[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
END DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES FOR AUTOMOBILE RENTERS ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4175
__________
JUNE 15, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-122
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-953 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas
JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
TED DEUTCH, Florida TOM ROONEY, Florida
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
JARED POLIS, Colorado
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina JIM JORDAN, Ohio
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
Michone Johnson, Chief Counsel
Daniel Flores, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 15, 2010
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 4175, the ``End Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile
Renters Act of 2009''.......................................... 3
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law......................................... 1
The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law.............................. 12
WITNESSES
The Honorable Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. Raymond T. Wagner, Jr., Vice President, Government and Public
Affairs, Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. Timothy Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer, Montgomery
County, Maryland, on behalf of the National League of Cities,
the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, and the Government Finance Officers Association
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
Ms. Sally Greenberg, Executive Director, National Consumers
League
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Statement............................................. 44
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee
on Commercial and Administrative Law........................... 66
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Raymond T. Wagner, Jr.,
Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Enterprise
Holdings, Inc.................................................. 69
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Mr. Timothy Firestine,
Chief Administrative Officer, Montgomery County, Maryland, on
behalf of the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
Government Finance Officers Association........................ 72
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Sally Greenberg,
Executive Director, National Consumers League.................. 75
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kevin Neels, The Battle Group.......... 78
Prepared Statement of the Federation of Tax Administrator........ 98
Prepared Statement of Stephen J. Collins, American Automotive
Policy (AAPC) Council.......................................... 100
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Friedman, Sutherland, Asbill &
Brennan LLP.................................................... 103
Letter from Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform. 113
Letter from Richard D. Broome, Sr. Vice President, Corporate
Affairs & Communications, The Hertz Corporation................ 114
Letter from Chris Russo, President and Chair, American Society of
Travel Agents (ASTA)........................................... 116
Letter from Joe B. Huddleston, L.L.D., Executive Director,
Multistate Tax Commission (MTC)................................ 118
Prepared Statement of the Truck Renting and Leasing Association
(TRALA)........................................................ 120
Letter from Alan Reuther, Legislative Director, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Works of America--UAW.......................................... 123
END DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES FOR AUTOMOBILE RENTERS ACT OF 2009
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:13 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve
Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Cohen, Johnson, Scott, Chu,
Franks, and Jordan.
Staff present: (Majority) Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Adam
Russell, Professional Staff Member; and (Minority) Stewart
Jeffries, Counsel.
Mr. Cohen. This hearing of the Committee of Judiciary
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will now come
to order. Without objection the Chair will be authorized to
declare a recess of the hearing. I will now recognize myself
for a short statement.
The Congress is well aware of the plight of state and local
governments caused by the current recession. And because state
and local governments need more revenue, consumers may see an
increase in taxes to help balance budgets.
Only in certain states they will see that and some states
that will see their budgets slashed. With this in mind though,
many witnesses have urged us not to pass legislation which may
restrict state's abilities to tax. However, we have also
written that some state and local taxes unduly burden a single
industry and its consumers.
Taxes on the rental of cars and trucks are one such
discriminatory tax which hits consumers' pocketbooks. Some
consumers may be shocked when the quoted price of renting a car
is nowhere near what they pay. I am one of those consumers.
The shock stems not from the price charged by the rental
company, oftentimes sounding inviting and low, but because of
the added taxes and fees which can increase the total rental
price 15 to 25 percent or more and makes one look at their
receipt and say, ``What happened to the rate they quoted me
when I called them on the 800 number?''
The rate of these taxes is often far higher than the local
tax rate placed on goods services. No matter the reasoning
behind these higher tax rates, the taxation of the rental cars
and trucks is a familiar form of discriminatory taxation which
may burden interstate commerce.
These taxes also chill car rental companies from investing
and expanding. Conventional wisdom tells us that tourists and
business travelers feel the primary impact of car rental taxes
and fees and that local governments target these taxes at
visitors and not their residents.
It also tells us the local governments adhere to the old
adage that as I understand Senator Russell Long first coined
and then a dear colleague, a Republican conservative from
Millington, Tennessee, Senator Leonard Dunavant of blessed
memory used to say, ``Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that
person behind that tree.'' So this is perfectly in accord with
Senator Dunavant's warnings.
According to a recent report that assumption is incorrect,
though, statistics reveal that more motor vehicles are rented
from neighborhood locations than from airport facilities. Thus,
car rental taxes and fees disproportionately fall on local
residents who often rent cars while their own vehicles are
being repaired or vans to ferry little league teams to baseball
tournaments or other heart-rending activities that we could
have listed here in this opening statement.
Today we hold a hearing on H.R. 4175, the ``End
Discriminatory State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act of
2009.'' H.R. 4175 would impose a moratorium on any new taxes,
discriminatory that they may be or not, with respect to the
rental of motor vehicles, businesses who rent motor vehicles or
the property of those businesses. The legislation would prevent
increasing taxes imposed solely on the rental of cars and
trucks.
[The bill, H.R. 4175, follows:]
__________
Mr. Cohen. Similar to other tax bills before this
Committee, the moratorium on new discriminatory taxes should
encourage the motor vehicle rental industry and local
governments to come together and work on reforming the current
tax structure.
For example, the state and local governments and the car
rental industry could work together to broaden the tax base
rather than have state and local governments over rely on a few
hundred taxpayers. Of course, that would require enlightened
legislators and local officials. But we will see what happens.
Such reform would maintain a steady stream of revenue for
state and local governments while ensuring a fair tax burden
for consumers such as those who rent cars and trucks. This
hearing will provide Members of the Subcommittee the
opportunity to hear testimony about local government's reliance
on taxes and fees on the rental of motor vehicles.
Members will also hear testimony about how those taxes and
fees impact consumers and the car rental industry, and the
testimony should help determine whether or not Congress should
intercede with this legislation.
As you may be aware, 2 months ago this Subcommittee held a
hearing on the current plight of state and local governments
that they are experiencing in this recession. I can certainly
sympathize with their concerns as they receive lower revenues,
but they are still expected to provide these services that they
have done over the years.
However, we need fair tax policies which do not act as
another regressive tax on consumers, and we need fair tax
policies which encourage capital investment rather that
discourage it. Fortunately, to the rescue, comes Representative
Boucher, who introduced this legislation, drafted it so as to
not affect current government revenues.
H.R. 4175 will not prevent taxing authorities from
continuing to tax the rentals of motor vehicles or the rental
companies and so that will allow them to continue to fund the
stadia and arenas and whatever other assorted goods and
services and products that they have and facilities that they
fund. Instead, this will impose a moratorium on new
discriminatory taxes.
So I thank Mr. Boucher for his work. Accordingly, I look
forward to receiving today's testimony and I now recognize my
colleague Mr. Franks, the distinguished Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
get you to introduce me at my next speech somewhere. Just want
to thank you for the effort to hold this hearing, and I know
that the Subcommittee has held many hearings on discriminatory
taxation over the years, but I believe today's hearing is--on
H.R. 4175, the ``End Discriminatory Taxes for Automobile
Renters Act,'' I think that it is a first.
And while the subject of today's hearing, namely rental
cars, may be new, the general topic of discriminatory taxes--I
will get that word--is not new. Supporters of H.R. 4175 claim
that states and localities target rental car companies and
consumers for unusually high and discriminatory taxes. And I
think the research is certainly in their favor.
They claim that these discriminatory taxes are often used
to pay for new stadiums or other municipal improvements. And in
other words, while the citizens get to enjoy the benefits of a
new ballpark, the costs are passed on to tourists and business
travelers who had no say in the financing decisions behind
those projects.
And such exportation of tax burdens, if true, Mr. Chairman,
of course troubles me. And of course I am also concerned that
discriminatory taxes are a job killer fundamentally.
Supporters of H.R. 4175 also point to the economic impact
that these discriminatory taxes have on our Nation's auto
industry. Rental car companies purchased over 1 million autos
from General Motors, Chrysler and Ford in 2008. That
constituted more than 15 percent of the Big 3 car sales last
year.
Given the financial interest the Federal Government has in
those companies and with no fault in mind, just for the record
and hence American taxpayers have taken in General Motors and
Chrysler, we should be aware of state taxation regimes that
threaten the viability of those entities.
Now that said, I know that discrimination, at least in this
context, can be in the eye of the beholder. So to that end, we
will hear from the states and localities that they are hurting.
