[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CALL FOR AN END TO THE EXCISE TAX ON BEER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klein). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority 
leader's designee.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, before we move on to a new special order, we 
on this side would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia 
for his great contributions to our country, more particularly for his 
great efforts during the civil rights movement. We know that there was 
a lot of courage involved in that effort and we want to congratulate 
him for putting together that very enlightening special order.
  Mr. Speaker, changing the subject tonight, we would like to get to 
the subject of taxes, once again, to discuss taxes here on the floor of 
the House. It seems unfortunate that taxes are the topic of debate here 
all too often. There is no question that the American people are sick 
and tired of the many financial burdens and increasing financial 
burdens imposed on them by government at all levels. Taxes in the form 
of sales taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, gas taxes and on and 
on and on. But this evening I would like to talk about just one 
particular tax that we in Congress hear about constantly from working 
Americans across this country, a tax that they are upset about and that 
they do not want to see raised once again, the excise tax on beer. The 
reason people mention the beer tax to me as I travel throughout my 
district each weekend and read my mail each day is that every time 
Congress is looking to finance some new initiative, whether it be 
health care, GATT, welfare reform, or something else, a beer tax is 
almost always suggested as being the answer to all or part of the 
financing scheme.
  Let me just read one example of a letter I received from a 
constituent concerning this issue and the negative impact that the last 
time the Congress reached for an increased in the excise tax on beer 
had on this one individual and his family:

       Dear Congressman Blute: As owner of a small package store 
     the new (1991) tax and the worsening economy has hit us hard. 
     So bad that we are now closing our family-run store and we 
     are going to file Chapter 7 for both the business and 
     personally.
       I hope you'll stand up for American consumers and small 
     business owners like me. Even though stopping any new tax is 
     too late to help my business, maybe it will still help 
     others.

  Clearly, many Americans care about this issue, even though excise 
taxes are not something that they see printed out on their sales slip 
at the local supermarket. So tonight we are here to dispel some of the 
myths that these taxes are a positive thing, and to reaffirm the fact 
that beer tax hikes not only hit consumers in the wallet, they kill 
jobs in the districts of every Member of this House.
  Let us talk about jobs for a few minutes. We all know that there are 
not enough of them out there currently, so we need to do everything we 
can to preserve the good jobs in our country that allow many American 
families to make ends meet.
  The jobs of over 2.7 million workers are affected by the beer 
industry. There are 500,000 retailers, 3,000 wholesalers, and 400 
breweries in this country, employing 845,000 people between them.
  Additionally, the success of the industry affects many other 
livelihoods, from the farmers who grow the hops and barley to the 
truckers who deliver the kegs and the cases.
  Mr. Speaker, in my State of Massachusetts, approximately 202,000 
people are employed in beer-related businesses. In my district alone 
there are over 16,000 jobs impacted by this industry. From store 
cashiers to restaurant owners to the men and women who work at bottling 
plants, hardworking Americans depend on revenues from the sale of beer 
for their paychecks.
  Those job figures are based on what the industry looks like today. 
But just a few years ago, there were 31,000 more Americans providing 
for their family as a result of their jobs in this industry. Those jobs 
are now gone. The reason? Higher excise taxes.
  Many may not remember that a provision of the now infamous 1990 
budget deal doubled the excise tax on beer. In January 1991, beer taxes 
shot up from $9 to $18 per barrel. Consumers, faced with a stiff price 
hike, chose not to buy as much and sales fell 3 percent, the worst 
decline in sales in 30 years. As I said before, 31,000 Americans found 
themselves out of a job, not because they did not work hard or because 
they failed to show up for work one day, but they were put in the 
unemployment line by their own Government because of an ill-advised 
tax. It reminds me of what Justice Marshall once said about taxes:

  ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.''
  The crazy thing about this job loss is that while tax revenues from 
the doubled beer excise tax initially rose, the most recent figures 
show that the revenues are now declining again, at a rate of more than 
$70 million from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1993.
  Consumers are changing their buying habits because excise taxes have 
reached beyond the saturation point.
