[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 66 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4961-S4969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GAS TAX AND THE BUDGET

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, for an extended period of time, we have 
been engaged in an attempt to repeal the President's and this 
administration's imposition of a 4.3-cent gas tax that was imposed on 
the country in August 1993. The President has now said that he will 
sign the repeal of this gas tax, and he gave several suggestions as to 
how it should be funded. The other side of the aisle for the last week 
has been standing in front of our attempt to repeal this gas tax; it 
has gotten caught up in the minimum wage, whereupon the majority leader 
came forward with new suggestions about the new workplace. That was 
objected to by the other side of the aisle.
  We are now in the midst of having to file a cloture motion to see if 
we can end debate on the majority leader's suggestion and proposal to 
repeal the gas tax. As the Chair has suggested, there will be a vote at 
2:15 p.m. tomorrow on whether or not we can come to cloture, whether or 
not we can end debate, whether or not we can stop day after day after 
day of standing in the way of the repeal which is so important to 
America's average working families.
  The specific amendment offered by Senator Dole, repeals the 4.3-cent-
per-gallon gas tax until December 31, 1996, although there are many of 
us--this is the interim repeal--who, in the budget, want to repeal it 
permanently. It expresses the sense of Congress that 4.3 cents per 
gallon should be passed on to the customers.
  There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not this would 
actually get to the pump and that the price was lowered in the midst of 
these very large gasoline prices at the pumps all across the country. 
So this has a sense of the Congress that this reduction in tax we 
expect to see occur at the pump. It authorizes a study by the 
Comptroller General as to whether the 4.3-cents-per-gallon savings were 
passed through to the consumer. That report would be due January 31, 
1997.

  The repeal does not add to the deficit. It specifically pays for it. 
This has been modified; $800 million of this tax relief will come in 
reduced expenditures at the Department of Energy in their 
administrative overhead; $2.5 billion of this tax relief will come from 
the spectrum auction completed by March 1997, and $1.7 billion in the 
offset from the bank insurance fund and the savings association 
insurance fund, raising the revenues to capitalize that fund, reduce 
pressure on the general fund, bringing $1.7 billion in additional tax 
relief.
  So, as you can see here, it is about $4.5 billion worth of tax 
reductions on the average working families in our country.
  With regard to the suggestions which began to surface last week that 
this was an exercise in futility because the American people would 
never see it, you will note that it commissions the Comptroller General 
to certify that the consumers got it. It has a sense of the Congress 
suggesting that it must be passed on to the consumers.
  In addition to this, when Senator Dole spoke late last week, he 
introduced into the Record letters from Arco, Texaco, and Exxon. Here 
is one:

       ARCO Chairman and CEO, Mike R. Bowlin, said today that ``if 
     the Federal Government reduces the gasoline excise tax by 4.3 
     cents per gallon, ARCO will immediately reduce its total 
     price at its company-operated stations and to its dealers by 
     4.3 cents per gallon.''

  A similar letter from Texaco, Incorporated; a letter to Senator Dole 
from the American Bus Association:

       Dear Senator Dole: On behalf of the American Bus 
     Association, I thank you once again for your proposal to 
     repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon deficit reduction fuel tax. 
     We fully support your efforts in this regard.

  From Carol Hallett, the Air Transport Association:

       Dear Mr. Leader: We have been asked whether the reduction 
     in the 4.3 cents-per-gallon transportation fuels tax will 
     result in lower air fares to consumers. As you know, the Air 
     Transport Association has no role in the setting of air 
     fares. Moreover, we do not suggest or take any action which 
     may result in our member carriers adjusting fares. However, 
     notwithstanding those limits, I would like to address your 
     inquiry.

  It goes on to say that it would, indeed, reduce air fares.
  So air fares, bus fares, cab fares, the working family, the car pool, 
this effort puts additional and very much needed funds into the 
checking account of every working family, every working business, all 
those who depend on public transportation and private transportation. 
It has a positive effect that is reached all across the board.
  So, I am very hopeful that this week we will see a conclusion and a 
positive step taken on behalf of American families and businesses all 
across our land as we begin the process of reducing the economic burden 
on those families.
  Mr. President, I understand the Presiding Officer would like to speak 
on this proposal. I am prepared to yield up to 10 minutes to the 
Presiding Officer to match with his schedule, and then I will assume 
the role of Presiding Officer during the remarks of the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take advantage of the 10 
minutes you granted to talk a little bit about this tax decrease that 
is on our menu today. We have talked about it for some time, but I 
think it is always useful to refresh ourselves about exactly what we 
are talking about, as the Senator from Georgia indicated, and I 
appreciate him bringing together this time to talk about it.
  We are talking about 4.3-cent tax cut on the gas tax. The average gas 
tax in this country is about 38 cents, about half of which is Federal, 
half of which is State. We had a chart the other day at a hearing that 
we held. It showed the cost of crude, the cost of refining, and the 
cost of taxes. The three of

[[Page S4962]]

them were nearly equal. So we have substantial tax on fuel. The unique 
thing about this 4.3 cents, that I think everyone needs to understand, 
is that it is the only part of the gas tax that does not go to the 
maintenance and preparation of highways. This was added onto highway 
users and to drivers for other purposes--to go to social programs, to 
go to general spending. I think that is a problem. I think that is a 
problem in direction. We have always tied together the gas tax to the 
preparation of highways and the maintenance of highways, to building 
the Federal highway program to serve all States. Here, now, we deviate 
from that and use this source--we take it away from what gas taxes were 
really intended to be for and to use them for general spending. I think 
that is a mistake. Why should it not be 10 cents more or 15 cents more, 
when some believe we need the money?
  The reduction would be, temporarily at least, until the end of this 
calendar year. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about 
a tax that was part of the President's tax increase in 1993, the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country, $260 billion of 
tax increase. The President has indicated when he had his tax increase 
he was going to tax the rich. Let me tell you, a gas tax does not tax 
the rich. A gas tax taxes everyone. Selfishly, I have to tell you, it 
taxes people in my State twice as much as it does the people in the 
District of Columbia because we are the ninth largest State--100,000 
square miles and 50,000 people. We drive a lot. We have no public 
transportation.

