Jon Kyl: “Might I take a little bit of time, then, before the other side speaks again on this issue? I respect my colleagues who…”

“Might I take a little bit of time, then, before the other side speaks again on this issue? I respect my colleagues who have spoken, but I have not really heard an argument that, to me, anyway, argues against the specific amendment I am offering. Remember, I am not doing away with the credit. The arguments that have been raised here make it sound as if we are trying to do away with the credit. That is absolutely not true. The credit remains. What we are trying to do is essentially reverse an IRS ruling, which I submit was made in error, with respect to the application of the tax credit. They said you could actually apply it to a process to which it was never intended to be applied. A letter to the Secretary of Treasury at the time this legislation was originally considered makes that crystal clear. Congressman Blunt wrote: It has been brought to my attention that some taxpayers are suggesting to the Department of Treasury that section 1346 of the Act, the renewable diesel provision, could be broadly interpreted to include traditional processes. This is not what we intended in the provision, and neither the statute nor the associated JCT estimate of revenue implications in any way support such a reading.”