Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on July 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct a hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed sulfur standard for gasoline as contained in the proposed Tier Two standards for automobiles Thursday, July 29, 9:30 a.m., hearing room (SD-406).

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``The FAIR Act: Balancing the Scale of Justice for Small Business'' during the session on Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., on Magnuson Act reauthorization.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 29, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 710, a bill to authorize a feasibility study on the preservation of certain Civil War battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail; S. 905, a bill to establish the Lackawana Valley American Heritage Area; S. 1093, a bill to establish the Galisteo Basin Archeological Protection Sites and to provide for the protection of archeological sites in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 1117, a bill to establish the Corinth Unit of the Shiloh National Military Park, in the vicinity of the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes; S. 1234, a bill to expand the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Wills House, and for other purposes; and S. 1349, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resource studies to determine the national significance of specific sites as well as the suitability and feasibility of their inclusion as units of the National Park System.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be permitted to meet on Thursday, July 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing on Total Quality Management: State Success Stories as a Model for the Federal Government.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 29, 1999. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the markup of the original bill regarding the Livestock Mandatory Report Act of 1999.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask if I may be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 979, Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1999. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing re Combating Methamphetamine Proliferation in America, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 10 a.m., in SD-628.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to receive testimony on the operations of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 2:15 p.m. on fraud against seniors.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, for purposes of conducting a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 624, a bill to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System in the State of Montana, and for other purposes; S. 986, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Griffith Project to the Southern Nevada Water Authority; S. 1211, a bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; S. 1275, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to produce and sell products and to sell publications relating to the Hoover Dam, and to deposit revenues generated from the sales to the Colorado River Dam fund; and S. 1236, a bill to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho; and S. 1377, a bill to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act regarding the use of funds for water development for the Bonneville Unit, and for other purposes.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, to conduct a hearing on the monetary policy report to Congress pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes. Or are we short on time?

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator very much. So the question I was asking is, Is it irresponsible to get rid of an unfair tax policy that discourages marriage? The President at one time a couple years ago said, yes, this is an unfair tax, but, basically, Washington needs it more than the couple does in order to raise a family. I have heard many who oppose $792 billion in tax relief support the individual relief included in this package. Just which specific section of the Roth bill would they throw out? What part of tax relief do they object to most? I would like to know which part they would like to get rid of to get down to what they are proposing in tax relief. Let me further address the issue of so-called ``fiscally irresponsible'' tax cuts that we hear of so often. ``Fiscally irresponsible,'' that means, do not give it back to the people who own it, earn it, and should have it, but give it to Washington. That is ``responsible,'' I guess. But in a recent analysis of President Clinton's midsession proposal, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office found that our budget plan saves all of the $2 trillion Social Security surplus while the President's revised plan still spends $30 billion of the Social Security surplus. He cannot get by with just spending surplus; he is going to raise taxes by $98 billion, and he is also going to dip into the Social Security trust fund again. His original plan spent over $150 billion of the Social Security surplus. Yet we still hear claims that our tax relief is at the expense of seniors. It is the President who is spending the money, raising taxes, and dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Yet we are irresponsible because we want to return to the American people the overcharge in taxes? The CBO estimates that