October 10, 1978
Page 35284
AMENDMENT NO. 3850
(Purpose: To delete the repeal of the nonbusiness deduction of State and local gasoline taxes)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which was discussed at some length yesterday. It is at the desk, and I ask that it be called up and stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not understand the Senator. Will the Senator repeat?
Mr. HELMS. I am trying to find the number of the amendment. No. 3850. I now again call it up and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (for himself, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. TOWER,) proposes an amendment numbered 3850:
Beginning with line 16 on page 159.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Beginning with line 16 on page 159, strike out through line 6 on page 160.
On page 160, line 7, strike out "Subtitle C" and insert in lieu thereof "Subtitle B".
On page 161, line 12, strike out "Subtitle D" and insert in lieu thereof "Subtitle C".
On page 201, line. 18, strike out "Subtitle E" and insert in lieu thereof "Subtitle D".
On page 211, line 13, strike out "Subtitle F" and insert in lieu thereof "Subtitle E".
On page 224, line 1, strike out "Subtitle G" and insert in lieu thereof "Subtitle F".
On pages 126 and 127, strike out the item relating to subtitle B of title I of the bill and the item relating to section 111, and redesignate the items relating to subtitles B, C, D, E, F, and G of title I of the bill as relating to subtitles A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment, as I say, was discussed at some length yesterday, and resulted in a ruling by the Chair that the amendment violates section 311 of the Budget Act, which the Senator from North Carolina intended at that time to appeal. But, at the suggestion of the distinguished manager of the bill I withdrew the appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. HELMS. I understand. I thank the Chair, and appreciate his remarks.
Mr. President, simply said, this is an amendment which proposes to preserve the gasoline tax deduction. As I said yesterday, it has become almost an annual event that Congress tries to eliminate State and local gasoline taxes as a legitimate deduction on Federal income tax returns.
I have the greatest respect for the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and for the out standing role he and members of his committee have played in formulating a bill that — in my opinion — attempts to provide meaningful tax reduction.
At the same time, Mr. President, I take strong exception to the proposed deletion of the gas tax deduction. At the very moment when we are trying to provide some long overdue relief for the American taxpayer, there is no reason to increase taxes by disallowing the deduction. Repeal of the gas tax deduction is simply inconsistent with the general thrust of this bill.
Contrary to a sort of myth that some have attempted to build up, this deduction is not a rich man's deduction. For the very wealthy, the dollar value of this deduction is insignificant. Rather, this is a modest tax break for the average citizen.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE) is a cosponsor of this amendment, because he agrees that citizens receiving the greatest benefit from the gasoline tax deduction are those who must drive their automobiles to work or who live in rural areas, and who are forced to travel great distances for medical care, groceries; farm supplies, and other necessities; These are primarily middle-income people who are already overburdened with taxes and who benefit by the few extra dollars the deduction affords them. Repeal of the deduction is nothing more than another tax increase, and it cannot and should not be viewed in any other light.
The Finance Committee has listed a number of reasons for repeal of the deduction. Basically, the committee makes four arguments: First, the State gas tax is a user charge; second, that the deduction invites tax fraud because it is based on miles driven, a figure hard to prove and easy to manipulate; third, that repeal of the deduction will help achieve tax simplification for taxpayers; and fourth, that repeal of the deduction will — at least symbolically — promote the country's efforts to conserve energy.
Under close examination, these arguments simply do not hold up.
The Nation's road system benefits everyone, not just the motorist. Without our modern highway system most essential goods could never be transported to consumers. The fact that State highway taxes are used to provide the principal funding for State and county roads actually highlights the tremendous contribution to the national welfare made by the motorists. The deduction of the gasoline tax does shift part of the cost from the highway user to the general taxpayer. But all taxpayers benefit in many ways from the highway system.The tax-cheating argument is a false issue. Virtually all tax deductions are subject to some abuse including the gas tax deduction. But this is certainly not a good reason to eliminate a valid deduction. Our tax system in this country is based upon voluntary filing and compliance with the law. The deduction may indeed present audit difficulties for the Internal Revenue Service but since the amount of tax savings to itemizers resulting from the deduction is relatively `small, I seriously doubt that there is more tax avoidance associated with this deduction than others.
