[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.
____________________