our plan reduces more debt held by the public than the President's plan. That is another thing. We do reduce the debt even more than the President's plan. Ours also produces an additional non-Social Security surplus of nearly $300 billion over the next decade while the President's plan, again, spends almost all of the on-budget surplus. Do you spend it or do you give it back in tax relief? That is the question. Whose money is it? The CBO also says the President's midsession proposal has no net tax cut but, instead, increases taxes by $95 billion. Again, the surplus isn't enough. He wants to raise taxes another $95 billion. The President commits over $1 trillion in new and additional spending over the next decade by expanding Government programs or creating new programs. Just quickly, I will show this chart. This is what we are talking about as to what the President plans to do. We all agree on saving Social Security, putting every dime from the Social Security surplus into the trust fund, into our lockbox, and not spending that. This is our projected $3,371 billion expected surplus. But the President wants to spend all that is remaining and raise taxes by $95 billion more in order to do that. So contrary to Mr. Clinton's plan, our budget provides $792 billion in tax relief to working Americans. Meanwhile, we save every penny of the Social Security surplus exclusively for Americans' retirement. In addition, we set aside over $505 billion for Medicare and to address spending needs. Out of this whole projected surplus, we plan on saving for Social Security, for Medicare, for education, other needs, 75 cents on every dollar of this expected surplus. Only 25 cents on the dollar, one- quarter, would go to tax relief. Somehow, they want to spend the whole dollar. Our tax relief takes only a small portion of the total budget surplus. In fact, only 23 cents of every dollar of the budget surplus goes for tax relief. There is enough to provide this 23 cent of every surplus dollar for tax relief, to protect Social Security and to reform Medicare, including prescription drug coverage from needy seniors. But what I want to stress today is how we spend this $505 billion is not the question before today. It will come at the end of the year when we look at Medicare reform and the final appropriations bills. Today the issue is, can we provide $792 billion in tax relief, and I think we have proved we can with these charts, and the expert advice us received through the budget process. In fact, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is fiscally responsible and who's fiscally irresponsbile. Contrary to Mr. Clinton's rhetoric that tax relief will cause recession, cutting taxes will keep our economy strong, will create jobs, increase savings and productivity, forestall a recession and produce more tax revenues. History has proved that tax cuts work: In the 1960s, President Kennedy proposed and later President Johnson enacted an individual income tax reduction of an average of 20 percent and reduced the top income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. This tax relief preceded one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan inherited an economy that was deep in recession. Unemployment and inflation sank to double digits and interest rates hit over 20 percent. Reagan implemented an economic plan that dramatically cut taxes, reduced regulations, and got the economy moving again. What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. Over 8 years, 20 million new jobs were created, unemployment sank to record lows, all Americans did better, and in spite of lower rates, tax revenues increased. In the 1990s, many States cut taxes and turned their budget deficits into budget surpluses. Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating enacted the largest broad-based tax cut in the state's history; Michigan Governor John Engler enacted 24 tax cuts, reducing state personal income taxes to the lowest level in a generation; New Jersey Governor Whittman cut taxes 17 times, reducing state income taxes by 30 percent. In my own state of Minnesota, Governor Carlson cut taxes and generated a record budget surplus. And Governor Ventura returned the surplus to Minnesotans in the form of sales tax rebate and across-the-board income tax cuts. None of these states broke their budgets; instead they produced a robust economy and generated big budget surpluses which allowed them to provide even more tax cuts. Our neighbor north of the border, in the Province of Ontario, chose to follow New Jersey and cut their income tax by 30 percent in 1995 instead of increasing spending. It generates a very successful economy. This year, Ontario Premier Mike Harris will cut the income tax by another 20 percent. Here is what he says; ``the debate is over; tax cuts create jobs.'' Finally, I would like to take a moment to talk again about Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction. Republicans are pleased that President Clinton agrees with us that shoring up Social Security and Medicare should be our nation's top priority. But the difference is President Clinton talks about it; and Republicans act on it. We are determined to achieve these goals. We have locked in every penny of the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years, not for government programs, not for tax cuts, but exclusively to protect all Americans' retirement. We have been working hard to reform Medicare to ensure it will be there for seniors. Prescriptions