[Pages S4653-S4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FREEDOM FROM BURDENSOME TAXES

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, President Clinton, as a candidate, told
the American people that once in office, he would lower taxes--lower
taxes--on the American middle class.
Three years later, as we stand here, the cost to the typical family
has risen in higher taxes and lower earnings under President Clinton's
administration by $2,600 per family.
It was President Clinton who said, ``I oppose Federal excise gas
taxes.'' That is in his ``Putting People First,'' Clinton's 1992
campaign book.
Here is another quote from President Clinton: ``It sticks it to the
lower income and middle-income retired people in the country, and it's
wrong.''

That is candidate Bill Clinton on Paul Tsongas' proposal for a gas
tax increase.
Today, as we all know, President Clinton proposed and forced and
enacted by a 1-vote margin in the Senate a new gas tax which adds 4.3
cents on every gallon of gasoline. I believe most

[[Page S4654]]

of us remember that when we were debating that tax, for which no one on
this side of the aisle voted, we were told that the tax increase would
only apply to the wealthy. I am sure that everybody who pulls up at
that gas pump once or twice a week and sees that little ticker going
off at 4.3 cents per gallon probably does not consider themselves among
the wealthy. In fact, the lower income population of our country
dedicates 7 percent of their wages to the purchase of gasoline.
So it is an inordinate burden on middle- and lower income Americans.
I read it again: ``It sticks it to the lower income and middle-income
retired people in the country, and it's wrong.'' That is candidate Bill
Clinton.
But every American who goes to a gasoline pump understands what
President Bill Clinton did. He raised gas taxes on every family, every
citizen, every business and every community, and they are all suffering
from these new taxes.
They ought to be repealed. The gas tax should be repealed as another
step of lowering the economic burden on the American working family and
the American working business.
Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank the
Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, Webster's dictionary defines freedom as ``the quality
or state of being free; the absence of necessity, coercion, or
constraint in choice or action.''
That is the dictionary definition anyway. But how do Americans define
freedom for themselves and their families?
For most of us, freedom means the ability to make our own choices--
basic decisions like where we are going to live, what kind of job we
are going to have, where we would like our children to go to school,
and how we want to raise them. And in a free society like ours, freedom
certainly has to include controlling our own finances.
But does it?
American families feel like they are being stripped of their
financial freedom. There is strong evidence to back that up. And you
can blame it on taxes.
Each year, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day.
That is the day on which Americans stop working just to pay their
State, Federal, and local taxes and actually begin keeping their
earnings for themselves or for their families.
In 1925, Tax Freedom Day arrived on February 6. But this year, New
Year's Day, Groundhog Day, Valentine's Day, President's Day, St.
Patrick's Day--Earth Day and Arbor Day, as well--will all have come and
gone before Americans get to keep the first dime of their own money on
May 7.
At 128 days into the year, 1996 marks Tax Freedom Day's latest
arrival ever. In fact, Tax Freedom Day has jumped ahead an entire week
since President Clinton took office, because under Bill Clinton's
watch, the Government is taking more from the paychecks of middle-class
Americans than ever before.
Today, the typical American family faces a total tax burden of 38
percent. Taxpayers are turning more money over to the Government than
they are spending for their family's food, clothing, shelter, and
transportation combined.
The news is even more discouraging for the taxpayers of Minnesota, my
home State. Because of higher State and local tax rates and differences
in the Federal tax burden, Minnesota is tied with Wisconsin in having
the fourth-latest Tax Freedom Day in the Nation.
Minnesotans will not begin keeping their own dollars until May 15,
fully 8 days later than the national average. Only the residents of
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey pay higher taxes than we
Minnesotans.
By imposing his record-breaking, $265 billion tax increase in 1993,
President Clinton bears the responsibility for the ever-increasing tax
burden on Americans.
From singles, to families, to seniors, to job-providers, every
segment of society has felt the pinch. Motorists were hit especially
hard by the President's gas tax increase, which has boosted the cost of
gasoline by nearly $5 billion every year.
Whatever you call it--the ``Clinton crunch'' or the ``middle-class
squeeze''--as long as taxes keep rising, the dollars Americans have
left over to provide for their families will keep falling.
And so it should be the goal of Congress and the President to help
Americans earn more money, and keep more of the money they earn, so
they can do more for themselves, their kids, their communities, their
churches.
If Washington wants to ensure that Tax Freedom Day arrives earlier
next year, there are four important steps we'll have to take.
No. 1. Cut taxes for working families.
Tax-cutting ideas like the $500-per child tax credit, elimination of
the marriage penalty, adoption and eldercare tax credits, and tax
incentives designed to create jobs and boost salaries, were the
centerpiece of the balanced budget plan passed by Congress last year.
That was the same balanced budget vetoed by the President. He does not
seem to understand what you and I and the American people already know:
cutting taxes is the single-most valuable way Washington can give
families back control of their own dollars.
And the first tax we are going to roll back is the Clinton gas tax
increase. It comes at a time when hard-working Americans are feeling
anxious and worried about making ends meet. Congress must not rest
until President Clinton has signed our tax relief into law.
No. 2. Make it harder for Washington to raise taxes.
It is easy for the Government to claim that compassion is fueling the
billions spent each year on its smorgasbord of expensive Federal
programs. But what the Government keeps forgetting is that its
compassion is funded by the tax dollars it takes from hard-working
Americans. If we are ever going to rein in big Government and wasteful
spending, we must make it harder for the big spenders in Washington to
take more of the taxpayers' money through higher taxes. We have to make
it more difficult.

My colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, and I introduced a
constitutional amendment in February to require that any new tax, or
expansion of a current tax, be approved by the House and Senate by a
three-fifths supermajority vote, not the simple majority needed today.
The House recently debated a similar amendment--theirs required a two-
thirds majority vote. Ten States have supermajority laws on the books,
and taxes have actually dropped in those States by about 2 percent.
Taxpayers elsewhere are dealing with a 2-percent increase in the taxes
they pay to government without that supermajority.
There have been 16 major votes in Congress over the last 30 years to
increase taxes. That is a new tax increase every 22 months on average--
apparently there has been no shame of going to the well of taxpayer
money every time the big spenders in Washington wanted to spend more.
Many of those tax increases, however, passed by slim margins--
including the one-vote margin approving President Clinton's 1993
increase--and would not have been enacted at all if the three-fifths or
two-thirds requirement had been in effect at that time.
No. 3. Educate the taxpayers about where their tax dollars are going.
Most people know that their Federal tax dollars fund the Social
Security program, and Medicare. But beyond that, few give much thought
as to how the rest of the $1.4 trillion the Government will collect in
taxes this year is spent.
For example, they probably would not think that some of the most
successful products in the world--products like Tyson chicken,
McDonald's hamburgers, and Gallo wine--would need to have their
advertising subsidized by the taxpayers.
Yet the Federal Government will spend 90 million tax dollars this
year promoting these and other household names overseas.
Would taxpayers guess that many of the Nation's wealthiest
communities are taking tax dollars to build boating marinas and riding
trails?
Or that the Government runs 125 separate job-training programs at an
annual cost of $16 billion--often training

[[Page S4655]]

people for dead-end jobs, or jobs that do not exist?
The taxpayers have every right to feel ripped off.
But what should disturb them most is that in 1996, we are spending 15
percent of the Federal budget just to pay the interest on money we
borrowed to finance expensive programs we could not afford in the first
place.
Mr. President, an educated taxpayer is the Washington establishment's
worst enemy.
No. 4. Reform the tax system.
There are not many Americans who celebrate when April 15 rolls
around. Not only are taxes too high, but people are frustrated by a tax
collection system that is too complicated, too big, and too unfair. As
proof of just how massive the IRS has grown, consider that the FBI, the
Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Border Patrol have a combined work
force of 36,600 employees, while the IRS itself carries 111,000 workers
on its payroll.
We need tax reform--a fairer, simpler, more sensible way to pay for
the services of Government. The National Commission on Economic Growth
and Tax Reform recently outlined six goals for Congress to consider in
reinventing our tax system to make it more responsive to the taxpayers:
First, fairness for all taxpayers; economic growth through incentives
to work, save, and invest; simplicity, because the tax system should be
less costly to manage, and everyone should be able to understand it;
neutrality so that people, not Government, are making the choices;
visibility so that Americans know what they're getting for the taxes
they pay; and stability, to allow families more freedom to plan for
their futures.
Mr. President, Tuesday, May 7--Tax Freedom Day--should be more than
just another day for counting up the high cost of Government. We want
to give back Americans control of their lives. We want to give
Americans their freedom.
Therefore, Washington can and must do better by the taxpayers. Mr.
President, let us use Tax Freedom Day as a reminder of what freedom
really means to Americans, and just how important it is that we
continue fighting for it on their behalf.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, at this time I first want to thank the
Senator from Minnesota. I yield up to 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend from
Minnesota, who speaks so eloquently on the issue of taxes. I follow his
leadership and depend on it in this area. I want to continue on the
theme he has raised so eloquently here.
We must repeal the gas tax. It is hurting farmers, truckers,
tourists, airlines. It seems that every time Washington wants to solve
a problem it passes an additional tax. It is with the belief that this
will somehow solve problems. But we can actually get more revenue into
the Federal Treasury by restraining certain types of taxes on
production.
For example, in my State of South Dakota, if we could repeal the gas
tax and make sure it went to consumers, we would be in the position
that our truckers would be better off who haul agricultural commodities
to markets. It costs us about 50 cents a bushel to move our
agricultural commodities to market. Our airlines would be better off,
especially with the tourism season.
Tourism is our No. 2 industry in South Dakota. I have in my hand an
article from today's USA Today, Friday, May 3, ``Rising Jet Fuel Tab
May Lead to Fare Hikes.'' If there are fare hikes, they will perhaps be
the highest in perhaps some of the nonhub airports. That will hit at
the heart of South Dakota's tourism season.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article ``Rising
Jet Fuel Tab May Lead to Fare Hikes'' printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the USA Today, May 3, 1996]

Rising Jet Fuel Tab May Lead to Fare Hikes

(By Keith L. Alexander)

Soaring jet fuel prices are threatening travelers' budgets
and airlines' profits.
Jet fuel prices have increased an average 11 cents from a
year earlier, to 65 cents a gallon in April.
If sustained, the increase in jet fuel prices would
translate to more than $1.8 billion a year in higher costs
for airlines.
The industry worries that higher fuel prices could threaten
hopes for a second straight annual profit. The industry
earned $2.4 billion last year, its first profitable year
since 1989.
Fuel is the second-largest expense after personnel. Each
penny increase represents $170 million in annual costs.
``Whenever we have a sharp increase in jet fuel costs, it's
almost always resulted in enormous losses in the industry,''
says Air Transport Association economist David Swierenga.
Travelers could notice higher fares this year as airlines try
to compensate for the rise in fuel costs, Swierenga says.
The money has ``to come from someplace,'' says Gus Whitcomb
of America West. Its fuel costs rose to 71 cents a gallon
from 60 cents in January.
``The traveler will have to pay more,'' agreed Delta Air
Lines spokesman Bill Berry.
Airline fares already have increased about 8% this year.
American Airlines is trying to develop a plan with the
Federal Aviation Administration to fly more direct routes
that tend to burn less fuel.
But Wall Street analysts say airlines are overly concerned:
The analysts expect fuel prices to subside later this year.
Another plus: the expiration of the 10% ticket tax in
January, which could save the industry $5 billion this year.
``There would have to be a lot of negative events for the
industry not to have a profit this year,'' says Lehman
Brothers airline analyst Brian Harris.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we speak a great deal about families and
people who are struggling to make a living. In the Midwest everybody
who produces things uses fuel. Our farmers get on a tractor and drive
it all day using fuel all day. A trucker runs a truck and uses fuel all
day.
A builder uses fuel all day. There are some who believe in taxing the
means of production. I say we should lessen the tax on the means of
production and let us discover, as we know that will stimulate the
economy and we will have more revenue in the Federal Treasury, because
we will have more economic activity.
Now, some have said that we do not want to pass this cut in the gas
tax, this repeal, because the benefits will go to the companies and not
the consumers. That is not true. This will be structured in such a way
that the consumers and the users will get this.
Others have said the high gas prices are caused in part by a need for
more antitrust action. I say fine. I am an advocate of vigorous
enforcement of the antitrust laws under Scott-Hart-Rodino antitrust or
under Clayton or under the Sherman Antitrust Acts. Also, the price-
fixing aspects of those, if there is evidence thereof.
All those steps are necessary and good but as a member of the Senate
Finance Committee we have a chance to repeal the gas tax. We should do
so. It will help consumers. It will help families. It will help
agriculture. It will help tourism. It will help all the aspects of our
economy as we enter this summer after this long, difficult winter.
Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that it is time to repeal
the gas tax. It is time to give to consumers that break. It is time to
create more economic activity in agriculture and tourism and trucking
so that our economy can grow instead of being restricted by taxation.
This is a rare opportunity at the beginning of this spring and summer
season, after this long, hard winter. Our people are bursting forth
with energy to do things. To repeal this tax now would be another boost
to them.
I am proud to join in this effort to repeal the gas tax. I yield the
floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
He represents a rural economy. We all know that the gas tax is uniquely
difficult for rural communities. I know the Presiding Officer would
like to speak to this issue. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, the
current occupant of the chair for his courtesy. I am very privileged to
join

