[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 74 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 74

 Expressing the sense of Congress that the energy tax proposed by the 
      President will harm the economy and should not be approved.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1993

 Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. 
Kingston, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Coble, Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. Canady, Mr. Zimmer, 
  Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cox, Mr. Paxon, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Archer, Mr. 
 McCrery, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mrs. Bentley, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Young of 
   Alaska, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Grandy, Mr. 
  Herger, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
Gilman, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Walker, Mr. 
    Ewing, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Upton, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. 
Hoekstra, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. 
 Stump, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Allard, 
  Mr. Schaefer, and Mr. Moorhead) submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
 Expressing the sense of Congress that the energy tax proposed by the 
      President will harm the economy and should not be approved.

Whereas the new excise tax on energy proposed by the President will drain at 
        least $73,000,000,000 from the economy between 1994 and 1998;
Whereas the energy tax would raise 27 percent of the revenues sought under the 
        President's plan but energy accounts for only 8 percent of Gross 
        Domestic Product;
Whereas imposition of such a tax could cost over 600,000 United States jobs;
Whereas the energy tax will reduce Gross Domestic Product by at least 
        $38,000,000,000;
Whereas the energy tax would cost the average American family at least $322 per 
        year, and much more in the future as the tax is indexed to inflation;
Whereas many electric utilities estimate that residential electricity rates will 
        rise 4 to 5 percent, and industrial rates at least 5 or 6 percent;
Whereas attempts to ease the regressiveness of the tax will cost at least 
        $37,000,000,000, cannot possibly relieve all low-income taxpayers of the 
        additional burden;
Whereas the proposal to tax coal and natural gas at 25.7 cents per million 
        British Thermal Units and petroleum at 59.9 cents per million British 
        Thermal Units would burden all energy users and discriminate against 
        those who rely on oil for home heating or industrial production;
Whereas the tax, when fully implemented, will add 7.5 cents per gallon to the 
        price of gasoline and 8.3 cents per gallon to home heating oil and add 
        greatly to the existing tax burden on the middle class;
Whereas the energy tax would raise the cost of production for manufacturers, 
        processors, transporters, and all other commercial users and thereby 
        raise prices to consumers at the wholesale and retail levels;
Whereas the energy tax would place United States exporters at a competitive 
        disadvantage in global markets by raising the cost of materials, 
        production, and transportation;
Whereas attempts to address competitiveness issues by rebating the value of the 
        energy tax on goods for export will fail because they are illegal under 
        the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
Whereas most rural regions and industries that rely on oil have few, if any, 
        options for heating, and many rural areas do not have transportation 
        options available for their residents;
Whereas questions of passthrough mechanisms and collection points almost 
        certainly will lead to demands for exemptions, exclusions, and 
        clarifications;
Whereas there are a range of other, less burdensome policy instruments to reduce 
        reliance on imported oil, encourage more efficient energy use, and 
        reduce the environmental impact of energy consumption;
Whereas the economic and social burden of a new energy excise tax will be 
        enormous: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the energy excise tax 
proposed by the President will seriously harm middle income citizens, 
rural residents, and the economy and should not be approved.

                                 <all>