My own state, of course, is currently trying to close a $3
billion deficit, so I understandably sympathize with their
plight as well.
And as I have said repeatedly at these hearings, I am a
strong supporter of state's traditional powers in this area. I
mean, I am somebody that has read the 10th Amendment. But even
when I support legislation like this, state to curb the tax
authority such as the Cell Tax Fairness Act, I want to make
sure we do it right and that the relief is targeted in a way
that it should be.
So therefore I look forward to hearing from all of the
witnesses today to determine the scope of the problem and
whether H.R. 4175, which I have some concerns about, the
approach that it takes, but I am open to hearing a better
approach, but I believe it is a sufficiently limited remedy to
the problem to warrant my support.
And so I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Franks. Isn't the 10th Amendment,
is that the one ``Thou shalt honor thy state and local
government?''
Mr. Franks. That is close enough for a Democrat.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. Yes, I think I am getting them--somehow I am
getting them confused, yes. And now--thank you for your
statement.
I am now pleased to introduce the first panel for today's
hearing. First thanks to all the witnesses who are willing to
participate in today's hearing. If Mr. Scott has a statement we
will enter it in the record without objection.
Without objection written statements will be placed in the
record. We ask that you limit your remarks to 5 minutes. We
have the lighting system which Mr. Boucher is most familiar
with, and then we will have the questioning period.
Our first witness is Congressman Rich Boucher of Virginia's
9th Congressional District. Representative Boucher is in his
14th term in the United States House of Representatives. He is
a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, serving on the
Courts and Competition Policy Subcommittee.
He sits on House Energy and Commerce Committee, serving on
two Subcommittees, Communications, Technology and the Internet
of which he is the Chairman, as well as the Energy and
Environment Committee.
He is the author of H.R. 4175, the ``End Discriminatory
State Taxes for Automobile Renters Act of 2009'' which he
introduced on December 2, 2009. He is one of the most cerebral
Members of our Congress, and his district touches Tennessee.
And for all those good reasons, I thank him for his testimony
and recognize him now for his statement.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you very much Chairman Cohen. I
also intend to invite you to come campaign for me this fall. I
appreciate those very kind remarks. And I thank you and Ranking
Member Franks and other Members of the Subcommittee for your
attention today to H.R. 4175, which is designed to prohibit
prospectively discriminatory car rental taxes imposed by state
and local governments.
I am joined in the co-sponsorship of the bill by 10 Members
of the House, including Mr. Jordan and Mr. Issa, who are
Members of this Subcommittee. Today, special car rental taxes
have been enacted by 43 states and by the District of Columbia.
In 1976 there was one such tax. Today there are 115.
Localities have found that car rental taxes are an
attractive means of financing projects that have no direct
relation to the rental of automobiles. For example, 35 sports
stadiums have been funded with these discriminatory taxes, a
performing arts center and a culinary institute have been
funded by car rental taxes.
And these taxes carry a huge social cost. They fall
disproportionately on minority households. Nationwide, minority
households bear 52 percent of the burden of these taxes. In the
state of Georgia, for example, minority households constitute
12 percent of the population, but they bear 27 percent of the
car rental tax burden.
And these are not taxes that are simply imposed on non-
residents who are traveling through the state, as the Chairman
indicated during his opening statement. The bulk of car rentals
come from neighborhood rental facilities, not from the airport
located in the various communities.
These taxes also drive up insurance costs. Since a large
portion of car rentals are temporary replacement vehicles that
are rented by insurance companies while an automobile that was
involved in an accident is being repaired.
A recent study has shown that these taxes also
significantly depress new car sales, perhaps by as much as 12
percent. These social costs are simply far too high. The taxes
frequently fund projects that are unrelated to car renting. And
they are discriminatory, since similar taxes are not imposed
upon the leasing of other tangible personal property in the
various locality.
Our legislation prohibits the imposition of new
discriminatory car rental taxes by states and localities, while
allowing to remain in effect those taxes that had been enacted
prior to December the 2nd, 2009. That was the date upon which
our legislation was introduced, serving notice to localities
nationwide, that Congress would now be considering respectively
prohibiting these taxes.
The taxes that were in effect on December 2, 2009 can
remain in effect as long as they are not changed, they do not
lapse, and the rate of those taxes does not increase. We
inserted the grandfathering provision to acknowledge that
localities have financed projects in anticipation of these tax
receipts, and we are carefully avoiding disrupting the
financing flows that enable those projects to be paid for.
I would note that the Congress has previously adopted
similar kinds of legislation that prohibit the imposition of
local taxes on bus, airplane and train transportation. This is
very much a corollary and an analogy to those previous
congressional enactments, and I think very appropriate as a
complement to them.
I would note, Mr. Chairman, and Members, that our
legislation has been endorsed by a large number of
organizations, including The National Consumers League, The
National Urban League, The United Autoworkers and the major
United States auto manufacturing companies.
I want to thank all of these endorsing organizations and
the 10 individual Members of the House, who have co-sponsored
the bill. And I thank you, Chairman Cohen, Mr. Franks and other
Members of the Subcommittee, for your attention to the merits
of our legislation today. Thank you for having me here as your
witness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boucher follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Rick Boucher,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia
__________
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your testimony, and for
introducing the bill, Mr. Boucher. I didn't realize that I was
not a sponsor of it.
And maybe, I don't know, maybe it was because of the idea
of being impartial for the hearing, but we have since the
hearing has started, we are going to become a sponsor. I think
it is good legislation, and I appreciate you for bringing it to
the Committee. I do not have questions for Mr. Boucher.
Mr. Franks, do you have questions?
Mr. Franks. Not for Mr. Boucher. We are going to let him
off the hook.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Scott, though, has been waiting to grill
you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
Mr. Scott. I would like to thank Mr. Boucher for his
testimony.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much
Mr. Cohen. The Virginia gentleman that he is. We thank you
for your testimony and--excuse me, Mr. Jordan, would you like
to grill?
Mr. Jordan. No, I am----
Mr. Cohen. You are a sponsor.
Mr. Jordan. [Off mike.]
Mr. Cohen. Well, that ends Congressman Boucher's day on the
Hill. [Laughter.]
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cohen. We thank you for your testimony and for bringing
the bill.
Our next panel, are we ready for the next panel? Will the
next panel of witnesses be seated? Thanks to each of you for
participating in today's hearing. We had the instructions. We
didn't do them when Mr. Boucher was there.
We have got a 5-minute system, lighting system up front,
and when the light is green that means you have started or at
least it means that counsel has turned on your light. And it
means you have got 4 minutes until it turns to yellow. And when
it turns to yellow that means you have got 1 minute left. And
when it turns to red that means you should be finished.
After you finish your statements, each Member of the
Committee will have five minutes to ask you questions, and we
will have the same lighting system and can submit the questions
to you later to ask you to respond to. But we ask you for that.
First witness will be Mr. Ray Wagner, vice president of
Enterprise Holdings. He oversees Enterprise's government and
legislative agenda. Prior to joining Enterprise in 1995, he
served in the cabinet of two governors, as director of revenue
in Illinois and Missouri, conflicted in St. Louis on a certain
football game, that occurs there annually.
In 2003, Mr. Wagner was unanimously confirmed by the United
States Senate to serve as a member of the IRS Oversight Board.
On March 17, 2005, he was unanimously confirmed for his second
term to the board and served as the chairman of that board for
2 years.
He was a municipal judge in the city of Ballwin, Missouri,
a position he held from April 1999 to May of 2005. And an
attorney in private practice, in the areas of securities,
municipal finance, banking, corporate and tax law. Thank you
Mr. Wagner, you may begin your testimony. And are you in the
Big 10, the Big 12 or----
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND T. WAGNER, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.
Mr. Wagner. I haven't read this morning's newspaper, so I
don't know---- [Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. Moving around. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Franks, Members of
the Subcommittee. Again, my name is Ray Wagner----
Mr. Cohen. I think it might be. I didn't tell you about the
microphone. You have got to punch it, is the light on?
Mr. Wagner. Is it on? Right? Better?
Mr. Cohen. Better, better, I guess it is.
Mr. Wagner. Can you hear me?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, I can.
Mr. Wagner. Now it seems to be working, okay. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Franks, Members of the Subcommittee, again, my
name is Ray Wagner, and I am the vice president of government
and public affairs for Enterprise Holdings.
As the Chairman suggested, I served as director of revenue
of two states, Missouri and Illinois. I believe in a fair
system of taxes, and in the Federal system of government.
