I must say that the funds that will be raised from this tax go for a very special purpose, and they are limited to go for that very special purpose, and that is to provide safety for the air travelers. I wish that we could have tickets sold all over this country without a tax in it so that we could have lower air fares for every passenger, but it takes money to build a safety infrastructure, and if we do not pass this bill, many improvements in safety infrastructure will not occur. Antiquated radar systems that have already had repairs will not be replaced with modern radar systems. I would not want to be on that plane that does not get that infrastructure as a result of failing to pass this tax. Deicing capabilities in airports across this country that need to be available will not be done, and on and on and on. Yes, the air traffic controllers will be there, but what kind of computer backup, what kind of technology are they going to have? Will we continue to depend upon computers that still use the old vacuum tube, which none are made in the U.S. today? We have to go to Poland to buy the replacement, repair parts, because we have not updated those computers, and that now will be put on the sidelines if we do not pass this bill.
Bill Archer: “I must say that the funds that will be raised from this tax go for a very special purpose, and they are limited to go…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of a tax for air travel safety infrastructure.
Share
More from Bill Archer
The facts are that the current law already gives incentives to overcome the double taxation that our corporations face competing overseas, and this replaces that in the code. It does not cost $5 billion. He knows that. If there is such…
There is no reason why the Tax Code cannot be one that is not forever changing because things are expiring.
Well, clearly the 1986 tax reform took a lot of time to put together, and in the end, it prevailed with some very hard-hitting pressures from the top on both sides.
I would simply explain to the Members that this motion to instruct is actually an oxymoron, because on the one hand it says, within the scope of conference, limit the marriage bonus; and yet there is no difference between the Senate and…