  So it is an unfair tax regionally. It is an unfair tax in terms of 
income. It is paid by everyone, despite their income. In fact, the 
lower one-fifth of earners in this country pay 4\1/2\ times as much in 
this tax as do the top fifth, because it is not related to income.
  Mr. President, I have never favored the tax. I voted against it, as 
you did, and all Republicans did; partly because I am not one who 
thinks we ought to look for more taxes. I believe strongly in what I 
think was the message of the 1994 election, that the Federal Government 
is too big and it costs too much and we are overregulated. So we ought 
to be looking at ways to find efficiency, we ought to be looking at 
ways to reduce the expenditures, as opposed to finding more taxes so we 
can continue to grow.
  By the way, there is a great deal of talk, and I am pleased for that, 
that the deficit is down. It is down because we have more taxes. 
Spending is up. Spending continues to go up. I think we ought to be 
going the other way.
  Some say a reduction in taxes by 4.3 cents will not go to the 
consumer. I think it will. I do not think it should be done necessarily 
because gas prices are high. That does focus on it and gives us an 
opportunity to talk about it, but I think it should be done regardless 
of where gas prices are. When the money does not go to highways, when 
it is an increase in taxes to the lowest income-earners in our country, 
then I think we ought to change that.
  I ran into this in the House a couple of years ago. When we talk 
about the details of issues--in that case it happened to be land use 
issues, in this case it happens to be taxes--we can go on and on about 
the details of why you should do it or why you should not do it. The 
fact is, it is basically a philosophical question. My friend on the 
other side of the aisle who talks quite often comes from a Western 
State and is against the repeal. He is against the repeal and I am for 
it because he and I differ in philosophy. He likes more Government. I 
would like to have some less. If you like more Government you need more 
taxes. If you think the Government is better at spending people's money 
than having them keep it for themselves, then more taxes are the 
appropriate thing to do, and I understand that. It is a legitimate 
point of view. It does not happen to be mine. My only point is, when we 
get into the details of some of these things, the details really are 
not the issue. The issue is the philosophy. The issue is the 
philosophy.

  If you want more Government, if Government is the best answer to all 
of our problems, then you should be for more taxes because you 
certainly ought to pay for at least a portion of the program you have. 
If you believe Government can spend the money better than the people 
who earn it, and more efficiently--and there are those who do--then you 
should be for more taxes.
  The argument that is used is: It harms the deficit. Let me tell you 
something, spending next year will be $1,600 billion, $1.6 trillion. In 
that budget, if we cannot find offsets of $4 billion in programs that 
ought to be reduced, indeed ought to be eliminated, I will--almost 
anybody can find them. The Presiding Officer has outlined most of them. 
They will be used for offsets.
  The other argument is it will not be used for consumers. I do not 
believe that. As competitive as this industry is, if I have a service 
station on one corner and I reduce the price, you do not think everyone 
else on the other corners is going to? Of course they are. Furthermore, 
they have said they would.
  So, I think this is an issue that really reaches in the direction we 
have been going. I think the Presiding Officer talked a little bit 
about the frustration of the slowness of action on this particular 
issue. We have been talking about it now for 2 weeks. Our friends on 
the other side of the aisle will not let it move and have adopted a 
very defensive position about everything that is sought to be done.
  I just want to say a little bit, off that subject. I have thought 
about this a little bit, and frankly I am a little frustrated. This is 
my second year in the Senate. I am pretty frustrated with the fact we 
do not move, we do not decide to take up an issue and vote on it. That 
is what voting is for, to make those decisions. Instead, we use the 
system to procrastinate.
  But, as I reflected on it, I am really pleased in what has happened 
over the last year and a half. We have seen a total redirection in this 
Senate. We have seen a total redirection from what has been going on 
for 40 years--and that has been one of the difficulties. We have been 
going along with pretty much of a New Society, Great Society Program 
started with Lyndon Johnson. How long ago was that? Each year we have 
come here and we have said, ``How much more will we spend on these same 
programs?'' For the first time in 25 years, we talked about balancing 
the budget. We are going to balance the budget. We are going to commit 
ourselves to it.

  We have changed the whole direction of the discussion from how much 
more do you add to balancing the budget and doing it by reducing the 
size of Government and reducing taxes, by transferring some functions 
to States, doing away with some functions, putting some functions in 
the private sector, but continuing then to look for efficient ways to 
deliver those services that are essential, that do need to be there. 
Let me tell you, there are plenty of them that are not that essential 
and many that are.
  So I am delighted that we have done that. We have done a lot of 
things. We have the line-item veto; we have congressional 
accountability; we passed unfunded mandates reform; we reduced 
congressional spending; we have small business regulatory reform; a 
telecommunications bill; lobbying reform; gift ban; a farm bill that 
moves it back to the marketplace for the first time in how many years? 
Fifty. Securities litigation reform.
  So, Mr. President, I think we get frustrated, and we should. On the 
other hand, we have changed the whole complexion of this place in 1 
year, and it is going to take longer than that to change 40 years of 
habits. But this is one of the ways that I think you begin, by saying, 
``Look, gas taxes ought to be dedicated to highways and highway 
construction.'' We have one here that is not. We have one here that is 
designed to keep the Government going as it was. We have an opportunity 
to reduce spending for the American families. We have a chance to do 
that.
  I am very hopeful that the other side of the aisle will give us an 
opportunity to vote on the gas tax reduction and give us a chance to 
vote on some of the other issues that are there as well so we can move 
forward. The fact there is now a Presidential election going on does 
not mean that we should stop doing something, that everything has to be 
tied to the Presidential election. Things ought to be talked about on 
the merits. I understand there is a difference of view, and I recognize 
that.

[[Page S4963]]

  I guess that is really what I have been trying to say. There is a 
philosophical difference about the size of Government, a philosophical 
difference about how people ought to spend their own money, a 
philosophical difference about taxation. And that is where we are.
  I support strongly the idea of reducing this tax of 4.3 cents, 
continuing to reduce it in the budget and finding some places in this 
$1.6 trillion budget that we can offset this and continue to do that, 
continue to make programs more efficient, more responsive, more close 
to people by involving the States.
  Mr. President, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. I 
appreciate what you are doing on the floor. I think we need to talk 
about these issues. People need to know what they are. People need to 
know this is a different gas tax than the other 14, 15 cents that is 
there. This was designed for a specific purpose, and this is a great 
opportunity to change it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am convinced if Thomas Jefferson, or 
any of our august Founders were here today, they would be absolutely 
aghast to find that this Nation, that the workers--and it is better to 
characterize workers as working families today, because virtually 80 
percent of what has happened in the workplace has been about working 
families. It is no longer a breadwinner with the family at home; it is 
the whole family in the workplace. Not only are both spouses in the 
workplace, often children of the spouses are in the workplace.
  We did not have a celebration but we had a revelation last week when 
we were here on the floor on May 8--May 8--to acknowledge that that 
would be the first day that these working families would have the right 
to keep their paychecks. Every day prior to that--May 7, 6, 5, 4, all 
the way back to January 1--their paychecks belonged to the Government. 
It is almost unfathomable that we would have come to the point that a 
family would work from January 1 to May 7 and forfeit all of those 
wages to the Government before they had the first dime for themselves 
to take care of those very special needs that we charge the American 
family to do--house, educate, transport, feed, health, prepare the 
Nation for the future, to get America up the next day and to school and 
to work, to get them home, to get ready for the next week, the next 
month, the next generation. January 1 to May 7 before they get to keep 
their first check--that is hard to fathom.
  Just to put this in perspective, and I am going to in a moment 
recognize the distinguished Senator from Texas, but in 1992, the 
President, in his campaign for Presidency, said the gas tax was a bad 
thing to do. He was right. The gas tax, he said, would punish the poor 
inordinately and the elderly. He was right. But when he got to the 
White House, he adopted this 4.3-cent gas tax, and as the Chair has 
acknowledged, the tax did not even go to build better highways or safer 
highways; it was put into new Federal spending--out of the pocket, out 
of the checking accounts of working America into the checking account 
of the Treasury.

