[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1771-S1775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND REINSTATEMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, H.R. 668.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, by the
number, I am not certain that this is the tax bill.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is the airline ticket tax issue.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have
had this discussion with the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Roth, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator
Moynihan. We have worked out an arrangement where Senator Moynihan is
prepared to have as the effective date the enactment date of this
legislation--perhaps I should yield to my distinguished colleague,
Senator Moynihan, for him to speak for himself.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. I would like to say, first of all, that I very
much appreciate the judgment of the Senator from Pennsylvania that the
bill will be enacted, and that I propose to amend it such that it takes
effect upon enactment as against the day it is actually passed, which
is the precedent. But with that agreement, that it will be enacted.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is satisfactory. Enactment, after it
is passed by both Houses and signed by the President, is the effective
date that it becomes law.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is correct. I also agree, hearing now that it will
become law.
Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may just finish the comment, I have
great admiration for Senator Moynihan. I don't know whether it will
become law or not. If it does, so be it. I just want to be sure that
enactment is not the day we pass it, but the enactment of the statute
is the day which it becomes law after passage by the Congress and
signed by the President.
With that understanding, I do not object.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the leadership of
the Finance Committee, the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from
New York. I thank them very much for their leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to make a statement for the Record prior to final disposition of
this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Florida that he be allowed to make a statement?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to inquire. Is the Senator from Florida suggesting that he would like
to make a statement at this point in the Record?
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to make a statement at this point in the
Record prior to the disposition of this matter.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire how long this might take?
Mr. GRAHAM. Approximately 10 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
statement of the Senator from Florida, my unanimous-consent request
again recur with H.R. 668.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what concerns me--and why I want to make
this statement before we vote it--is the irony of what we are doing at
this hour of the night. We have spent the past several days, the past
several weeks, debating an amendment of the U.S. Constitution to
require a balanced budget. I support that amendment and look forward to
voting for it on Tuesday.
In the midst of that debate, we now at this hour are going to take up
legislation to extend the airline ticket tax, which has been expired
for 10 of the past 14 months. I support that. We should reenact the
airline ticket tax. In my opinion, we should not have allowed it to
expire as we have.
But what is significant about what we are about to do is that we are
extending the airline ticket tax to September 30, 1997. Why are we
doing that? Is it because we do not need the resources of this revenue
source beyond September 30, 1997? Clearly not.
There are extensive needs in the national aviation system. There are
extensive needs in virtually every community which has an airport--a
commercial airport or a general aviation airport--which benefits by the
resources derived from this tax.
In light of that, why are we enacting this extension from now until
September 30, 1997? We paid a heavy price because of the fact that this
tax has been allowed to lapse twice in the past 14 months. This tax
expired on January 1, 1996. It was nearly 8 months later, August 27,
1996, that it was reenacted. That reenactment, however, was only until
the end of the calendar year 1996, December 31. It has lapsed since
that date until today.
So since January 1, 1996 until today, the tax has been in effect
approximately 4 months. It has been in a lapse status for 10 months.
Every day that this tax is not in effect reduces the revenue to the
aviation trust fund by over $15 million; approximately $500 million a
month is lost to the support of safety in the air because of our
failure to keep this tax consistently, stably in place.
In light of that history, I ask again, why today are we only enacting
this until September 30, 1997? Why are we not making this a permanent
tax today as it has been for most of its history?
Well, Mr. President, I must sadly report that we are doing this for
exactly the reason that we have gotten into a $5.4 trillion national
debt. Here tonight, in the middle of the debate on a
[[Page S1772]]
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, we
are about to engage in what I consider to be one of the more
hypocritical actions in terms of our real commitment to a balanced
budget.
What is the significance of having this tax lapse on the 30th of
September? The significance is that we are going to count in our budget
for the period that will begin October 1, 1997, $6 billion of revenue
for the next 10 years, or $60 billion of additional revenue based on
the way in which the U.S. Senate scores its legislation. The House,
which uses a 5-year rule, is going to score $30 billion of additional
revenue because we are allowing this tax to lapse on the 30th of
September.
