
  A family of four making $50,000 a year would receive a 50-percent tax 
cut--at least $1,600. That could be a downpayment on a new van or a car 
or buy several weeks of summer camp for the kids or several weeks of 
groceries.
  President Bush's plan doubles the child tax credit to $1,000, 
bringing it more in line with the actual cost of raising a kid. It is a 
news flash for those of us inside the beltway. Kids are expensive. 
Those of us who have kids know they are life's greatest blessing, but 
they do not come cheap.
  I commend the President for recognizing this.
  I believe it is also very important that President Bush's plan 
expands the charitable tax deduction. We ought to be encouraging more 
people to contribute to the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Catholic 
Charities, or any of the myriad wonderful private agencies that are 
doing very important work helping those who need help.
  I want to speak today specifically about the impact these tax 
reductions would have on small business.
  As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I hear from 
small businesses every day that are the dynamic engine growing this 
economy. These are the businesses that create the new jobs. As larger 
and larger businesses cut back and lay off employees, they are finding 
jobs. They are finding good opportunities in small business.
  Small businesses represent about 99 percent of all employers. They 
employ 53 percent of the private workforce and create about 75 percent 
of the new jobs in this country. As you are looking to see where jobs 
can be provided to those who are coming off welfare and those entering 
the workforce for the first time, small businesses are the ones giving 
them the opportunities.
  Under the Bush tax plan, small businesses will get a huge benefit 
from collapsing the tax brackets from 5 to 4--giving marginal rate 
reductions. This is extremely important for these small businesses. 
Why? You may think businesses and individuals are different. But 
according to IRS statistics on income--most recent data available--
about 20.7 million tax returns filed by small businesses were sole 
proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations with business assets 
less than $1 million. Those are significant numbers of small businesses 
that are taxed on the individual tax rates. The income of the business 
is passed through, and it is applied to their tax returns.
  On the other hand, there are about 2\3/4\ million corporations, or 
regular C corporations, that are taxed under the business rates. Almost 
10 times as many businesses, much smaller, of course, are taxed on 
individual tax returns. Eighty-eight percent of the businesses with 
receipts under $1 million are passthrough entities--businesses taxed 
only at the individual owner level.
  The rate reduction proposed by the President will cut the taxes paid 
by farmers, retail shop owners, small businesses, startup businesses 
that are formed as sole proprietorship, partnerships, and S 
corporations. What are they going to do with it?
  We have seen in the past when they have the taxes reduced--and we are 
reducing the taxes because we have a tax surplus; we are taxing them 
too much; too much money is being taken out of families' pockets and 
out of businesses' pockets--they will use those dollars left in their 
pockets to invest in new equipment, in new technologies, hire more 
workers, and pay better wages. They will be able to expand the product 
lines and the services they offer. Most importantly, they will 
contribute to the economic growth of their hometowns.
  Week before last, we had a fascinating discussion with Chairman Alan 
Greenspan of the Federal Reserve. Chairman Greenspan, many people 
believe, has been one of the real economic gurus whose good economic 
policies have allowed this economy to grow. He has talked in the past 
about the need to reduce the huge national debt run up over past years.
  But do you know something. This time Chairman Greenspan said it is 
time for a tax reduction. Why? Because we are running surpluses. There 
is a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. That means 
we would pay off all the debt we could pay off. Then the Federal 