  Here we are 3 years later and we are simply trying to fulfill what 
the President said when he campaigned. We are trying to get rid of this 
tax that he has called an improper tax, one that is particularly hard 
on the poor, particularly hard on the elderly. It is exceedingly 
difficult for the poor. The lowest 20 percent are faced with having to 
pay somewhere between 7 and 8 percent of all their disposable income on 
gasoline. So it is entirely appropriate that this regressive tax be 
repealed.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Georgia for taking this time to talk about this gas tax and why we are 
still talking about it.
  We had this bill on the floor last week. We have been trying to make 
tax cuts throughout this Congress. Every time we submit a tax cut to 
the President, it comes back with a big veto on it.
  I think we need to talk a little bit about the philosophy of why we 
want tax cuts. A lot of people say, ``Well, why do you want tax cuts 
when you have a deficit?'' The reason is twofold. One is, if you are 
going to lower the rate of growth of spending by the Government, tax 
cuts put more money into the economy.
  But the second reason is who makes the decision about how to spend 
the people's hard-earned money. That is the question here. So when 
someone says, why tax cuts? it is because we believe that the people of 
this country who are working so hard to make a living for themselves 
and for their families should have the ability to spend their money 
that they earn rather than sending it to Washington for someone to 
decide whether this program is more important to your family than going 
on a family vacation or buying food to eat or having a new dress for 
the senior prom. Whatever the decision for a family is, we believe that 
family ought to be able to decide how they spend their money. That is 
why we are trying so hard to provide tax cuts for the middle class.
  This is something that the President promised in 1992. He promised it 
in his election campaign in the book ``Putting People First.'' He said 
his would pass tax cuts for the middle class. But instead, what the 
middle-class people of this country got was the largest tax increase in 
the history of America. That is what happened in 1993. There were no 
tax cuts for the middle class in 1993 or 1994 or 1995.
  The only tax bills that have been passed have been tax increases. In 
the 1993 President Clinton budget he increased taxes, including a 4.3-
cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes. This was a different kind 
of gasoline tax than we have seen in the past. In the past, a gasoline 
tax has automatically gone into the highway trust fund. It has gone as 
a user fee to finish and maintain our National Highway System. But not 
the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax of 1993. No. That was a tax increase that 
was supposed to go against the deficit. 4.3 cents per gallon just went 
into the general fund. So we have been trying to repeal this tax since 
the time we voted against passing it in the first place. In fact, every 
Republican in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate voted against this 
tax increase in 1993.
  We are now trying to repeal the gas tax. We believe the American 
family is quite capable of making the decision on how that family 
spends its money, and so we oppose all tax increases. We think the 
family is more capable of making good decisions about what is right for 
them than somebody in Washington, DC. In my home State of Texas or in 
Senator Coverdell's home State of Georgia, we believe the people who 
earn the money can make the decisions.
  So that is why we are fighting so hard against the Democrat 
filibuster for this gasoline tax cut, because we believe it is very 
important for the working people. It is especially important in a State 
like mine, where people have to drive so much because there are wide 
open spaces and they have to go so far to get to work and to school. We 
think that this tax cut will be very beneficial to the working families 
and particularly the families that are barely making ends meet and have 
to drive long distances to go to work or for the essential needs for 
themselves and for their families.
  So, Mr. President, we are trying very hard to stay consistent. We did 
not vote for this tax increase in the first place. Now that gasoline 
prices are so high, we want to take this opportunity to give a little 
relief to the people who are using their cars for the essentials of 
life, or even if it is for recreation--that is important in a family, 
too--we want people to have a little relief from these high gasoline 
prices.
  We think 4.3 cents per gallon is a good place to start. I heard it 
said the other day say that somebody in California was trying to make 
the decision on whether to pay their home mortgage this month or fill 
up the van with gasoline. That is not a serious statement, but a joke, 
but it is getting to be

[[Page S4964]]

more and more serious when it costs $60 to fill up a van. That will 
make a dent in a working person's salary and their expendable income.

  So, Mr. President, I hope that the people who are going to be voting 
on the floor of the Senate tomorrow on this very important measure will 
consider the working people of this country and the tax relief that 
they were promised, and I hope they will make their promise good 
because I think it is about time that the people in Washington, DC, 
started thinking about the people who are out there earning a living, 
hoping that Government will not continue to encroach on their lives to 
a greater extent than is absolutely necessary.
  That is what we are trying to do, Mr. President. So I appreciate the 
Senator from Georgia. I hope that people will think about the 4.3 cents 
per gallon for somebody who is filling up a car every 4 days or so. It 
may not seem like a lot, but it is a lot if you are barely making ends 
meet. This determines what disposable income is and whether you are 
able to do some of those extra things that you would like to do for 
your own family.
  The bottom line is, Mr. President, we want the working people of this 
country to have as much of the money they earn as we can possibly let 
them keep. That is the difference between Congress and the President. 
The President would rather have Washington make these decisions.
  He does not like the gas tax cut. As I understand it, he has now said 
that he would sign it because he is hoping to have this with the 
minimum wage increase as well, but it is clear that it was not his 
first choice. He has said on many occasions he does not want this tax 
cut. But, Mr. President, I hope this is just the first of many tax 
cuts.
  I hope that we will enact the tax cuts for families in this country 
that were vetoed last year because that is what is going to make a 
difference for American families--the $500 per child tax credit, 
homemaker IRA's, so the women who are staying home and raising their 
children will have the same opportunities for retirement security that 
anyone who works outside the home has. That is in the bill we sent to 
the President that he vetoed along with the $500 per child tax credit 
and lessening the marriage penalties so families would not have to pay 
such a great price for getting married.
  All of these things will help the American family keep the money they 
earn. That is the bright red line of difference between the President 
and this Congress. We want people to keep the money they earn for their 
families. We think that will make the American family stronger.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that everyone will think about how much 
this could mean to the people of this country. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield in a moment to my 
distinguished colleague from Idaho, but I do want to make a point about 
this. When President Clinton campaigned for the highest office in the 
land, he told America that he was going to lower--lower--the pressure--
I want to thank my colleague from Texas for her remarks here today; I 
appreciate her very much, all that she does; and she alluded to this as 
well--but that he was going to lower the economic pressure on the 
working family. And I just said a moment ago that Americans work from 
January 1 to May 7, and every paycheck they get for every one of those 
days goes to the Government.