  I few facts on these taxes:
  Beer is taxed nearly 3 times higher than most other consumer 
products. By doubling the excise tax, consumers actually get taxed 
twice, because they pay a sales tax on top of that excise tax.
  Today, approximately 80 cents of every six-pack of beer is paid in 
taxes.
  I wish we could take a vote today on repealing that wrong-headed tax 
from 1991, but unfortunately we cannot.
  Mr. Speaker, it brings to mind the similar disastrous experience with 
the luxury tax, which was imposed and supposed to produce a tremendous 
amount of revenue. History teaches us that the revenues declined and 
thousands of Americans were thrown out of work in the boating industry. 
Thankfully this Congress and this administration saw the error of that 
way and repealed the luxury tax.
  What we can do tonight, and I hope to do along with some of my 
colleagues tonight, is to educate the American people and the other 
Members of Congress about what a bad idea doubling that excise tax was 
in 1991 and what a derogatory effect it had on our country in terms of 
jobs and in terms of taking money out of the pockets of the 80 million 
Americans who enjoy a beer every now and then.

                              {time}  1740

  What public policy good does it serve to tax the beer drinkers of 
America, who are an overwhelmingly responsible, hard-working group, who 
should not be singled out in this way?
  We have heard it called a sin tax. But in my view, it is not a sin 
tax. Where I come from, it is not a sin, after a long day of work, to 
come home, put the Red Sox on the tube, put your feet up, and have cold 
beer. Let us remember that the working men and women are the ones who 
have to bear the brunt of our public policy decisions here in the 
Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to our distinguished 
colleague from the city of Buffalo, NY, who also would like to join in 
this special order, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute]. I wanted to join him and others today that will join us in a 
few minutes to strongly state my opposition to increasing excise taxes 
on beer as well.
  We are here tonight to talk about middle class working Americans. As 
this Congress tackles important issues, health care and welfare reform 
in the coming weeks and months, it is important that we stand firm, 
that Members tell Congress and tell the President that higher beer 
taxes are not the answer to fund these worthwhile programs.
  When I ran for Congress back in 1992, I pledged to oppose any new 
Federal excise taxes on beer. Back in January 1991, Federal excise 
taxes on beer doubled. In New York State, there has been almost a 400 
percent increase in State beer taxes over the last 5 years. A 400 
percent increase.
  We know what happened back in 1991 after the Federal tax doubled. 
Sales declined and revenues declined. The decline in sales were the 
largest in 35 years, and almost 31,000 jobs were lost in our country. 
When you consider that many small businesses that rely on income from 
beer sales, the numbers of those job losses become staggering.
  That is right, jobs were lost. Middle and lower class taxes went up, 
and there is no major decrease in teen drinking or drunk driving. It 
just does not seem to make sense.
  In 1993, New Yorkers paid $191 million in Federal beer taxes, and 
another $86 million in State beer taxes.
  In another area of New York State, I represent Buffalo, NY, in 
Fulton, NY, the Miller Brewery will be closing on October 1 of this 
year. Nine Hundred people will be out of work. Three hundred people 
have already been laid off. Why? Because the 1991 tax increase 
seriously hurt sales. The town will lose one of its largest employers, 
one of the largest property taxpayers in all of the area.
  Mr. Speaker, when we take a serious look at beer taxes and get by all 
the rhetoric, we can see that we are talking about a regressive tax 
that unfairly singles out beer drinkers and beer consumers. When the 
1991 tax was passed, moderate drinkers, not chronic abusers, but 
moderate drinkers reduced their beer consumption. It punished millions 
of hard working Americans. The minority of drinkers who abuse alcohol 
are not put off by higher costs. Sadly enough, and unfortunately, these 
people have serious problems and need to be helped through education, 
treatment, and tougher law enforcement.
  Middle class working class Americans, like the people that I 
represent in Western New York, and people across this country, are 
taxed enough Mr. Speaker. Higher beer taxes are not the answer.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Quinn, from 
Buffalo, NY.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize for purposes of 
debate another distinguished colleague of ours from New York--from Long 
Island, NY, Congressman Peter King.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
tonight in support of his special order and in opposition to any 
increase in the excise tax on beer.
