[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 98 (Monday, July 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7657-S7662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TAX CUT ACHIEVEMENT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to visit with my colleagues and 
our constituents about the issues of the tax relief that was recently 
passed

[[Page S7658]]

by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President on 
June 7 and will be the reason that tax rebate checks will go out, 
distributing $65 billion of overtaxation to the American people--back 
to the American people so they can spend it, so it will do more 
economic good than if it is politically distributed here in Washington, 
DC.
  That bill not only has the $65 billion of tax refunds that will start 
going out next week and be out by September 30, but it already has 
reductions for other rates. The tax rebates come from the new 10-
percent rate that is going into effect retroactive to January 1. It is 
my understanding there will be about 90 million Americans who will be 
getting rebates of up to $300 if they are single, $500 if they are a 
single parent, and also then up to $600 if they are married.
  Also, remember that this is not a one-shot rate reduction, or tax 
rebate; that these rebates, even though they will never be received in 
a check again, will continue on into the future as permanent reductions 
in taxation for people in the 10-percent bracket. And also remember 
that everybody who pays taxes would pay some of that 10-percent bracket 
so that it does affect all taxpayers. But checks are going out for 
those up to the amount of $12,000 of taxable income.
  I think this tax bill is going to make real changes in the lives of 
folks across our country. The changes I am going to discuss today 
result in the greatest tax relief provided in a generation--tax relief, 
I might add, powerfully brought about in a bipartisan consensus.
  Some might ask, Why talk about something we have already done? The 
answer is that the legislation is quite comprehensive and to do it 
justice we really need to take a thorough and methodical look at it--
not look at it just from the standpoint of the rebate checks that are 
going out, which are getting all the attention, but all the other 
aspects of the bill as well.
  It is true there have been a lot of press reports on this 
legislation. Again, most of those have been related to the rebate 
checks going out starting next week. None of these reports, however, I 
believe, in the press has really tied the specific benefits of the bill 
back to its bipartisan purpose.
  Also, the press reports have tended to analyze the bill in terms of 
its impact on certain types of taxpayers. At the same time, many press 
reports have focused exclusively on the budget angle of the tax 
legislation; in other words, people nervous, tearing out their hair 
because there is going to be less money coming into the Federal 
Treasury as a result of our letting the people keep their tax 
overpayment.
  These reports that tend to be very pessimistic often echo the 
sentiments of the harshest congressional critics of the legislation. 
These reports, like the congressional critics of this bill--and 
probably for the most part those who voted against it--tend to ignore 
the benefits of the bill. Tax relief legislation is just not more money 
in the taxpayers' pockets in some selfish way that you let the 
taxpayers keep more of their money. There is great economic good that 
comes from the distribution of goods and services in this economy based 
upon an individual making that decision as opposed to a political 
leader in Washington, DC, making that decision through the Federal 
budget.
  Now, of course, all of this criticism is fair play in the arena of 
politics. However, in recent weeks it seems to me these arguments have 
not been answered with the same vigor by the strong bipartisan majority 
of us who supported the legislation. So today I take the floor to set 
the record straight. Tax relief is absolutely necessary. Tax relief 
legislation is an important vehicle in response to our short-term and 
long-term economic situations. And that is basically a flat economy--1 
to 1.5-percent growth instead of the 2-percent growth we projected a 
year ago, 1 to 1.5-percent economic growth under the last two quarters 
of the Clinton administration, and carrying through to the first two 
quarters of President Bush's administration.