Mr. President, I know you are a prominent business person and deal
with complex financial matters. You say, how can this be? What has
actually happened in the last 14 months is, we have lost $5 billion of
real revenue. Four percent of the Federal deficit for fiscal year 1997
will be the loss of revenue by allowing this ticket tax to lapse for 10
of the past 14 months. Yet, Mr. President, we are about to set up a
process where it is almost guaranteed to lapse again.
The reason we are doing it is because under our arcane budget rules,
if the tax is not in place as of the beginning of the fiscal year, we
can assume that it is all fresh, new revenue and therefore we have
found $60 billion in order to support other spending or to finance tax
reductions. It is no real additional money. In fact, every expectation
is there will be less real money because there will be a hiatus in this
tax after September 30.
Why do I feel relatively confident, although sadly so, that there
will be a hiatus in this tax after September 30, 1997? The answer is
because we have virtually ordained that it shall be. Why have we done
so? Because last year we passed an aviation reform bill, and in that
bill we provided that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary
of the Treasury would report to the Congress on their collective
recommendations as to what kind of permanent method of taxation we
should use for commercial aviation.
There is a dispute that has broken out between various segments of
the commercial aviation industry as to how the tax should be
structured. The interesting thing is that we are about to pass a bill
in which the tax will expire on September 30. When do you think the
report that we have already requested will be submitted to Congress?
The answer is in October 1997. So we are not even going to get the
report upon which we are supposed to make a judgment until after this
tax has expired.
I suggest we are virtually guaranteeing that we will have yet another
lapse in this tax, yet another hole in the trust fund that millions of
Americans look to, albeit in a distant, obscure way, but they look to
it with hopes that that trust fund will help make their period in the
skies above America a safer experience.
The fact is that we have removed $5 billion of that safety over the
last 14 months, and we are about to pass a bill that is virtually
guaranteeing that we will remove more of it. And we are doing it
solely, in my judgment, in order to be able to create a fictitious $60
billion that we can then use in order to justify other spending--not
spending in aviation but spending in any area that we choose to do so,
or reduction of taxes. If you want to know why in the last 20 years we
have added almost $4.5 trillion to the national debt, you are looking
here tonight at an example of the very kind of accounting gamesmanship
that has gotten us into our current posture.
It had been my original intention to offer an amendment to this bill,
as I did in the Finance Committee, to extend this bill at least to the
end of the calendar year so that we would have an opportunity to
consider the October report, make a reasoned judgment, and enact
whatever permanent reforms we want to enact without suffering another
lapse in revenue.
However, I recognize at this late hour the chances of such an
amendment being successfully considered are nil. I also recognize the
importance of getting this tax back in place as rapidly as possible so
that we can stop the loss of the $5 billion.
Now, some might say, isn't it a good idea to have this tax lapse for
10 of the last 14 months. Has that not resulted in a bonanza of savings
to American commercial aviation users? The fact is there has been some
of that. Some airlines have, in fact, reduced their ticket price by the
amount that was represented by the 10-percent tax which is embedded in
that price. Others have not done so. So in some instances the American
flying consumer has paid the same amount for the ticket but has not
received the benefit of investment in the safety of our airways.
It will be my intention as soon as possible to introduce legislation
that will make this tax permanent and will eliminate the ``Perils of
Pauline'' that we have experienced first in August 1996 and now again
in February 1997.
One of the reasons that we are rushing to enact this now is that the
train is almost at the ``damsel in distress.'' The FAA has said that
they are in a position now that within the next few weeks, if not days,
they will be in a position of having to send out notices to aviation
facilities across the country that they cannot meet their obligations
because the trust fund will have been depleted.
For that reason, I do not believe it is prudent to add one additional
absurdity on top of the pile of absurdities that are represented by our
actions relative to this aviation tax over the last 14 months. I regret
that we are taking this action. I am afraid that it casts a pall on our
seriousness of commitment to a balanced budget amendment when we have
often used the analogy with a balanced budget that it is like a serial
killer who has written on the wall, ``Stop me before I kill again,''
that we need the balanced budget amendment to say, ``Stop us before we
commit deficit again.''
