[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5326-H5337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3415, REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT INCREASE
IN TRANSPORTATION FUEL TAXES
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 436
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3415) to amend to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor fuels excise
tax rates enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 and dedicated to the general fund of the Treasury. All
points of order against the bill and against its
consideration are waived. The amendment printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from south
Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R.
3415, legislation to repeal the 4.3 cent increase in the motor fuel
excise tax that was instituted back in 1993. This is closed rule
providing for 1 hour of debate divided equally between the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule
waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration.
The rule provides for adoption of the amendment printed in the
Committee on Rules report. The amendment which was crafted by the
chairman of the Committee on Commerce is intended to ensure that the
revenue loss from the repeal of the Clinton gas tax is fully offset.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton has had a somewhat spotty and
inconsistent record of aligning words with deeds, particularly when it
comes to the issues of both taxes and balancing the budget. It began
with promises that he made during that 1992 presidential campaign. He
promised to provide middle-income families with a tax cut as well as
balance the Federal budget. Upon election, his tax cut proposal changed
as fast as the calendar turned. The budget deal he struck with the
Democrat-controlled Congress in 1993 raised taxes by $275 billion over
5 years. It was clearly the largest tax increase in history.
Incredibly, it also allowed Federal spending to increase by $300
billion. His so-called deficit reduction was projected to add $1
trillion to the national debt.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was no tax cut for middle-income families in
the President's 1993 budget.
{time} 1600
That budget was a tax increase, plain and simple. It was a $275
billion tax increase needed for two reasons: so the President could
spend money on new Federal programs and cut less waste from old Federal
programs.
In light of the President's promise of a middle-class tax cut, the
most egregious tax increase in the President's 1993 tax increase bill
was a 4.3 cent a gallon increase in the Federal motor fuel excise tax.
President Clinton enacted, without a single vote from Republicans in
the Congress, the first increase in the gas tax that was not directly
tied to spending on highways and bridges. Let me repeat that. It was
the first time ever that a gasoline tax increase was imposed that was
not tied directly towards spending on highways and bridges.
Mr. Speaker, this tax increase targeted middle-income working
families, placing a bull's-eye on the wallet of every American that
drives to work, goes to the mall, or packs the family into the car to
take a vacation.
[[Page H5327]]
I can distinctly remember 3 years ago when, in our Committee on
Rules, we heard testimony on the President's 1993 budget and tax
proposal. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Democrats
and Republicans alike, came before our Committee on Rules to request
the ability to offer amendments to strike the tax increases on middle-
income families. On top of the list of the bipartisan requests was to
be able to vote on the Clinton gas tax separately. Needless to say, the
Congress was not given an opportunity to vote on the Clinton gas tax
increase. I suspect the liberal leadership knew that it would have been
soundly defeated.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to get that opportunity. It is
long overdue. We want a vote, up or down, on President Clinton's gas
tax. It is an unfair tax that targets middle-income suburban and rural
families, largely exempting those who live in cities and have a chance
to take advantage of mass transit that is so often subsidized by the
taxes of suburban and rural families. It also falls much harder on
large families with children, who tend to drive larger cars that are
not quite as fuel efficient as the smaller ones. Four-point-three cents
a gallon may not sound like much, and people have constantly said it
will work out to only $25 or $35 a year for people, but when market
forces push gas prices above $2 a gallon, as they have in some of the
cities that I represent in California, the added burden imposed by the
Federal Government hurts.
As gas prices have risen over the past few months, government
taxation of motor fuel, both at the State and Federal level, has come
under increasing scrutiny. The California Assembly recently voted to
eliminate the State's double taxation of gasoline, dropping the State's
sales tax that was applied to the portion of gas prices accounted for
by State and Federal excise taxes. This tax cut should shave off 3
cents a gallon in California, Washington can do its part in reducing
prices at the pump by enacting the 4.3-cent reduction proposed by three
California Members, the gentlewoman from Shell Beach, CA, Andrea
Seastrand, the gentleman from Windsor, CA, Ed Royce, as well as the
gentleman from new Jersey, Dick Zimmer.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some who have made the absurd argument
that reducing the Federal gas tax will not lower gas prices. In
response, I would simply recall that there was no question from the
Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation back in
1993 regarding the impact of President Clinton's 4.3-cent a gallon gas
tax increase. The money was unquestionably going to come out of the
pockets of families and businesses buying gas. The projected tax tables
showed that the consumers were the intended target, not the oil
companies. Likewise, there is no question today that regarding the
benefits of cutting the gas tax, the free market, something liberals
neither appreciate nor understand, will ensure that gas prices will be
lower after a tax cut than they would be if taxes were not cut.
Two of California's largest oil refining companies, Atlantic
Richfield Co. and Chevron, have announced this specific point: The
reduction in the Federal tax will be passed along to consumers at gas
stations they own. The wholesale price of the gasoline they sell to
independent dealers will also be reduced.
Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record at this point the
announcements from both Arco and Chevron regarding their policy on gas
tax reductions.
The material referred to is as follows:
Texaco Responds to Gasoline Tax Reduction Price Inquiries
White Plains, N.Y., May 9.--Texaco stated today the actions
it would take in the event Congress repeals the 1993 federal
gasoline tax of 4.3 cents per gallon.
There are approximately 13,600 Texaco-branded service
stations throughout the United States. For the approximately
1,000 company owned and operated service stations where the
company sets the pump prices, Texaco would reduce the
gasoline prices it charges to customers, all things being
equal, by the amount of the tax decrease. In addition, Texaco
would reduce the level of tax it collects from its
independent wholesalers by the amount of the tax decrease.
However, at the approximately 12,600 Texaco-branded service
stations which are owned or operated by independent business
people, Texaco is precluded by law from setting pump prices
at these locations.
All of the gasoline inventory held in storage in bulk
plants and service stations on the effective date of any tax
repeal will have already incurred the full pre-repeal tax of
4.3 cents per gallon. Unless a refund system is put into
place, prices consumers pay at the pump could remain at pre-
repeal levels until that higher-cost inventory gasoline is
sold.
Many factors, including the competitive environment in
which a station conducts business, influence the price of
gasoline at a service station, thereby making it impossible
to predict gasoline prices at any time in the future.
The repeal of the 1993 4.3 cents per gallon federal
gasoline tax would reduce the average nationwide state and
federal tax on gasoline from 42.4 cents to 38.1 cents per
gallon. In the competitive market in which the industry
operates, lower taxes will result in lower prices.
____
Chevron Responds to Federal Gasoline Tax Issue
San Francisco, May 8.--In response to many comments in the
press and from customers concerning possible oil company
actions in the event of a decrease in the federal gasoline
tax, Chevron released the following statement:
Any decrease in the federal gasoline tax would be
immediately reflected in the prices Chevron charges to
motorists at our 600 company-operated stations in the U.S.
through reductions which, on average, would equal the amount
of the tax decrease. We also separately collect these taxes
from our thousands of Chevron dealers and jobbers throughout
the U.S., and we would immediately reduce our collections
from these dealers and jobbers by the amount of the tax
decrease. However, these Chevron dealers and jobbers are
independent businessmen and women who independently set their
own pump prices at the more than 7,000 Chevron stations they
operate.
Many factors influence gasoline prices, which are set by
competition in the marketplace. It is impossible to predict
where gasoline prices may stand in absolute terms at any time
in the future. However, if these taxes are reduced, it is
logical in a free market economy that overall prices will in
the future be lower for our customers than they otherwise
would have been by the amount of the tax decrease.
____
ARCO Will Immediately Reduce Total Gasoline Price If 4.3-Cent Federal
Gasoline Tax Is Eliminated
Los Angeles.--ARCO Chairman and CEO Mike R. Bowlin said
today that ``if the federal government reduces the gasoline
excise tax by 4.3 cents per gallon, ARCO will immediately
reduce its total price at its company-operated stations and
to its dealers by 4.3 cents per gallon.''