Government would be left in the position of what to do with the extra 
money after they pay down the debt.
  One of the most dangerous things he said they could do would be to 
have the Federal Government accumulating private assets. That is 
``economic speak'' for buying up businesses, buying up shares of the 
stock market, or getting the Federal Government into socializing the 
economy. We don't need to go that direction. We don't need to have the 
Federal Government as the major shareholder in our economy.
  Reducing high tax rates now is the best way to make sure we don't put 
the Federal Government into the business of buying up businesses. That 
is very dangerous. That is not where we want to go.
  In addition, I asked Chairman Greenspan about what nature of tax cut 
would most benefit the economy. He said as an economist that clearly 
the most important thing we can do is lower the marginal rates.
  With tax reform in the 1980s, we got the top rate down to about 80 
percent. Most people think if the Federal Government is taking over a 
quarter of every dollar earned, that is as much as it should take. But 
right now we have the rates on the books of 39.6 percent. But with all 
the phaseouts and others, sometimes that tax rate is 44 percent--almost 
half of every dollar.
  When you take that much money out of the system, and when you take 
that much money out of the new dollars coming into a business, for 
example, you discourage investment. From the economist's standpoint, 
the best thing we can do is reduce those high marginal rates so that 
small businesses will have the incentive to put more money into 
technology and into equipment.
  We have had a phenomenal growth in productivity. Because there has 
been investment in new technology, information technology, the 
information age has revolutionized the way businesses work. Businesses 
are able to be more productive. What does that mean? It doesn't just 
mean the businesses are more profitable. It means you and I as 
consumers get better products at lower prices. It means they can hire 
more workers. It means they can pay workers better salaries.
  These are the benefits that come about from a marginal tax rate 
reduction.
  In addition, the President calls for repealing the death tax.
  This will be a tremendous benefit to small business. I have a lot of 
farmers in my State who are very worried that when they die the Federal 
Government is going to come in with a confiscatory Federal death tax 
and take away the farm, take away the small business that has been 
built up over the years that the business owner or the farmer would 
like to leave to his or her children.
  Repealing the death tax will make a significant difference in 
assuring that we continue jobs and economic activity. Thousands of 
small businesses in this country waste millions of dollars each year on 
estate planning and insurance costs just to keep the doors open if the 
owners die.
  A good friend of mine farms along the Missouri River in western 
Missouri. When his father died they paid almost $100,000 in accounting 
and legal fees to figure out how they could keep his farms from being 
broken up. Death ought not be a taxable event. It is bad enough to have 
the undertaker arrive at your door. You don't want to have the tax man 
arrive at the same time.
  The money we pay to accountants, to lawyers, and to insurance 
companies to try to get around this estate tax could be much more 
productively employed in investing in new equipment, in providing new 
jobs and better wages.
  Many times the tax at death ends a small business; it has to be sold. 
It is a job killer. I think the days of the death tax should be 
numbered, not the days of the business owned by an older business owner 
or farmer who is reaching the end.
  It should come as no surprise if the economy slows, as clearly it is, 
small businesses will be first to feel the pain. Capital dries up, 
sales will fall, and possibly business productivity will diminish. As 
we focus on the need for immediate tax relief and the merits of it in 
the Bush tax plan, we cannot ignore the plight of America's small 
enterprises in the growing economy.