Well, this is a good example of why we will need that constitutional
amendment because clearly we are not showing that kind of discipline in
adopting this legislation tonight. This is not a proud day for the
Senate. It is not a happy day for the U.S. taxpayers. I hope that we
can indicate to them that they will do better at some future date.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous-consent request to
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, H.R. 668.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 668) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to reinstate the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise
taxes, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is the first bill passed by the
Committee on Finance in the 105th Congress, and characteristically, it
was adopted by unanimous vote. I would point out that 6 of the 10 major
pieces of legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee during
the 104th Congress also were passed unanimously. We are off to a good
start in the Finance Committee this year, and I hope we maintain this
fine tradition under the able leadership of Senator Roth.
We are here today because the taxes levied to finance the airport and
airway trust fund have expired. These taxes largely support the
operations of our Federal Aviation Administration, including our
Nation's air traffic control system. They also finance our airport
improvement program, providing grant money for important airport
equipment and infrastructure improvements. Collection of these taxes is
critical to maintaining and improving our national air transportation
system and continuing to fund airport modernization projects, aviation
safety enhancements, and airport security efforts.
On February 4, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the status of
the trust fund, which we found to be critical. There is an unexpected
shortfall in the trust fund. The Treasury Department had transferred
estimated trust fund excise tax receipts to the trust fund based upon
an assumption--now known to be inaccurate--regarding the timing of tax
receipts. The Treasury Department was required to reverse this
transfer, and we are informed that a correcting transfer of almost $1.2
billion has been made.
[[Page S1773]]
The trust fund will be depleted much sooner than expected, which has
consequences. FAA informs us that while the air traffic control system
will be funded through the end of the fiscal year, funds for FAA
capital programs will be depleted in March. If we do not act promptly,
FAA will be forced to halt new airport improvement grants, and to
cancel contracts that are designed to improve airports and airway
systems in every part of the country. These programs could include
better bomb detection equipment, improvements for better communication
between pilots and controllers, and safety and security studies.
The Finance Committee under Chairman Roth's leadership moved quickly.
One day after our hearing, we unanimously reported out a bill to extend
the trust fund taxes through the end of the fiscal year, or September
30, 1997, and to allow Treasury to transfer trust fund tax receipts to
the trust fund, no matter when the taxes are collected.
The House has now passed identical legislation. It therefore falls to
us in the Senate to pass this bill, promptly and without amendment, and
to send it to the White House for the President's signature.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 668
which extends the aviation ticket tax through the end of fiscal year
1997. This tax is essential to the day-to-day operation of our Nation's
aviation system. Money to improve, maintain, and run our airports is
wholly supported by fees paid by the users of the air transportation
system. It is not paid for by the taxes we all pay on April 15. Air
travelers paid for our airports in the form of a 10 percent ticket tax
every time they flew prior to December 31, 1996. That money has been
going into the airport and airway trust fund, and the money is then
disbursed through the appropriations process.
We have told people to pay this tax, and we have told them we will
then spend it on airports and making improvements to the air
transportation system. I know that there is a great need to refurbish
our Nation's airports. In South Carolina, I visit small airports and
see the condition of the runways. Small airports cannot generate the
funds needed without the assistance of the Federal Aviation
Administration, which provides the necessary money from the trust fund.
Our problem now is that the ticket tax expired at the end of 1996.
Due to budget games, the money that we thought would be in the trust
fund is not there. Originally we were advised that the trust fund would
be broke in July, but it will be depleted as early as March. If this
situation is not corrected, millions of dollars in airport
modernization projects, aviation safety enhancements, and airport
security efforts will have to be delayed or terminated. The obvious
answer to this untenable situation is to reinstate the aviation ticket
tax, and that is why I am supporting H.R. 668. I urge my fellow
colleagues to quit playing budget games and start fulfilling one of
government's primary functions--preserving the safety of the American
people.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
legislation before us to reinstate the aviation excise taxes, which
support important aviation safety and security improvements, as well as
system capacity enhancements. It is our duty to take action now to
restore this vital revenue stream. I commend the Finance Committee for
recognizing the urgency of this situation and moving the legislation
forward on a fast track.