The ARCO chairman said in an interview on ABC's
``Nightline'' broadcast on May 7, that he had ``simply been
cautioning that ARCO is not able to accurately predict
industry behavior, cannot legally control its dealers'
pricing, and that other factors may influence changes in
overall market prices. All other things being equal, we would
expect the price of gasoline to fall 4.3 cents per gallon.''
An ARCO spokesman said that ARCO has a proud tradition of
acting responsibly in its gasoline pricing decisions in times
of national upsets. He noted that during the Gulf War crisis
in 1990, ARCO had been a leader in announcing that it would
freeze gasoline prices. Eventually, that led to a situation
where ARCO was unable to meet demand for its gasoline and was
forced to raise prices in line with market conditions in
order to prevent its dealers from running out of gasoline.
The ARCO spokesman said that ``gasoline prices have
increased some 20 to 30 cents per gallon over the last few
months. Obviously no one can promise that even though the
marginal cost of gasoline is reduced by a 4.3 cents per
gallon tax reduction on a given day, some other factors may
not simultaneously influence the market price of gasoline.''
ARCO chairman Bowlin said: ``What we can say is that ARCO
will immediately reduce the total price of gasoline at our
company-operated stations and to our dealers by 4.3 cents per
gallon. I can also tell you that our internal forecasts
suggest that gasoline prices are headed lower. We believe
that the vast majority of responsible economists would say
that a reduction in excise taxes would be passed through
about penny-per-penny at the pump.''
Mr. Speaker, I strongly suspect that major refiners around the
country will pursue this same policy. The market will dictate that
consumers benefit as to this tax cut to the same degree that they
suffered from the original tax increase. Arguments to the contrary are
nothing but a smokescreen to avoid cutting taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to give Congress the straight up-or-
down vote on the Clinton gas tax that was requested and denied back in
1993. The time has come to begin to pare back the largest tax increase
in American history, starting with hardworking middle-income families.
Remember, this is just the beginning of our attempt to pare this back.
I am one who supports a 15-percent across-the-board
[[Page H5328]]
personal income tax cut, which would go a long way toward repealing the
Clinton tax increase of 1993, and I hope that this will begin our step
down that road of trying to bring about a modicum of responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this rule and present the American people with a clean up-or-
down-vote on a proposal to have the Federal Government stop taxing
motor fuel quite so much, letting families keep a little bit more of
the money they earn.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this closed rule for H.R. 3415, the
bill providing for a temporary repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax.
The rule shuts out all amendments, including those that were offered
to ensure that the gas tax repeal goes to consumers, and not to the oil
companies. No matter whether one supports the temporary reduction of
4.3 cents or whether one thinks it is an irresponsible action--both
fiscally and environmentally--surely everyone expects that the savings
will be returned to our constituents in the form of lower prices at the
pump when they purchase their gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, we are being required to vote on legislation without
being given the chance to consider reasonable alternatives that would,
in fact, protect consumers. We think that is completely unjustified
and, at the appropriate time, we shall urge our colleagues to defeat
the previous question so those amendments can be made in order.
Many of us think the bill itself is an irresponsible political
reaction to temporary fluctuations in the market price of oil, and are
therefore, also strongly opposed to the legislation. What we are doing
today is voting on repealing the 4.3-cents gas tax that was part of the
1993 deficit-reduction package that many Members fought so hard for,
without a single Republican vote. Democratic Members took a great deal
of criticism at that time and thereafter, at election time, but the
fact is, that legislation was a success. This year's deficit will be
down to about $155 billion, less than half its 1992 level of $290
billion. Frankly, if Democrats had not made that very difficult
decision in 1993 and voted for unpopular deficit-reduction measures,
including the additional 4.3-cents gas tax, none of us would even be in
the position of talking about the possibility of balancing the budget 6
years from now, in the year 2002.
Proponents of this $2.9 billion gas tax suspension argue that it will
not affect the deficit because it is paid for by offsets. But what they
don't say is that every tax cut, and every spending increase affects
the deficit. Offsets that pay for tax cuts like this one, or for
spending increases, consume the increasingly scarce means available to
reduce budget deficits, making the task of reaching a balanced budget
that much harder.
Furthermore, repeal will not be the great boon to Americans that
proponents claim. It will save the typical middle-income family only
about $27 a year.
The fact is, even with the 4.3-cents per gallon Congress added in
1993, the Federal and State tax on gasoline is much lower in the United
States of course, as Members know, than in European countries and much
of the rest of the world where taxes run between $1 and $3 a gallon.
Part of the reason we are vulnerable to the kind of sudden surge in
gasoline prices that we have seen recently is because we refuse to tax
ourselves at a level that will discourage consumption.
Our many years of low gasoline prices have lulled Americans into
thinking that we will have cheap gasoline forever. Our expectation of
low gas prices has had many harmful effects:
It has lessened the already very minor incentive that exists to
conserve energy and reduce our Nation's dependence on imported oil.
It has continued to encourage intensive residential development
further and further away from central urban areas; It has provided an
incentive for the purchase of larger, heavier vehicles, leading to
increased oil consumption and contributing to the ever-rising costs of
road repair; It has contributed to air pollution--and the costs of
fighting it, which in California is responsible for 5 to 15 cents of
the recent gas price increase.
We could slow these trends by letting market forces work and
retaining the existing gas tax. Raising the gasoline tax, which I
realize is out of the question, but which would be the most sensible
move, would obviously lead to even more progress.
For all these reasons, this legislation repealing the 4.3-cent gas
tax is a not a wise step for us to take. It would, rather, serve the
best interests of our Nation and protect hard-won deficit reductions if
this legislation was defeated.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues seem determined
to make sure this bill will not result in savings for American
consumers anywhere near 4.3 cents a gallon.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the
previous question so we can give this tax cut to our constituents--to
American drivers--not to big oil companies.
If the previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment to
the rule to make in order three consumer protection amendments to
guarantee these savings are passed on to the American people. Every
single one of these consumer protection amendments was rejected by the
majority in the Rules Committee last week, but we feel strongly that
the House should have the opportunity to determine who this gas tax
repeal is to benefit.
Mr. Speaker, to summarize, we oppose this rule and, at the proper
time, we shall urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that we have the
best consumer protection vehicle, and that happens to be the free
market. I said in my statement that I have press releases which I have
entered into the Record that have come from two of the so-called big
oil companies based in my State of California.
I am not here as an apologist for the oil companies, but the fact of
the matter is that on ABC's Nightline, Mike Bowlin, the chairman and
chief executive of the Atlantic Richfield Co., said ``If the Federal
Government reduces the gasoline excise tax by 4.3 cents per gallon,
ARCO will immediately reduce its total price at its company-operated
stations and to its dealers by 4.3 cents a gallon.'' Chevron says,
``Any decrease in the Federal gasoline tax would be immediately
reflected in the prices Chevron charges to motorists at our 600
company-owned stations in the United States.''
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on mandating
this, mandating it. My friend, the gentleman from San Diego, during 1-
minutes today, kept saying we have to impose a mandate to make sure
that this goes on. We happen to believe in the free market. I happen to
take these people from these companies at their word. I know it is
politically popular to bash the hell out of big oil, but the fact of
the matter is they have stepped up to the plate and said that it is
going to be passed on to the consumer. Before we pass another law
imposing constraints on them, I think we should maybe try the free
market.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
gentleman from Glens Falls NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Claremont, CA,
who is vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to
me, and for leading off this debate on one of the most important issues
that will come before this body this week, that is for sure.