  That is a situation where we have these checks going out, a short-
term stimulus, which, if we had not done it, would have had 100 
Senators sitting around this body scratching their heads and deploring 
the fact that we had a flat economy. So what can we do about it?
  Congress has passed tax reduction in the past to stimulate the 
economy but often taking effect after the economy turned around. It 
tended not to be as beneficial as it would have been if it had been 
done at the right time.
  I do not want to take credit for having been a leader in the tax 
rebates, knowing that they were going to be needed now as a stimulus. I 
confess not to have thought that way last March and April when we 
started working on tax relief. But we ended up with tax rebates--$65 
billion--and most economists are saying they could not have come at a 
more opportune time for an economy that is flat and in need of some 
stimulus.
  There are three reasons for this bipartisan tax relief package. One 
is that it is necessary, when the Federal Government overtaxes people, 
to reduce taxes so that there is not overtaxation.
  No. 2, it is necessary to respond to the current and long-term 
economic problems. I talked about the short-term stimulus, but there 
are long-term economic benefits from this bill that are going to 
enhance the economy.
  Third, there is sufficient surplus outside Social Security and 
Medicare that is still available to accomplish a tax cut that addresses 
certain inequities in the Tax Code, such as the marriage penalty.
  I will start with reason No. 1, that the tax cut corrected 
overtaxation. Before the tax cut, the Federal Government was collecting 
too much tax. The Federal Government was on a path to accumulate over 
$3.1 trillion in excess tax collections over the next 10 years. Federal 
tax receipts were at their highest level in our Nation's history.
  The bulk of these excess collections came from the individual income-
tax payer. Individual income tax collections were near an all-time 
high, even higher than some levels imposed by World War II.
  The chart I have in the Chamber demonstrates this better than I can, 
how, since 1960, we have seen very high income taxation. In this 
particular case, we are seeing taxes, as a whole, collected by the 
Federal Government, not just the income taxes but everything at the 
highest level by the year 2000 at 20.6 percent of gross national 
product.
  This chart shows total tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic 
product over 40 years. Tax receipts have naturally fluctuated 
frequently since 1960, but most shockingly they spike up since the tax 
bill of 1993.
  The January 2001 Congressional Budget Office report to Congress shows 
that in 1992, total tax receipts were around 17 percent of gross 
domestic product. As I said, by the year 2000, they were at 20.6 
percent. The significance of this percentage can only be appreciated in 
the historical comparisons to which I have already referred. But I want 
to be more specific.
  In 1944, at the height of World War II, taxes, as a percentage of 
gross domestic product, were 20.9 percent--only .5 percent higher than 
they are today. By 1945, those taxes had dropped to 20.4 percent of 
GDP, which is actually lower than the collection level today.

  It is unbelievable that in a time of unprecedented peace and 
prosperity, which defines the last decade, the Federal Government would 
rake in taxes at a wartime level. The sorriest part of this whole story 
is that this huge increase in taxes has been borne almost exclusively 
by the American people who pay the individual Federal income tax.
  I have another chart which shows tax collection levels for payroll 
taxes, corporate taxes, and all other taxes over the past decade. It 
shows they have been relatively stable. Corporate taxes, during the 
past 10 years, have increased from 1.6 percent of GDP to 2.1 percent of 
GDP. Estate taxes have remained relatively stable over that period of 
time.
  However, collection of individual income taxes by the Federal 
Government has soared. There was a 50-percent increase during that 
period of time: 7.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992 to 10.2 
percent of gross domestic product as of the year 2000.
  Individual income taxes now take up the largest share of GDP in the 
history of the individual income tax. And that dates back to 1916, 
except for the Civil War when there was one that the courts declared 
unconstitutional.

[[Page S7659]]

  Even during World War II collections from individuals were 9.4 
percent. So you see it was a full percentage point below what they are 
today in peacetime. As you can see, the source of current and future 
surpluses is from a huge runup in individual income tax collections, 
and not in runups in any other form of taxes and levies that the 
Federal Government makes on the taxpayers of this country or the 
businesses of this country.
  Part of this is because the 1993 Clinton tax increase overshot its 
mark. These excess collections are attributable to that enactment, in 
August 1993, of the largest tax increase in the history of the world.
  Since 1992, total personal income has grown an average of 5.6 
percent. Federal income tax collections, however, have grown an average 
of 9.1 percent a year, outstripping the rate of personal income growth 
by 64 percent.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation, at the request of the Joint Economic 
Committee of the Congress, estimated that just repealing the revenue-
raising provisions of President Clinton's 1993 biggest-in-the-world tax 
hike would yield tax relief of more than $1 trillion over 10 years.
  We ought to take a closer look at that 1993 world's biggest tax 
increase. The 39.6-percent top bracket reflected a 10-percent surcharge 
on the basic 36-percent rate. The itemized deductions you can subtract 
from your taxable income, known as the Pease Rule, and the phaseout of 
personal exemptions, which we refer to as PEP, the personal exemption 
phaseout, were temporary bipartisan deficit reduction provisions that 
were made permanent under the 1993 tax hike.
  So remember, you had a top marginal tax rate of 36. That was meant to 
be permanent. But you had a temporary 10 percent put on top of that, 
bringing that to 36.9 percent. Yet for higher brackets they wanted to 
camouflage it. We had a phaseout of exemptions so that higher income 
people did not get the full advantage of the personal exemption, as an 
example, which ought to tell you that in a time of budget surpluses, 
which we are in right now, anybody who was intellectually honest about 
putting a 10-percent surtax on the basic 36-percent rate just to get 
rid of the annual budget deficit ought to take that 10-percent rate 
off. But, no, it was never done by those who proposed it and those who 
did it. We did it through the gradual reduction of the rates that were 
in the bill signed by the President June 7.