  Mr. Speaker, in rising in support of Mr. Blute, I do so and I violate 
a pledge I made last November when as a Notre Dame graduate I was in 
deep depression after his alma mater, Boston College, defeated Notre 
Dame. I said on the floor I would never work with Mr. Blute or Mr. 
Markey. Notwithstanding that pledge, I feel so strongly about this 
issue that I am temporarily waiving the pledge and appearing tonight 
with him to speak out against any increase at all in the excise tax.
  Seriously, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about are the hard 
working men and women in our country who are already taxed. They are 
taxed by the Federal Government, they are taxed by the State 
government, they are taxed by the local governments, and we in New York 
have especially high taxes. We are the tax capital of the world. As Mr. 
Blute stated earlier, there are thousands of employees throughout this 
country who lost their jobs when the last excise tax was raised.
  In my district alone, just yesterday, I was visiting Mr. Hap Boening, 
a beer wholesaler, touring his facility, seeing the large number of 
people he employs, seeing how slim the profit margin is and why, 
because of the increase in 1991 on the excise tax, and seeing how close 
they are to barely surviving because of those tax increases, and how we 
will put them over the edge if we raise the taxes again.
  I find it very arrogant on the part of the people in Washington, 
bureaucrats, think tank operators, who somehow feel that you can always 
tax the working guy or the working woman. They call it a sin tax. As 
Mr. Blute said, it is no sin at all at the end of a hard day to come 
home and open up a can of beer and, as he said, to watch the Red Sox. 
Well, that it a bad example, I think. I don't know why anyone would 
want to watch the Red Sox. Certainly, if you wanted to watch the Mets 
or the Yankees or the Jets or the Giants or Rangers, who after 54 years 
won the Stanley Cup, or the Knicks, who tomorrow night are going to win 
the NBA championship, what is wrong at the end of a hard day, with 
coming home and having a beer, of enjoying a barbecue in your backyard 
with your family, and having a beer or two. This is what the working 
people of this country want to do. They want to work hard, they want to 
enjoy their families, enjoy their homes, and have a little relaxation.
  Yet, very arrogantly, the first impulse in Washington is when they 
need a few dollars to fund some exotic social program, is to look to 
the middle class people, the blue collar people, the decent men and 
women that make this country work, and take away one of the few small 
luxuries, quote-unquote, that they still have.
  So it is bad for our economy, it is bad social policy, and it is 
arrogant to even be considering any type of increase in the excise tax.
  I think that Mr. Blute has performed a real service tonight in 
arranging this special order, in focusing public attention on an issue 
which is too often ignored. Also in mobilizing some of the finest legal 
brains here in the House of Representatives, some of the colleagues, as 
I look around and see them, the leading Members, certainly on our side 
of the aisle, who have come forward tonight to show their great regard 
for Mr. Blute and their great concern over this issue.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks by imploring the Clinton 
administration and imploring the Congress not even to consider any 
increase at all in the excise tax on beer.
  I yield back my time to Mr. Blute, and commend him for the tremendous 
leadership he has shown on this and so many other issues. It is because 
of men like him that the country is what it is today.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those words. I would 
remind him, with reference to the Yankees, that it is a long season, 
and the Red Sox will be back in September. So I thank him for those 
words and for participating in this debate. I know the gentleman to be 
a great champion of working men and women in his district and 
throughout the country, and this is an important issue relating to both 
our constituents and, more generally speaking, the people in the entire 
country.
  I will enter the into the Record a statement by our colleague Tim 
Holden from the 6th District of Pennsylvania opposing increases in the 
excise tax on beer. Tim writes that in his district, he has one of the 
oldest breweries in the entire country, the Yuengling Brewery, started 
in 1829, and is still a family-owned business and employs thousands of 
people in his district.