  The point I want to make before I yield to the Senator from Idaho is 
that when President Clinton came to the White House, they earned their 
first check on May 6. So he has added 3 more days because of his 
policies--3 more days that American families have to work in addition. 
That is going in the wrong direction, particularly when you promised 
you were going to reduce the number of days that they had to work. And 
then we turn around and we have American families working even more. 
Just another example of the campaign pledge that got jettisoned in the 
White House.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Georgia for, 
once again, taking time to bring us to the floor of the Senate to 
debate what has become a very important issue to Americans--America's 
consumers and America's driving public.
  As has been said by our colleague from Texas, there are those of us 
who live in rural States where it is literally hundreds of miles 
between communities, where people commute 60, 70 miles a day, where 
business occurs and goods and services are provided by long distances 
of transportation. Any time we raise the cost of delivery of goods and 
services, or the cost it takes the individual consumer to provide for 
themselves and their families in the normal course of daily activity, 
we have impaired the economy of our country. That is exactly what has 
happened here with the kind of tax that President Clinton pushed 
through several years ago, of which a part was the 4.3 cent gas tax 
that we are talking about today and that I hope the Senate will vote to 
repeal this week.
  Unique to this gas tax increase was the fact that, up until that 
time, in a temporary way, we had only had one small gas tax that had 
ever gone to the general fund. All the rest of the permanent increases, 
like this particular increase, had gone to the highway or 
transportation trust funds of our country, which then were dedicated to 
the building of roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure. As 
a result of that, we have an excellent highway and transportation 
system, because we have always been smart enough and clear enough in 
our direction as a country to recognize that citizens would be willing 
to pay dedicated taxes to dedicated funds for specific purposes. And 
that has always largely been true of raises or increases in the fuel or 
gas tax when it was dedicated. I know it has certainly been true in my 
State of Idaho.

  While our citizens are concerned about taxes and believe, as I do, 
that they are much too high, they have always largely been willing to 
support the kind of taxes that were dedicated to a broad, general 
purpose like transportation. And as a result of it, we have had and 
seen built excellent transportation systems.
  This is different--substantially different. Our President said that 
he would oppose increasing a gas tax as a candidate in 1992. He said it 
was regressive and unfair to working families. And he was right. In 
fact, I have a letter here from the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, Ron Carey, general president, asking the Senate of the 
United States and the Congress to repeal the 4.3-cent tax. The reason 
is exactly the kind of reason I have just given. Not only does it 
affect the working men and women of the Brotherhood of Teamsters, but 
based on the average trucker purchasing 14,000 gallons per year of 
diesel fuel, it is estimated that a repeal of the 4.3-cent tax per 
gallon will save trucking companies $600 per vehicle per year--largely 
a $600 cost that must be passed through to the goods and services that 
the trucking industry sends around our country.
  That, of course, is exactly, I think, the concern that many of us 
have. Once you start a tax like this, unless it is truly a dedicated 
tax, it simply begins the snowballing effect of being added onto the 
cost of consuming in this country and to the costs that our families 
must bear up under as they go about their daily lives. Certainly, in 
the farming and ranching business of my State, where all goods and 
services must be transported over long distances to get to the home 
operation, this kind of tax increase has a substantial impact upon the 
working families of my State.
  It is said that the tax-and-spend attitude of this administration, 
and this tax, coupled with the largest tax increase in history that was 
pushed through by a Democrat Congress and by this President several 
years ago, has destroyed over 1.2 million jobs in our country, and that 
the cost to the average American family has been $2,600 a year in 
higher taxes and lower earnings. We have heard of the frustration that 
the working families of our country have this year, and that the 
average citizen has, that somehow their wage increases do not translate 
into greater spendable income. Mr. President, here is one of the 
reasons why. Immediately, they have to pay more

[[Page S4965]]

dollars at the pump on an annual basis, and their cost of living and 
providing for their families, as a result, goes up. That has clearly 
been a part of the reason that we have seen the rather flat growth in 
the U.S. economy, as a result of the Clinton tax increase. Now I think 
all of us recognize it as truly the Clinton crunch on the working men 
and women of our country.

  In Idaho alone, repeal of this gas tax increase would represent a $32 
million savings to consumers, to people who stop nearly two times a 
week at the gas pump to fill up because of their long-distance 
commuting.
  There is something else that is interesting. I serve, as does the 
Presiding Officer, on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee here 
in the Senate. Just last week, we went through a morning of hearings 
looking at why we are in the gas price spiral that the consuming public 
is now experiencing, and what it was doing, and whether we could 
anticipate some leveling off of it, and what the general impact is of 
what is happening.
  Here is a chart that came out of that hearing that I thought was most 
significant. It begins to explain part of the overall picture of what 
the average consumer pays for at the gas pump. The real cost of raw 
materials is 42 percent of what you pay for at the pump. But the thing 
I found most interesting was this figure over here--that motor fuel 
taxes represents over 30 percent of every dollar spent at the fuel 
pump. That is both State and Federal. You know, Mr. President, I know 
of no other consumer good in our country where within the cost of the 
purchase of that good is built in a 30-percent tax. While I think all 
of us would agree that some of these taxes over the years built into 
the cost of fuel have been very positive--I have already talked about 
the roads, bridges, interstate transportation system, and now some of 
the inner-city rail that is receiving the benefits of this tax--but 
none of it ever went in a permanent way--I repeat, a permanent way--to 
welfare, to food stamps, to the general fund expenditures of the 
Federal Government, until President Clinton pushed through this tax a 
couple of years ago. This tax had always been dedicated to the general 
economic well-being of our country. By that I mean the constant ability 
to improve the transportation systems that allow the flow of our 
economy to improve on an aggressive basis. Clearly, our wealth as a 
nation has been our ability to move goods and services at low costs, 
and that is why we were always committed to this kind of a tax.
  That is why I stood on the floor of the Senate, having opposed this 
tax when it was passed and now supporting its repeal because instead of 
it going into the pool that builds the roads and bridges, it is now 
being used in a way where it should not be. And, yet, the American 
people are led to believe, because of the historic use, that it is part 
of this mix.
  I think 30 percent of any good in the market going to taxes is 
extremely high, and is in this instance much, much too high.
  I hope that the Senate will agree with us this week and support a 
full repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         International Brotherhood