[[Page S4656]]

this group that is talking today about the economics, and particularly
about taxes.
Mr. President, yesterday, May 2, was Tax Freedom Day in Alaska. Next
Tuesday will be the National Tax Freedom Day. That is the day we quit
working for governments--whether it is Federal, State, or local
government--and start working for our children, for ourselves, for our
families.
For the period from January 1 to May 2, in Alaska we have to take
what we earn, literally, and pay it to one of those governments. I
think it was especially difficult for middle-income Americans to make
their checks out to the Internal Revenue Service this year because the
tax cut that Congress approved to reduce taxes for families was vetoed
by President Clinton.
The Balanced Budget Act that Congress passed cut taxes for low- and
middle-income taxpayers. It would have reduced the tax burden on
married couples and allowed homemakers to save for their retirement
with an individual retirement account. Congress also provided a $500-
per-child tax credit. If President Clinton had signed our bill into
law, many Americans who had filed their tax returns on April 15 would
be getting a tax refund now, instead of having to have made the payment
they did make on April 15.
Three years ago, President Clinton demanded and obtained approval of
the Congress of the largest tax increase in history. That was a bill
that I opposed. I want to point out not one Republican voted for it.
What really made Alaskans mad, when that was passed, was that it was a
retroactive tax.
I am pleased to see the Senator from Georgia in the chair at this
particular time, when it is announced that the Governmental Affairs
Committee, which I chair, will mark up his legislation to ban unfair
retroactive tax increases the next time we meet in markup.
Our Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has oversight over all
governmental agencies, and I want to share some observations about that
jurisdiction. We have some difficult problems with the IRS. They are
taxpayer problems, not our committee's problems, but we have been
reviewing them.
The problems are literally horror stories, situations that terrorize
Americans who work hard and try to abide by the laws that we pass.
Among the horror stories I have heard recently include the IRS
repeatedly levying against the property of a widow in Anchorage, AK.
That widow did nothing improper. She filed a joint return for the year
of her husband's death in 1993 and later applied to use the credit from
their overpayment in 1993 to pay her own tax bill as a widow in 1994.
The IRS has stopped processing the 1993 return, so when the 1994 tax
return was reviewed, the credit could not be used. Her first notice of
the situation was a notice of the levy on her property, which she
received in the fall of 1995; that notice of levy was for underpayment
of her 1994 taxes, notwithstanding the fact she had overpaid taxes in
1993.
Now, that is an impossible situation. Why should a taxpayer be called
to task before the Internal Revenue Service checks its own records as
to whether or not there is a prior year overpayment? Another case is
the levy and sale of State fishing permits by the Internal Revenue
Service. We have in the State of Alaska a number of hard-working
individuals who have developed a tax compliance program to try and help
rural Alaskan Native fishermen who are now starting to earn money
through the management of our fisheries. Many of them do not have
English as a first language, Mr. President. The Tax Code can be a
difficult thing for them.
In Alaska, our State will actually loan money to fishermen to pay
their Federal taxes if they get behind because of the economy--the
fishing prices change, their costs are difficult, and many of them look
to their current income to pay taxes when they are due. It can be
difficult to save in the prior year, and they are not subject to
withholding. They are self-employed.
The IRS recently went ahead and seized and auctioned permits
belonging to Alaskan Native fisherman. That sent a very negative
message to these people who were just coming forward to work with our
State and the group that joined together to help them understand the
tax laws. The State had already committed funds to help with regard to
such taxes. If they had had proper notice of IRS intentions with
respect to these cases, they would have loaned money to these people.
I must say, just parenthetically, that Commissioner Margaret
Richardson showed genuine concern for the Native people. She went to
Alaska with me. She visited some of the people involved, and I think
she is going to try and help work out some solutions to the problems.

I am sure that every Member of Congress hears routinely the kind of
complaints and horror stories from constituents as I hear from
Alaskans. These are stories regarding lost records, missing notices,
computer errors, and just the all-around hardness of some people in the
IRS, who have the job of collection.
In my judgment, there are a great many mistakes in the IRS that cost
taxpayers dearly. Each time they get in one of these problems, they
have to hire an attorney, take time off from work, or try to get an
accountant to help them solve their problems. The real difficulty is,
when we think about when I was talking about Tax Freedom Day, Alaskans
work all those first 4 months of the year to pay the people who bring
these problems to their doors. We have a lack of understanding too many
times by Government employees about who is really paying their
salaries.
Many of the problems I find in our oversight of the IRS by the
Governmental Affairs Committee results from the IRS's 10-year attempt
to modernize its computers. The IRS goal in this regard to centralize
the data base and make taxpayer data immediately accessible when a
taxpayer calls to resolve a problem is a good goal. But the IRS
computer system currently cannot interface. These computers do not talk
to each other, Mr. President. When taxpayers call to resolve a computer
error, they can find themselves talking to a computer, not an
individual that can analyze their problem.
Furthermore, IRS financial management system is in disarray. Millions
in taxpayers' money has been spent on modernization, with very little
results. The General Accounting Office recently reported to our
committee that the IRS cannot account for $10.4 billion in taxes that
its records show it collected.
In addition, taxpayer privacy is now at risk. Federal standards for
information systems are not being followed by the IRS. The National
Research Council, which again has helped our committee analyze this
problem, stated to us, ``the gap between the current tax system
modernization security posture and the minimum security acceptable will
continue to widen, thus, virtually assuring massive security breaches
in coming years.''
That is a warning to our committee that if the IRS continues on the
path it is on now, the security of taxpayer information is going to
become worse, despite the fact that we are spending millions trying to
improve the computer system. Computers cannot replace human beings, Mr.
President. The IRS must administer the tax system with the precision it
demands of taxpayers.
The Tax Code is too complex. The Internal Revenue Service reported to
us that it takes, they believe, an average of 12 hours for a taxpayer
to complete a standard 1040 form. The Schedule C, small business people
will need an average of 22 hours, they say, to fill out the 1040. I am
advised that Money Magazine ran a little experiment. They hired 50
professional tax preparers--professionals--each to complete a tax
return for the same hypothetical taxpayer. The result was 50 different
tax bills.
Americans should not have to play Russian roulette with the IRS.
Recently, our Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight
hearing on the IRS. As I say, these problems are significant. I have
come to the floor today to announce to the Senate that we will hold
four more hearings on the IRS. The hearings will provide the Senate
with information about steps that the Congress and the administration
must take to bring the IRS into the 21st century, with fairness and
protection for taxpayers.
I will close with what I said earlier, Mr. President. Congress must
demand