  At this time I would like to bring up for this debate someone who 
really knows about the job implications of this industry in his 
district. he is from St. Louis, MO, the home of many of the Nation's 
largest Breweries, and that is Jim Talent from St. Louis.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding and for raising this important subject. It 
is a subject that we need to talk about a little bit more here, I 
think, in the House, for a lot of the reasons that other Members have 
elucidated. They affect us in St. Louis, too. I am very glad I am here 
because I want everybody in the House to know that we brew a lot of 
beer in the Midwest, not just in the Northeast. And we drink a lot of 
beer in the Midwest, and we are proud of it.
  St. Louis is the home of one of the main facilities of Anheuser-
Busch. Thousands of people who are employed in the St. Louis area 
either in that facility or in the beer distributorships in which the 
beer is taken to package liquor stores and grocery stores or in those 
stores on in the making or the brewing or the distributing of beer. It 
is a very important part of the economy of St. Louis and a very 
important part of the life of a lot of people in my area and across the 
United States.
  Like all of these Members, the possibility of an excise tax on beer 
came up in my campaign for Congress in 1992, and it has come up many 
times since then. I am dead set opposed to it.
  I want, before I discuss the reasons for that, to go a little bit 
into the general tax situation which my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, mentioned earlier on in his remarks. It is true that the 
American people are overtaxed. A statistic that I think just highlights 
this is, if you look at the percentage of the average American family's 
income that is paid in Federal taxes today, it is approximately 25 
percent. We are not talking here about rich people. We are talking 
about the average American family 25 percent of its income in Federal 
taxes of all kinds today: income taxes, excise taxes, Social Security 
taxes, and the rest.
  Contrast that with two generations ago. Let us say in 1952, my father 
started a three-person firm in St. Louis at that time. He and my mom 
were starting out at that time. At approximately that time, the average 
American family paid 2.5 percent of its income in Federal taxes. So 
what we have experienced in the last two generations is a 1,000-percent 
increase in the burden of the Federal Government on the average 
American family in the United States. Then we wonder here in the 
Congress why people are having trouble saving for retirement, saving 
for an education for their children, having a vacation, making ends 
meet. People are holding on by their fingernails even though they are 
working harder than ever before, even though they are borrowing more 
money, have less leisure time for themselves and their families, and 
they are holding on by their fingernails. And a big part of the reason 
is the increase in Federal taxes that has come out of this institution 
in the last two generations. Nothing is more annoying to that average 
American family than the prospect of paying more in taxes, and I think 
in particular the beer tax, the excise tax, because, as other Members 
here have said, it is a tax on working people, primarily. And it is a 
tax that threatens the jobs of working people, primarily.
  If you are going to look to increase the revenue burden of the 
Federal Government, which is the last thing you ought to do, certainly 
this is the last place that you ought to look to do it.
  The statistics have already been mentioned here. I can go through 
them again.
  Beer taxes are paid primarily by working people. They are already 
paying three times on average the tax on beer that they pay on other 
commodities, three times. And Why? What is wrong with beer?
  Other people have used the example, what is wrong with going home 
after a hard day's work, sitting down in front of the television, 
opening up a beer and watching the St. Louis Cardinals, who are going 
to come back and win the National League Pennant, watching the St. 
Louis Cardinals on television in the summer. There is absolutely 
nothing wrong with it. There is no reason to discriminate against that 
kind of activity in public policy.
  In preparing for these remarks tonight, I decided I would try and 
find out what really happens on the ground in real life to real people 
when one of these tax increases occur. I called up my brother back in 
St. Louis. He has a little tavern in the hometown where we were raised. 
He has owned that place for about 10 years. He serves food, cooks a lot 
of that food himself and serves a lot of beer to people. He has a 
regular clientele who come in to watch sporting events. It is a family 
place. People bring in their kids, and he has specials. He has 
especially good chili in the summer days.
  I called him up and said, what happens when you have to increase the 
price of a glass of beer by a nickel or a dime because taxes went up? 
Of course, he experienced the tax increase a few years ago. I said, 
what happens? Do people buy the same amount of beer that they bought 
before? He said, no. He is not an economist. He lived through this. He 
said, no. Instead of having three glasses of beer and a sandwich over 
the course of a couple hours and watching the baseball game, they have 
one or two.
