[House Report 104-576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Rept. 104-576
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________
REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION FUELS TAXES
_______
May 15, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Archer, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3415]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred 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,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction.....................................................2
A. Purpose and Summary................................. 2
B. Background and Need for Legislation................. 2
C. Legislative History................................. 3
II. Explanation of the Bill..........................................3
III. Votes of the Committee...........................................5
IV. Budget Effects of the Bill.......................................8
A. Committee Estimates of Budgetary Effects............ 8
B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax
Expenditures....................................... 8
C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office............................................. 9
V. Other Matters to be Discussed Under Rules of the House..........11
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.... 11
B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight....... 11
C. Inflationary Impact Statement....................... 11
D. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates........... 12
E. Applicability of House Rule XXI5(c)................. 12
VI. Letter From Committee on Commerce...............................12
VII. Changes in Existing Laws Made by the Bill, as Reported..........13
VIII.Dissenting Views................................................15
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3415 (secs. 1-5), as reported by the Committee on Ways
and Means, provides for a temporary repeal of the 4.3-cents-
per-gallon General Fund excise tax on transportation motor
fuels, effective during the period beginning seven days after
enactment through December 31, 1996. The bill also includes a
Sense of the Congress that the full benefit of the repeal be
flowed through to consumers. In addition, the bill directs the
General Accounting Office to study the impact of repeal of the
4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation motor fuels excise tax on
consumers, and to report its findings to the Congress by
January 31, 1997.
The bill, as introduced, includes two budgetary offset
provisions not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means: (1) a reduction in authorized appropriations for
Department of Energy administrative expenses (sec. 6 of the
bill); and (2) a requirement that the Federal Communications
Commission make additional spectrum available by auction (sec.
7 of the bill). 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, are not
within the jurisdiction of the Committee and were not
considered by the Committee.
B. Background and Need for Legislation
Gasoline and other motor fuels prices have increased
significantly since the beginning of 1996. The Department of
Energy reports that average national regular unleaded gasoline
prices have increased from $1.09 per gallon on January 8, 1996,
to $1.28 per gallon on May 7, 1996. Prices in some regions of
the United States have increased even more dramatically. Crude
oil prices have increased from $19.83 per barrel of West Texas
Intermediate to $22.43 per barrel during the first four months
of 1996.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (``1993
Act'') imposed a permanent 4.3-cents-per-gallon excise tax on
transportation motor fuels. Revenues from this tax are retained
in the General Fund of the Treasury. Other excise taxes are
imposed, at varying rates, on various transportation motor
fuels to finance specific public works- or environmental-
related trust funds.
An immediate repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon
transportation motor fuels excise tax will provide some needed
relief to consumers. Most of that tax relief will go to middle-
and lower-income taxpayers.
It is the intention of the Committee that the revenue
reduction from the temporary repeal of this excise tax be fully
offset through spending savings or other budgetary savings
before the bill is considered by the House of Representatives.
This is accomplished by sections 6 and 7 of the bill as
introduced (see Summary, above).
C. Legislative History
Committee bill
H.R. 3415 was introduced by Mrs. Seastrand (and Messrs.
Riggs, Royce, and Zimmer) on May 8, 1996. The bill was
considered in a Committee markup on May 9, 1996, and was
ordered favorably reported by a roll call vote of 23 yeas and
13 nays on May 9, 1996.
Legislative Hearing
The Committee held a public hearing on May 8, 1996, on the
impact of the 1993 Act increase in the transportation motor
fuels excise tax rates.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Present Law
Separate Federal excise taxes are imposed on specified
transportation motor fuels. Taxable fuels include gasoline,
diesel fuel and special motor fuels used for highway
transportation, gasoline and diesel fuel used in motorboats,
diesel fuel used in trains, fuels used in inland waterway
shipping, and aviation fuel (gasoline and jet fuel). Motor
fuels used by all of these transportation sectors are subject
to a permanent 4.3-cents-per gallon excise tax, enacted by the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (the ``1993 Act'').
Revenues from the 4.3-cents-per-gallon excise tax are retained
in the General Fund of the Treasury.
Transportation sectors that benefit from Federal public
works and environmental programs are subject to additional tax
rates (beyond the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund rate) to
finance Federal trust funds established as a financing source
for those programs. Motor fuels excise taxes other than the
4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation motor fuels excise tax
generally are temporary (i.e., have scheduled expiration
dates). As a result of the financing needs of these public
works and environmental programs, the aggregate tax rate varies
for each transportation sector and fuel. For example, diesel
fuel used in automobiles and trucks is subject to a total tax
rate of 24.3 cents per gallon, while gasoline used in these
vehicles is subject to an 18.3-cents-per-gallon tax rate.
