[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.

                          ____________________