I am testifying in support of the bipartisan bill, that
serves both of these American ideals of fairness and federalism
on behalf of a coalition that spans in spectrum from Grover
Norquist to the UAW.
The End Discriminatory State Taxes on Automobile Act,
EDSTAR, seeks to address an increasing propensity of state and
local governments to target, or in other words discriminate
against rental car consumers.
Prohibiting such taxation, which burns interstate commerce,
is a valid use of congressional power under the commerce
clause. With the 4R Act and similar laws, Congress, as our
sponsor suggested, has prevented discriminatory taxes on
railroads, trucks, buses and airlines.
Rental cars equally cross state lines and when they don't,
renters drive on federally funded highways, roads, bridges and
tunnels. Make no mistake, rental cars are a part of interstate
commerce.
Yes, the rental car industry accepts fair taxation, but
that doesn't mean our consumers should pay at a higher rate.
These taxes are simply wrong and millions of Americans
understand why. Have you ever rented a car that you thought
would be at a great rate of $35 a day only to find out that the
bill wound up being close to $45 or greater?
Part of that increase may be the result of the
discriminatory taxes imposed by state and local governments.
These extra taxes come on top of the broad base of general
taxes, registration fees, personal property taxes, gasoline
taxes, airport user fees--every other tax already imposed on
all car owners and users.
We don't object to the broad base of taxes. EDSTAR will not
affect these. We do, however, object to taxes that specifically
target, unfairly discriminate and single out rental car
customers. Let me be clear. The coalition is not asking for any
sort of handout.
We are merely asking local governments to take their hands
out of our customer's pockets. Let me explain what else EDSTAR
will and will not do. It will only prohibit state and local
governments from enacting future discriminatory rental car
taxes.
It will not affect any of the 118 existing rental car taxes
or the projects they fund, including the sport stadiums. Local
officials find these taxes so seductive because many believe
car rental taxes export the tax burden to non-resident voters.
They also believe that all car renters can afford these
extra taxes. Rental cars do, indeed, affect airport renters,
but there is a whole segment of renters who go largely
unnoticed. Contrary to popular belief, as has been suggested,
most rental car companies are not business travelers.
The majority rent cars as individuals. Some are renting to
replace their own car while it is repaired, while others rent
because they don't own a car at all. And of course, many rent
cars for vacation or other special occasions.
Singling out renters is unfair because there is rarely a
connection between renting a car and the purpose for which the
tax was enacted. Not only that, but these taxes are regressive.
They have proportionally greater impact upon people of modest
means than they do on the wealthy, many of whom are reimbursed
for business expense.
They also impact minorities disproportionately. As the
respected economics firm The Brattle Group reported in a recent
study, minorities are approximately 75 percent more likely to
rent than Whites.
The African Americans are 12 percent of the population.
They account for 27 percent of the rentals, car demand, and pay
28 percent of rental car taxes. That is one reason why the
National Urban League is concerned with this issue.
Finally, these taxes even impact those who don't rent cars
at all. As Congressman Boucher indicated, auto insurance
companies are forced to pay rental taxes through the claims
process, and these costs are passed along to all policyholders
whether they have ever rented a car or not.
These taxes are not only unfair to consumers they are bad
for the economy. They suppress the demand for rental cars. That
leads to slower growth and fewer job opportunities in the
industry. That also results in reduced purchases of new cars by
the rental car companies that ordinarily account for 1.2
million vehicles or 12 to 15 percent of all vehicles sold in
the country.
And that means fewer jobs for the American autoworkers at a
time when their industry is struggling in this recession.
Unfair and harmful as these taxes are, many public officials
like them because they are so easy to impose.
While aimed at those from out of town who don't vote, these
taxes are more likely to hurt economically vulnerable
households with little political influence. This is a modern
day version of taxation without representation or maybe again,
as Senator Russell Long said it best, ``Don't tax me, don't tax
thee, tax that fellow behind the tree.''
Well, let me close by adding working families depend upon
the health of the auto industry and the entire economy. Working
families deserve the opportunity to rent cars for special
occasions and urgent emergencies. And finally, working families
demand and deserve fairness in our tax system.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak for those families
and for that fellow behind the tree.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wagner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond T. Wagner, Jr.
__________
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for remembering Senator Long's quote,
which you might hear again today. Our next witness is Mr.
Timothy Firestine, chief CAO from Montgomery County, Maryland,
appointed to that position November 2006.
Prior to that, he was the county's director of Finance for
15 years. Twelve years of management positions in the Office of
Management Budget and before coming to Montgomery County, he
was in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in the Comptroller's
office, currently a member of the Executive Board of the
National Government Finance Officers Association and vice chair
of its Committee on Debt Management.
He is a member of District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority--excuse me--where he currently serves as vice chair,
plus an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland
Graduate School of Public Policy where he taught public
finance.
Thank you, Mr. Firestine.
TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY FIRESTINE, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE
OF CITIES, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE U.S.
CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Firestine. Good morning, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member
Franks, and other Members of the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law. I am Tim Firestine, Chief Administrative
Officer of Montgomery County, Maryland.
On behalf of the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, U.S. Conference for Mayors and the
Government Finance Officers Association, I am pleased to
testify on H.R. 4175. As our organizations have noted in the
past, we respectfully oppose H.R. 4175.
This legislation would preempt the ability of states and
localities to make their own determinations regarding the
appropriate taxation of businesses within their communities. It
also represents an unwarranted Federal intrusion into the long
recognized authority of local and state governments to make tax
classifications, and opens the door to unprecedented Federal
control and oversight of local and state tax authorities.
Over the past year, states and local governments have
witnesses a parade of various industries coming forward to
request that Congress preempt state and local government taxing
authority of their particular industry, first the
telecommunications industry, then the hotel industry, and today
the rental car industry.
Our associations have always maintained that any industry's
plea for federally mandated tax favoritism would open the door
to other industries asking Congress for similar special
exemptions for protections from state and local taxing
authorities.
That is what we are now witnessing. H.R. 4175 and other
legislation of its kind pose a dire threat, not merely to state
and local tax revenues, but to the entire existence of
independent state and local taxation authorities and our system
of federalism.
The requirements of H.R. 4175 would, if enacted, open the
door to unchecked Federal oversight, and rewriting of all state
and local tax laws and classifications. Since state and local
governments must balance their budgets, such a federalization
of state and local tax classifications would not lower total
taxes paid by state and local taxpayers, but rather just shift
the tax burden to other types of taxes.
Moreover, the ability to tailor taxing authority at the
local level is extremely important. For example, Washington
State permits all counties to impose a 1 percent tax on car
rentals, yet only four counties in the state impose such tax.
H.R. 4175 departs radically from long standing principles
of federalism, and sets an unprecedented and dangerous new
standard of Federal intervention into state and local
government tax classifications.
If the standard for Federal intervention into supposedly
discriminatory state and local taxation becomes that every
economic sector in every service has to be taxed at the same
rate when measured against other sectors, then there would be
no limit at all to Federal intervention in state and local tax
classifications.
Indeed, such a standard for discriminatory state and local
taxes would mean contrary to long-established precedent, that
the Federal Government has the power to preempt all state and
local tax classifications and to impose a federally mandated
state and local tax code of only a single tax rate for all
businesses. That would mean the end of state and local tax
classification authority.
Furthermore, Congress adds insult to injury by entertaining
any such measures during today's difficult economic times, for
states continue to struggle to balance their budgets and often
do so by dramatically decreasing the assistance they provide to
local government.
It is arguable that the worst recession since the Great
Depression is not time for Congress to limit any local or state
tax receipts. State and local government budgets face billions
of budgetary shortfalls over the next couple of years.
In most places, the local response to shrinking revenue has
consisted of a round of unfortunate, but unavoidable, layoffs,
service cut backs, and in some cases, increasing fees and
taxes.
It is clear that Congress recognizes the struggle of states
and localities, which have included a surge in unemployment as
well as an increase in individuals and families dependencies on
municipal services and responded with the adoption of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
But it is ironic that at the same time Congress supports
and enacted such measures, that it would be considering
legislation such as H.R. 4175, which would provide states and
localities far less flexibility to make decisions to enable our
leaders to confront the economic crisis and ultimately assist
in providing services such as police, fire, education, housing
and job training.