Mr. Speaker, for those members who may be back in their offices, I
know this is the first day back today, but I guess if we really want to
point out the differences here, my good friend, the gentleman from
California, Tony Beilenson, who will be retiring this year from the
Congress and who came here, I think, in 1976, so he has been here a
long time, but to point out the differences, my good friend, the
gentleman from California, would like to,
[[Page H5329]]
I think I have heard him say on a number of different occasions,
increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
In my district, which is about 250 or 260 or 270 miles long,
depending on which road you take, 10,000 square miles, it is mostly
rural, but we do not have buses and trains and subways. We certainly do
not have any subsidized buses and trains and subways. People have to
pay their own way. This 5 cent tax already cost them about $40 or $50
more per year. Imagine what a 50-cent increase in the tax would cost
them on what it already costs them, if they pay $1.30, $1.40 or $1.50
per gallon to drive back and forth to work. So think about that,
because that is the difference between their argument and ours.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does repeal one of President Clinton's most
burdensome taxes on the middle class, on working Americans, his 4\1/2\
cent increase in the transportation motor fuel excise tax in 1993.
Perhaps the only one more onerous than that perhaps was the increase in
the Social Security tax during that same bill, which was the biggest
tax increase in history.
Mr. Speaker, since gas prices have soared in recent months, there
have been some attempts at revisionist history of how the gas tax came
about. Let us review the painful legislative history of that. In early
1993, when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, that
meant they controlled everything, it seemed at the time there was no
tax that the Clinton administration did not like. Let me tell the
Members, they loaded up that bill. That is how we got the biggest tax
increase in history, including this one.
When the 1993 budget reconciliation bill passed the House by a vote
of 219 to 213 without a single Republican vote, it contained an
excessive energy tax. I think they called it, what did they call it,
the Btu tax, I think it was.
{time} 1615
Most people never heard of it until it was brought up on the floor
that day. I think it was a British thermal unit tax, is what it was, in
which an excise tax is levied on all forms of energy based on the
thermal or heat content of a fuel. That is how ridiculous that tax was.
When the bill emerged from the conference, it contained a permanent
4.3 or 4\1/2\ cent increase in gas taxes. That legislation, if Members
recall, passed by just two votes. The American people got saddled with
it because of two people who did not switch their vote.
Mr. Speaker, I wish we had time to undo all the damage contained in
that 1993 tax package, which was of course, as I have said, the biggest
increased in taxes in the history of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means
testified before the Committee on Rules, the Nation is experiencing a
spike in gas prices this year. It is estimated that average national
regular gasoline prices have increased from $1.09 per gallon on January
8, 1996, to $1.28 per gallon on May 7, 1996. In some areas, prices are
even higher.
I know in the district that I represent, which I have just described,
in upstate New York gas is as high as $1.33 per gallon for regular gas
today, and that is really a tremendous increase. In Mr. Dreier's State,
I think he just mentioned, certainly Mrs. Seastrand sitting across the
way here, prices in some parts of their States are now over $2 per
gallon.
For my constituents who reside in the mid-Hudson Valley in a district
that is 270 miles long, this is a severe economic crunch brought about
by President Clinton's tax package. Many citizens in my district drive
100 miles a day round trip. That amounts to 25,000 miles per year or
more. Any kind of a relief from these exorbitant gas taxes for these
people who drive so far on a daily basis is sorely needed, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the severe winter, the Mideast politics and other market
forces certainly have contributed to the sharp increases in the price
of gasoline. However, no one can deny that the long-term impact of the
President's tax increase which has hit consumers directly at the gas
pumps.
For those who drive up to 100 miles a day to get to work in the
morning and get home at night, any kind of tax relief is greatly
appreciated, and this repeal of the 4.3 cent gasoline tax increase is
only a minor component of a larger program to provide tax relief to all
Americans. But this repeal is a huge step in the direction of beginning
to repeal taxes around here instead of incessantly increasing them. Let
us stop this, and let us enact this bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
California, Mr. Beilenson, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot believe that the American consumer will not
see through this. Why would the majority not agree to an amendment to
ensure that the 4.3 cents goes to the consumer? What is wrong with
that? We quote some of the executives of oil companies that say they
will do it. If that is the case, it would not hurt them. Why not build
that into the law?
Now the reality is that gas prices are gong to drop. The fact is that
gas prices are going to drop substantially in the very near future. We
just got an agreement that Iraq will be able to sell 2 billion barrels
of oil, so we know gas prices are going to drop dramatically.
But this will ensure that we will lose $3 billion of revenue this
year if we build it into the budget resolution. We have been talking
about $30 billion over the long term, but if it is just 1 year, it is
$3 billion that the consumer has to pay for. It increases their
deficit, it reduces revenue that they will get from spectrum auctions
or whatever else. It does not need to be done. It should not be done.
The fact is that 6 months ago oil prices were at the lowest level in
50 years in terms of real dollars, and that oil prices dropped after
the 4.3 gas tax was put in, so this spike in gas prices has nothing to
do with this 4.3 cent tax. It has everything to do with a calculated
decision on the part of the oil companies. Even knowing that we had
experienced a very harsh winter, that demand for oil was going to go
way up, they deliberately depleted their supplies, and it worked.
If we look at the first quarter profits for oil companies, they have
been up over 40 percent in the first 3 months of the year, and of
course the executives that run those oil companies made out
beautifully. Consider that the average salaries and expenses for the
top six oil companies was $1.5 million per executive. But in addition,
just in March and April alone, the value of their stock options rose by
$32.8 million as a direct result of this policy. It worked.
Now we hear about the free market system. What free market system? If
it was really a free market system, we would see some oil companies
coming in and trying to seize a larger share of the market because
clearly they do not need to charge this much.
If we look at California, where gasoline prices have jumped more than
30 cents a gallon since mid February, the Los Angeles Times reported
that the refiners' profit margin per gallon of gasoline sold at retail
has more than doubled since December. The profit margin more than
doubled from 21 cents per gallon to 46 cents per gallon. That is where
the money is going. The money is not gong to purchase the oil. The
money if going into the profit of the oil companies, a calculated
decision.
Now we are going to come around and add $3 billion to the taxpayers'
debt to reduce their gas taxes? It does not need to be done. We know
that gas prices are going to drop because of Iraq selling more oil on
the market. This kind of thing is a sham. It is political pandering. It
ought not be done. We ought to protect the consumer's interest. We
should at least allow an amendment to ensure that the money goes to the
consumer.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend
from Shell Beach, CA, Mrs. Seastrand, who represents the Santa Barbara
County area. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that she is the lead author
of this legislation which calls for the repeal of the 4.3 cent a gallon
gas tax.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to
H.R. 3415, legislation I introduced to temporarily repeal the 4.3-cent
gas tax which was part of the President's and the 103d Congress' $268
billion tax increase package.
It is important that this legislation be considered as expeditiously
as possible to provide relief from the recent
[[Page H5330]]
surge in gasoline prices, particularly before the Memorial Day holiday
as the demand and price of gasoline increase as we approach summer and
Americans significantly increase their amount of driving.
In my congressional district located on California's central coast,
the price of gas has risen sharply since April. In some parts of my
district the price of gasoline has actually increased to over $2 for a
gallon of 93 octane gasoline.
There are a number of variables that contributed to the gasoline
price surge. There has been a reduction in the supply of gasoline due
to the extremely harsh winter we just experienced causing oil companies
to convert petroleum into heating oil rather than gasoline. Another
reason for the surge of gasoline prices in my State is related to
recently instituted regulations mandating the refining of cleaner
burning gasoline; these new regulations will significantly reduce air
pollution in California; however, they do have their price, which is
about a dime a gallon of gas.
By repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax by one-third as proposed in my
bill, Californians will see a savings of over $225 million in 1996. It
is important to bear in mind that the gas tax we are considering today
is unlike all other Federal taxes American consumers pay. The revenues
generated by this gas tax devised by President Clinton and the 103d
Congress, do not go to the highway trust fund to repair and build roads
across America. The money go directly to the U.S. Treasury to be spent
on miscellaneous Government expenses. Repeal of this law for the
remainder of 1996 would reduce taxes for American consumers at the gas
pump by over $2\1/2\ billion and would reduce the costs for many other
goods and services that are currently inflated due to the high price of
gasoline. Furthermore, it would reestablish the 8,000 jobs in
California and the 69,000 total jobs lost in this country when the tax
was enacted in 1993.
