[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H594-H595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BURDEN OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER TO INCREASE WITH PASSAGE OF AIRPORT TRUST 
                                FUND TAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997 the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of the 
American taxpayer. There are many of us, and it is a bipartisan feeling 
up here, there are many of us that feel for those folks back home, 
those families where both spouses have to work, they both get out 
there, sometimes they have to work two jobs just to keep up with the 
tax monster, that 50-point-something percent that our friend from 
Florida talked about earlier that goes to the government. They get out 
there and they work hard. These are not folks who are not trying to 
make ends meet. They are out there obeying the rules and doing what 
they are supposed to. But we keep on increasing their burden by one 
more tax here, one more tax there, one more program here, one more 
program there. We feel for those folks. They are not seeing their wages 
go up. Wages are probably not going to go up that much for the near 
term because so many jobs are going overseas and that tends to have a 
deflationary effect on wages. But what we can do to improve their 
livelihood and to improve their lives is to let them keep more of what 
they earn.
  This afternoon we are going to debate a bill, H.R. 668, the Airport 
and Airway Trust Fund tax increase. This is yet another slice out of 
their livelihood.
  When we got out of here last fall, we were asked to vote for billions 
of dollars in more spending. The liberals knew that we basically had to 
do that. We were being pounded back home on TV saying we were mean-
spirited for doing this and for doing that, and we were stuck here in 
Washington and could not defend ourselves.
  So sometimes you have to take a step backwards before you can take 
two steps forward, and that is what we did. We voted for increased 
spending against our wishes to get out of town and defend ourselves, 
and we won. We lost that battle that day, but we won the battle on 
election day so we could come back this year and start again.
  We have the opportunity to take a step forward today, but it looks 
like we are going to be asked to take a step backwards. The first 
substantive act of the 105th Congress, if this happens, will be a $2.7, 
nearly $3 billion tax increase on people once again. This goes to fund 
airline safety. Everybody is for airline safety. No one would be 
against airline safety. There is a trust fund in place that has funds 
available now and it will have funds available for the rest of the 
fiscal year. If we do not vote for this tax increase that we are going 
to be asked to vote for tomorrow, we are going to debate it this 
afternoon, if we do not vote for this, airplanes are not going to fall 
out of the sky, the operational safety will still be there.
  But let us not vote on this without an offsetting tax cut. No one is 
against a user fee, which is basically what this is. If you got to have 
a tax, let us make it a user fee. Let us make the folks who are using 
that service pay for that service. No one disagrees with that idea. But 
let us not do it without an offsetting tax cut.
  I have dropped a bill today that will do just that. That does not 
have to be my idea, to have an offsetting tax cut; does not have to be 
the one I came up with. But the one that I came up with would suspend 
President Clinton's 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax increase at the gas

[[Page H595]]

pump. It is a perfect match, as much as anything up here is perfect. 
The same amount of revenue that we would save taxpayers is the amount 
of revenue that this tax increase would bring in.
  So it does not have to be that one, but it also does another thing. 
It also tends to shift the burden away from those folks who are on 
fixed incomes that live from paycheck to paycheck. You know, everybody 
has to pay that tax at the gas pump, not just those folks that are 
making a lot of money; everybody does. And so this solution would also 
shift that burden away from them.
  I do not have any pride of authorship; it does not have to be that 
offsetting tax cut, it can be anything.
  But, folks, let us not as our first act, a conservative Congress--
that is what we call ourselves, a conservative Congress--let us not as 
our first substantive act of this 105th Congress push through a $2.7 
billion tax increase.
  The National Taxpayers Union agrees with me and opposes this bill; 
Citizens For a Sound Economy opposes this bill; many groups, grassroots 
groups, will be opposing this bill; let us put one in for the taxpayer, 
not for another tax increase. Let us do the right thing, let us be 
clearheaded about this, let us come up with an offsetting tax cut.

                          ____________________