We urge Congress not to give with one hand and take away
with the other. Finally, I would like to briefly discuss
briefly what is done with the tax dollars state and local
governments collect from rental car companies and how they are
used to enhance the quality of life in hometowns, small and
large.
As noted in the written testimony, communities across the
country depend on these taxes to provide a variety of
improvements in their state, counties and cities, including
ones that help the rental car companies through capital
improvements to airport facilities and tourism initiatives that
serve to bring more customers to them.
There are other examples of the funds being used for a
variety of government services and programs including public
safety programs and road and transit improvements. In Maryland,
the state collects an 11-1/2 percent tax on rental cars, which
is estimated to bring in $52 million in fiscal year 2011.
Our statutes dictate that these funds go into the state's
Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund and the Transportation Trust Fund.
Montgomery County benefits from both of these initiatives. The
Bay Trust Fund pays for projects that control storm water run-
off.
And monies from the Transportation Trust Fund helps fund a
variety of projects in the county including resurfacing and
maintaining roads, replacing and installing streetlights,
implementing pedestrian safety measures, snow removal and
various transit initiatives throughout our community. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Firestine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Firestine
__________
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Firestine.
Ms. Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National
Consumers League--not to be confused with the National Football
League--her focus in NCL, four key priorities, fraud, child
labor, health care and the NCL's Team Consumer Education and
Financial Literacy Program.
She came to the National Consumers League from the
Consumers Union, where she worked from 1997 until 2007 on auto
safety, product safety, civil justice reform, including keeping
the justice system open, accessible and accountable for all
consumers, advocated for enhanced auto and product safety,
intellectual property, securities reform and investor
protections and civil justice reform.
She had worked at the U.S. Department of Justice Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission and first served as a time as
Eastern States Civil Rights Counsel for the Anti-Defamation
League in Boston.
Ms. Greenberg, thank you, and we begin your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF SALLY GREENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONSUMERS LEAGUE
Ms. Greenberg. Thank you so much, Chairman Cohen, Ranking
Member Franks, Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of H.R. 4175,
a bill entitled the ``End Discriminatory State Taxes for
Automobile Renters Act of 2009.''
I am, indeed, an Executive Director of the National
Consumers League. We are the Nation's oldest consumer
organization founded in 1899 with a mission of protecting the
interest of both workers and consumers in creating a more fair
marketplace for both.
Mr. Chairman, today's consumers feel that many of their
transactions they are nickeled and dimed, whether it is on
their cell phone bills, late fees and finance charges on credit
and debit cards, bogus convenience fees slapped on the tickets
for live entertainment performances or extra fees imposed on
just about everything else we consumers do when purchasing
goods and services.
Indeed, a good example is the recent survey from ``Consumer
Reports'' that finds that travelers hate--the fees that
travelers hate most are the extra fees they have to pay for
luggage and airline ticket fees.
The National Consumers League feels consumer's pain and
unfortunately most of the time we have little power to change
these fees. However, today we are here to support legislation
that says enough. Consumers need to fight back and H.R. 4175
will prospectively bar discriminatory car rental taxes which
are really added fees imposed by states and localities.
As of February 2010, 43 states and the District of Columbia
have imposed 118 excise taxes on car rentals. This is eight
times the number of these taxes that existed in 1990. My
grandmother would have said the word goniff comes to mind.
Rental car taxes tend to pay for entertainment items like
stadiums, performing art centers, culinary institutes, and not
for vital services like schools, libraries, hospitals or
services to the elderly.
Industry research indicates that rental car consumers spent
more than $7.5 billion in taxes to fund pet projects of elected
officials. A perfect example is the situation unfolding right
now in my hometown of Minneapolis.
The Minnesota Vikings already have the Metrodome. It is a
beautiful indoor stadium right in the middle of downtown
Minneapolis. But Zygmunt Wilf, the Vikings billionaire owner,
he wants another one.
He wants one with a retractable roof, and he wants
consumers who rent cars to help pay for it. So the state is now
considering levying a 2.5 percent tax on rental cars to finance
a new billion dollar stadium.
More than half of those who rent cars in Minnesota are
residents of the state. But to add insult to injury, Minnesota
residents are already paying a special 6.2 percent excise tax
on car rentals, a tax that was adopted to pay for the cost to
the state of trying to attract the Super Bowl. That tax was
supposed to expire in 2005 but it was extended even though the
revenue it raised far exceeded its original purpose.
Tourists are also affected by these pervasive fees.
Tourists may be easier to tax as non-constituents but fees on
tourists are also spiraling out of control. According to the
New York Times, taxes and other fees such as vehicle licensing
fees or high levels of excise taxes raise the average rental
bill 28 percent at airport locations.
In addition, from my professional vantage point as head of
a nonprofit overseeing a staff of 14, when we travel or have
meetings locally and don't have access to a car, we have to
rent cars. I see the bills come in and often the excise fees
and the sales taxes together represent a hefty percentage of
the entire bill.
These added costs hurt nonprofit organizations like mine
that operate on modest bills but are vitally important to civil
society. Unfortunately, politicians who pass these taxes are
operating on several false assumptions.
First, there is the misconception that the vast majority of
people who rent cars are from outside the state or locality.
Second, there is the misperception that most consumers who rent
cars are either businesses who won't feel the extra charge or
affluent consumers who won't notice an extra $10 or $15 on a
car rental.
First, the first myth is that people who rent cars are from
out of state. If local officials gave some thought to the idea,
they would understand that many people who don't own a car
because they can't afford one might rent when they have a
special need.
And the other misperception is that consumers that rent
cars for these reasons are not affluent out-of-town business
people that state and local legislators seem to believe rent
most of the cars. Far from it, and they need affordable rental
car options.
There have been several studies mentioned. One is the
Brattle Group Study that Ray Wagner mentioned. It shows the
revenues in 2004 from car rentals were about $17.6 billion.
Half of that was from home-city rentals.
Another study that was commissioned by the Brookings
Institution analyzed the impact of a $4 per day rental car tax
in Kansas City. The researchers found that piling taxes onto
car rental customers is both inefficient because it distorts
choices about modes of transportation, and it is inequitable.
Communities that are already taxing car rental customers might
want to take a look at their long-term strategy.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with an eight-fold increase
in taxes on rental cars since 1990, it seems clear that the
piling on of these excise taxes has gotten out of hand. NCL
understands the importance of citizens paying his or her share
of taxes for schools, libraries, roadways, and for clean water
and other very worthy projects.
But when rental car customers are asked to pay for stadiums
or art centers and taxes imposed seem to have no limits, it is
time to say enough.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sally Greenberg
__________
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Greenberg, and we will now have
the questioning session, and I will recognize myself for 5
minutes of questioning. Mr. Firestine, you have got the
government perspective. Taxes--if you have a property tax,
everybody pays at the same rate. Sales tax, pay at the same
rate.
Why do people that rent cars pay higher taxes than those
people proportionately than those that own cars? Why should
there be a special tax on folks that rent the car and use it
for a week or short term than those who have it for a year?
There is not such a tax on renters of apartments per month or
necessarily. Why is that? Is that fair?
Mr. Firestine. Okay, I am glad to respond to that. And
again, our emphasis here is that state, you know, tax policy is
a decision made at the local and state level by elected
officials. There is a whole combination of factors that go into
deciding what is the right portfolio of taxes to have to
support services.
Once you have decided what you are going to offer whether
it is education, all the community needs that are trying to be
met through these local governments, let us start with the
property tax.
Even though everybody may pay the same rate, the burden is
going to be different from taxpayer to taxpayer. There are tax
credits that are included. It is based on the assessment of the
house. Likewise with----
Mr. Cohen. But the assessment, there is a correlation in
your ability to pay because there is ability to purchase. So if
you can purchase a $100,000 house, your assessment is at that
rate or if you purchase a million dollar house your assessment
is at that rate. There is some correlation.
What is the correlation with having a car for a week that
you rent as distinct from having a car for a year that you own?
Mr. Firestine. Well, again, I would----
Mr. Cohen. And I am not asking--and I appreciate your
knowledge, and your acumen and your professorial experience,
but I am asking you this question not as a government witness,
to give me a government answer, because obviously I know that.
I am asking you as a person who considers justice and fairness
and the philosophy professor to give me the answer.