This tax repeal is a break the American consumer deserves, is long
overdue, and keeps us on target toward balancing the Nation's Federal
budget by the year 2002. Mr. Bliley's amendment to the legislation
assures us that the repeal will be paid for by auctioning 35 megahertz
of the electromagnetic spectrum. This legislation coupled with
reductions of wasteful spending at the Department of Energy provide the
necessary offsets to ease the pocketbooks of American consumers.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
subsequent legislation that will be considered to repeal the 1993 gas
tax.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every debate we have around
here, it centers on the President's package of 1993. I would just like
to remind the gentleman, I do not know about this district, in my
district the package we passed in 1993 with all Democratic votes,
55,000 of my constituents had a tax cut because of the earned income
tax credits; 1,100 people had a tax increase.
Now we talk about repealing the 4.3 percent gasoline tax, which I
would like to vote for if I could be assured that when my mothers and
fathers and aunts and people taking the kids to Little League and going
to Disney World, when they drive up to the pump, they are going to get
a 4.3 percent decrease in their gas tax.
You say that you believe in the free market, but you do not believe
in democracy. You do not believe in giving us a chance to vote on some
assurance that the consumer is going to get the benefit of this 4.3
cents a gallon. You are going to trust the oil companies that are in
the business of the bottom line, the profits. To me this just does not
make any sense.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond very briefly by stating
that it is very, very clear that when we brought this issue up in 1993,
we tried to get a straight up-or-down vote on this tax increase that
was a part of the Clinton overall tax increase legislation, and
unfortunately we were denied that.
What we are saying now is we do not support mandates. We do not
support the constant imposition of constraints from the Federal
Government onto the private sector. We have statements that have come
from those in the private sector, that they will pass on to your
relatives and your constituents who are driving to Disney World or
wherever else they want to go this summer, that they will have a 4.3-
cents-a-gallon reduction in the tax they have to pay. Now, why we have
to proceed with having the Federal Government impose a mandate on us is
preposterous to me.
{time} 1630
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points. You
talk about wanting to give some tax relief to the working Americans,
but in your budget that you passed here last week, you cut earned
income tax credit, which is going to be a tax increase to working
Americans. It seems to me if you wanted to make sure that the consumers
get the 4.3 cents benefit from the repeal of the tax cut, that it
should be mandated that it be passed on.
You have two letters. I do not know how many oil companies there are
in the United States, but that is not even 1 percent of the oil
companies in the United States. And if it is such a great idea, why do
you not make it permanent? Why did you not go back and pick up the 10
cent a gallon tax that your Presidential candidate helped put on
several years ago, and make it like 15 cents? Repeal the whole 15 cents
and give the consumer a real break on gasoline prices. This is
something that just does not make a lot of sense to me, unless you can
mandate the consumer gets the benefit of the tax cut.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say I totally concur with my friend.
I want to see the consumer benefit from this tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated. I keep hearing about
President Clinton's gas tax that was passed in 1993. That was actually
part of a much larger bill. I never hear about other parts of that
bill. How about President Clinton's tax cut, the tax cut that went to
100,000 working West Virginians making under $26,000 a year, that more
than offset any increase they saw in the gas tax? How about President
Clinton's deficit reduction plan, that has brought the deficit down far
more than anybody thought, from around $290 billion to $135 billion,
more than half in 3 years? How about President Clinton's tax cut plan,
that actually dropped taxes for large numbers of West Virginians? So
the result is that today, we have an economy that has actually been
growing when Members of the other side, Mr. Speaker, said it would be
retracting.
But my main concern on this is how do you protect the consumer. I am
offered two press releases from oil companies, large oil companies,
that say trust us, do not worry, we will pass the 4.3 cents along.
I tried that out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, at a gas station in West
Virginia, as I was paying $1.32 I believe for regular. I tried that
out. They said, ``Bob, how are we going to guarantee the consumer is
protected?'' When I said ``That is OK, it is going to be the
marketplace,'' they all broke out laughing. They know the 4.3 cents is
not coming back.
Yes, you may see the price drop off the tag on the marquee for a day
or two, but when it goes back up again, you will say ``You did not pass
it along.'' They will say ``Daggone, you know the futures market. It is
terrible today.'' That is what concerns a lot of us, Mr. Speaker. Why
can your party not simply permit us a vote that says the consumer
definitely gets the benefit of this?
I hear a lot about the free markets. The free market works best when
the consumer actually gets what they paid for. So if the consumer is to
get the benefit of the 4.3 cents, let us offer an amendment. But you
will not do it, Mr. Speaker. You will not let us offer an
[[Page H5331]]
amendment to guarantee the consumer gets the benefit of this.
You instead take the money you save from spectrum sales and cutting
$800 million from the Energy Department. That is interesting. The
reason we are in this pickle is because we are 50 percent dependent at
least on foreign oil producers for our energy, and yet we are going to
cut the agency that tries to make us energy independent.
But at any rate, you say there is $3 billion to be found. If there is
$3 billion to be found someplace else, could we use that for deficit
reduction too? Could we use that, instead of ultimately having to cut
education, having to cut highway construction, having to cut
infrastructure, and could we use that instead of having to cut the
programs that help our economy to grow?
Oil company profits, Mr. Speaker, went up 40 percent in the first
quarter of 1996 over the first quarter of 1995. Certainly it seems to
me that couple of press releases are not sufficient, and if the
consumer is to be guaranteed he or she will get that 4.3 cent a gallon
cut, that we ought to be guaranteed something more than two press
releases and ``Gosh, we hope so.'' I think it requires legislation.
Please, let us offer the amendment that safeguards the consumer and
make sure that this cut in the gasoline tax goes to them. If you are
not going to do that, let us not play this game.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the closed
rule on H.R. 3415. Let me say from the outset that I find it a little
surprising and a little ironic it has taken the Republicans 18 months
to decide to repeal this tax. Why was it not in the Contract With
America?
I had hoped to have the opportunity today to offer an amendment to
repeal this 4.3-cent gas tax for the remainder of the year, and offset
that cost with the repeal and immediate elimination of the ethanol
subsidy. However, my colleagues on the Committee on Rules, the majority
of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules, would not allow such a
vote. Instead, the Republicans have once again asked this Congress to
consider important legislation without full and open debate, and
perhaps worse, without the full assurance that this will not add to the
deficit.
In fact, not one member of the authorizing committee for spectrum
sales testified in favor of such spectrum sales or spectrum auctions.
No hearings have been held. We do not know whether it will pay the tab.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve common sense
legislation to provide relief for soaring gas prices. My approach would
have repealed the gas tax and provided immediate relief to American
consumers, but it would have achieved this goal in a way that is
fiscally responsible, environmentally sensitive, and truly responsive.
According to the Joint Tax Committee, a repeal of the gas tax through
the end of the year would cost $2.9 billion. Repealing the 54-cent
ethanol subsidy would reap $2.6 billion over 5 years and almost $10
billion over 10 years. The ethanol subsidy has proved to be one of the
biggest boondoggles in the history of the Congress. According to the
Treasury Department, it costs $5.3 billion in the last 10 years. The
ethanol subsidy also costs the highway trust fund $850 million per
year.
I might add that 50 Members of the House on both sides of the aisle
have introduced legislation to repeal this. In fact, a majority of the
House voted to repeal the ethanol subsidy last fall, only to see it
stripped by the majority in the Senate.
Finally, my amendment would have allowed an alternative to the
controversial funding offset of spectrum auctions which the bill
proposes. Frankly, as I said, no member of the authorizing committee
testified in favor of this spectrum auction before the Committee on
Rules, underscoring its dubious fiscal estimates.
We should cut the gas tax, but we should do so responsibly.