[[Page S4657]]

that the Internal Revenue Service administer our tax system with the
same precision it demands of the taxpayers themselves.
Thank you very much.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I understand we are in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with 90 minutes
dedicated to the Senator from Georgia, or his designee.
Mr. GREGG. Pursuant to that, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are here to talk a little bit about
taxes and how we got into this mess on gasoline prices. I suspect this
mess came to my attention about the same way it came to everybody
else's attention. I went down to my gas station to fill up my Ford
Taurus, which usually takes about 11 gallons of gas, unless my
daughter, who is 16, has been driving it--then it takes about 12\1/2\
gallons of gas. But I noticed that when it got to the usual dollar
amount where it is full and I pay the bill, the thing was still taking
gas and the dollars were still going up. It appeared to me that, by the
time it stopped taking its 11 or so gallons of gas, the bill I was
getting was about 20, 25 percent more than what I was used to paying. I
asked myself, ``Why, suddenly, is gas costing so much? Why has it
become so expensive''
Well, clearly, one of the elements of this is the tax we have to pay
on the gas. Today in some States the percentage of the actual cost of a
gallon of gas in taxes is as high as 40 percent.
One of the core taxes that we have to pay is the Federal tax. I think
that to understand why the Federal tax has gotten so expensive, we have
to review a little bit of history. It was back in 1993, 3 years ago,
which is a time that I am afraid what happened may have faded from
people's attention. But it certainly has not faded from people's
attention as to how it is affecting their pocketbooks, because when
they fill up their car, they are paying the cost for what happened in
that period of time. It was at that time that President Clinton came
forward with his budget bill and proposed the largest tax increase in
the history of the United States, which was passed at the time, and in
which there was included the gas tax increase.

There are three things in particular that I think we should focus on,
because these three issues were the key focus of the debate back then.
The first is the size of that tax increase, which was extraordinary.
The second was the retroactivity, which was discussed earlier by the
Senator from Alaska. And the third is the energy tax component and what
ultimately became the gas tax. But it started out as another energy
tax.
Now, that tax that occurred 3 years ago was $275 billion over 5
years. That is, as I mentioned, the largest tax increase in history. I
opposed it, and I know Senator Coverdell opposed, Senator Stevens
opposed it, Senator Mack opposed it. All of us presently on the floor
here opposed it. It was pushed through the Congress by President
Clinton and his supporters on the liberal side of the aisle. They pooh-
poohed our resistance to it. They said America can afford to pay more
taxes.
So let me translate what that tax increase means in terms of today.
For the past year or so, we as Republicans have been talking about
cutting taxes. In fact, we sent a balanced budget down to the
President. As part of that balanced budget, we suggested we cut taxes.
Initially, we suggested a tax cut of $270 million. That was a 7-year
figure. We ended up with a tax cut proposal of $170 billion. Once
again, the President said, ``That is outrageous, you cannot cut taxes
that much.'' Well, I guess I can understand that, because the tax
increase that he hit the American people with back in 1993, over a 5-
year period, was scored as a $275 billion increase. But if you look at
it in the 7-year context of the budget that we proposed, that was a
$400 billion increase in taxes on the American people.
So when you hear the President say that our $170 billion tax cut,
which is aimed at benefiting families with children--a $500 credit for
families with children--is excessive and too much, you might think, ``I
guess that is his view of the world,'' because, in his view, he thought
a $400 billion tax increase was just right back in 1993.
And then we have this retroactivity content. This massive tax
increase that the American people were hit with in 1993 included an
incredibly insidious event. The tax increase was so aggressive, there
was so much frothing at the mouth to hit the American taxpayers with
new taxes on the other side of the aisle, and from this new President,
Mr. Clinton, they were not happy with taxing you in the future $400
billion, they decided to tax you even before you arrived there, putting
in retroactive language that said the tax would actually start before
President Clinton became President. That is pretty outrageous. Luckily
we have people like Senator Coverdell in this body who has taken that
bull by the horns and proposed repealing the concept of retroactivity,
or not to allow retroactivity again. Senator Stevens, chairman of his
committee, has agreed to take up that matter.

That is an important point because I think, on the issue of taxes, we
ought to be at least as good as the former Soviet Union, as Russia. In
the Russian Constitution you cannot have retroactive taxes. But here
Bill Clinton has come forward and hit us with retroactivity.
So thanks to people like Senator Coverdell and Senator Stevens,
hopefully, we will be able to change that so that will not occur again
on the American people.
The third issue, of course, is this question of the specifics of this
gas tax, because this really is frustrating, because originally what
the President suggested was that he wanted, in 1993, something called
the Btu tax. They were going to tax every element of
energy that people in this country
used--every element. In New England that would have been a horrendous
event because we have to heat our homes. It is cold in New England, and
we use oil, and the Btu tax would have been attached to oil.
But the claim was that this was not really a tax--that this really
was not a tax in the sense that we were taking money from the American
people. No. The claim of the administration was that this was an
attempt to conserve energy, that this was an environmental action. This
was sold as an environmental necessity--to hit the American people with
a Btu tax. Well, even this Congress could not swallow that piece of
malarkey. Oh, they backed up and they said, ``All right, we cannot get
the Btu tax. We will hit the American people with a 4.3-cent increase
in the gasoline tax instead.'' Again, they claimed it was on the issue
of the environment that they were going to do that, raise that tax.
Pretty outrageous. Pretty outrageous because at the same time the
leadership on the other side of the aisle and the President were
excoriating Republicans for being the party of the rich, for being the
party that was only concerned about the rich, and they were going to
pass a tax on the rich.
That is what their tax was going to be--their tax package of $275
billion back in 1993, which is actually $400 billion if you put it on
the budget cycle we are on today.
Retroactivity. It was not going to affect the average, everyday
Americans. It was going to hit rich. That is the way it was sold. It
was an energy that would benefit people. It would be a benefit to the
people of this country because it was needed for environmental
protection; and, two, that this whole tax package was going to just be
an attack on the rich in this country.

