[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1336-1337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                TAX CUTS

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I say anything about how necessary 
I believe the President's tax cut is at this time in our Nation's 
history, I want to also point out to my colleagues on the Senate floor 
another way we can save dollars, save on Government expenditures, 
another way we can make money available for tax cuts, another way we 
can begin to do more to pay down the debt: voluntarism. Senators who 
are here in this body are going to have a great opportunity on March 7 
to volunteer for a very worthwhile project, Habitat for Humanity. 
Members of the Senate are sponsoring a home, where staffs, spouses, and 
Members of the Senate can actually go out and help construct a home for 
a family who is struggling and needs assistance. This is an excellent 
alternative to a Federal program. I encourage Members of the Senate to 
participate in this volunteer program.
  I am also pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate in calling for 
tax cuts for all Americans. I support tax cuts for the people who work 
hard every day. Everyone paying taxes should receive tax relief. I 
agree with my colleague from Arkansas who earlier spoke very eloquently 
about the need for tax cuts, that people have a better idea how they 
would like to spend their dollars than any bureaucrat in Washington or 
any Member of this Senate. I think it is time we have a tax cut now 
that we have unprecedented revenues coming into the Federal Government.
  Many people I see here on the floor arguing against tax cuts, 
willingly and excitedly spend more money in the appropriations process. 
Their argument against tax cuts is that we need to have the money to 
pay down the debt. But when we get toward the end of the session, we 
have a spending binge. In the final 6 months of last year, we spent 
$561 billion--the biggest tax spending binge in this country's history 
in peacetime. I don't think we should allow that to happen because in 
the long-term we are dealing with some very big liabilities. To 
increase programs and increase spending at this time just means it is 
going to get worse. We should work to pay down the debt, and we did a 
good job toward paying down the debt. Ninety percent of our surplus 
went toward debt repayment last year. I am proud of our efforts in 
doing that.
  I think the other solution is that we need to have a tax cut. We need 
a plan to pay down the debt, and we need to have a plan to reduce the 
tax burden on the American people. I happen to agree with what the 
President recently said, that we need to make tax cuts retroactive. Why 
not? In the past, Congress has instituted tax increases and made them 
retroactive. So if we see a need to keep the economy from slowing down 
too much, or if we have excess surpluses, then I think we ought to go 
ahead and have tax cuts that are actually retroactive rather than 
increase spending.
  We frequently discuss the budget surplus, and I believe it is 
actually more accurate--and I want to emphasize this--to talk about it 
as a tax surplus. The surplus represents an overpayment by taxpayers. 
These overassessed taxpayers should not have to send the money to 
Washington in the first place. My colleague from Arkansas pointed out 
that it gets distributed on the whims and wishes of the bureaucracy and 
Members of the Congress. I think it is better to empower local 
taxpayers to spend that money as they see fit. Allowing people to keep 
their own money makes sense to me. They are in a better position to 
know what they need. I believe in people's priorities, not Washington 
priorities.
  Rather than addressing the basic question of whom we should trust 
with the taxpayers' money--the taxpayers or Washington--some have 
attempted to shift the focus, claiming they can't afford tax cuts. In 
fact, tax cuts don't jeopardize debt repayment or the Government's 
other obligations.
  I think my record here on the Senate floor is clear. I am known as a 
budget and debt repayment hawk. I want to see the debt paid down as 
fast as possible. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a 
recent Budget Committee hearing, which I attended, that based on the 
current projections, there is room in the surplus for both debt 
repayment and a tax cut. He stated repeatedly before many different 
committees that the least desirable option is to use surplus money for 
new spending--exactly what the Congress did in the final 6 months of 
the last Congress.
  On July 1, 2001, CBO delivered an encouraging fiscal forecast. They 
saw that the foreseeable budget surplus would allow the Government to 
return a major portion of the surplus to its rightful owners. That 
means a tax cut. They saw that the surplus would allow continued 
efforts to pay down our national debt. It continues to make good on a 
Republican promise to protect the Social Security surplus.
  To put it simply, CBO's baseline assumptions for 2001 to 2011 project 
surpluses large enough to allow the Federal Government to retire all 
available debt held by the public.
  Surpluses from this year through 2011 are projected to approach 
between $5.6 trillion and $6 trillion--nearly four times the amount 
needed to fund the Bush tax cut.
  The Bush tax cut plan is an important first step towards returning 
the tax surplus by lowering taxes. It will mean on the average $1,600 
more for each American family. That is real money. It can be used for 
such things

