[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5337-H5356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
       REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION FUELS TAXES

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 436, I call up 
the bill, H.R. 3415 to amend the 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Pursuant to House Resolution 
436, the amendment printed in House Report 104-580 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3415, as amended by the amendment printed in House 
Report 104-580, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3415

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is 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.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT INCREASE IN FUEL TAX RATES ENACTED 
                   BY THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 
                   1993 AND DEDICATED TO GENERAL FUND OF THE 
                   TREASURY.

       (a) In General.--Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on gasoline and diesel 
     fuel) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Repeal of 4.3-Cent Increase in Fuel Tax Rates Enacted 
     by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and 
     Dedicated to General Fund of the Treasury.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the applicable period, each rate 
     of tax referred to in paragraph (2) shall be reduced by 4.3 
     cents per gallon.
       ``(2) Rates of tax.--The rates of tax referred to in this 
     paragraph are the rates of tax otherwise applicable under--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(2)(A) (relating to gasoline and diesel 
     fuel),
       ``(B) sections 4091(b)(3)(A) and 4092(b)(2) (relating to 
     aviation fuel),
       ``(C) section 4042(b)(2)(C) (relating to fuel used on 
     inland waterways),
       ``(D) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4041(a) (relating to 
     diesel fuel and special fuels),
       ``(E) section 4041(c)(2) (relating to gasoline used in 
     noncommercial aviation), and
       ``(F) section 4041(m)(1)(A)(i) (relating to certain 
     methanol or ethanol fuels).
       ``(3) Comparable treatment for compressed natural gas.--No 
     tax shall be imposed by section 4041(a)(3) on any sale or use 
     during the applicable period.
       ``(4) Comparable treatment under certain refund rules.--In 
     the case of fuel on which tax is imposed during the 
     applicable period, each of the rates specified in sections 
     6421(f)(2)(B), 6421(f)(3)(B)(ii), 6427(b)(2)(A), 
     6427(l)(3)(B)(ii), and 6427(l)(4)(B) shall be reduced by 4.3 
     cents per gallon.
       ``(5) Coordination with highway trust fund deposits.--In 
     the case of fuel on which tax is imposed during the 
     applicable period, each of the rates specified in 
     subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C)(i) of section 9503(f)(3) 
     shall be reduced by 4.3 cents per gallon.
       ``(6) Applicable period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `applicable period' means the period after the 6th 
     day after the date of the enactment of this subsection and 
     before January 1, 1997.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. FLOOR STOCK REFUNDS.

       (a) In General.--If--
       (1) before the tax repeal date, tax has been imposed under 
     section 4081 or 4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on 
     any liquid, and
       (2) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer and has 
     not been used and is intended for sale,

     there shall be credited or refunded (without interest) to the 
     person who paid such tax (hereafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``taxpayer'') an amount equal to the excess of the 
     tax paid by the taxpayer over the amount of such tax which 
     would be imposed on such liquid had the taxable event 
     occurred on such date.
       (b) Time For Filing Claims.--No credit or refund shall be 
     allowed or made under this section unless--
       (1) claim therefor is filed with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury before the date which is 6 months after the tax 
     repeal date, and
       (2) in any case where liquid is held by a dealer (other 
     than the taxpayer) on the tax repeal date--
       (A) the dealer submits a request for refund or credit to 
     the taxpayer before the date which is 3 months after the tax 
     repeal date, and
       (B) the taxpayer has repaid or agreed to repay the amount 
     so claimed to such dealer or has obtained the written consent 
     of such dealer to the allowance of the credit or the making 
     of the refund.
       (c) Exception for Fuel Held in Retail Stocks.--No credit or 
     refund shall be allowed under this section with respect to 
     any liquid in retail stocks held at the place where intended 
     to be sold at retail.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the 
     respective meanings given to such terms by section 6412 of 
     such Code; except that the term ``dealer'' includes a 
     producer, and
       (2) the term ``tax repeal date'' means the 7th day after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Certain Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 of such Code shall 
     apply for purposes of this section.

     SEC. 4. FLOOR STOCKS TAX.

       (a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any liquid on which 
     tax was imposed under section 4081 or 4091 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 before January 1, 1997, and which is 
     held on such date by any person, there is hereby imposed a 
     floor stocks tax of 4.3 cents per gallon.
       (b) Liability for Tax and Method of Payment.--
       (1) Liability for tax.--A person holding a liquid on 
     January 1, 1997, to which the tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     applies shall be liable for such tax.
       (2) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall 
     prescribe.
       (3) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     shall be paid on or before June 30, 1997.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Held by a person.--A liquid shall be considered as 
     ``held by a person'' if title thereto has passed to such 
     person (whether or not delivery to the person has been made).
       (2) Gasoline and diesel fuel.--The terms ``gasoline'' and 
     ``diesel fuel'' have the respective meanings given such terms 
     by section 4083 of such Code.
       (3) Aviation fuel.--The term ``aviation fuel'' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 4093 of such Code.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury or his delegate.
       (d) Exception for Exempt Uses.--The tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to gasoline, diesel fuel, or 
     aviation fuel held by

[[Page H5338]]

     any person exclusively for any use to the extent a credit or 
     refund of the tax imposed by section 4081 or 4091 of such 
     Code is allowable for such use.
       (e) Exception for Fuel Held in Vehicle Tank.--No tax shall 
     be imposed by subsection (a) on gasoline or diesel fuel held 
     in the tank of a motor vehicle or motorboat.
       (f) Exception for Certain Amounts of Fuel.--
       (1) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by subsection 
     (a)--
       (A) on gasoline held on January 1, 1997, by any person if 
     the aggregate amount of gasoline held by such person on such 
     date does not exceed 4,000 gallons, and
       (B) on diesel fuel or aviation fuel held on such date by 
     any person if the aggregate amount of diesel fuel or aviation 
     fuel held by such person on such date does not exceed 2,000 
     gallons.

     The preceding sentence shall apply only if such person 
     submits to the Secretary (at the time and in the manner 
     required by the Secretary) such information as the Secretary 
     shall require for purposes of this paragraph.
       (2) Exempt fuel.--For purposes of paragraph (1), there 
     shall not be taken into account fuel held by any person which 
     is exempt from the tax imposed by subsection (a) by reason of 
     subsection (d) or (e).
       (3) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) Corporations.--
       (i) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group 
     shall be treated as 1 person.
       (ii) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has 
     the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section 
     1563 of such Code; except that for such purposes the phrase 
     ``more than 50 percent'' shall be substituted for the phrase 
     ``at least 80 percent'' each place it appears in such 
     subsection.
       (B) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar 
     to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group 
     of persons under common control where 1 or more of such 
     persons is not a corporation.
       (g) Other Law Applicable.--All provisions of law, including 
     penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by 
     section 4081 of such Code in the case of gasoline and diesel 
     fuel and section 4091 of such Code in the case of aviation 
     fuel shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with 
     the provisions of this subsection, apply with respect to the 
     floor stock taxes imposed by subsection (a) to the same 
     extent as if such taxes were imposed by such section 4081 or 
     4091.

     SEC. 5. BENEFITS OF TAX REPEAL SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO 
                   CONSUMERS.

       (a) Passthrough to Consumers.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) consumers immediately receive the benefit of the repeal 
     of the 4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor fuels 
     excise tax rates enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, and
       (B) transportation motor fuels producers and other dealers 
     take such actions as necessary to reduce transportation motor 
     fuels prices to reflect the repeal of such tax increase, 
     including immediate credits to customer accounts representing 
     tax refunds allowed as credits against excise tax deposit 
     payments under the floor stocks refund provisions of this 
     Act.
       (2) Study.--
       (A) 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 of 1993 to determine whether there has been a 
     passthrough of such repeal.
       (B) 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 subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPENSES OF 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       Section 660 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7270) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Appropriations''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2002.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for salaries and expenses of the 
     Department of Energy for departmental administration and 
     other activities in carrying out the purposes of this Act--
       ``(1) $104,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(2) $104,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(4) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(5) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(6) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.

     SEC. 7. SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

       (a) Commission Obligation to Make Additional Spectrum 
     Available by Auction.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall complete all actions necessary to permit the 
     assignment, by March 31, 1998, by competitive bidding 
     pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) of licenses for the use of bands of 
     frequencies that--
       (A) individually span not less than 12.5 megahertz, unless 
     a combination of smaller bands can, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of paragraph (7) of such section, reasonably be 
     expected to produce greater receipts;
       (B) in the aggregate span not less than 35 megahertz;
       (C) are located below 3 gigahertz; and
       (D) have not, as of the date of enactment of this Act--
       (i) been assigned or designated by Commission regulation 
     for assignment pursuant to such section;
       (ii) been identified by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant 
     to section 113 of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923); 
     or
       (iii) reserved for Federal Government use pursuant to 
     section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     305).
       (2) Criteria for reassignment.--In making available bands 
     of frequencies for competitive bidding pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) seek to promote the most efficient use of the spectrum;
       (B) take into account the cost to incumbent licensees of 
     relocating existing uses to other bands of frequencies or 
     other means of communication;
       (C) take into account the needs of public safety radio 
     services;
       (D) comply with the requirements of international 
     agreements concerning spectrum allocations; and
       (E) take into account the costs to satellite service 
     providers that could result from multiple auctions of like 
     spectrum internationally for global satellite systems.
       (b) Permanent Auction Authority.--Paragraph (11) of section 
     309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309(j)(11)) is repealed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will each be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].


                             general leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous matter on H.R. 3415.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today marks a very important moment for this House of 
Representatives, a place that has often been referred to as the 
people's House. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to remember who 
put us here, and to honor the hardworking men and women of the United 
States who simply want to keep a little bit more of the money they 
earn.
  For too long, Congress treated the public's money as if it were 
Congress' own. For too long, Congress raised taxes and spent the money 
on an ever-growing Federal Government. The hard work and labor of our 
people was turned into big government largess by the spendthrift habits 
of the politicians in Washington.
  Breadwinners, awakening each day to hard work and returning home each 
night to their loved ones, were told by Congress that the fruits of 
their labor did not belong just to them. The Federal Government, 
Congress said, had first rights to their efforts and first dibs on 
their taxes.
  That explains why Congress, at least until last year, turned to the 
people's pocketbooks when it came time to solve problems. Instead of 
entrusting people with more responsibility and more control over their 
lives, Congress picked their pockets and raided their wallets.
  Flash back to 1993, if you will, when Congress debated a major bill 
about taxing and spending. Faced with a choice between shrinking the 
size of Government by cutting spending or raising taxes to spend more 
money, the then-Democrat Congress and President Clinton unfortunately 
chose the latter. The gas tax was hiked, a $4.8 billion annual increase 
that hit middle- and lower-income Americans the hardest.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives has the chance to 
rollback this tax hike, a tax that never should have been raised in the 
first place, and our roll back is completely paid for. That is, it does 
not increase the deficit. Today, the people's House has the chance to 
show that we know where the money in this great Nation comes from. It 
comes from the people who made it, the working men and women of the 
United States. It is only right they get to keep it, because they are 
the ones who earned it.
  A 4.3 cents a gallon decrease may not sound like much to many people 
in this town, but to the American working

[[Page H5339]]

people it means a lot. It is a lot because it belongs to them, not us. 
It is theirs, not ours. The people made it, they earned it, they should 
keep it. We should return it. Roll back the gas tax. Vote ``yes.'' Show 
the American people Congress knows where the money comes from.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following correspondence for the Record.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you requested, the Congressional 
     Budget Office has reviewed the budgetary effects of the 
     spectrum provisions in H.R. 3415, as modified by the 
     amendment to be offered by Mr. Bliley.
       The spectrum provisions of H.R. 3415, as reported, would 
     require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use 
     competitive bidding to assign licenses for 25 megahertz (MHz) 
     of spectrum located below 3 gigahertz (GHz) and currently not 
     designated for auction by the FCC or identified by previous 
     law as spectrum available for transfer from federal to 
     nonfederal use. The amendment would increase that amount from 
     25 MHz to 35 MHz. Under current law the FCC's authority to 
     assign licenses by competitive bidding is set to expire on 
     September 30, 1998. The amendment to H.R. 3415 would repeal 
     this provision, thereby extending the FCC's authority to use 
     auctions indefinitely.
       CBO estimates that the 35 MHz of spectrum to be auctioned 
     under the bill as amended would raise about $2.9 billion in 
     1998. The receipts from the 35 MHz of spectrum could vary 
     depending upon the types of licenses that the FCC decides to 
     auction. CBO assumes, however, that the FCC would seek to 
     promote the most efficient use of the spectrum, as specified 
     by the bill, and allocate the 35 MHz to the highest value 
     use. Under the authority provided by Mr. Bliley's amendment, 
     CBO also would expect the FCC to auction additional parcels 
     of spectrum over the 1999-2002 period, resulting in estimated 
     receipts of about $5 billion.
       In total, CBO estimates that the spectrum provisions in 
     H.R. 3415 as amended would raise about $7.9 billion over the 
     1998-2002 period. By comparison, we estimated spectrum 
     receipts of $2.1 billion for the version of H.R. 3415 that 
     was ordered reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     on May 9, 1996. Hence, the proposed amendment would increase 
     the estimated spectrum receipts by $5.8 billion over the 
     1998-2002 period. The following table summarizes the 
     estimated effects of the spectrum provisions of H.R. 3415, as 
     modified by the proposed amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Direct spending                           
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offsetting receipts under current law                                                                           
  Estimated budget authority............    -4,900     -11,600    -2,800      -100  ........  ........  ........
  Estimated outlays.....................    -4,900     -11,600    -2,800      -100  ........  ........  ........
Proposed changes                                                                                                
  Estimated budget authority............  ........  ..........    -2,900      -800    -1,400    -1,400    -1,400
  Estimated outlays.....................  ........  ..........    -2,900      -800    -1,400    -1,400    -1,400
Offsetting receipts under proposal                                                                              
  Estimated budget authority............    -4,900     -11,600    -5,700      -900    -1,400    -1,400    -1,400
  Estimated outlays.....................    -4,900     -11,600    -5,700      -900    -1,400    -1,400    -1,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       The budgetary impact of this bill falls within budget 
     function 950.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Rachel 
     Forward and David Moore.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James L. Blum
     (For June E. O'Neill, Director)
                                                                    ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 8, 1996, Representative Seastrand 
     introduced H.R. 3415, ``a bill to amend the 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.'' The measure was referred 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on 
     Commerce. The Committee on Ways and Means ordered H.R. 3415 
     reported on May 9, 1996.
       The bill contains two provisions within the jurisdiction of 
     the Commerce Committee. Those provisions are Section 6, 
     ``Authorization of Appropriations for Expenses of 
     Administration of the Department of Energy,'' and Section 7, 
     ``Spectrum Auctions.'' Section 6 of the measure delineates 
     certain funding authorizations for the Department of Energy 
     through Fiscal Year 2002, and Section 7 provides for the 
     auction of additional spectrum.
       Recognizing the need to bring this legislation 
     expeditiously before the House, the Commerce Committee will 
     not act on its sequential referral of H.R. 3415 based on the 
     following agreement: (1) regarding Section 6, it is my 
     understanding that the words ``departmental administration 
     and other activities'' encompass travel, training, human 
     resources, support services, and other administrative 
     activities; and (2) regarding Section 7, it is my 
     understanding that you would not object to the deletion of 
     Section 7(b) of H.R. 3415 entitled, ``Federal Communications 
     Commission may not treat this Section as Congressional action 
     for certain purposes.''
       By agreeing not to act on our referral, the Commerce 
     Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over these 
     provisions. Furthermore, the Commerce Committee reserves its 
     authority to seek equal conferees on these and any other 
     provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce 
     Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference 
     that may be convened on this legislation.
       I want to thank you and your staff for your assistance in 
     providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to 
     evaluate the provisions in H.R. 3415 within our jurisdiction. 
     I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
     the Ways and Means Committee's report on H.R. 3415, and as 
     part of the record during consideration of this bill by the 
     House.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                          House of Represenatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
     Chairman, House Committee on Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley: Thank you for your letter today 
     concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on 
     Commerce in sections 6 and 7 of H.R. 3415, a bill to repeal 
     the 4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor fuels 
     excise tax rates.
       I wish to acknowledge the Committee on Commerce's 
     jurisdiction over sections 6 and 7 of the bill, dealing with 
     the authorization of appropriations for expenses of 
     administration of the Department of Energy, and spectrum 
     auctions. Accordingly, those provisions were not considered 
     by the Committee on Ways and Means during its markup on May 
     9. I have no objection to the additional clarifications you 
     are seeking to make on these items, over which the Committee 
     on Ways and Means does not have an interest.
       As you requested, I have included a copy of your letter in 
     the Committee report, and will insert a copy of it in the 
     Record during consideration of this bill by the House. Thank 
     you again for your assistance and cooperation in expediting 
     floor consideration of this important legislation. With best 
     personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another case of Republican mismanagement. Here 
we are at the end of a 5-day holiday in Congress. I have more people 
who want to speak against this crazy piece of legislation than I can 
possibly accommodate. We are gagged again. We cannot say anything.
  We do not need this. We are only here because Mr. Dole is running for 
President, he is way the heck behind in the polls and he has to do 
something to jump start his campaign, and he has chosen this. It is 
ridiculous. It is pandering at its worst. I think the American people 
recognize it. Mr. Speaker, they realize that our highways and our 
transportation system are in shambles. This money ought to be going in 
the highway system and in our transportation system, not to pander to a 
few voters so they can take a vacation a little cheaper.
  In America we have the cheapest gas prices in the world, the cheapest 
gas prices in the industrialized world. We have the lowest gasoline tax 
in the industrialized world. There is very little chance that any of 
this money will ever get back to the consumers.
  The oil companies will keep it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page H5340]]

