[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1337-1339]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               TAX RELIEF

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about President 
Bush's tax relief plan and what I hope will be congressional approval 
of tax relief for hard-working Americans.
  It is very clear we are going to have a bigger surplus than we ever 
even dreamed would be possible when we passed the Balanced Budget Act. 
It is estimated now at $5.6 trillion. The President's plan takes 
approximately 25 percent of this huge surplus and says the people 
deserve to keep more of their money. This is an income tax surplus. 
People are sending more to Washington than Washington needs to do its 
responsibility to cover the costs of Government, to the tune of $5.6 
trillion. Doesn't it make sense to cut back on the amount people have 
to send to Washington? We think so.
  The President's plan gives a tax cut to every American who is paying 
taxes. It replaces the current five-rate tax structure with four lower 
rates: 10, 15, 25, and 33. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000, 
reduces the marriage penalty, which we have been trying to do now for 4 
years, eliminates the death tax, expands the charitable tax deduction, 
and makes the research and development tax credit permanent.
  What happens when this is passed? Who are the biggest winners? One in 
five taxpaying families with children will no longer pay any income tax 
at all. One in every five families who pay taxes and have children will 
pay no income tax. It will remove 6 million American families from the 
tax rolls. A family of four making $35,000 will get a 100-percent 
Federal income tax cut. A family of four making $50,000 a year will 
receive a 50-percent tax cut, receiving at least $1,600 in tax relief. 
A family of four making $75,000 a year will receive a 25-percent tax 
cut. The marginal income tax rate on low-income families will fall by 
more than 40 percent. That is the effect this tax relief will have on 
American families.
  The current code is not fair, and it is taking too much. What we need 
is balance in our system. What this approach will do is pay down the 
debt, protect Social Security, increase spending for priority needs, 
and give hard-working Americans more in their pocketbook.
  Mr. President, you are going to hear a lot more about this in future 
months because I believe Congress is going to work with the President 
to give the tax relief he is seeking. I look forward to the discussion 
because I cannot think of any reason hard-working Americans should not 
have the money they earn in their pocketbooks rather than sending it to 
Washington for a program of which they have never heard.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 11 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, during the last hour and a half Senators have come to 
the floor to talk about the President's proposed tax cuts. Of course, 
we are all interested in finding out what the details are on that tax 
cut because it is true, the devil is in the details. We need to know 
exactly what the President is proposing, the impact it will have on our 
budget, first, certainly on our economy, and on the families of this 
Nation.
  I guess two of the most magic words for politicians are ``tax cut.'' 
Can you

[[Page 1338]]

