[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4573-S4575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESCINDING THE GAS TAX
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, one of the things I wanted to talk about
this morning was the gas tax.
I voted for the provision in 1993 that was the largest deficit
reduction act in history. I am still pleased I voted for that. We did
not get one vote on the other side of the aisle even by accident. All
of us on this side of the aisle had to vote for that and pass it by one
vote. We did not get one vote even by accident. But I am still glad I
voted for it.
Did I like everything in it? No, I did not. But the Federal deficit
has decreased by nearly 50 percent since that was enacted.
We have had some folks come to the floor recently saying let us
repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax. I guess the motivation for coming to the
floor to do that is to say that gas prices have spiked up in this
country from 20 to 25 cents a gallon. The American people are anxious
and concerned about that, so some people come to the floor and say let
us repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax. I ask why the 4.3 cents? Why not the
4.3 cents and the 10 cents that Senator Dole has proposed previously
and voted for. Why not decrease the whole thing if you want to do it?
But if you decrease it a penny, if you decrease the gas tax at all, I
am going to be here with an amendment insisting that that reduction go
into the pockets of consumers who are now spending more money at the
gas pumps, not into the pockets of the oil industry.
I took a look at some figures yesterday when we were talking about
this subject. Let me tell my friends what has happened in the oil
industry. God bless them; I think profits are fine, and I am happy they
are doing well. Chevron posted gains of 34 percent last year, an
increase in profits; Amoco, a 39-percent increase in profits; Texaco,
profits up 30 percent; Mobil, profits up 16 percent; Exxon did just
fine as well, up 14 percent; Shell, up 42 percent in the first quarter
of this year.
Those are oil company profits. Now, if somebody comes to the floor of
the Senate and says, let us cut gas taxes, if they do not support a
provision that requires a cut in the gas tax to be ratcheted down in
the price at the pumps and therefore go into the pockets of the
consumers, guess who is going to pocket the reduction of the 4.3-cent
gas tax? The oil industry.
Frankly, I am pleased that the Federal deficit has decreased, and I
am willing to cast votes to decrease it all the way. We ought to
balance the budget. That is why I say I am still proud I cast that vote
in 1993, and that included some tough issues, including a gas tax. But
the plain fact is we are probably going to deal with a gas tax repeal
here of some type where the majority has the right to bring that to the
floor and not with respect to the merits of the issue.
I will also, in this Chamber, when we deal with the gas tax, propose
an amendment that says, if we cut the gas tax, let us make sure it goes
in the right pocket. The oil industry has some deep pockets, and they
are doing just fine, thank you. The consumer is paying 20 or 25 cents a
gallon more, and the question is, why? Because of the gas tax? No. The
industry decided because of supply and demand, they say, that the price
had to spike up, so the price spiked up and American drivers take it in
the pocketbook.
If someone wants to relieve the American drivers of a 20- or 25-cent
price spike, the first thing we ought to do is launch an investigation
into what caused that price to spike up 20 or 25 cents a gallon. Who
decided to do that? There was no debate about that. We had a debate
about the gas tax. There was no debate by the public on this issue of a
20-, 25-cent increase in the gas prices. That is done in a room
someplace, I assume. They say, well, the supply and demand relationship
has changed. Therefore, let us charge the drivers 20 or 25 cents more a
gallon.
I say to the folks who come to the floor of the Senate that, if we
want to do something for American drivers, for those who are paying the
bills, let us investigate what has caused this spike in gas prices, No.
1. No. 2, if you do offer proposals to reduce the gas tax, I am going
to offer an amendment to insist that that reduction go into the pockets
of the taxpayers in this country, not into the pockets of the oil
industry.
How do we do that? It is not very easy to do that because you have to
make sure that that decrease finds its way to the price at the pump so
that it is lowered for the American consumer. But if folks come here
and say, let us ratchet down the gas tax and do not do that, you know
exactly where that money is going. It is not going into the pockets of
somebody who is going to fill their tank tomorrow. It is going to go
into the deep pockets of the large multinational corporations that
decide they are going to profit because of what the Congress has done.
So those are issues, I think, we will work our way through, Mr.
President, in the coming week or two. When we do, I think Members ought
to understand that some of us will absolutely
[[Page S4574]]
insist that if you reduce the gas tax, that money must go into the
pockets of the American taxpayer, not the pockets of the big oil
companies in this country.
Mr. REID. Will my friend from North Dakota yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I hear talk about a
gas tax being repealed. What gas tax are they talking about repealing?
Mr. DORGAN. There have been proposals on the floor of the Senate and
in the House to repeal a 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax that was imposed
in 1993.
Mr. REID. My question I guess is, since there have been a number of
gas taxes that have been passed in recent years--is that not true?
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The 4.3 cents is only a small fraction of the taxes on gas
that have been increased over the past decade or so in this body. Is
that not true?
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Does the Senator know of any reason why the 4.3 cents was
chosen as compared to any other tax increases that occurred when the
Republicans controlled the White House?
Mr. DORGAN. I assume it is politics. I do not understand why they
chose the 4.3-cent gas tax. If gas prices spike up 20 or 25 cents a
gallon, why not ask the question: Where has the price increase come
from? And roll back the price increase if they really want to help the
American driver.
Mr. REID. I also ask my friend from North Dakota this question. I
have been watching very closely since the prices, especially in the
western part of the United States, have gone up. They have gone up a
lot in the State of Nevada, not as much as in the State of California,
but they have gone up in the State of Nevada. I have been watching very
closely, and I have not seen the oil companies come forward with an
explanation of why the costs of gasoline and fuel have gone up. Has the
Senator seen an explanation?