The aviation excise taxes lapsed on December 31, 1996. Current
estimates show that if we do not restore the aviation trust fund taxes
immediately, the trust fund balance will be insufficient to pay for the
safety and security programs we approved last year as part of the
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. The Federal Aviation
Administration predicts, and budget officials confirm, that under
current circumstances capital spending on aviation will come to a halt
in March. We are clearly doing the right thing by approving this
legislation in these emergency circumstances.
I am disappointed, however, that we could only agree to extend the
current tax structure for aviation improvements until the end of
September. I fear we will face another tax lapse at that time, and risk
jeopardizing the trust fund sponsored programs again. The taxes for
aviation safety and security should remain in place until we are ready
to offer a suitable alternative to the current structure. Congress last
year established the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to study
and make recommendations along these lines. The term of the tax
extension should coincide with this process.
Nevertheless, I endorse this legislation because my foremost priority
right now is restoring the viability of the trust fund. I realize that
if the Senate successfully extended the term of the reinstatement
beyond September, the House would object. We would have to take the
issue up in conference, and thus delay resolution of a situation that
has already reached critical mass. Realistically, we would probably end
up in a position no better than the one we are in today.
That said, we should be clear about one of the main reasons we are
setting ourselves up for another lapse. The dedicated aviation trust
fund taxes have fallen victim to congressional budget games. The excise
taxes that support our aviation system expired late last year and late
the year before, following years of uninterrupted renewal. Congress
figured out that if it allows the aviation taxes to lapse, it can
reinstate the taxes later, and use the revenues to offset tax cuts or
increased spending elsewhere in the budget.
This is budget chicanery, pure and simple. We should use the taxes
paid by air travelers and shippers exclusively for aviation safety,
security and capacity improvements. When we use these aviation revenues
to offset spending elsewhere in the budget, the American people
rightfully question how we intend to use their dedicated aviation
taxes.
More important, we should not play with this dedicated aviation
revenue stream, simply to take advantage of convoluted congressional
budget procedures. The need for budget process reform is clear. I will
continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to impress upon them
the reality that it does not matter if revenues and appropriations are
accounted for on different sides of the ledger. Even if the excise tax
revenues are deposited in the trust fund, deficit pressures will reduce
incentives to spend these funds for their dedicated purpose--aviation
safety and capacity improvements.
Budget process reform is a debate for a later date. Today, I rise in
full support of this legislation to reinstate the aviation excise taxes
on a short term basis to support critical aviation safety and security
improvements. We must remain vigilant in seeing this legislation
through to enactment. Any further lapse in the taxes that support the
trust fund would jeopardize safety-related capital improvements, and
shake the public confidence in the Government's ability to safeguard
the Nation's air travelers.
We should all be held accountable for not letting the excise taxes
that support our aviation system lapse in the future. It would be wrong
and irresponsible for us to let the aviation trust fund get caught up
in our budget games again.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Roth and
Senator Moynihan, the entire Finance Committee, and its staff, for
acting quickly on reinstating, for a short term, the taxes that fund
the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. Many of you may not be aware
of how the FAA is funded, or how critical its mission is to our
economy.
The FAA receives its funds from two sources--the general fund and the
airport and airway trust fund. The trust fund, up until December 31, of
last year, was supported by a series of excise taxes--a 10 percent
ticket tax, a 6.25 percent freight waybill tax, a $6 international
departure tax, and two noncommercial aviation fuel taxes. For Fiscal
Year 1997, the appropriation for the FAA was $8.563 billion. A total of
$3.1 billion comes from the general fund, and $5.3 billion from the
trust fund.