drug coverage for the needy will be part of our commitment to seniors to protect their Medicare benefits. Had the White House and Democrats cooperated with us, we could have fixed Medicare by now. In any event, we will continue our effort to preserve Medicare as Chairman Roth reveals his Medicare bill in the near future. We have reduced the national debt and will continue to dramatically reduce it. Debt held by the public will decrease to $0.9 trillion by 2009. The interest payment to service the debt will drop from $229 billion in 1999 to $71 billion in 2009. We will eliminate the entire debt held by the public by 2012. As I indicated before, we have not ignored spending needs to focus on tax cuts as has been charged. We not only have funded all the functions of the government, but also significantly increased funding for our budget priorities, such as defense, education, Medicare, agriculture and others. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, we set aside over $505 billion in non-Social Security surplus to meet these needs and the debate on how these funds is not before us today. But is there to highlight how Republicans can provide $792 billion in tax relief while not ignoring other important priorities. This major tax relief does not come at the expense of seniors, farmers, women, children or any other deserving group. On the contrary, it benefits all Americans and keeps our economy strong. And most importantly, this tax relief will give every working American more freedom to decide what's best for themselves and their families. Let me include my remarks by citing President Reagan who once said: ``Every major tax cut in this century has strengthened the economy, generated renewed productivity, and ended up yielding new revenues for the government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.'' President Reagan was right. I remember vividly that when I first proposed the $500 per child tax cut in 1993, the naysayers called it bad policy, even ``dangerous.'' Democrats accused us of cutting taxes for the rich. Sound familiar? Some in Congress contended it was too costly, and others argued that we should balance the budget first. I argued repeatedly that we could and should do both. And so we did. As a result, now we have a balanced budget, and the largest surplus in U.S. history. Cutting taxes, reducing the national debt, and reforming and protecting Social Security and Medicare at the same time are all possible. We can do it again. We must do it again. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support the $792 billion in tax relief in the Taxpayer Refund Act. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as we consider the $792 billion of overpaid taxes we seek to refund in the Taxpayer Refund Act, millions of Americans are deeply concerned about President Clinton's veto threat. We just heard the statement about we cannot have a ``reckless'' tax cut, but they want to give back this money to our children and grandchildren and to the American people. The truth is, our bill is the bill that wants to return this surplus to the taxpayers of the country; the President's bill wants to spend it. It is very different. Somehow, if we give it back in tax relief, it is reckless because the American people somehow do not know how to spend it, but let us keep it in Washington and let Washington spend it and it is fine. I do not understand that logic. The President has also threatened to veto a proposal from his own party to provide just $500 billion in tax relief--again, more evidence that they want to spend the money, not give it back, not save it for our children, but spend it on new Washington programs. The President is hinting at supporting tax relief somewhere in the $250 billion range, but his own budget included only one tax cut, and that could only be used for savings, not to let families decide how to spend their own money, but for Washington, the President, to tell you what you are going to do if he decides to give any of your surplus back. I take this opportunity to make a few points about why the taxpayers have every right to expect this Congress and the President to return at least $792 billion of overpaid taxes. First, let me emphasize that this bill is a 10-year $792 billion tax cut plan that benefits all Americans, with a focus on providing major tax relief for middle-class families. It is not a tax cut for the rich. It is not an unrealistic level of relief. It significantly reduces taxes for millions of American families and individuals, and it is the biggest tax relief we have ever had since President Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically in the early 1980s. I again commend Chairman Roth for his leadership and his commitment to providing major tax relief. We promised to return to American families the non-Social Security tax overcharges they paid to the Government, and we have fulfilled that solemn promise. The proposed tax relief will immediately ease working Americans' tax burden and allow them to keep a little more of their own money and use it on their family priorities--not Washington's, not President Clinton's, but their families' priorities. This taxpayer relief refund legislation gives middle-class working families at least $450 a year in relief from the tax squeeze. It corrects the injustice of the marriage penalty tax by allowing married couples to file joint returns as if they were single payers of taxes, so 22 million Americans will no longer be penalized