In response to the committee's argument that repeal would promote simplification, there is no evidence that the American people favor tax "reform" or simplification at the expense of provisions which benefit the middle-income taxpayer, and that is what we are talking about with this amendment. The vast majority of the American people see the gas tax deduction as perfectly reasonable. The committee report admits that virtually every itemizer claims the deduction. That is proof — so it seems to me — that the deduction is easily understood and simple enough for the taxpayer. It is just not reasonable to argue that one less deduction — out of many — will simplify the return of the itemizers.
The energy argument is also highly questionable, almost to the point of being absurd. A virtual doubling of the cost of gasoline over the past 4 years caused by skyrocketing oil prices has not noticeably altered gasoline consumption in this country because the demand for gasoline is inelastic. Most Americans work for a living, with the vast majority not having access to alternate means of transportation. If enormous increases in the price of gasoline will not deter driving, elimination of a mere tax deduction will have no impact at all. So there goes that argument, Mr. President.
The only impact in disallowing the deduction is a tax increase on the American people. Over 70 percent of the revenue that will be raised from the repeal of this deduction will come from taxpayers making less than $30.000 a year. In 1983 alone, the elimination of this deduction will take an additional $2.2 billion from the pockets of the American taxpayer who will also be facing spiraling fuel prices. In the wake of proposition 13, it is hardly the time for Congress to burden the American people through such a "backdoor" tax increase as this if we allow the removal and elimination of the gasoline tax deduction.
Because of the parliamentary situation that now exists, it is almost impossible to get a roll call vote on the amendment itself because of the likelihood of the Chair's adverse ruling, which I believe to be in error.
I do not believe that it is proper to hold that the Finance Committee can effectively change existing law simply by cutting off any opportunity to restore an item the committee proposes to delete; but that is a matter of dispute. The bottom line of the situation as it now stands, Mr. President, is that a vote to sustain the Chair, assuming that the Chair will persist in its position that this amendment is subject to a point of order, will be a vote to terminate the gasoline tax deduction. This deduction is favored by the vast majority of the American people, and a vote to reverse the ruling of the Chair will be a vote to keep the gasoline tax deduction.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate so that the Senator can be heard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. A vote to reverse the ruling of the chair will be a vote to allow the Senate to vote on a controversial committee recommendation; and a vote to reverse the ruling of the Chair will be a vote to affirm that keeping the tax code as it is cannot be interpreted as a "revenue loss."
Mr. President, I believe the distinguished assistant minority leader desired to make some comment on the matter, and I will be glad to yield to him on my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MUSKIE. What was the basis of the point of order yesterday? What was the basis of the ruling of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This amendment was ruled out of order under section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. MUSKIE. At the time that ruling was made, the actions taken by the Senate up to that point had used up all the money in the bank. Since that time, there has been adopted by the Senate a revenue raising measure, and my calculations show that there is some room left as a result of that revenue raising measure, but not enough. I think in all fairness to the Senator from North Carolina we ought to have a ruling from the Chair on the present state of the budget resolution.
So I make the point of order again, simply so that we may have a ruling based upon the present state of the budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules the same as the previous ruling, since this amendment would still carry the level of revenue below the level specified in the second budget resolution, the ruling of the Chair would remain the same.
Mr. MUSKIE. A point of information has crossed my mind. There is now $173 million of room in the 1979 budget resolution, according to my calculations, but the Senator's amendment would still require over $400 million.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator for making that clear. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for making that statement, because it demonstrates again the point I was making; that the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina deals with restoring a provision of existing law. Under existing law, individuals who itemize may deduct the gasoline taxes they pay to States, and I believe that the deductibility of these taxes should be retained.