[[Page 1337]]

as buying a home, paying for a college education, purchasing a computer 
to help kids in school, buying a car, or paying the energy bill.
  I support the Bush tax cut because it offers real tax relief for 
every American taxpayer.
  First, the Bush plan cuts and simplifies the current tax rate 
structure. Rather than five marginal tax rates President Bush proposes 
four new, lower rates. In effect, this simplifies the Tax Code and also 
provides tax relief where it is really needed. I think that all 
taxpayers should have a tax break. The current tax rate brackets, which 
run from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, will be replaced by four new 
brackets at 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. Those 
at the lower end will receive the highest percentage of relief. I want 
to repeat that. Those at the lower end--that is the 10 percent range--
will receive the highest percentage of relief. In fact, one in five 
taxpaying families with children will no longer pay any tax at all. 
This means 6 million families will receive complete tax relief.
  The Bush tax cut will also provide important tax relief for families 
by reducing the marriage tax penalty.
  In meeting with my constituents at town meetings, I have heard 
repeatedly that the people of Colorado want marriage penalty relief. I 
am one who takes my responsibilities seriously, and I hold a town 
meeting in every county in Colorado every year. You can imagine how 
many people stood up and made that very important statement on behalf 
of their family.
  The statistics show why. In the State of Colorado, over 400,000 
couples pay additional, unfair taxes simply because they are married. 
Nationally, this amounts to more than 21 million couples paying on 
average another $1,400 per year in taxes; again, just because they are 
married.
  The Bush tax cut will go a long way towards eliminating this 
disparity.
  The penalty runs counter, in my view, to common sense. Marriage is a 
practice that should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
  This penalty really hits young married couples hard. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Housing, I am constantly reminded of the increasing 
scarcity of affordable housing for young couples. This tax relief would 
go a long way towards helping working families afford a home.
  President Bush also proposed that the child tax credit be doubled 
from $500 per child to $1,000 per child.
  Again, this is money in the pocket of hard-working American 
families--particularly young American families just getting started. 
Undoubtedly, it would be especially helpful to lower income families.
  I am particularly pleased to support the provision to eliminate the 
death tax. I share the President's belief that the tax should be 
eliminated. I have already introduced legislation to do just that, as 
have a number of other Members in the Senate.
  The United States retains among the highest estate taxes in the 
world, and top estate tax rates can reach over 55 percent. This is 
money that was already taxed when it was earned. Frankly, the estate 
tax--or death tax--can destroy a family business. This has been called 
to my attention a number of times in the State of Colorado. One of the 
more recent examples happens to be a ranch in the Aspen area--a pretty 
affluent area experiencing a lot of growth.
  A family happened to have an unexpected death. They had to sell off 
the family ranch to pay the estate tax. As a result, open space will be 
developed, contrary to what many people in that area wanted to see 
happen. They wanted to see more open space instead of more development.
  Repeal of the estate tax would certainly benefit the economy. Without 
the estate tax, greater business resources can be put toward productive 
economic activity.
  I think the President's proposal to expand education savings accounts 
will also give parents more flexibility in determining what is best for 
their children.
  There is a lot more to the President's tax plan. But the fact is that 
I do think we need to move forward. Americans are spending more than 
ever on taxes, and we need to reduce that tax burden.
  I strongly support the President's comments that we should make it 
retroactive. In other words, we ought to address the problem now and 
not wait. I offer my strong endorsement of the President's proposed tax 
cut, and I look forward to a swift enactment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 253 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________