  The chairman of the Finance Committee at the time of the 1993 Clinton 
tax increase actually called this what I have already referred to as--
``a world record tax hike.'' Obviously, with income tax collections as 
high as they have ever been in the history of the country, we know that 
to be a fact.
  The rationale for the tax increases was deficit reduction. It is 
reasonable to think that if deficit reduction was a reason for raising 
taxes to record levels, then in the era of surpluses we are in now, 
those tax overcharges, those tax overpayments, should be left with the 
taxpayers of America, not run through the Federal budget anymore, for 
two reasons: No. 1, because they are not needed, once you balance the 
budget; and, No. 2, if I distribute that income of the hard-working men 
and women in America, it doesn't turn over in the economy as much as if 
they keep it and spend it or invest it.
  That is what creates jobs; they create wealth. We in the Federal 
Government don't create wealth; we only expend the wealth created by 
others.
  This year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress did just that through the 
tax bill signed by President Bush on June 7. We are going to let you 
keep your money because we believe it does more economic good, it 
creates more wealth if you have it than if we have it.
  Congress then agreed to return a portion of the record level of taxes 
back to the taxpayers and, in a sense, Congress, on party-line vote in 
1993--and it was a party-line vote--raised taxes too much. And this 
year, on a bipartisan basis--not a party-line vote but on a bipartisan 
basis--we corrected that overtaxation and that temporary taxation that 
was put in place in 1993.
  Democrats and Republicans, led by President Bush, started with the 
fact that the 1993 tax hike took too much from the American taxpayers 
and the American economy. President Bush offered to reduce individual 
tax rates across all rate brackets and to reduce the number of 
brackets.
  Congress changed aspects of the President's plan and, from my point 
of view, improved the President's plan as it made its way through 
Congress. The bill the President signed did contain relief for 
taxpayers in all tax brackets. This benefits all taxpayers across 
America.
  There is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the fiscal 
impact of that tax relief package. We hear it daily from the leadership 
on the other side and from many in the media. What you don't hear about 
is how close everyone in the Senate was on the size of the tax cut. In 
other words, for those who voted against the tax cut, there was just a 
little bit of difference between what Republicans and a bipartisan 
group of Members of this body thought ought to be cut at a higher level 
versus what everybody else, on mostly a partisan basis, thought we 
ought to cut taxes--just a little bit of difference.
  For the record, everyone on the other side of the aisle who opposed 
the bipartisan tax relief package had already voted for over $1.25 
trillion of tax relief. Some of those people who voted that way are the 
very same ones who are saying we cut taxes too much. I hope you 
remember that on the debate on the tax bill, everyone on the other 
side, including every Member of the Democratic leadership, including 
the present chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North 
Dakota, voted for $1.25 trillion in tax relief. Yet they are now saying 
we shouldn't have this tax cut.

  For instance, we had a vote on what was called the Carnahan-Daschle 
Democratic substitute. That amendment, if it had passed, would have 
represented tax cuts of that $1.25 trillion I cited.
  I raise this point for two reasons: One, to make the record clear on 
the votes on the tax cut bill; and two, to make an even more 
fundamental point. That fundamental point is, despite all the rhetoric, 
there was widespread support for significant across-the-board relief 
even among the most critical of the final tax package.
  Let me repeat reason No. 1 for this tax cut before I go on to reason 
No. 2. The American people are overtaxed. The American people have paid 
a tax surplus into the Federal Treasury. The goal is to let the 
taxpayers distribute those goods and services as opposed to having 100 
Senators distribute that money.
  Now reason No. 2: The tax cut is needed to reverse slow growth in the 
economy, not only slow growth long term but I have already referred to 
the slow growth that has happened right now over the last four 
quarters, 1- to 1.5-percent growth instead of 2.5-percent as we had 
projected.
  I provided you with the first reason, to correct overtaxation. Now 
for the second one.
  It is our responsibility to help the folks back home who are facing a 
slower economy to create jobs, to expand the economy. There has been a 
slowdown since the latter half of the year 2000. I will expand on the 
point that the economic slowdown did start in the latter part of 2000.
  We have two charts. The first chart shows that economic growth has 
slowed considerably since the middle of last year. In the last two 
quarters of the Clinton administration, it started to slow. Compared to 
the average 4-percent growth rate since 1998, the economy grew only a 
little over 1 percent.
  Several factors have contributed to the economic slowdown. For the 
two previous years, we had a tighter monetary policy by the Federal 
Reserve. We had Chairman Greenspan throw out of the window his very 
comprehensive program of liquidity from 1988 until 1995, and then he 
started worrying about inflation. Worrying about inflation so much, he 
tightened up money so that we didn't have enough liquidity. When he 
gets back on the kick of worrying about liquidity, not worrying about 
inflation, the monetary policy will turn it around. But a tighter 
monetary policy has brought about this slowdown. We have also had the 
rising energy rates, a decline in the stock market, and we have had 
rising tax burdens.