The Senate Finance Committee is recommending that we eliminate that deduction despite the fact that when we have faced this problem before, the Senate has voted to retain the deduction.
Because of the limitations of the Budget Act, we are now faced with the possible necessity of having a computer on the floor to calculate the net budgetary effect of each and every amendment offered. While I think the Senator from Maine currently performs that function very well, but I do believe that the day will come when we will have to have a computer in the Chamber to accurately compute whether or not there is enough money left. A point of order was raised because this was a $400 million amendment, and we now have only $175 million to work with.
The point is that the Finance Committee's recommendation to eliminate existing law becomes binding upon the Senate because of the net tax cuts provided in this bill. We are told we must maintain a balanced bill where the revenue decreases are offset by equal increases. We had better be very careful, however, because we may not always have a balance in Finance Committee bills, and a majority of the Finance Committee can make up its mind to change existing law simply by saying:
Let us eliminate the individual exemption, and at the same time come out with a bill that gives everybody a 10 percent tax cut.
We do not get any chance to challengethe elimination of the exemption if it is a balanced bill. As long as it is in balance, we have no choice, under the Senate's budget resolution, to challenge that decision of a majority of the Finance Committee. All we can do is vote for thepackage; for the elimination of the individual exemption and for the tax cut which makes it a balanced bill.
I believe this is an improper procedure when we are dealing with existing law, because existing law provides this deduction to individuals. We ought to have the right to vote up or down on that change. Moreover, I think it is unconstitutional to prevent the Senate from doing so, I still challenge the ruling of the Chair. I do not think that existing law can be changed without a vote on this floor if a Senator demands it and the Senator from North Carolina is demanding a vote.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, all that would have been no problem had it not been that in addition to the budget proposition, which has limitations, then the cloture was voted. If you put the cloture together with the budget, you are past the limit. Otherwise, you could vote to recommit and report back anything you wanted to. But under the cloture rule, you cannot do indirectly what the rule will not let you do directly.
You still have options. You can still vote against the bill, you can do that, or you can take something else out of the bill, if there was something put in the bill that would cost money.
It was not the committee that put this recommendation in. It was the House that sent it to us. That was the House bill. That is the way it came to us. It was a fortuitous set of circumstances. An amendment was agreed to that cost so much revenue that at that point to take out the tax increase on the gasoline matter would mean that the committee amendment would be subject to a point of order. The Senator asked if he could modify the amendment and I understand why objection was made.
But it is the cloture rule that precludes the Senator from doing what he would like to do.
Mr. STEVENS. If I still have the floor, I bill finish in a moment.
This issue is a matter of fairness and a matter of precedent in the Senate. I understand what the Senator from Louisiana is saying about the combination of circumstances. But I do not like to see a time come when the combination of circumstances denies a Senator the right to challenge the recommendation of a majority of the committee. That, to me, is a precedent we will sorely regret.
I do not think we should be faced with recommendations to change existing law which we are prevented from challenging solely because the books do not balance as far as the budget resolution is concerned.
The final cost of the bill can be adjusted later. I would hope we would find some way to change the Budget Act so that a determination of whether or not the books balance will be made after the last substantive amendment is considered. I just do not like to face the question of changing existing law by the procedure we witnessed earlier.
With due regard to the Senator from Louisiana, I believe this to be a matter of fairness. I want to be able to vote to retain the gasoline tax deduction. I have voted for it in the past as has the majority of this Senate since I have been here. Now we are told:
You cannot vote on that. It is subject to a point of order.
That is notwithstanding the fact that every time it has come up on the floor in the last 10 years, it has been sustained.
The point of order is a way around the past precedents of this Senate. We must not allow it to happen. I urge Senators not to let it happen. I would like to see the matter begun again. I tried to get the point of order withdrawn. The person making the point of order, the Senator from Wisconsin, would have withdrawn it.