                                        of Teamsters, AFL-CIO,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The International Brotherood of Teamsters 
     supports the repeal of the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax. 
     Almost three-hundred thousand of our members who work in the 
     trucking industry are directly affected by the recent upward 
     spiral of gasoline prices. And, all of our 1.5 million 
     members and their families, as consumers, are paying much 
     higher prices for gas at the pump than a few weeks ago.
       The trucking industry, in particular the less-than-
     truckload (LTL) sector, has experienced a severe decline in 
     recent years due to industry overcapacity and the severe 
     erosion of rates. Deregulation of intrastate trucking in 
     January 1995 has produced a wave of discounting as regional 
     carriers expanded aggressively into new shortfall markets, 
     while demand for trucking services softened because of slower 
     economic growth. Those trucking companies hanging on for 
     survival are now experiencing increased costs because of the 
     jump in gas prices at a time when they can least afford it.
       Based on the average trucker purchasing 14,000 gallons per 
     year of diesel fuel, it is estimated that a repeal of the 4.3 
     cents per gallon gas tax will save trucking companies $600 
     per vehicle per year. For many, that means the difference 
     between surviving the current downturn in the industry or 
     going out of business. Teamsters and other truck drivers face 
     a ``double whammy.'' They may not only lose their jobs, but 
     they also suffer from the regressive nature of a gas tax at 
     the pump.
       While repeal of this gas tax would mean a loss of revenue 
     of over $5 billion a year, the Teamsters offer this 
     solution--put real ``fairness'' back in the tax code. A good 
     first step would be to repeal or modify the oil depletion 
     allowance, which lets oil companies claim tax deductions that 
     are worth more than the cost of their investments. That would 
     more than make up for this shortfall! We urge you to support 
     the repeal of the 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Ron Carey,
                                                General President.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me close by saying that the billions of 
dollars that the consuming public now pays in the form of this tax--the 
$32.1 million that Idahoans pay--does nothing to improve or stimulate 
the economy of our country. It is not building a road. It is not 
building a bridge. It is not patching a pothole. It is being spent on 
day-to-day costs of our Government through the general fund. This is 
the first time in our history that we have done this.
  It is now time that in a little but most significant way we can drop 
the price of gas at the pump by repealing this tax and, as importantly, 
righting the wrong that occurred several years ago when President 
Clinton passed this tax through. I hope once we correct this, we will 
say that never again will we ever put a dedicated fuel tax into the 
general fund of our country, that, if we are going to continue to 
increase this part of the dollar purchasing pie of the American 
consumer, when it comes to transportation costs of fuel, that it go to 
serve the transportation needs of our country and to continue to build 
and maintain that infrastructure that has served us so well.
  Having said those words, I believe it is so important that we respond 
now and as soon as the Senate can to this issue. I heard from a good 
many of my constituents who think the Senate is clearly moving in the 
right direction to repeal this tax. I hope we respond this week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his 
very informative demonstration of the distribution of the cost of 
gasoline. I wonder before he leaves the Chamber if I might borrow the 
letter that he entered into the Record for discussion maybe a little 
bit later on this afternoon.
  At this time, Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague from 
Arizona up to 10 minutes on the issue of repeal of the gasoline tax.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia 
for yielding the time and for bringing us to the floor to talk about 
this most important matter.
  In my State of Arizona, people drive long distances, as they do in 
the State of Idaho. The gas tax, therefore, is a very important matter 
to us. Most Arizonans, by the way, are very much in favor of the repeal 
of this Clinton gas tax.
  I want to start by quoting from Bill Clinton, who was then a 
candidate for President. When he ran for office, he said, ``I oppose 
Federal excise gas tax increases.'' Then, of course, about 2\1/2\ years 
later, he included a Federal gasoline excise tax as part of the biggest 
tax increase in the history of this country, which he and the majority 
of the Members of Congress imposed upon our taxpayers.

  The point that I would like to begin with is that, as much as the 
President talks about trying to protect the poorer in our society, the 
gasoline tax is a tax that hits the poor the hardest. As a matter of 
fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1987, it shows 
that the poorest 20 percent of Americans devote 8.8 percent of their 
expenditures to gasoline and motor oil while the wealthiest 20 percent 
devote only 3.1 percent of their expenditures to such things.
  So when we talk about a tax that really hits those who are the 
poorest in

[[Page S4966]]