One thing many of us fail to really comprehend is how important
aviation is to our economy. We know that a safe and efficient air
traffic control system, and a well functioning FAA, are key components
to our economy. The President recently recognized the importance of
aviation to our country by stepping in to stop a strike at American
Airlines.
[[Page S1774]]
Let me put some numbers out to explain how critical aviation is--the
total annual impact of aviation to our economy is $771 billion. That is
a staggering figure, but we all know that travel for business and
travel for tourism are key components of our local economies.
Failure to reinstate this tax will bring the FAA effectively to a
halt. Yes, the air traffic controllers would be paid, as would the
other FAA staff. But, my colleagues should understand that no money--
absolutely no money, would be available to buy new air traffic control
equipment and to fund airport development.
This is not a simple problem. The FAA has under contract billions of
dollars for new equipment. If the FAA is not able to pay its
contractors, it will have to give them adequate notice to shut down the
programs. This means more than not buying a piece of equipment next
week, but shutting down existing programs underway. The lawyers will be
suing each other for years.
I want to also state that last year, this body worked hard to pass an
authorization bill for the FAA. As those of you that were here will
recall, we stayed in session an extra week to get that bill through.
That bill was and is important because it set a course for doing
something different for the FAA--fundamentally changing the way it does
business and how we fund that agency.
The long-term funding question remains unanswered. To answer that
question, this body voted to establish a 21-member Commission. The work
of the Commission must move forward, and it must be done expeditiously.
With reconciliation looming, any change in the current system--a new
tax system or a new user fee system--must be worked out now. The entire
aviation industry must agree to how much money the FAA needs, and who,
and how to pay for it.
I know that many of my colleagues share this view, and look forward
to working this matter out with them.
The lapse in the ticket tax and the uncertainty over funding, is
something our high technology, safety organization--the FAA--cannot
afford. Our constituents and families cannot afford it either.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an important issue
related to reinstatement of the aviation excise taxes. Financing for
the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], and for the aviation safety
and security initiatives it supports, is an issue of critical
importance in both the short and the long term. That is why the last
Congress established a process for achieving a long-term solution.
The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 created the National
Civil Aviation Review Commission, and tasked it with developing
specific legislative proposals for long-term FAA funding.
Unfortunately, the administration has failed to appoint any of the 13
members it is responsible for appointing to the Commission despite the
fact that the reauthorization act was signed into law nearly 5 months
ago. This Commission has very important responsibilities and it needs
to begin its work soon. The exercise we are engaged in today clearly
demonstrates that need.
The Commission has a limited time in which to complete its tasks and
must begin its work immediately. In fact, an independent assessment of
the funding needs of the FAA should be completed this week. The
assessment was prepared specifically for the Commission s use. However,
because the administration has failed to make any appointments, there
probably will not be a Commission to receive the assessment.
The aviation leadership of the Commerce Committee wrote to the
President on January 28 to request that he take action to ensure that
the commissioners are appointed immediately. I have also made
Transportation Secretary Slater aware on numerous occasions of the
urgency of the Commission appointments.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President
on this subject from Senators Gorton, Hollings, Ford, and myself be
printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC, January 28, 1997.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As you know, the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996, Public Law 104-264, established
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to address the
two very important issues of aviation safety and long-term
funding of the national air transportation system,
particularly the Federal Aviation Administration. We worked
closely with the Administration to craft this legislation,
and we appreciate the Administration's support. However, the
act set down a firm time line for the Commission to follow in
accomplishing its many tasks, including important issues
related to aviation safety. It is time now to move forward
and enable the Commission to do its work.
Thirteen members of the Commission are to be appointed by
the Secretary of Transportation. Given the time constraints
of the act and the critical nature of the Commission's
duties, we hope that you will act swiftly to ensure the
appointment of these commissioners. We expect that the
Congressional leadership will move forward in concert with
the Administration in making its own appointments. However,
the leadership has waited for the Administration to make a
move before it completes its appointments so that
Congressional appointees can provide any needed balance in
the composition of the Commission.
