December 17, 1979
Page 36427
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first let me say that I doubt very much I understand the complexities of the amendment in the way my good friends do.
I simply want to make the point that, first, it is not a title I matter, as Senator LONG has correctly pointed out.
Second, I understand Treasury does not oppose this, and, apparently, Senator LONG is under the impression Treasury supports it.
Third, and this is what troubles me, it does represent a cost to the Treasury offset by a gain to consumers, as Senator STEVENS pointed out, costing the Treasury $250 million over the 3-year life of the amendment.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. LONG. Since the proposal was originally raised, the Treasury suggested some reforms they thought appropriate. With the Treasury reforms that are included in the amendment, I am advised by our staff, and I suppose Treasury is likely to agree, that with the reforms included in it, it is difficult to tell whether it raises or lowers revenue; it would appear to be revenue neutral.
In other words, it gains in some respects and it loses in others.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is my understanding.
Let me just state my problem simply so Members of the Senate will not accuse me later of perhaps being discriminatory.
I have here a list of amendments that will cost the Treasury in lost revenues of one kind or another, including tax credits, the total sum of $34 billion — $34 billion — and this was one of those included.
But I see a distinction on the basis of the description the floor manager of the bill has given us of this amendment, that there is a distinction between that and these other revenue losers.
For that reason, it being a change in the accounting method to reflect current circumstances in the national oil market, and I gather that is what it is, I put it in a different category and I see no point in raising an issue about it at this point.
I may have different thoughts about it as I reflect on it more. Perhaps my present conclusion is based on an inadequate understanding of the change in accounting methods.
But on that basis, I consider this amendment different from the others as to which I will raise a. budgetary question.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator.
As I mentioned, the amendment was substantially changed by the Treasury Department.
I do hope that, as a result, it is viewed as an amendment necessary to protect the consumers from a situation where Government regulation would force the involuntary liquidation of LIFO inventories, and hence the purchase of substantial amounts of high cost oil on the spot market. There is no question but those costs would go on to the consumers at a very high rate under the current international situation.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
I move the adoption of my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 592) of the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 592) , as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy, and the Senator from Louisiana, again.