  Mr. Speaker, for me this vote is one of keeping faith with the 
constituents and voters who sent me here to Washington in the first 
place. In 1993 I voted against the imposition of the increased gas tax. 
That was unconscionable then. It made a costly gesture towards the 
consumers of our country, towards the voters, toward our constituents. 
Now here today we are on the verge of being able to correct an error 
made by the Congress and the administration.
  I vote to correct the record. I vote to repeal the gas tax. It was a 
monumental nuisance tax back in 1993, added to the greatest tax 
increase known to mankind. We can try to set the record straight here 
today by showing we were against big taxes then and for the repeal of 
this tax now.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. None of this is going 
to get to the consumer. Every bit of it is going to go to the big oil 
companies. The proof of it is that when our colleagues and our people 
go to the pumps the day after this passed, the money is not going to be 
there. The average citizen is going to get 52 cents a week, two 
pennies, two quarters. That is all he is going to get our of this. The 
oil company is going to get $4 billion a year. That seems to me unfair.
  Nobody who has appeared before us and nobody on that side of the 
aisle, where my Republican colleagues have been holding forth the 
virtue of this, has been able to point where the money is going to go. 
The money is going to go to the oil companies. That is where it is 
going to go. No witness on behalf of the oil companies or anybody else 
who came to the committee could tell us anything else than that the 
money was going to go to the big oil companies.
  If my colleagues really want to do something for the people of this 
country, and I think it would probably be suitable, we can give the 
average citizen $40, $40 a week in differences, by simply doing 
something that really is going to help the ordinary citizens; that is, 
by passing the minimum wage legislation that we have been trying to 
get. I do not want to leave this around here too long because my 
Republican colleagues, when they see money that belongs to ordinary 
people, want to take it away from them and give it to the oil 
companies.
  But having said that, just make note, this money that we are giving 
back is going to go only one place. It is going to go to the oil 
companies, and they are going to thank you for it. It is going to show 
up in their annual statements, it is going to show up in their 
quarterly reports, it is going to show up in their 10-Ks and 10-Qs. 
They are going to enjoy it immensely, and they are going to thank the 
Republicans for it.
  The people that are being deceived today are not going to thank the 
Republicans, because all they are going to get is 52 cents a week, but 
the oil companies are going to get $4 billion a year. That is quite a 
noteworthy difference. It is something which reflects poorly on this 
House, both as to its integrity and as to its intelligence.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply respond to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] that once again Democrats go, cloaking and obscuring the 
fact that they do not want to give a tax reduction to anybody. This tax 
is a retail sales tax on gasoline. It is collected at the terminal rack 
in order to eliminate fraud and abuse. The refinery gets none of it. 
The gentleman from Michigan and his colleagues who talk about the 
refiners being able to pocket this do not understand how the tax is 
even collected. The refiners cannot benefit because the tax is added 
onto their price at the terminal rack.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], the respected chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means for bringing this measure to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 3415, legislation to 
repeal the 4.3 cents gas tax. I do so in an effort to express my deep 
concern over the current rise in gasoline prices.
  The current debate over the 4.3 cents gas tax can be attributed to 
the recent spike in gas prices. In fact the last week of April and 
first week in May saw a five cent increase in the average price of a 
gallon of gas. Furthermore, it has been reported that gas prices have 
increased by more than 10 percent, well above inflation.
  During times of continued corporate downsizing mixed with slow 
economic growth, and the rising cost of living, it is imperative that 
Congress do all it can to protect our constituents pocketbooks.
  Though many will argue that the repeal in the gas tax will not be 
passed along to the consumer but rather kept by wealthy oil companies, 
I believe it is imperative that my colleagues support this measure to 
send a message to these companies informing them of the congressional 
outrage to the current gas price increases. By supporting this measure 
I am hopeful that the threat of congressional retaliation against oil 
companies will be sufficient in motivating those firms to pass along 
the savings to the consumer.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in finding solutions to prevent 
such practices from happening in the future.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from New York, Ben Gilman, 
has the right idea about this. We have got to tell these oil companies 
that we mean business, that this is not supposed to be just a windfall 
thing. Why, it took the gentleman from Kansas a long time to come up 
with this one, took the President a shorter time, of course, to adopt 
it, but this is that time of the year.
  But I think my Republican friend is saying that it is time to let the 
oil companies know that in the House of Representatives we put the 
consumer first. That is why I am going to give you an opportunity, when 
we have a motion to recommit, to vote and make certain that these oil 
barons pass on this 4.3-cent tax cut to the consumer. If they do not do 
it, then of course we will make certain that they pay back the 4.3.
  The last thing I know my friends on the other side of the aisle would 
want is that this 4.3-cent tax, which in 7 years really can come to $30 
billion, not end up in the pockets of the oil people or the refineries. 
What we want to do is to make certain that each and every voter, or to 
put it another way, each and every motorist remembers us in November 
that we reduced the price for them by 4.3 cents.
  So I hope that some of my colleagues that are a little skeptical 
about these oil people or those who know best might join with me at the 
end of this bill to make certain that we are talking about consumer 
protection. I want to thank the gentleman for his good feeling about 
this.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply respond to the gentleman from New York that 
this is another effort on the part of the Democrats at price fixing, 
which they said was going to keep people from having to pay higher 
prices back in the 1970's at the gasoline pump. But it was only after 
President Reagan removed price controls that the price of gasoline went 
down.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton], a member of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Dingell, a member of the Committee on Commerce, asked the 
question, Where is the money going to go? With all due respect, that is 
the wrong question. The question is, Where is the money going to come 
from?
  The money has been coming out of the pockets of the American 
taxpayers,

[[Page H5341]]

who have about given all they can give. This bill repeals the 4.3-cent 
gasoline tax and allows the taxpayers to keep some of what they have 
been giving.
  My pockets are dirty and they are empty, I want the Record to clearly 
show that.
  This 4.3-cent gasoline tax repeal leaves money in the taxpayers' 
pockets. It also repeals a tax that most American citizens thought was 
going to build highways. However, this tax increase actually went into 
the general revenue fund to increase social spending.
  There is a section, section 6 of this bill, that does direct the 
Committee on Appropriations to reduce the appropriation accounts for 
departmental administration at the Department of Energy by $542 million 
over 5 years. The Secretary of Energy has been traveling extensively 
until this year, in fact, so much so that they have had to transfer 
funds from a defense program in the Department of Energy to offset some 
of the increased travel expenditures. In the President's budget they 
requested a 38-percent increase for departmental administration. This 
bill would rescind that increase and cut the administration budget for 
the Department of Energy to offset some of the lost revenue.
  So I rise in very strong support of the bill and would congratulate 
the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing it forward.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas says we are asking 
the wrong question. It is whose pockets it goes into. Good question. 
Answer: Wholesale prices going down, I tell the gentleman from Texas, 
retail prices going up. Going up.
  I do not know anybody that believes that this is going to be passed 
directly along to them, and I am surprised the Republicans did not 
allow us to ensure the fact that it would go in the consumer's pocket, 
so in fact the pockets of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, would 
have a little more in them and all of our folk's pockets would have a 
little more in them.
  This is one of the most patently political pandering proposals I have 
seen on this floor, period. The gentleman from Texas voted for a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but he does not want to 
balance it in any way other than cutting out school lunches, or cutting 
out student loans, or cutting out health care, apparently. Let us get 
real.
  Not one of you can show in any demonstrable way that this tax had 
anything to do with raising the gasoline prices, because in fact after 
we adopted it, guess what? Guess what? Gasoline prices went down, not 
up.
  But guess what did go down? Something did go down: The deficit, 
ladies and gentlemen, as a result of the 1993 bill, will go down for 
the fourth year in a row. Never before in this century, I tell the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has this been 
accomplished, not once.
  Under the economic program that everybody on the Republican side of 
the aisle not only opposed, but they said if we adopted it the economy 
would go essentially south in a hand basket, they said it would drop 
off the end of the world, that it would be an utter failure, in fact, 
exactly the opposite has happened. Inflation down, employment up, 
unemployment down, the stock market up. The economy is doing very well, 
thank you.
  Let us not retreat, which is why the Concord Coalition, one of the 
most responsible bodies in this country on reducing the deficit, says 
vote ``no'' on this sham.
  I rise to oppose this measure that helps neither consumers nor the 
future of our Nation.
  Despite all the rhetoric of recent days, enactment of this 
legislation would not reduce the price that all of us pay for gasoline.
  Disguised as a pro-consumer measure, this bill is simply an excuse 
for big oil companies to keep more of their profits.
  I regret that the Republican leadership is refusing to allow 
consideration of provisions that would guarantee that the gas tax 
repeal goes into the pockets of consumers.
  Recent experience confirms that the retail prices that you and I pay 
are not directly linked to wholesale costs--so this bill is little more 
than an excuse for big business to keep an additional 4.3-cents per 
gallon.
  I would hope that my Republican friends shared my excitement over 
this morning's reports that, thanks to President Clinton's leadership, 
the 1996 deficit will be even less than expected and will be our fourth 
consecutive year of deficit reduction.
  Before they took over the leadership of the Congress, my Republican 
friends talked a lot about deficit reduction.
  But now they have brought to the floor a bill that would cost $3 
billion this year and reduce revenue by $34 billion over 7 years.
  They say they have paid for the reduction but in fact those savings 
should be used for additional deficit reduction.
  As a supporter of the balanced budget amendment to the constitution, 
I believe we should not waiver from our course. The bill before us is a 
first step towards unraveling the 1993 economic plan that has now 
produced four consecutive years of deficit reduction.
  The U.S. Gas tax is not unreasonable. In fact, it is substantially 
less than that of France, Japan, Britain, Spain, Italy, the 
Netherlands, and Canada.
  The Concord Coalition has cautioned against this step backwards. In a 
May 7 letter they stated:

       It is a sad commentary on the depth of commitment to 
     balancing the budget that after a year of hard work, a 
     balanced budget plan still has not been adopted, while after 
     scarcely a week, a bipartisan stampede to pander to motorists 
     is being allowed to undermine deficit reduction efforts.

  We should reject this legislation and `stay the course' towards 
elimination of the deficit.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me sometimes we get carried away in our 
speeches, because we try to get people to believe that the real world 
does not work the way the real world works. You have heard a number of 
my colleagues, the most recent one on this side of the aisle, say it is 
not going to be passed on to the consumers.
  How many of you have driven by a gas station at any time in your life 
when there were two stations on the same corner and there was a nickel 
difference between the two? The answer is never. All you have to do is 
have one enterprising station owner decide as a gimmick to sell more 
gasoline to say, ``I am lowering my price by 4.3 cents and I am passing 
the savings on to you,'' and how long does he stand alone? What happens 
is the guy on the next corner says, ``We are passing it along, too.''
  What happens, as in any market situation in a highly competitive 
product, is that once somebody gets the idea that they can get the 
consumer to come to them rather than someone else by offering 
something.
  And the headlines are going to be, finally we have repealed a tax 
that never should have been imposed in the first place, and it is going 
to be passed on to consumers because somebody out there, an 
entrepreneur is going to be bright enough to say, ``I am lowering the 
price, you get the tax benefit,'' and it will not be able to be 
contained to that one bright entrepreneur.
  The idea that you have to have government tell people they have got 
to pass it on is a classic example of the difference between a party 
that believes in market-oriented entrepreneurs and the government 
having to tell you how you are supposed to run a competitive market-
based structure. All you have to do is to vote here and you will see it 
out there tomorrow, unless of course you do not have any confidence at 
all in the American system.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this debate is kind of interesting, 
because about 3 months ago when we first talked about the repeal of the 
4.3-cent gas tax, the Republicans came in like an elephant, and now 
that this debate has ensued and now we are near the end of the day, 
they are walking out like mice.
  The reason for it is because the Republicans have put to all of you, 
the American public, a great, great deception. I do not think anyone 
knows this, but the fact of the matter is, this great debate is going 
to result in a 4.3-cent tax cut of the gas tax for 7 months. It expires 
on December 31, 1996, so we got a 7-month gas tax repeal.