our society, it is the gasoline tax that stands right up there as one 
of the harshest taxes on the poor. That is one of the reasons why 
Republicans are so dedicated right now to trying to repeal this 4.3-
cent gas tax because of the harm that it does to the poorest in our 
society.
  Taxes are a lot like Federal spending programs. They are very 
difficult to cut, and once they are in place they are almost impossible 
to repeal. Repealing this Clinton gas tax is illustrative of the 
efforts that we have had underway here to change the status quo in 
Washington and to begin to send power back to the people. It is very 
hard to do. But it is a question of whom you trust. Who would you 
rather have spending the money--the people of the country, the 
taxpayers, or the bureaucrats here in Washington? We believe that 
repealing this Clinton gas tax of 4.3 cents per gallon is a small but 
necessary step toward reducing the overall tax burden imposed upon the 
American people. It represents a ratcheting down of the size of the 
Government. It reduces taxes and it reduces spending.
  Mr. President, I want to make the point. Opponents of repealing the 
gas tax said, ``Well, Republicans are just trying to make a political 
issue out of this. It is not very much money,'' to which there are two 
or three answers.
  First, if it is not very much money, then why are you so concerned 
about it? Why are you opposing our efforts to repeal the tax if it is 
not a big deal?
  Second, if it is not very much money, then we certainly do not have 
to worry about what it does to our efforts to balance the budget. As a 
matter of fact, we can balance the budget very easily, as I will point 
out in a minute. Our budget for this next year assumes the repeal of 
the gas tax. We do not need that money to run the Federal Government. 
It seems to me that there is not a good argument against reducing the--
--
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Arizona is clarifying a point that I 
did not mention effectively in the beginning--that, while the majority 
leader's proposal for the repeal is through December, the new budget 
revision is a permanent repeal, as the Senator just alluded to.
  Am I not correct?
  Mr. KYL. The Senator is absolutely correct. According to the budget 
which we will be taking up here in the next couple of days, revenues to 
the Treasury are expected to exceed $1.7 trillion in the 1997 fiscal 
year. This amount factors in the proposed repeal of the Clinton gas 
tax.
  I also note that that figure compares to $1.05 trillion collected by 
the Government just 5 years ago. In other words, Mr. President, the 
Treasury is flush with a 40-percent increase in revenues in just the 
last 5 years. We hardly need the revenue from this 4.3-cent gas tax.
  I talked in the beginning about the effect on the State of Arizona 
where motorists have to travel fairly large distances to get where they 
are going. I note that in my own State, in the city of Phoenix, for 
example, the price of regular unleaded gas is now about $1.39 to $1.45 
a gallon. Super is about $1.63 gallon. So clearly this spike in 
gasoline prices is hurting motorists.
  One thing we can do. The Congress cannot repeal the law of supply and 
demand. We cannot directly affect the market by what we do. At least, 
we should not try to. Clearly, the market is working here. But if we 
can have an effect on the tax burden imposed by the gas tax and reduce 
that by 4.3 cents, that is an additional savings for the people in my 
State which would certainly help them. It may not be a big deal, as 
some of the opponents are talking about here, but it does add up.
  As a matter of fact, I point out that the Heritage Foundation 
recently estimated that the cost of the Clinton gas tax on a State-by-
State basis--in this case for the State of Arizona--will result in 
motorists paying an additional $78 million in 1996. To some opponents 
of the gas tax, $78 million may not seem like a lot of money. But, 
frankly, to the people of the State of Arizona, $78 million out of 
their pockets is a fair amount of money. Repeal will put that much 
money back into the pockets of the citizens of Arizona, whom I trust to 
make better decisions on how to spend that money than I do bureaucrats 
back here in Washington, DC.
  It was also pointed out by the Senator from Idaho that no part of 
this 4.3-cent levy goes toward transportation costs, which most 
motorists think is happening to their money. It goes instead to the 
general fund of the Treasury where the President would like to use it 
to finance additional Government spending rather than to be used for 
deficit reduction.

  In order to satisfy the President's demand for more spending, 
Congress recently had to add $5 billion to the omnibus appropriations 
bill. Although the additional spending was ostensibly offset by savings 
in other areas, Congress had in fact counted on using much of that 
savings to implement the balanced budget that it passed last year. 
Using the offsets to finance the President's additional spending 
instead will, in effect, make it $5 billion harder to achieve the 
balanced budget.
  Mr. President, as I said a moment ago, the real question here is, 
Whom do you trust to spend the money the best? Is it the people who 
earn it, who would like to spend it on their families back home, or is 
it bureaucrats back here in Washington, DC? This money is not being 
used to build more highways. It goes into the general fund where the 
President wants to use it to spend more money. I believe, and we 
Republicans believe, that this is the time and the place to start by 
cutting.
  For those who say it is not much, I say a long journey starts with 
the first step. Every little bit will help. If we can cut out this 4.3-
cent gas tax that was part of the Clinton increase of 2 years ago, No. 
1, it will help reduce the price of gasoline a little bit; No. 2, it 
will help restore some balance to our budget because we will be cutting 
the size of Government rather than using this money to spend on 
Government programs. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it will 
begin to further our efforts to put more trust in the American people--
let them keep what they earn rather than sending money back here to 
Washington to be spent by Washington bureaucrats.

  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding this 
time.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wish to underscore one more time that 
the majority leader's amendment to this legislation repeals it through 
December 1996 but that the intent is to repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax not 
only through December but thereafter, which is being shaped, as the new 
Presiding Officer alluded to, through the new budgets that the majority 
will be bringing forward very shortly.
  With that, I should like to yield up to 15 minutes to the majority 
whip, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for 
arranging for us to have this time to talk about the gas tax repeal 
and, frankly, about other opportunities to return taxes to the people 
who are working and earning those wages and our desire to see them be 
able to keep the fruits of their labor. It is important we have this 
discussion this afternoon under the leadership of the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia because there has been a lot of misunderstanding 
and misinformation that has been put out with regard to what we are 
trying to accomplish.
  First, let me sum up where we are in terms of considering this issue. 
When the Senate resumes consideration this afternoon of the White House 
Travel Office employee reimbursement, the pending amendment will be the 
Dole amendment to repeal President Clinton's gas tax increase. There 
has been a great deal of confusion over exactly what that amendment 
does, so let me take a brief moment to explain that.
  Two weeks ago, Senator Dole proposed that we repeal the 4.3-cent gas 
tax which was implemented by the Congress in 1993. And I emphasize, 
that was done by the Democrats in the Congress. Not one Republican 
voted for it because, as has been pointed out by the Senator from 
Arizona, we thought it was a mistake to turn what has traditionally 
been a user fee going into the

[[Page S4967]]

highway trust fund into just another tax being put into the deep dark 
hole of the General Treasury, in fact, in my opinion, not really 
reducing the deficit and maybe even contributing to it because, once 
again, it puts a damper on the ability of people to work and keep their 
own money. Any time you take money in taxes away from people, I think 
it hurts the enterprise of those people to do their job.

  With gasoline costs rising, though, the majority leader proposed to 
help Americans by cutting part of the taxes levied back in 1993 on 
American consumers. Last week, many Democrats, including President 
Clinton, conceded that they would support this tax rollback. In 
response to this, Senator Dole offered an amendment to repeal the gas 
tax as part of a package that included the minimum wage increase and 
the so-called TEAM Act, which is a bill that would allow employers and 
employees to work together for more safety and productivity in 
America's workplace.
  Despite weeks, then, of claiming that all they wanted was a straight 
up-or-down vote on the Kennedy minimum wage amendment, there was an 
objection offered by Senator Daschle saying that that was not 
sufficient. Even though they would have a straight up-or-down vote on 
the minimum wage, they did not like it because it was connected to 
these other very important issues, the repeal of the gas tax and 
allowing us to have cooperation in the workplace. They objected to 
that.
  So Senator Dole offered the minority a straight up-or-down vote on 
the minimum wage, on the gas tax repeal, and on the TEAM Act, and again 
that was objected to. Now you are talking about obstructionist tactics. 
As a matter of fact, the majority leader has had to file more cloture 
motions in this Congress than the other two Congresses combined, the 
102d and 103d. Sixty-three times cloture motions have had to have been 
filed to cut off filibusters.
  So now we find ourselves where the people who are saying, yes, we 
think maybe we will be for a gas tax repeal, they are now filibustering 
that very issue.
  As a matter of fact, I have the statistics here now. In the 102d and 
103d Congresses, we had a total of 87 cloture motions. In the 104th 
Congress alone, which has just been 1 year and 4 months, we have 
already had to file 64 cloture motions to cut off these obstructionist 
efforts to keep us from getting a straight vote on these issues.
  Why is this happening? Because they now have an outside partner, 
outside of this institution; the President will not allow the Senate to 
work together to reach a compromise, a fair compromise to move beyond 
this parliamentary impasse. The Senate's Democrats do not want to vote 
on repealing the gas tax if it is in any way combined with these other 
issues. And so they have objected.

