[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.

                          ____________________