- 73 - amendment’s new section 936(h), and also modified other parts of the Senate amendment. We cannot tell from the public record how much of the substantial “cost to the Treasury” (i.e., reduction in the estimated amount of the revenue increase) is attributable to the election-out change and how much is attributable to the other changes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Congress was willing to forgo substantial revenue (estimated at almost a billion dollars for fiscal 1987 alone) as a result of the determination to modify the provisions of the Senate Amendment. Under these circumstances, we have no way of knowing (or even making an educated guess) as to whether the “cost to the Treasury” phrase in the Joint Statement of Managers was intended to refer to the election-out provision or any specific other provision in the revisions relating to the possessions credit. Respondent’s other legislative history focus--the statement that the significant-business-presence test “is intended to require real and significant business activity in the possessions”--is in that part of the conference committee’s explanatory statement that deals with “significant business presence” for purposes of the cost sharing election--what we have referred to as the first prong. As we have pointed out, supra, respondent has already stipulated away the only challenge that respondent makes on brief as to whether EAPR has satisfied the first prong. Thus, to the extent that the conference committee’sPage: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011