simply for the fact they are married. This legislation also eliminates the alternative minimum tax to permit millions of American families, including farmers, to enjoy the full benefit of tax exemptions and credits such as the $500-per-child tax credit which I championed and the Senate passed back in 1997. The proposed tax relief includes a reduction in the death tax which will help farmers and small businesses across the country pass on their hard-earned legacies to their children, not to pass it on to the Government but to pass it on to their children and their heirs. The bill makes health care more affordable for millions of self- employed and uninsured by making their health care costs 100-percent deductible, and it includes my legislation to permit workers without coverage to deduct their health insurance costs and also allows those purchasing long-term care policies to deduct them as well. These measures will allow more people to obtain health care coverage or improve the coverage they already have. The bill before us also encourages working Americans to save more for their future by expanding IRAs and providing education tax benefits for parents, for students, and for workers. There is other tax relief for hard-working Americans as well. While there is still room to improve the legislation, such as to expand the broad-based tax relief and to provide immediate relief of the marriage penalty, this $800 billion package is a clear victory for working Americans. One of the most important points I have made repeatedly in this Chamber is that the non-Social Security surplus is the working people's money, not Washington's, and the people deserve the refund. America's strong economy has turned the ink in Washington's accounting book black for the first time in 40 years. The budget surplus above and beyond Social Security will top $1 trillion to $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The CBO finds the increased revenue is propelled by personal income tax increases, and the CBO cites four sources for this unexpected revenue: First, the rapid growth of taxable income, which has raised the tax base for personal income tax receipts. Second, the CBO says adjusted gross income, which has grown even more rapidly than taxable personal income, mainly through the realization of capital gains. The capital gains tax increased by 150 percent between 1993 and 1997, which is a third of the growth of tax liability relative to GDP. Third, rising taxes paid on pension and IRA retirement income. Fourth, and I think the most important, is the increase in the effective tax rate. As Americans are working harder, as they earn more money, as inflation is there, it pushes more and more of them into the higher tax brackets. The tax rate increase accounts for 40 percent of the tax growth in excess of GDP growth. That is an unfair tax. It has pushed people from one tax bracket into another. By the way, the CBO also points out the revenue windfall did not result from legislative policy changes. In other words, according to the CBO, the legislative initiatives taken by the President and by Congress did not generate this surplus. Clearly, all four reasons we have a surplus are the result of the productivity of working men and women of this country, and it has little or nothing to do with Washington. So why should the President, why should Congress, be at the front of the line to spend this surplus, and why are we hearing claims that the $792 billion of tax relief will--and these are the scare tactics, we hear them time after time and they are ridiculous, but they say that tax relief will somehow harm Social Security, it will harm Medicare, and similarly impact Federal spending. Again, my point is, these are overpaid taxes from American workers and they have every right to get it all back. To say we cannot provide this level of relief without hurting Americans is totally inaccurate. We must recall that Americans have long been overtaxed and millions of middle-class families cannot even make ends meet due to the growing tax burden. Our savings rate in this country this year is a negative because families do not have any money left, especially after paying taxes, to put away. They are desperately in need of this largest possible tax relief. Americans today, for example, are paying in my State of Minnesota 42 percent of their hard-earned money on taxes to support Government. It is hard enough to raise one family without having to raise your Uncle Sam at the same time. According to the Government's own data, the average household today pays about $10,000 in Federal income taxes alone. That is twice as much as they paid in Federal taxes in 1985. The total Federal tax will consume 21 percent of the national income. Americans have not paid this much in taxes since World War II. They say: Oh, Americans aren't overtaxed. But since President Clinton was elected in 1993, the amount that Federal tax consumes of the gross domestic product has gone from 18 percent to 21 percent. So the Government is taking more of what this country produces, and it comes out of the pockets of average working Americans. In the past few years, Washington's income, in fact, has grown faster than our economy and twice as fast as the income of working Americans. Washington is growing twice as fast as what you are getting in your paychecks. With more middle-income workers being thrown into higher tax brackets, the ``middle class tax squeeze'' has been devastating. Millions of middle-income