Date: 1982-12-20
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. it is with some disbelief that I look back over the long days and ights during which the Senate has considered this legislation. Originally. we were called back by the President to act on as many regular appropriations bills as possible. and to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the remaining Government agencies functioning. Yet. we found that the Presidents main priority became a gasoline tax proposal that is unfair. unnecessary. and ill timed. It is difficult to justify action on this legislation under our current economic circumstances. as well as the hurried conditions of this lamest of lameduck sessions. And I believe that the extraordinary time pressures under which the Senate has operated made it impossible to give these proposals the dispassionate consideration and analysis needed to separate good ideas from passing fancies. Clearly. we must provide funds for badly needed road and bridge repairs. But the 5centpergallon tax increase on gasoline unfairly hits low- and middleincome people. Perhaps there may be some instances in which a gas tax would be justified. But it is not justified under current circumstances. We are in the middle of a profound and recordsetting recession. This administrations proposals have taken pennies here and dollars there from the poor and middle class throughout this Congress. Now they want to stifle recovery and put an additional burden on the poor with a gas tax. I cannot support such a move at this time. This tax has been strongly supported by a President who promised earlier this year that he would not ask for tax Increases. In his 1982 state of the Union message. he said. "I will seek no tax increases this year." As recently as September 28 of this year. the President ruled out an Increase in the Federal gasoline excise tax. He was asked the following question at a White House Press Conference on that date: Knowing of your great dislike for taxes and tax increRses. can you assure the Ameri. can people now that you will flatly rule out any tax incret.. sa. revenue enhancers or. specifically. any increase in gazoline taxes? And the President replied: Unless there is a palace coup and I am overtaken or overthrown * I dont see the necesskv for thit. The Presilent does not give the appearance of a man overthrown. but he does give the appearance of a man whose word Is not an iron promise. Members may recall the $98 bilifon in tax increases and "revenue enhancers" that the President sought this summer. That particular package of tax increases had many unfair elements. particularly tax increases on tobacco and telephones. increased unemployment taxes for small businesses. decreased deductibility of medical expenses. and withholding of tax on interest and dividends. These provisions most deeply affect the elderly and working Americans of all agesthose who can least afford new taxes. Democrats offered an alternativean amendment that was fair and equitableto replace the unfair and inequitable tax increases. Our amendment would have deferred a portion of the KempRoth tax cut for those with incomes between $46.500 and $78.600. and would have eliminated the third year of the cut for those with incomes greater than $7L.600. This proposal would have reduced the deficit by a total of nearly $25 billion over 3 years. Democrats offered a similar amendment to the pending bill. H.R. 6211. Our amendment would have deferred a part of the final installment of KempRoth for those with incomes between $50.000 and $65.000. and would have more than paid for the additional bridge and highway construction contained in this bill. Democrats fought hard to insure that the Nations most significant problemunemploymentwas at least partially eased by extending unemployment benefits for those in grave danger of exhausting their eligibility. And we will continue to seek more help for the 12 million Americans out of work. On behalf of Senate Democrats. I offered an alternative jobs package amendment to this bill. It reflected the suggestions and advice of many Senators representing a broad crosssection of views and philosophies.fl was a balanced and carefully crafted amendment. The amendment had several major components: First. it would have authorized a laborintensive community public works program funded at $2 billion in the current fiscal year. This program would have channeled funds directly to State and local goveriinents through the community development block grant program. specifically for hiring unemployed workers referred to the program by the Employment Service to make repairs and improvements to public buildings. streets. schools. and other public facilities in the communities. The amendment would have added $1 billion to the heavy public works proposal in the legislation. to be used. for urban water system and sewer rehabilitation and construction programs. It also would have required that an inventory be made of existing components of the public infrastructure. and a plan developed and submitted to the Congress for their repair. modernization and regular replacement. The amendment would have increased funding for several existing programs which would have generated significant employment. including $400 million for public hodsing rehabilitation and modernization. $100 million for reforestation and timber stand improvement through the Forest Service. $100 million for the senior citizens community service employment program under the Older Americans Act. and $37 million