  This is not good from the standpoint of social policy. These are 
moderate drinkers. As my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Quinn] mentioned, these tax increases do not cut down on abusive 
drinking or drunk driving. Those people are not in control of their 
habits. An extra nickel or dime does not make any difference to them. 
It does make a difference to hard-working Americans who enjoy moderate 
drinking of beer as part of social activities, watching sporting 
events, eating with their friends. And so it is counterproductive. This 
is the most futile thing about it of all. Not only does it threaten the 
jobs of working people as it further threatens the lifestyles of 
working people, but in the end the Federal Government experiences not 
more revenue but less revenue because it results in people having two 
glasses of beer instead of three in the course of an evening watching a 
baseball game.
  It is like a lot that Congress seems to do these days. It is 
counterproductive, hurts people and is futile in the end, even in terms 
of the objectives of the people who sponsor these kinds of measures.
  I could not agree more with the gentleman's point of view on this. I 
thank him for bringing this up. It is an important measure to bring 
before the Congress and to emphasize. I am pleased to say that I do not 
see a lot of tendency this year to increase taxes on beer as part of 
these proposals. But it is important that we maintain vigilance on this 
issue so that it not come up, because people do keep talking about it.
  I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to participate in his 
special order.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating and 
for his articulate presentation on the issue of the impact of taxes on 
the American people He is absolutely correct. The tax burden of average 
Americans by any standard, by any analysis has continued to increase in 
real terms in the last few decades. That causes real hurt for average 
American families.

  A fine Member of Congress, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] was unable to be here tonight but she submitted the 
following statement that I would like to submit for the Record and she 
writes that her constituents in Nevada paid $28 million in Federal beer 
excise taxes and $4 million in State and local beer excise taxes last 
year. And she writes, ``That is enough.''
  I would also like to put into the Record a statement by our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who 
has been an outspoken leader on this issue and has filed a bill to 
repeal the 1990 increase in the excise tax. It is H.R. 1928. It would 
attempt to do to the beer excise tax what this Congress, in its 
infinite wisdom, has already done with the luxury tax. And that is, to 
repeal it.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to another one of our 
distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], 
this time in upstate New York.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
certainly want to join with my other colleagues in thanking the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] for his efforts here today.
  This may well be a preemptive strike, but as we have heard here this 
afternoon, we think it a very important effort to underscore the 
negative effects of what we view to be a very regressive and I think a 
very unnecessary levy. There seems to be an attitude in this city, Mr. 
Speaker, that in large measure taxes can be extracted without effect, 
that if we are clever enough, that if we can dress it up in fancy 
enough language, somehow we can expect the economy to give up dollars 
to the Federal Treasury and that no one will pay.
  We see it every day. We see it most of all in the language that we 
use these days here in Washington particularly, because we do not levy 
taxes anymore. We talk about revenue enhancers. We do not levy taxes. 
We talk about contributions. We do not levy taxes. We ask people to 
somehow share the burden, to ante up their fair share.
  We just do not levy taxes any longer, except in one instance. We do 
on rare occasions admit that we levy taxes on sinful activities. ``Sin 
taxes,'' we are calling them. And somehow we think here inside the 
Beltway that that phrase makes our activities justified, that somehow 
if we talk about sinful, immoral activities, people should be expected 
to pay.
  It just does not work that way, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the 
Americans, throughout this Nation, know that. And it is something that 
regrettably America's elected leaders too often forget.
  You have heard here this afternoon, I think very eloquently, how when 
we talk about the consumption of beer, we are talking about a lot of 
things. We are talking about issues that need the full attention of 
this Congress.
  However, by and large we are not talking about sinful activity. The 
American people know most importantly that no matter what we call them, 
contributions, fair share, whatever it may be, sin taxes, taxes are 
taxes, and they will be paid, not by faceless corporations, not by 
accountants with green eye shades on, writing out a check and mailing 
it in, not by some faceless entity. Taxes are paid by people. They are 
paid by the people of this Nation.