[[Page H5342]]

  So we are going to get big headlines in the newspaper tomorrow. It is 
going to be on national TV tonight. You can understand why they tried 
to do it earlier in the day. But the fact of the matter is they want to 
get through the election, the election in November of this year. They 
are going to say, ``We passed a gas tax repeal, 4.3 cents,'' but the 
reality, on January 1, 1997 that gas tax is going to go up 4.3 cents 
again.
  So I want to congratulate the Republicans because they tricked 
people. They tricked them over the last 3 months, thinking that you 
were doing something really great for the American people, but they are 
walking out like mice.
  Let me make one other observation. The gentleman said that the 
consumers will get this 4.3 cents. Why is it then that the oil 
refineries, why is it then that the auto dealers or the gas station 
owners want this cut? Because they know they are going to get a piece 
of the action. They know it is not going to go to the consumers. We all 
know that.
  In fact, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] offered an 
amendment in the committee, and he was turned down by the Republicans 
on that issue, to pass this cost on to the consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fraud. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand], the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed as a freshman coming 
to this House to do what my constituents have sent me, to change this 
place and to work against the bureaucracy. I am amazed to hear some of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They have never met a tax 
that they do not like, and they just are holding on to the gas tax, 
even though we are talking about a temporary repeal of the 4.3-cent gas 
tax which was enacted by President Clinton and the old 103d Congress, 
who believed in increasing taxes every time there was a problem.
  I just would urge my colleagues to let us do this quickly so that we 
can provide the relief from the recent surge in gas prices, especially 
before we go into the summer driving and we see Americans increase 
their driving, and we also see perhaps an increase in the demand for 
fuel and increased prices.
  Now, I know it is hard for many of the people here that live on 
Capitol Hill to understand what it is like 3,000 miles away on the 
central coast of California and how my constituents have to depend on 
that automobile, that truck, to get them to and from school, to and 
from work, to and from the supermarket, getting the children where they 
have to go, so we drive a lot on the central coast.

                              {time}  1800

  My agriculture industry, which is driving the produce to the markets 
for all of the people across America, knows what it is about, the extra 
increase in prices of gasoline, because it is going to be shown in that 
head of lettuce that people are going to buy at the supermarket.
  Well, in California, in the district of Santa Barbara, there was one 
station, a couple of stations that had gasoline at over $2 a gallon. So 
what we want to do is give some quick relief.
  We all know there is a number of reasons why. It has been stated on 
the floor here, the harsh winter and we are producing heating oil 
instead of gasoline. Another reason I would like my colleagues to know 
in California is there were regulations implemented to get cleaner 
gasoline so that we can have cleaner air. What does that mean? It means 
we are going to have to pay for that, in this case about a dime a 
gallon.
  So I would just say, let us give it to the consumer, and let us give 
them some tax relief.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, fact: Yes, the gas tax was raised 4.3 
cents in 1993, among great pain. The reason this happened was the 
deficit had got out of control, $290 billion. Three years later it came 
down to maybe $140 billion, possibly even $125 billion.
  Fact: This bill is going to pass. Fact: The 4.3 cents is not going to 
go back to the consumers. The gentleman from California gets incensed. 
Why do we not believe in the free market? The reason is we have 
experience. December 31, 1995, just a short time ago, the noncommercial 
jet fuel tax went down from 21.8 cents to 4.3 cents, four times what we 
are talking about tonight, down 17.5 cents per gallon. Have we seen any 
of that? We have not seen 1 penny of reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that this gas tax is going to be repealed 
for 7 months. It is a fact that the deficit maybe will not go down as 
much as it should. It is also a fact that the candidate for President, 
Mr. Dole, should not use any more of these ideas at this point in time. 
We should get back to work and be doing what we should be doing, not 
appealing to the electorate of the Presidential race when we are 
supposed to be doing congressional work.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to respond.
  We have a case example of what happens when a tax is removed. Earlier 
this year, we saw how well competition drives the prices charged to 
consumers. On January 1, the 10-percent airline ticket tax expired. 
That same day, most of the motor carriers reduced their air fares by a 
corresponding 10 percent and within 24 hours the pressures of 
competition drove another major air carrier to drop its fares by 10 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Royce], another sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, when he was running for President, 
President Bill Clinton promised he would not raise Federal gasoline 
taxes. But just 1 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 cents per gallon hike in the Federal gas 
tax.
  At the time the President assured his colleagues that the 1993 tax 
increase 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 philosophy of redistribution 
of income can backfire. The painful increase in the price at the pump 
gives us an excellent opportunity to repeal the tax that never should 
have been imposed, while at the same time helping taxpayers keep more 
of their hard-earned money.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices are up, profit for oil companies 
are soaring, oil company executives are recording record increases in 
their stock options. But crude oil prices are coming down, and oil 
companies are telling the New York Times it will take maybe to the rest 
of the year for us to figure out how to get that passed on to the 
consumer at the pump.
  This tax break, however, goes not to the consumer, but to the oil 
company refiners. And the Republicans say, well, that is the way to do 
it. Give it to the refiners. Do not you trust the refiners?
  Trusting the oil companies is like trusting in the tooth fairy. There 
is absolutely no guarantee that the oil companies are going to pass 
this on to the consumer. They have been ratcheting up prices over the 
last several months. Saddam Hussein yesterday was given the opportunity 
to sell oil on the world market. What happened? Oil prices continued to 
rise in this country.
  The marketplace which is presumed by the Republicans is not the 
marketplace observed by consumers at the gasoline pump. They want this 
tax break. The Democrats wanted an opportunity to give it to the 
taxpayer in their tax forms next year. The Republicans give the entire 
tax break to the oil refiners and ask them, pretty please, pass it on 
to the consumer at the pump.
  Well, we will wait for the rest of this year, and maybe, just maybe, 
some of it will trickle down to the consumer. But the consumer has been 
trickled on

[[Page H5343]]

by Republican economic theories for the last 16 years, and they know 
very well after this last 5 months with the oil companies that there is 
very little likelihood that it is going to be passed on this year, and 
in fact what will happen is that not only the $130 they made out of 
each consumer in price rises, but the tax break itself will wind up in 
the oil company pockets.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
simply to respond to the gentleman. His rhetoric runs very deep and 
heavy in an election year. The reality is, and I have said this already 
twice today, but he does not seem to understand how the tax is 
collected.
  The refiners do not have anything to do with the tax. The refiners 
will not get a rebate of the tax. They do not charge the tax. In fact, 
his own colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], just showed 
that the wholesale price of gasoline, which is what the refiner gets 
for gasoline, is going down. The refiner is not at all involved in 
this. The gentleman should go back and learn the basics of how this tax 
is collected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Nussle], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to the last speaker, he said how the Democrats 
want to give it to the American people. They sure want to give it to 
the American people, the way they did in 1993 when they raised the 
taxes, the largest in American history.
  I would like to go back and talk a little bit about why they raised 
the tax. You would think that they raised the tax in order to repair 
roads, or to fix potholes, or for mass transit, or for senior 
transportation, or to make sure that our bridges were in repair. Is 
that the reason?
  Absolutely not. And now we have the ranking member running into the 
House today saying it went for deficit reduction.
  But you did not, And it did not go to roads, it did not go to 
bridges, it did not go to potholes. It went for deficit reduction, they 
say.
  But did it work? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. In fact, it went for 
wasteful Washington spending, so that you could tell the folks back 
home what kind of great job you were doing in your districts and what 
kind of great job you were doing on deficit reduction, when in fact all 
you did was take more money out of their pocket, bring it out here to 
your pocket, because you believe you spend the money better than they 
do.
  Let me tell you a little bit about gas taxes and how it all works. I 
have a friend of mine, Don Gentz, who runs Don Gentz Standard in 
Manchester, IA. He tells me the folks in Manchester do not even realize 
the price of a gallon of gas.
  Do you realize gas prices back in 1965 were only 20 cents? Do you 
realize in 1975 it was only 45 cents? In 1985, it was only 98 cents? 
And today, it is only about 80 or 90 cents?
  Why are you paying so much money when you pump, stick that nozzle in 
your tank? Why do you pay $1.20 or $1.30 or $1.40 or $1.50. Why are you 
not paying what the oil refineries have as their cost? Why do you not 
pay what Don Gentz pays to put that gas into his tank in the ground? 
Why do you consumers not pay that?
  Because the Democrats believe that they spend your money better than 
you do. So they raised gas prices through the gas tax. And now, in 
1995, instead of paying just 80 cents, you added another 40 cents on.
  We just want to take a small part away. The reason is very simple, 
and this is the whole crux of the debate. Who do you think spends your 
money better? Do you believe the wasteful Washington bureaucrats and 
Representatives and Senators in Washington do it, or do you think the 
people back home, who pump their gas every single day so they can get 
to work and drive their kids to day care and make sure they get some 
money in their pocket at the end of the day, that they do a better job 
of spending that money?
  I happen to believe in Don Gentz. I happen to believe in the people 
that are driving to day care. I believe we ought to reduce this gas 
tax.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the well who just made these 
protestations that we are not spending this money on roads and 
highways, when I made a motion in committee a couple of weeks ago, as I 
recall, the gentleman is in the well now and can correct me, you voted 
against my motion to put this money in the Highway Trust Fund.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Why did it take the gentleman so long? Is that a 
revelation that just kind of came to him?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I tried to get the gentleman to yield when he was down 
there talking. He would not yield to me.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Is it a revelation? ``Let us put it in the Highway Trust 
Fund?''
  Mr. GIBBONS. I gave the gentleman an opportunity to put it in the 
trust fund, and he said no.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Why did the gentleman not take the opportunity in 1993?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments of 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. In 1990, in the summit 
agreement, there was an increase in the gas tax. Half of that went for 
deficit reduction, not for roads. Who voted for it? A lot of 
Republicans in this House, and the majority leader in the Senate, or 
the former majority leader, Mr. Dole. So we hear all of these 
rhetorical flourishes, when a lot of Republicans did the same thing in 
1990. What credibility is there?
  If there is such a passionate belief, why is it temporary? Why is it 
temporary? We in the committee suggested it be, at least some of us, on 
a permanent basis. Almost every Republican, including I think the 
Member who just spoke, voted ``no.''
  You have tried extremism. You gorged yourself on it, it does not 
work. Now you are trying manipulation, no matter how transparent.
  Let me say a word about the market. Here is what a very conservative 
economist said at our hearing. These were his words in the press 
earlier.
  ``The Republican-sponsored solution to the current fuel problem is 
nothing more and nothing less than a refiners' benefit bill. It will 
transfer upwards of $3 billion from the U.S. treasury to the pockets of 
refiners and gasoline marketers.''
  When we in the committee, Democrats, proposed a solution so it would 
go directly to the consumer, almost every Republican voted ``no.''
  I finish with this: We just debated the budget resolution. There were 
lots of speeches about the deficit. Now, just a few days later, here we 
come with a fix, 7 months only, that will increase the deficit and not 
help the consumer at all, or very much at all.
  Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy, and the worst kind of politics. We 
should vote ``no.''
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to repeal the President's 
unfair and unwise gas tax.
  This is an amazing debate, do you not think? On this side of the 
aisle, there is not a tax that they do not love. They are trying every 
way they can to hang on to more taxes on the American family, and they 
claim ``we did it for deficit reduction.''
  One of the reasons that maybe some of the Republicans voted for the 
gas tax back in 1990, I did not, but they wanted that tax to go to 
roads.

                              {time}  1815

  It is more of a user fee. What the Democrats did and what the 
President did in 1993 is take an honored tax, that usually goes for 
roads, a user fee, and put it into deficit reduction so that they could 
spend more money.
  Let us not be under any illusion about this legislation. It probably 
will not have a profound impact on the price of gas at the pump. It 
will lead to slightly lower gas prices, but in the marketplace the laws 
of supply and demand still play the biggest role in the price of 
gasoline.
  There is, however, a bigger story behind this gas tax repeal. Three 
years

[[Page H5344]]

ago, without one single Republican vote, President Clinton and the 
Democrats raised the largest tax increase in history on the American 
people. Today, we are saying that those tax increases were wrong. This 
gas tax repeal is the start, only the start, of a process, an ongoing 
process, of reversing the President's tax increases.
  Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come 
down here, and we have seen it in speech after speech, and they will 
argue against this repeal of the gas tax. They will say that the 
Government should keep this nickel in revenue, it is only a nickel, to 
pay for more social welfare programs. Well, my friends, I say for 40 
years the Congress has been nickel-and-diming the American family to 
death.
  Today, the Government takes over 50 percent, 50 percent, of the 
average family's paycheck. Today, both parents are forced to work, one 
to support their family and the other to pay for the Government, and 
they want to hold on to that money because they can spend it better. 
The American family can spend it better.
  We need to lower the cost of government. We need to lower the levels 
of taxation and lower the strains on the family and get the country on 
the right track again. This gas tax repeal is a start in that process, 
and for that reason I support it and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It is interesting that the proponents are talking about everything 
but the merits of the particular bill that is before us. My 
constituents understand this is election year politics and it is very 
expensive.
  Let me, if I might, quote from a letter I received from Henry 
Rosenberg, who happens to be the chairman and CEO of Crown Central 
Petroleum Corp., a producer and refiner of gasoline.
  Mr. Rosenberg states:

       I am writing to express opposition to the current proposal 
     to reduce the Federal gasoline tax. The 4.3-cents-per-gallon 
     tax, included in the 1993 budget, should remain as a deficit 
     cutting measure. Long-term damage to U.S. economy, caused by 
     repeal of the tax, would far outweigh any short-term gain to 
     the consuming public.