I do believe we ought to have a way to challenge this substantive change in existing law without regard to the budget impact and then, during final consideration of the tax bill, have a determination as to what limitations we are faced with, under the existing budget resolution. That would be balancing the books, in my opinion, and I urge the Members here tonight to vote to override the Chair in this instance so we can vote on the gasoline tax deduction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I feel just as strongly about this as the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Alaska. As a matter of fact, the vote last year by the Senate was 65 to 12 in favor of maintaining the gasoline tax deduction. The Senate likewise in 1974 voted the same way. That was to maintain this deduction. Frankly, despite the fact that the chairman of the committee indicates that the House took it out, the House does a lot of things that we do not agree to, but there has been no case made on the merits for doing away with this particular deduction.
One of the things that I worry about is what a lot of people take as sleight of hand. Roughly one-third of the American taxpayers itemize and here we are moving in a direction to provide some tax relief. Next spring when people make out their tax returns they are going to find out that this deductible item they have had for years has suddenly disappeared. On the one hand their taxes are being increased, because that deduction has been taken away, and on the other hand there has been some other part of the tax law changed which presumably is going to reduce their taxes. This is exactly the kind of sleight of hand where we give it with one hand and take it away with the other that I think has created a lot of the cynicism that people feel about the taxing system.
I do not see the justification for taxing income that has already been taxed away. That is the basic question here. The issue here is that this part of the income has already been drawn off in the form of the gasoline tax. Does a person have a right to then deduct that from their income tax return or do they have to pretend that they still have that money and are taxed for money that is already gone?
I might also say, as I said yesterday, that this has an effect on 33 different States which pattern their State income taxes and their local income taxes on the basis of the federal system. By withdrawing the gasoline tax deduction here at the Federal level we are, in effect, taking it away, because of those State and local jurisdictions, so that the taxpayer involved is actually going to end up losing more money than it is alleged here the Federal Government would gain. So I think that ought to be thought about as well.
I have not heard one syllable of justification for eliminating this deduction Quite frankly, as I understand it, and I am willing to be corrected, I gather that it was in the late stages of the work of the Finance Committee when they were looking for the revenue-producing item that somebody hit upon the idea of throwing out the gasoline tax deduction.
That really is not much of a justification. I hope that there is some substantive reason that goes deeper than that to cause us to back away from votes we cast in the past, just last year, 65 to 12, on this item.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a listing of the cost of what this will mean State by State in terms of the number of dollars pulled out of the various 50 States and the amount of money that is effected in terms of the average return to taxpayers in those States. If you take a look at this, you will understand why, in the Roper poll that was done, 76 percent of the American people polled in the Roper poll on taxes said that they felt that the gasoline tax deduction was a reasonable deduction and ought to be maintained. Only 7 percent, I might say, said that they would be willing to see it eliminated even if it would mean lower tax rates.
There being no objection, the document was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. RIEGLE. There is enormous support for this. It has been justified in the past. It has been ratified in the Senate. Now we find ourselves in a situation where it is about to be thrown out without any chance for a focus on this thing, without any opportunity for the kind of careful hearings that would need to be done to justify this kind of move.
Sure, I grant we are caught in this budget trap, but that is not really our fault. Our amendment came in a sequence of events where additional money availability in the tax bill had already been pledged to other amendments that came before ours. It is hard for me to understand why trying to save something that is in existing law ought to be ruled out and we cannot even have a direct up or down vote on it simply because our amendment came later in the order of sequence in which amendments were raised. This is hardly a sufficient argument.
I hope that in this case, which I think is unique — I know of no other situation where any amendment has been offered to try to preserve existing law and to keep taxes from going up, which is what will happen if this deduction is taken up. I know of no other amendment that falls in this category.