  Now we are trying to see if there is some other way that we could 
move this issue forward.
  On Thursday, Senator Dole withdrew his original amendment and offered 
a new one which now contains the gas tax repeal only. It has been 
disconnected from the other two issues I have been talking about. The 
pending business is the gas tax repeal only. Senator Dole did so to 
accommodate President Clinton and other Members in the Senate who said 
they wanted to support the gas tax, but they will only do it as a 
separate bill. So he has now set it up that way.
  The majority leader further accommodated the President by changing 
the amendment's offset to use an issue which President Clinton has been 
very aggressively advocating, and that is the BIF-SAIF issue. It is not 
the way I would prefer to go, but it is one that has been promoted by 
the President. The Secretary of the Treasury is sending letters to the 
Senate saying we want to get this done. So now the argument that maybe 
it is not paid for or they did not like the offset, that has even been 
addressed.
  Now the Senate is scheduled to vote on the gas tax repeal amendment 
on Tuesday at 2:15 so that we can get beyond the filibuster and get to 
a direct vote. This should not be a partisan vote. The President said 
he is for it. Many Democrats say they support repeal of the gas tax. 
The question is, will they vote that way?
  The national awareness of the direct impact of that 1993 gas tax 
increase and what it is doing to taxpayers today is affecting this 
issue. That is why it is picking up momentum. President Clinton has 
admitted that he had raised the people's taxes too much in 1993, with 
his own words, and he, too, has indicated he would support this 
rollback. So I think it is time that we do it.
  Now, in a typical Washington, inside-the-beltway mentality, you hear 
various and sundry complaints about why we should not repeal this tax. 
They say, well, it should not have been added to the general Treasury, 
maybe it should have gone in the highway trust fund, but it will affect 
the deficit if you take it away. Well, it is paid for. It is offset. It 
will not contribute to the increase of the deficit directly or 
indirectly. I think, in fact, by repealing that gas tax you will have 
more revenue coming into the Treasury. But that is the kind of attitude 
you get: Well, it is not much.
  As a part of the big 1993 tax increase--$265 billion, the biggest in 
the history of this country--maybe this is a small amount, but when you 
ask the people out in the real world it is not small. First of all, it 
is about $25 billion over the next 6 years, and it affects middle-class 
working people. I understand that about 23 percent of this gas tax 
repeal will go to people making under $20,000 a year.

  Mr. President, $35 or $40 a year to a family that is only making 
$20,000 a year, that makes a difference. But it is more than that.
  Let me just tell you what it means to the poor State that I have the 
great honor of representing, the State of Mississippi. As a matter of 
fact, it would reduce the fuel costs for the average Mississippi 
automobile $38 over the course of a year. But it affects much more than 
that. Many of the people in my State have their own trucking rigs. They 
have their own commercial truck. They contract with others but they are 
the driver and they drive their own truck. For that commercial truck 
driver in my State it would mean over $766 in a year. That is an 
impact. Remember, this is not just automobile gas. We are also talking 
about diesel fuel for farmers, for inland waterways, for jet fuel. By 
the time you add it all up, once again in my State, the estimated 
revenue that will be raised in 1996 from this 4.3-cent-per-gallon 
Federal gas tax, it will cost our State $86 million. This is not 
insignificant. This is a real tax burden on the American people.
  When you couple it with all the other taxes, again they say it is 
such a small part--yes, it is. When you consider Federal taxes, payroll 
taxes, State income taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, 
gasoline taxes, death taxes--there is no end to this. In my State, when 
you couple the Federal gas tax with the State gas tax you are talking 
about 36.3 cents per gallon. In other States it is more than that. I 
understand the average nationally is 39.9 percent, or something like 
that--40 cents a gallon in taxes, Federal and State.
  Also, when you live in California and some other States, gasoline 
prices have gone up to $2 a gallon. If you could roll back a little bit 
on the Federal gas tax, maybe a little bit on the State gas tax, you 
will see this does add up to real money. Plus I do not view this as an 
end-all, of all of our problems--no. This is a first small step. It is 
a downpayment. What we need to do is give the people some real tax 
relief on their payroll taxes. What we need is across-the-board tax 
relief for the American people who are working and paying all these 
taxes. What we really need is genuine tax reform. The income tax system 
is the worst possible tax. Then you add on top of that the payroll tax. 
The working people are really getting hammered.
  Unfortunately we made a sincere effort last year to get tax relief 
for the American people and it was vetoed by the President. We tried to 
get $400 per child tax credit for families with children. We tried to 
give spouses working in the home the opportunity to have an individual 
retirement account. We tried to give an adoption tax credit. It looks 
like maybe we will get that now that the President signed on board to 
that. We tried to give relief from the marriage penalty. We tried to 
give relief to the American workers from the unfairness of the Tax Code 
and also

[[Page S4968]]

take some action to provide a little growth in the economy with capital 
gains relief.

  We also tried to raise the earnings of our seniors who are retired. 
Why in the world do we want to make people who are between 65 and 70 
years old pay, really, for continuing to work if they make over $11,500 
a year? Of course we have now raised that, thank goodness. We are 
getting it up to $30,000, and I hope that is a step toward eliminating 
the penalty on Social Security if you are between 65 and 70 and you 
want to keep working. You are productive. You want to pay into the 
General Treasury. You make more money and you pay taxes on it.
  There is a terrible disincentive in America to work hard and be 
productive so you can provide for your children, for your family, for 
the needs in your community and in your churches and synagogues. There 
is a mentality in this city that Washington knows best. We will bring 
it to Washington in every form of tax increase known to the minds of 
men and then we will decide how your children will be taken care of, 
what money will go for what education programs.
  That is wrongheaded. We should begin tomorrow by eliminating this gas 
tax increase. I appreciate this opportunity to address this issue. I 
believe the American people are overwhelmingly with us on this issue 
and, as a matter of fact, on overall fairness in the Tax Code and some 
relief so they can keep more of their money and invest it or save it or 
use it to help their children in a way that, frankly, will help the 
future economy of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the majority whip, the distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi, for the contributions he has made to this debate, 
laying it out, underscoring the pressures that this tax has put on the 
American working family.
  Just as an aside, the third paragraph of the letter that was referred 
to by the Senator from Idaho a few moments ago is very interesting. It 
has been printed for the Record but I want to underscore it:

       Based on the average trucker purchasing 14,000 gallons per 
     year of diesel fuel, it is estimated that a repeal of the 4.3 
     cents per gallon tax will save trucking companies $600 per 
     vehicle per year.