Let me quote from the present Democratic leader--at that time a
Member of good standing in the Senate on the Democratic side but not
the leader at that time--as to what Senator Daschle said about this tax
increase that they put on the American people.

So let no one be misled when it comes to taxes. The taxes
affect mostly those making $180,000. The taxes affect those
businesses in only 4 percent of the highest income brackets
available today, an average income, by the way, of about
$565,000.

You tell me when you go to fill up your car at the gas pumps. Does
the attendant ask you, ``Are you making $180,000 a year?'' I do not
think so. When you pull your pickup truck up, if you are a farmer in
New Hampshire or a logger in New Hampshire and you are trying to make a
very small margin because you are in a tough business, does

[[Page S4658]]

the gas attendant say, ``Are you a corporation making $560,000 a
year?'' I do not think so.
The fact is that this is an incredibly regressive tax, and it was not
put in place for environmental protection. It was put in place because
there was an avarice amongst the liberal Members of this Congress and
amongst this administration by demanding that they take more money from
the American people so that they could spend it because they do not
happen to believe you can spend your own money.
There is a basic philosophical difference between our two parties.
The party of the other side of the aisle does not believe that you know
how to spend your money. They happen to think the Government knows how
to spend your money. We happen to believe that you know how to spend
your money, and you should be allowed to. For that reason, we do not
happen to support this type of a tax increase. We did not support it
then, and we do not support it now.
So our basic view is, let us let the American people keep their own
hard-earned money. When you go into a gas station, let us not have the
gas station attendant have to question you as to your income level in
order to remain consistent with the loftiness of this administration,
but rather let us allow you, the American people, to keep your money
and spend it yourself.
That is why we put in place a balanced budget amendment. We put
forward a balanced budget bill which would reduce spending and allow us
to also reduce taxes. We did not put forward, as the President did, a
bill which increased spending and increased your taxes. There is a
fundamental difference in philosophy.

So I congratulate the Senator from Georgia on having this special
order. I also especially congratulate him on his proposal to pass a
constitutional amendment to end retroactive taxes so that we can at
least do as well as the new democracy of Russia.
I congratulate the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alaska, for
being willing to hold hearings.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. I want to commend the Senator from New Hampshire not
only for his remarks, but I appreciate the very kind remarks addressed
to myself and the Chair.
At this time, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I rise today to address the future of the American
dream. America was built on the spirit of innovation and ingenuity, the
belief in responsibility, and in risk taking. We believed that, if we
just did the right thing and we worked hard at it, opportunity would be
there. But for many Americans who struggle to earn a living and raise a
family, the American dream is now out of reach.
When I ask my constituents this question, ``How many of you have a
better quality of life than your parents did when they were your age?''
most said yes. But when I asked them, ``How many of you honestly
believe your children will have a better quality of life when they
reach your age?'' most said no.
Today, Americans are anxious. They are anxious about job security
with an economy which is not growing as fast as it should. They are
anxious about the future of our Nation when every child born in America
today will receive a tax bill of $187,000 just to pay the interest on
the Federal debt. They are anxious about paying for a welfare system
that discourages work as opposed to encouraging work. They are anxious
about the quality of their children's education. They are anxious about
the safety of their neighborhoods. They are anxious about a Washington
that spends too much, dictates too much, and takes too much of their
money to pay for programs that we all now know have failed. We can and
must do better.

The Clinton administration will brag that economic growth is strong.
However, under Clintonomics, the economy is moving at a slower pace
than it has historically. We should not allow this administration to
hide behind statistics and lower expectations for the greatest economy
in the world.
America was made great because we have strived, sacrificed, and
worked together to be the best. We must not settle for economic
mediocrity. The Clinton administration will brag that it has created
more than 8 million new jobs. So where is the problem? They will not
tell you that, if this recovery were similar to previous recoveries,
there should have been over 11 million new jobs created. That is 3
million jobs that should have been created for American families and
were not because of excessive Washington interference.
The Clinton administration will tell the American worker, ``Do not
worry. Everything is fine.'' But the American worker knows better. They
feel the anxiety of Clintonomics every time they pick up their pay
checks or read a story about loss of jobs and layoffs. We can and must
do better. Like every other issue, this administration wants to blame
Americans' anxieties on everyone else. Bill Clinton cannot impose the
largest tax hike in American history and spend more on Washington
programs and work to control more of our lives from Washington without
facing the consequences of lost jobs, low wages, and limited
opportunities.
A small businessman in Florida told me that he is often forced to
tell his employees that the pay raise they were hoping to receive was
just sent to Washington, DC.
We can and must do better. We can begin to restore the American dream
by cutting Bill Clinton's tax increases.
Next Tuesday marks Tax Freedom Day, the day your entire tax bill
would be paid off if 100 percent of your salary were devoted to taxes
since January 1.
Let me say that in a different way.
What that means is that between January 1 of this year until May 2,
it will take everything you earn to pay your tax bill for the State,
local, and Federal governments. This year tax freedom day is the latest
it has ever been. For every dollar that is earned, the American people
pay 38 cents for taxes at all levels. That is 38 percent of everything
we earn. The more you pay in taxes, the less you have to feed your
family, educate your children, and put gas in the car. It is no wonder
that of all the new jobs in America, more than one-third have gone to
people taking an extra job just to make ends meet. Those jobs are not
going to young Americans entering the work force for the first time or
to those who should be off welfare. They are second jobs that families
must have just to get by. It strains the economy, and it hurts our
families.
We must free the economy from the burdens of more taxes and more
government so resources can be invested in new technologies for
tomorrow's jobs. We must cut the capital gains tax rate to allow for
more savings and more investment, for more innovation and more
opportunity for future generations. Americans are having to work harder
and harder just to pay for larger and larger bureaucracies in
Washington that include 160 job training programs, 240 education
programs, 300 economic development programs, and 500 urban aid
programs. American taxpayers feel they are not getting their money's
worth and they are not. We must end Washington's appetite for more
spending because higher deficits mean higher interest rates for homes,
cars and student loans.
President Clinton was wrong to veto the only balanced budget to reach
the White House in a generation. We must recover the American dream by
controlling America's spending habits. I proposed a way to guarantee
spending cuts. It is called the Spending Reductions Commitment Act. An
outside group would cut wasteful spending if Washington does not. In
other words, it is patterned after the Base Closure Commission. We
restore the American dream when we have reduced the cost, size, and
scope of government. Most of us believe that Washington is too big,
spends too much, and has too many failed programs. We can and must do
better to restore the American dream, to free up the American spirit,
to restore the promise of hope and opportunity for all Americans. If we
get Washington off our backs, away from our schools and out of our
pocketbooks, we can return this country to the road of greatness where
it has been in the past and where it is destined to be in the future.

