[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4769-S4770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GAS TAX REDUCTION LEGISLATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have noted the last several days a 
number of people coming to the floor to talk about tax freedom day. I 
noted this morning on the television programs that the majority leader, 
Senator Dole, was talking about bringing a vote to the floor of the 
Senate, perhaps today, he said, to repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax or 
reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents.
  I will make a couple of observations about those issues.
  First, tax freedom day. The suggestion, I guess, by those who talk 
about tax freedom day and the date beyond which they now can spend 
money on themselves, the suggestion is, I guess, that the money that is 
spent by them to build their children's schools, to pay for the police 
force, to pay for the Defense Department to defend our country, to 
provide for the resources for Social Security and Medicare, which 
incidentally are the four largest areas of public spending--schools, 
health care, defense, and local policing functions--the implication is 
somehow that those are not investments or those are not expenditures 
that count.

  I think a lot of people would say that the payment of money to fund a 
school system to be able to send your children to good schools does 
count and does matter. That is an investment in your family. I just 
observe that some taxes are levied in order to do things we must do 
together as a country--educate our kids, build roads, defend our 
country, provide for the general welfare such as Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, and so on. Some of them, I think, deserve a more 
thoughtful response than the implication somehow that it is just money 
that goes into some dark hole. Much of that is an investment in our 
children, an investment in security, an investment in health care.
  Having said all that, would we like to see lower taxes in our 
country? Yes. Would we like to find a way to reduce the tax burden? 
Sure. We have a circumstance in this country now where we spend more 
money than we take in; 2 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, in 1993, we 
passed a bill on the floor of the Senate by one vote to reduce the 
Federal deficit. It was not easy to do. We only passed it by one vote 
on a strictly partisan vote. We did not get even one vote from the 
other side of the aisle by accident. Normally you think somebody makes 
a mistake, but we did not get one vote by accident. A group of us 
passed this piece of legislation, and 2\1/2\ years later the deficit is 
reduced by half. The deficit is half of what it was nearly 3 years ago.
  Now I am glad we did that. It was not popular. The popular thing was 
to vote ``no.'' Certainly it was not popular to vote ``yes'' to cut 
spending and increase some taxes, but we did it. I am glad we did it. 
The deficit is down as a result of it.
  Now, what has happened in the last number of weeks is gasoline prices 
have spiked up by 20 to 25 cents a gallon. Gasoline prices spike up, 
and then we have people come to the floor of the Senate and say, well, 
our solution to that is to reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents. There is 
really no connection, of course, but that is the solution. It is kind 
of like a person driving down the road in a vehicle and it overheats 
and steam starts flooding from under the hood and the driver pulls off 
the road, gets out, opens the trunk, and changes the tire. There is no 
relationship between the 20- or 25-cent-per-gallon spike in gas taxes 
and the 4.3-cent gas tax reduction that is being proposed. It is purely 
political. In fact, it is trotted out here on tax day, I guess it is 
called tax freedom day. It is trotted out as a purely political hood 
ornament. That is fine. You have the right to do it.

