- 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’s
Page: Previous 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011