Diesel fuel used in trains is subject to an aggregate General
Fund tax rate of 5.55 cents per gallon but not to any trust
fund rate (because there is no Federal rail construction trust
fund).
In addition to the taxes imposed directly on transportation
motor fuels, excise taxes formerly were imposed on crude oil
(and imported refined petroleum products) to finance the
Hazardous Substance Superfund program (before January 1, 1996)
and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund program (before January
1, 1995). A further excise tax on motor fuels, the 0.1-cents-
per-gallon Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund tax,
expired after December 31, 1995.
Between 1956 and 1990, motor fuels excise taxes generally
were imposed only for Federal trust fund financing. The first
deviation from this practice occurred when the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 imposed a temporary (through
September 30, 1995) 2.5-cent-per-gallon General Fund excise tax
on highway and rail transportation motor fuels. In addition to
imposing the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund transportation
motor fuels excise tax, described above, the 1993 Act also
extended the 1990 General Fund excise tax rate and provided
that revenues from the tax on highway motor fuels be deposited
in the Highway Trust Fund during the period October 1, 1995
through September 30, 1999, and imposed a 24.4-cents-per-gallon
General Fund excise tax on diesel fuel used in recreational
boating (as a revenue offset for repeal of the excise tax on
certain luxury boats), through December 31, 1999. The 1990
General Fund excise tax on diesel fuel used in trains was
extended at a reduced rate of 1.25 cents per gallon during the
same period.
Explanation of provision
Repeal of 4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation motor fuels
excise tax (secs. 1-4 of the bill and sec. 4081 of
the Code)
The bill repeals the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund
transportation motor fuels excise tax imposed in 1993 during
the period beginning seven days after enactment and ending on
December 31, 1996. Statutorily, this is accomplished by
reducing the aggregate tax rate that otherwise would be imposed
by 4.3 cents per gallon, or adjusting the amount of an
exemption (e.g., in the case of commercial aviation jet fuel).
The bill does not affect any of the motor fuels excise taxes
that are dedicated funding sources for Federal public works or
environmental trust fund programs.
Table 1, below, summarizes the excise tax rates imposed on
transportation motor fuels under present law and the bill, by
trust fund and General Fund components.
Because the 4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation motor fuels
excise tax (along with other applicable excise taxes on the
same fuels) is imposed on certain motor fuels before the fuels
reach the consumer level, the bill includes rules comparable to
present-law ``floor stocks refund'' provisions that allow
refunds to producers (including importers) and other dealers
for fuel held for sale on the effective date of the tax
reduction when the excise tax already has been paid. These
refunds must be claimed by persons liable for payment of the
tax (``position holders''), based on amounts of tax-paid fuel
they own on the tax-repeal date and on documented claims from
dealers that purchased tax-paid fuel from them and hold the
fuel for sale on the tax-repeal date. As under the present-law
floor stocks refund provisions, no refunds are allowable for
fuel held at retail sale locations. These refunds are intended
to be allowable either as refund claims filed with the Internal
Revenue Service or as credits against required deposits and
payments of other excise taxes owed by the claimants.
The bill further imposes floor stocks taxes, identical to
those imposed in 1993, on taxable fuels held on January 1,
1997, when the tax-repeal period expires. Under this provision,
no tax is imposed on gasoline or diesel fuel held in the fuel
supply tank of a motor vehicle (including airplanes, trains,
boats, and highway vehicles).
Sense of the Congress on benefit to ultimate consumers
(sec. 5(a)(1) of the bill)
The bill includes a statement that it is the Sense of
Congress that the full benefit of repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-
gallon transportation motor fuels excise tax be flowed through
immediately to consumers, and that position holders claiming
refunds immediately credit their customers' accounts to reflect
floor stocks refunds allowable under the proposal.