  My point is this: When we consider the issue of the 4.3-cent-per-
gallon reduction in the gas tax, I intend to offer an amendment here in 
the Senate that asks the question, whose pocket is this money going to 
go in? If you are going to relieve the oil industry of collecting 4.3 
cents a gallon in gasoline taxes, who ends up getting the cash? I said 
the other day in this country there are a lot of pockets. There are big 
pockets, there are small pockets, there are high pockets, there are low 
pockets. The question is, who will pocket the reduction in the gasoline 
tax? I will offer an amendment that says, if you reduce the gasoline 
tax, we should make sure it goes into the right pocket, the pocket of 
the consumer, the driver, the taxpayer. If we do not pass an amendment 
like that that provides the guarantee, guess who pockets the reduction 
in the gas tax? The oil industry.
  Does anybody here honestly think that if we reduce the gas tax by 4.3 
cents a gallon and do not provide an ironclad guarantee that it goes 
back to the consumer, does anybody believe that the oil industry will 
not grab that money? It is cash in their pockets. They are the ones who 
set the price of gasoline. We can have people boast on the floor of the 
Senate about reducing the gas tax. It will not mean a thing to drivers 
and consumers unless they end up paying 4.3 cents less a gallon than 
they now pay.
  I say to the majority leader and others, if you intend to bring a 
bill to the floor of the Senate to reduce the gas tax and increase the 
deficit, make sure you provide for the allowance for amendments, 
because some of us will insist on our right to offer amendments. If you 
develop procedures that prohibit us from offering amendments to make 
sure that the reduction in the gas tax goes in the right pockets, then 
we intend to slow this Senate down until we have an opportunity to 
offer amendments of that type.
  I understand it is a Presidential election. It is an even-numbered 
year. When the Framers wrote the Constitution of America, they created 
a miracle. At least old Claude Pepper, the former member of this body 
and the House of Representatives, used to call it a miracle--a miracle 
that every even-numbered year the American people are able to grab the 
American steering wheel and make adjustments to where the country is 
headed. They have the right to grab the steering wheel and make the 
adjustments. It is an election year, an even-numbered year in America. 
There are lots of politics floating back and forth here and there; the 
only time in our country's history, I believe, where the majority 
leader of the Senate is running against an incumbent President. I have 
great respect for both people. But the floor of the Senate is not, of 
course, a political party convention auditorium. It is the U.S. Senate. 
Is there an inclination to engage in a great deal of politics here on 
the floor of the Senate on behalf of both sides? Yes. That has always 
been the case. Will there be more of an inclination now in the coming 
weeks to do that? I am sure. Is the gas tax reduction that is being 
proposed political? Obviously.

  Someone wanting to know what caused a 20- or 25-cents-per-gallon 
runup in gas prices at the pumps might have said, well, try to 
investigate what happened. Ask the Justice Department to investigate 
the oil industry to ask what happened to the price of gas. Who did it? 
Why? The President asked the Justice Department to do that. Some saw it 
as an opportunity to say, ``Well, come to the floor of the Senate and 
talk about the 4.3-cent gas tax that was added in 1993 as part of the 
deficit reduction act.'' That is politics. That is fine. They could 
have said, how about the other 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax that was 
added, supported by the majority leader and others here in this body? 
There has been 10 cents supported previously, so, make it 14.3 cents, 
as long as it is a political issue. Do the whole thing.

[[Page S4770]]

  My point is this: Do not do anything to it unless you guarantee 
American taxpayers and drivers that they will get the benefit. There is 
not any way that we guarantee drivers in this country they will get the 
benefit of lower gasoline taxes at the pump if we are not allowed to 
offer and if the Senate does not pass the amendment I have described. 
The amendment is very simple: It would require certification by the oil 
companies that they have passed along this reduction in the gas tax and 
a lower pump price, subject to criminal penalties and subject to 
enforcement by the appropriate people in the Federal Government. We can 
talk about gas taxes until we are blue in the face and you can repeal 
gas taxes from now until next month. But if you do not guarantee that 
drivers in this country get the benefit, guess who will walk off into 
the sunset with bulging pockets? The oil company.
  When I heard this morning the majority leader say we will have a vote 
on that today, first of all, I do not think we will because it would 
require unanimous consent to have a vote on the reduction in the gas 
tax. But, second, I say to Members on the other side who are in charge 
of planning the activities of the Senate on the floor, when you decide 
to have a vote, we will insist that you give us the opportunity to 
offer an amendment that guarantees the drivers and the taxpayers in 
this country, not the oil industry, get the benefit of the reduction in 
the gas tax.
  One additional point, and it is probably the most important point. We 
have also talked on the floor of the Senate about the minimum wage. The 
gas tax is about $25 or $27 a year in benefits if the consumers get the 
benefit, and they will not unless my amendment is passed. The minimum 
wage means about $1,800 a year to those folks who are out there, 40 
percent of whom are working as a sole breadwinner on minimum wage, 
trying to make ends meet, having had their wage frozen for 5 years. We 
are simply saying we want an opportunity, as well, to address the 
minimum wage issue. We think the minimum wage should be adjusted for 
those folks.
  We have been told that, well, there will be some point at which we 
will vote on that. We also ask that when the gas tax reduction is 
brought to the floor of the Senate, we have an opportunity to consider, 
as well, in those circumstances, a reasonable adjustment of the minimum 
wage.
  So those are the issues that we are going to ask be addressed by the 
majority leader and other Members of the Senate in the coming couple of 
days as we discuss these issues.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________