[[Page S4659]]

I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I really appreciate the remarks and
comments about hopes and dreams of Americans as represented by the
Senator from Florida. It reminded me of a snapshot that we recently
took, a financial snapshot as it were, of an average family in Georgia.
My guess is there is not a lot of difference between the average family
in Georgia and the average working family in Florida. The American
people have really been asking us in Washington to change the way we do
business.
It is very understandable when you look at this picture. This family
of four estimated median income is $45,093. The total Federal taxes on
that income are $9,511. That is just over 20--it is approaching 25
percent. The total State and local taxes are $5,234. That is about 12
percent. So the total family tax burden now--they may have had $45,000,
but $14,700, or $15,000 has left the family, gone somewhere else for a
policy wonk up here in Washington or the State capital to decide how
the earnings of that family ought to be spent. They have been removed
from the family.
Then there is the estimated cost of Federal regulation. We have
gotten into the business, as every American knows, of managing every
aspect of our lives and our communities. Well, that cost a whopping
$6,615. My goodness, that is more than State and local taxes that that
family is now having to pay out in order to regulate. I think if the
American family knew that it was paying over $500 a month--more than
their car payment, more than their student loan--to fund this
regulatory apparatus, they would be astounded.
Then they have to pay the excess family interest payments which are
caused by Federal borrowing--$2,011 in higher interest payments because
of Federal borrowing.
So the estimated total Government cost to this Georgia family that
made $45,093 is $23,371, or 52 percent, Mr. President, of every dollar
the family earned.
Thomas Jefferson has got to be rolling in his grave. Not any of our
Founders could ever have conceived of a government that would remove
over 50 percent of the wages of a wage earner and take it away. And we
wonder why there has been a breakdown in the American family. There is
no institution that has had a more profound effect on this family than
the Government itself. We talk about Hollywood from time to time, we
talk about pop culture and everything else, and I think they have had
an effect, but nothing compares to this, Mr. President. I mean nothing.
To take 52 percent of the working wages out of an American family has a
profound effect on the activities of the family.
Mr. President, I see that I have just been joined by the
distinguished Senator from Alaska. I know he is eager to speak on the
subject of taxation, and I will yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator
from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Georgia and wish him a good day
as well as the Presiding Officer, my good friend and colleague, Senator
Stevens. Good morning.
Mr. President, I just came from a Finance Committee hearing where our
majority leader, Senator Dole, spoke very eloquently about the issue of
the removal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. I commend the
majority leader as well as our colleague, Senator Gramm, for proposing
the repeal of this unwise and unjust tax.
As everyone knows in this body, the pressure to repeal the 1993 gas
tax is, to a large degree, related to the recent spike in gasoline
prices that has occurred in every State, with California being
especially hard hit. In my State of Alaska where, by necessity, a large
number of vehicles must be four-wheel drive, we are currently paying
$1.33 for unleaded regular. The irony of that, as you know, Mr.
President, is we are providing about 22, 23 percent of all the crude
oil that is produced domestically in this country.
Next week, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
I will be holding hearings in that committee to examine the underlying
reasons for these price hikes. We are going to have representatives
from the major oil companies that produce domestically as well as
producers and distributors that depend heavily on imports. We are going
to have refiners that depend on domestic supply and those that depend
on imports. We are going to have testimony from retailers, and we are
also going to examine an element that is often overlooked, and that is
the gas tax aspect that is added on by both the State and Federal
governments.
The preliminary information I have suggests there are several reasons
for these price increases. One is, we have had a very cold, and very
extended winter that has forced refiners to continue processing heating
oil longer than usual. We have just-in-time inventory methods adopted
by many oil companies that have left smaller than normal gasoline
reserves on hand.
We have had an increase--and this is interesting--in worldwide demand
as a consequence of the fast growing economy in Asia, putting pressure
on oil stocks around the world. And America's demand for gasoline has
been increasing as more than 40 percent of the new vehicles sold are
light trucks or sport utility vehicles that are so popular. And these
vehicles only get 15 miles or so to the gallon. And, of course, we have
raised the speed limit in many areas.
But, realistically, the discussion of eliminating the 4.3-cent-a-
gallon tax, while it is interesting, misses the underlying issue, which
is the issue of supply and exploration for new sources of domestic oil.
I certainly support repealing the gas tax because it should not have
been adopted in the first place. The gas tax hike, along with $240
billion in other new taxes was put through by a Democratic-controlled
Senate in 1993 without a single Republican Senator supporting it. It
was adopted at that time at the insistence of President Clinton.
But the point I want to make is, we are talking about taking off the
gas tax and we are not talking to any degree about the basic problem,
and that is the problem of supply. Furthermore, the potential revenue
loss associated with this is about $30 billion, if it is extended out
and removed for the entire period that is anticipated in the budget.
Let us look at some energy facts. U.S. oil consumption today is 18
million barrels each day. We are importing 9 million barrels each day.
In 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, U.S. import dependence was
36 percent. It was 36 percent in 1973. Today, it is 51 percent. The
Department of Energy predicts that by the year 2000--that is only 4
years from now--the United States will be importing two-thirds of its
oil consumption. Since 1973, domestic oil production has fallen by 30
percent. We are producing 30 percent less.
Let me reflect on an action recently taken by the President
concerning pulling down the strategic petroleum reserve. As chairman of
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we authorized, because one
of the storage areas in the salt caverns was leaking, the removal of
that oil. We anticipated revenue being generated from that sale. It was
necessary to get that oil out; otherwise it would have leached into the
water table. It was better to get it out and sell it than try to move
it to another place.
The President jumped on this as an answer, or a potential relief to
the crisis associated with increased gasoline taxes. That is absolutely
absurd. Let us look at the strategic petroleum reserve. It contains 580
million barrels, valued at about $16 billion. For the President, in his
announcement about releasing 12 million barrels, to suggest that his
action is going to drive down prices, it is a drop in the bucket. It is
less than a day's U.S. consumption. It is a spit in the ocean compared
to world oil production of 60 million barrels a day.
The President also has a proposal to sell an additional 75 million
barrels in the year 2002. But that proposal is to use the $1.5 billion
proceeds not for energy security, but to pay for social programs. He is
using the SPR for the purpose of financing social spending and using it
for the purpose of regulating the market price of oil.
The letter ``s'' in SPR stands for strategic--strategic petroleum
reserve is what it means. The purpose of SPR was