Americans, who have worked hard to get ahead, have been pushed from the 15-percent tax bracket up into the 28- percent tax bracket. Hundreds of thousands of others have been pushed from the 28-percent tax bracket into the 31-percent bracket, and so on. More people working explains the surge of the Social Security surplus because payroll taxes are levied against everyone. So part-time, low- income, minimum-wage earners cannot escape the cruel tax bites. According to the census report, the income of the average American family has grown--get this--the average income of the American family has grown only 6.3 percent, in constant dollars, between 1969 to 1996-- 6.3 percent, while Federal tax revenues have increased by nearly 800 percent during the same time. Yet I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say Americans aren't overtaxed; somehow, they are doing fine. As a result, Americans today are working harder and they are working longer, but they are taking home less money because the Federal Government is taking home more. A larger share of the earned income of working Americans is siphoned off here to Washington, and it isn't available for families to spend on their priorities. A recent Census Bureau report finds that 49 million hard-working Americans, including 8 million middle-class Americans, live in a household that has trouble paying for just their basic needs. President Clinton himself at one time--this was down in Texas during a campaign swing in 1995--admitted to a group of contributors, by the way, that Americans were taxed too much. He said: I might have raised taxes too much in 1993. He said: You might think I did. Well, I think I raised them too much, too. But today he still refuses to refund overpaid taxes to Americans, because he does not think working Americans are ``going to spend it right.'' President Clinton believes individuals are not capable of making decisions for themselves and bigger Government is the only solution. Instead, he spends the surplus for Government programs, and he calls meaningful tax relief ``fiscally irresponsible.'' His priority is not to give tax relief at all. It is ``irresponsible'' to ease Americans' tax burdens a little so they can afford basic necessities. That is the question. Is it irresponsible to even have a family night out once in a while? The family has been, and will continue to be, the bedrock of American society. Strong families make strong communities; strong communities make a very strong America. But 22 million working American couples have been forced to pay $1,400 a year more, on average, in taxes every year simply for choosing to be married. Is it irresponsible to get rid of an unfair tax policy that discourages marriage?

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to Lt. David Stout of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol for being named the Patrol's 1999 Trooper of the Year. This is the second such honor for Lt. Stout, who was also given the award in 1977. He served in the State Patrol since 1969 and retired last month after 30 years of service. Lt. Stout began his service in the Patrol in the East Metro Area of the Twin Cities and most recently has worked in the Duluth area. Among the highlights of his career, Lt. Stout was honored to lead Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's motorcade during his visit to Minnesota in 1990. His family and friends know that David will enjoy his retirement with his 32-foot coastal tugboat, which he recently refurbished and now docks on Lake Superior. When winter makes Superior unnavigable, David and his wife Geri will spend time with family in Green Valley, Arizona. Among his friends and family who are proud of David's career are David's nephew Tim, a member of my staff. On behalf of all Minnesotans, I salute Lt. David Stout's service to the people of Minnesota.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I congratulate the Senator from Georgia for putting together this special order on taxes. If we don't talk about it, if we don't act on it, as sure as day follows night, Washington will spend this surplus unless we do something. It is a very important issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to join in. A few minutes ago the Senate cast another important vote in an attempt to lock away every penny of the Social Security surplus for Americans' retirement security. If enacted, this lockbox legislation would effectively end the practice of allowing the Government to spend Social Security money on other Washington ``wish list'' programs. I take this opportunity also to commend Leader Lott, Chairman Domenici, and Senators Abraham and Ashcroft for their leadership on this very important issue. I believe stopping the Government from raiding the Social Security trust fund is an essential first step to ensure Social Security will be there for current beneficiaries, the baby boomers, as well as their children and grandchildren. I am pleased this remains our No. 1 priority. We will protect Social Security, preserve Medicare, and dramatically reduce the national debt, while providing major tax relief. Republicans are pleased that President Clinton agrees that shoring up Social Security and Medicare should be our Nation's top priority. But the difference is that President Clinton talks about it and Republicans are ready to act on it. A good example is the President's commitment to work out a Social Security lockbox compromise when talking with the leadership this past Monday. Yet