House OKs New Taxes on Big Oil Companies

advertisement

WASHINGTON — The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.

The money collected over 10 years would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period, according an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee. Those companies earned $123 billion last year.

Senate Democratic leaders said they would put the bill on a fast track and try to avoid a Republican filibuster. The White House said the bill unfairly takes aim at the oil industry. President Bush is expected to veto the legislation if it passes Congress.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., noted it was two years ago, when oil cost $55 a barrel, when Bush said oil companies need no government subsidies to pursue more oil or gas.

"With the price of oil hovering around $100 do we really believe this incentive is justified?" asked Hoyer. "Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product? They don't need any incentive."

Republicans said the measure unfairly targeted a single industry.

"It punishes the oil and gas industry. This is wrongheaded. It will result in higher prices at the gasoline pump. It's spiteful and wrong," said Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La.

The top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, which developed the tax proposals, he cited statistics that show that oil companies already pay more taxes than many other industries.

Hoyer acknowledged "this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices." But he said the measure will provide a needed boost to alternative energy industries — solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal — and help promote energy conservation. "That may bring down gas prices three years from now, 10 years from now," he said.

The bill would roll back two lucrative tax breaks for the five largest U.S. oil companies. One helps manufacturers compete against foreign companies; the other gives American companies a tax credit related to oil and gas extraction outside the country. Democrats estimated that those current breaks would save the oil companies $17.65 billion in taxes over the next 10 years.

The House-passed bill would use that money to promote renewable energy industries — such as wind, solar and cellulosic ethanol plants — by extending tax credits that recently expired or are scheduled to end at year's end.

The bill would offer tax credits for more energy efficient homes and a credit for "plug-in" gas-electric hybrid cars that would capture electricity off the power grid, once such cars become available in showrooms.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the shift of tax benefits from oil to alternative energy development was critical to increased energy independence and lowering energy costs. "We have the opportunity to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency," she said.

She noted the House twice last year passed similar tax plans, but they died in the Senate. Since then, the price of gasoline has climbed and large oil companies have made record profits, Pelosi said.

During debate, Rep Jim McDermott, D-Wash., urged lawmakers to "stop the madness of subsidizing oil companies" when the industry earned $123 billion last year.

The oil industry has lobbied intensely against the House tax legislation, calling it a "discriminatory bill" that targets companies that already pay considerable taxes. "New taxes ... will even further reduce our energy security by discouraging new domestic oil and natural gas production and refinery capacity expansions," the American Petroleum Institute said in a statement.

But other energy industries and energy efficiency advocates have campaigned for the legislation because of the tax incentives that would be directed their way.

"These incentives must be extended immediately to void significant harm to the development of clean energy industries in the United States," said a letter to lawmakers from more than 100 businesses, electric utilities, environmental groups and energy efficiency advocates.

A similar tax proposal passed the House last summer, but it was abandoned in the Senate where Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Senate Democrats were maneuvering to avoid a repeat of that with the newly passed House measure.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said Democratic leaders are considering advancing the House bill under fast-track procedures related to the budget. This process would not permit an indefinite GOP stall.

The White House says singling out the oil companies for higher taxes "would reduce the nation's energy security rather than improve it" and "lead to higher energy costs to U.S. consumers and business."

Senior advisers would urge Bush to veto the bill should it pass Congress, the White House said in a statement before the House vote.

  • 4 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
2.4
1.0
{"commentId":1516322,"authorDomain":"Lulu124"}
The White House said the bill unfairly takes aim at the oil industry. President Bush is expected to veto the legislation if it passes Congress.

I have reached the end of my rope.

This statement is LUDICROUS! And anyone who needs that explained is a fool. Every single one of us should be calling every Senator and Representative that we have tomorrow and DEMANDING that they override the veto and refuse to take no for an answer.

Apparently our elected officials no longer feel any responsibility to represent the interests of the people who elected them and if we want that to change it's going to take an enormous amont of time and effort if not an actual revolution.

{"commentId":1516322,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"Lulu124"}
    Reply#1 - Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:43 PM EST
    {"commentId":1516602,"authorDomain":"kirklennon"}

    Because, of course, oil companies don't have any rights. Nor are they public companies with millions of stockholders (i.e. regular Americans).

    Robbing successful companies is not a moral thing to do. If this gets passed, Bush should veto it. It would be one of the few good things he's done in office.

    {"commentId":1516602,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"kirklennon"}
      #1.1 - Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:16 AM EST
      {"commentId":1521338,"authorDomain":"Lulu124"}
      Robbing successful companies is not a moral thing to do.

      Well, I probably can't get through to you because you consider the excessive profits that the oil companies are taking moral and I do not.

      Oil companies are abusing their role in our society. They don't need government subsidies to make a profit.

      The most fascinating part of this argument is the negative impact of higher gas prices on a multitude of other industries in the US. I have been amazed that WalMart and other retailers have been willing to allow this situation to continue when the financial impact on their business is significant. Airlines -- high fuel costs is what sent Braniff into bankruptcy years ago.

      {"commentId":1521338,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"Lulu124"}
        #1.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:25 AM EST
        {"commentId":1523808,"authorDomain":"kirklennon"}

        A tax break (i.e: less stealing) is not the same as a subsidy (i.e.: stealing from someone and giving it to someone else).

        Furthermore, there is no such thing as "excessive" profits. Absent physical force, whatever people pay for a product is the fair price, by virtue of the fact that both parties freely agreed to that price. If that price happens to be highly profitable for one party, so be it. Clearly the other benefited as well, otherwise the trade would not happen.

        {"commentId":1523808,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"kirklennon"}
          #1.3 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:03 PM EST
          Reply
          {"commentId":1517657,"authorDomain":"bootie"}

          Why do our politicians (or anyone, for that matter) continue to think taxing corporations is "free money"? Higher taxes for oil companies does nothing but pass the extra expense down to the consumer. WE will pay for these taxes in the price of our gasoline.

          Congress might as well bypass the oil companies and just raise our taxes to pay for this instead. It's the same thing. Our government seems to be run by idiots.

          Or perhaps it's more likely that our politicians know exactly that we will end up paying for it, but count us all as too stupid to realize it, which seems to be holding true since we don't stand up and do anything to stop it.

          {"commentId":1517657,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"bootie"}
          • 2 votes
          Reply#2 - Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:00 AM EST
          {"commentId":1518346,"authorDomain":"jdl-28"}

          We have been told if we are not using a lot of oil our prices would go down, well they have a stock pile of oil right now and than they are raising prices over a $100 a barrel. Part of this is because we are in their country and they do not want us there, the other parts is that they can control us knowing we will pay what ever it take. Plus ours government will not release the oil we have here so we would not need to import our oil.

          We have no one in our government who care to work for the American citizens, they are allowing our jobs to be off shore or let the H1-a and H1-B visa people in to take our job here. Your government is looking for your replacement and getting pay to do it, how does it feel to pay to have someone come in here and take your job.

          Do not worry about how much gas will cost you, after all without a job you will not be buying it.

          {"commentId":1518346,"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751","authorDomain":"jdl-28"}
          • 1 vote
          Reply#3 - Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:40 PM EST
          {"canLink":false,"threadId":"226278","isPrivate":false}
          Leave a Comment:
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
          {"threadId":"226278","contentId":"1329751"}
          Start TrackingStart Tracking
          Stop TrackingStop Tracking