[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4996-S4997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GAS TAX REPEAL

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, a few moments ago, the other side of 
the aisle effectively blocked the efforts to repeal President Clinton's 
August 1993 increase on gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. Now, just 
to put this in perspective, when the President was running for the 
office he now holds, he said, in unequivocal terms, that a gas tax was 
the wrong thing to do, he said it was egregious for low income, and he 
said it was harmful to the elderly, all of which is true. It is as 
regressive a tax as one can find because the lowest income families in 
America pay the highest share of their disposable incomes. It ranges as 
high as 8 percent of their disposable income that has to be invested in 
the purchase of gasoline.

  So those that have the least resources are those for which this tax 
causes the most difficulty, which, as I am sure, is why the President 
said it was the wrong thing to do. Nevertheless, on arrival at the 
White House, an increase in gasoline taxes was put in his tax increase 
on America, which, as we all know, was the largest tax increase in 
American history. These policies have had the effect of costing 
America's average families, all of them put together, about $2,000 to 
$3,000 in lost income.
  Some people around here do not seem to think that is a lot of money. 
But for the average family in Georgia, let me try to put it in 
perspective. An average family in Georgia makes $45,000 a year. Both 
parents have to work to get that. In fact, in many cases today, the 
kids have to work, too, to make ends meet. By the time this average 
family in Georgia pays their Federal taxes, FICA, Social Security, 
Medicare, State and local taxes--their share of the regulatory 
apparatus in our country, which is at an all-time high--they have 48 
percent of their gross income left to do everything that we have asked 
them to do. That is unbelievable.
  If Thomas Jefferson were here today, or any of the other Founders, 
they would absolutely be stunned that we have grown up the Government 
so large that it takes over half the resources from labor, leaves them 
with less than half of what they earned to do what they have to do, to 
promote their own dreams, to educate, to house, to feed, to clothe, to 
transport, to provide for the health of their families and their 
communities. No wonder there is so much anxiety in the workplace today, 
so much anxiousness among our people. We have literally pushed the 
American family to the wall.
  So, suddenly, there is a phenomenon that makes everybody focus on the 
price of gasoline. The prices have been skyrocketing because there is a 
refinery shortage, because there was a bad winter, because the price of 
the crude product costs much more today. And so some Members came to 
the floor and said let us at least, in the face of this, get rid of 
that burden. Let us repeal that gas tax. Let us remember what the 
President said when he ran for President. And then even the President 
said, ``Yes, I agree. I would sign a repeal of the gas tax.''

  But when we tried to do it in these last 5 or 6 days, with us saying 
it should be done, with the President finally agreeing, remembering his 
remarks during the campaign that it was

[[Page S4997]]

a wrong tax, a regressive tax, a tax hard on low income, a tax that is 
hard on senior citizens--so we had the majority and the President both 
agreeing. But the other side will not let it come to a vote. They will 
not even allow this modest reduction of economic pressure on the 
American family.
  In the face of vast public support, a modest attempt to put a few 
more dollars in the checking accounts of these American families, for 
which--to step back a moment, Mr. President, last week we acknowledged, 
just for taxes--forget the regulatory reform--an American family, a 
Georgia family in my case, works today from January 1 to May 7 for the 
Government, and May 8 is the first day they get to keep their paycheck. 
For Heaven's sake, a family in America has to work from January 1 to 
May 7, and on May 8 gets to keep their first paycheck.
  I might add that, under this administration, the date you get to keep 
your check is the latest in the year that it has ever been. These 
policies have added 3 more days that a family has to work for the 
Government before they can keep their own earnings.
  We just heard remarks from the Senator from Arkansas bemoaning 
attempts to try to lower that impact. The last balanced budget that the 
Congress sent to the President would have put $2,000 to $3,000 in the 
checking account of that average Georgia family I was talking about. 
That is the equivalent of a 10- to 20-percent pay raise. Now, if you 
are currently having over half of your resources taken, just think what 
an important event it would be to be able to keep another $2,000 to 
$3,000 in the checking account of that average family. A phenomenal 
impact.
  As I said, it is almost not comprehensible. I would never have 
believed while growing up that I would be in the U.S. Senate at a time 
when a family has to work from January 1 to May 7 before they get to 
keep their first paycheck.
  If we ask Americans what would be a fair tax level, no matter their 
circumstances, they will tell us 25 percent. That would be working from 
January 1 to March 1, and then on March 2 you get to keep your 
paycheck. But no. No. Now it is May 8 before you get to keep your 
paycheck.
  We came forward and said, ``Look, the President has vetoed all this 
tax relief. But let us at least at a minimum take this gas tax burden 
off the backs of the working families.'' I might point out that it 
would mean somewhere around $100 to $200 that would be left in the 
checking account. Several people on the other side have suggested that 
is too little money to be concerned about. Well, if it is such a small 
amount, why are we in such an argument about returning it to the 
families that earned it? Let us go ahead and give it back to them. If 
it does not matter to them, why does it matter to us?
  I remember several years ago in my State when we raised the fee on 
the license tag $10 to $l5, and it almost created a revolution, from my 
mother to every neighborhood. ``Why am I paying this additional $5?'' 
We got rid of that in a hurry, and we ought to get rid of this gas tax. 
We ought to leave that money in the checking account for those who 
earned it.
  In my State alone, the gas tax removed $238 million annually from the 
economy. That is an enormous sum of money. Removing that money from the 
State, taking it out of the families that earned it and the businesses 
that earned it and shipping it up here to the Treasury so some 
Washington wonder wonk can decide where to spend it makes no sense 
under the current conditions that we face.
  But even this modest attempt to lower taxes even the slightest amount 
has found stiff opposition from the other side, and they have 
consistently refused to allow this measure--which now their own 
President says he is willing to sign--they will not let it get passed; 
deadlocked; cannot end the debate; another filibuster, which I might 
point out is a 60-to-50 effort to stop a filibuster, more than any 
other session in contemporary history.
  Whenever we get into these tax questions, Mr. President, I always get 
back to this average family. I asked for a snapshot of that family 
about 3 months ago. It has been absolutely fascinating. I do not think 
many people in America, even those paying this burden, understand that 
half of what they earn is being taken right out of their checking 
account and shipped up here so that another set of priorities can be 
imposed.