General Accounting Office Study (sec. 5(a)(2) of the bill)
The bill directs the General Accounting Office to study the
impact of repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation
motor fuels excise tax on consumers and to report its findings
to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate
Committee on Finance no later than January 31, 1997.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUELS EXCISE TAX RATES ON VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION SECTORS UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED LAW
[Rates shown in cents per gallon]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present law Proposed law
Transportation sector -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund General fund Total tax Trust fund General fund Total tax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Transportation: \1\
In general (trucks,
automobiles):
Gasoline................ 14.0.............. 4.3............... 18.3.............. 14.0.............. No tax............ 14.0
Diesel fuel............. 20.0.............. 4.3............... 24.3.............. 20.0.............. No tax............ 20.0
Special motor fuels \2\. 14.0.............. 4.3............... 18.3.............. 14.0.............. No tax............ 14.0
Intercity bus:
Gasoline................ No tax............ No tax............ No tax............ No tax............ No tax............ No tax
Diesel fuel............. 3.0............... 4.3............... 7.3............... 3.0............... No tax............ 3.0
Rail Transportation............. No tax............ 5.55.............. 5.55.............. No tax............ 1.25.............. 1.25
Water Transportation:
Inland waterway............. 20.0.............. 4.3............... 24.3.............. 20.0.............. No tax............ 20.0
Recreation boats:
Gasoline................ 14.0.............. 4.3............... 18.3.............. 14.0.............. No tax............ 14.0
Diesel fuel............. No tax............ 24.4.............. 24.4.............. No tax............ 20.1.............. 20.1
Air Transportation:
Commercial aviation......... No tax \3\........ 4.3............... 4.3............... No tax \3\........ No tax............ No tax
Noncommercial aviation
Gasoline................ 14.0 \4\.......... 4.3............... 18.3.............. 14.0 \4\.......... No tax............ 14.0
Jet fuel................ No tax \5\........ 4.3............... 4.3............... No tax \5\........ No tax............ No tax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduced highway motor fuels excise tax rates apply to mixtures of taxable fuels with ethanol and methanol produced from renewable sources (i.e.,
``gasohol'') and to certain ``neat'' (at least 85 percent pure) methanol fuels produced from natural gas.
\2\ Examples of special motor fuels are propane, liquefied natural gas (``LNG''), other liquids used as a fuel in highway transportation, and compressed
natural gas (``CNG''). CNG, a gaseous fuel rather than a liquid fuel, is subject only to a General Fund tax of 48.54 cents per thousand cubic feet
(the equivalent of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon rate on propane).
\3\ Before January 1, 1996, commercial aviation trust fund taxes consisted of a 10-percent domestic passenger ticket tax, a $6 dollar international
passenger departure ticket tax, and a 6.25-percent domestic air cargo waybill tax.
\4\ Before January 1, 1996, an additional 1-cent-per-gallon tax was imposed on noncommercial aviation gasoline.
\5\ Before January 1, 1996, a 17.5-cents-per-gallon tax was imposed.
Effective date
The bill is effective on the date of enactment for taxable
fuels removed, entered, sold or used more than six days after
that date and before January 1, 1997.
III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement
is made concerning the votes of the Committee in its
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3415.
Motion to report the bill
The bill, H.R. 3415, was ordered favorably reported,
without amendment, on May 9, 1996, by a rollcall vote of 23
yeas and 13 nays, with a quorum present. The vote was as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Gibbons...... ........ X .........
Mr. Crane...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Rangel....... ........ X .........
Mr. Thomas..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Stark........ ........ X .........
Mr. Shaw....................... X ........ ......... Mr. Jacobs....... ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Johnson................... X ........ ......... Mr. Ford......... ........ X .........
Mr. Bunning.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Matsui....... ........ X .........
Mr. Houghton................... ........ ........ ......... Mrs. Kennelly.... ........ X .........
Mr. Herger..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Coyne........ ........ X .........
Mr. McCrery.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Levin........ ........ X .........
Mr. Hancock.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Cardin....... ........ X .........
Mr. Camp....................... X ........ ......... Mr. McDermott.... ........ X .........
Mr. Ramstad.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Kleczka...... X ........ .........
Mr. Zimmer..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Lewis........ ........ X .........
Mr. Nussle..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Payne........ ........ X .........
Mr. Johnson.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Neal......... ........ X .........
Ms. Dunn....................... X ........ ......... Mr. McNulty...... X ........ .........
Mr. Collins.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Portman.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Hayes...................... X ........ .........
Mr. Laughlin................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. English.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Ensign..................... X ........ .........
Mr. Christensen................ X ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votes on amendments
An amendment by Mr. Matsui to Section 2 to change the date
under the applicable repeal period from ``January 1, 1997'' to
``January 1, 2003,'' was defeated by a roll call vote of 8 yeas
to 24 nays. The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Gibbons...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Crane...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Rangel....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Thomas..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Stark........ ........ ........ .........
Mr. Shaw....................... ........ X ......... Mr. Jacobs....... X ........ .........
Mrs. Johnson................... ........ X ......... Mr. Ford......... X ........ .........
Mr. Bunning.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Matsui....... X ........ .........
Mr. Houghton................... ........ ........ ......... Mrs. Kennelly.... ........ X .........
Mr. Herger..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Coyne........ ........ X .........
Mr. McCrery.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Levin........ X ........ .........
Mr. Hancock.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Cardin....... ........ X .........