  The rationale advanced by the sponsors of this legislation is that 
the motoring public needs help because of the recent increases in 
gasoline prices. Well, there are two problems with that. First, as has 
already been pointed out, the gasoline tax has nothing to do with the 
recent increase in gasoline prices. In fact, we have seen in recent 
years a decline in gasoline prices.
  The second problem is that the consumer will not get the benefit of 
the 4.3-cent gasoline tax cut. Economists before the Committee on Ways 
and Means indicated that it will not be passed through. This is only a 
7-month repeal. It comes right back after the elections. The $2 a month 
a typical family will save will evaporate; will not even be there.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will do the right thing on 
this proposal. I want to quote from one more letter that was written in 
the Baltimore Sun by Mr. Jack Kinstlinger, who called the proposal to 
repeal the gasoline tax foolish and counterproductive.
  Let us understand what we are doing. Mr. Rosenberg of Crown Central 
said, and I want to just quote this, ``Congress should have the courage 
to support what is right, and that is to be fiscally responsible.''
  I urge my colleagues to do that and to defeat this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the letters referred to earlier follow:

                                                 Crown Central

                                              Petroleum Corp.,

                                       Baltimore, MD, May 8, 1996.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express opposition to 
     the current proposals to reduce the federal gasoline tax. The 
     4.3 cents per gallon tax, included in the 1993 budget, should 
     remain as a deficit cutting measure. Long-term damage to U.S. 
     economy, caused by repeal of the tax, would far outweigh any 
     short-term gain for the consuming public.
       Crown does not traditionally support increased gasoline 
     taxes, especially when the revenue generated is not used 
     directly for the building of highway infrastructure. In this 
     case, however, the roughly $4.5 billion generated by this tax 
     each year is essential to our efforts to reduce the deficit. 
     Putting our economy back in balance is of far greater 
     importance to both our industry and the country than 
     returning a few dollars to motorists.
       We currently bequeath to our children a trillion dollars of 
     debt every four years. It is our duty to change this 
     situation, not to make matters worse. A knee-jerk political 
     reaction to the temporary problem of higher gasoline prices 
     is not an appropriate action for Congress. The market, when 
     left to take its course, will correct any imbalances and will 
     put the price of gasoline where it should be. In the 
     meantime, Congress should have the courage to support what is 
     right, and that is to be fiscally responsible.
           Sincerely,
     Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr.
                                                                    ____


                    Gas Tax Needed to Rebuild Roads

       Republican proposals to roll back the 4.3-cent federal 
     gasoline tax enacted as part of President Clinton's 1993 
     deficit reduction package are foolish and counter-productive. 
     The current surge in fuel prices is due to pricing decisions 
     of the petroleum industry, not tax levels.
       Rather, what is needed is for the receipts to be deposited 
     into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which finances the 
     rebuilding of America's deteriorated roads and substandard 
     bridges. Forty percent of bridges in the U.S. are 
     substandard, and 30 percent of interstate highway pavements 
     are deteriorated.
       We would need to double our investment in transportation 
     just to maintain current levels of service and safety, 
     according to government studies. The United States invests 
     about two percent of its gross domestic product in 
     infrastructure renewal, one-third the ratio of European 
     nations or Japan.
       With that dismal record of capital reconstruction, how much 
     longer can we maintain our world leadership position?
                                                 Jack Kinstlinger.

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill that is before us to 
cut the gas tax is not about putting more gasoline in the tanks of the 
American consumers' automobiles, this is about putting fuel in Bob 
Dole's campaign for the Presidency that was stalled and out of gas on 
the side of the road.
  Mr. Dole decided he would give up efforts at deficit reduction and he 
would try to curry favor with the American public by reducing the gas 
tax for 7 months or 6 months by maybe 4.3 cents, and we do not even 
know whether or not that will be passed on. This is about Presidential 
politics and a failed campaign to try to use the gas tax to jump-start 
that campaign.
  In California, the State I come from, the wholesale price of gasoline 
has dropped 15 cents since May 6, but at the pump it has only dropped 2 
cents. If we take this tax and cut it again, it does not mean that the 
consumer is going to get the benefit. The refiners now have the ability 
to hold the price up because there is 4 cents give.
  So the refiners, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, can benefit 
from this because they force it on to the service station owner. They 
have every ability to do that, or the service station owner simply 
will not pass it on, as they are not doing currently, as they are not 
doing currently under the rather dramatic drop in the wholesale price 
of gasoline in the California market.

  What has happened here was this tax was put on because the country 
said they were tried of the red ink of the deficit. This was part of 
President Clinton's plan to reduce the deficit, the most successful 
deficit reduction plan in the last 25 or 30 years. He did not do what 
the Republicans were doing through the 1980's, talking about balanced 
budgets, talking about reducing the deficit. He, in fact, reduced the 
deficit. In fact, he has cut it by more than half, and it has continued 
to go down and people have continued to receive the benefits of low-
interest rates as they have been able to refinance their houses and 
other things. So the Presidential meant it for real. Now the 
Republicans want to give up on deficit reduction with this ploy.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5345]]

  I do not know how often I have to say it. This bill does not increase 
the deficit. And why is the deficit down since 1993? Not because of the 
taxes that are taken out of the pockets of people for gasoline.
  It is down because, yes, we did not have to bail out any more 
insurance on depositors of savings and loans.
  That was taken off as a spending item because of the courage of 
President Bush in taking on that responsibility. But that was no longer 
there. It declined and went away.
  And because of the reduction in defense spending, which was already 
on the books when President Bush left office, and the down building of 
the Defense Department.
  And then, what I believe was a very, very unwise thing, to convert 
more long-term debt to short-term debt because temporarily interest 
rates were lower on short-term debt. So the cost of interest went down.
  Those were the major factors that reduced the deficit. But the 
democrats do not to talk about that.
  Let us get back to the focus on this tax increase. They want the 
American people to believe we can tax people and tax people and tax 
people and nothing ever happens. They do not pay more. And if we cut 
taxes, then, of course, the people will not benefit from it. Taxes are 
an imaginery item in their economic view of things, and so just keep 
loading them on.
  We want to, at least during the time of this unexpected increase in 
gas prices, which, hopefully, will go away by the end of this year, 
take away some of this burden on the pocketbook of working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out to my 
colleagues, since I was preceded by one of my colleagues from 
California, that according to economists, motorists in California, 
Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania bear the brunt of the Clinton 
Democratic gas tax increase. The total cost of the Clinton Democratic 
gas tax increase to Californians is nearly $550 million a year.
  I think it also bears mentioning that when the 1993 Clinton 
Democratic budget and tax plan first came out of this House, it 
contained an even broader energy tax, the so-called Btu tax increase, 
on every single American motorist and household. So if Members are 
going to stand up and talk about the gas tax repeal, they should at 
least take a stand on principle; say that they support the tax increase 
they imposed on the American people.
  They should stand by the principle today and not try to waffle all 
over the place and equivocate and say, well, I might vote against it 
because I am not sure that the repeal is actually going to be passed on 
to the American motorist.
   Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce into the Record letters, actually 
they are press releases, from the big three oil companies, Chevron, 
Texaco and Arco, all indicating that they intend to pass the gas tax 
repeal directly through to the consumer.
  Arco's headline: Arco will immediately reduce total gasoline price if 
4.3 Federal gas tax is eliminated. Texaco says the same thing. Chevron 
says, and I quote, 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 United States through reductions, 
which, on average, would equal the amount of the tax decrease.
  So let us be honest here, folks, in this debate. I know that some are 
caught between a rock and a hard spot, I know they are trying to 
justify and defend the largest tax increase in American history, which 
included the 4.3 cent gas tax increase they imposeds on the American 
people, and I know those revenues never went to highway spending; 
instead, they went for just more Washington spending and more 
Washington bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, the letters referred to earlier follow:

             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.
                                                                    ____


       Texaco Responds to Gasoline Tax Reduction Price Inquiries

       White Plains, NY, 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.
                                                                    ____


 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 decision 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. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this election-year 
gimmick; 4.3 cents has nothing to do with the price of gasoline and 
everything to do with trying to buy an election, but the American 
people will not be fooled.

[[Page H5346]]

  Not one voter, but not one voter from the Fifth Congressional 
District of Georgia has contacted me in support of this ill-conceived 
idea. Every letter, every phone call I have received has a simple 
message: Vote ``no''. Do not play games. Do not sacrifice common sense 
for nonsense.
  The Concord Coalition, economists and deficit hawks all agree this is 
a bad bill. It is a silly bill. It is downright silly.
  We must stand for something, my colleagues, or we will fall for 
anything. We cannot just pay lipservice to deficit reduction, we must 
vote for it. I urge my colleagues, all of us, to vote no.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise not on behalf of the political ploy 
that is being perpetrated on the American public by this legislation 
but on behalf of the Nation's crumbling highway infrastructure.
  I would say to my colleagues that the American public recognizes a 
political sham when it sees one, and that is what this bill represents, 
nothing but a sham, a pure political sham.
  I would suggest as well that if anybody really believes the action we 
are going to take here today by repealing the 4.3 cents gas tax is 
going to lead to lower prices at the pump, then I would say if one 
really believes that, welcome to La-La-Land. Welcome to La-La-Land.

                              {time}  1830

  Nothing we do here today is going to lower the price of the gas at 
the pump. We can argue, and we can argue, and we can argue about the 
reasons why the prices have gone up, whether it be the new sporty 
vehicles, whether it be the repeal of the national speed limit that 
this Congress did or whether it be the weather conditions or crude oil 
stock supplies, whatever. We can argue about the true reasons for this 
price increase.
  The fact is the American people want this money going to improving 
our infrastructure. That is where we ought to be spending this money 
without increasing taxes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this is bad budget policy. It is going to 
make it $30 billion-plus harder to balance the budget over the next 6 
years. It is bad consumer policy, unlikely that our citizens are going 
to see very much of this reflected at the pump. It is lousy energy 
policy.
  We ought to be focused on conservation and efficiency. This goes in 
exactly the wrong direction. It is lousy national security policy 
because it aggravates our dependence on foreign imported oil and all 
that goes with that, and it is really lousy politics. It gives 
pandering a bad name.
  Does anyone here remember the budget deficit?
  Today, the House will vote on a bill to temporarily repeal the 4.3 
cent gas tax increase that was a part of the landmark 1993 deficit 
reduction package.
  That deficit reduction bill was a big step toward getting the budget 
under control. Because of what we did in 1993, we've had 4 straight 
years of deficit reduction for the first time in decades. Since then, 
the deficit has been cut in half.
  So, why are we rushing to take up a bill to repeal the 4.3 cent gas 
tax that is dedicated to deficit reduction?
  The answer is that the Republican leadership thinks that there is 
election-year mileage to be had from pandering to what they think will 
be popular; and others among us are experiencing some panic about being 
caught on the wrong side of the issue.
  Pandering and panic--that's a potent election-year mix, but a toxic 
one in terms of good public policy.
  If anyone wonders whether the gas tax repeal is election year 
pandering, you only need to look at the effective dates in the bill--
the temporary gas tax cut would last from June until January, just long 
enough to take us through the election.
  Of course, that won't be the end of the story--we're told that the 
legislation implementing the budget resolution will include a permanent 
repeal. Permanent repeal of the part of the gas tax that goes to 
deficit reduction would add $33.9 billion to deficit by 2002. That 
would increase the deficit by several billion more than it was reduced 
by all the cuts in the appropriations bills for this year--cuts that 
the Republican leadership have called the ``down payment'' on a 
balanced budget.
  But that will come later. Today, we have the temporary repeal. The 
rationale for today's bill supposedly is the recent increase in prices 
at the gasoline pump. But will this bill reduce prices at the pump? 
Will it be passed on to the consumer?
  Not likely. The benefits of this bill will go directly to the oil 
refiners and there are many steps between the refiners and the pump. A 
reduction in gas taxes doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in gas 
prices.
  Energy expert Philip K. Verleger, Jr., an economist at Charles River 
Associates, has said, ``The Republican sponsored solution to the 
current fuels problem * * * is nothing more and nothing less than a 
refiners' benefit bill. It will transfer upward of $3 billion from the 
U.S. Treasury to the pockets of refiners and gasoline marketers.''
  Even the conservative economist William Niskanen, president of the 
conservative Cato Institute, says, ``I don't think there is anything 
the Republicans can credibly do to guarantee that the tax reduction 
gets passed through to the consumer.''
  A gas tax cut also won't do anything to address the serious economic, 
environmental and security issues that flow from our country's 
dependency on non-renewable sources of energy, especially imported oil.
  In poll after poll, when people are asked what the highest priority 
should be for energy policies, the majority support research and 
development for energy efficiency and renewable energy. So, what are 
the priorities of the new majority here in the House? Their budget 
resolution cuts funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy. As 
shown in this bill, political posturing about the price of gas.
  This bill is also bad policy because it sends exactly the wrong 
signal about conserving energy. We need to do more, not less, to 
encourage more efficient use of energy. Because gasoline has again 
become relatively cheap, and because national policy has stopped 
stressing the importance of fuel efficiency, we've been seeing the 
return of gas-guzzling cars, especially the increasingly popular sport 
utility vehicles. This bill would not do anything to counter this 
trend.
  We also need to continue development of technology for efficient, 
cost-effective use of solar and renewable energy sources. Petroleum is 
not a renewable resource, and passing this mistaken bill will only tend 
to discourage progress regarding better energy sources.
  Petroleum is also primarily an imported fuel. Efforts to encourage 
its use only add to our dependence on foreign sources, and complicate 
our national security interests and foreign policies.
  This bill should not be on our agenda. It won't help the consumer, 
but it will hurt the country. It's an oil bill all right--political 
snake oil. It's cheap politics, but with a high price of misplaced 
priorities and bad public policy.
  We should not be carried away by election-year panic. We should 
reject this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me offer to the American 
public that unfortunately this is putting a toothless tiger in your 
tank. This should really be a bipartisan effort. I offered H.R. 3457 to 
repeal the gas tax and to have an enforcement provision that would in 
fact ensure tracking the Committee on Ways and Means the fact that it 
would get back to the consumer.
   Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to say that the bill we have on the floor 
today gives a sense of Congress's position. I think that is nice for me 
to be able to say I want it repealed. It has no enforcement provision 
whatsoever. It says that we want the General Accounting Office to do a 
study.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, there are 121,000 households in the 18th 
Congressional District of Texas making under $25,000. They do not want 
me to study the issue. They need the repeal at the pump today, right 
now. I am going to hope that our body and the other body will come 
together and get a real repeal that comes to those who need it and that 
we will be able to vote on a gas tax that the American public can be 
pleased with and benefit from.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some serious concerns over H.R. 3415, 
which would temporarily repeal 4.3 cents of the 18.3 cents per gallon 
Federal excise tax on gasoline.
  First of all, I am concerned that this bill is being considered under 
a closed rule. Several

[[Page H5347]]

members submitted amendments to the Rules Committee that would have 
made this bill a better bill. Unfortunately, on a bill of such major 
importance to our country, the Rules Committee rejected all amendments.
  While I believe that gas prices should be reduced, I am disappointed 
that this bill does not ensure that the repeal of 4.3 cents of the 
Federal excise tax on gasoline is passed through to customers.
  I introduced a bill, H.R. 3457, to temporarily repeal the 4.3 cents 
gas tax by requiring the business firms to certify to the Treasury 
Department that the savings from such repeal would be passed through to 
consumers or the gas tax would be reimposed on those firms that did not 
do so.
  H.R. 3415 does not contain any such enforcement provision. H.R. 3415 
only includes a sense of the Congress provision that consumers receive 
the benefit and that fuel producers take actions to reduce the fuel 
price. It also requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a 
study to determine whether there was a pass through of the repeal to 
consumers.
  There is no question that gas prices have increased by 20 cents since 
February of this year and that we need to find a way to give consumers 
and business firms some relief. I know first-hand that the 210,000 
workers in the 18th Congressional District of Texas who drive everyday 
to work or participate in carpools need immediate relief.
  If we decide to approve a repeal, we must make up the lost revenue in 
the amount of $2.9 billion to the Federal Government by reducing 
spending on other programs.
  This bill restores lost revenue by proposing cuts in salaries and 
other administrative expenses at the Department of Energy in the amount 
$800 million over the next 6 years. Of this amount, $104 million would 
be cut in fiscal year 1997. The Energy Department, which has the 
resources to help the energy industry expand its domestic energy 
production should not be subject of such major cuts. As we carefully 
consider whether to pass this bill, let us commit ourselves to 
expanding our domestic energy production so that we can lessen our need 
for oil from other countries.