  The economic slowdown has real impact on working Americans, as 
evidenced by this second chart we have

[[Page S7660]]

here, as you have seen the unemployment rate go up. It shows that the 
unemployment rate had fallen steadily, but since the slowdown began 
last year, the unemployment rate has risen. It is now at 4\1/2\ 
percent, the same level it was in October 1998.
  Although there is still considerable uncertainty about the economy, a 
number of factors seem to point in the right direction, and one is 
there is some reversal of the Federal Reserve on its monetary policy. 
We have had energy prices stabilize. For instance, a week ago last 
weekend, I bought gas in Cedar Falls, IA, at $1.19 a gallon.
  Given the continued pessimism on Wall Street, however, the economy 
remains vulnerable to potential shocks. So we should continue to 
monitor signs of potential trouble ahead and be prepared to take 
additional steps should they become necessary. Republicans and 
Democrats have a responsibility to address this problem.
  There is some speculation by some on my side of the aisle that those 
on the other side are hoping the recession comes about for political 
reasons. I disagree with that speculation. I believe everyone here 
wants to get the economy on a steady path. Everyone knows that the 
worst thing you can do in an economic downturn is to raise taxes. On 
the other hand, a tax cut is a stimulus to economic activity. So if 
your goal were to further slow down the economy, one sure way to do it 
would be to raise taxes. On the other hand, if you see a slowdown 
coming, a tax cut would be a wise response to get the economy growing 
again.
  In other words, if we had not cut taxes, not had these rebate checks 
going out, we would be nervously trying to cut taxes to stimulate the 
economy. A tax cut stimulates economic growth in two ways. First is to 
the extent the tax cut currently provides more money for consumers to 
spend, it creates more demands for goods and services. Secondly, and 
most importantly, the tax cut stimulates the economy through changes in 
expectations for workers, investors, and businesses. In other words, a 
lower tax bite means that workers, investors, and businesses can expect 
to retain more of the income generated by their activities. That 
expectation will change what workers and investors and businesses do 
right now. That does more economic good than if we have a political 
decision to distribute the goods and services.
  Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have alluded to a new form of 
``bracket creep'' brought about by high tax rates. In a sense, through 
this new form of bracket creep, the Federal Government was getting a 
windfall from workers, investors, and businesses.
  With the lower marginal tax rates, some of the damaging bracket creep 
has been eliminated over the long term. That change should free up more 
income to flow through the marketplace and stimulate the economy.
  So it was pretty clear some action needed to be taken to stimulate 
the economy. Action was taken and now, hopefully, for the folks back 
home, the economy will start to grow significantly.
  Now if I can go to the third and last reason why the tax bill needed 
to be passed--the issue of fairness. We heard during the debate, and 
even recently, a hue and cry from some on the other side of the aisle 
that not all taxpayers should receive a rate reduction. They said the 
bipartisan tax relief bill that was signed by the President 
disproportionately benefits upper income taxpayers and does not provide 
enough relief at the lower income scale.