Unfortunately, this Congress will not have that opportunity today. The
Members of this House cannot be trusted with this responsibility
according to seven members of the Committee on Rules.
I urge my colleagues as a result of that to defeat this rule, to
defeat the previous question, and open this up and let democracy be
part of this House.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. There are no
amendments allowed. It is a closed rule. There were amendments proposed
to ensure that the tax cuts would be passed on to the consumers, to
make it permanent, to ensure that it would cure the defects in this
bill, the No. 1 defect being the fact it is not paid for. My former
colleague just explained an amendment which would have paid for this.
None of these amendments will be allowed. This bill will increase the
deficit.
Now, I opposed the gas tax increase in 1993. I felt that it was
unfair for people in the West to pay more for deficit reduction than
those in the East who had access to mass transit. But the repeal should
be permanent and should be paid for, not just election year politics in
search of votes. The gas tax will go up right after the election.
This bill is not paid for. The spectrum auction last year was
included in last year's budget, by the way, as a method to pay for
deficit reduction. Now it is being ponied out to pay for gas tax
repeal.
This bill also uses sleight of hand by attempting to decrease future
authorizations to pay for this bill, not budget authority. Even the CBO
says that will not work and will not pay for the bill.
On the Committee on the Budget last year, there were safeguards put
into the budget to ensure that we would not get into the easy route of
cutting taxes without balancing the budget and without paying for those
tax cuts. There was a mechanism placed in there to prevent that. That
was left out of this budget, and I attempted to put it back in last
week when we debated the balanced budget that was proposed here. They
refused to put it back in.
Why? Because apparently they want to come forward with additional
cuts in taxes that are not paid for, that are not part of a balanced
budget. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, ``Trust me. I
will not allow bills to come before this floor which increase the
deficit, which cut taxes, and which are not part of a balanced budget
proposal.''
Here we are, one week later, also being told by the gas companies,
trust them, they will pass it on to the consumers.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the policy
committee.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this outrageous gag
rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question. When
historians write the results of today's discussions, they are going to
write that in a shameful and a shameless fashion, this Congress tried
to gull the American people into a belief that some way or another they
are going to get 4.3 cents a gallon back on gasoline.
Nothing is further from the truth. The big oil companies are already
rubbing their hands and licking their chops, because they are going to
get that 4.3 cents per gallon, and it ain't ever going to get to the
people of the United States. And if you go home and tell your people
so, you are not going to be telling the truth.
Now, beyond that, I wanted to point out that this is a gag rule. Now,
I love my dear friend, Mr. Solomon. He is a fine gentleman and a fine
Member of this body. But I call him ``Closed-rule-Solomon'' and have
done so for some time. I know it is offensive to him in the supreme to
have to offer rules which make it possible for Members like me to have
a decent opportunity to amend the legislation such as we have before
us.
What this bill does is it is going to give 4.3 cents per gallon to
the big oil companies, and they are going to enjoy it mightily. That
comes down, my dear friends and colleagues, to $4 billion that you are
giving to oil companies, that really do not need it. Their balance
sheets are healthy in the extreme and their stock is going up daily.
[[Page H5332]]
Members in this body, because of this closed rule, will have no
opportunity to vote on amendments that will put this 4.3 cents per
gallon gas tax into the pockets of their consumers. The only thing that
is going to happen is the oil companies are going to get that money,
and the deficit is going to go up by $4 billion.
Fiscal responsibility? No. Oil companies would say so, yes, but the
average citizen will say so, no. Indeed, oil prices are going to go
down because the Iraqis are now entering the world markets because of
the understandings in the U.N. the other day.
Now, there is simply no mechanism in this legislation whatsoever for
ensuring that the tax reduction actually reaches the consumer at the
pump. In short, this bill and this rule will do nothing for the typical
American consumer. That is why I urge a no vote on the rule, and why I
urge a no vote on the previous question.
If you have read the papers, you have seen that time after time,
spokesmen for everybody, including the big oil companies and economists
and government people, have said this money is going to the oil
companies, it is not going to the ordinary citizen. Beyond that, when
our committee had hearings a couple weeks ago, Dr. Phillip Verleger, a
respected energy expert at Charles River Associates and a witness
selected by the Republicans, was quoted widely in the press as saying
consumers will not see any of this repeal reflected in the pump prices.
Mr. Charles DiBona, an old and respected and valuable friend of mine,
a fine and honorable gentleman, who heads the American Petroleum
Institute, had a little more optimism on it. He thought consumers might
see some of this money back, but he never said when. I asked Mr. DiBona
whether he thought the oil industry would support an amendment that
would ensure that consumers would get this 4.3 cents per gallon back.
He demurred, because he understood full well that his clients and his
people and the American Petroleum Institute were going to fatten
themselves to the tune of $4 billion at a 4.3 cent per gallon clip at
the expense of the American consumers.
We are giving by this legislation and by this closed rule $4 billion
to the oil companies. Nothing, nothing, nothing of this is coming back
to the American people.
I asked the Committee on Rules, chaired by my dear friend, ``Closed-
rule-Solomon,'' to make it in order to ensure amendments offered by
myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], to assure that the money would come back to
the consumers.
That was not permitted by the Committee on Rules, which was doing its
proper work, because it is taking care not only of Republican policy,
but of their good friends amongst the oil companies, by seeing to it
that the oil companies get the money, and not the consumers.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say we have had many more open rules,
and to call my friend Jerry Solomon ``Closed-rule-Solomon'' is clearly
a misnomer. We in this Congress have seen a dramatic improvement in the
free flow of debate, as has taken place on the floor of the Congress
here, and the numbers actually prove that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Tauzin], a member of the Committee on Commerce.
{time} 1645
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things that may be uncertain about the
marketplace, but let us talk about a few things that are certain. The
administration, when it passed this 4.3-cent gas tax told us it would
not really cost the consumer anything, and now, when we are about to
repeal it, they say it will not really save the consumer anything. Let
me be clear. Gasoline prices cost 4.3 cents more than they should
because of the 4.3-cent a gallon tax.
In 1981, the combined State, local and Federal taxes on gasoline was
13 cents. Today, the average in America is 39 cents. That is 26 cents
more than it should be costing because of taxation. When we reduce
taxes, we make gasoline cost less. When we raise taxes we make gasoline
cost more. What could make more common sense?
But if we really want to look at the price of gasoline, look at the
fact today we are more dependent on foreign producers and refiners than
ever before. We have not built a refinery in America for 20 years. And
those who complain about gasoline prices should think about their votes
to create moratoriums against drilling; think about their votes to
prevent the production of hydrocarbons and refined products in America;
think about the fact that today we are more dependent on Saddam Hussein
and Iraq than we were yesterday; think about the fact that the price at
the pump includes all of the cost, including our taxes, and includes
the cost of escorting ships from the Persian Gulf, includes the cost of
the Persian Gulf war, includes the lives of young Americans and the
health of young Americans who had to go fight for somebody else's oil
because we would not produce it in America.
Yes, we should vote for this rule. We should, indeed, repeal this tax
and make gasoline cost just a little less for Americans who depend too
much on foreign produced oil.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman if I am correct
in assuming that my friend left the other side of the aisle and came
over here because of his understanding of the free market process?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman that that
was certainly part of it.
Free markets make sense in America. We applaud them. We are pleased
with them. My liberal friends who like gasoline taxes believe that the
price of gasoline should be really high so Americans will not use it
any more. That is their theory. So they keep adding taxes on it.
Those of us who believe in the free markets know that if we produce
more at home, if we produce more at home and not depend upon foreigners
all the time, then we can really get prices we can depend upon. When we
depend on somebody else to make our products, they set the prices and
we may not like them. When we raise taxes on a product, we raise the
prices to consumers. It is that simple.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
(Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, with this closed rule, we have run out of
gas on gag rules.
It was clear from day one that there would not be opportunity to be
heard on this election year gimmick. There is no guarantee that the
repeal of this tax will trickle down to our constituents--and thus this
is just another Gingrich gift for corporate America and fat cat
contributors.