Mr. Camp....................... ........ X ......... Mr. McDermott.... X ........ .........
Mr. Ramstad.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Kleczka...... ........ X .........
Mr. Zimmer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Lewis........ X ........ .........
Mr. Nussle..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Payne........ ........ X .........
Mr. Johnson.................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Neal......... ........ X .........
Ms. Dunn....................... ........ X ......... Mr. McNulty...... ........ X .........
Mr. Collins.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Portman.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Hayes...................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Laughlin................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. English.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Ensign..................... X ........ .........
Mr. Christensen................ X ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment by Mr. Rangel to Section 5 for the
reimposition of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon motor fuels tax if the
tax reduction were not fully passed through to consumers was
defeated by a roll call vote of 15 yeas to 21 nays. The vote
was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Gibbons...... X ........ .........
Mr. Crane...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Rangel....... X ........ .........
Mr. Thomas..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Stark........ X ........ .........
Mr. Shaw....................... ........ X ......... Mr. Jacobs....... ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Johnson................... ........ X ......... Mr. Ford......... X ........ .........
Mr. Bunning.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Matsui....... X ........ .........
Mr. Houghton................... ........ ........ ......... Mrs. Kennelly.... X ........ .........
Mr. Herger..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Coyne........ X ........ .........
Mr. McCrery.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Levin........ X ........ .........
Mr. Hancock.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Cardin....... X ........ .........
Mr. Camp....................... ........ X ......... Mr. McDermott.... X ........ .........
Mr. Ramstad.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Kleczka...... X ........ .........
Mr. Zimmer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Lewis........ X ........ .........
Mr. Nussle..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Payne........ X ........ .........
Mr. Johnson.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Neal......... X ........ .........
Ms. Dunn....................... ........ X ......... Mr. McNulty...... X ........ .........
Mr. Collins.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Portman.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Hayes...................... ........ X .........
Mr. Laughlin................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. English.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Ensign..................... ........ X .........
Mr. Christensen................ ........ X .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment by Mr. Kleczka to Section 5 to change the due
date for the required GAO study to ``November 1, 1996,'' was
defeated by a rollcall vote of 14 yeas to 21 nays. The vote was
as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Gibbons...... X ........ .........
Mr. Crane...................... ........ X ......... Mr. Rangel....... X ........ .........
Mr. Thomas..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Stark........ X ........ .........
Mr. Shaw....................... ........ X ......... Mr. Jacobs....... ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Johnson................... ........ X ......... Mr. Ford......... X ........ .........
Mr. Bunning.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Matsui....... X ........ .........
Mr. Houghton................... ........ ........ ......... Mrs. Kennelly.... X ........ .........
Mr. Herger..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Coyne........ X ........ .........
Mr. McCrery.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Levin........ X ........ .........
Mr. Hancock.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Cardin....... X ........ .........
Mr. Camp....................... ........ X ......... Mr. McDermott.... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Ramstad.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Kleczka...... X ........ .........
Mr. Zimmer..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Lewis........ X ........ .........
Mr. Nussle..................... ........ X ......... Mr. Payne........ X ........ .........
Mr. Johnson.................... ........ X ......... Mr. Neal......... X ........ .........
Mr. Collins.................... ........ X ......... Mr. McNulty...... X ........ .........
Mr. Portman.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Hayes...................... ........ X .........
Mr. Laughlin................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. English.................... ........ X .........
Mr. Ensign..................... ........ X .........
Mr. Christensen................ ........ X .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL
A. Committee Estimates of Budgetary Estimates
In compliance with clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made
concerning the budget effects of the revenue provisions (secs.
1-5) of the bill, H.R. 3415, as reported.
The revenue provisions of the bill are estimated to have
the following effects on the budget for fiscal years 1996-2002:
ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 3415 AS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS--FISCAL YEARS 1996-2002
[Billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Effective 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1996-2000 1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal 1993 tax increase of 4.3 cents per DOE+7 days................... -1.7 -1.3 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) ...... -2.9 -2.9
gallon on transportation motor fuels
(sunset after 12/31/96).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gain of less than $50 million.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Legend for ``Effective'' column: DOE=date of enactment.
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.
The Committee notes that the items offsetting the cost of
repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation motor fuels
excise tax are outside the jurisdiction of the Committee and
therefore not part of its consideration.
However, the Committee notes that no deficit increase or
entitlement sequester will result due to the legislation as
reported. The Office of Management and Budget has recorded $3.4
billion in savings available for expenditure per the ``pay-as-
you-go'' scorecard in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Thus, the $3
billion revenue reduction due to the legislation for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 will neither increase the deficit nor
require an entitlement sequester. In addition, the proposal
Federal Communications Commission spectrum sale provides
additional offsetting financing of $2.1 billion in fiscal year
1998.
