[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5670-5671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                 TAXES

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as I listened to my colleague, I thought 
some things said required a response.
  As we look back at how we achieved balance in our budget and how we 
turned massive deficits into massive surpluses, let me explain how it 
was done. This chart covers 1980 through 1999. The blue line is the 
outlays or expenditures of the Federal Government; the red line is the 
revenue line. We had massive deficits when we were following the 
Republican economic prescription for the country, which was trickle-
down economics, because the outlays far exceeded revenues. The result 
was massive deficits and massive growth of the debt.
  In 1993, we got a new administration and a new economic plan. We 
passed a proposal without a single vote from the other side that 
reduced spending as a percentage of our national economy and raised 
revenue. That is how we balanced the budget. That is how we stopped the 
raid on Social Security. That is how we stopped the economic decline 
the country was experiencing under their plan, under their proposal.
  In fact, at the time we passed the new budget plan in 1993, which was 
a 5-year plan reducing the deficits each and every year as we brought 
spending down, we brought revenues up until the two lines crossed and 
we moved into surplus. Our friends on the other side of the aisle said 
it was a huge mistake. They said it would increase the deficit. They 
said it would increase unemployment. They said it would increase 
inflation. They were wrong on every count. They were not just a little 
bit wrong, they were completely wrong.
  Now they come with a new economic prescription to go back to the bad 
old days--back to debt, back to deficits, back to decline. Are we going 
to take that path? Haven't we learned anything about what works? 
Haven't we learned the best course is one of fiscal discipline? Haven't 
we learned the best course is to stay on this plan that has turned 
massive deficits into massive surpluses, that has led to the longest 
economic expansion in our country, that has led to the lowest 
unemployment in more than 30 years, the lowest inflation in more than 
30 years? Are we going to jeopardize this with a risky tax scheme that 
our friends on the other side propose?
  My friend from Iowa says we have the highest tax rates ever. No, we 
don't have the highest taxes ever. This chart shows the revenue line, 
and indeed it came up; that is absolutely correct. It was that 
combination of reduced spending and increased revenue that led to this 
result. However, that does not translate into higher tax rates on the 
American people. A key reason we have higher revenues is because we got 
the economy moving again. This extraordinary economic expansion--again, 
the longest economic expansion in our history--has generated more 
revenue. That is what helped balance the budget, coupled with reduced 
spending.
  The question of what has happened to individual taxes is quite a 
different story. This was a story on the front page of the Washington 
Post: ``Federal Tax Level Falls for Most. Studies Show Burden Now Less 
Than 10 Percent.''
  The story tells the truth.

       For all but the wealthiest Americans, the Federal income 
     tax burden has shrunk to the lowest level in four decades.

  We don't have the highest taxes on individual American taxpayers that 
we have ever had, as the Senator from Iowa asserted. That is just not 
the case.

       For all but the wealthiest Americans, the Federal income 
     tax burden has shrunk to the lowest level in four decades.

  That is the truth according to a series of studies by both liberal 
and conservative tax experts. Each of the studies shows the bottom line 
is the same. Most Americans this year will have to fork over less than 
10 percent of their income to the Federal Government. The Congressional 
Budget Office estimates the middle fifth of American families with an 
average income of $39,000 paid 5.4 percent income tax in 1999, compared 
with 8.3 percent in 1981. Their taxes have gone down. That is the 
middle-income people in America.
  The Treasury Department estimates that a four-person family, with a 
median income of $54,900, paid 7.46 percent of that in income tax, the 
lowest since 1965. And the median two-earner family making $68,000 paid 
8.8 percent in 1998, about the same as 1955.
  If we are going to have a debate, let's have a debate on facts and 
not make up things.
  The fundamental problem with the legislation offered by our 
colleagues: They have more of a tax cut than there is non-Social 
Security surplus available for a tax cut. It is a question of 
priorities. What do we want to do with the surpluses available? 
Remember, these are projected surpluses. We can take the money and use 
it all for a tax cut that disproportionately goes to the wealthiest. 
That is what the Republicans want to do.
  Our side believes we ought to reserve every penny of the Social 
Security surplus for Social Security. Republicans agree with that. On 
the non-Social Security surplus, the Republicans want to use it all for 
a tax cut that disproportionately goes to the wealthiest; 60 percent 
goes to the wealthiest 10 percent.
  Our side thinks the highest priority should be further paying down of 
the debt because that is what every economist has said is in the 
highest interests of this country. This is what will most assure our 
economic future.
  Second, we believe we ought to provide for tax relief; 29 percent of 
the non-Social Security surplus under our proposal goes for tax relief. 
Part of that goes to address the marriage tax penalty. However, we are 
addressing those who suffer the marriage tax penalty.
  Our friends on the other side want to give a big tax cut to folks who 
do not have the marriage tax penalty. In fact, for people receiving the 
marriage bonus--they pay lower taxes as a result of being married than 
if they were filing individually--they want to give them a tax cut, 
too.
  When they say we are limited to 10 amendments on our side, the 
underlying legislation deals with many more issues than just the 
marriage tax penalty. They want to restrict our right to offer 
alternatives. That is not fair. That is not the way the Senate was 
designed to operate. Not surprisingly, we don't intend to go along with 
that. That is not the way the Senate is designed to work.
  We offered legislation in the Senate Finance Committee to give people 
a choice. They file as married couples;

[[Page 5671]]

they file as individuals; file the way that helps the most, that gives 
families the least tax liability. That is what Democrats are proposing. 
We do it in a way to not use all of the non-Social Security surplus for 
a tax cut that goes predominantly to the wealthiest. Instead, we put 
the highest priority on reducing the debt; the second highest priority 
on tax relief; the third highest priority on using money for high 
priority domestic needs such as defense, education, and agriculture, 
which are in very deep trouble.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are the 10 minutes Senator Conrad has 
remaining from the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). That is correct, from the 
Democratic side. There are 20 minutes remaining on the Republican side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  MR. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 2422 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                          ____________________