Mr. Firestine. And that is what I am saying. I would say,
you know, from a tax policy perspective, you know, since it is
a consumption tax like the sales tax that you mentioned
earlier, you can choose whether or not you want to participate
in that service, whether you----
Mr. Cohen. You can choose--if you travel to Los Angeles,
you can say I am going to be in Los Angeles and instead of
renting a car I am going to walk?
Mr. Firestine. No, you could----
Mr. Cohen. You could. You would have a very weird trip.
Mr. Firestine. You have other alternatives. You could
take----
Mr. Cohen. What are your alternatives? A cab?
Mr. Firestine. A cab.
Mr. Cohen. That is insane in Los Angeles. Nobody takes the
cab. I tried to find one last week. They don't have cabs. It is
not New York.
Mr. Firestine. But again, I--my point is these are local
taxes decisions. There are other taxes out there that are very
similar to the rental car taxes. I mean, cell phone taxes were
mentioned. They are a primary source of funds for Montgomery
County. We tax cell phones. There are tobacco taxes in the
state of Maryland----
Mr. Cohen. But you tax cell phones based on having a cell
phone, not on having it for a week. You are really not getting
to the point that I think is germane. You discriminate and
charge people that rent cars a large tax, and what is the
basis?
What is the rational connection? What is the nexus? Is
there one or is it just we trust and put in our elected
officials total discretion?
Mr. Firestine. Again, I think that is my point is that, you
know, that is a local elected official's decision to make in
terms of how much to tax.
Mr. Cohen. I got you. I got you.
Ms. Greenberg, your grandmother's philosophy, we have heard
from people that want to have us protect them from Internet
access taxes, from--from hotel industry wants us to talk about
taxes, and satellite television. They all claim that these
taxes are goniff taxes, too. To paraphrase your grandmother,
why should this goniff be different from all other goniffs?
Ms. Greenberg. Well, you know, I said in my statement that
consumers feel like they are getting nickel and dimed, and they
are. This bill is an opportunity to say no and say enough with
regard to this particular tax.
I mean, I would be right there fighting a lot of the taxes
and fees that are imposed on consumers which we as consumers
don't have any understanding where that money goes. So here we
have a bill that gives us an opportunity----
Mr. Cohen. So you have got a forum?
Ms. Greenberg [continuing]. To articulate some of the----
Mr. Cohen. Right.
Ms. Greenberg [continuing]. Concerns we have about this fee
but I don't love the fees that I have to pay on my cell phone
bill either.
Mr. Cohen. I got you. Ms. Greenberg or Mr. Wagner, do you
see any connection, any nexus, logical nexus other than this is
an opportunity to grab some money on having this extra tax on
rental car users? Nobody sees a nexus?
Mr. Wagner. Chairman, I will speak to that. On the--I think
you have captured the essence of the issue here about fairness.
There truly is no nexus typically between the taxes imposed and
the purpose for which the rental itself.
The issue here is generally that the taxpayer or the taxing
entity sees these as easy targets; that these people are non-
voting residents who typically live out of town. They are taxes
have the end impact of discouraging travel, punishing the low
and moderate income individuals and throwing a wrench into the
American auto industry.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Wagner.
My 5 minutes have expired, and I will now recognize Mr.
Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is
always a challenge when you are dealing with competing
interests like this. I think it was Fred Bastiat said that, you
know, ``Government is that great fiction through which everyone
endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.''
And one of the challenges we are having to deal with here
is one that some of the founders had to deal with as well. You
know, when they had the Articles of Incorporation they needed
some kind of a mechanism to create interstate commerce. And
they knew that if they just let, you know, it would be a free-
for-all. That it would end up being kind of a disaster.
And yet I am afraid that some of my liberal colleagues
would, if they decided to mandate that all Members of Congress
had flying saucers, that they would reference the commerce
clause in the Constitution as a basis for giving them that
authority.
So it is kind of a, you know, kind of a tug-of-war here
between the commerce clause rightfully interpreted and the
second--I am sorry, the 10th Amendment.
And so, you know, I am convinced here that the real issue
is discriminatory. What is a discriminatory tax? And if there
is a discriminatory tax, then it seems to be something that
needs to be addressed. And that is my own position that there
is evidence that there is a discriminatory tax burden here and
that that is why we should address it.
Now I am not sure, as I said in my opening statement, that
this bill is the best way to do that. And I am hoping that
somehow it will catalyze a discussion that will make sense to
everyone, you know, at least every reasonable person and that
we can deal with that.
So I guess with that, Mr. Wagner, I would like to start
with you. What is the dollar burden on rental car companies and
consumers of these discriminatory taxes? Just give us a little
kind of a picture of it.
Mr. Wagner. The collective amount of dollars that have been
raised is typically over $7 billion a year. That is the amount
of revenue that is being collected from the travelers that fly
into a particular town to rent cars or from in-state, in-
community renters.
Mr. Franks. Well, I know the big challenge is
distinguishing between an ordinary taxation and a
discriminatory taxation regime. How would you make an effort to
make that distinction between ordinary taxation and
discriminatory taxation?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I think when the tax that is applied to a
single group of individuals that is not generally based upon or
imposed upon a broad base of taxpayers, a tax that is
disproportionate and falls upon a segment of the community
would be discriminatory.
And I think these rental taxes are very clearly
discriminatory when you look at the other modes of
transportation in interstate commerce which have been regulated
and addressed already by Congress. With the 4R Act, the
railroads were protected, the buses were protected, trains.
And I think at one point in time states targeted bus
tickets and interstate bus travelers and Congress stepped in to
protect them because those taxes were discriminatory in that
mode of transportation.
And I think this is a similar situation where a particular
group of taxpayers has been identified and has been targeted
and discriminated against with a specific tax that the rest of
the population and the rest of the community does not need to
pay.
Mr. Franks. Well, Mr. Firestine, I might ask you the same
question. How would you distinguish between a discriminatory
tax and--and an ordinary tax? Or would you make that
distinction given some of your fundamental predicate?
Mr. Firestine. Well, I think it is a good question because,
you know, I think discrimination, trying to define that, would
be a challenge. And I guess my point is those are issues that
are best left to local elected officials to try to come up with
a group of taxes on--and where the burden falls relative to
thinking about this issue of discrimination.
Certainly local and state officials don't want to tax a
business out existence and to the extent a business is needed
for--I mean, rental car companies do provide jobs in our
community so certainly we are not going to do something that
would jeopardize the ability to have those jobs continue in our
community.
Likewise, it is instrumental because people won't take a
cab, they would rather have a rental car, and it is critical to
people coming to the state of Maryland because they want to be
able to drive around and see the Bay and certainly you are
going to set your tax policy so that it doesn't preclude those
rental car companies from doing business in the state of
Maryland.
But again, you know, those are local decisions that are
made in that context. You know, in terms of nexus too, if I
could just make a point about that, I have heard several times
the comment that, you know, they are being used for stadiums
and other things.
First of all, it is a tax. It is not a fee, so it--to me,
since it is a tax, it can be utilized for various purposes.
Tobacco taxes, for example, go to the general fund and aren't
necessarily used for smoking cessation programs. Cell phone
taxes aren't used to build cell phone towers, things like that.
So I do think those, again, are local decisions for local
elected officials to make.
Mr. Franks. Well thank you. The Chairman is indulging me
here very briefly. Mr. Wagner, assuming the Congress agrees
with you and passes H.R. 4175, how do you distinguish between
rental cars and other businesses that may come looking for what
might be considered preferential tax treatment from Congress?
Mr. Wagner. Well, again, rental car companies, the rental
car industry, is uniquely a form of interstate commerce
transportation very similar to buses, trains, automobiles. We,
by virtue of the fact that the automobiles are transported and
drive across state lines, that they use and travel upon
federally-funded highways, I think that does set them apart.
And much the way that buses, trains, and airplanes were taken
care of.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, it seems like one of the key
problems here is that much of the tax burden falls on those
without a local vote and that is one of the challenges. So
thank you for the extra time.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Since I gave you an extra minute, I
will take the privilege to distinguish your last remark. I
think that it falls on those that have the appearance of not
having a vote but the reality from the testimony which we found
which was news to me is it really falls on the people who have
a vote. It is just they don't realize it or think about it.
And so that is--when I voted for those taxes, I thought
about, well, they use the stadium. They go to the convention
center. But when I realized that most of the people in fact
were local residents who would have a fender bender or some
other problem with their car, then it does fall and you just
don't think about it per se.