  When we talk about sin taxes, I think this is especially true. We 
have heard here today that really taxes on beer and taxes that fall 
most heavily on middle America, middle-class people who go out in the 
morning and work hard and who come home at night and are interested in 
just enjoying themselves, relaxing a bit, and having a beer or two in a 
wholly responsible way.
  We have seen the evidence and the impact, the disastrous impact, of 
the sin taxes, so-called, that have been levied on beer to this point 
already. Members have heard the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], my 
dear friend, talk about the effects on a place called Fulton, NY. 
Fulton, NY, is in my district. It is in Oswego County in the 24th 
Congressional District.
  Indeed, as the gentleman suggested, on December 1, 1993, the Miller 
Brewing Company announced that that facility would be closing this 
year. It would be closing, and what would be the result? The result 
would be the loss of what was at its height some 1,200 jobs, 1,200 
hard-working men and women, largely middle class, blue collar, getting 
up in the morning and going about their business; 1,200 people 
supporting their families, and the impact and the devastation has 
already begun.
  We know now that we have not just lost those 900 jobs, but we have 
lost the support that those jobs gave throughout the community, the 
brewery support of the local tax base, of course, paying for school and 
education for our young people, paying for sewer and water facilities 
so that the entire community could enjoy those aspects of living in 
America today. We have lost the commodities that they purchased in the 
local economy, the water that they purchase and the other goods to 
support the plant. Now those 900 people, people who pay taxes 
themselves, are without work and can use the money in the sin taxes 
perhaps to access the Federal job training or retraining program.
  The irony of it, the foolishness of it, it seems to me is just so 
obvious. Sin taxes are paid, and in this instance, it was a tax that 
was paid first by the consumers, people who went out and enjoyed their 
beer on occasion in a responsible way, and when the taxes went up, 
found that they had to make hard choices; that the beer that they 
enjoyed had to be put aside for some other necessity, some other thing 
that they felt they had to purchase.
  After a time, Mr. Speaker, as they bought less beer, the breweries 
recognized that the second set of individuals to pay that tax had to 
come forward as well, the workers in the brewing industry, the 900 
family members in Fulton, NY, who now found themselves working in a 
facility that was deemed unnecessary because capacity for production 
had far outstripped the consumption of that particular product.
  It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of taxes, as most taxes are, 
represent a losing formula. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] 
said it very, very well. Sin taxes do not produce the kind of revenue 
lines that are necessary to support important programs. The more you 
tax these commodities, the less amount that is purchased. Your revenue 
line goes down, and all of a sudden you have to raise taxes again and 
again and again.

  Mr. Speaker, by any other name this is a disastrous tax. By any other 
name, it is a step that we should not be taking. We can construct 
meaningful health care reform, we can construct meaningful government 
programs, without having to resort to these kinds of legislation, it 
seems to me. I ask my colleagues to join with the gentleman here this 
afternoon in requesting that we reject the rhetoric and legislate on 
the reality.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, again I will close by thanking the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] for his efforts here today. It is an 
important fight and I am proud to be part of it.
  Mr. BLUTE. I thank the gentleman from upstate New York for his 
leadership on this issue, and particularly for describing the impact of 
these excise taxes on people in his district, 900 jobs. Those are good-
paying jobs that will be very, very difficult to replace in any other 
way at an equivalent pay scale and salary level.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just read an excerpt from a letter I received 
from a beverage wholesaler in Massachusetts who employs hundreds of 
people in my district:

       Dear Congressman Blute: As you return home in weeks to 
     come, I urge you to take notice of signs--placed on all my 
     beer trucks--which note the annual cost of excise taxes on 
     the beer these trucks carry * * *
       We are undertaking this awareness building effort to remind 
     consumers in Massachusetts of the money they pay in excise 
     taxes for the beer they drink. As a * * * wholesaler, we 
     think it is important to remember who is paying the bulk of 
     the beer tax burden. Unlike other consumption taxes such as 
     those on luxury products that target the rich, beer taxes 
     fall unfairly in working men and women earning average 
     incomes. This group of Americans can least afford another 
     drain on their wages, especially in these economic times.