think of anything more popular to say to an audience? I think we have 
learned over history that if you just focus on the term ``tax cut,'' 
and you do not fill in the details, you can find yourself in a pretty 
terrible predicament.
  When President Reagan was elected in 1980, he was dedicated to a tax 
cut. He said that was the highest single priority. Of course, he 
enacted that tax cut. We all understand what happened after that tax 
cut was enacted. We totaled up the biggest run of deficits in the 
history of the United States. We created such a monster that many of my 
Republican friends who were faithful supporters of President Reagan 
came to the floor and said: We are going to have to amend the 
Constitution now; there is no other way to stop this mess between the 
President and Congress; we have to give the Federal courts the 
authority through a constitutional amendment to stop Congress from 
spending and stop the President from spending.
  Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. Leadership came on the scene 
that changed the dynamics of this debate dramatically. In 1993, under 
President Clinton, we passed a deficit budget reduction plan, and 
several years later we passed a bipartisan plan. Between the two of 
them, we have finally reached the point in our history where we are no 
longer laboring with annual deficits adding to the national debt but we 
are dealing with surpluses.
  The obvious question is, What is the responsible thing to do?
  First we have to ask ourself this question: How big is the surplus? 
How much money do we have to spend either on tax cuts or for programs 
or for some other purpose? I have to say, quite honestly, that is where 
I have some difficulty with this whole debate.
  Let me give one illustration. Seventy percent of all the surplus we 
are talking about for tax cuts does not appear for 5 years. Thirty 
percent of it starts to show, but then 70 percent of it is in the last 
5 years of the economists' estimates.
  Think about that for a second. We are pinning our hopes on 
statistical projections starting 5 years from now as to what America is 
going to look like, what the economy is going to look like.
  I have a very limited education in economics, and I do not consider 
myself an expert, but I will tell you, I have worked with some of the 
real experts on economics here in Washington, and they miss by a 
country mile trying to guess where we are going to be 5 months from 
now, let alone 5 years or 10 years from now.
  Allow me to use one example. If the 5-year projection is where we 
really start coming into surpluses, it is reasonable to step back and 
ask: What were the economists in America saying 5 years ago about 
today? Let's take a look.
  They projected that today in America we would be running a $320 
billion deficit. Guess what. They were wrong. We are running a $270 
billion surplus. They missed it by $590 billion 5 years ago. They did 
not have a clue. They were clearly guessing based on assumptions that 
were just plain wrong.
  I think one can understand the skepticism of many of us who say, if 
we are going to build on America's future, let us do it with 
assumptions that are honest, that are accurate, and on which we can 
count. When one starts off with the premise that we are going to have 
this fantastic surplus 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years from now, I say take 
care, be careful, because if we are wrong, if we commit ourselves to 
spending tax cuts we cannot cover, we will find ourselves not only 
putting our toe but our whole leg back into that red-ink deficit pool. 
I do not want to see that happen.
  Keep in mind, the mortgage we now have on America, our national debt, 
is substantial. We owe over $5.7 trillion for things we have done in 
the past--roads we have built, decisions we have made, programs we have 
funded. That $5.7 trillion national debt costs American families, 
businesses, and individual taxpayers $1 billion a day in interest. We 
collect that much in your taxes and mine to pay interest on old debt. 
That $1 billion a day does not educate a child, does not buy a computer 
for a school, does not provide a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare to a soul in America, nor does it buy us a new tank, a new 
plane, or pay for a new soldier--nothing. It is money paid on interest 
servicing old debt.
  I believe if we have any surplus, the first thing we should dedicate 
it to is eliminating the national debt. Can you think of a better thing 
to leave our children than to say to them: We paid off our mortgage, 
kids; it's your America; dream your dreams and you won't be saddled 
with our debt. It seems pretty basic to me.
  Will there be room for a tax cut if we do that? I think there will 
be, but I think we ought to take care that that tax cut is one that 
makes sense. This is where Democrats and Republicans really part 
company. I am sorry we get back to this debate, but the President made 
his choice, and now we will return to that debate: Who deserves a tax 
cut in this country? If we want to pick out a group of Americans who 
really need a helping hand in reduced taxes, where should we turn 
first?
  Forty-three percent of the tax cut that President Bush is proposing 
goes to the top 1 percent income earners in this country, people making 
over $300,000 a year. Take a look at this chart which gives an idea 
about what I am talking. This is President Bush's tax plan and the 
impact it has on people in different income categories in America.
  The top 1-percent income--people making over $300,000 a year, 
incidentally, have an average income of $915,000. For people who are 
making over $25,000 a month in income, the President wants to give them 
$46,000 in tax cuts.
  Then take a look down the list at how this number starts diminishing 
as you get closer to working families and middle-income families. It 
starts off with $42 for those in the lowest income categories, the 
lowest 20 percent. It goes up to $187 if you are making $24,000; $453 a 
year if you are making $39,000 or less.
  What a disparity: That if we are going to give a tax cut in America 
to the people most deserving, the people who need the most help, it is 
those who are making over $300,000 a year.
  Yesterday at a press conference in Springfield, IL, about an issue 
that is near and dear to people in Springfield, IL, and I think 
nationally--it goes back to a telephone call I received a month or so 
ago from my consumer advocate in Illinois. Her name is Loretta Durbin. 
She is my wife. She called me and said: I just got the gas bill, 
Senator. What is going on here?
  People across America are getting heating bills and electric bills 
that are absolutely stopping them in their tracks. These are working 
families, by and large, who have seen their bills doubled and tripled, 
and they are calling my office and saying: What can you do to help us?
  There is a limited amount we can do, but one thing we can consider 
and I support is providing some tax relief to these families struggling 
to pay their heating bills. I do not think that is an unreasonable 
idea. Senator Harkin has a proposal, which I think makes sense, to give 
a tax credit to people for the increase in their heating bills over 
this last year. Do you know what the people are going to do with it? 
They will pay their bills or they will replenish their savings 
accounts, or they will decide, yes, we can go ahead and make an 
important purchase for our family. I think that is the kind of tax cut 
that really is reasonable in America.
  Can you imagine the people making over $25,000 a month having 
husbands calling wives, saying: Our heating bill is up to $400 this 
month. I don't think so.
  But I can tell you, if you are making $25,000 a year, a $400 heating 
bill, or more, is something of which you would take notice. That is why 
I hope if there is going to be a tax cut, that it be sensible, based on 
the real surplus, and that it be after we have dedicated funds to 
bringing down this national debt, the debt that costs us so much, and 
raises interest rates on everything across America and, finally, a tax 
cut that really zeros in on the people who need it the most.
  I am worried, too, that the President's proposal, when you take a 
look

[[Page 1339]]

at it, takes 85 percent of our surplus and dedicates it to a tax cut, 
leaving precious little for things which we value.
  I just left a meeting of the heads of Illinois school boards. I think 
those are some of the best public servants in America, people who serve 
on school boards. It is a tough job. In Illinois, they are trying to 
make sure they serve the needs of the children. And, of course, they 
are responsible to the taxpayers. They have talked to me about the 
needs of education in my State, which would be the same in many other 
States: crumbling schools, areas where they need new schools, teachers 
needing training, schools that have a hookup now to the Internet but 
need new computers and new access to new technology. They are saying to 
me: Senator, if there is a surplus, for goodness' sake, can't we have a 
piece of this for education? Isn't that important to our Nation? I 
think it is. But if you take 85 percent of our surplus and spend it on 
tax cuts, it leaves so little to consider any money for education.
  In the last campaign, both candidates talked about a prescription 
drug benefit under Medicare. We know what seniors are facing now in 
trying to pay for their drug bills. We have not had a conversation 
about this in 3 or 4 months. Since all of the hoopla of November 7, 
people have not talked about it. But President Bush does not leave the 
money aside to take care of that necessity, as far as I am concerned, 
for seniors and disabled people.
  There are important programs in education, in health, and in national 
defense that will cost us as a nation. I think we have to be prepared 
to look at the surplus honestly, to make certain if there is a tax cut, 
it is fair, and to make certain that we do keep money aside for 
important national priorities.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________