  The other source of revenue to pay for the repeal is generated from 
giving the FCC permanent authority to award licenses for the use of 
radio broadcast spectrum. In 1998, $2.9 billion would be generated form 
these auctions.
  In the alternative, my bill, H.R. 3457, would have offset the lost 
revenue by cutting the Department of Defense procurement budget, which 
is already significantly above the Defense Department's request.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important vote, I urge my colleagues to 
carefully weigh the facts and consider whether this bill will 
accomplish what it intends to do. American consumers are watching and 
waiting.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman form Georgia, [Mr. Lewis] 
said that the tax did not have any effect on the price of gas. It does, 
$550 million in California, it affects our taxpayers. Yes, the 1993 
Clinton tax package, we took away the increase on Social Security for 
seniors of the tax. So I assume that that does not affect anything 
either.
  We decreased the luxury tax that we had that cost many, many 
thousands of jobs. I suppose that does not have any effect. And the gas 
price, a 1-cent change in gas cost airlines millions of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have us take a look at what the President has 
said that his deficit reduction package is so good. If it is so good, 
why did the President have to offer us four different budgets that 
increased the deficit by $200 billion every year for the next 7 years? 
When he was forced to present a budget that was scored, 90 percent of 
those cuts took place in the years 6 and 7, because he does not want 
it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, there are many writers and 
pundits around Washington who wonder why Americans are cynical about 
politics. This is the day to understand why Americans are cynical about 
politics. What do we have here, 6\1/2\ months before the Presidential 
and congressional elections? We have an attempt, and a successful 
attempt unfortunately, to repeal a gas tax for 7 months. Then it does 
back on.
  The people who are voting for this, the President, Senator Dole, must 
think that the American people do not understand. They must think they 
do not understand cynical politics, because that is exactly what this 
is. If the people on this side of the aisle did not want this repealed, 
they would have introduced it a year and a half ago. They would have 
made it permanent. But that is not what is going on here. What is going 
on here is the crass political demonstration for the elections. That is 
all it is. Any American with an IQ over 80 will understand that.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I support a repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax, 
but I am disappointed in how the issue was approached. I had hoped that 
we would not only cut this tax but that we would assure the American 
people that any change in the tax would ensure that the people of this 
Nation would have more change in their pockets.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership stood firm in their support 
of big oil. They missed their golden opportunities. First, in committee 
last week and on the floor today the leadership refused a Democratic 
amendment to guarantee that consumers and not the oil companies would 
benefit from the repeal. Second, the tax should have been paid for by 
reforming corporate welfare and eliminating programs like the alcohol 
fuel credit and the percentage of depletion for oil producers.
  Finally, the Republican leadership should have promised the American 
people that they would hold hearings, that the oil companies may have 
engaged in price gouging. Without these assurances, the end result is 
unclear.
  I support this because it is important for families in this country 
to receive a break.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult bill to vote against. It 
is popular, but I think we can all see it for what it is. It is a 
cynical, cheap, political, election-year maneuver. My Republican 
colleagues must think that the American public is stupid. Everyone can 
see through the bill and understand what it is.
  Mr. Speaker, if they were so concerned about deficit reduction as 
they say they are, they would be acting differently. The deficit has 
been cut in half, less than half, under the President and with the 
Democratic Congresses. There was not one Republican that voted for it. 
So when push comes to shove, they really do not care that much about 
the deficit to play it straight.
  Why would the Republican leadership not allow us a vote on this floor 
to guarantee that the savings would be passed on to the American 
consumers? I think that the fact that they will not allow us a vote to 
ensure that the American consumers will benefit from this is again a 
cynical move. So again they talk a good game. They talk deficit 
reduction, but in reality, it is only election year politics. Business 
as usual. Politics as usual.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I might say, this is in a political mode but let me say, I believe 
this is one of the most mindless things we could possibly do. I did not 
support the gas tax increase when it was adopted. I would not reduce 
the deficit by raising taxes. I would reduce the deficit and do reduce 
it by cutting spending. But this is a tax already in existence. This is 
a tax now that is reducing the deficit. And while repealing it may be 
good politics, it is bad Government.
  There is no assurance whatsoever that the consumer will get any 
benefit if this legislation passes. I imagine they will not even get a 
chance to notice it because as everyone knows, Iraq recently entered 
into an agreement with the United Nations to put about 700 million 
barrels of oil a day on the market which is going to drive the price 
down with increased supply. It is coming down anyway.
  I might add, today in this country motor fuel costs are at a historic 
all-time low. We have more fuel efficient cars. The cost of gasoline is 
down. It seems to me that this is something that will simply undermine 
the deficit reduction that is going on. The offset is to sell assets, 
and anybody knows that this is not the way to run a railroad or a 
government.

[[Page H5348]]

  I believe that this legislation simply represents politics I 
personally want no part of it. I intend to vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is political pandering if I have ever seen it, and 
I have seen a lot of political pandering in my life. But this is about 
as bad as I have ever seen. Mr. Dole needed something to jump start his 
campaign so he poured a little gasoline on it.
  Give everybody a tax cut for the user fee that they pay for using the 
highways of this country. Some of this money does not go into the user 
fee. I made a motion in the Committee on Ways and Means to put it all 
in the user fee, and all the Republicans turned it down, Mr. Speaker. 
So if anybody thinks our highway and transportation infrastructure is 
in great shape, it is because you have not tried to use it recently. I 
did this last weekend. It is a mess.
  It is overcrowded. It is wearing out. Most families, when they are 
traveling, will pick out the filling stations that have the best rest 
rooms to stop and buy their gasoline because the prices are so close to 
each other. They are very cynical. They do not think that the oil 
companies are going to let them see any of this gasoline tax repeal. I 
am cynical like that, too, Mr. Speaker.
  I think this is political pandering at its worst. We ought to vote 
no.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out again, so as to 
not deliberately mislead our colleagues and the American people, 
following this debate, this 4.3 cents per gallon gas tax increase 
imposed by the President and congressional Democrats does not go into 
the Federal highway trust fund, does not pay to maintain our Nation's 
highway transportation infrastructure or for our mass transit programs.
  What I was going to ask the gentleman, I very much appreciate the 
distinguished chairman yielding to me, if you cannot cut taxes, the 
repeal of this gas tax increase amounts to a $48 average savings to the 
American family. If you cannot cut taxes by at least $48 on average for 
the American family, then you are obviously not going to support any 
form of tax relief for working American families.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all of the rhetoric 
today. I must say the gentleman from Florida now says he wants this 
money to go into the trust fund. I have wanted all gasoline taxes to go 
into the trust fund and to build highways and bridges so that those who 
pay the tax will benefit by being able to use the infrastructure paid 
for by those taxes. Unfortunately, that was not permitted in 1993.
  For the first time the compact with the American vehicle users on the 
highways was abrogated, the compact that existed all the way back to 
Eisenhower's presidency of this country.
  I would hope that if this tax is permitted to continue after January 
1, that the gentleman from Florida will join with me to assure that it 
does go into the highway trust fund where it belongs as a legitimate 
user fee. Unfortunately, the gentleman will be retiring and will not be 
here at that time.
  There is so much misinformation that has been presented about this 
legislation. Yes, it is a temporary repeal. Yes, hopefully this will be 
a temporary spike in the price of gasoline so that we can give some 
degree of help to working Americans to let them keep more of their 
weekly paycheck.

                              {time}  1845

  And if the price of gasoline is down overall at the end of this year, 
we will have done our job.
  It is interesting that a columnist in the Boston Globe wrote an 
article, and I quote. This is from the 6th of May:

       A group of moguls and powerbrokers gather in their splendid 
     headquarters. As aides and flunkies scurry about, the barons 
     are coming to an agreement on the price of gasoline. Should 
     they raise it? Lower it? Leave it alone? Whatever they 
     decide, drivers everywhere will bear the consequences, for he 
     moguls' influence reaches every gas pump in America.
       It doesn't take long. These powerful men and women know 
     what they want. They are hungry for more money. And so, from 
     their elegant chambers, the order goes forth: Raise gasoline 
     prices. Across the land, every filing station satisfy 
     complies. There is nothing customers can do about it. Those 
     who wish to buy gasoline must pay the surcharge the maguls 
     have deserved.
       Fiction? Not at all. This scenario actually happened 
     Collaboration did take place. The price of gasoline was 
     artifically hiked. The people who hiked it were motivated by 
     a hunger for more money.
       Who were these collaborators? A group of profit-swollen oil 
     industry plutocrats? A handful of Persian Gulf petro-sheiks? 
     A criminal consortium plotting to wreck the domestic oil 
     market?
       No. The powerful cabal that deliberately jacked up the 
     price of gasoline, forcing Americans to pay billions of 
     dollars more than the market value, was--the Congress of the 
     United States.

  Mr. Speaker, they were reaching an 18.3-cent-a-gallon tax on 
gasoline. I include the rest of this article for the Record.
  The article referred to is as follows:

                  [From the Boston Globe, May 6, 1996]

                   Who Really Drove Up Price of Gas?

                            (By Jeff Jacoby)

       In May 1993, the federal gasoline tax was raised to 18.3 
     cents a gallon. That vote marked the third time in just over 
     a decade that Congress had increased the tax. Since December 
     1962, the federal levy on gasoline has exploded 357 percent--
     even as the price of gasoline has trended steadily downward.
       Of course, for the last few weeks, as every driver knows, 
     prices at the pump have been a dime or two higher than usual. 
     There's no mystery about why: Inventories were down because 
     of the unusually long winter, a fire in California closed a 
     Shell Oil refinery, and Saddam Hussein's obduracy is keeping 
     500,000 barrels a day of Iraqi crude off the international 
     market.
       No reputable economic or oil expert in the world would 
     attribute the current surge in gasoline prices to anything 
     but the normal interplay of supply and demand.
       Politicians, however, are a different story.
       Sniffing a chance to turn motorists ire to political 
     advantage, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, pandered to the 
     TV cameras last week. Tossing around criminal accusations of 
     ``price-fixing, collusion, or deliberate efforts to limit 
     supply,'' he called for the Energy and Justice departments to 
     investigate the oil industry. ``Naked greed!'' he hissed. 
     ``Oil company overcharges!''
       Even for Markey, who excels at anti-business cheap shots, 
     this was egregious. It was grandstanding of the trashiest 
     sort, and if it wasn't libel, it came awfully close. Nobody 
     believes that price-fixing is behind the latest price spike. 
     ``We think it's unlikely that there's collusion or anything 
     illegal going on here,'' Markey's own aide admitted on 
     Friday--even as his boss was making exactly those charges.
       And just who is Markey to talk about gouging? Nothing is 
     more responsible for inflating the price of gasoline than 
     politicians like him. It isn't the cost of crude oil that 
     accounts for the lion's share of gas prices. It isn't 
     refining. It isn't marketing or distribution. All of those 
     cost considerably less today (in real terms) than they did 15 
     years ago.
       It's taxes.
       In 1981, federal and state taxes made up just 12 percent of 
     the retail price of gasoline. Last year, they accounted for 
     35 percent. The typical driver now pays 42 cents a gallon in 
     taxes--in some states, far more. Rhode Island and California 
     drivers pay 47 cents in taxes for each gallon they buy. 
     Connecticut drivers, a whopping 53 cents. ``The average U.S. 
     consumer,'' reports the Wall Street Journal, ``is paying 72 
     percent more in gas taxes than a decade ago.'' Talk about 
     colluding to squeeze more money out of American drivers! It's 
     Congress and the statehouses, not the oil companies, that 
     have been ripping off motorists unmercifully.
       Which is why Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich are absolutely right to call for 
     rolling back the 1993 increases in the federal gasoline tax. 
     The pity is that they didn't call for it 18 months ago, when 
     their party won control of Congress. The only reason the 
     ``Clinton gas tax'' is being targeted now is because 
     Republicans want to show that they, too, can ``do something'' 
     about higher gasoline prices.
       But the reason to repeal the gas tax increase is not to 
     undo a temporary jolt at the pump. It is that the increase 
     should never have been passed in the first place. And the 
     reason it should never have been passed is that taxes in 
     America are already far too high. Wasn't that why Republicans 
     unanimously opposed the '93 tax package in the first place?
       Markey can demagogue about price-fixing; the Justice and 
     Energy departments can probe for collusion. It's pretty clear 
     who's been gouging U.S. drivers, When the federal gasoline 
     tax was hiked in 1983, Markey voted yes. When it was hiked in 
     1990, he voted yes. When it was hiked in 1993, he voted yes. 
     If it weren't for the Ed Markeys of this country gasoline 
     would be 30 percent cheaper. Think about that the next time 
     you fill up.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3415, 
the Temporary Gasoline Tax Repeal Act. In taking this position, let

[[Page H5349]]

me first make it clear that I have consistently supported efforts for 
real tax relief for our Nation's working citizens and their families. 
However, I cannot and will not support this so-called tax relief 
package that will, in fact, result in a significant, undeserved 
windfall for our Nation's oil companies.
  It would be irresponsible to transfer nearly $2.9 billion to some of 
the most profitable companies in America with no appreciable benefits 
for consumers. This shortsighted and politically motivated legislation 
before us will also hurt our efforts to reduce the deficit.
  The stated purpose of H.R. 3415 is to temporarily repeal the 4.3 
cent-per-gallon increase in the Federal transportation fuels tax that 
was enacted as part of the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act. Furthermore, 
the measure would only be effective until January 1, 1997, when the tax 
would be reinstated. In order to offset the lost $2.9 billion in 
revenue generated by the tax the bill cuts funding from the Energy 
Department and auctions off new radio frequencies now owned by the 
Federal Government.
  It is important to note that the 4.3 cent-per-gallon gas tax is not 
actually imposed at the pump. Instead, it is levied on oil companies at 
an earlier point in the chain of sale and then passed on to the service 
station and the consumer. In the absence of a provision in H.R. 3415 to 
ensure that any savings are passed on to consumers the total $2.9 
billion savings from the bill will end up benefiting big oil companies.
  In an attempt to ensure that consumers would be protected, my 
Democratic colleagues sought a rule that would have allowed an 
amendment to H.R. 3415. Had this amendment been made in order, it would 
have required that the $2.9 billion tax cut was directed to the 
American public. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee prohibited any such 
consumer protection amendment.