       As you grapple with the numerous critical issues facing our 
     nation, resolving our nation's budget crisis will undoubtedly 
     receive much of your attention. However, please remember that 
     beer drinkers already pay their fair share and just had their 
     taxes doubled in 1991 * * *
       Thank you for your time.

  Mr. Speaker, in summation, these taxes hit working people. They are 
regressive taxes, and they have real implications in people's lives, 
both in the form of taking spendable income out of their family budgets 
and also killing jobs in our country, jobs that are difficult to 
replace.
  I urge the Congress, I urge the administration, as we address health 
care reform, as we address welfare reform, as we address GATT, as we 
address all of the calls upon the taxpayers' money, to not seek this 
avenue once again to produce revenues. It is not the right thing to do, 
and it is bad for America.
  I thank my distinguished colleagues for joining us in this special 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a ``Dear Colleague'' that my friend 
Congressman Chris Cox from California recently sent along to me. Chris 
had hoped to be there tonight but unfortunately had a scheduling 
conflict. He has a great bill pending and I think he makes some 
excellent points in this letter: U.S. Congress, House of 
Representatives, Washington, DC, April 21, 1994.

Cosponsor H.R. 1928 To Repeal the Revenue-Losing 1990 ``Luxury Tax'' on 
                                  Beer


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                         House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC, April 21, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: Next week, nearly 1,000 beer wholesalers 
     and brewers will visit Capitol Hill to discuss with you 
     issues that affect the brewing industry. The most important 
     item on their agenda will be to discuss the impact of the 
     federal excise tax on beer.
       As you know, the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     imposed several ``luxury'' taxes to soak the rich. They were 
     all revenue losers: the penalty taxes on boats, planes, 
     jewelry, furs, and autos lost revenue for the Treasury and 
     cost thousands of U.S. jobs. Not surprisingly, last year 
     Congress finally acted to repeal these revenue-losing 
     ``luxury'' taxes.
       You may not have known, however, that the same 1990 OBRA 
     doubled the tax on beer--with similar results. The 1990 
     ``luxury tax'' on beer has been extremely damaging both to 
     the nation's economy and the Treasury. It has destroyed 
     31,000 jobs in the brewing, wholesaling, and retailing 
     industries. Total beer sales have suffered the worst decline 
     in 30 years. And the ripples from this tax hike have been 
     felt throughout many other sectors of our economy: direct 
     purchases of agricultural and other products needed to make 
     beer have fallen by more than $200 million. The reduction in 
     beer sales and the resultant loss of jobs have, in turn, cost 
     federal and state governments hundreds of millions of dollars 
     in lost tax revenues. Worse, the ``luxury tax'' on beer has 
     cost millions more in increased outlays for unemployment 
     compensation and other social services to help those who were 
     put out of work by this ill-conceived tax increase.
       Middle and lower-income Americans, who comprise the vast 
     majority of our nation's 80 million beer drinkers, have been 
     hardest hit by this tax on one of their few ``luxuries.'' As 
     a result of this regressive tax increase, beer is now taxed 
     at three times the rate of most other consumer products. 
     Those who would presume to indulge in the ``luxury'' of 
     purchasing beer are not among the most heavily taxed people 
     in our society.
       I've introduced H.R. 1928 to repeal the ``luxury tax'' on 
     beer, and eliminate this regressive tax on one of the few 
     ``luxuries'' that is enjoyed by working Americans. If you 
     would like to become a cosponsor, please contact Peter 
     Uhlmann at x55611.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Christopher Cox,
                                              U.S. Representative.

  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my opposition 
to increasing the excise tax on beer.
  Increasing the beer tax would have both a devastating affect on jobs 
in this country and also on hard-working Americans who drink beer after 
a long day at work.
  Beer drinkers and the beer industry have already been called on to 
pay their fair share in excise taxes. In 1991, the excise tax was 
raised on beer resulting in the loss of over 31,000 American jobs. 
That's right--31,000 hard working Americans were taxed out of a job, 
just 3 years ago.
  Now there's talk of raising the excise tax another 150 percent. This 
will result in another 180,000 Americans losing their jobs to taxes. We 
as Members of Congress, should be working to create jobs, not tax them 
out of existence.