[[Page S1174]]

  Taxes are not supposed to be countercyclical. This is a long-term 
investment in the productivity of our country. When we cut the capital 
gains rate in the last decade, the money made available from the tax 
reductions helped spur the investments in productivity that kept our 
economy growing. Incidentally, that increased activity actually brought 
more revenue to the Federal Government.
  I think the Bush plan, in addition to holding tremendous benefits for 
families, for individuals struggling to make ends meet, will have a 
tremendous benefit for small business. The rate cut, the estate tax 
repeal, and the other features of the President's proposal will 
directly help the hard-working women and men who dedicate their lives 
to creating small businesses, to taking the risks in the marketplace 
that will allow this country to be healthier, and to allow themselves, 
their families, and their workers to be productive, contributing 
members of the economy.
  When small businesses win, we all win. I think President Bush's tax 
plan is one of the best hopes we have for ensuring that our economy 
continues to grow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Missouri 
for a fine statement. I certainly associate myself with those comments. 
In particular, his reference to the effective tax cuts on the small 
businesses in our country, something he has worked on literally all of 
his career. I appreciate very much his emphasis on that.
  The President, of course, sends us his bill today. The essential 
feature, as the Senator from Missouri said, is the reduction in 
marginal rates. Reducing the marginal rates is the best thing we can do 
for all taxpayers, as well as for strengthening the economy itself.
  I note that the low- and middle-class taxpayers are the biggest 
winners under this plan. For example, a family of four making $50,000 a 
year would receive a 50-percent cut, a $1,600 reduction average on 
their tax bill. If that is not considered important by people, just 
think about how much that would do for the average family. It pays the 
entire average home mortgage for that family of four, a year of tuition 
at a lot of community colleges, and so on.
  The size of the cut is also modest by any standard. I know some of 
our colleagues on the left have said it is too big. Frankly, it is not 
nearly enough, in my view. I subscribe to the view of those in the 
House of Representatives yesterday who said it could be much larger, 
and it should be larger. I support at least this modest effort and urge 
my colleagues who say it is too much to recognize that it is only half 
the size of the tax cuts of the John F. Kennedy administration and one-
third the size of the tax cuts of the Ronald Reagan administration. So 
I don't think one could say that this tax cut is too large, when all 
economists agree that the tax cuts of the Kennedy and Reagan eras were 
the primary cause of the great economic growths that occurred during 
those periods of time.
  Moreover, for those who contend that we don't have enough money to 
accommodate this tax, I say, first of all, that is very much the wrong 
standard to apply. This is not a Government expenditure. This has to do 
with taking money from American workers. Recall that during the Reagan 
era we had huge Federal debt and very large annual deficits, yet we 
reduced taxes. As I said, this tax cut being proposed by President Bush 
is only a third the size of those Reagan tax cuts.
  The goal, first of all, should be to relieve the burden on American 
taxpayers, enabling them to contribute to the great economic engine of 
this country. We do not need to be worried about how much money is 
going to be left over for this Congress to spend. Everyone here knows 
that if we leave it on the table in the Congress, it will get spent. 
That is why we believe there is another reason to support this tax cut, 
not just to improve the economy and help American families but so the 
money will not be spent by the Congress inappropriately.
  Surpluses are proof of the fact that taxpayers are being overcharged. 
They deserve some of their money back. The fact that the economy is 
weakening at this point simply makes the point that this tax cut and 
the case for this tax cut is undeniable.
  I will focus my remaining comments on one specific feature of the 
President's proposal; that is, the repeal of the estate tax, the so-
called death tax. Yesterday, I introduced legislation similar to that 
introduced last year. Senators Breaux, Gramm, and Lincoln are 
cosponsors. We all serve on the Finance Committee. It is balanced 
between Democrats and Republicans. This is the bipartisan approach that 
passed both the House and the Senate last year, only to be vetoed by 
President Clinton.

  The essence of the bill is to replace the Federal estate tax with a 
tax on capital gains earned from inherited assets due when those assets 
are sold. As I said, this is the approach that passed both Houses of 
Congress, and it rests on the notion that death should be taken 
entirely out of the equation.
  Death should not be a taxable event. If people want to sell assets at 
some point, they make an economic calculation knowing, among other 
things, what kind of tax would pertain. They can make that decision on 
their own. That is the only time there should be any kind of a tax. At 
that point, it should be a capital gains tax, not a tax that is more 
than twice the capital gains rate, which is what the death tax is.
  As I said, the beauty of this approach is it removes death as a 
trigger for a tax. Death neither confers a benefit nor results in a 
punitive, confiscatory state. Small estates would be unaffected by the 
basic changes we are making. For them, the estate tax would be 
eliminated and a limited step-up in basis would be preserved. Each 
person under our proposal has a $2.8 million automatic step-up in 
basis. So for a couple, there is no chance that an estate that is not 
taxed under the estate tax today would be taxed under our proposal.
  This measure would not allow unrealized appreciation on inherited 
assets, however. I know that is a concern for some of our friends on 
the other side. Beyond this limited step-up in basis, all assets would 
be taxed as in any other situation if and when they are ever sold. 
Friends who own small businesses who never want to sell the small 
business or farm, that is fine. You never pay a tax. The tax only 
pertains if and when the business is sold.
  This is a very fair proposal. In fact, the American people, even 
though most of them realize they are not liable for an estate tax, 
understand the fairness of this and support it.
  A Gallup poll not too long ago found that 60 percent of the American 
people support repeal of the death tax, even though about three-fourths 
of them do not think they will ever have to pay the death tax 
themselves. They are right, although many Americans have to go through 
the expense of paying for insurance or estate planning.

