[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.

                          ____________________