That is why I hope that, using the only device that we have; namely, asking that the Senators will overturn this rule so we have a chance to preserve this deduction — that the Senate will support us on this. I think it falls in a special category. I think we have made the case on its merits and I hope each Senator will weigh it carefully before voting.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want to make it crystal clear that there is no criticism, implicit or otherwise, of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee or the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. I believe both, as a matter of fact, are in sympathy with the amendment. I understand their position and my dispute is not with them. I am simply challenging the ruling yesterday of the Chair.
Did the Senator from Maine raise a point of order?
Mr. MUSKIE. What was the Senator's question?
Mr. HELMS. Has the Senator yet raised the point of order on the amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I have not. I wanted to make some brief observations.
Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator they will be brief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been raised and sustained.
Mr. MUSKIE. The point of order has been raised and sustained, but the appeal of it is still in order and I should like to make a few brief observations if I may.
First of all, the fact that this amendment comes at a time when there is no more room in the budget is not unusual. It happens on the spending side of the budget all the time. When we set ceilings in the 19 functions of the budget, then amendments are considered by the Senate to spending bills. As they fill the pipeline in any function, when the ceiling is reached, that rules out any others, even though they may be more meritorious than programs that have already been approved. So this is not unusual. It has happened over and over again every year on the spending sides of the budget.
Second, this question of whether or not existing law ought to be changed in order to meet budget objectives — if we were to take the view on the spending side of the budget that existing law should never be changed and that the Budget Committee ought never to recommend or the budget process ought never to have the effect of forcing a change in existing law, we would be stuck with present spending and be building on it. Every Senator knows, I am sure, by now that 75 percent of the spending side of the budget is uncontrollable. It is uncontrollable, because it is mandated by present law. So if we are never to change present law, we shall never have available to us for new priorities the resources that are committed to present law.
The budgetary constraints that Members are restive about are essential if we are to force Congress not only to limit additions to present spending, but to eliminate present spending or present revenue laws that are no longer justified by changing events, changing priorities, and changing values of the country.
Mr. RIEGLE. Will the Senator yield at that point for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. In just a moment, because I am just about finished. Finally, I know that it is tough to come to the end of the line and find that you are ruled out by a point of order, because you did not get in first. Senator HASKELL's jobs credit provision is similar to the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. If he had come at the end of the line, even though it is a current provision of the law, he would have been out of order, because there would not have been any money left in the fiscal year 1979 resolution. But, he came in first. I know that it is frustrating to find yourself at the end of the line.
But, the budget discipline requires of each of us is that we follow this process very, very carefully. It is the business of following it and being required to follow it that is part of the discipline.
I am not one who says these procedures should never be changed. But the suggestion of the Senator from Alaska, that we pile up these amendments that go above the ceiling and deal with them all just before we are ready to act finally on the bill, is going to impose an impossible task on somebody. That person is going to have to pick and choose at that point from among competing bills that will exceed the ceiling, in order to impose points of order.
I have responded to what I think are relevant arguments that have been made by the Senator from North Carolina, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from Alaska. I urge the Senate to support the congressional budget ceilings. The bill at this point is just under the revenue floor for fiscal year 1979. In the out years, we have gone through the roof and I hope that, in conference, we shall correct that.
I am sure that the chairman of the Committee on Finance will make that his objective, as he has in years past. And, I urge the Senate to observe the discipline of the process.
Now I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator for yielding and I appreciate the point he makes. Would not the Senator agree that when we have a matter of existing law that has been affirmed by the Senate as recently as last year by an overwhelming vote — in this case, 65 to 12 — if we are going to overturn that decision and strike something from the law, it would be good practice to have the chance for a straight up and down vote on that issue?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator, and I only have 4 minutes left, so I cannot—
Mr. RIEGLE. I am happy to yield on my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right.
The vote that was taken last year was not taken in the context of the priorities decision that the Senate now must make. If the context of this priorities decision, the Senate is in a position to consider competing demands.