B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Budget authority
In compliance with subdivision (B) of clause 2(l)(3) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee states that the revenue provisions of the bill
involve no new or increased budget authority.
Tax expenditures
In compliance with subdivision (B) of clause 2(l)(3) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee states that the bill involves no new or increased tax
expenditure.
C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
In compliance with subdivision (C) of clause 2(l)(3) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring
a cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), the following statement by CBO is provided.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1996.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for 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.
Enactment of H.R. 3415 would affect direct spending and
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to
the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 3415.
2. Bill title: 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.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on Ways and Means on May 9, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3415 would temporarily suspend
collections from the 1993 tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon
on transportation motor fuels. The bill also would require the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use competitive
bidding to assign license 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.
Finally, H.R. 3415 would authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1997 through 2002 for the Department of Energy (DOE).
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO and the
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that H.R. 3415 would
reduce government receipts by about $1.7 billion in fiscal year
1996 and by $2.9 billion over the 1996-2002 period. CBO
estimates that offsetting receipts from the spectrum auctions
would decrease direct spending by $2.1 billion in fiscal year
1998. The bill also would authorize discretionary spending of
$578 million for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 for certain DOE
activities. That authorization reflects an average level of
about $96 million a year. By comparison, appropriations for the
same activities in the current year total $245 million. The
following table summarizes the estimated effects of H.R. 3415
for the 1996-2002 period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in revenues and direct spending
Motor fuels tax: Estimated revenues \1\... -1,655 -1,285 26 9 3 1 ........
Spectrum auctions:
Estimated budget authority............ ........ ........ -2,100 ........ ........ ........ ........
Estimated outlays..................... ........ ........ -2,100 ........ ........ ........ ........
Spending subject to appropriations
Spending under current law:
Budget authority...................... 245 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Estimated outlays..................... 247 73 25 ........ ........ ........ ........
Proposed changes:
Authorization level................... ........ 104 104 100 90 90 90
Estimated outlays..................... ........ 73 94 101 93 91 90
Estimated spending under H.R. 3415:
Authorization level \2\............... 245 104 104 100 90 90 90
Estimated outlays..................... 247 146 119 101 93 91 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
\2\ The 1996 level is the amount appropriated for that year, net of estimated offsetting collections.
The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 270 and
950.
6. Basis of estimate:
Motor Fuels Tax.--JCT estimates that the temporary repeal
of the tax on transportation motor fuels would reduce
government receipts by about $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1996
and by $2.9 billion over fiscal years 1996-2002. CBO concurs
with this estimate. The proposal would be effective on the date
of enactment for taxable fuels removed, entered, sold, or used
more than six days after that date and before January 1, 1997.
For purposes of this estimate, JCT and CBO assume enactment of
H.R. 3415 on or about May 25, 1996.
Spectrum Auctions.--CBO estimates that the spectrum
auctions authorized under the bill would raise about $2.1
billion in fiscal year 1998. CBO has priced the frequencies
available for auction by taking into account the prices paid
for roughly comparable frequencies at FCC auctions held from
1994 to 1996, and the effect on prices in the future of the
increased supply of licenses. The receipts from the auctions
authorized by H.R. 3415 could vary depending on the types of
licenses that the FCC decides to auction. CBO assumes, however,
that the FCC will seek to promote the most efficient use of the
spectrum, as specified by the bill, and allocate the 25 MHz to
the highest value use.
Department of Energy.--Assuming appropriations of the
authorized amounts, CBO estimates that this portion of the bill
would result in outlays of $542 million over the 1997-2002
period. This estimate assumes that the full amounts authorized
will be appropriated by the beginning of each fiscal year and
that outlays will occur at rates consistent with historical
trends for departmental administration activities at DOE.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that the
repeal of the gas tax and the authorization of spectrum
auctions would affect pay-as-you-go receipts. The following
table summarizes the estimated pay-as-you-go impact of the
bill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays................ 0 0 -2,100
Change in receipts............... -1,655 -1,285 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: H.R. 3415 contains no intergovernmental mandates
as defined by Public Law 104-4, and would not impose any direct
costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
9. Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill
contains no private sector mandates as defined in Public Law
104-4.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by:
Federal cost estimate: Motor fuels tax: Stephanic Weiner;
Spectrum auctions: Rachel Forward and David Moore; and
Department of Energy; Kim Cawley.
State and local government impact: Pepper Santalucia.
Private sector impact: Elliot Schwartz.
