[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17842-17843]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               TAX RELIEF

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to visit a little bit a topic that 
will be coming before the Senate very soon, probably tomorrow, and that 
is tax relief and the reconciliation bill we will be considering.
  To me that is one of the most important things before us, not only as 
the Senate but before us as American people. We ought to spend our time 
focusing on that issue.
  I have been a little amazed at the comments that have been made this 
morning. I only heard part of them, but they said this tax relief will 
certainly damage the economy. I have never heard of anything like that 
in my entire life. More money in the hands of Americans will probably 
strengthen the economy. We heard about Alan Greenspan's comments. The 
fact is, his complete comments were that he would much rather see tax 
relief than expending those dollars in larger government, which 
basically is the alternative.
  We ought to review again for ourselves and for listeners where we are 
with respect to the surplus, where we are with respect to the public 
debt, and with the President's proposal versus tax relief.
  We all know we worked a very long time to have a balanced budget. For 
the first time in 25 years, we have a balanced budget, and we want to 
be sure the majority of the surplus is Social Security money. This is 
the first time we have done this in a very long time. It is largely the 
result, of course, of a strong economy and some efforts on the part of 
this Congress to have a balanced budget amendment, to have some 
spending caps to hold down spending.
  What can we expect? According to the Congressional Budget Office 
which released their midsession review on July 21, the estimates are 
that the total budget surplus will measure $1.1 trillion to the year 
2004, and to the year 2009 nearly $3 trillion in surplus will be coming 
in. The non-Social Security portion of that surplus will measure almost 
$300 billion to the year 2004 and nearly $1 trillion to the year 2009. 
This is the non-Social Security surplus that comes in to our budget.
  The congressional budget resolution which talks about tax relief will 
leave the publicly held debt level at $1.6 trillion. The President's, 
on the other hand, will leave it at $1.8 trillion. With some tax 
relief, the reduction in publicly held debt under the tax relief 
program, the reconciliation program we will be talking about the next 
several days, will reduce the debt more than the President's plan which 
plans to spend the money.
  These are the facts. It is interesting; the budget chairman was on 
the floor yesterday indicating that out of the total amount of money 
that will be in the surplus, less than 25 percent will be used for tax 
relief and it will still be $1 trillion.
  These are the facts, and it seems to me we ought to give them some 
consideration.
  Another fact that I believe is important in this time of prosperity, 
in this time of having a balanced budget and having a surplus, is the 
American people are paying the highest percentage of gross national 
product in taxes ever, higher than they did in World War II. Certainly, 
there is a case to be made for some sort of tax relief. If there are 
surplus dollars, these dollars ought to go back to the people who paid 
them. They ought to go back to the American people to spend as they 
choose.
  There will be great debates about this, and there have been great 
debates about this. There are threats by the White House to veto any 
substaintial tax reductions. Sometimes one begins to wonder, as we 
address these issues, whether or not it should be what we think is 
right or whether we have to adjust it to avoid a veto. That is a tough 
decision. Sometimes we ought to say: All right, if we believe in 
something, we ought to do what we think is right. If the President 
chooses to veto it, let him veto it. Otherwise, we compromise less than 
we think we should. Those are the choices that have to be made.
  We will enter into this discussion again, as we have in the past, 
with different philosophies among the Members of this body. Of course, 
it is perfectly legitimate. The basic philosophy of our friends on the 
other side is more government and more spending. The basic philosophy 
of Republicans has been to hold down the size of government and have 
less government spending.
  There is more to tax reduction than simply tax relief. It has to do 
with controlling the size of the Federal Government. If we have surplus 
money in the budget, you can bet your bottom dollar we are going to 
have more government and more spending, and to me there is a 
relationship.
  Of course, we need to utilize those funds to fulfill what are the 
legitimate functions of the Federal Government. It is also true that 
there is a different view of what are the legitimate functions of the 
Federal Government. I personally believe the Federal Government ought 
to be as lean as we can keep it. Constitutionally, it says the Federal 
Government does certain things and all the rest of the things not 
outlined in the Constitution are left to the States and to the people. 
I think that is right. I believe the State, the government closest to 
the people, is the one that can, in fact, provide the kinds of services 
that are most needed and that fit the needs of the people who live 
there.
  I come from a small State. I come from a State of low population. The 
delivery of almost all the services--whether it be health care, whether 
it be education, whether it be highways--is different in Wyoming than 
it is in New York and, indeed, it should be. Therefore, the one-size-
fits-all things we tend to do at the Federal Government are not 
applicable, are not appropriate, and we ought to move as many of those 
decisions as we can to the States so they can be made closest to the 
people.
  We will see that difference of philosophy. There are legitimate 
arguments. That is exactly why we are here, to talk about which 
approach best fits the needs of the American people: whether we want 
more Federal Government, whether we want more spending, whether we want 
to enable more growth in the Federal Government, having the Government 
involved in more regulatory functions or, indeed, whether we want to 
limit the Government to what we believe are the essential elements with 
which the Federal Government ought to concern itself, or whether we 
ought to move to encourage and strengthen the States to do that.
  We have on this side of the aisle, of course, our goals, our agenda. 
They include preserving Social Security. I am

[[Page 17843]]

one of the sponsors of our Social Security bill which we believe will 
provide, over time, the same kinds of benefits for young people who are 
just beginning to pay and will maintain the benefits for those who are 
now drawing them. We can do that.
  We have tried now I think five times to bring to this floor a lockbox 
amendment to make sure Social Security money is kept aside and is used 
for that purpose. We hope it will end up with individual accounts where 
people will have some of their Social Security money put into their own 
account where they can choose to have it in equities, or they can 
choose to have it in bonds, or they can choose to have it in a 
combination of the two. Increased earnings will accrue to their 
benefit, and, indeed, they will own it. If they are unfortunate enough 
to pass away before they use it, it becomes part of their estate.
  Those are the things that are priorities for us. We want to do 
something with education. We sought to do that this year, to provide 
Federal funding of education to the States in the forms of grants so 
those decisions can be made to fit Cody, WY, as well as they do Long 
Island, NY, but quite differently.
  We have done some military strengthening. We have done that this 
year. We want to continue to do that. We have not been able to increase 
the capacity of the military for a number of years. We need to do that. 
This is not a peaceful world, as my friends talked about.
  Those are the choices. We will hear: If you are going to have tax 
relief, you cannot do these things. That is not true. We will have a 
considerable amount left over after we do a Social Security set-aside, 
after we do tax relief, and there will be adequate dollars to do 
Medicare reform and to do military reform. That is the plan, that is 
the program, and that is, I believe, what we should be orienting 
ourselves toward.
  I hope that over the next several days we will have the opportunity 
to fully debate this. I think there will be great differences in how 
you do tax relief. There are a million ways to do it. Frankly, I hope 
we not only have tax relief but also that we help simplify the tax 
system rather than make it even more complicated than it is. Therefore, 
I think those will be the issues we should really address.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Would it be possible for me to make a unanimous consent 
request?

                          ____________________