February 25, 1975 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 4289 Stipe, Gary L., xxx-xx-xxxx . Vanderwall, Gregory C., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wisdom, William D., xxx-xx-xxxx . Stockler, Joseph R ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Vann, Joseph B., xxx-xx-xxxx . Woeste, Dennis C., xxx-xx-xxxx . Storer, M ark E., xxx-xx-xxxx . Varnado, Frederic E., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wolfe, Paul G., xxx-xx-xxxx . Stratmoen, David M ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Vazquez, Jose A ., Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wood, K enneth R ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Strobel, M ark A , xxx-xx-xxxx . Veiga, Edwin F., xxx-xx-xxxx . Woods, John C., xxx-xx-xxxx . Stuckey, Ronnie D., xxx-xx-xxxx . Vernon, Walter L., xxx-xx-xxxx . Woolf ord , Michael W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Stultz, Gregory H., xxx-xx-xxxx . Waks, Larry E., xxx-xx-xxxx Wright, Edward J., xxx-xx-xxxx . Sullivan, Daniel W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Walpole, Harold W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wright, Thomas H., xxx-xx-xxxx . Summers, Darl W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wardell, David E., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wright, Walter E ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Sutter, Thomas R ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Warehime, William M ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wright, William M ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Sutterfield, Benn M ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Warren, T homas D., xxx-xx-xxxx . Yardley, A lvin J., xxx-xx-xxxx . Sutton, R ichard E ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Waterhouse, R ichard B., xxx-xx-xxxx . Young, John L., III, xxx-xx-xxxx . Swinney, Phillip W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Weber, Louis W., xxx-xx-xxxx . Zigoris, Thomas, xxx-xx-xxxx . Sylvia, Bruce F., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wells, Billy E., Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Taber, Richard B., xxx-xx-xxxx . West, Thomas C., xxx-xx-xxxx . T anner, William F , Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wheeler, Harold G., xxx-xx-xxxx . CONFIRMATION Taylor, Robert L., xxx-xx-xxxx . Whitaker, John F ., xxx-xx-xxxx . E xecutive nomination confirmed by White, George A ., II, xxx-xx-xxxx . Temple, M eredith W. B., xxx-xx-xxxx . the Senate February 25, 1975: Testerman, Dan E., xxx-xx-xxxx . White, K enneth C., xxx-xx-xxxx . Thaden, R ussell H., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wickizer, Karl A., xxx-xx-xxxx . U.S. POSTAL SERVICE Thayer, George E., III, xxx-xx-xxxx . Widner, K evin D., xxx-xx-xxxx . William A . Irvine, of Pennsylvania, to be a Thomson, R obert J., xxx-xx-xxxx . Williams, A rthur E ., xxx-xx-xxxx . Governor of the U .S . Postal S ervice for the Tirey, James R., xxx-xx-xxxx . Williams, David L., xxx-xx-xxxx . remainder of the term expiring December 8 , Tobin, Daniel H., Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Williams, Harold D., xxx-xx-xxxx . 1976. Tolbert, James, Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Wilson, David B., xxx-xx-xxxx . (T h e ab o v e n o m in atio n w as ap p ro v ed Tucker, Edward B , Jr., xxx-xx-xxxx . Windham, O rval, xxx-xx-xxxx . subject to the nominee's commitment to re- Tucker, M ark D., xxx-xx-xxxx . Winkles, Daniel T., xxx-xx-xxxx . spond to requests to appear and testify be- T urner, A llen P., xxx-xx-xxxx . Winslow, Harold L., xxx-xx-xxxx . fore any duly constituted com m ittee of the T urner, Steven G., xxx-xx-xxxx . Winter, M arion E., xxx-xx-xxxx . S enate.) EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS IS DEPLETION BREAK REALLY AN beginning with 2 2 per cent and ranging down consumer advocates who persist in attacking E N E M Y?