WASHINGTON — A coalition of 11 organizations is urging Congressional tax
conferees to oppose a Senate provision that could raise the deficit or
force deep cuts in non-transportation spending by transferring the 4.3
cents-per-gallon fuels tax enacted in 1993 to the Highway Trust Fund.
The purpose behind the Senate provision, according to a report by the
Senate Finance Committee, is to "ensure that more funds will be available
for needed Highway Trust Fund programs in the future."
WASHINGTON — A coalition of 11 organizations is urging Congressional tax
conferees to oppose a Senate provision that could raise the deficit or
force deep cuts in non-transportation spending by transferring the 4.3
cents-per-gallon fuels tax enacted in 1993 to the Highway Trust Fund.
The purpose behind the Senate provision, according to a report by the
Senate Finance Committee, is to "ensure that more funds will be available
for needed Highway Trust Fund programs in the future."
The coalition is concerned that the provision would eventually make
transportation programs immune to discretionary spending caps and the
annual appropriations process through which other federal programs compete
for limited funding.
"Some of our organizations oppose the transfer because it would do serious
harm to prospects for balancing the budget and lead instead to larger
deficits; others fear it would force deep cuts in other domestic
discretionary programs," stated a letter sent by the coalition to members
of the tax bill conference committee." If Congress wishes to increase
spending on transportation infrastructure, it should do so without
increasing the budget deficit or permanently putting highway infrastructure
spending ahead of other competing federal programs."
Members of the coalition include: The Concord Coalition Citizens Council;
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Friends of the Earth; Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste; Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget; National Taxpayers Union; Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy
Project; Taxpayers for Common Sense; Small Business Survival Committee; The
National Center for Public Policy Research; and the National League of
Cities.
Attached is the letter sent by the coalition to members of the House-Senate
conference committee and all other members of Congress.
July 11, 1997
Letter Sent to Conferees on H.R. 2014-Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997
Dear Conferee:
We strongly oppose transferring all 4.3¢-per-gallon of the transportation
fuels tax enacted in 1993 from deficit reduction to the Highway Trust Fund.
We urge you to oppose this Senate-passed provision in the House-Senate
conference on H.R. 2014.
The organizations listed below* (*Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste, Concord Coalition Citizens Council, National Taxpayers Union)
publish congressional scorecards and have targeted this issue for inclusion
in their 1997 ratings.
Transferring the 4.3¢-per-gallon transportation fuels tax revenues to the
Highway Trust Fund does not, standing alone, cause federal spending to
increase. However, that is the intended purpose behind the Senate
provision. In fact, the Finance Committee report accompanying the bill
candidly states on page 72 that the funds,
- "…should be transferred to the Highway Trust Fund to
ensure that more funds will be available for needed Highway Trust Fund
programs in the future."
The intent is that the build up of unspent revenues in the Highway Trust
Fund eventually will force expenditure of these monies.
Some of our organizations oppose the transfer because it would do serious
harm to prospects for balancing the budget and lead instead to larger
deficits; others fear it would force deep cuts in other domestic
discretionary programs. Where do the supporters of the transfer propose to
make offsetting cuts? Would the ax fall on education, environmental
protection, law enforcement, science and technology, health research,
assistance for poor children, or other investments that could lead to
increased economic growth? Or would defense be cut? Or taxes raised? Or the
deficit increased to finance higher highway spending? If proponents of the
transfer have their way, something must give. If transportation
infrastructure spending goes up, something else must go down — or somebody
must pay higher taxes — or the budget will not balance. Balancing the
budget is, in that respect, a zero sum game.
If Congress wishes to increase spending on transportation infrastructure,
it should do so without increasing the budget deficit or permanently
putting highway infrastructure spending ahead of other competing federal
programs. On this point, some of our organizations are encouraged that the
revenues from the 0.5¢-per-gallon dedicated to increased Amtrak spending
though April 15, 2001 is offset in the Senate bill.
Martha Phillips
Concord Coalition Citizens Council
Robert Greenstein
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
David Hirsch
Friends of the Earth
Tom Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Carol Cox Wait
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
David Keating
National Taxpayers Union
Bill Magavern
Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project
Ralph DeGennaro
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Karen Kerrigan
Small Business Survival Committee
Amy Ridenour
The National Center for Public Policy Research
Frank Shafroth
National League of Cities