Mr. RIEGLE. But my question really is this, the difficulty we face now is that we really cannot have a straight, direct vote on the merits of this issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. Not without going through the budget procedure.
Mr. RIEGLE. Right.
We are forced now, in effect, to overturn a ruling of the Chair which mixes a different question, an additional question, to the merits of the issue of the gas deduction itself.
So that is a troubling thing. It seems to me, one can argue the merits of the budget process, and one, at the same time, can argue it also would make sense that we are changing existing law that we have assumed as recently as last year, that we ought to have the opportunity to vote up and down on the merits of that issue, especially when it is something of some consequence that the people of the country are familiar with.
I am troubled that we are blindsiding the public on this. I dare say they have not been forewarned that if this deduction vanishes today, essentially, for parliamentary reasons, because of the difficulty of getting a direct vote, when the people sit down next spring to fill out their tax returns and they think they are getting some additional benefit from the Federal Government, they will find, just as with the social security tax increase, that on the Federal tax return they are losing a deduction they have used for years as an offset against some of these other benefits we are trying to build in.
It seems to me, at least, if we debate it openly, not in committee, and not where people are not really focused on the issue, we would be much better off.
I hope the Senator would at least agree with that observation, that we would be much better off to get a direct vote on a matter of this consequence, when we are doing a 180-degree turn from where we were less than a year ago.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say in response to that, I suspect the country is going to be surprised about a lot of provisions in this tax bill when they become aware of them.
A tax bill involves changes in tax law, additions to tax law. There are always tradeoffs. I do not know how one makes possible an individual vote on each of those changes in additions or reductions in tax law and still maintains an overall discipline.
That is the way we used to do it. Now, I understand, more fully perhaps than other Senators, because I run up against the frustration all the time. If we are going to have a budget discipline, it will force us to change our ways to conform to the new discipline. This vote will be an important test of what we think are the outer limits.
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF THE ITEMIZED DEDUCTION FOR GASOLINE TAXES
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have reservations about the deletion of the itemized deduction for State and local nonbusiness gasoline and motor fuel taxes for the following reasons:
First. It will have an adverse effect on a large portion of middle-income taxpayers.
Second. It will help undermine the incentive for taxpayers to make use of itemized deductions.
Third. It will not bring about a substantial gain in energy savings.
Present law allows individuals who itemize to deduct State and local excise taxes imposed on gasoline, diesel, and other motor fuels if the fuels are not used for business purposes. If the Senate agrees to repeal this deduction, the middle-income taxpayer will suffer the most from the added tax burden. At a time when the Government is promising tax relief, it is using a "backdoor approach" to impose another new tax on a large segment of American society. According to the U.S. Treasury Department figures, over 70 percent of the revenue that will be raised from the repeal of this deduction will come from taxpayers making less than $30,000 a year. In 1983 alone, the elimination of this deduction will, according to the Treasury, take an additional $2.2 billion from the pockets of the American taxpayer who must also face spiraling fuel prices. Can the Senate justify such an increase during a period when taxpayers are saying "no" to more taxes?
Mr. President, the repeal of this deduction is part of a much larger scenario of tax reform, a scenario that represents a changing attitude within the Treasury with regard to tax legislation.
The administration's decision to end the gasoline tax deduction is a disguised attack on the class of itemized deductions. By eliminating a deduction every year, the value of itemized deductions to all taxpayers is gradually eroded.
Contrary to popular belief, those who benefit most from itemizing are not a few "fat cats." According to the Treasury Department's own figures, tax-payers with an income under $25,000 accounted for over 65 percent of the itemized returns in 1975. These are middle-income people who work hard for their take-home pay.
It is my opinion that Congress should view itemized deductions as a class when making revisions in tax law. As each deduction is eliminated, fewer taxpayers are provided the incentive to itemize. I suggest that Congress avoid the. piecemeal approach and consider the total effect that is created by the repeal of itemized deductions. We should not allow the Treasury to sneak tax reform past in piecemeal.