  Well, we have news for that group of people. None of those 
allegations is true, and the charts that I have will show that. But we 
first need to understand the current distribution of tax burdens in 
America. We already have a highly progressive income tax system. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 20 percent of 
income taxpayers pay over 75 percent of all the income taxes coming 
into the Federal Government. By contrast, households in the bottom 
three-fifths of the income distribution pay 7 percent of all individual 
taxes.
  Sometimes I get the feeling around here that when it comes to 
progressivity, the only way it is going to satisfy anybody here is if 
the richest man in America is supporting the Federal Government 
totally. But for those who are worried about this tax bill not being 
progressive enough, it not only preserves an already progressive 
system; it actually makes it more progressive. Those who don't like 
progressive income tax systems don't like to hear me say that. But for 
those who say our tax bill has made it less progressive, I hope it 
causes them to keep their mouths shut.
  So to all who are critical of the bipartisan tax relief package as a 
tax cut for the rich, I invite them to pay special attention to data 
prepared by a neutral source, the Joint Committee on Taxation. These 
professionals work for both sides of the aisle, Republicans and 
Democrats, and for both the House and the Senate. As the Joint 
Committee on Taxation says, the marginal tax rate reductions in our 
bill, as signed by the President, combined with the increase in the 
child credit, and its added refundability, the marriage penalty, the 
education provisions, and the individual retirement accounts and 
pension provisions--all these aspects of this bill provide the greatest 
reduction in tax burden for the lower income taxpayer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the tables prepared by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1836 \1\
                                     [Prepared by the staff of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1836, May 26, 2001]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Change in Federal taxes   Federal taxes \3\ under   Federal taxes \3\ under   Effective Tax Rate \4\
                                                             \3\                   present law                proposal         -------------------------
               Income category \2\               ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present Law    Proposal
                                                    Millions     Percent      Billions     Percent      Billions     Percent     (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................         -$75         -1.0           $7          0.4           $7          0.4          8.7          8.6
10,000 to 20,000................................        -2989        -11.5           26          1.5           23          1.4          7.5          6.7
20,000 to 30,000................................       -5,790         -9.4           62          3.5           56          3.3         13.4         12.2
30,000 to 40,000................................       -5,674         -6.4           89          5.1           83          4.9         16.1         15.1
40,000 to 50,000................................       -5,490         -5.4          102          5.9           97          5.7         17.4         16.4
50,000 to 75,000................................      -11,546         -4.5          256         14.6          244         14.4         19.1         18.3
75,000 to 100,000...............................       -8,488         -3.5          244         13.9          235         13.9         21.7         21.0
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -10,488         -2.6          408         23.3          397         23.5         24.2         23.6
2000, and over..................................       -6,997         -1.3          555         31.7          548         32.4         27.8         27.4
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Taxpayers......................      -57,536         -3.3        1,748        100.0        1,690        100.0         21.4         20.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CALENDAR YEAR 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................          -75         -1.0            7          0.4            7          0.4          9.2          9.1
10,000 to 20,000................................       -3,596        -13.3           27          1.5           23          1.3          7.6          6.6
20,000 to 30,000................................       -7,124        -11.3           63          3.4           56          3.2         13.5         12.0
30,000 to 40,000................................       -6,849         -7.6           91          4.9           84          4.8         16.1         14.8
40,000 to 50,000................................       -6,198         -5.8          106          5.8          100          5.7         17.5         16.5
50,000 to 75,000................................      -13,251         -5.0          267         14.5          254         14.4         19.0         18.0
75,000 to 100,000...............................      -10,227         -4.0          255         13.9          245         13.9         21.7         20.8
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -14,416         -3.3          442         24.1          427         24.3         24.2         23.4
200,000 and over................................      -16,557         -2.9          578         31.5          562         32.0         27.9         27.1
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All taxpayers......................      -78,294         -4.3        1,836        100.0        1,758        100.0         21.5         20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CALENDAR YEAR 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................          -83         -1.1            8          0.4            8          0.4          9.7          9.6
10,000 to 20,000................................       -3,516        -12.9           27          1.4           24          1.3          7.6          6.6

[[Page S7661]]