12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE HOUSE RULES
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
With respect to subdivision (A) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to
oversight findings), the Committee advises that it was the
result of the Committee's oversight activities concerning the
impact of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund on
transportation motor fuels excise tax that the Committee
concluded that it is appropriate and timely to enact the
revenue provisions contained in the bill as reported.
B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight
With respect to subdivision (D) of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
advises that no oversight findings or recommendations have been
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight with respect to the provisions contained
in the bill.
C. Inflationary Impact Statement
In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
temporary repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon transportation
motor fuels excise tax should result in reduced motor fuels
prices throughout the economy. This should then result in
reduced transportation costs, which will reduce temporarily
overall inflationary pressures in the economy.
D. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates
This information is provided in accordance with section
423 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4).
The Committee has determined that the revenue provisions
of the bill involve no Federal private sector mandates or
intergovernmental mandates.
E. Applicability of House Rule XXI5(c)
Rule XXI5(c) of the Rules of the House of Representatives
provides that ``No bill or joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase
shall be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined
by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members
voting.'' The Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions
of the bill to determine whether any of these provisions
constitute a Federal income tax rate increase within the
meaning of the House rules. It is the opinion of the Committee
that there is no provision in the bill that constitutes a
Federal income tax rate increase within the meaning of House
rule XXI5 (c) or (d).
VI. LETTER FROM COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 15, 1996.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
SECTION 4081 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
SEC. 4081. IMPOSITION OF TAX
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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
subparagraph (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.
SECTION 660 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORGANIZATION ACT
authorization of appropriations
Sec. 660. (a) In General.--Appropriations to carry out the
provisions of this Act shall be subject to annual
authorization.
(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.
VIII. DISSENTING VIEWS OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS
AND MEANS ON H.R. 3415
In good conscience, we cannot support this legislation.
Sponsors and supporters of this legislation may wish to reduce
transportation costs for American consumers by cutting the
Federal gasoline tax. However, this bill will not accomplish
that. Our ``no'' vote is the best way we have to call attention
to the bill's shortcomings.
This bill has two fatal flaws: (1) it does nothing to
guarantee that this decrease in the gas tax will result in a
decrease in gasoline prices that consumers face; and (2) it is
a cynical election-year political stunt, rather than a genuine
effort to help American consumers. We attempted to correct
these fatal flaws by offering constructive amendments and
suggestions, but the Republican majority rejected our potential
solutions.
no guarantee of pass-through to consumers
The American driving public currently faces very high
prices for gasoline right at the time of year when families are
poised to take their summer vacations, move their college-aged
children home for the summer, transport their children to
sports events, camp, summer school, and other activities.
These same American consumers are the ones who have been
paying for the bad business judgments that oil companies have
made in the last few months as they have maintained razor-thin
margins of inventories to hedge their bets against a risk that
has not materialized (i.e., Iraq flooding the market and
driving down the price of oil). This market speculation has
driven prices even higher than they would otherwise be because
of market conditions.
A reduction in the gas tax is not the same as a reduction
in gas prices. There are many players in the game between the
oil well and the gas pump. If refiners do not pass through the
tax cut in the form of a lower price of gasoline and
distributors and retailers do not pass that lower price through
to the pump price, then consumers will get no benefit from the
tax cut.
If the Federal gasoline tax is reduced, we believe that
American consumers should, without question, be the
beneficiaries of this tax cut. The Republican majority says
that they wish that, too. But, they have written a bill that
holds little promise of accomplishing that result.
In the first place, the 4.3-cent increase in the federal
gasoline tax that Republicans now wish to repeal was enacted 3
years ago. It has nothing whatever to do with the steep
increase in gasoline prices at the pump that has occurred in
the last four months. Numerous other factors, all oil-market-
related, are the causes of the price spike. Therefore, reducing
the gas tax is not the solution to the current market
conditions.
Current conditions in the oil industry do not bode well for
speedy pass-through of a cut in the federal gasoline tax to
consumers. Inventories are low and uncertainty is high. The
extraordinarily cold weather this past winter in both Europe
and North America generated significantly higher demand for
heating oil and depleted supplies for longer than the usual
winter. The agricultural sector is generating surprisingly high
demand for fuel this planting season. Several refineries have
closed recently as a result of mergers or accidents.
Negotiations between the United Nations and Iraq about Iraq's
status in world markets have created uncertainty about future
supply and, thus, future prices. This uncertainty has led
refiners to buy oil on the daily spot markets, a more volatile
and expensive arena. Oil prices and, therefore, gasoline prices
will remain unsteady until these and other factors settle down.
