[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 61 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4704-S4705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        GAS TAX REPEAL A MISTAKE

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to address the majority leader's 
announced intention to introduce legislation that would repeal the 4.3-
cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline that this body passed as part of the 
1993 budget bill. I have a very high personal and professional regard 
for our majority leader and I am certainly not unmindful of the 
political season that is upon us. Repealing a tax--any tax--and 
particularly a tax consumers are reminded of every time they fill up 
their cars at the pump, is unarguably attractive as a matter of raw 
politics, but it is terrible as a matter of public policy. Just when we 
are beginning to make sustained progress on bringing down the deficit, 
just when we are within reach of actually balancing the budget in 7 
years and making a serious and principled commitment to real fiscal 
responsibility, we blink. We cannot take the political heat. On 
something this important to our Nation and our children's future, if we 
take the heat we ought to take President Truman's advice and get out of 
the kitchen.
  We talk about a market economy, but we won't let the market work. The 
Federal Government has an important role to play in our lives, but it 
cannot and should not attempt to solve every problem we confront--
particularly when to save the average motorist $27 per year we move in 
precisely the wrong direction on the more important challenges of 
energy independence, national security, and fiscal responsibility--and 
send the wrong signals to our allies and others around the world about 
whether we are serious.
  I hope a majority of our colleagues will have the political courage 
to resist what will undoubtedly be an extremely popular bill. If we do 
not, that the President will be willing to demonstrate the intestinal 
fortitude we lack--as he did in proposing the tax in the first place.
  In my view, a $30 billion tax repeal shouldn't even be considered in 
the absence of meaningful action on our long-term budget problems. The 
1993 deficit reduction package, which contained this modest gas tax, 
and had no support on the other side of the aisle, has made a 
substantial dent in our annual deficits, making balance in 7 years 
possible. In the absence of that deficit reduction effort, we probably 
would not be discussing seriously the idea of actually reaching balance 
in such a relatively short period.
  Even with that 1993 effort, however, trying to reach balance has been 
a monumental task. A number of us in the bipartisan group of Senators 
referred to as the Centrist Coalition have been working for months to 
find a balanced budget compromise, and a repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-
gallon tax will only complicate our efforts to balance the Federal 
budget by sometime early in the next century.
  Not only would the repeal move us in the wrong direction as far as 
balancing the budget is concerned, it would not solve the problem of 
higher gasoline prices. If the energy companies are culpable, I have no 
desire to take them off the hook, but prices have been rising because 
the demand for fuel has been rising while production has fallen short 
of this need. Quite simply, the evidence suggests that demand is rising 
as Americans are driving further, at higher speeds, in less fuel 
efficient vehicles. Supplies have been curtailed because of a longer 
winter that kept refiners producing heating oil longer than expected 
and delayed their shift to gasoline, and fuel inventories were also 
allowed to remain low because of an anticipated release of oil from 
Iraq that has not come to pass.
  Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that the recent price 
increases are not due to a 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax increase that was put 
into law 3 years ago. That 4.3-cents-a-gallon is no more responsible 
for the recent increase in gas prices than it was responsible for the 
low gasoline prices we have enjoyed for the previous 2 years when the 
measure was also in effect.
  If we take the oil companies at their word that recent gas prices are 
the result of demand outstripping supply, then the last thing that we 
should be considering is a repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax, 
further pushing up demand. For those of us who believe that a higher 
gasoline tax is a necessary element of sound public policy because it 
encourages conservation and reduces our dependence on foreign oil, a 
repeal of this tax would be totally inappropriate.
  Mr. President, I was one of several colleagues recently recognized by 
the Concord Coalition as being willing to make the tough choices, and I 
intend to continue making them, despite the political downside. I fully 
understand that rejecting politically popular tax cuts in an election 
year represents a tough choice for legislators, even if this tax repeal 
would involve less than $30 a year for the average motorist. But if 
there is a good public policy reason for the tax in the first place and 
a repeal will not be likely to dramatically affect the perceived 
problem, it should not be that tough a choice. For these reasons, I 
would encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing the proposed 
repeal of the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a 
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the 
hour of 3 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for not to 
exceed 5 minutes each.
  The Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle, or his designee, is recognized to 
speak for up to 90 minutes, and the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Coverdell, or his designee, is recognized to speak for up to 90 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, my understanding is that my designated 
time began, or should have begun at 1:30. I am going to ask unanimous 
consent that my designated time begin at 1:42 in order to accommodate 
my colleague who wishes to make a brief statement.

[[Page S4705]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the courtesy. I 
did want to make a brief statement. I do not think I will take a full 8 
minutes.

                          ____________________