[[Page S4660]]

to preserve the Nation's security in the event of a supply interruption
such as we saw in 1973 and 1979, and not for the purpose of financing
social spending or, as I indicated, regulating the market price of oil.
The President has taken upon himself to turn the SPR into almost a
giant piggy bank and a back-door price regulator, without the consent
of the Congress.

So we have a rather curious set of circumstances here. Among the
President's other anticipated relief is the assumption, coming from the
United Nations, that crude oil prices would drop if Iraqi oil came back
on the market. How quickly we forget. It is interesting to look at this
proposal. The United Nations suggests that if it is satisfied that Iraq
has allowed full and complete inspections of its nuclear weapon
capability, that for humanitarian purposes Iraq would be allowed to
sell roughly $1 billion worth of oil. That amount of oil equates to
about 50 million barrels every 4 months, or 150 million barrels per
year.
Not so long ago we had a half million American troops, some of whom
lost their lives in that Persian Gulf conflict. That conflict was all
about Saddam Hussein controlling the world supply of oil and, as a
consequence, the stranglehold that he imposed on the Kuwaitis--and he
was looking at the Saudis.
Mr. President, I wonder if I can ask my colleague for 3 more minutes
so I can finish my statement?
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. So, is it not rather ironic that suddenly we are
looking for relief from Saddam Hussein who just a few years ago we
tried to put in a cage because he was a threat? He was a threat to the
world supply of oil. He must be laughing, saying, ``Ain't America
great? Here they are, needing the contribution of Iraqi oil on the
market.'' What a curious set of events.
I can recall in 1971, Senator Dole, Senator McClure, Senator Simpson,
Senator Metzenbaum and myself met with Saddam Hussein. It was clear at
that time when we were over in Baghdad that he intended to try to
control the supply of oil. The problem is, nobody believed it at that
time. But here we are today, looking to Iraq to come back on line so we
might relieve our dependence on imported oil.
Mr. President, in the Washington Post today, Charles Krauthammer has
a very interesting article. It is entitled, ``A Nation of Crybabies.''
In answer to the question of why the price is increasing, he responds
by saying: ``How about--a wild guess--because supply is down and the
demand is up?''
Why is the supply down? He says the country raised the speed limit.
He says the sport utility roadsters are using more and more gas. He
also says that crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last
25 years, and we will not allow drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of the
caribou.
He goes on to say more about supply:

U.S. crude oil production is in serious decline.

We know that. Alaska has been producing about 23 percent of the total
crude oil.
He says:

The North Slope of Alaska holds potentially the largest oil
field in North America, bigger even than Prudhoe Bay next
door, which produces 600,000 barrels a day. Unshakable
opposition from Democrats has for 15 years prevented even
test drilling there. Don't want to disturb a pristine
environment, even in a place not one in a million Americans
will ever see? Fine.

But you better be prepared for the cost.
Finally, Mr. President, it is fair to say that we are at a crisis. We
are going to be facing increased gasoline prices. The Fourth of July we
could be seeing gas prices substantially higher. I suggest they will be
over $2 and in some parts of the country, they could approach $3.
Finally, we have no extraordinary political development in the
Mideast that can be blamed for the current price rise, but the problem
relates to supply and demand. And I suggest that this body, the Senate
as well as the House of Representatives, has passed an answer. They
passed ANWR. ANWR passed the House and passed the Senate. There is just
one person standing in the way of opening up this huge reserve that
would give us energy independence, and that is President Clinton. He
has to bear the responsibility associated with it.
So repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax is a modest step, it is a necessary
step, but the ultimate issue is developing our own resources.
I thank the Chair, I thank my good friend from Georgia, and I wish my
colleagues a good day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for up to
10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you can still hear these words echoing
from 4 years ago: ``I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases. It
sticks it to the lower income and middle-income retired people in the
country, and it's wrong.''
Four years ago those words were stated.
These are not my words, Mr. President, these are the words of Bill
Clinton who was running for President in 1992 and who was elected.
Just 1 year later after that campaign, President Clinton proposed and
won passage of Federal excise gas tax increases. In the process, he
really stuck it to the lower income and middle-income retired people in
the country and it is wrong, contrary to those very words he used in
1992.
You might say, Mr. President, that he really stuck it to a lot of
people more than just the folks who are retired. He stuck it to the
entire population across the board--farmers, truck drivers, commuters,
bus drivers, vacationers, boaters--you name it, Mr. President,
President Clinton really stuck it to them.
In fact, it was done along party-line votes. It was part of the
largest tax increase in the history of our country. Not a single
Republican voted for it. Democrats controlled the White House and both
Houses of the Congress. Their fingerprints alone are all over the scene
of this crime, the raising of the biggest tax increase in the history
of the country.