  That is an inordinate burden, and there is no institution in America 
that has had a more profound effect on the American family and its 
behavior than their own Government--more than Hollywood, more than all 
these cultural issues that we talk about all the time. There is no 
institution other than our own Government that has had such a profound 
effect. I mean, what else can sweep through your home and take half the 
resources you earn?
  When I was a youngster, I was told that the largest single investment 
that I would ever make was my home. Wrong. The largest single 
investment I make and all my fellow citizens make is the Government. We 
have long since surpassed the investment in the home with the 
Government. The Government now takes more than your mortgage, clothing, 
and transportation combined--the Government.
  Back in 1950 when the quintessential family was Ozzie and Harriet, 
Ozzie was sending 2 cents to Washington out of his paycheck. If he were 
here today, he would be sending a quarter; 2 cents to a quarter in 50 
years. Do you know that Harriet would not be at home either? She would 
be in the workplace. She would have to be in the workplace so that they 
could maintain what they are charged to do for their family and deal 
with the tax burden.
  Several months ago I took a chart from 1950 to 1996 and tracked the 
tax burden, which has grown and grown from 2 cents to 25 cents 
federally. I tracked a number of families in which both parents had to 
be in the workplace, and you will not be surprised, Mr. President, they 
track each other identically right on the line. As the tax burden went 
up, another set of families had to have both parents in the workplace.
  I know there are many other features of our new world--the desire for 
professional accomplishment, the lifting of the glass ceiling. There 
are many factors that are in the workplace. But I argue that the most 
significant reason is tax pressure. In fact, there was a recent study 
that asked the other spouse, ``Are you pleased to be in the 
workplace?'' You will not be surprised, Mr. President, a third of them 
do not want to be there at all, a third of them want to be there as 
volunteers, and another third of them would work just part time. But 
the economic pressures that time and this new era have put on those 
families has literally pressured a total realignment of who is in the 
workplace.
  Families today are in the workplace, husband, wife, and children, 
just to keep their standard of living in place. The tax burden, Mr. 
President, has had a more profound effect on the workplace than any 
other single event in the last 25 years.

  Mr. President, I am going to conclude my remarks. But let me just say 
I am absolutely stunned that even a slight attempt, a modest effort, to 
go in the correct direction of relieving the tax pressure on the 
American working family is opposed by the other side of the aisle--
attacks in the road, and the barricades across the road to relieving 
America's families of the enormous tax burden they bear today. They 
work from January 1 to May 7, and finally on May 8, get to keep 1 day's 
paycheck. We try to push that clock back just the slightest degree and 
are railed against by the other side of the aisle. It is perplexing, 
Mr. President, and I am sure it is to America's families across our 
land as well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________