We urge you to take action to ensure that these
commissioners are appointed as soon as possible. The
Commission has a great deal to accomplish and time is running
short. In February, an independent assessment of the funding
needs of the FAA should be completed and the work of the
Commission must begin in earnest. Knowing of your commitment
to a safe and secure aviation system, we look forward to your
swift action on this matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain,
Chairman.
Slade Gorton,
Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee.
Ernest F. Hollings,
Ranking Member.
Wendell H. Ford,
Ranking Member, Aviation Subcommittee.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of
the Commerce Committee will yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator. As the chairman knows, the
congressional leadership also has responsibility for appointing eight
of the members of the commission. I wanted to confirm my understanding
of the congressional leadership's responsibility for making
appointments to the commission. Am I correct in believing that the
congressional appointees were designed to ensure that the commission is
not composed simply of people representing just the views of the
administration?
Mr. McCAIN. The majority leader is absolutely correct. As mentioned
in our letter to the President, the chief sponsors of the FAA
reauthorization bill wanted to be sure that the commission was a
balanced group. We fully expected the administration to act very
quickly to appoint commissioners, so that then the congressional
leadership would have an opportunity to address any perceived biases or
omissions.
Mr. LOTT. I appreciate your confirming my understanding of the intent
of the reauthorization act. Also, I join you in urging the
administration to make its appointments without delay. The commission
must begin working on a long-term funding solution so that we can avoid
such problems as we are addressing today.
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the majority leader for providing
me this opportunity to clarify the matter of appointments to the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission. His support and leadership
have been instrumental in the efforts of the Commerce Committee to
address the needs of the National Aviation Transportation System.
At this point, I once again urge the administration to assume
responsibility for making appointments to the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission, so that the long-term funding needs of the FAA can
be addressed.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, on H.R. 668, had this been a rollcall
vote, I would like for the Record to reflect that I would have voted
``no.''
No one is more supportive of aviation safety than myself. I have
pointed out
[[Page S1775]]
on the Senate floor that I have actually been in a plane crash.
But, I oppose this measure because I believe that the American people
are taxed too much. Why is it that general revenues, collected through
income taxes, are not enough to cover such basic government services as
safe skies.
Further, even if we were to impose such a fee, we should find
offsetting spending and tax cuts so that we do not increase the tax
burden on the American people. Regrettably, this effort failed in the
House of Representatives.
Finally, this tax could be restructured so that it does not punish
traveling Americans, but such a report on restructuring is not due
until October of this year.
For all of these reasons I oppose the ticket tax.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be
considered read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The bill (H.R. 668) was passed.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman from
Delaware for his efforts in this matter. I think it is clearly the
right thing to do. The alternative would have been a catastrophe with
our aviation programs in this country. We did not really have any
alternative, and I think we have taken the right step. The proof that
it is the right thing to do is that it passed overwhelmingly in the
House, I think close to 370 votes perhaps, and in the Senate, while
there are some reservations about it, we are able to move it with
unanimous consent.
So I thank the leadership of the committee.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the majority leader yield for a comment?
Mr. LOTT. I will be delighted to yield.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, this is the first measure to be
reported from the Committee on Finance, and once again it was reported
unanimously. In the last Congress, of the 10 major measures that came
out under the leadership of Senator Roth, 6 were unanimous, which
speaks of his chairmanship and prudence and desire to enhance revenues.
Mr. LOTT. I am glad the Senator put it so delicately, Madam
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I would just like to say to the
distinguished majority leader, it would not have been possible to have
gotten this through unanimously without the active support of the
ranking member, and I publicly thank him for his contribution.
I should also like to point out that what we did is exactly what was
requested by the administration.
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. ROTH. To carry it out until September 30. And that is exactly
what we did. I think this is a wise move. It protects the safety of our
air passengers. I thank the leader for his help in this matter.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, may I just concur in those remarks.
May I also report that the trust fund began in the administration of
President Nixon, and our distinguished Senator from Utah was the person
who managed the representation up on Capitol Hill, from the Department
of Transportation.
____________________