Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)

[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.

[[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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

SEC. 7. SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

[[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

{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.

____________________