here we are again, another cloture vote, and no agreement. Where is the action to back up that type of commitment? The Republicans are determined to achieve these goals. We have locked in every penny of the estimated $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years--not for Government programs, not for tax relief, but exclusively to protect all Americans' retirement. We have been working hard to reform Medicare to ensure it will be there for seniors. Prescription drug coverage for the needy will be part of our commitment to seniors, to protect their Medicare benefits. Had the White House and the Democrats cooperated, we could have fixed Medicare by now. We have reduced the national debt and will continue to dramatically reduce it. Debt held by the public will decrease to $0.9 trillion by 2009. The interest payment to service the debt will drop from $229 billion in 1999 to $71 billion in 2009. We will eliminate the entire debt held by the public by 2012. We have not ignored spending needs to focus on tax cuts as has been charged. We not only have funded all the functions of the government, but also significantly increased funding for our budget priorities, such as defense, education, Medicare, agriculture, and others. Meanwhile, Republicans are committed to providing nearly $800 billion of the projected non-Social Security surplus--the tax overpayments of working Americans--for tax relief. This is the largest tax relief since President Reagan and it does not come at the expense of seniors, farmers, women, children, or any other deserving group. However, despite our healthy economy expanding our on-budget surplus, which, again, is not the Social Security surplus, President Clinton still denies meaningful tax relief for working Americans. He and his aides accuse our tax relief plan of being ``dangerous'' and ``risky,'' squandering your money by giving it back to you, worried that you won't spend it right. The administration believes you are smart enough to earn your money but you are not smart enough to know how to spend it-- Washington is. He believes public opinion polls show less interest in tax relief. No wonder! How many people do you know like paying taxes and actually expect a refund? Most people have given up any thought of tax relief-- but they still constantly remind me how important it is when I travel around Minnesota. To tell the public they don't deserve tax relief is just plain wrong. The Bureau of Census just released a report last week that finds 49 million hard-working Americans--nearly one person in every five--lived in a household that had trouble paying for their basic needs. They are going further into debt each month trying to make ends meet. Credit cards are charged to the limit. They need tax relief. What's even more shocking, Mr. President, is that not all of these 49 million are underprivileged people, over 8 million Americans are from middle-class families, families that earn more than $45,000 a year. Let me repeat, Mr. President, a significant number, 8.1 million, to be exact, of middle-class and well-off families today have difficulties making their ends meet. They even have trouble paying rent, medical bills or other basic daily needs. A family night at the movies, a dinner out, braces, piano lessons are often out of reach to average income families. Mr. President, this is not my data, nor is it data from think tanks. This is the data produced by the government of the United States. Some experts attribute this financial hardship to lack of savings, which is true, but there is much more. Our personal savings rate has dropped from 9.4 percent in 1981 to only six-tenths of a percent last year. This year the government reported that the rate actually dipped below zero for the first time since the Great Depression. In fact, in the past 70 years, including the Great Depression, our savings rate has dropped as low as it is today only twice before. The personal savings rate has remained low for more than a decade, and net personal savings other than pensions have virtually disappeared over the past ten years. But why? My answer is that government tax bites have been getting bigger and more cruel. Americans have been struggling to pay basic bills. After paying Uncle Sam and paying for basic family needs, there is nothing left for working Americans to save, or for money even to provide for the basics. Americans should be able to save for their future, but they also should be able to pay for what most of us here take for granted--the family's night out, the lessons, camps, etc.,--the things that improve our quality of life. Tax relief can improve the quality of life of middle-class American families. Mr. President, I remind you the total tax burden on working Americans is at an all-time high. The government's own data shows that the average household pays $9,445 in federal income taxes alone--twice what it paid in 1985. Federal taxes take a huge bite out of Americans' hard-earned paycheck and consumes about 21 percent of the national income, the highest proportion since World War II. And it's still growing. Total taxes from all levels of government--federal, state, and local taxes--stand at a record 32 percent of national income. Mr. President, according to the Census report, the income of the average American family has grown only 6.3 percent in constant dollars between 1969 to 1996. However, federal tax revenue increased nearly 800 percent during the same period of time. Studies show that if government