Producers will want as much protection as possible against the
risk of buying high and selling low. They are apt to keep their
prices up for several months, especially in light of the high
demand for gasoline that usually occurs in the summer months.
The claim that this tax cut will be passed through to
consumers can certainly not be supported by a look at the
historical record on gasoline prices. In the months after the
August 1993 enactment of the 4.3-cent portion of the gas tax,
gasoline prices went precipitously down, not up. Market
conditions controlled the resulting price, as they will in the
coming months, too. Republicans were wrong then to frighten the
American public with predictions of higher prices, and they are
wrong now to dupe the public with promises of lower prices. At
the Committee hearing on the day before the bill was presented
to the Committee, witnesses raised doubts about the likelihood
that this brief, temporary cut would ever reach consumers'
wallets. One witness, an expert analyst of the energy sector,
stated that market conditions are such that consumers are
unlikely to see this tax cut in the next few months.
Even if circumstances were conducive to the tax cut being
passed through to consumers, the Republican majority has
written a bill that makes that possibility almost meaningless.
Their tax cut is only 7 months long. And, it is timed in such a
way that consumers will not see lower prices at the pump as a
result. The traditional seasonal pattern of gasoline prices is
such that prices rise during the spring and summer as Americans
increase their demand for gasoline during the busy driving
months, and prices fall in the autumn and winter when people
drive less. During much of the brief period of this tax cut,
prices will remain high because of the usual seasonal demand,
and by next winter when prices will be lower naturally the gas
tax will go up because the tax cut in this bill will expire.
So, Senator Dole has crafted a proposal that will allow for
good campaign rhetoric but will deliver no benefit to consumers
in the form of lower prices.
We attempted to make certain that, if the cut in the gas
tax is enacted, consumers would receive the full benefit. Mr.
Rangel offered an amendment that would have required oil
companies to pass the tax savings on to the consumer and would
reimpose the tax if the tax cut were not fully passed through.
Because the bill as presented to the Committee has no
safeguards at all to ensure that consumers benefit, we believe
that the Rangel amendment is necessary. It would provide
producers and refiners with sufficient incentives to make sure
that they do not retain the tax cut in corporate coffers. The
penalty of reinstating the tax should present adequate
deterrence and encourage companies to pass the savings on. We
hope such a penalty never would be imposed because we hope
companies do the right thing and pass the tax cut on to
consumers. All Democrats present voted for this consumer
protection amendment, including those who support the tax cut.
Committee Republicans all voted against this consumer
protection amendment. The arguments they raised provide little
enlightenment as to why. They claimed that it would be too
difficult for the Departments of Energy and the Treasury to
consult among themselves and determine whether a company had
violated the requirement or not. This is a silly accusation
that sounds like a smoke screen to us. The Treasury Department
has vast, daily experience in enforcement of the nation's tax
and tariff laws. The Energy Department scrutinizes daily
activity in domestic and global energy markets. Both
departments are staffed by career professionals who are trained
to interpret current economic and industry data and use it
accurately. They have excellent track records. Considering the
complexity of the many tax bills that have passed through this
Committee over the years with the customary assessment of
taxpayer behavior built into the revenue estimates, the
Committee Republicans well know that compliance with the
requirement in the Rangel amendment would be among the easier
things that professionals in those Departments would be asked
to assess. Committee Republicans must have felt that they had
to provide some explanation for their votes in opposition to
the consumer protection amendment, but the explanation they
offered makes little sense.
cynical election-year stunt
This bill is not a sincere legislative effort. It is
instead a cynical attempt to influence American voters in an
election year. It is a political ploy. The Republicans are
playing a ``shell game'' with the American public.
When Senator and Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole
began about 2 weeks ago to tout the virtues of a cut in the
gasoline tax, his remarks led people to believe that he was
suggesting a long-term reduction in the gas tax. Indeed,
Senator Dole has straightforwardly and publicly stated his
intention to repeal the 4.3-cent portion of the gasoline tax
permanently. He has promised the American people that.
Instead, the bill that was presented to the Committee is a
7-month wonder--a repeal of 4.3 cents of the gas tax for the
duration of the Presidential campaign season. The bill
presented to the Committee would reduce the gas tax only until
the end of this year. On January 1, 1997, the gas tax will go
back up to its current level.