The one way to guarantee that working people will feel any benefit
from our action on the gas tax would be through the compromise I wanted
to offer today.
I start with the premise that repealing this tax is wrong. In 1993,
Democrats, alone, had the courage to pass the largest deficit reduction
effort in history and it is working. We have cut the deficit in half,
and just today the estimate of the deficit was lowered by another $15
billion. We should not go back.
My compromise recognizes the political reality--it is going to pass.
My amendment would repeal half of it. The rest--2.1 cents of it--would
be directed toward underfunded mass transportation infrastructure.
If we are really serious about helping working people get to work--
cheaply, reliably, and environmentally friendly--than helping mass
transit stay alive is where we should invest. Mass transit is also one
of the tools for genuine welfare reform.
But mass transit is grinding to a halt--in cities, in the suburbs,
and in rural areas: service cuts in Casper, WY, 50-cent fare increases
in Montgomery, AL, 22-percent fare increases in suburban Harrisburg,
PA, and near bankruptcy for transit system in my district, SEPTA--hurt
so badly by the retreat by the Federal and State Governments. Thus,
this is not a big city
[[Page H5333]]
issue. It affects anyone who rides the road, the rails, the buses,
senior vans, or subways.
We could really help our constituents get to work--the people who
depend on transit, and drivers who depend on transit to avoid the
traffic gridlock we face in the next century--by investing some of
those gas tax dollars in transit. Let's send this rule back to the
Rules Committee so we can have a fair debate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Fullerton, CA, Mr. Royce, one of the coauthors of this legislation.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for this
bill, of which I am an original coauthor, to repeal the 4.3 cent per
gallon Federal gas tax imposed by the Clinton budget in 1993.
At a time when we in Congress are trying to put money back in the
pockets of American families and recharge the Nation's economy,
gasoline excise taxes are at an all-time high. In the last 10 years,
the Federal gasoline tax more than doubled, from 9 cents to 18.3 cents
per gallon. Now, in California, the total gasoline tax has increased to
47.4 cents per gallon.
We are to believe that government can continually increase taxes like
this without it affecting the price at the pump? Economists tell us
that that is not so. Economists tell us if we increase taxes, and
increase taxes, and continue to increase that tax, we will see that
reflected in the pump price.
Now, the prior Congress did increase this tax and we want to repeal
it. This tax burden takes $422 out of the average American family's
household budget per year, and that is a significant amount of money
for hardworking American families trying to make ends meet.
When President Bill Clinton pushed through the 4.3-cent-per-gallon
hike in the Federal gas tax in August of 1993, as part of the largest
tax increase in peacetime history, he assured his colleagues that the
tax increase would only affect the rich. In reality, the gas tax
increase has had a significant day-to-day impact on middle and lower
income American families. These are the folks that are feeling the
pinch at the pump, it is not the rich.
And to add insult to injury, none of the 1993 increase goes toward
improving our Nation's roads or bridges or highways, which would be of
some benefit to the user that is paying that tax. So the recent painful
increase in the price of gas at the pump gives us an excellent
opportunity to repeal a tax that never should have been imposed.
Cutting the Department of Energy to pay for the fuel tax repeal makes
sense. Like the first bill I introduced 3 weeks ago, this legislation
recognizes the tremendous inefficiencies of an outdated, overgrown
bureaucracy that has long outlived its purpose.
Created by President Jimmy Carter in 1976 to solve the energy crisis,
the DOE has grown into a massive $17.5 billion bureaucracy with
multiple missions and questionable priorities. It has been plagued with
controversy and management problems. In a February 1995 report, the
General Accounting Office criticized the Department of Energy, and
concluded that the ``DOE is not an effective or successful cabinet
department.''
But this is only part of the story. I urge my colleagues to read my
editorial printed in the Washington Times this morning, where I go into
much more detail on the inadequacies and failures of a Department that
has simply outlived its purpose.
The bottom line is that energy is no different from any other
commodity in the marketplace. Energy production and distribution is
better directed by market forces than by government planners and
bureaucrats. As is the case with so much of our government today, the
DOE represents an outdated response to a brief period of crisis and is
basically irrelevant today.
While this legislation we are debating today does not go as far as
the earlier legislation I introduced, it does focus attention on the
blatant mismanagement and abuse of taxpayer funds that plague this
Department and reduces its budget.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We should repeal
the 1993 gas tax, cut the Department of Energy budget, and give the
money back to motorists. That's more than the Department has done.
Cutting the Gas Tax and Reinventing Government
(By U.S. Rep. Ed Royce)
In 1992, when he was running for president, Bill Clinton
promised he would not raise federal gasoline taxes. But just
one year after he was elected, in August 1993, he pushed
through the Congress a budget proposal with over $265 billion
in tax increases, including a 4.3 cent per gallon hike in the
federal gas tax.
At the time, Clinton assured his colleagues that the 1993
tax increases would only affect the ``rich.'' In reality, the
gas tax increase has had a significant day-to-day impact on
American families, especially those who are middle and lower-
income. These are the folks that are feeling the ``pinch at
the pump,'' not the ``rich.'' To add insult to injury, none
of the 1993 increase goes toward improving our nation's
roads, bridges or highways, which would be of some benefit to
the user. This is a perfect case study of how the democrat
philosophy of redistribution of income can backfire.
Two years after the ill-fated tax increase, Clinton
apologized before a group of Democratic party donors,
admitting that he ``probably raised taxes too much.'' But is
he sorry enough to do something about it?
If so, he now has a perfect opportunity to partially right
his wrong and kick-start his effort to ``reinvent
government.'' Two weeks ago I introduced a bill in the House
of Representatives to repeal the 4.3 cent gasoline tax
increase, paid for by downsizing the Department of Energy
(DOE). It is that bill which provided the basis for the
proposals now moving through the House and the Senate.
The painful increase in the price at the pump gives us an
excellent opportunity to repeal a tax that never should have
been imposed, while at the same time helping taxpayers keep
more of their hard-earned money. Why offset the cost of the
repeal by downsizing the DOE? Admittedly, it's an easy
target--the Department is plagued with controversy and
management problems. But that's only part of the story. The
DOE simply has outlived its purpose, and like any obsolete
entity or industry, its got to go.
To put the situation in perspective, in the wake of the
Arab oil embargo in 1976, Jimmy Carter campaigned for
President on a platform of energy independence. The following
year, he created the DOE and charged it to solve the problem.
Since then, the DOE has grown into a massive $17.5 billion
bureaucracy with multiple missions and questionable
priorities. Needless to say, it has not solved the problem.
For example, the department embarked on a massive
and expensive program to develop synthetic fuels.
Predictably, it failed. After billions of dollars, a half
dozen years, and a notorious scandal, the department
abandoned its ``synfuels'' program, and concentrated on
overseeing nuclear energy programs. Meanwhile, the market
took care of the petroleum shortages and the price of oil
dropped from a high of $40 per barrel to $20.
Much of DOE's budget is directed at nuclear weapon or
nuclear cleanup activities. These environmental and defense
undertakings are best managed by environmental and/or defense
agencies, not energy departments. Turning the weapons-related
programming over to the requisite agencies makes sense, and
helps protect against bureaucratic ``mission creep'' as was
the case at the old Atomic Energy Commission. Additionally,
in the case of the Department of Defense, merging the weapons
producers with the weapons customers helps ensure
coordination of national strategy.
President Clinton has already proposed that we
denationalize the DOE's Power Marketing Administration's
(PMA), and turn the Bonneville Power Administration into a
public corporation because the premises on which they were
established is no longer applicable. He's got that right.
More than 98 percent of America is already wired for power
and there is no cause whatsoever to believe that private
companies would somehow ``pull the plug'' on electrified
regions. Governments around the world are privatizing
government operated power systems, including Poland, Hungary,
Spain, Italy, and Peru. The U.S. should listen to the advice
it gives to the former Soviet bloc and denationalize its own
``means of production.