This President has a real problem with his record of saying one thing
and doing another. We who are elected should perform in office
commensurate with the rhetoric of our campaign. We should also expect
the President of the United States to do that. And, of course, the
examples I am using today are just one of many cases. All of them
combine to leave people cynical about their leaders in Government.
Last year, the President was in Houston addressing a group of high-
dollar contributors at a Democratic fundraiser. Here is what he told
them about his record tax hike of 1993. This is what he said about the
biggest tax increase in the history of the country. He said this to his
rich friends at that fundraiser: ``Probably there are people in this
room still mad at me, at that budget, because you think I raised your
taxes too much. It might surprise you that I think I raised them too
much, too.''
What is interesting is that this seeming apology was to well-off
Americans in Houston from whom he was raising money. But you have not
heard the President apologizing to those lower income and middle-income
Americans who he really stuck it to and he was speaking to in the 1992
campaign.
In America, I thought that we defined fairness as treating everyone
the same. That means rich and poor, black or white. We are all equal.
So he apologized to higher income folks in Houston for raising their
taxes. Can lower and middle-income Americans and workers in this
country also expect an apology from the President? Why is it fair to
tax lower and middle-income workers who are trying to save for their
future? These are the citizens who need tax relief the most. They have
a harder time paying the bills and paying their taxes, whether it is
income tax or the gas tax at the pump.
The President's response to our call to eliminate the gas tax was
pure political panic earlier this week. Somehow, like selling off a few
million barrels would accomplish this problem, but instead it had the
effect of a gnat taking a nibble out of an elephant.
I will tell you what would have a bigger impact than selling off the
strategic petroleum reserve. The President

[[Page S4661]]

should get some of his Cabinet Secretaries to stop their frequent flier
trips they have going around the world. That would save much more.
The basic problem with this administration and the other side of the
aisle that supports this administration is that their idea of running
Government is the old established principle of their party taxing and
spending. Translated, that means that the Government's budget goes up
while family budgets go down. It is a zero sum gain.

If the Government's budget grows, the family's budget automatically
shrinks. This is upside-down economics, and we have seen it before from
the other side. So it is not voodoo economics, it is deja voodoo
economics. It is called tax-and-spend.
President Clinton and our friends, the Democrats, have it all upside
down. Their way has created falling income for workers while increasing
the taxes on working Americans. It is a double whammy. It is a one-two
punch on the workers of America. It really sticks it to them, something
the President said he was going to avoid in that 1992 campaign.
The President should show moral leadership. The President should do
the right thing. He should begin by apologizing to lower- and middle-
income workers for raising their taxes, like he apologized to those
rich Americans at the Houston Democratic fundraiser.
We in this body may not be able to force the President to apologize,
but we can do something even better for these people. We must restore
their faith in their elected leaders here in Washington. That must have
a high priority. We can do that right away by helping the President
keep his promise to the people that he made in 1992 not to raise the
gas tax because it was going to hurt the retirees and the lower and
middle-income working Americans. We can help restore the faith of these
people in Washington by repealing the gas tax.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa.
He has pointed to something that I think baffles many Americans. I
think they expect that there should be some relevance between what
people say when they seek public office and what they do if they get
it. There should be a connection.
As the Senator from Iowa noted earlier, when a person travels the
country and says, as President Clinton did, ``Raising gas taxes sticks
it to lower income and middle-income retired people in the country, and
it is wrong,'' an intelligent American citizen would expect that that
person, if in office, would not raise gas taxes because he said he
would not raise gas taxes.
Then you barely get the bags unpacked at the White House, and you are
up here with a proposal to raise gas taxes. The actual proposal was
even higher than what happened--double. This has had a profound effect,
in particular, on low-income people.
President Clinton's gas tax increase especially hurts lower income
families. According to the Joint Economic Committee, the lowest 20
percent of taxpayers pay 7.1 percent of their income on gasoline. The
top 20 percent of taxpayers pay only 1.6 percent. In other words, the
lowest income families in America, the lowest income--we remember all
the rhetoric that this tax increase only affects the rich--but the
lowest income families in America pay four times as much of their
disposable income on gasoline than the highest 20 percent.
Mr. President, I was talking a moment ago about this average family
in Georgia which is very similar to data in every State. There are
differences, but it is very close. This family, I said, made $45,093. I
went through a litany of the State tax, the Federal tax, the FICA tax,
regulatory costs, higher interest payments. At the end of the day, of
the $45,093, this family of four got to keep $21,722. That is all they
had left to do everything we asked of a family, which is to raise
America, house America, clothe America, transport America, provide for
the health of America. That is what we are asking of this family. But
we only leave them a little less than half of their total wages to do
it.
Here is the point I want to make, Mr. President. This gets back to
the promise to the American people the President made. He said, ``I am
going to lower your taxes,'' which meant that this amount of money that
they had left would be larger. They responded to that.
But in fact, Mr. President, what has happened? In fact, they have
$2,600 less in their checking account because President Clinton came to
Washington as their new President. They thought they were going to get
more in the checking account, but they got $2,600 a year less. And the
meter keeps running with this Presidency. The gas tax, which every time
that mother takes the child to the doctor or the car pool to the school
or goes to the grocery store, that tax meter is running on the gas tax.
It just runs and runs and runs.
We are suggesting, Mr. President, that President Clinton's gas tax,
4.3 cents per gallon, be ended, that we stop doing that and we leave
that amount of money in the checking account of this family.
That will not correct, by any means, the effect of the President's
higher taxes on the family. But it starts in the right direction. It
will leave about another $100 to $200 in the checking account of this
family that I have been talking about, and that is where it ought to
be. We ask so much of this family, our families across the country, and
we have taken so much of their resources away. This is a good
beginning. End this gas tax, leave that money in these checking
accounts, and then get on to the business of lowering taxes even more.
It is just inexcusable that American families forfeit half their income
to Government, to policymakers in Washington.
Mr. President, this gas tax is pervasive because it hits in many
different ways. The total cost of the gas tax increase--take, for
example, the State of California. California is forfeiting $550
million. That is half a billion dollars a year coming right out of the
California economy. They have had some rough times in California. They
have had disaster after disaster. But they are losing $550 million per
year because of this gas tax.
Take the State of Texas, $368 million a year. Florida, $263 million a
year. My own State has lost $60 million a year because of this gas tax.
What do State governments do when they lose revenue? They raise taxes.
Sixteen States in our Union have raised gas taxes to make up for the
reduced consumption that came when the President raised his taxes.
Mr. President, the majority leader, Bob Dole, said in an article in
USA Today--he was quoting the comment made by the Senator from Iowa--
``Probably there are people in this room still mad at me-- '' this is
President Clinton talking to a group in Houston. ``Probably there are
people in this room still mad at me over the budget because you think I
raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know, I think I
raised them too much, too.''
Mr. President, for the President to admit he raised taxes too much,
and then to call on his colleagues here time and time again to block
every attempt to reduce taxes on the American people, no wonder the
American people become cynical about our Government when we have
policymakers who go to them and make promises and come here and do
exactly the opposite. The empirical evidence always shows that when
they do the opposite, the person that gets the brunt of the deal is the
average American family.
Mr. President, I believe my 90 minutes has expired. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is ordered.

____________________