Moreover, the structure of the bill undermines any
expectation of a permanent reduction in the tax. The bill
includes a floorstocks tax for gasoline purchased before the
4.3-cent cut expires and sold after that time. While it is not
unusual to include a floorstocks tax in excise tax legislation,
it is typically included only when (1) the tax is imposed
``upstream'' and therefore built into the price paid by the
retailer and (2) there is some anticipation that the tax will
increase. Thus, the purpose of a floorstocks tax is to capture
tax on all of the product--in this case, gasoline--sold at
retail after the date of the tax increase, even if some of it
was purchased as inventory by the seller at an earlier date
with a lower tax built into his purchase price. Hasn't Senator
Dole promised the American people that permanent repeal of 4.3
cents of the gas tax will be included in a budget
reconciliation bill later this year? If Senator Dole's promise
of permanent repeal is genuine, why do we need a floorstocks
tax? What tax increase does that section of the bill
anticipation?
As further evidence of the lack of sincerity of Republican
promises, 21 of the 23 Republicans on the Committee voted
against an amendment offered by Mr. Matsui to extend this 7-
month tax cut for 7 years. In voting against it, Committee
Republicans complained that the amendment was not funded, even
though the bill was intentionally designed to preclude the type
of provision that would have been necessary to fund the
amendment. The Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means
explicitly rejected an opportunity to deliver what their
Presidential candidate has led Americans to expect. How can the
American public believe the rhetorical promises when the
actions so plainly belie the rhetoric?
Besides, the idea that permanent repeal of the gas tax,
which would cost another $31 billion in lost revenue, will be
included in the larger budget legislation later is
insupportable. On the very same afternoon that the 7-month gas
tax cut was presented to this Committee, Chairman Kasich
convened the House Committee on the Budget to consider the
fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, the blueprint for the
larger budget reconciliation legislation. That budget
resolution does include the $3 billion revenue loss for the 7-
month tax cut but does not include the additional $31 billion
revenue loss for permanent reduction. The Republicans are
playing a shell game with the American public by promising, in
the context of the temporary tax cut, to make it permanent in
later budget legislation and then, in the context of the budget
legislation, failing to include the permanent cut. Do they
think the public won't notice?
Voters will see through this disingenuous effort to
manipulate them. They will realize they are being promised one
thing and given another. They will discover that, despite a cut
in the federal gasoline tax, the price they pay at the pump
will not have gone down. If, under the normal seasonal price
cycle described above, gasoline prices begin to decline this
autumn--conveniently before the election--Republican sponsors
of this tax cut will claim credit. The sound bite may seem
appealing at first, but reality will set in. Transparent
political ploys like this only tend to increase voter
cynicism--unless of course the Republicans will also claim
honest credit for a rise in prices that will occur in January
when the tax cut expires.
The bill pays lip service to the notion of the tax cut
flowing through to the consumer, but even that section is
polluted by political manipulation. It mandates that the
General Accounting Office (GAO) study whether the tax cut has
been passed through and report its findings back to Congress on
January 31, 1997. We attempted to make this a more honest
effort. Mr. Kleczka offered an amendment to require the report
by November 1, 1996. Thus, all the cards would be on the table
before the national election. Committee Republicans defeated
this amendment on a party-line vote. Delaying the results of
the GAO report until next year is a crafty way of avoiding the
issue until the political consequences would be minimized. In
the meantime, the campaign-season effort to manipulate voters
with clever and careful rhetoric about this tax cut, from which
they may never benefit, can continue unencumbered by the facts.
Another indication of the Republicans' cynical election-
year attitude about this tax cut is the apparently intentional
narrow scope of the bill. It was designed and written in such a
way that virtually no improvements were allowed to be raised as
amendments in Committee because they were judged to be not
germane to the very narrow scope of the bill. There was no
willingness on the part of Committee Republicans to actually
make this bill work, to make changes that would ensure that the
tax cut actually would go to consumers. This was intended to be
a ``quickie''--an attempt to get the bill passed as quickly as
possible, regardless of its flaws, so that Senator Dole and
other candidates can claim political credit for something that
``sounds good'' in this election season. There was no
willingness to put the consumer first and write the bill
accordingly. Presidential political aspiration and campaign
sound-bites came first.
Conclusion
The Republicans have undertaken an ill-designed effort at
the wrong time in their election-year attempt to fool the
public. It fails the test on both political and substantive
grounds.
We stand squarely on the side of voters and consumers. We
believe that voters and consumers deserve more honest treatment
and more certain protection against big-oil decision-makers. We
believe that, if a tax break is to be enacted as a result of
this legislation, it should be a break for American consumers.
We withhold our support from this bill because it treats voters
as pawns in a political chess match and it provides no sure
benefit to consumers.
Sam Gibbons.
Benjamin L. Cardin.
Robert T. Matsui.
William J. Coyne.
Pete Stark.
Richard E. Neal.
Harold Ford.
Charles B. Rangel.
Jim McDermott.
L.F. Payne.
Barbara Kennelly.
John Lewis.
Sander Levin.