[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7185-S7186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURE CREDIT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden to discuss a tax
provision included in the spending package currently before the Senate.
The tax title in this bill contains an important clarification to the
alternative fuel mixture tax credit under section 6426(e). This credit
is intended to promote the use of nontraditional fuels, such as
compressed natural gas and biomass-based fuels, for transportation and
other purposes. Unfortunately, some in the oil industry have sought to
turn this credit on its head by claiming the credit for ordinary
gasoline based on the amount of butane mixed in. Ranking Member Wyden,
is it correct that every gallon of gasoline produced in the United
States includes some amount of butane?
Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. All gasoline includes butane and, as far
as I am aware, always has. Adding butane during the gasoline refining
process is simply how gasoline is produced. The idea that Congress
intended oil companies to benefit from a credit intended to reduce our
dependence on traditional gasoline by rewarding them for making
traditional gasoline doesn't pass the commonsense test. This is why the
Internal Revenue Service has correctly denied such claims. However, the
oil industry is litigating this issue in the hopes of winning a nearly
$50 billion windfall for producing gasoline the same way they have for
a century. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that Congress never intended for
gasoline to qualify for this credit based on its butane content?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I can assure the Senator that it was never Congress's
intent for gasoline to qualify for this tax credit. I was chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee when the alternative fuel mixture credit
was enacted in 2005 as part of a surface transportation bill. During
that time, there was great interest in reducing our dependence on
foreign oil and traditional fuels. The alternative fuel mixture credit
was added to reduce that dependence, not to provide a handout to large
oil and gas companies. The fact is, if anyone had thought oil companies
could qualify for this crediw they already engaged in, the credit would
never have been enacted. Not only would I have objected on policy
grounds, but the Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue score associated
with the provision would have been so large that its passage wouldn't
have been feasible. What is more, if we had intended for butane mixed
with gasoline to qualify when the credit was enacted in 2005, I don't
understand why industry waited more than 10 years to start claiming the
credit for doing what they have been doing for more than a century, as
you point out.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you for that background, Mr. Chairman. I agree with
you that it is clear that the benefit some in the oil and gas industry
are seeking from this provision is illegitimate. However, given the
significant amount of taxpayer dollars at stake should these companies
somehow prevail in litigation, it is also important for Congress to
provide clarity in this area, to protect the public purse. The tax
package under consideration in the spending bill addresses this by
amending the alternative fuel mixture credit to more explicitly deny
the credit for butane mixed with gasoline, consistent congressional
intent. This clarification is effective for any claims filed on or
after January 8, 2018, when the IRS issued a formal revenue ruling
putting taxpayers on notice that a mixture of butane and gasoline does
not qualify for the credit. However, this does not mean we agree that
such mixtures prior to January 8, 2018, qualify for the credit, and, in
fact, we are of the opinion that they do not. Do you agree Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I do agree. The IRS got the law correct when it issued
Revenue Ruling 2018-2, and our clarification makes clear that it is our
intent for the IRS interpretation of the law to be controlling for all
claims. This is the basis of the ``no inference'' language in the bill
that states: ``Nothing contained in this subsection or the amendments
made by this subsection shall be construed to create any inference as
to a change in law or guidance in effect prior to enactment of this
subsection.''
I thank the ranking member for engaging in this colloquy to discuss
this important issue and the clarification included in the pending
appropriations bill.
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Point of Order
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to raise a point of order on the
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which provides funding
for eight appropriations subcommittees and includes numerous tax and
healthcare provisions and other new legislation called
``authorizations.'' That is code for bills that haven't been debated on
the Senate floor. These are Christmas presents for everyone, all put on
the Federal credit card, which is overspent already.
This legislation was unveiled Monday afternoon and totals more than
1,800 pages, and here we are on Thursday, with just hours to go before
a government shutdown, being asked to vote on a bill that has not been
subject to amendment or debate and that the Congressional Budget Office
tells us will increase deficits by more than $400 billion over the next
10 years. Actually, by the time you add in interest costs to this debt,
it is half a trillion in 10 years and $2.1 trillion on 20 years. That
is according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, which
added in that interest. They added it up. So that will be half a
trillion dollars of new overspending in one vote, and what makes it so
expensive is that we are trying to do something here to buy everybody's
vote.
This bill completely bypassed regular order and violates nearly all
the Senate self-imposed budget rules with its billions of dollars in
giveaways and tax policy changes. We are legislating on funding bills.
Legislation is supposed to be scrutinized differently, especially if
they pay out real money.
I will remind my colleagues that our national debt stands at just
over $23 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office tells us that
the Federal deficits are already on track to exceed $1 trillion this
year and every year thereafter. That is besides this $2.1 trillion add-
on.
We should be talking about how to address the budgetary mess we are
in, not pressing the gas on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory, which
is exactly what this bill does. We are making promises that can't be
fulfilled.
Now, some people will mention the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but I need
to emphasize and remind you that that boosted the economy. It created
jobs, it increased wages, and it is bringing in more revenue than ever
before--ever before. But we are spending it faster than it is coming
in. So it is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem.
Now, rather than an aberration, busting has become commonplace. This
is the second time this week that I have come to the floor to raise a
point of order against legislation that violates the budget. But to be
fair, from a budget perspective, this bill is exponentially worse than
the Defense authorization bill we considered earlier this year. It is
at least 50 times worse.
I oppose this legislation. I oppose adding to the already massive
debt burden being placed on future generations.
The pending measure, the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, would
cause a deficit increase of more than $5 billion in each of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2030. This
increase violates section 3101 of the 2016 budget resolution.
Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 3101(b) of S. Con.
Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
I have been here long enough to know that you will now hear a list of
wonderful things that are on this bill. You will not hear how to pay
for all of these Christmas presents.
[[Page S7186]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Vote on Motion to Waive
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of
consideration of the message to accompany H.R. 1865, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with the amendment is
withdrawn.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 414 Leg.]
YEAS--64
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--30
Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Carper
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gillibrand
Hawley
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Romney
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Tester
Toomey
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Harris
Isakson
Klobuchar
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are
30.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Vote on Motion to Concur
The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur.
Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 415 Leg.]
YEAS--71
Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--23
Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Carper
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Gillibrand
Hawley
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Paul
Risch
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Toomey
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Harris
Isakson
Klobuchar
Sanders
Warren
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Order Of Business
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session and
resume consideration of the Singhal nomination; further, that at 1:45
p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmations of the
nominations under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________