small town Americans would thus be required to

shoulder a 62 percent greater burden than those big city dwellers whose transit travel would

not be taxed and is, indeed, heavily

subsidized;

- 7

- consumers in the West, who use more gasoline than the national average, would bear a disproportionate share of this financial

burden. For example, Idaho has a per capita consumption of gasoline per year of 416 gallons, while New York's consumption per capita is only 268 gallons. In Texas, the consumption is 520 gallons; in Pennsylvania

There are economic inequities in a gasoline tax for

deficit reduction:

- a look at daily vehicle miles of travel per
household per $1,000 of income indicates that
the lowest income families would pay 48 percent
more than middle and upper income families.
Preliminary estimates from the National

Personal Transportation Survey indicate that in
1983 nearly 78 percent of Americans earning
less than $10,000 per year commuted to work by
private motor vehicles. These people would
suffer most under regressive gasoline taxes
because they have no alternative commuting
mode.

AUTO TRAVEL OF AVERAGE U.S. FAMILY

• Most household vehicles miles of travel (VMT) are not discretionary. The 1983 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study by the U.S. Bureau of the Census indicates that:

- 34 percent of household VMT is work and work

A final inequity is that highway transportation has not contributed to the national deficit. The Highway Trust Fund is required by Congress to always have enough funds to cover expenditures. Our financial house is in order! The construction and maintenance of our nation's highways are financed by the users at the state and Federal level. At the Federal level in FY '86 the highway program's spending from its dedicated source -- the Highway Trust Fund was reduced $3 billion. Deferring the expenditure of $3 billion of highway user generated funds is a significant, and, we believe, sufficient contribution to reducing a deficit the highway program in no way caused.

Both a tax on imported oil and a tax on gasoline for budget balancing purposes are clearly counterproductive at a time when the nation's economy is finally recovering from the shock of foreign oil supply shortages in the 1970s. Either would exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit by making America's products less competitive in the world markets. Both are bad ideas whose time, we would hope, is about gone.

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Lamm. I would like to take this particular occasion to indicate the important contribution that you gentlemen make and others who come before our committee to testify, not only in your opinions, but in the research data that you give to us. Your per capita data material here is invaluable. Mr. Copeland and all of you, your OPEC production statistics, your inventory statistics—in fact, I am not sure I would know where to go to find such data.

Those are also a very important part of testimony that the citi zens provide the committees. We are very grateful for that.

Mr. Donohue, president of American Trucking Association. STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Hatfield. Nice to see you, again, Mr. Donohue.

Mr. DONOHUE. Very glad to be here. I will try to be as brief, or more than my colleagues. Simply stated, I am here today representing the Trucking Association and those bus and airline associations listed at the front of my statement.

We oppose an oil import fee because it discriminates against transportation, compared with other sectors of the economy. We all know, when and if we were to get one, it would have enough exclusions in it that that fee would press harder and harder on those organizations that I am here to speak for today.

The inequity of an oil import fee would be multiplied under the income tax revision plan being discussed in the Finance Committee at this time, which would eliminate the deductions for excise taxes and it would be a double whammy, so to speak.

The transportation sector represents approximately 20 percent of the GNP, but consumes 62 percent of the oil used in this country, and so you can see where the pressure would be.

In 1973 to 1981, the transportation companies and motorists had to cope with the rising cost of fuel and they made many investments, changed the courses of industries to accommodate that in terms of use of fuel, efficiency, light-weight manufacturing facilities, and so on. And now when we are able to begin to recoup that investment, and so to pay off the bank, so to speak, all of a sudden the spectre of filling the gap between the price of oil and the price at the pump comes before us and we reject it.

The overall economic effects of an oil import fee have been discussed by my colleagues. $10 a barrel not only would cost 24 cents a gallon, but it would cost this country between 300-400,000 jobs, and it would be a tremendous burden on the transportation industries and the trucking companies in particular.

I think that it is important for us to focus on why this matter is being discussed by the Congress at this time, this Committee and others. Is it to take care of a deficit problem? Is it to help a series of banks that are in trouble? Is it to help a large number of oil companies that now find themselves in a situation that is different than it was some months ago? I think a discussion of that, by your committee, will help us move in the direction of what is fair and equitable.