   Mr. Speaker, because of the exclusion of any savings to consumers, 
H.R. 3415 represents one of the majority's most audacious attempts to 
transfer Federal funds to wealthy corporations. It is cynical and 
repugnant to me that this bill, under the guise of providing tax relief 
to Americans, will simply be increasing the profit margins of oil 
companies.
  While I applaud all Americans who have been able to enrich themselves 
through hard work, innovation, and creativity, I cannot support a tax 
relief package that so unevenly benefits a specific industry to the 
detriment of the American public. In addition to providing tax breaks 
to America's richest oil companies, this bill also hurts our efforts to 
achieve meaningful deficit reduction. While the Republican controlled 
Congress has claimed that they support meaningful efforts to reduce the 
deficit, this bill makes that goal much more difficult. H.R. 3415 
directs over $2.9 billion that cold have been used for deficit 
reduction to big oil companies as a giveaway. The fact is, under 
current law, the deficit fighting characteristics of the gas tax have 
played a key role in President Clinton's 3 year historic effort to 
control deficit spending.
  In addition to the harm this legislation will cause to our Nation's 
fight to reduce the national deficit, H.R. 3415 misdirects Federal 
resources away from programs that could help our Nation's citizens. The 
$2.9 billion that this bill uses to line the pockets of rich oil 
company executives could have been used to provide housing to the poor, 
food to the hungry, job opportunities to the jobless, and better 
education for America's children.
   Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that H.R. 3415 and the circumstances 
under which it is presented in this House is an attempt to mislead the 
American people to believe that this so-called tax cut will help 
citizens and businesses hurt by rising fuel prices. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. This legislation unfairly and unjustifiably 
expands the gap between rich oil companies and the rest of America. The 
American people elected us to act in their best interest, not 
compromise their welfare because the new Republican majority wants to 
satisfy campaign promises and grant tax breaks to the wealthy. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3415, the temporary 
gas tax repeal, election year opportunism that will do virtually 
nothing to help the taxpayers of our country.
  H.R. 3415 is simply politics--it has nothing to do with good 
government or good policy. There is no guarantee that any of the 4.3 
cents per gallon that is being repealed will end up in the pockets of 
taxpayers. The money is more likely to find its way to the coffers of 
the big oil companies.
  This Congress should be finding constructive ways of helping the 
people of our Nation's working class. H.R. 3415 is a political gimmick 
that will end up helping big corporations and not the people who need 
the help.
  At a time when serious Democrats and serious Republicans are doing 
everything they can to reduce the budget deficit, H.R. 3415 would add 
$1.7 billion to the fiscal year 1996 deficit. This bill only makes 
sense if the money will end up in the taxpayers' pockets and if 
sensible, reasonable offsets in spending are found. So far, this bill 
falls short on both counts.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I 
believe that the Federal gas tax should be dedicated to maintaining and 
improving our transit and highway systems. Since 1956, the gas tax has 
provided support through the highway trust fund for highway and transit 
programs. We should maintain the principle of using the gas tax money 
for infrastructure programs.
  The alternative proposed by H.R. 3415 is that instead of using a 4.3 
cent per gallon gas tax to reduce the deficit, we should allow it to go 
back to the big oil companies. If H.R. 3415 is passed, I fear that all 
chance of directing that 4.3 cents per gallon into badly needed 
infrastructure improvements will be lost.
  My colleague, Representative Rahall, has introduced H.R. 3372, which 
I have cosponsored, to recapture the 4.3 cents per gallon for the 
highway trust fund to be used for the highway and transit programs. 
With tremendous needs for future investment just to maintain our roads, 
bridges and transit systems at their current level, the additional $5 
billion a year would mean more jobs and more productivity growth.
  I have proposed combining this common sense approach with the kind of 
innovative financing that is needed to meet our vast infrastructure 
needs. Last week, I introduced H.R. 3469 which would create an 
infrastructure reinvestment fund.
  This fund would use the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax as leverage to 
issue bonds for the transit and highway program. This future stream of 
revenue could produce as much as $50 billion in the first year for 
needed infrastructure improvements.
  It is estimated that investment of each $1 billion in infrastructure 
will create 50,000 new jobs. The infrastructure reinvestment fund would 
be a huge boost for our economy, both in the short-term and long-term.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation found that an annual investment 
of $50 billion will be needed during the next 20 years just to maintain 
our highways in their current condition. An annual investment of $7.9 
billion will be needed to maintain our transit systems in their current 
condition.
  True national leadership is needed to find the money for our highway 
and transit systems. Instead, we are faced with H.R. 3415, politics at 
its worst with no thought for our nation's economic future, no thought 
for our Nation's consumers and no thought for the budget deficit.
  Only if H.R. 3415 contained an assurance that consumers would receive 
some benefit from the repealed gas tax would it be worth considering. 
Instead, this bill benefits the big oil companies at the expense of our 
nation's long-term economic interests.
  I urge the defeat of H.R. 3415.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3415.
  Gas prices have hit $1.54 where I live in West Sacramento, and they 
are on the rise. Davis and Woodland range from $1.52 to $1.56. Further 
north in our congressional district, prices are similar--$1.58 in Yuba 
City, $1.55 in Red Bluff.
  That's just too high, and I support this bill to cut gas prices by 
temporarily repealing 4.3 cents in Federal gas taxes.
  At the same time, we need to make sure we're not just rolling 
windfall profits down the freeway to big oil companies.
  The point of reducing gas taxes is to reduce gas prices at the pump 
for consumers. I also hope it will contribute to a greater trend--
keeping gas prices down permanently. Recent activity on the commodities 
futures market indicates that gas prices could begin to drop later this 
summer.
  But the problem is urgent, and we need to do something now so that 
Californians can get to work without leaving their wallets at the gas 
pump, and so that farmers and others in fuel-intensive businesses have 
long-term confidence that their costs won't skyrocket. California is 
finally in economic recovery, and we need to keep it moving.
  To solve the problem, we have to determine the cause. Some have made 
the point that a 4.3 cent gas tax, passed as part of the 1993 deficit 
reduction package, is the primary culprit for the sharp rise in 
gasoline prices throughout the country.
  That flies in the face of the evidence. After the imposition of the 
tax in 1993, gas prices remained unchanged. In some cases, prices went 
even lower. In fact, the Department of Energy says that in 1994 gas 
prices hit a 45-year low in real dollars. They have stayed low for more 
than 2 years until the precipitous rise of the last few weeks.
  What are the real reasons why gas prices have spiked up? Simply put, 
supply is down and demand is up--that means higher prices.
  A nationwide, long brutal winter with higher demand for oil reserves 
has contributed. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Oil companies

[[Page H5350]]

reduced their production in anticipation of Iraq reentering the world 
oil market. Those low inventories contributed to a short supply of oil. 
When talks between the Iraqis and the United Nations broke down, oil 
companies are left waiting by the side of the road with empty gas cans.
  In California, special factors have come into play as well. New 
regulations issued by Governor Wilson and the California Air Resources 
Board [CARB] call for cleaner burning gasoline. Because California is 
essentially a self-contained gas producer, the transition to a cleaner, 
reformulated gasoline has further reduced the supply of gas. It's 
exerted enough extra pressure in our region that California gas prices 
lead the nation.
  Finally, let's face it. American driving habits play a major part of 
supply and demand. Speed limits have been raised. Americans are buying 
sports utility vehicles in record numbers. People are simply driving 
faster and using more gas.
  However, even industry representatives have stated in hearings that 
all of these circumstances still do not account for the total price 
increase. That's why some Members of this body have asked Attorney 
General Janet Reno to investigate all possible reasons behind high gas 
prices. President Clinton has since ordered her to do so.
  So, it is clear that factors other than the gas tax are responsible 
for the recent increase in gas prices.
  Does that mean we shouldn't cut gas taxes?
  No, cutting gas taxes is a great idea if it results in lower gas 
prices. The trick is to make sure prices actually go down and that 
consumers, not the oil companies, are the beneficiaries. That may be a 
tall order. In 1994, New Mexico repealed their State gas tax. Consumers 
saw gas prices drop--for nearly a week. But almost immediately, gas 
prices rose to previous levels.
  Further, our progress in reducing the deficit should not be 
compromised. Repealing the 4.3 cent gas tax sets us back some $2.9 
billion over the next 7 months. While I am pleased that the Republican 
leadership chose not to slash education to pay for this offset, I am 
dismayed that the Republican leadership will not incorporate provisions 
of a committee amendment that would have guaranteed the savings from 
the gas tax on to the American people.
  It's never a bad idea to rethink previous actions by Congress. 
Certainly, Democrats have supported efforts to take a comprehensive 
look at the tax burden of working Americans and the steps we might take 
to put more money in their pockets through a fairer tax structure, by 
raising the minimum wage, or by providing tax credits to families for 
education.
  I'm for lower gas prices, and the sooner the better. Support H.R. 
3415 and let's deliver lower prices to American consumers.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3415, and I 
would like to submit for the Record a recent op-ed I wrote regarding 
the gas tax.

  Election-Year Politics on Gas Tax Will End Up Costing Us in the End

       Frustration over rising gasoline prices unrelated to 
     federal transportation or energy policy has resulted in a 
     typical election-year tactic: how to use an unfortunate 
     situation to partisan advantage. Sen. Dole and President 
     Clinton are currently engaged in a battle over who can most 
     equitably ease the pain on gasoline consumers, but efforts to 
     repeal the 4.3-cent per gallon addition to the federal gas 
     tax will only end up hurting those same consumers.
       The 4.3-cent per gallon tax was part of the 1993 Deficit 
     Reduction Act, proposed by President Clinton and opposed by 
     every Republican in Congress. I supported this legislation, 
     because deficit reduction is one of my major goals as a 
     Member of Congress. I support a Constitutional Amendment to 
     balance the federal budget, and I supported the 1993 Deficit 
     Reduction Act because of its balance in spreading the pain of 
     deficit reduction. It raised income taxes only on the very 
     wealthy, cut spending, and asked all consumers to pay a 
     little more at the pump to reduce the deficit.
       It's also been a success. For three straight years, for the 
     first time since Harry Truman was President, the deficit has 
     gone down. Compared to the growth in the economy, the deficit 
     is now at its lowest level since 1979. And, as I noted when I 
     voted last week for an additional $23 billion in spending 
     cuts as part of the 1996 federal budget, we are continuing on 
     a path toward a zero deficit in the year 2002.
       That is, unless Congress begins to roll back this progress 
     by repealing the balanced package we passed in 1993. 
     ``Partisan panic'' has set in throughout Washington, D.C., 
     and I predict in the days to come we will see a variety of 
     competing packages on which party can move most quickly to 
     try and lower gasoline prices. It's wrongheaded for these 
     reasons:
       Cutting the gas tax is no guarantee for lower gas prices. 
     Because gasoline prices are market-driven and unrelated to 
     federal policy, if we repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax, I predict 
     that gas prices will remain the same, with no windfall for 
     the consumer.
       Repealing a few cents at the pump will certainly increase 
     the deficit. By rolling back 4.3 cents per gallon, we 
     instantly add $5 billion to the federal deficit this year, 
     and if we extend the repeal beyond 1997, we could add $35 
     billion to the deficit by the turn of the century, making our 
     task of balancing the budget by 2002 that much more 
     difficult.
       Gas prices should fall without any intervention. According 
     to industry experts, gasoline prices will fall on their own 
     during the summer. By the time Congress passes legislation to 
     try and reduce gasoline prices, they may already be lower 
     than our targeted goal.
       It's a bad precedent. If we begin to unravel the progress 
     on the 1993 budget agreement, picking it apart, what's next? 
     Will Congress move to repeal the tax on the wealthy? After 
     all, wasn't the goal of the ``Contract with America'' a 
     balanced budget by 2002?
       In the end, middle-income consumers will pay more. 
     Repealing the gas tax adds to the deficit, putting more debt 
     (and interest on that debt) on the backs of tomorrow's 
     generation. Who will pay that tab? We already know--the young 
     people of tomorrow, and families of today.
       Believe me, I don't like high gasoline prices. If Congress 
     is going to pass any legislation, it should first examine 
     whether there has been any price gouging at the pump and take 
     action to force oil producers to reduce their prices. But for 
     years, we have became accustomed to gasoline prices that have 
     made it affordable to buy larger, less fuel-efficient cars. 
     We need to keep in mind that in the U.S. we pay substantially 
     lower prices for our gasoline than other modern countries.
       Finally, the American people need to get out their 
     hypocrisy meters when they watch this debate unfold. If Sen. 
     Dole is proposing repealing the 4.3-cent per gallon gasoline 
     tax passed in 1993, why not repeal the 10-cent federal gas 
     tax he proposed which was signed into law under President 
     Reagan and Bush? Isn't the ``Dole Dime'' as important to 
     deficit reduction as the ``Clinton Nickel?'' Of course it is, 
     which is why we should repeal neither.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the temporary 
repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax. This misdirected legislation 
will do very little to help our constituents who have been paying more 
at the pump.
  The problem with this legislation is that there is no guarantee the 
consumer would see any of the savings created by the repeal of the tax, 
which generates nearly $4 billion per year for the Treasury. Any gas 
tax repeal would create a huge windfall for the oil companies, not the 
motorist.
  Because the gas tax is levied on the oil companies, the tax is not 
actually imposed at the pump. Instead, it is imposed at an earlier 
point in the sale, then passed on to the service station and the 
motorist. Contrary to the arguments from our friends on the other side 
of the aisle, repealing the gas tax will not automatically reduce the 
prices at the pump.
  We cannot afford to wait and hope that, if we eliminate this tax, 
consumers will get a discount at the pump. There is no mechanism in 
this bill to assure that gas prices will fall, that the savings will go 
to the motorist.
  All we need to do is look to see what the oil companies have done to 
prices in the last month. Wholesale gasoline prices have dropped nearly 
a nickel since President Clinton's decision to release Government oil 
reserves--but the nationwide retail prices rose 0.2 cents per gallon. 
In California, the gap is more extreme: Wholesale prices have fallen an 
incredible 31 cents per gallon--but retail prices have shown no 
decrease. Oil companies are keeping the difference, padding their 
balance sheets and wallets.
  Even if the average motorist saw a 4.3-cent discount at the pump, it 
would only save that motorist $15 per year. Is this the Republican idea 
of a middle class tax cut?
  It is quite clear that this bill is just another Republican give-away 
to their favorite corporate friends. Republicans issued a closed rule 
to assure that the oil companies would get to keep every penny of the 
tax repeal. The average American motorist will never see a decrease at 
the pump because of this repeal. We're giving oil companies another $4 
billion per year if we pass this bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to rollback the 
1993 4.3 cent per gallon tax hike. I voted against this tax hike 3 
years ago, and I support its repeal today.
  The average American family now pays 38 percent of its income in 
Federal, State, and local taxes. This is more than families spend on 
food, clothing and shelter combined.
  The Federal tax on a gallon of gas is now 18.3 cents and the average 
State tax is another 20 cents. The tax now constitutes nearly one-third 
of the price of gasoline. This hurts the poor and the middle-class 
particularly hard since gasoline constitutes a significant portion of 
their consumption. I think it is time for relief.
  Traditionally, the gas tax went into the Highway Trust fund in order 
to construct and repair highways. This is not the case with the 1993 
increase, it is undedicated revenue sent to Washington for more 
spending.
  Some argue that we should not cut the gas tax if it would increase 
the deficit. I agree, that is why I will insist that any tax repeal be 
offset with a reduction in Government spending or