 
20,000 to 30,000................................       -7,135        -11.0           65          3.3           58          3.1         13.6         12.1
30,000 to 40,000................................       -6,946         -7.5           93          4.8           86          4.6         16.0         14.8
40,000 to 50,000................................       -6,155         -5.7          108          5.6          101          5.5         17.4         16.4
50,000 to 75,000................................      -13,554         -4.9          279         14.4          266         14.3         18.9         18.0
75,000 to 100,000...............................      -10,553         -4.0          265         13.7          255         13.8         21.7         20.8
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -15,487         -3.2          479         24.8          464         25.1         24.2         23.4
200,000 and over................................      -17,453         -2.9          609         31.5          591         31.9         28.1         27.3
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Taxpayers......................      -80,882         -4.2        1,933        100.0        1,852        100.0         21.5         20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CALENDAR YEAR 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................          -69         -0.9            8          0.4            8          0.4         10.0          9.9
10,000 to 20,000................................       -3,429        -12.6           27          1.3           24          1.2          7.6          6.6
20,000 to 30,000................................       -7,121        -10.8           66          3.3           59          3.1         13.6         12.2
30,000 to 40,000................................       -6,964         -7.3           96          4.7           89          4.6         16.0         14.8
40,000 to 50,000................................       -6,320         -5.8          110          5.4          103          5.3         17.4         16.4
50,000 to 75,000................................      -15,049         -5.2          288         14.2          273         14.2         18.7         17.8
75,000 to 100,000...............................      -12,913         -4.6          279         13.8          266         13.8         21.5         20.5
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -22,095         -4.3          512         25.2          490         25.3         24.1         23.0
200,000 and over................................      -21.671         -3.4          642         31.6          620         32.1         28.2         27.3
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Taxpayers......................      -95,630         -4.7        2,028        100.0        1,932        100.0         21.6         20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CALENDAR YEAR 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................          -76         -1.0            8          0.4            8          0.4         10.1         10.0
10,000 to 20,000................................       -3,867        -14.0           28          1.3           24          1.2          7.6          6.5
20,000 to 30,000................................       -7,937        -11.6           68          3.2           60          3.0         13.7         12.1
30,000 to 40,000................................       -7,720         -7.9           98          4.6           90          4.4         16.0         14.7
40,000 to 50,000................................       -6,945         -6.2          112          5.3          105          5.2         17.2         16.2
50,000 to 75,000................................      -16,630         -5.5          303         14.2          286         14.1         18.7         17.6
75,000 to 100,000...............................      -14,709         -5.1          287         13.5          273         13.5         21.4         20.3
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -24,654         -4.5          547         25.7          522         25.8         24.0         22.9
200,000 and over................................      -21,182         -3.1          678         31.9          657         32.4         28.3         27.4
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Taxpayers......................     -103,720         -4.9        2,129        100.0        2,025        100.0         21.6         20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CALENDAR YEAR 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...............................          -76         -0.9            8          0.4            8          0.4         10.4         10.3
10,000 to 20,000................................       -3,789        -13.6           28          1.2           24          1.1          7.6          6.6
20,000 to 30,000................................       -7,853        -11.4           69          3.1           61          2.9         13.7         12.2
30,000 to 40,000................................       -7,839         -7.9           99          4.4           91          4.4         16.0         14.7
40,000 to 50,000................................       -7,570         -6.5          116          5.2          108          5.2         17.2         16.0
50,000 to 75,000................................      -18,755         -6.0          313         14.0          294         14.0         18.6         17.5
75,000 to 100,000...............................      -17,212         -5.8          297         13.3          280         13.3         21.3         20.0
100,000 to 200,000..............................      -30,208         -5.1          588         26.3          558         26.6         23.9         22.7
200,000 and over................................      -44,177         -6.1          719         32.1          675         32.1         28.3         26.6
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, All Taxpayers......................     -137,476         -6.1        2,238        100.0        2,100        100.0         21.7         20.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes provisions affecting the child credit, individual marginal rates, a 10% bracket, limitation of itemized deductions, the personal exemption
  phaseout, the standard deduction, 15% bracket and EIC for married couples, deductible IRAs, and the AMT.
\2\ The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus; [1] tax-exempt interest, [2] employer
  contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits,
  [6] insurance value of Medicare benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, and [8] excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
  Categories are measured at 2001 levels.
\3\ Federal taxes are equal to individual income tax (including the outlay portion of the EIC), employment tax (attributed to employees), and excise
  taxes (attributed to consumers). Corporate income tax and estate and gift taxes are not included due to uncertainty concerning the incidence of these
  taxes. Individuals who are dependents of other taxpayers and taxpayers with negative income are excluded from the analysis. Does not include indirect
  effects.
\4\ The effective tax rate is equal to Federal taxes described in footnote (3) divided by: income described in footnote (2) plus additional income
  attributable to the proposal.
 