  Across the board--we have been talking about what it means to the 
average family. We have seen figures from $50-plus to nearly $200 per 
year that the average working family will save, that will stay in their 
checking account instead of being sent to the Treasury. But the thing 
we have not heard a great deal about is that when you lower the cost to 
operate that truck $600 per year, when you lower the cost to operate 
the sales fleet thousands of dollars, when you lower the cost of every 
form of public transportation--of jet fuel, taxicab gasoline, the 
public bus--what happens is throughout the economy the costs come down 
so the consumer will ultimately save, not only their own direct costs, 
which is what we have heard so much about, but the indirect saving. 
Somewhere down the line the cost of goods is less. It does not cost as 
much to ship the jar of peanut butter. So somewhere down the line there 
is a saving that works its way through the entire economic system.
  We have had a lot of discussion about: This is just a beginning. 
Unfortunately, that is the case. But it is going in the right 
direction. A few moments ago I said every working family gave their 
paycheck to the Government from January 1 to May 7 and that it was May 
8 before they got to keep their first paycheck. Maybe this repeal will 
start moving it back towards May 6, keeping in mind that, as far as the 
American people are concerned, we need to move that day all the way 
back to March 1. That is the date. January 1st to March 1 is the period 
of time which every segment of American society is prepared to 
contribute to the Government for the services they receive. Every day 
after March 1, March 2, 3, 4, 5--all the way through May 7, the 
American people feel is an excessive burden. And they are right. I am 
going to come back to that in just a moment.
  President Clinton in his book, ``Putting People First,'' declared, 
``I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases.'' Earlier that year, 
reacting to Paul Tsongas, who was also a candidate for President, and 
who had proposed increasing the gas tax, President Clinton, then 
candidate Clinton said: ``It sticks it to the lower income and middle 
income retired people in the country and it is wrong.'' He was right. 
It is wrong. But then the President was elected and in August of the 
next year he proposed the largest tax increase in American history, 
which included raising gas taxes--diesel fuel, jet fuel--4.3 cents per 
gallon.
  There was a lot of debate at that time, just like there is right now. 
All these facts that have been pointed out by all these Senators on the 
floor were made clear then. But the President sided with those in his 
administration who wanted very much to impose this new tax increase.
  This is a statement that I find uniquely interesting:

       ``A buck a week''--

  Mr. President, I want to repeat that.

       ``A buck a week,'' Clinton scoffed at those who suggested 
     he was hurting the very middle class he had promised to help.

  He scoffed at it; it is only a buck a week.
  I will tell you what, Mr. President, about 2 years ago, the Georgia 
Legislature, responding to a request from the Governor's office, 
imposed a license on auto tags, a new fee. It ranged from $10 to $15 
per tag. That is $1 a month, not $1 a week; just $1 a month, and we 
almost had another Boston Tea Party in Georgia. That was repealed very 
quickly. A buck a month.
  Of course, as we now know, it is not just a buck a week, but say it 
was. You do not scoff at this, and the reason you do not is because the 
American working family has been pushed to the wall--pushed to the 
wall--in their ability to do those things which we ask them to do.
  To revisit it, a Georgia working family earns on an average $45,000 a 
year. They have two parents working and two kids. Their total Federal 
tax on income comes to $9,511. The total State and local tax is $5,234. 
The estimated cost of Federal regulation to the family--and this is a 
number most Americans are not appreciative of--is $6,615.
  Incidentally, Mr. President, if you add the cost of regulatory 
burdens, you do not really get to keep your paycheck on May 8. That is 
just taxes. You really--and it is a unique date--you really do not get 
to keep your first paycheck until--it is an interesting day--July 4th, 
Independence Day. That is really the first day when you add on 
regulatory burdens.
  But this average family, then, in Georgia is basically paying 52 
percent of their gross income to the government, to regulatory burdens, 
and it is no wonder they have become so anxiety ridden. It is no wonder 
that they are so worried about fulfilling their responsibilities for 
their family, their community and their country.
  As I said when I began these remarks, Thomas Jefferson, if he were 
here today, would wonder if we are still free. He would pose the 
question: ``Can a country be free when the governments that run it 
confiscate and take over half the wages of the bread earner?"

  If you read through Thomas Jefferson's work, he alludes to this 
throughout his work. It was the nature of government to grow, and it is 
the nature of government to consume the wages of those who deserve it, 
those who work for it. He warned us not to do that. This repeal of the 
gas tax is the first step of a long, arduous journey. It is at the core 
of fundamentally sound policy that we begin to return the fruits of 
labor to those who work for it and that we quit interfering with their 
rights to determine their own priorities for their own family, for 
their own dreams.
  This is an elegant work, Mr. President. It is an allegiance to the 
founding principles of this country, to the work of Thomas Jefferson, 
Adams, Monroe, and Franklin. They never would have envisioned--ever--
that this country would be governed in such a way as to absolutely take 
from the bread earner half of what they earned. They would never in 
their wildest dreams have imagined that we could come to that kind of 
condition.
  In Georgia alone, this fuel tax, which has been described by some on 
the

[[Page S4969]]

other side of the aisle as inconsequential, removes from the State 
nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. This 4.3 cents takes $168 
million out of the checking accounts of the working families and 
businesses in motor fuel. It takes $28.5 million out of the State in 
new taxes for diesel fuel. It takes $27.5 million out of the State in 
jet fuel. It takes it out of those local accounts and moves it to the 
Treasury for an expanding Federal Government.
  It was wrong when it was imposed. It is a regressive tax, uniquely 
hard on the elderly and the poor. It was appropriated from users to 
expand Federal spending. It was not even used to make better highways 
and safer highways for the people who use them. It was used to expand 
Federal spending. It hurts the working family, it hurts the economy, 
and it raises costs of all goods, because energy is built into the cost 
of all goods.
  So, Mr. President, as I said, the American family cannot keep their 
first check until May 8. Maybe we can save them a day and give them 1 
more day's pay by getting this money back into their checking accounts 
where it belongs.

                          ____________________