for reclamation of abandoned mine sites. The amendment would have invested $200 million immediately in retraining workers who have lost jobs in declining industriesjobs which are not likely to be filled even when economic recovery begins. The amendment would have helped create jobs in rural America by aiding farmers and ranchers in expanding their markets through increased sales of U.S. agricultural exports. and provided$750 million for the agricultural export credit revolving fund in the foodforpeace program for this purpose. For those millions of Americans whose unemployment benefits either have expired or are about to do soin many cases in the week before Christmasour amendment would have provided additional weeks of benefits. Our amendment. altogether. would have resulted in the rapid creation of over 350.000 direct jobsand a minimum of 100.000 indirect jobsover and above the approximately 300.000 direct and indirect jobs that advocates of the highway and mass transit legislation claim will result from their program. I believe it also is essential to note that there is a serious dispute concerning the number of net new jobs that actually will result from passage of the highway. mass transportation. and gas tax bill. A number of reknowned economistsboth liberal and conservativehave indicated their belief that the bill. at best. will create only a very few jobs beyond those the gas tax will siphon off from the economy. Regardless of the accuracy of these observations. clearly this bill is not a bill to employ the currently unemployed. Virtually all of the jobs that will result from this program will be filled by skilled workers. many of whom now are employed. whose employers simply will move to undertakethe new work generated by this legislation. President Reagan leveled with the country on this nfatter. and stated emphatically that this bill is not a "jobs bill." It is clear that this Senator is committed to addressing the critical problem of unemployment. I offered the Democratic jobs program amendment in that spirit. Senator LEvINs amendment to extend unemployment benefits. which was similar to a proposal I had advanced earlier. reaffirms that commitment. Senator RIEGLE offered an amendment to make this regressive tax measure more fair by expaniding the earned income tax credit program. This program helps our poorest working familieswhose earned income must be below $10.000 a year. Senator RIEGLES amendment would have offset the gas tax for these families who face a daily struggle for existence. But the Senate unfortunately defeated even this attempt at introducing a measure of fairness into the administrations program. I worked with other Senators to gain a provision in the highway portion of this bill and its October predecessor that improves the quality of coal haul roads. West Virginia has a large number of these roads that are in sore need of improvement. and I have pursued that provision with vigor. As a member of the Appropriations Committee. I have long been involved with bridge projects in West Virginia. The WeirtonSteubenville Bridge is one of the most recent examples of my concern for adequate transportation facilities. There are thousands of other bridges across America that need repair. and I will continue to be involved in seeing that this is accomplished. Recognizing that we have failed repeatedly to make this bill stronger. fairer. more helpful to the unemployed and less painful to working Americans. I cannot justify support for this bill at this time. The time between adjournment sine die and the convening of the 98th Congress should be spent in devising a far better approach to jobs. taxes. and infrastructure improvements. I. as Democratic leader and as a Senator from West Virginia. have cooperated with the majority leader and his side of the aisle. We have bent over backward to cooperate in expediting consideration of this measure. Last week. we proposed to forebear from offering further amendments to the bill. if those on the Republican side would do the same. We cooperated in voting for cloture. We cooperated in setting a time certain to vote on the Baker substitute. So there has been no obstruction on our oart. In the end. we must ask if the President asked the Congress to return in order to present this microcosm of the flaws in his overall program? Perhaps there has been. as the President puts it. a "place coup." For there are certainly better ways and a more appro. priate time to accomplish the purposes of this bill. I might say that my constitutent mail is running about 7 to 1 against the basic gasoline tax Increase. I have heard further serious opposition to the other tax increases in H.R. 6211 as well. I simply suggest that the Senate can do better than this. I am confident that we can act in a more reasoned manner to produce a superior product at the beginning of the new Congress. For those reasons. I will vote against this measure. I simply suggest that the American people deserve better than this bill. They deserve better that this hasty. regressive. half solution to a serious problem. They deserve better than broken promises and trickledown economics. They deserve a serious attempt to deal with the raging unemployment that plagues this great Nation. and the sickly state of our basic industries. I am confident that the Senate can act in a more reasoned and creative manner at the beginning of the new Congress. I will not give the citizens of my State and this Nation a tax increase for Christmas. I will vote against this measure.