[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 35 (Monday, March 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1701-S1702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss our long-term energy
needs and the energy problems we are currently facing in this country
and to express my dismay with the Clinton administration last week
because of the neglect of the long-term energy needs of our Nation's
economy and its energy consumers.
I spent a great deal of time outlining my concern with the
administration's failure to develop a coherent plan for reducing our
reliance on foreign oil and for increasing our nation's energy
security. I outlined my disgust for how this administration has ignored
our nuclear waste storage crisis, moved to breach hydropower dams in
the northwest, forced regulation upon regulation on other energy
production technologies, and displayed a complete disregard for the men
and women who find and produce domestic supplies of oil and natural
gas.
In fact, this administration has virtually ensured that the oil price
crisis we're now facing will pale in comparison to the electricity
price and supply problems that are just around the corner for our
nation's electricity consumers. I know both the energy producers and
consumers of Minnesota are astutely aware of the generation and
transmission problems that will grip our state in the not-too-distant
future. Those problems are not confined to Minnesota. Many States in
the upper Midwest face generation and transmission shortages, as do
States across the country. Those problems are rooted in the failure of
this administration to comprehend the generation needs of a growing
economy and the transmission requirements of that growing demand.
While I strongly believe that, in the absence of a coherent
administration energy policy, Congress needs to step in and forge its
own path for meeting the long-term energy needs of our economy, I've
come to the floor today to talk about the need for some short-term
measures to address high oil prices.
In Minnesota, farmers are preparing to enter the fields for spring
planting. They're trying to budget for the year and put in place a
business plan that will put food on the table and put their children
through school. As everyone knows, doing these most basic things is no
easy task when commodity prices are low, the weather is uncooperative,
and government regulations eat away at the ability to show a profit.
This year, however, farmers have a new worry that threatens to make
matters even worse--the growing price of diesel fuel and gasoline.
Farming is an extremely energy intensive industry. Everything farmers
do require energy; from plowing the field to milking the cows, energy
is an essential part of a farm's bottom line.
Likewise, truckers throughout America are essential to delivering the
products we use in our everyday lives to markets across the country.
Without truckers, we wouldn't have access to most of the things we all
take for granted on a daily basis. Even the internet becomes virtually
worthless to consumers if truckers can't deliver to our doorsteps the
products we buy. Like farmers, truckers rely heavily upon stable energy
costs to make a living and run their businesses. When fuel prices go
up, truckers feel the impact first. Too often, they have to absorb the
increases in fuel prices, but it's not long before everything from
fruits and vegetables to our children's school supplies begin to rise
in price as a result of climbing fuel costs. We need look no further
than the surcharges now being placed on delivery services to see the
compounding negative impacts of increased transportation costs.
[[Page S1702]]
Many of us in the Senate have witnessed the stream of truckers from
across the country who have descended upon Washington, DC, in recent
weeks. They have come to their Nation's Capitol not because they want
government to give them something, but because they cannot make a
living when the Department of Energy is caught napping on the job. They
expect, demand, and deserve an Energy Department that comprehends the
importance of energy costs to our economy and has a long-term plan for
meeting the needs of energy consumers.
Mr. President, I know I do not have to remind my colleagues of how
the rising cost of oil threatens almost every aspect of our economy and
communities. Senior citizens on fixed incomes cannot absorb wild
fluctuations in their energy costs. Business travelers and airlines
cannot afford dramatic increases in airline fuel costs. Families
struggling to feed and educate their children cannot withstand higher
heating bills, increasing gasoline costs, or the domino effect this
crisis has on the costs of goods and services.
To begin addressing this problem, I have joined Majority Leader Trent
Lott, Senator Larry Craig, and a number of my colleagues in offering
legislation to repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax while protecting the Highway
Trust Fund and not spending any of the Social Security surplus. Our
legislation is aimed at getting some short-term relief directly into
the hands of energy consumers. Our bill will eliminate 4.3-cent tax on
gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel so the American consumer can see
some relief at the pump when they fuel up for a day on the road, in the
field, or traveling to and from school or work. Our bill will eliminate
the 4.3-cent tax starting on April 16 through January 1, 2001. For
farmers, truckers, airlines, and other large energy consumers, this
action will have an even greater positive impact because of the large
amounts of fuel they consume.
I have heard some of my colleagues argue that 4.3 cents a gallon has
a negligible impact on consumers. To them, I say look at the amount of
fuel a farmer or trucker consumes during an average week. Look at the
thousands of gallons of diesel fuel required to operate a family farm
or deliver products from California to Maine. Or look at the tight
profit margins that can make the difference between going to work and
being without a job. I'm convinced this action is going to help
farmers, truckers, businesses, and families in Minnesota and that's why
I strongly support it.
For those who are concerned that eliminating the 4.3-cent gas tax is
going to deplete important highway and infrastructure funding, we've
included language in this legislation that will ensure the Highway
Trust Fund is completely protected. The Highway Trust Fund will be
restored with on-budget surplus funds from the current fiscal year as
well as the fiscal year 2001.
If gas prices reach $2 a gallon, on-budget surplus funds will allow
additional reductions in the gas tax without impacting the Highway
Trust Fund in any way. Depending on the size of the on-budget surplus,
our legislation could provide a complete reduction of federal gas taxes
until January 1, 2001 if prices rise to, and remain above, the $2 mark.
Let me make this very clear: we are not going to raid the Highway Trust
Fund with this legislation. In fact, we've ensured that the on-budget
surplus will absorb all of the costs of the gas tax reduction. I also
want to assure my colleagues and my constituents that this legislation
walls off the Social Security surplus. We will not spend any of the
Social Security surplus to pay for the gas tax reduction.
Our legislation is quite simply a tax cut for the American consumer
at a time when it's needed most. We're going to use surplus funds--
funds that have been taken from the American consumer above and beyond
the needs of government--and give them back to consumers every day at
the gasoline pumps.
For me, this legislation boils down to a very simple equation. Are we
going to sit by and do nothing as farmers prepare to enter the fields
this spring, or are we going to take whatever short-term actions we can
to support our farmers and provide them with a needed boost? Are we
going to help those most impacted by high fuel costs, or are we going
to ignore their needs and let them absorb thousands of more dollars in
fuel costs this summer? There is overwhelming proof that the Clinton
administration's complete rejection of a national energy policy has
caused this mess, so I believe the Congress must step in and help get
them out of it.
I joined my colleagues in the Senate earlier this year in requesting
and receiving emergency releases of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
funding. We did so on at least three separate occasions, and I've
supported the President's request for $600 million in additional
funding this year. This crucial funding for Minnesota and many other
cold weather States was a vital short-term approach to mitigating the
impact high fuel costs have had on senior citizens and low-income
families. Our constituents were in need, and we responded exactly as we
should have. Right now, even more of our constituents are in need, and
by responding with a reduction in the Federal gasoline tax, Congress
can again act in a way that is expected, even demanded, by our
constituents.
As I started earlier, the gasoline crisis requires that Congress act
now to stem rising energy costs in the near term. It also requires that
elected officials and bureaucrats across Washington take a serious look
at the direction in which our Nation is headed with its energy policy.
I am prepared to take a hard look at any options that might help my
constituents right now, and I demand that this administration explore
options to ensure that our nation reduces its reliance on foreign oil
and establishes a much more sound energy policy for decades to come, to
make this country energy independent and not so dependent on foreign
sources of energy that when they turn them on or off, it can have
dramatic impact on our economy. While those solutions will not happen
overnight, I believe a reduction in the gas tax will help. It is going
to help now, and it is going to help when that help is needed the most.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about
15 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.
____________________