  My district, in addition to having many beer drinkers, is the home of 
the Yuengling Brewery, the oldest brewery in America. Yuengling is a 
family owned brewery that has been operating since 1829, employing hard 
working Americans and providing refreshments for thousands.
  How do I explain to the workers there that they are losing their jobs 
because Congress decided to raise taxes on beer?
  How do I explain to the 55,600 beer industry workers in Pennsylvania 
that we are going to devastate their industry with more taxes?
  Additionally, increasing the beer tax will only further hit the 
wallets of working Americans who now pay over $3 in taxes for a case of 
beer. How much more should honest, hard-working Americans have to pay?
  The beer tax is regressive and will most hurt those Americans who can 
least afford to pay. It is not wealthy Americans drinking wine in nice 
restaurants who will be most hurt by increasing the beer tax, it will 
be hardworking middle class Americans who enjoy a cold beer at the end 
of a long day.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton made a 
smart move when he decided not to include beer taxes in his proposed 
health care package. Now, however, it's up to Congress to follow the 
same intelligent path as it weighs the funding demands of major 
Government programs, particularly health care.
  The reason higher beer taxes should be avoided has nothing to do with 
politics: Using such taxes to fund ongoing Government programs is not 
smart budgeting because it simply doesn't work.
  All we need to do is look toward the States to discover the growing 
inefficiencies of beer excise taxes. Last year, the Council of State 
Governments called these so-called sin taxes a worn out tax source. The 
council advised States to look for more stable revenues to fund vital 
programs such as health care and education.
  The council is not alone in its contention that revenue for important 
social programs should not come from unreliable sources such as beer 
taxes. Other widely respected organizations, including the Federation 
of Tax Administrators and the National Council of State Legislators, 
agree that the excise tax piggy bank has been raided too often.
  The Federal Government should heed these omens and leave beer taxes 
off the table once and for all when searching for health care funding 
vehicles. Funding for any major social program, especially national 
health care, should not fall unduly upon the shoulders of beer 
consumers or any other single group.
  Tax fairness is a time-honored principle in our country, and during 
the past few years, responsible beer consumers have shelled out more 
than their fair share.
  When the Federal beer excise tax was doubled in 1991, moderate 
drinkers--not chronic abusers--reduced their consumption. Not only did 
this prove beer taxes to be a shaky revenue generator, but it also 
punished 84 million hard-working, middle class Americans whose only 
offense was purchasing a perfectly legal, adult consumer product.
  The minority of drinkers who abuse alcohol are not put off by higher 
costs. They have serious problems which can only be cured through 
education and tougher law enforcement, not excessive taxation.
  Punishing the many for the irresponsible behavior of the few is not 
just a bad idea, its bad public policy, period. Access to quality 
health care is a vital issue of our times, but implementing a 
regressive tax to fund a program for every American doesn't jibe with 
common sense.
  Our task in Congress is clear: Any health care program up for 
consideration must include reasonable funding mechanisms--ones that do 
not gamble with people's security by betting on excise tax revenues 
which may never materialize.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to any increase in 
the excise tax on beer. No one outside the beltway thinks they are 
undertaxed--and they're right. But here we are again, only 3 years 
after Congress doubled the beer excise tax, looking at yet another 
increase.
  Remember too, that not too long ago, the President campaigned on a 
pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class. Members on my side of 
the aisle applauded that pledge.
  But I want to point out that in 1992, almost half of all beer sold in 
the United States was consumed by working people making under $35,000. 
It's appalling that some people are once again proposing to increase a 
tax aimed straight at middle income Americans.
  Increasing the beer excise tax is a direct and undisguised shot at 
these folks. They are being squeezed to the limit and are tired of 
paying for new and expanded Federal programs with their hard-earned 
money.
  Last year Nevadans paid $28 million in Federal beer excise taxes and 
$4 million in State and local beer excise taxes. That's enough. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at spending cuts, not tax 
increases on the average working American, to pay for any new Federal 
spending.

                          ____________________