[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 3297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 POWER IN WASHINGTON OR POWER AT HOME?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, about this time, President Bush is landing in 
the Dakotas for his first visit to my part of the country. He is 
landing in Fargo tonight and will be proceeding to South Dakota 
tomorrow. I think it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that as he makes that 
landing there, that today we have passed the cornerstone of his tax 
plan: reduction in marginal rates and real tax relief for working 
families in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the start of what I think will be a great debate 
to have in this Congress, and that is, who has the power? Does 
Washington, D.C. have the power, or do the American people have the 
power? Because the more of this that Washington takes from the American 
people, the less they have to spend. The more of this that Washington 
takes, the more power Washington has, and the less power the American 
family has.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about whether we want to consolidate 
power in Washington or whether we want to distribute power back to our 
families, individuals, and communities. We have heard a debate today 
about whether or not to spend the surplus, and our friends on the other 
side have raised concerns about whether or not we ought to be 
proceeding down this track. Well, Mr. Speaker, the same people who are 
making that argument have no such constraint when it comes to spending 
the surplus on new government programs. That is an entirely different 
argument that they make.
  If we look at the arguments that are made by the opponents of the 
President's proposal, they really revolve around a couple of basic 
points. One is that it is too big in the actual size of this tax cut. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we look at it in terms of actual size as a 
percentage of the total surplus, it is about one-quarter of that 
surplus, or 6 percent of government revenues over the course of the 
next 10 years. So in terms of actual size, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, 
that it is a very responsible number in that it recognizes the 
commitment that we have to protecting Social Security and Medicare, 
paying down the Federal debt, and making those necessary investments 
that are critical to our future, and at the same time, it allows us to 
get some of that money back into the hands of the American people.
  What about the proportional size of this tax cut? Well, if we look at 
it relative to previous tax cuts, during the Reagan administration, 
during the Kennedy administration, it is about half the size of the 
Kennedy tax cuts, and about one-third of the size of the Reagan tax 
cuts, as a percentage of the gross domestic product and also as a 
percentage of total government revenues. So proportionally, Mr. 
Speaker, I would argue as well that this is a balanced and responsible 
way to go about giving the American people more of their hard-earned 
money.
  Well, the other question is, what about spending? Are we going to be 
able to have those resources that are necessary? Mr. Speaker, the 
President's proposal sets aside $1 trillion for contingencies. I care 
about agriculture in my part of the country. The President has said we 
recognize there are going to be emergencies that are necessary to come 
up with additional dollars. So he has accounted for that in the form of 
a contingency fund of about $1 trillion. Government spending is going 
to increase 4 percent this next year on the discretionary side; that is 
the part that the Congress appropriates, and if we add in the total 
amount of entitlement spending combined, it is about $100 billion over 
this year's funding levels. That is a significant amount of additional 
spending. Four percent is higher than the proposed rate of inflation 
for this next year.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would also say that if we look at it in relative 
amounts and what it does to allow us to continue to make the 
investments that we need to make, this plan enables us to do that.
  The other argument that is often made, Mr. Speaker, and if we listen 
to the grim reapers and the prophets of doom, is that the Reagan tax 
cuts led to the deficits. The fact is, that is not true. After the 
Reagan tax cuts in 1981, government revenues went up, but the rate of 
spending exceeded that. Congress could not control, curb, its appetite 
to spend those dollars; and that, Mr. Speaker, is what led to the 
deficits during those years. In fact, if Congress had been able to 
control its spending and only spent at a rate of 5.6 percent average 
increase per year between 1981 and 1991, the budget would have been 
balanced in 1991, instead of just a few years ago.
  So as we engage in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I hope the American 
people will listen clearly and understand that this is a great day for 
the American taxpayers. I am proud to be able to vote in favor of 
allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. It is good for 
the American taxpayers, it is good for the people of South Dakota, and 
tomorrow will be a day of celebration as the President makes this stop 
in my great State; and I hope that we will be able to welcome him and 
deliver to him a message that we care about the people of this country, 
about the taxpayers, and about giving them more freedom and more 
liberty.

                          ____________________