Mr. DORGAN. The explanation that has been given is supply and demand
relationships and difficulties with refineries in California and some
other imbalances that have occurred. As the Senator from Nevada knows,
President Clinton has, I think, properly asked for an investigation.
Let us find out exactly what has caused this price spike. Is the spike
in prices temporary or will it last some time? Is it justifiable or is
it not?
I think the President has moved in the right direction, saying let us
get to the bottom of this and find out who has done what and take
action if action is appropriate.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I have been advised that in the State
of New Mexico in recent years the gasoline tax was decreased and the
cost of gasoline in that State went up. Has the Senator heard that? Has
the Senator heard that story?
Mr. DORGAN. I have not heard that, but that is my fear. If someone
were to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that says, let us cut
the gas tax 4.3 cents per gallon and provide no assurance that that is
going to go into the pockets of the American drivers and American
taxpayers, guess what. We might very likely have a circumstance where
that 4.3 cents per gallon would go into the pockets of the oil
industry. I do not think that advantages this country. All that does is
increase the debt, enrich the oil companies, and leave the drivers and
taxpayers in exactly the same position they are in now.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, in the
form of a statement he can respond to or not, it is my understanding in
recent years in the State of New Mexico the gas tax was decreased. And
surprisingly, in the State of New Mexico, immediately the prices went
up and, in effect, the oil companies received the benefit of the tax
being decreased. The consumer did not. That is a fear that I have, that
here in America today, if we repeal this gas tax, rather than the
American consumer getting the benefit of it the oil companies, which
have had record profits the last few years--record profits--the oil
companies would be able to pay their executives even more than they
have as a result of making 4.3 cents more per gallon. Does the Senator
from North Dakota fear the same?
Mr. DORGAN. That is my concern and that is why there will be an
amendment, if there is a gas tax proposal on the floor to reduce the
tax, to make sure it goes to the right pockets.
Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, I do not like the gas taxes. I
never have. And I worry about high gas prices. Why? Because I come from
a State that is a very large State with not too many people; 640,000
people living in 70,000 square miles in North Dakota. We pay about
twice as much gas tax per person as they do in New York City or New
York State. Why? Because we drive more than they do. To do almost
anything we drive much longer distances than they do in New York.
A friend of mine once told me he had a cousin in New York who was
going to go to Bayonne, NJ, to visit some relatives. They got an
emergency kit in the trunk and some blankets, to go 60 miles, because
that is a big trip in the east coast, I think.
In North Dakota, 60 miles is absolutely nothing. We drive 60 miles at
the drop of a hat, often in a snowstorm. In good weather or bad weather
we drive great distances. That is why I never particularly liked the
gas tax, because the gas tax imposes a higher premium for taxpayers in
North Dakota than it does taxpayers in New York. We drive twice as much
per person.
The same is true with gas prices generally, not just the tax. When
the price goes up 20 or 25 cents a gallon and someone says that is
because of a 4.3-cent charge put on 3 years ago, I say, ``Wait a
second. No, no, the price went up 20 or 25 cents a gallon because
something has happened in recent weeks to do that. We ought to find out
what has happened and find out whether it is justified.''
But I guess, again, the bottom line here is if we are going to have
people come to ratchet down the gas tax I am going to make certain the
right people get the benefit of that. That is the American taxpayer,
not the oil industry.
Mr. REID. Will my friend from North Dakota yield for another
question?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. In the State of Nevada we have, of course, the seventh-
largest State in the Union areawise, but the State of Nevada has
changed in recent years. We have had a huge population explosion. Mr.
President, 90 percent of the people, approximately, live in the
metropolitan areas of Reno and Las Vegas. But those two cities, those
two metropolitan areas, are separated by 450 miles. So the people of
the State of Nevada, to get to the metropolitan areas and to get to the
many rural communities that we have throughout the State of Nevada,
have to drive very long distances. The loneliest road in America has
been designated, a road in Nevada.
The point I am making to my friend, and I want to see if he agrees
with this, is the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not trying to block
a repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. The Senator from North Dakota and the
Senator from Nevada, we would like to get rid of all the gas taxes
because people in our States, our rural States, depend on automobiles
to get around. There are no subways in Nevada. There is no mass
transit, basically, other than a bus, anyplace in Nevada.
So, I say to my friend, does he agree that the Democrats are not
trying to stand in the way of repealing the gas tax, what we are trying
to do is to make sure, if it is repealed, the consumer benefits and not
Chevron, not Shell, not Exxon, and all these massive multinational
multilevel companies? Would the Senator agree with the Senator from
Nevada?
Mr. DORGAN. I think Senator Reid states the case. I do not want to
increase the Federal deficit. We have it coming down. I want to keep it
coming down. And I am not afraid of making hard choices--we have done
that before--in order to get it down, including taxes I do not like. I
would much prefer a lower gas tax. I would much prefer lower gas
prices, period.
My intention is to say only this. If people come here to try to
reduce the gas tax, which will increase the deficit, I am going to say
to them: That is OK, but I want to make sure the benefits of that gas
tax reduction go to the drivers, who are the taxpayers out there, not
the oil industry, No. 1; and, No. 2, you need to find a way to make
sure
[[Page S4575]]
what you are doing does not further increase the Federal deficit,
because that is not moving in the right direction.
Mr. President, I believe we had 30 minutes reserved. I ask, because
we did not start until 9:40, unanimous consent the Senator from
Massachusetts be given 5 minutes, and the Senator from Montana, Senator
Baucus, be given 5 minutes following the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
is recognized for 5 minutes.
____________________