  As a matter of fact, about 3 years ago, coincidentally, the 
Government collected about the same amount in estate tax--I think it 
was around $23 billion--that other Americans paid to avoid paying the 
estate tax. So it is actually a double tax. A lot of people who do not 
actually pay it end up paying as much through the estate tax lawyers' 
fees, accountants' fees, insurance, and so on. So I think most American 
people understand it is not a good tax to have, even though they 
themselves may not be liable for it.
  Also this last year, in the last election, voters in two States 
approved referenda to repeal their own estate tax: South Dakota, by a 
vote of 79-21, and Montana, 68 to 32 percent. Clearly, repeal of this 
confiscatory tax is an idea whose time has come, both in the State and 
at the Federal level.
  I conclude by reiterating the significant majorities in the House and 
Senate who voted for repeal last year means we have finally found the 
formula for taxing inherited assets in a fair and commonsense way. I 
hope, as this process unfolds and the tax legislation comes before the 
Senate and the House, our colleagues will recognize the validity of 
this approach, the fairness, the place in which the death tax repeal 
fits into the overall tax program, and that we can pass tax relief for 
hard-working American families.
  It is the most sure way not only to do right by them but to ensure a 
strong economy for the United States of America.

[[Page S1175]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to state that Americans need tax 
relief and I believe they need it now. Despite record economic growth 
for the last several years, and huge budgeted surpluses in the last few 
years and in the future, I think these surpluses simply represent 
overtaxation of the American taxpayers. Americans, in recent years, 
have been repeatedly denied tax relief despite these surpluses because 
there were not enough Senators to override the President's veto--the 
previous President's veto.
  Excessive taxation limits the individual freedom of hard-working 
Americans, their families, and their enterprises. I agree very much 
with the previous remarks made by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, 
and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
  The fact is, Americans are paying more in taxes as a proportion of 
the gross domestic product than at any time since World War II. In 
fact, for this fiscal year, the Federal Government will pull out $1 of 
every $5 in the economy--20 percent of the economy is being taken by 
the Federal Government, even though there is a non-Social Security 
budget surplus in this year that is going to top $125 billion, and it 
is going to exceed $3.1 trillion over the next decade.
  I believe we must assure that Americans can keep more of their hard-
earned dollars in their pockets. Previously, the Senator from 
Connecticut paraphrased a song to slow down tax cuts in this surplus. I 
think there is a more apt country western song to reference this gold 
mine surplus that is created by the work of the taxpayers. What has 
been suggested by the opponents is that the Government gets the gold 
mines and the taxpayers get the shaft.
  I think the taxpayers deserve better. It is simply common sense that, 
rather than continuing down the path of excessive Government spending 
in Washington, Americans ought to be allowed more money to invest in 
their priorities for their families, for their homes: saving for 
retirement or the purchase of a computer for their children. It is 
common sense--trusting families, trusting people. They know better than 
the Federal Government about what they need and how to make their 
earnings work for themselves, their families, and their enterprises.