With that, Mr. Scott of Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Wagner, can you respond to the
question I think Mr. Franks raised the question on what the
Federal role in all this is. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I think under the commerce clause,
Representative, Congress is charged to regulate interstate
commerce. And I think with respect to this notion that Congress
at this very moment is considering stimulus packages and relief
for local governments, this bill in no way conflicts with that
but in essence complements that.
The stimulus money, the other revenues that are provided to
local governments generally are from broad-based taxes. These
particular rental car taxes are not from broad-based imposition
of----
Mr. Scott. Well, the question was what the Federal role is
in all of this because in stimulus package a lot of, I mean,
states tax a lot of things and I mean we have had other
hearings on that various question because they start crossing
state lines and every state whose line is crossed wants to get
a little piece of it. Where is the Federal role for deciding
how the tax would be imposed?
Mr. Wagner. Well the authority for Congress to become
involved centers around the commerce clause of the
Constitution, interstate commerce. And I think again that the
rental car tax is this Congress or Congress has already
suggested and incorporated into legislation in the past that
the rental car industry is a part of the interstate commerce
system. And so that is the authority by which the courts have
been----
Mr. Scott. Well, yes, I know we have the authority but I
mean what is the rationale to dip into this tax and not every
other local decision?
Ms. Greenberg, do you want to have a comment on that?
Ms. Greenberg. Well, I think I--in terms of----
Mr. Scott. Not the policy----
Ms. Greenberg. Right.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Whether it is a good idea or bad
idea but----
Ms. Greenberg. Why this?
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Why--why should the Federal
Government dip into this decision?
Ms. Greenberg. Partly I think it is there has been this
explosion in rental car taxes beyond what you see in other
areas. And the bill does a pretty good job, I think, of
defining what discriminatory means. We have really seen an
explosion, and as we have said in our testimony and other
witnesses----
Mr. Scott. Well, is that not a local decision rather than a
Federal decision?
Ms. Greenberg. Well, there comes a point at which they are
really gouging consumers, so I am speaking from a consumer
perspective and----
Mr. Scott. That is the policy.
Ms. Greenberg. Right and we, you know, I see this as an
opportunity for consumers to fight back because there is, you
know, there is misperceptions that were really taxing out-of-
staters.
We are doing that with these taxes but we are also taxing
primarily people who live within the state. Many of those
people are lower income people who can't afford to own a car.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Firestine mentioned the question--I think
somebody mentioned the idea that the taxes have nothing to do
with the purpose to which the revenues are put. And I think Mr.
Firestine said that that is irrelevant. Anyone want comment on
that?
Mr. Firestine. Well, I--a couple things. I am saying that
some cases it is relevant but it is a local policy decision. I
mentioned in Maryland----
Mr. Scott. Well I mean there is no--what you are saying
there is no requirement that you--that the taxes----
Mr. Firestine. There is no----
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Go to any particular use.
Mr. Firestine. No.
Mr. Scott. Sometimes it is convenient and sometimes it is
easier to raise the tax. But from a Federal perspective what
difference does that make? That they are not using it for
something related to rent a car?
Mr. Firestine. And I guess that is my point, I don't think
it has to be used even though for example in Maryland it is.
Mr. Scott. Well let us let the others comment on that.
Mr. Firestine. I am sorry.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Ms. Greenberg, is that a relevant factor from the Federal
perspective?
Ms. Greenberg. I think for consumers who see their bills
almost double, and I have been in that position. I have been
thinking about this issue since I was at Consumers Union, and
now I am in the National Consumers League.
You know, you go in and rent a car and it--you might get a
great deal but you have got, you know, 30 or 40 percent added
on to the rate of the car. You feel like you are--okay, well if
you are paying for something related to this rental, that is
one thing, if it is going to build the stadium for a
billionaire in Minneapolis because he needs a new toy, those
are the kinds of things that drive consumers crazy.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Well that is the policy question and let
me--we have taxes at airports like we charge taxes, a little
fee to pick somebody up at the airport, parking fees and things
like that. Why would this be different if we add on a little
fee at the airport?
Mr. Wagner. Well, I will speak to that, Representative.
First of all, I think this is an appropriate place for Congress
to steer the course. You know, these taxes are proliferating at
a rapid rate, eightfold rate since 1990 as was stated earlier.
So it is appropriate for Congress to get involved in here.
State and local governments are not acting in the best interest
of interstate travelers and out-of-state travelers or for that
matter, the other individuals who are saddled with these taxes,
nickeled and dimed with these taxes at the local level.
The industry is suffering a death by a thousand nicks in
many respects with respect to the taxes that are being imposed.
Your question about concession fees that are paid at the
airport, those in essence are user fees. Those in essence
constitute the taxes that are--or fees that are levied upon
rental car companies for the privilege of operating at an
airport, which are entirely different from a tax imposed on a
rental car company that goes into some other purpose,
completely unrelated to the rental car industry or as was
suggested perhaps into some general revenue account.
So a user fee, a personal property tax fee, a gasoline tax,
a vehicle licensing fee, a registration fee, all of those are
appropriate fees that relate to the rental car business and to
the cost of--of that car operating in the community.
Mr. Scott. So if a locality called it a fee rather than a
tax, it would be different?
Mr. Wagner. No, I don't think it would necessarily be
different because many of the fees that I outlined are indeed
taxes, personal property taxes, that sort of thing.
But if it is a tax which is aimed to generate revenues for
a purpose wholly unrelated to the car rental business, then it
would be a discriminatory tax, and it would be appropriate for
Congress to step in to intervene in protection of the
interstate commerce system, like it has done with the buses and
the airplanes and the railroads.
Mr. Scott. I think Mr. Firestine wanted to comment on----
Mr. Cohen. You may go on if you would like, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Firestine. Let me comment, just----
Mr. Cohen. You are recognized.
Mr. Firestine. Generally a fee does require an access to
some service being provided, whereas the tax doesn't. And
second, just to comment about, if I may, on the discrimination
issue, it does appear there are legal remedies that somebody
could pursue if they feel they are being discriminated relative
to a tax.
Montgomery County just instituted a new carbon tax on a
facility in the county. The power plant and certainly the owner
of the plant is going to seek whatever legal remedy they can
get and then the courts will help to decide. So in addition to
elected officials making decisions, there certainly are other
mechanisms in place if it truly is a discriminatory tax.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Ms. Chu?
Mr. Johnson, I don't how to really--Ms. Chu is recognized,
the lady from California, very knowledgeable about these taxes.
Ms. Chu. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I was a city council member and mayor of a city near Los
Angeles for a period of 13 years. And it was a city that was
popular with tourists, so I know what extra impacts tourists
have on a city. We did not have a car rental tax, but I could
see why our city would impose such a thing.
And in fact I have a situation at the LAX airport, who have
raised concerns with your bill as it is currently written
because it would prohibit a customer facility charge, which is
clearly an airport and travel-related fee.
Currently LAX is using these fees to finance the design,
consolidation and maintenance of a consolidated rental car
facility. Currently, the rental car facilities are
decentralized and they are spread out within a three mile
radius of the airport.
And LAX passengers wishing to rent or return a car must use
one of several car shuttles to reach their destination. And as
a result, there are 800,000 shuttle trips during the year
causing significant traffic congestion.
So the city of Los Angeles is seeking to address these
concerns through the construction of a consolidated rental car
facility, which would be the largest such facility in the
United States, and it would significantly reduce the numbers of
shuttle trips and their impact on nearby communities.
But is dependent on this fee and this charge and without
this charge, LAX and dozens of other airports throughout the
country would not be able to build these facilities.
So Mr. Wagner, you argue that these taxes and fees are
often used to pay for unrelated services. However, a number of
airports including my hometown airport, LAX, uses customer
facility charges to pay for the construction of these
consolidated rental car facilities.
And as it is currently written, I understand that this bill
would eliminate these fees as well. So are you saying that
these fees are inappropriate and should be forbidden by
Congress?
Mr. Wagner. Thank you, Representative Chu. I respectfully
suggest that perhaps the LAX officials misread the bill, too,
because in--the bill intend to carve out and protect
consolidated facility type fees.
In my remarks and in my comments a few moments ago, I
suggested that user fees, taxes, fees that related directly to
the automobile industry or the airport are indeed protective of
the industry and the coalition has no objection to those.
In fact, I think if you look at H.R. 4175 on page five, it
expressly says the term ``tax'' does not include any charge
imposed by state or locality with respect to a concession
agreement at a federally assisted airport.