[[Page H5351]]

subsidies. Unlike past Congresses, this Congress is willing to reduce 
spending. In 1995 and 1996 over $40 billion was trimmed from the 
appropriations bills that Congress controls.
  I have always felt that the budget should be balanced through 
spending reduction, not tax increases. Higher taxes simply permit 
Congress to continue the growth in Federal spending.
  It is time we downsize the Federal Government, and a reduction in the 
gas tax is a small but important step in that direction. Our next step 
should be to make this repeal permanent.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Gingrich-Armey Republican proposal to reduce a Federal tax on gasoline 
by 4.3 cents. This is just another political move that sounds good on 
the evening news, but doesn't play out at the gas pump.
  No rebate would be passed on to the American people and the big oil 
companies would get to pocket the windfall. With all their corporate 
tax breaks they would probably even not pay taxes on the tax rebate.
  Because the Gingrich Republicans will not accept any provisions in 
the bill to guarantee that any repeal of the 4.3-cent Federal tax could 
or would be passed on the American people as a reduction in the price 
of a gallon of gas, I will vote against this cynical election-year 
stunt.
  This is the latest effort by the Republicans to play politics with 
the American people's pocketbook. Recently Mr. Armey was credited with 
a prediction that the Gingrich-Armey proposed gasoline tax repeal might 
make Americans happy because it would save the average motorist about 
$27.00 a year. They evidently think that the American voter can be 
bought for $27.00 a year.
  If the authors of this legislation would just do a little math on 
comparing the proposed gasoline tax repeal with a raise in the minimum 
wage, they would see that the average American minimum wage earner 
would benefit to the tune of about $36.00 per week by an increase from 
$4.15 to $5.25 per hour. that's $1,872 a year. Now I ask you, would any 
hardworking American prefer $27.00 a year to $1,872.00 a year? As the 
young people say these days, ``I don't think so!''
  In fact, the proposed rebate by repeal of $27.00 per year wouldn't 
even be a drop in the bucket to most Republicans, pocket change to 
those who usually avoid any comparison with the average American unless 
it is an election year. But, even as an election year ploy, the 
Gingrich-Armey Republicans ought to be able to do better than $27.00 a 
year.
  Once again, the Gingrich-Armey Republicans have shown that they are 
completely out of touch with the American people. Because there is no 
assurance nor expectation that the American people would ever see an 
extra penny in their pocket as a result of this windfall to the oil 
companies, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3415, 
legislation that would repeal the 1993 Clinton gas tax hike.
  As my colleagues are aware, the coming Memorial Day weekend is one of 
the biggest driving holidays of the year. All over the country, 
Americans will be getting in their cars and driving--to family picnics, 
to the mountains, to the beach, to visit relatives. Of course, this 
driving has a cost. In order to do all of this driving, Americans will 
have to buy gas--over 60 million gallons of gas, in fact.
  This year, American families are in for a nasty shock when they fill 
up for the holiday: Exorbitant gas prices. Gas prices that are 
approaching $2 dollars a gallon. That's $30 just to fill up an average 
car. Suddenly, that family trip to the beach just got a great deal more 
expensive.
  Not surprisingly, much of the political rhetoric in this town has 
been focused on assigning blame for this gas price crisis. Politicians 
blame the oil companies, the oil companies blame mother nature, others 
blame our dependence on foreign oil.
  To me, this blame game seems like a waste of time. Assigning blame 
may feel good, but it doesn't change the facts: Americans are paying 
more at the pump than at any time in recent memory. Instead of arguing 
about who is to blame, I believe that we should do something concrete 
that will actually help consumers cope with the skyrocketing price of 
gas.
  That's why we are here today. The bill we are considering, H.R. 3415, 
would give American consumers relief from the recent escalation of gas 
prices. It would do so by repealing the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax 
increase that was passed as part of the 1993 Clinton budget. For the 
record, this 4.3 cent Clinton tax hike does not go to rebuilding our 
infrastructure--as the rest of the Federal gas tax does. Instead, it 
was implemented solely to fund additional social programs. This bill 
would take this 4.3 cents and return it to the taxpayers.
  Now, 4.3 cents may not sound like much, but it adds up. In fact, by 
repealing the Clinton tax increase, this legislation will put $1.7 
billion dollars back in to the pocketbooks of American consumers 
between now and the end of the year. That's $1.7 billion dollars that 
can be used for family trips--or for more basic items like food, 
clothing and education. And, by cutting wasteful government 
bureaucracy, this bill gives Americans this needed tax relief without 
adding to the deficit.
  In short, this legislation represents a unique opportunity to help 
working folks cope with the escalating price of gas. By supporting the 
repeal of the Clinton gas tax hike, we can give the American people a 
Memorial Day present: Lower gas prices and more money to spend on their 
own families.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3415. It's 
time to repeal the Clinton gas tax increase and let working folks keep 
more of the money they have earned.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the Congress stands poised to vote on a 
bill to repeal the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax increase which was 
included in the 1993 deficit reduction bill. What we actually have here 
is the Election Year Seven Month Temporary 4.3 Cents Tax Repeal Bill, 
and it is a textbook example of poor public policy being driven by 
election year politics.
  Let me say for the record that my opposition to this gasoline tax 
increase was one of several reasons I voted against the 1993 budget on 
final passage. But here we are, 3 years later, still racking up annual 
budget deficits to pass on to our children and grandchildren, and we 
are nitpicking about a 7-month break from paying this 4.3-cent tax.
  Last year, the House and Senate leadership included language to 
prohibit tax cuts until the Congressional Budget Office certified that 
Congress has sufficiently reduced spending to pay for tax cuts and 
balance the budget. Unfortunately, that language was removed from the 
budget just approved by the House. It appears Congress still hasn't 
learned the lessons of the early 1980's, when we passed the popular tax 
cuts before the harder spending cuts, and ended up adding $4 trillion 
to the deficit.
  Before we cut any taxes, we should set aside partisan differences and 
work out an agreement to achieve the $700 billion of spending cuts 
needed to being the budget into balance. The simple fact is that, until 
we balance the budget, any tax cut is really done with borrowed money. 
I cannot justify putting more debt on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren though a temporary tax cut designed to gain short term 
political gain.
  I was encouraged by the bipartisanship that was evident in the most 
recent vote on the Coalition budget. But instead of working toward a 
balanced budget plan, the Majority leadership has squandered a historic 
opportunity to set aside partisan differences that could result in 
result in real deficit reduction in the overall context of the budget.
  I find it interesting that some of the strongest advocates of the 7-
months temporary gas tax repeal are usually such vocal opponents of 
intervention in the marketplace. When it comes to agriculture policy, 
many of my colleagues are only too willing to take away the price 
supports and subsidies that have helped our own producers compete 
against our heavily subsidized trading partners. They say we should let 
the market place work, but when gasoline prices temporarily increase 21 
cents over a 4-month period, all of a sudden it is time for the Federal 
Government to come in and save the day--at least for 7 months.
  There is no mystery about the market forces that increased gasoline 
prices. The coldest winter in years drove up demand, which production 
failed to meet. The high demand for heating oil delayed gasoline 
production. Market speculation about Iraqi oil caused uncertainties 
within the marketplace. The bottom line is this: the 4.3-cent gasoline 
tax enacted 3 years ago did not increase pump prices this year; a 
reduction in this tax will not necessarily be passed on to the 
consumer; and reducing the gas tax is not the solution to current 
market conditions, or the budget deficit. In fact, the majority's 
short-sighted decision to terminate Federal support of fossil fuels 
research and development will leave us even more vulnerable to future 
disruptions in the energy market.
  There is no question the U.S. Tax Code needs reform to bring about 
tax relief and incentives to invest in our country's future. But let 
the American consumer be forewarned; the 4.3-cent gasoline tax repeal, 
as supported by the majority and the President, will last through 
December 31, 1996, less than 2 months after the November election. On 
January 1, 1997, all the rhetoric heard about tax relief will be worth 
just about as much as the noisemakers used to bring in the New Year.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the repeal of the Clinton gasoline tax. It was a mistake when the 
Democratic Congress imposed this tax and today is our opportunity to 
correct it.
  Historically, motor fuel taxes have been dedicated to the upkeep and 
improvement of our Nation's highways and other transportation 
infrastructure. The Clinton gas tax was not.
  While it was passed under the rubric of deficit reduction, the 
Clinton tax on gasoline was

[[Page H5352]]

simply used to fund more spending by a bloated Federal Government that 
already spends too much. In this Kentuckian's view, the way to cut the 
deficit is not by raising taxes but by changing Washington's bad 
spending habits.
  Fortunately, the Republican majority understands that we are spending 
money earned by working people, not magically pulled out of the air. 
And, this Congress has made great strides in restraining the Federal 
leviathan.
  We have fully covered the revenue change from the gas tax cut by 
cutting overhead spending at the Department of Energy and selling part 
of the broadcoast spectrum. We are not just raising another tax to 
offset this cut.
  This repeal of the gasoline tax represents one more example of the 
difference between the way things used to work in Washington and the 
way they work under the Republican majority. We believe that the people 
should get to keep more of what they earn.
  For some, this is a novel concept. But for most of us it is a bedrock 
principle that the American people do a better job of spending their 
money than bureaucrats in Washington do.
  Mr. Clinton has said that he raised taxes too much in 1993. I agree 
with him; and, now I encourage my colleagues to pass this gasoline tax 
repeal and give Mr. Clinton the chance to show us that, for once, his 
actions will match his words.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Mr. Archer, 
the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for 
introducing this bill and giving us the opportunity to give back to the 
taxpayers what should not have been taken from them in the first place.
  No one would argue that the President's 4.3-cent increase in the gas 
tax enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 isn't 
being felt at every gas station across the Nation and that relief is 
quickly needed. The gas tax increase cost Americans more than $4.8 
billion at the pump. Further, the revenue generated from this increase 
for the first time, was dedicated to deficit reduction rather than from 
transportation projects. This is a sneaky maneuver to tax Americans for 
deficit reduction and leaving them to believe nothing is being directly 
taken from their paychecks. Rather than reforming inefficient 
Government programs to reduce the deficit, the administration decided 
to tax the public once more.
  Rolling back the gas tax would not affect any of the motor fuels 
excise taxes that are already set aside for the Highway Trust Fund, nor 
would it effect the Federal budget. However, this bill would save 
Americans almost $5.5 billion annually and recoup the approximately 
6,000 jobs New Yorkers alone have lost.
  I would also like to thank those national chains which have already 
agreed to lower their prices the second we pass this law. I hope our 
local distributors will do the same.
  Finally, this bill also requires that all fuel taxes collected be 
deposited in transportation trust funds rather than the Treasury's 
general fund. Our streets and bridges are falling apart, our air 
traffic control systems need upgrading, and our ferry terminals are in 
dire need of repair. This bill ensures the revenue will be used only 
for those programs for which it is intended.
  Congress can be proud to relieve Americans of this burdensome tax and 
let them keep more of what they earn knowing that the Government will 
not guzzle their hard-earned dollar at the pump.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 3415, 
a bill to repeal the 4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor 
fuels excise tax. Two provisions--section 6, which deals with 
authorizations for the Department of Energy, and section 7, which deals 
with spectrum auctions--are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Section 6 of H.R. 3415 would authorize an average of $96 million per 
year for ``departmental administration and other activities'' during 
fiscal years 1997 through 2002, compared to an appropriations level of 
$226 million in fiscal year 1996. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, section 6 
would reduce outlays by $542 million during fiscal years 1997 through 
2002. This provision is necessary to address serious concerns regarding 
Secretary O'Leary's extensive and costly travel, very large 
expenditures by the Secretary on public relations, and a serious lack 
of controls over spending on training. Problems in these and other 
areas have arisen as a result of an investigation being conducted by 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  As modified by my amendment incorporated in this rule, section 7 will 
require the Federal Communications Commission to identify and auction 
35 megahertz of radio spectrum under the 3 gigahertz band. It promotes 
efficient spectrum use by having the marketplace determine the highest 
and best use of the spectrum. In identifying such spectrum, the 
Commission is required to take into account the needs of public safety 
services.
  The provision is consistent with the sound public policy initiatives 
previously established by Congress. In 1993, the FCC was authorized, 
through enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, to auction 
portions of spectrum for commercial licenses. Congress determined at 
that time that the FCC's current methods of distributing spectrum--by 
lottery and comparative hearings--were problematic because they robbed 
the American taxpayers of compensation for the use of a scarce public 
resource and led to subjective judgments by a Government agency, 
respectively.
  The overwhelming financial success of auctions for the U.S. Treasury, 
coupled with the soundness of auctions from a public policy 
prospective, led the Commerce Committee to extend the auction authority 
in the last budget cycle. My amendment is wholly consistent with the 
spectrum policy established in last year's legislation. The committee 
has held two hearings this Congress which confirmed the wisdom of this 
policy. Additionally, my amendment will not affect or apply to the 
spectrum identified for the transition to digital television. Finally, 
in recognition of the success of the auction process my amendment makes 
the FCC auction authority permanent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Rangel moves to recommit H.R. 3415 to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means with instructions to report the bill back 
     forthwith with an amendment striking all after the enacting 
     clause and inserting the following:

     SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is 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.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT INCREASE IN FUEL TAX RATES ENACTED 
                   BY THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 
                   1993 AND DEDICATED TO GENERAL FUND OF THE 
                   TREASURY.