spending in this country had remained at the 1960 level, the average income of an American family of four, even accounting for inflation, would be $23,000 higher today than it is. That could certainly improve the quality of life for those families. The tax burden has become even more excessive since 1993. Over the course of President Clinton's administration, Washington's income has grown faster than our economy and twice as fast as the income of working Americans. In fact, federal taxes have grown by over 54 percent. That's nearly $4,000 a year more per person. Because of the unfair tax system, millions of middle-income Americans who have worked hard to get ahead have been pushed from the 15-percent bracket into the 28-percent bracket. Hundreds of thousands of others have been pushed from the 28-percent bracket into the 31- and 36- percent brackets. No one can escape this growing tax burden, not even low-income and minimum wage workers. Since payroll taxes are levied against everyone, as low-income and minimum wage workers work harder and earn more, their payroll taxes also increase, taking a huge bite out of their hard-earned dollars that are most needed to keep families above the poverty line. As a result, Americans today are working harder and longer but taking less home. A larger share of the earned income of working Americans is siphoned off to Washington, and isn't available to spend on family--not Washington-- priorities. No wonder working Americans have trouble making their ends meet. No wonder they cannot save for emergencies. No wonder they work two or three jobs but still cannot get ahead. President Clinton himself at one time admitted that Americans were taxed too much. But he still refuses to return the tax overpayments back to them because he does not think working Americans will spend it right. Instead, President Clinton has decided he will spend much of the surplus for his own government programs. President Clinton and some of our Democratic colleagues insist we should have Social Security and Medicare first before we have tax cuts. In my view, this is nothing but an effort to deny working Americans tax relief. Republicans have saved Social Security and have tried to create interest in Medicare reform. Tax relief only detracts from the need to spending more to bring home the bacon for many of our colleagues on the other side. Even after we've set aside and protected $2 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, he and my Democratic colleagues in the Senate still insist the tax relief is unachievable. Over the next 10 years, the federal government will collect over $22.7 trillion in taxes. Excluding the Social Security tax surplus, the government will take $17 trillion from Americans' paychecks while it needs only $16 trillion to operate the government. In other words, the average U.S. household will pay approximately $5,307 more than the government needs over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. One question we should ask ourselves before we decide how to spend any non-Social Security surplus is where the budget surplus comes from. Do we have a budget surplus because the government is spending less or because it is taking more of our money? The CBO has showed us precisely where we will get our revenues in the next ten years. The data indicates that the greatest share of the projected budget surplus comes directly from income tax increases, primarily from the capital gains realizations and increase of effective income tax rates. Clearly, Mr. President, as I have argued repeatedly our revenue windfall did not just fall from the sky, nor has it come from any belt tightening in Washington. It comes directly from American taxpayers. Again, my point is, Mr. President, that this non-Social Security surplus is nothing but tax over-payments. It is the American taxpayers' money and it should be returned. Like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, my biggest fear is that if we don't give the non-Social Security surplus back to the taxpayers, Washington will soon spend it all. Such spending will only expand the government, making it even more expensive to support in the future, creating an even higher tax burden than working Americans bear today and a higher federal debt. That's why Chairman Greenspan says ``If we have to get rid of the surpluses--I would far prefer reducing taxes than [increasing] spending, and, indeed, I don't think it's a close call.'' Major tax relief as we have proposed will help all Americans keep a little more of their own money. It will give middle class families relief from the tax squeeze. It will help farmers and small business owners pass their hard-earned legacies onto their children. It will help to reduce self-employed medical costs, and correct the injustice of the marriage penalty tax. It will encourage working Americans to save and invest more. It will reward people who work hard to get ahead. It will benefit all Americans and ensure our economy continues to grow. But more importantly, it will give working Americans more freedom to control their own fate and decide what's best for themselves and their families. This is exactly what President Clinton and our Democratic colleagues fear will happen. They simply cannot let go of their misconceived belief that higher taxes and more government spending are the best answers to America's challenges. That's the fundamental difference between the two parties. That is what this debate on tax relief is all about.