And so we would have no objection to those types of taxes,
nor do we have any objections to the other taxes and fees which
are imposed on all owners of cars and all users of cars.
Ms. Chu. Well as the former mayor of a city that had a lot
of tourism, which had tourists drive through the streets and
use our facilities, I would wonder if local government might be
in a better position to determine these things? And therefore I
would like to ask Mr. Firestine why is it that local government
could be in a better position to make such a determination?
Mr. Firestine. Well, I think for the reasons you just
stated. And that has been the point of our testimony is these
are local decisions, state decisions that should be left up to
local officials.
You know, balancing the tax burden within the communities
to take into account factors such as if it is something that
you want to do to promote tourism and you feel that a high tax
would discourage that, then certainly that is a local decision.
And if the local community doesn't feel that you are making
the right decision, they can elect somebody else to do that.
But I do think that those are local matters.
Ms. Chu. In fact, the money might not be used directly for
a rental car facility consolidation such as the example, I used
but it could be for other impacts and are there examples where
it is used for other types of impact?
Mr. Firestine. Yes, in my testimony I noted in Maryland for
example, there is an 11-1/2 percent tax on rental cars. It is
split. Basically it goes into the Transportation Trust Fund and
into the Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund.
So part of the initiative is--part of the money is
distributed to the counties in the state of Maryland to pay for
road maintenance, replacing and installing street lights,
pedestrian safety initiative, things like that.
But it also goes to help support Bay initiatives, reducing
run-offs into the Bay. You know, the Bay is related to tourism
in the state of Maryland and certainly people come there to
participate in Bay activities.
These monies would help clean up the Bay, although I don't
believe, as I said earlier, it necessarily is required that
there be a nexus between the tax and the services provided.
Ms. Chu. And what impact would this legislation have on
state and local revenues?
Mr. Firestine. Well, again, at a time when we are
scrambling to identify any revenues possible to keep our
budgets balanced because we do have to stay balanced, as I
indicated this is another tool in the toolbox, and it is
another place to go to manage that.
Property taxes at the local level are the primary source of
revenue. We all know what has happened to--home values have
declined, therefore, you know, making that a difficult tax to
be a productive tax. So we do look to other taxes.
I did indicate in Montgomery County for example, we have
instituted a higher cell phone tax. We instituted a carbon tax
on a power plant, so we do look at other options that are out
there relative to the total burden within the community.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Ms. Chu.
And now Mr. Johnson, the distinguished Subcommittee
Chairman recognized from Georgia.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know I am suspicious about the statistics that I
have heard that would lend credence to the theory that car
rental taxes are primarily born by minority consumers. Take a
place like Miami for instance, heavily--a tourist haven. I
would suppose that you would have more car rental facilities
there than you would in another part of Florida that did not
see a lot of tourists.
A place like Atlanta, convention industry being a major
source of car rental demand, so I question the stats that have
been cited. And I have not been here for the full hearing but I
have kind of read over the hearing materials.
The statistics that have been cited to support the notion
that these car rental taxes are borne primarily by minorities,
distinguish between locations where tourism and business
activities were the primary source of the revenues? Did they
cut out those kinds of locations in compiling the statistics?
Mr. Wagner. Well, Representative, the study was conducted
by the Brattle Group, and it did take a number of communities
and analyzed the rental revenues and----
Mr. Johnson. So it did not take all 16,000 car rental
locations into effect?
Mr. Wagner. No, sir it did not study the entire country and
16,000, you know, offices across the country, but rather took a
representative sample in Georgia and other communities, looked
at industry statistics, applied a number of other data points,
census data and so on to it and engaged in a statistical
analysis.
I would be very happy to share with you that study and meet
with you about it to talk further about the particulars if you
would be interested.
Mr. Johnson. What group commissioned the study?
Mr. Wagner. The study was commissioned by Enterprise
Holdings in consultation with members of the coalition that
existed at the time that the study was undertaken.
Mr. Johnson. Is that connected to Enterprise Leasing at
all?
Mr. Wagner. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Enterprise Holdings is
the holding company for Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Alamo and
National.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, is there any--does anyone think that if
the local and state abilities to apply a tax to car rental
activity would result in a reduction of the price of car
rentals to consumers?
Ms. Greenberg. If I can respond to that. I think consumers
would be greatly relieved to get a quote on a car rental and
have the final bill be far closer than it is today.
When you rent a car, you can, you know, you can get a car
for $25 or $35 a day and end up with a $60 bill. And that added
amount is not anticipated by many consumers, and it ends up
being taxes and fees and things that you have, you know, no
real ability to predict.
Mr. Johnson. So are you saying that there are some car
rental taxes that are 100 percent or, you know 75 percent on
the tax--I mean on the rental cars?
Ms. Greenberg. When you add up the local tax, the state
tax, various fees for delivery, there is sometimes convenience
fees. I may be getting the names of the fees wrong, but I rent
cars all the time and I am absolutely astounded by how much
those fees add up onto the actual, you know, the base price of
the car.
Mr. Johnson. But you are not going to suggest or you are
not suggesting that local and state taxes would cause a 100
percent jump in the amount of the car rental?
Ms. Greenberg. Well, I have rented a car for as low as $25
and seen $15 worth of taxes added on, so it is not 100 percent
but it can get up there to a hefty percentage. And that is I
think something that is distressing to consumers.
Mr. Wagner. Representative, I might also add from our
information and our studies and our practice in the industry,
it is clear to us that rental car prices are very price
sensitive, very tax sensitive. And with the continued piling on
of these sorts of taxes, again as I said earlier, the industry
in essence is suffering a death by a thousand nicks.
These taxes do pile up. Most recently in the State of
Wisconsin, an $18 transaction tax was passed and authorized. In
Kansas City there is a $4 per day tax, and I can go on and on
with a list of taxes that really do reach that point where the
consumer says, ``I will take a cab.'' as was suggested earlier,
at which point that eliminates choices, reduces choices.
And is--really discourages travel in particular, and
punishes the low and moderate income renters, who maybe don't
have that extra $18, who don't have that $4 a day. They don't
have that $10 a day.
So a tax in and of itself may--is a significant factor. But
the taxes that we are talking about are the discriminatory
taxes that are added on top of all of the other broad base of
taxes which the industry and the rental car company pays, which
include personal property taxes, certainly general sales taxes,
local sales and use type taxes, registration fees and so on and
so forth.
So in essence, it is the same rationale that prompted
Congress into saying enough is enough with additional
discriminatory taxes being placed on bus tickets in 1995 when
Oklahoma in that particular case that led to the congressional
activity imposed a tax on bus tickets.
And consumers were already burdened with other taxes that
existed on those tickets and Congress said it was the proper
place for Congress to step in and regulate interstate commerce.
There is the rental car industry I think by all accounts
through the court cases, through congressional action and so on
is clearly a part of the interstate commerce system. And it is
appropriate for Congress to take a good look at this issue and
say enough is enough with respect to the piling on of these
taxes on behalf of consumers, which again adversely impact the
entire automobile industry.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I certainly agree that Congress
maintains and in fact should do exactly what we are doing
today, which is to take a look at these rates. I am just kind
of seeking addition information.
The majority of cars rented in America are to business and
tourist travelers or to people who have had an accident and
need temporary rental or somebody who just wants to rent a car
for the weekend or something like that?
You know, what makes up the most significant share of the
market, business and tourism or consumers, just regular, every
day Joe Blow consumers?
Mr. Wagner. If you group business and tourism together that
would be the largest segment. The notion that rentals happen
for business purposes predominantly or exclusively that is not
true, business rentals comprise of less than half of the
overall rental business by 46 percent.
Local, the home city market that I think you are alluding
to is generally 54 percent, but part of that same 54 percent is
indeed business travel but otherwise it is leisure, replacement
business, renting a car to replace another car because your car
is in the garage, having warranty work, that sort of thing
done.
So a significant portion, a dominant portion is indeed home
city, local, non-business, non-vacation type rentals.
Mr. Johnson. Okay, and my last question, Mr. Chairman, if I
may. Gosh, and I had it right there on the tip of my tongue.
Yes, what are state and local governments to do when all of the
fingers of revenue raising for purposes such as the police,
fire, ambulance, roads and drainage, parks and rec, just all of
the things that local government is responsible for.
And if we cut off all of the fingers on both hands of local
and state governments to address those concerns through things
like car rental taxes, what happens to--what is the impact on
state and local governments, local governments in particular?