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation. Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will go to a couple of the charts I 
referred to prepared by Joint Tax. Look at the levels of reduction in 
tax burden shown on this chart. You can see that the lowest income 
brackets receive the highest reduction.
  Now, for the year 2006--and I say for the year 2006 because that is 
when the individual tax provisions or rates are implemented--taxpayers 
with over $100,000 of income receive a tax cut of between 5 and 6 
percent. Taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $50,000 get a tax cut of 
between 6.5 percent and 13.6 percent, with those at the lower income 
levels getting the biggest percentage of reduction. Even those with 
incomes below $10,000, who, by and large, don't pay income and payroll 
taxes, receive a tax cut under the bipartisan tax relief package.
  Under the tax relief, 6 million Americans will be taken off the 
income tax rolls. Those are lower bracket people. Just tell 6 million 
people who are never going to be paying income tax in the future that 
they aren't getting a benefit from this greater than higher income 
people who are going to be paying income taxes the rest of their lives. 
A four-person family earning $35,000 a year will no longer have any 
income tax burden.
  As the Joint Tax data also shows, a large reduction of the tax burden 
is targeted toward taxpayers between the $30,000 and $75,000 income 
brackets. These taxpayers will enjoy significant effective tax relief.
  I also said that the bipartisan tax relief actually makes our tax 
system more progressive. The Joint Tax Committee again provides the 
proof. As the Joint Tax tables demonstrate, under the bipartisan tax 
relief package, the overall burden goes down for taxpayers earning 
below $100,000. For taxpayers making $100,000 or more, however, their 
share of the Federal tax burden will actually increase under the 
bipartisan tax relief legislation. For example, for taxpayers earning 
between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, their share of the burden will 
increase by three-tenths of a percent. This is not the case for 
taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $30,000. Their share of the 
overall burden will decrease by three-tenths of a percentage point.
  So the bipartisan tax relief legislation not only retains the 
progressivity of the tax system, but that progressivity is enhanced.
  Now, it is clear that distribution tables aren't the only way to 
define tax fairness. There were other categories of tax relief that 
carried bipartisan priority in terms of fairness. First, on a 
bipartisan basis, there is concern about the added burden for couples 
who decide to marry. This important social objective was impaired by 
the marriage penalty. The bipartisan tax relief legislation provided 
marriage tax relief.
  Second, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about the Tax Code's 
failure to recognize the cost of raising children. The bipartisan tax 
relief legislation provides tax relief for millions of families with 
children, including those who pay no income tax at all. In addition, 
the dependent care tax credit was enhanced for families with children 
in day care.
  Third, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about helping 
families with the rising cost of education. As a

[[Page S7662]]

response, the bipartisan tax relief legislation includes a package of 
educational tax relief measures.
  Fourth, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern about declining 
savings rates and the need for more secure retirement plan benefits for 
more workers to help baby boomers who are saving less. As a response, 
the bipartisan tax relief legislation included significant enhancements 
to individual retirement accounts and retirement plans. This package 
was then perhaps the greatest improvement in our individual IRAs and 
retirement plans in a generation.
  Finally, there was a bipartisan concern about the confiscatory impact 
of the death tax, especially for family farmers and small businesses. 
As a response, the bipartisan tax relief legislation includes death tax 
relief, including repeal.
  Today I have talked about the three most important reasons from my 
perspective why we were able to pass the largest bipartisan tax relief 
measure in a generation.
  The first reason is to correct the policy of overtaxation that 
stemmed from the heavy tax hike of 1993.
  The second is to respond with an economic stimulus against the 
current economic slowdown.
  The third is there are sufficient budgetary resources to address tax 
fairness problems.
  It is important to realize that the major tax legislation just 
enacted rests on a very sound foundation. It should not be dismissed, 
it should not be obfuscated, and it should not otherwise be distorted 
by budgetary demagoguery. Let us not forget that revenue is not an 
abstract notion. Revenue reflects the sum total payments to Washington 
by hard-working men and women. It is not abstract when paid and should 
not be treated as an entitlement by those of us fortunate enough to be 
sent here to make policy decisions to represent the folks back home.
  We have a very good tax bill. Our challenge is to make sure that 
those in Congress who want to spend more money and do not like giving 
the people back their money--we are intent upon keeping this reduction 
of revenue coming into the Federal Treasury, not because we are 
concerned about the taxpayers, but because if those taxpayers spend 
that money, it is going to do more economic good and turn over the 
economy, create more jobs and more wealth than if I spend it as a 
Member of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
approximately 20 minutes in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________