[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3384-3385]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              THE TAX CUT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I speak of the size of the tax cut the 
President of the United States has asked us to adopt. The occupant of 
the chair knows the Senator from New Mexico is lucky in that I have a 
wonderful person at home who asks me a lot of questions about what I am 
doing. It is a great sounding board. I think the occupant knows that is 
my wife.
  My wife spoke to me about 10 days ago as an average citizen because 
she and four friends, all of whom were women, stopped by after getting 
together to have a cup of coffee. There were questions raised by these 
nonpolitical women--not necessarily Republicans--as to why such a big 
tax cut? Why can't we wait? She addressed the question to me.
  I said I think it is time the American people deserve to be told the 
size of this tax cut. I have a chart. I don't know if it has been seen 
on the Senate floor, but it is interesting. The red area indicates $1.6 
trillion as the entire tax cut alongside what we select in taxes during 
the same period of time. It is most interesting. During the same time 
we are asking the American people be given back $1.6 trillion, we will 
collect $28 trillion in taxes. Maybe that puts it a little bit more in 
perspective, that it is not such a giant tax cut in proportion to the 
taxes America collects.
  The green portion of the chart is broken into two. The bottom is 
individual income taxes, and we have corporate income taxes, and other 
taxes.
  This is what we collect. This from individuals--14, and 28 total. 
Over 10 years, it isn't such a very large tax reduction.
  We might also suggest by way of words that both President Kennedy and 
President Reagan cut taxes.

[[Page 3385]]

  Incidentally, both of them--one Democrat and one Republican--cut 
marginal rates. They reduced the top rates. They reduced both the 
middle rates and the low rates for the same reason.
  President Kennedy was advised that he ought to do it because of the 
fact the American economy had to be built up and grow and prosper, and 
one of the things he ought to do as a Federal official was lower the 
marginal tax rates. Lo and behold, that is what a Democrat President 
did. He did that without the surplus we have.
  Isn't it amazing? We are talking about being sure of everything that 
is going to happen; that we are going to have enough money to pay down 
the debt. There were deficits in each year of the tax cut of President 
Kennedy.
  We have a predicted surplus of $5.6 trillion.
  Second, the size of the Kennedy tax cut was twice the size in 
proportion to the American economy.
  Then Ronald Reagan did marginal rate cuts also along with some other 
things. Congress loaded it up, so to speak. But marginal rates were 
reduced substantially. That was three times the size of this tax cut.
  Our President, with reference to asking for a tax reduction for the 
American people, has been certainly modest in what he is asking for in 
comparison to the total taxes.
  Second, some people wonder why we do this over 10 years. We want to 
suggest to the American people that it is permanent, and at the same 
time, we want to suggest to ourselves the money is not even going to be 
collected in the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years. It is 
just staying with the American people. So it won't be around here. It 
won't be in the budget of the United States. It would have already 
disappeared from our grasp. We will not have it to spend. The American 
people will have it in their paychecks, in their profits of small 
business, which they distribute as individuals. It will go to them.
  There is nothing better than doing this, and I say do it as quickly 
as we can to send a signal to at least the part of the American economy 
that is not doing well, and a few States aren't doing well. My friend 
from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, was telling me today about Ohio having 
some real economic problems. It is far different than New Mexico's 
problems. They need a signal from the Congress and the President that 
we care about them, that we are concerned about them, and that we are 
cutting marginal rates so as to give some credibility to our concern 
about the economic future in many parts of the United States, and, 
generally speaking, over the next decade, the status of our economy in 
general so people and families will have a better chance. It will be an 
important 10 years in terms of job opportunities and consistent 
paychecks. That is what that is. I hope everybody knows this is a 
reasonable way to do it.
  Maybe we will get around soon to satisfying some who have a little 
bit of concern about whether we are paying down the debt, and whether 
we will continue paying it down over time. They are asking for some 
kind of trigger mechanism. Obviously, this Senator hasn't seen one that 
will be in place. Yet that will leave the effectiveness of the tax in 
place. Clearly, I say to those who want a trigger that you can't do a 
trigger that triggers every year because then the people won't be 
getting the benefit of this tax cut. They can't buy a car and pay 
because you only get the tax cut for one year, and that is a ``maybe'' 
tax cut. It is not a real tax cut. One year at a time won't work, 
especially if you want the effect of marginal rates, which means 
lowering at every level a significant amount, though the lower level is 
getting a bigger percentage of the reduction.
  While I haven't seen any that leave the effectiveness of the tax in 
place, I am willing to work with Members, the distinguished Senator, 
Ms. Snowe, the occupant of the chair, many others, and Democrats 
working on this issue. I say let's continue working on it. There may be 
some way to do some collections, but certainly it should not be every 
year. There should be a broad-based look at this so we look at spending 
also. We should look at the debt if we are going to be doing it.
  That is the conversation I wanted to have about the budget and tax 
cut.
  I want to add to that. It is pretty obvious the Committee on Budget 
of the Senate, which now has 11 Democrats and 11 Republicans--it should 
be pretty obvious to everyone that we can't get a bill out of that 
committee that gives the President an opportunity to have his tax 
measure considered by the Finance Committee. You understand that the 
budget resolution just permits it. This makes room for it. In this 
case, up to $1.6 billion. It doesn't say you have to pass $1.6 billion. 
But we can't do it in the committee because we are tied. On every 
matter of real substance regarding this budget we are going to be tied.
  The taxes are well known by those who have worked with us. If it is 
in the Budget Committee for a long time, come a certain date--I believe 
it is April 1--statute of law says if you haven't produced a budget, 
then you can call one up here. The Parliamentarian is familiar with 
that as is the occupant of the chair. I haven't given up on the 
committee doing it. I want to have more conversations. But if we can't 
come in closer than we are now, I don't intend to have a week's worth 
of votes pro and con, each one being 11-11, and then pass one 12-10. It 
isn't going to be very meaningful. I may let everybody talk for one 
day, let April 1 arrive, and then call up the budget. We will be 
working with a number of people on that premise.

                          ____________________