Mr. Firestine. If I could answer that, as I indicated in my
testimony, you know, times have gotten tough, and we have
started to run out of options. We do look for wherever we can
to create diversification in our tax structure. But as property
tax revenues have declined across the country, as income tax
revenues have declined, we have looked for other alternatives.
I would also like to comment if I can for a minute, on the
issue of minority and low income participation in rental car
usage. You know, coming from a diverse county in this region, I
have to say that if 54 percent of the use of rental cars is
local, home city usage.
Quite frankly minorities and low income folks in Montgomery
County are not using rental cars, they are using mass transit.
If they drop their car off for a repair, if they have a car,
they hop on the bus to go to work.
So if the majority of it is home city, then it seems to me,
you know, to make this argument that has a disproportionate
impact on minorities than low income is not appropriate.
Second, in an urban area, again from a policy perspective,
the local elected officials might be trying to encourage the
use of mass transit. And to that extent, how they tax
automobile rentals may play into that local policy decision, to
discourage use of vehicles to the extent they are available.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Wagner. Representative, if I might----
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Let me ask you this, if--Mr. Firestine, what is the tax in,
say, Baltimore. I go to rent a car in Baltimore, how much is
the rental car tax?
Mr. Firestine. Eleven and a half percent.
Mr. Cohen. Eleven and a half percent.
Mr. Firestine. That is the state tax, yes on----
Mr. Cohen. And that is on the total commercial transaction,
and it is in addition to any other fees and taxes, right?
Mr. Firestine. That is correct.
Mr. Cohen. All right. So let us ask--then I got there and
the car is give or take 50 bucks, and I am there for 3 days, so
my contribution to Baltimore is--and what is the county?
Mr. Firestine. It would either be Baltimore City or
Baltimore County but----
Mr. Cohen. It is the same county, so my----
Mr. Firestine [continuing]. It would go into the state
trust fund and then be distributed to the counties. But you are
talking what 15, 16 bucks over that 3-day period.
Mr. Cohen. Right. How does--but again and I know you--
basically you said that other fees are supposed to have a nexus
and taxes and don't have to. But logically shouldn't they?
I mean do I really cause $16 more cost to the state of
Maryland than somebody who is driving their car 365, 52 weeks a
year, in which case you could raise taxes on the registration
fees to deter people from owning cars and going to mass transit
too. But do I really contribute $16 more use of the roads than
somebody else or anything else?
Mr. Firestine. And again, that is my point about the
relationship between a tax and a fee. I mean if you are a
property taxpayer in Montgomery County but you don't have kids
in the school system, you are going to complain that why do I
pay property taxes? So to the extent you are collecting more
than you actually----
Mr. Cohen. You could, but of course having kids in school
helps everybody. An educated society is going to have more
productivity, create more jobs, less crime. I am a single guy.
I benefit from public schools because if we didn't have public
schools, I am more likely to be the victim of crime.
I am more likely to have a community that doesn't have
educated, trained people to have jobs and productivity and
culture and blah, blah, blah. I don't buy that, but I cannot
see that--I don't think works----
Mr. Firestine. But again----
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. With the rental car situation. I
don't--the 16 bucks, where does that cost?
Mr. Firestine [continuing]. And if that $16 bucks goes
toward transit initiatives, that helps everybody. It----
Mr. Cohen. Right but why should I pay for it? Why should
the person who rents a car pay for it and not the person who
just drives the car?
Mr. Firestine. Again, I think those are all questions we
have about how taxes and what the impact is of this.
Mr. Cohen. So what you are basically saying is we--in our
system we allow the local governments, the state governments to
do things that we can't explain rationally. It couldn't be fees
because there is no nexus, but that they do because they think
it is for the good of their constituencies.
Mr. Firestine. Well, I think there is a rationale behind
all of our tax policy and as I said earlier, you get elected to
make those decisions at the local level. And if folks don't
like the way you made those decisions, they can un-elect you.
Mr. Cohen. But what if the people who are affected by it
are the people that are from out of town?
Mr. Firestine. But we just heard----
Mr. Cohen. That you can't vote.
Mr. Firestine [continuing]. Fifty-four percent of rental
car usage in the home city.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, but those people don't expect to have to
rent a car. Nobody expects to have an automobile accident.
Those are the lotteries of life and those are the people that
have to go rent the car.
Some people plan on it and go, ``Oh, I am going to drive to
Philly and I am--''
But for most people it is something they don't foresee. So
when that tax comes about they don't think ``I am going to be
renting a car because I am going to have a wreck in 2 weeks.''
Mr. Firestine. And I would offer up in that case most
likely your rental car costs are paid for by your insurance
company. That is what you have insurance for.
Mr. Cohen. So and because of that all your rates go up and
you pay more, and so as long as you pass along it is okay. You
have got a tough job. You have done a good job. I am not going
to grill you any longer.
Mr. Wagner, what if these taxes were all required to go to
things like airport fees, facilities that Ms. Chu mentioned or
toward convention and visitor's centers and/or stadia that do
attract people that would oftentimes need rental cars and even
though if we have the 54 percent argument, would that make it
more palatable or still outside the----
Mr. Wagner. Well, to the extent that they did go to those
types of facilities, or consolidated facilities, airport
terminals and so and so forth then the need to raise taxes
higher would go down because the cost of those facilities would
be considerably less.
It would be the industry has no problem with paying a fair
amount of taxes for a consolidated facility or airport rental
car purposes. But the notion is the tax is above and beyond
that the taxes needed to underwrite those facilities to pay for
purposes or projects unrelated to the taxes is where the
problem lies.
Mr. Cohen. And you said that there is an exemption in the
bill for the type of facility at LAX that they are coming up
with. Is there exemptions for any other type of facility or is
it just the ones that become the major homes of rental cars?
Mr. Wagner. The bill is not intended to apply to any
project related to rental cars, operation rental facility
operations. Again it would not in any way touch personal
property tax assessed against rental cars or all car owners,
consolidated facility type fees, registration fees and so on.
So the bill only applies to those taxes that are levied for
unrelated purposes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Ms. Greenberg, do you have any last things for consumers? I
will give you the last statement.
Ms. Greenberg. Well one thing that I think needs to be said
is that these taxes are regressive taxes. And if the statistics
from the Brattle Group study is that 26 percent of the car
rentals and 27 percent of excise taxes are generated by African
Americans and 13 percent generated by Hispanics, these are
regressive taxes.
And if, you know, our thinking is if local governments need
to raise revenue, we understand they do. And I said in my
testimony I believe in tax policy and I think it is perfectly
legitimate to pay for hospitals, schools, playgrounds and
things that benefit the general public.
But if you want to raise taxes, you should do so in a
progressive tax system that doesn't fall so heavily on those
who can least afford it.
And also consumers don't want to pay for stadiums that
billionaires want to build because they want another additional
toy when they already have--the Minneapolis example, when they,
you know, why should people who rent cars be paying for things
that ought to be paid for by people who can well afford to do
so?
And we see a lot of that in these taxes, so thank you for
the opportunity to share my thoughts on those issues.
Mr. Cohen. I want to thank all of the panelists. And I want
to thank the Committee Members who attended and participated.
The witnesses all did a good job defending their positions and
advocating.
Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to
submit any additional written questions which we will forward
to the witnesses and ask you to answer as promptly as possible,
and it will be part of the record.
Without objection, the record will remain open for 5
legislative days for the submission of any other additional
materials. Thank you everyone for their time and patience. The
hearing on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
law is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Raymond T. Wagner, Jr.,
Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Enterprise Holdings,
Inc.
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Mr. Timothy Firestine, Chief
Administrative Officer, Montgomery County, Maryland, on behalf of the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Government Finance Officers
Association
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Sally Greenberg,
Executive Director, National Consumers League
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kevin Neels, The Battle Group
Prepared Statement of the Federation of Tax Administrator
Prepared Statement of Stephen J. Collins,
American Automotive Policy (AAPC) Council
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Friedman,
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP
Letter from Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Letter from Richard D. Broome, Sr. Vice President, Corporate Affairs &
Communications, The Hertz Corporation
Letter from Chris Russo, President and Chair,
American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA)
Letter from Joe B. Huddleston, L.L.D., Executive Director,
Multistate Tax Commission (MTC)
Prepared Statement of the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Letter from Alan Reuther, Legislative Director, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Works of
America--UAW