       (a) In General.--Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on gasoline and diesel 
     fuel) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Repeal of 4.3-Cent Increase in Fuel Tax Rates Enacted 
     by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and 
     Dedicated to General Fund of the Treasury.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the applicable period, each rate 
     of tax referred to in paragraph (2) shall be reduced by 4.3 
     cents per gallon.
       ``(2) Rates of tax.--The rates of tax referred to in this 
     paragraph are the rates of tax otherwise applicable under--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(2)(A) (relating to gasoline and diesel 
     fuel),
       ``(B) sections 4091(b)(3)(A) and 4092(b)(2) (relating to 
     aviation fuel),
       ``(C) section 4042(b)(2)(C) (relating to fuel used on 
     inland waterways),
       ``(D) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4041(a) (relating to 
     diesel fuel and special fuels),
       ``(E) section 4041(c)(2) (relating to gasoline used in 
     noncommercial aviation), and
       ``(F) section 4041(m)(1)(A)(i) (relating to certain 
     methanol or ethanol fuels).
       ``(3) Comparable treatment for compressed natural gas.--No 
     tax shall be imposed by section 4041(a)(3) on any sale or use 
     during the applicable period.
       ``(4) Comparable treatment under certain refund rules.--In 
     the case of fuel on which tax is imposed during the 
     applicable period, each of the rates specified in sections 
     6421(f)(2)(B), 6421(f)(3)(B)(ii), 6427(b)(2)(A), 
     6427(l)(3)(B)(ii), and 6427(l)(4)(B) shall be reduced by 4.3 
     cents per gallon.
       ``(5) Coordination with highway trust fund deposits.--In 
     the case of fuel on which tax is imposed during the 
     applicable period, each of the rates specified in 
     subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C)(i) of section 9503(f)(3) 
     shall be reduced by 4.3 cents per gallon.
       ``(6) Applicable period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `applicable period' means the period after the 6th 
     day after the date of the enactment of this subsection and 
     before January 1, 1997.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. FLOOR STOCK REFUNDS.

       (a) In General.--If--

[[Page H5353]]

       (1) before the tax repeal date, tax has been imposed under 
     section 4081 or 4091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on 
     any liquid, and
       (2) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer and has 
     not been used and is intended for sale,

     there shall be credited or refunded (without interest) to the 
     person who paid such tax (hereafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``taxpayer'') an amount equal to the excess of the 
     tax paid by the taxpayer over the amount of such tax which 
     would be imposed on such liquid had the taxable event 
     occurred on such date.
       (b) Time For Filing Claims.--No credit or refund shall be 
     allowed or made under this section unless--
       (1) claim therefor is filed with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury before the date which is 6 months after the tax 
     repeal date, and
       (2) in any case where liquid is held by a dealer (other 
     than the taxpayer) on the tax repeal date--
       (A) the dealer submits a request for refund or credit to 
     the taxpayer before the date which is 3 months after the tax 
     repeal date, and
       (B) the taxpayer has repaid or agreed to repay the amount 
     so claimed to such dealer or has obtained the written consent 
     of such dealer to the allowance of the credit or the making 
     of the refund.
       (c) Exception for Fuel Held in Retail Stocks.--No credit or 
     refund shall be allowed under this section with respect to 
     any liquid in retail stocks held at the place where intended 
     to be sold at retail.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the 
     respective meanings given to such terms by section 6412 of 
     such Code; except that the term ``dealer'' includes a 
     producer, and
       (2) the term ``tax repeal date'' means the 7th day after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Certain Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 of such Code shall 
     apply for purposes of this section.

     SEC. 4. FLOOR STOCKS TAX.

       (a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any liquid on which 
     tax was imposed under section 4081 or 4091 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 before January 1, 1997, and which is 
     held on such date by any person, there is hereby imposed a 
     floor stocks tax of 4.3 cents per gallon.
       (b) Liability for Tax and Method of Payment.--
       (1) Liability for tax.--A person holding a liquid on 
     January 1, 1997, to which the tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     applies shall be liable for such tax.
       (2) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall 
     prescribe.
       (3) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) 
     shall be paid on or before June 30, 1997.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Held by a person.--A liquid shall be considered as 
     ``held by a person'' if title thereto has passed to such 
     person (whether or not delivery to the person has been made).
       (2) Gasoline and diesel fuel.--The terms ``gasoline'' and 
     ``diesel fuel'' have the respective meanings given such terms 
     by section 4083 of such Code.
       (3) Aviation fuel.--The term ``aviation fuel'' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 4093 of such Code.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury or his delegate.
       (d) Exception for Exempt Uses.--The tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to gasoline, diesel fuel, or 
     aviation fuel held by any person exclusively for any use to 
     the extent a credit or refund of the tax imposed by section 
     4081 or 4091 of such Code is allowable for such use.
       (e) Exception for Fuel Held in Vehicle Tank.--No tax shall 
     be imposed by subsection (a) on gasoline or diesel fuel held 
     in the tank of a motor vehicle or motorboat.
       (f) Exception for Certain Amounts of Fuel.--
       (1) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by subsection 
     (a)--
       (A) on gasoline held on January 1, 1997, by any person if 
     the aggregate amount of gasoline held by such person on such 
     date does not exceed 4,000 gallons, and
       (B) on diesel fuel or aviation fuel held on such date by 
     any person if the aggregate amount of diesel fuel or aviation 
     fuel held by such person on such date does not exceed 2,000 
     gallons.

     The preceding sentence shall apply only if such person 
     submits to the Secretary (at the time and in the manner 
     required by the Secretary) such information as the Secretary 
     shall require for purposes of this paragraph.
       (2) Exempt fuel.--For purposes of paragraph (1), there 
     shall not be taken into account fuel held by any person which 
     is exempt from the tax imposed by subsection (a) by reason of 
     subsection (d) or (e).
       (3) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) Corporations.--
       (i) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group 
     shall be treated as 1 person.
       (ii) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has 
     the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section 
     1563 of such Code; except that for such purposes the phrase 
     ``more than 50 percent'' shall be substituted for the phrase 
     ``at least 80 percent'' each place it appears in such 
     subsection.
       (B) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar 
     to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group 
     of persons under common control where 1 or more of such 
     persons is not a corporation.
       (g) Other Law Applicable.--All provisions of law, including 
     penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by 
     section 4081 of such Code in the case of gasoline and diesel 
     fuel and section 4091 of such Code in the case of aviation 
     fuel shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with 
     the provisions of this subsection, apply with respect to the 
     floor stock taxes imposed by subsection (a) to the same 
     extent as if such taxes were imposed by such section 4081 or 
     4091.

     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 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.--
       (1) 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.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPENSES OF 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       Section 660 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7270) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Appropriations''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2002.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for salaries and expenses of the 
     Department of Energy for departmental administration and 
     other activities in carrying out the purposes of this Act--
       ``(1) $104,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(2) $104,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(4) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(5) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(6) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.

     SEC. 7. SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

       (a) Commission Obligation to Make Additional Spectrum 
     Available by Auction.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission 
     shall complete all actions necessary to permit the 
     assignment, by March 31, 1998, by competitive bidding 
     pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) of licenses for the use of bands of 
     frequencies that--
       (A) individually span not less than 12.5 megahertz, unless 
     a combination of smaller bands can, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of paragraph (7) of such section, reasonably be 
     expected to produce greater receipts;
       (B) in the aggregate span not less than 25 megahertz;
       (C) are located below 3 gigahertz; and
       (D) have not, as of the date of enactment of this Act--
       (i) been assigned or designated by Commission regulation 
     for assignment pursuant to such section;
       (ii) been identified by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant 
     to section 113 of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923); 
     or
       (iii) reserved for Federal Government use pursuant to 
     section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     305).

[[Page H5354]]

       (2) Criteria for reassignment.--In making available bands 
     of frequencies for competitive bidding pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) seek to promote the most efficient use of the spectrum;
       (B) take into account the cost to incumbent licensees of 
     relocating existing uses to other bands of frequencies or 
     other means of communication;
       (C) take into account the needs of public safety radio 
     services;
       (D) comply with the requirements of international 
     agreements concerning spectrum allocations; and
       (E) take into account the costs to satellite service 
     providers that could result from multiple auctions of like 
     spectrum internationally for global satellite systems.
       (b) Federal Communications Commission May Not Treat This 
     Section as Congressional Action for Certain Purposes.--The 
     Federal Communications Commission may not treat the enactment 
     of this Act or the inclusion of this section in this Act as 
     an expression of the intent of Congress with respect to the 
     award of initial licenses of construction permits for 
     Advanced Television Services, as described by the Commission 
     in its letter of February 1, 1996, to the Chairman of the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do know that election time causes us to do 
a lot of strange things, and certainly if anyone is serious about 
taking off 4.3 cents from the Federal gasoline tax on a permanent 
basis, then we are talking about some $31 billion.
  Now, it may be true that we have just learned about balancing the 
budget, but certainly for those of my colleagues that have been 
advocating this for so long, what a heck of a time to be thinking about 
balancing the budget and cutting back revenue.
  Now, when I was on the committee trying to make certain that this bad 
idea, at least that it would be the consumer that would be the 
beneficiary, the protectors of the oil companies said, ``No, if you are 
trying to pass this through to the consumer, then you're manipulating 
the marketplace. What you have to do is to trust the oil people. 
They'll do the right thing. They'll pass it through to the consumer.''
  And so my motion to recommit merely says that we should make it 
mandatory, requiring the oil companies to pass the full tax savings on 
to the consumer and reimposing a tax if the company violates this 
requirement.
  So I want people to listen very carefully to those people who 
advocate this reduction in taxes.
  Please, do not tell me that it cannot be done because the whole idea 
is not to give the benefit to the oil companies. Even if our cousin 
Jake does have a gas pump, he should be getting the break to pass 
through to the people who come by his gasoline station.
  Now, if my colleagues are going to tell me that it is too complicated 
to do or that they do not understand the free market system or that we 
cannot find out where the 4.3 cents is going to go, then why do we not 
quit the sham and get on with something else? If it cannot go to the 
consumer and my colleagues do not know how it is going to get to them, 
then let us leave this thing alone and try to find something else for 
the campaign. God knows we got a couple of months left.
  But if my colleagues want to help the consumer, then all they have to 
do is say this: We mandate that the 4.3 between now and election passes 
on to the consumer. And everybody has to say on the penalty of having 
the tax reimposed that they would pass it on to the consumer, and that 
should not be a very complicated thing for our colleagues to figure 
out. But just in case there is a problem, our colleagues have in their 
bill a method in which they have a General Office of Accounting 
finding.
  We will mandate that there be a General Office of Accounting report 
on November 1 before the election to see whether or not the Republican 
tax removal is passed on to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  The reason that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has framed 
this recommittal motion is that the American consumer has seen in the 
last 3 or 4 months an increase of 20 cents to 40 cents at the gas pump 
for the price of gasoline. Now, that means that oil companies are 
taking from $100 to $200 more this year out of the pockets of consumers 
for gasoline than they did last year. The Republican motion says that 
the 4 cent gasoline tax from 1993, which is their idea of relief for 
the consumer who is losing 100 to 200 bucks, they are going to get this 
4 cent break, which is about 15 or 20 bucks, should go to the oil 
refinery level. That is where the bulk of their tax break goes. They 
give it to the oil refiners, largely, and they ask them to pass it on 
to the consumer.
  The gentleman from New York says, well, if that is how they are going 
to do it, we need that to be certified, we need to have some evidence 
that the large oil companies pass that tax break on down to the 
consumer.
  Now, we had alternatives to give the money right to the consumer, but 
the Republicans will not put those amendments in order.
  So the gentleman from New York's recommittal motion is quite simple. 
If my colleagues want to guarantee that the large oil companies pass 
that 4 cent gasoline tax break, 15 or 20 or 30 bucks, on to the 
consumer, then they must vote for this recommittal motion, or else the 
oil companies will gobble it up like a nice tasty snack.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit attempts to regulate 
the market price of motor fuels with the threat of monetary penalties 
for failure to pass on the motor fuels tax reduction to customers. The 
mechanics of the motion offered by Mr. Rangel are flawed. More 
importantly the motion lacks a fundamental confidence in our free 
market system which has served us so well. Instead the motion smacks of 
price controls and the long-hand of gargantuan government.
  Even before I speak to the bad economics of this motion, let me 
explain why the provisions before us do not work. First, Federal taxes 
on gasoline are paid well before the customer pulls into the gas 
station.
  These taxes are paid at some 1,700 bulk storage terminals. From 
there, some 15,000 wholesale dealers or jobbers buy the product which 
then is delivered to retail service stations which total over 195,000 
nationwide and sell nearly 200 brands of gasoline.
  Keeping this universe in mind, the Rangel motion would essentially 
make 600 taxpayers, those at the terminal facilities, pay penalties 
equal to all or part of the tax reduction which does not flow to 
customers. Very simply, the terminal taxpayers will pay dearly if even 
one of the nearly 210,000 wholesale dealers and gas station operators 
fail to pass-through the tax reduction. The motion raises basic 
fairness questions since taxpayers are held responsible for another 
person's inability to account for a tax reduction.
  Furthermore, the motion begs the question over how the already 
strained resources of the IRS will monitor and audit some 210,000 
persons who buy and sell some 200 brands of gasoline.
  Putting aside the unworkable machinery, it is essential that my 
colleagues focus on the real message behind this motion. Its proponents 
will make the deceptively attractive claim that the motion will put the 
tax reduction into the pockets of consumers instead of the oil 
industry. But if proponents really mean what they say then what is 
before us is yet another attempt, albeit flawed, to control the profit 
margins of every individual who buys and sells gasoline and diesel. The 
motion discards the fact that petroleum prices respond to the basic 
economics of supply and demand and are set by the world's most 
competitive marketplace.
  Earlier this year we witnessed just how well competition drives the 
prices charge to consumers. On January 1, the 10-percent airline ticket 
tax expired. That same day, most of the major carriers reduced air 
fares by a corresponding 10 percent. Within 24 hours, the

[[Page H5355]]

pressures of competition drove another major air carrier to drop its 
air fares by 10 percent.
  Interestingly enough, the penalties for failure to pass through the 
tax reduction do not apply to aviation jet fuels and special motor 
fuels.
  But, market forces are not limited to the airlines. They are known to 
all segments of America's industries for the simple reason that 
business, in order to survive, they must bear the scrutiny of the 
America consumer.
  Make no mistake, the motion offered by Mr. Rangel is a poorly 
constructed and dangerous attempt to control the laws of economics, all 
in the name of feel-good politics. The motion should be rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 183, 
nays 225, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     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
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     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
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     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
     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

                               NAYS--225

     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
     Brewster
     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
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     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
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     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
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Baesler
     Bunn
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Durbin
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Kingston
     Klink
     Largent
     Lucas
     Maloney
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Molinari
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Peterson (FL)
     Rohrabacher
     Smith (MI)
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1915

  Ms. PRYCE and Mrs. SEASTRAND changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS and Mr. GEJDEBSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent on the suspension 
vote to follow final passage on the bill that it be reduced to 5 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCHER. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 301, 
nays 108, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               YEAS--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss

[[Page H5356]]


     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--108

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Owens
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baesler
     Bunn
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Durbin
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Kingston
     Klink
     Largent
     Lucas
     Maloney
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Molinari
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Peterson (FL)
     Rohrabacher
     Smith (MI)
     Torres
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1935

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Ms. Harman against.
       Mr. Clinger for, Mr. Klink against.
       Mr. Kingston for, Mr. Oberstar against.

  Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________