Unfortunately, tax reformers have tricked both Houses of Congress into dealing with deductions by following an item-to-item approach. When it comes time to change the Tax Code, all attention is focused on the merits of one narrow issue. This year it happens to be the gasoline tax. Will the itemized deduction for State income taxes be next? Followed by elimination of the itemized deduction for interest on home mortgages?
Mr. President, if we continue to chop down trees one by one, the forest will soon be gone. Do we want that? I believe we need more information before we go any further. We need to look at the broader picture. American taxpayers deserve that much. In fact, they demand it.
In its report on the tax bill, the Finance Committee mentions its concern about conservation of energy and the reduction of oil imports. In my opinion, however, the repeal of the gasoline deduction will not assist our Nation to achieve its energy goals. Instead, it will create an unfair tax burden for many taxpayers in Western and rural States. People who live in these areas must drive greater distances. Should we penalize them when they must drive their family automobiles to seek medical care or travel into town to purchase groceries or farm supplies? And what about commuters? Will the elimination of the gasoline deduction suddenly force them to flee to mass transit? I think not. We promise our constituents a tax cut and then turn right around and pull out a meaningful deduction. We disguise our actions by claiming that it will somehow help cure our energy crisis.
If this measure is designed to save fuel, how can the committee allow business to maintain its fuel deductions? Or will business be next?
Mr. President; this matter was passed by the committee as a sop to the administration during its final hours of mark-up. I believe it deserves more discussion than it received at that time. I hope that my colleagues will understand the seriousness of this issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. I expect the Senator from North Carolina would like to make his request to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So the ruling of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the Senate.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and ask for the yeas and nays.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. LONG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the motion to reconsider, and the yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. STEVENS. I sought recognition before the motion to table was made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LONG. Yeas and nays.
Point of order. The motion is not debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are ordered on the motion to table.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. LONG. The motion is not debatable, Mr. President.
Mr. STEVENS. The motion to reconsider is. I sought recognition before the motion to table was made.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from Alaska that a number of Senators were seeking recognition and were recognized. The motion to table the motion to reconsider was made. The yeas and nays on the motion to table have been ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska have 1 minute and the Senator from Louisiana have 1 minute before the vote on the motion to lay on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska for 1 minute.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from West Virginia. I do not express the same gratitude to the Chair. And I hope the Senate will not see a repeat of this again.
Let me state to the Chair that this is a tax increase for the people who deduct gasoline taxes. This bill has now come out in the form of a closed rule. We have turned the Finance Committee into the Rules Committee. Never before has this tax deduction successfully been changed on the floor. It came over from the House. It has come out of the committee, and we are now in a position where we cannot challenge it, because it would be subject to a point of order.
I will comment later on my own time about the Chair's recognition of minority Members under this bill. It has been very unfair so far, and if it does not stop the Senate is going to be in for a long, long time, Mr. President.
Mr. LONG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, we reported this bill with $1.4 billion of slack in it. At that point anyone could have moved to strike out the items the Senator from North Carolina would like to strike from the bill. That was not done.
The Senate used up all the slack in the bill. Then cloture was voted. After cloture was voted, as an accommodation of the Budget Act and the Cloture Act, it is no longer in order to do what we would otherwise do. We could otherwise move to reconsider and bring back the bill in a different fashion or to offer another amendment to take something out of the bill or do any one of 50 things that would be available to Senators if we did not have a cloture rule. The Senate voted for cloture. You lose all kinds of options when you vote for cloture, and every Senator should know that if he has been here as long as 2 years.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Chair is not upheld this bill is in danger, because the point of order can then be made against the bill. It can go down the drain and all the work that has been done will be for naught.
I hope the Chair will be upheld. I hope the motion to table the motion to reconsider will succeed.
Mr. CURTIS. Let us vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Chair sustained the point of order.
On this motion the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 50, nays 41, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed to.