  Overall, for the economic success and jobs in America, I believe the 
Federal Reserve needs to rapidly reduce interest rates much more, and 
soon; we must pass tax relief soon to help bolster consumer confidence. 
When you look at these surpluses, I believe they ought to be handled 
the same way a well-managed business would handle surpluses. A business 
would first put funds into retirement or pension funds. Then they would 
look at their priorities as a company and invest in them. And then they 
would look for a dividend to the shareholders.
  As the Federal Government, I think we ought to look at it the same 
way a business would. Certainly a business would not be raiding, at 
times of surplus--or at any time for that matter--pension funds or 
retirement funds. That is why I think as a Government we need to 
protect Social Security. Put Social Security in a lockbox. Hopefully, 
with this spirit of bipartisanship, that will change and we can pass 
legislation necessary to protect Social Security so future retirement 
funds are not raided for more Government spending.
  The advantage of the Social Security lockbox is not only protection 
of retirement funds; it also helps pay down the national debt. 
Implementing the Social Security lockbox and allowing those surpluses 
to be used only for addressing the long-term solvency of Social 
Security helps us reduce the national debt, and we can effectively 
eliminate the publicly held debt in the next 10 years with that fiscal 
discipline.
  Then I believe we need to look at the non-Social Security surpluses 
and, again, handle it the same way a well-run business would. What 
would a well-run business do with the nonretirement surpluses? They 
would address priorities, research and development, workforce training, 
maybe investment in ideas to be more competitive, or increase their 
market share. In the Federal Government, even after we save and protect 
the Social Security surpluses and pay down the national debt, the 
Federal Government still will be collecting $3.1 trillion more in taxes 
than is needed at the current levels of spending, on top of the current 
level of spending inflationary increases. So it is $3.1 trillion. That 
is over $10,000 of excess taxation of every man, woman, and child in 
this country.
  There are legitimate national responsibilities we need to address and 
in which we need to invest. We must provide that out of this $3.1 
trillion surplus. There are new investments we need to consider in 
education. We must also act quickly, making sure we are improving the 
preparedness of our national defense and our Armed Forces. We need to 
invest in new technological and scientific research. We need to shore 
up the Medicare system, as well as investing in our national 
transportation infrastructure.
  But once we take care of these priority responsibilities in 
education, national defense, scientific research, and combating illegal 
drug trade, we should again operate as a business. Then what would a 
business do after you take care of priorities? They would declare a 
dividend. That is what I think we ought to do is declare a dividend for 
the shareholders, the owners of this Government who are the taxpayers 
of America.
  Surely, out of the $3.1 trillion surplus, I do not think the $1.6 
trillion the Bush administration is proposing is an excessive amount to 
return to our taxpayers. It is a minimal amount we ought to be 
returning to the taxpayers. In fact, when you compare this proposal to 
previous major tax cuts, history shows we can dedicate even 50 percent 
of the current non-Social Security surplus to tax relief measures and 
still barely make a blip on the radar screen of our national economy.

  For example, in 1963 President Kennedy's tax cut reduced tax 
collections by 12 percent. That is this chart here, the Kennedy 
administration; it was 12.6 percent.
  The Reagan administration 1981 tax cut reduced tax collections by 
18.7 percent--nearly 19 percent.
  The tax collections proposed by the Bush administration would return 
just over one-half of the excess tax collections to American taxpayers, 
and the tax collections would be reduced by 6.2 percent--much less than 
the Kennedy and much less than the Reagan administrations. In fact, 
according to the National Taxpayers' Union, as part of our gross 
domestic product, when you compare the Kennedy tax cut, it was 2 
percent of the gross domestic product--the Bush proposal of taxes being 
reduced by $1.6 trillion is a mere 1.2 percent of the gross domestic 
product.
  You might recall the great growth in our economy in the 1960s was 
occasioned by the tax cuts of the Kennedy administration. So this is 
merely one-half of the revenue impact of the Kennedy tax cut.
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate, if we cannot cut taxes in the 
times of these surpluses, when will we be able to give tax relief and 
reduce the tax burden on the people of America?
  This is the time to make the Federal Tax Code more fair and less 
burdensome. This is the time to get rid of this illogical marriage 
penalty tax which imposes a penalty on men and women just because they 
are married. This is the time to eliminate the death tax which is a 
very unfair tax, especially on family farms and small businesses. This 
is the time to make sure that individuals and small business owners get 
100-percent tax deductibility for health insurance. And there are many 
other things we can do. This is the time to act for the people of 
America.
  I hope my Senate colleagues will seize this opportunity to exercise 
fiscal discipline and restraint and realize that the owners of this 
country deserves tax relief, and they deserve it now.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the very fine statement made by 
the junior Senator from Virginia, certainly a very experienced leader, 
having served in the House of Representatives and having been Governor 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and already a very active participant 
in what is happening in the Senate and in our Government.

[[Page S1176]]

  I had a feeling he would probably be suggesting tax relief is a good 
idea. Virginia has a strong opinion on that going back just a few 
years. I thank him very much for his statement.

                          ____________________