We should also sell the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR),
and the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR). The NPR were
originally set aside to ensure the Navy a supply of oil as it
converted its fleet from coal to oil before WWI. The SPR was
created during the energy crises of the 1970's, when Congress
decided the government should produce oil and gas at these
fields and sell them on the commercial market. The problem is
that the SPR, no matter how large, cannot insulate the
American economy from international energy markets. Even if
we were to import no foreign oil whatsoever, international
supply disruptions would cause price increases just as high
here as they would be in a nation that imports all of its
oil.
Additionally, much of the SPR is high-sulfur crude that
would be amply available in any OPEC-induced crisis. It's
low-sulfur crude that the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf
and high-Sulfur crude cannot easily be substituted for low-
sulfur crude without a great deal of cost.
Finally, concern over the inability to secure needed oil
during a supply disruption has decreased significantly. The
number of oil-exporting nations has increased, and the large
oil companies have worked to diversify their sources of oil.
As Daniel Yergen, President of the Cambridge Energy Research
associates and author of The Prize explained, ``There is a
much more secure base to the world's energy economy than was
the case in 1973 . . .''
The bottom line is that energy is no different from any
other commodity in the
[[Page H5334]]
marketplace. Energy production and distribution is better
directed by market forces than by government planners and
bureaucrats. As is the case with so much of our government
today, the DOE represents an outdated response to a brief
period of crisis and is basically irrelevant today.
For these reasons, it only makes good sense to terminate
unnecessary programs, consolidate others, transfer those
serving a valid purpose, and privatize programs that could be
better performed outside of the government. The DOE was a
government-imposed solution to a world market problem. And it
hasn't worked.
We should repeal the 1993 gas tax, cut the Department of
Energy budget, and give the money back to motorists. That's
more than the Department has done.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule and ask the House to defeat the rule and to defeat the bill.
Did the 4.3-cent gasoline tax of 1993 cause the 20-cent, 30-cent, 40-
cent increase at the pump in 1996? That is what the Republicans and the
oil companies would have us believe.
The truth is that the oil industry dropped its overall inventory by
100 million barrels a day since last June, in a bet, a bet that Saddam
Hussein would be allowed to sell more oil on the world market. And when
that bet did not pay off, who had to pay? The American consumer had to
pay because it is an inelastic gasoline marketplace in the United
States. We cannot shift over to coal or to natural gas or to solar for
our automobiles. We must pay whatever the market will bear. Because the
companies did not have the inventory, we must pay. The consumer must
pay.
Now, the oil industry wants a tax break, 4 cents a gallon. The
Republicans set up their bill so that the tax break goes to the oil
refiners. Not to the consumers, to the refiners. The Democrats, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons], and I, we sought to ensure that the money would go into the
pockets of the consumers, but we are not allowed to make an amendment
to do that.
I wanted to have it written right into the Tax Code that owners of an
automobile get back 30 bucks, which is the average tax on an automobile
driver each year. Thirty bucks. An individual would get it back
immediately. But no, the Republicans say we are giving the whole break
to the oil refiners, who have already seen an increase of $90, $100,
$120, $150 more this year that they are going to take out of the
average automobile driver's pocket.
Now, what happened? The oil industry drove right past a world awash
in oil, all of 1995 and 1996, and did not put any stock in their
inventory, betting on Saddam Hussein. After we had sent 500,000 men and
women to that country in 1991, they had the temerity then to treat
themselves as if they were any other industry and keep stocks at
historic lows.
So what happens? As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said,
we have witnesses before our committee, economists that the Republicans
have sent to us, that say that maybe the taxpayer will get back $15,
total, if we give the break to the oil refiners, but many others said
they are not going to get back any at all because the oil companies
will pocket the $15 for themselves.
Well, what they wind up with is $120 or $130, an increased price at
the pump, the tax break that went to the oil refiners rather than to
the consumer, and the oil companies walk away with $120 or $150 out of
every person's pocket in this country.
This is a closed rule. It is wrong. Candidate Dole is not going to
say anything about the oil companies. Candidate Dole is not going to
fight for the consumer at the gas pump. We will not hear him say a word
about the oil companies, Candidate Dole. We are just going to hear him
pointing back to a 4-cent gasoline tax in 1993. Well, what about the
other $150 for the consumer? All he is concerned about is the $15, and
he has not even got a mechanism put together that will get it back into
the pockets of the consumers in this country.
So the issue is very clear, ladies and gentlemen. If we believe that
the consumer should get a tax break, we must vote against this rule;
and then we must vote against this bill because it in no way assures
under any circumstance that the consumer is going to see this at the
pump. And by the way, the American consumer that pulls up to the gas
pump knows this. It is not the guy there with the hose putting it into
your tank; it is the refiner, the big boss, big oil that controls who
gets this tax break, and Members know they are not giving it to the
American consumer.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating how my liberal colleagues
can come up with excuse after excuse and a smokescreen to avoid cutting
taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman
from Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger], one of those rural areas that in fact
does not benefit from all of the Federal subsidization of transit that
we heard about from my friend from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of repealing
President Clinton's 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase.
When the first Federal tax on gasoline was enacted in 1932, the tax
was only one penny per gallon. Today, in certain areas of California,
total Federal, State, and local gas taxes cost drivers 44 cents per
gallon. This tax has a crushing impact on rural areas such as northern
California where citizens are required to drive longer distances daily.
Of all the Clinton tax increases, this was the most obvious Washington
tax and spend money grab. This tax alone cost Americans $14 billion.
And, contrary to popular belief, this $14 billion was not spent on
building roads and bridges. Rather, it was diverted to pay for more big
government Washington spending. I urge my colleagues to repeal this
wrong-headed tax.
{time} 1700
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
and, in the process, I urge a no vote on the previous question.
If the previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment to
the rule that will make in order three consumer protection amendments
that were offered in the Rules Committee last week. All three of these
very important amendments were voted down by the Republican majority of
the Rules Committee.
The first amendment, offered by Mr. Gibbons, would guarantee that the
gas tax cuts go directly to the consumer. It would reimpose the tax on
the seller if the tax reduction is not passed through to the consumer.
The second amendment, offered by Mr. Dingell, would delay the
effective date until the Nation's largest refiners and importers have
certified to the Secretary of the Treasury that the savings will be
passed on to the consumer.
The third amendment, offered by Mr. Markey, provides that if the
Secretary of the Treasury is unable to certify that all the benefits of
the tax reduction will be passed on to the consumer, there will be a
$30 tax credit provided each motorist. This amount represents the
average annual savings that would be realized by each motorist if the
4.3 cent tax is repealed.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us contains absolutely no guarantee that
any of this tax cut will be passed on to the consumer. The amendments I
have just discussed would do that.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and give
the House the opportunity to consider these very workable and necessary
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment and accompanying
documents for the Record at this point.
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order to consider, without
intervention of any point of order, an amendment to be
offered by Representative Gibbons, or his designee; an
amendment to be offered by Representative Dingell, or his
designee; and an amendment to be offered by Representative
Markey, or his designee. The amendments are printed in
section of this resolution.
Sec. . The text of the amendment are as follows:
amendment to h.r. 3415, as reported offered by mr. gibbons
Strike section 5 of the bill and insert the following new
section:
SEC. 5. GAS TAX REDUCTION MUST BE PASSED THROUGH TO
CONSUMERS.
(a) Gas Tax Reduction Only To Benefit Consumers.--It shall
be unlawful for any person selling or importing any taxable
fuel to fail to fully pass on (through a reduction
[[Page H5335]]
in the price that would otherwise be charged) the reduction
in tax on such fuel under this Act.