-T HE PR ICE OF OIL: to five. the depletion allowance as a tool for robbing ACHILLES HEEL In the 2 2 per cent bracket, along w ith oil the poor (consum ers) to help the rich (oil and natural gas, are 4 2 other m inerals. T he m en). list begins w ith antim ony and includes, in But informed critics of the allowance, such addition to items most people never heard of, as T hom as F ield of T axation w ith R epre- HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE such things as asbestos, bauxite, cobalt, lead, sentation, concede the point. T hey base their OF TEXAS m anganese, m ercu ry , titaniu m , tu ngsten, opposition on the claim that tax breaks for uranium and zinc. the oil industry subsidize oil consum ers at IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Getting a 15 per cent allowance are copper, the expense of taxpayers in general. Monday, February 24, 1975 gold, oil shale, iron ore and silver. A rather lam e point, that, it seem s to us, A 14 per cent bracket takes in 37 minerals, since taxpayers in general A R E oil consumers. M r. TEA GUE. M r. Speaker, a recent in c lu d in g b o ra x , fo u r k in d s o f m in e ra l- T o sum m arize, doing aw ay w ith the oil editorial in the F ort Worth S tar-T ele- bearing clay, potash and talc. T he final entry and gas dep letion allow ance w ou ld have gram takes up the question about our oil in this bracket is "O ther m inerals not cov- tw o m ajo r effects. I t w o u ld elim in ate an depletion allowances. The considerations ered elsewhere." inducement for exploration, at a time when by this body concerning the elimination In other words, all minerals are covered by it's needed m ore than ever b efore. A nd it of our present depletion allowances some depletion allowance. T hose not in the would sock the consumer with another push could have grave consequences on the to p b ra c k e t w ith o il o r o n e o f th e lo w e r on fuel prices on top of those already effected Nation and I b rackets, w hich inclu de gravel, sand and by A rab oil price increases and other infla- strongly urge each and every stone, are in the 14 per cent bracket. tionary factors. M ember of Congress to heed the advice T he question raised by all this is w hy, if T his suggests to us a shorter, and m ore and sensible suggestions made in this every m ineral is covered by som e sort of explicit, nam e for our book on elim inating editorial. A long with this editorial I depletion tax break, is Congress picking on the depletion allowance: attach a copy of Percentage Depletion the oil depletion allow ance as an evil that "Baloney !" Rates for Domestic M ineral Production must be done away with? under the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which T hat question casts a still m ore puzzling shadow in the light of some other facts about PERCENTAGE DEPLETION RATES FOR DOMESTIC I am sure will be informative to my the oil and gas depletion allowance. M INERAL PRODU CTION: U NDER TH E TAX RE- FORM ACT OF 1969 colleagues and the general public. I nvariably, in their attacks on the provi- Finally, M r. Speaker, I would like to sion, depletion allow ance foes in Congress N orE .-T he depletion rates specified in the add an additional editorial from the la b e l i t a " t a x b r e a k " f o r t h e " b i g o i l la w a re a ll su b je c t to th e lim ita tio n th a t Washington Post of December 30, 1974 by companies." the deduction cannot exceed 50 % of the net A ctually, the giants like E xxon, M obil, income from each producing property or, in George C. M cGhee entitled, "The Price the case of hard minerals, operating unit. of Oil: Achilles Heel." The writer points T exaco and Gulf are not the big beneficiaries out that the problem is not one for inter- of the depletion allowance. 22 PERCENT DEPLETION APPLIES TO TH ESE T hat's because they possess little of the MINERALS national oil companies, but "can only be holdings on w hich depletion allow ance ap- A ntimony, A nerthosite (to the extent alu- resolved by governments." I commend plies. T he independent operators hold most m ina and alum inum com pounds extracted this sound editorial to you, my col- of the roy alties and, therefore, g ain m ost therefrom ) , A sbestos, Bauxite, Beryllium , leagues, and the general public. from the "tax break." Bismuth, Cadmium, Celestite, Chromite Clay, The editorials follow : Depletion allowance foes err again in their (to the extent alum ina and alum inum com - assessm ent of the effects of the allow ance. pounds extracted therefrom) . [F rom the F ort W orth S tar-T elegram, T hey give the impression that it just helps Jan. 22, 1975] Cobalt, Columbium, Corundum, F luospar, wealthy "oil men" get richer by giving them Graphite, Ilmenite, K yanite Laterite (to ex- IS DEPLETION BREAK REALLY AN ENEM Y? fatter profit margins. In fact, its main effect, tent alumina and aluminum compounds ex- S om eone should w rite a book titled "A ll so fa r a s " o il m e n " a re c o n c e rn e d , is to tracted therefrom) , Lead, Lithium M anaga- the P eople N eed T o K now A bout the O il encourage investment in oil and gas explora- nese, M ercury. Depletion A llowance but A ren't Being T old tion and drilling operations.