(b) Responsibilities of Persons Liable for Tax.--
(c) In general.--Every person liable for the payment of
Federal excise taxes on any taxable fuel--
(A) shall fully pass on, as required by subsection (a), the
reduction in tax on such fuel under this Act, and
(B) if the taxable event is not a sale to the ultimate
consumer, shall take such steps as may be reasonably
necessary to ensure that such reduction is fully passed on,
as required by subsection (a), to subsequent purchasers of
the taxable fuel.
(2) Enforcement.--Any person who fails to meet the
requirements of paragraph (1) with respect to any fuel shall
be liable for Federal excise taxes on such fuel as if this
Act had not been enacted.
(3) Waiver.--In the case of a failure which is due to
reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the Secretary
may waive part or all of the additional taxes imposed by
paragraph (2) to the extent that payment of such taxes would
be excessive relative to the failure involved.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Taxable fuel.--The term ``taxable fuel'' has the
meaning given such term by section 4083(a) of such code.
(2) Secretary.-- The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or his delegate.
(d) GAO Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the repeal of the 4.3-cent
increase in the fuel tax imposed by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 to determine whether there has
been a passthrough of such repeal.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1997, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives the results of the
study conducted under paragraph (1). An interim report on
such results shall be submitted to such committees not later
than November 1, 1996.
____
amendment to h.r. 3415, as reported offered by mr. dingell of michigan
Strike subsection (b) of section 2 and insert the
following:
(b) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
the amendment made by this section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Tax Reduction Not To Apply To Fuel Produced or Imported
by Large Refiners Unless Tax Reduction Passed Through to
Consumers.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
not take effect with respect to any taxable fuel produced or
imported by any large refiner unless such refiner provides to
the Secretary of the Treasury a certification that the tax
reduction provided under such amendment will be passed
through to the ultimate consumers as a price reduction.
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(A) Large refiner.--
(i) In general.--The term ``large refiner'' means, with
respect to a calendar year, any person which refined or
imported 500,000,000 gallons or more of taxable fuel during
the preceding calendar year.
(ii) Related persons.--All persons treated as a single
employer under section 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall be treated as 1 person for purposes of this
section.
(b) Taxable fuel.--The term ``taxable fuel'' has the
meaning given such term by section 4083(a) of such Code.
____
amendment to h.r. 3425, as reported offered by mr. markey of
massachusetts
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 8. $80 REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR HIGHWAY VEHICLES OWNED
DURING TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING IN 1996.
(a) Determination of Pass Through to Consumers.--
Notwithstanding section 2(b), if the Secretary of the
Treasury certifies to the Congress before the 6th day after
the date of the enactment of this Act that it is impossible
to guarantee that the benefit of the 4.3-cent tax reduction
under section 2 of this Act will be passed through to the
consumer, then subsection (b), (c), and (d) of this section
shall take effect in lieu of section 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this
Act.
(b) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding after section 35 the following new section:
``SEC. 36. HIGHWAY VEHICLES OWNED DURING TAXABLE YEARS
BEGINNING IN 1996.
``(a) In General.--In the case of a person who is the
registered owner of an eligible highway vehicle at any time
during the first taxable year of the taxpayer beginning after
December 31, 1995, there shall be allowed as a credit against
the tax imposed by this subtitle for such taxable year an
amount equal to the sum of $30 for each such vehicle.
``(b) Eligible Highway Vehicle.--A vehicle is an eligible
highway vehicle for the purposes of subsection 9a) only if
all of the fuel consumed by such vehicle during the taxable
year is subject to tax imposed by section 4041 or 4081.
``(c) Partial Years.--In the case that a person is the
registered owner of an eligible highway vehicle for less than
the full taxable year, the credit under subsection (a) shall
be reduced to reflect only that portion of the taxable year
for which the vehicle was registered to such person.
``(d) Treatment of Lessees.--For the purposes of this
section, the lessee on a lease for an eligible highway
vehicle shall be treated as the registered owner of such
vehicle during the period of the lease.''
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b)
of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
before the period ``, or from section 36 of such Code''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 35 of
the following new item:
``Sec. 36. Highway vehicles owned during taxable years beginning in
1996.''
the vote on the previous question: what it really means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual:
``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my dear friend and chairman of the Subcommittee
on Legislative and Budget process.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Greater Claremont-
San Dimas metropolitan corridor in California, Mr. Dreier, for yielding
this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule.
This is a customary rule when we do ways and means bills, a closed
rule, a reasonable precaution when dealing with the Tax Code. Of
course, we have preserved the right of the minority, as they well know,
to offer a motion to recommit the bill with or without instructions, so
I think the process is in order.
[[Page H5336]]
This is a very important debate for every American because everyone
who drives a car, takes a bus, or flies on an airplane has been hit by
the President's 1993 gas tax hikes which scraped through this House by
one vote.
All told, this tax increase costs the people in my State of Florida
almost $263 million a year. That is a quarter of a billion, according
to one study we have. I think it is right.
Another distressing aspect of the gas tax increase is those who are
hit hardest by this are those who are least able to afford it. In my
case, it is seniors on fixed incomes and people at the lower end of the
wage scale.
In fact, this debate highlights yet again the folly of attempting to
solve our Government's financial problems through taxes and more taxes.
Six years ago the Democrats in Congress passed a luxury tax on boats in
order to make the rich pay their fair share. This supposedly targeted
tax provision not only failed to raise the projected income but the
Treasury actually lost money trying to collect it.
More importantly, thousands of boat builders, skilled American
workers, many in my district, lost their jobs because the boat people
went out of business. It was several years before we were able to
repeal that foolish tax and the damage is still being felt in Florida
and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, we are moving to repeal the gas tax. It is what the
Americans want us to do, at least for the remainder of 1996. I am
especially pleased that this measure is not going to hinder our
progress toward balancing the budget because we have fully paid for our
relief.
I think it is important to say the oil companies have come out, and I
quote, A decrease in the Federal gas tax will be immediately reflected
in the prices that Chevron charges to motorists at our pumps at
our stations through reductions.
Same statement from ARCO: We will immediately reduce its total price.
So forth. Texaco and so on. These have been entered into the Record.
Big oil understands. This is gas tax. We are repealing it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California, [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate, but all
it is is simply our attempt to do what we were denied by the former
majority back in 1993. We simply want an up or down vote on whether or
not we should impose or continue to maintain a 4.3-cent a gallon
gasoline tax on those drivers in this country.
This is a small amount of money. I will acknowledge that it is not
hundreds of thousands of dollars but it is indicative of what the
largest tax increase in American history was. It was imposed on middle
income working Americans, and this is a small step but it is a first
step towards rectifying that.
Frankly, it is interesting to see my liberal friends who imposed this
tax will do anything they possibly can to avoid cutting taxes. This
rule that we have here today is the exact same rule that was applied to
cutting the tax as we had for increasing the tax back in 1993.
There was no question back in 1993 that the consumers would be paying
the increase in the tax. No question whatsoever. Why should there be a
question today as to whether or not the consumers will benefit? The
consumers are going to benefit from that.
We have press releases, statements that have been made from those
ogres in big oil stating that it will be passed on to the consumers.
That is what is going to happen.
We do not want to see another mandate imposed by the liberals on the
private sector. We have confidence in it. We believe that we can move
ahead and take that small step towards enhancing the quality of life
for those middle income wage earners.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 181, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 180]
YEAS--221
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--181
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
[[Page H5337]]
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--31
Baesler
Browder
Bunn
Clinger
Coburn
Durbin
Frisa
Furse
Gallegly
Gutierrez
Harman
Hostettler
Kingston
Klink
Largent
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
McDermott
McIntosh
McNulty
Moakley
Molinari
Oberstar
Ortiz
Peterson (FL)
Portman
Rohrabacher
Smith (MI)
Torres
Watts (OK)
{time} 1726
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mr. Oberstar against.
Mr. Kingston for, with Ms. Harman against.
Mr. McHUGH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 180, I was delayed by my plane
being delayed by weather. Had I been present I would have voted
``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________