[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1915-S1923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL GAS TAX
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to turn to the subject of the
cloture vote that will be held tomorrow. It is scheduled on legislation
to suspend 4.3 cents of the Federal gas tax and then the possibility,
at some point in time, of the suspension of the full 18.4-cent gasoline
tax; the 4.3, of course, is included in that.
Now this proposal was laid before the Senate last night by our
distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator Lott is a man of
principle. I rise with
[[Page S1916]]
convictions of my own, and I hope he will accord me the same respect I
accord him. He firmly believes it is in the best interest of the
country--the measure he is bringing before the Senate. I believe it is
my duty to oppose that, and my remarks give the reasons for doing so.
I ask unanimous consent that several documents be printed at the end
of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in this effort, I am joined by the
following organizations as of this moment. Within 3 hours this
afternoon, they have come to my door in great numbers. I urge Senators
to listen to the following. Opposing this measure--the substance of the
bill--are the National Governors' Association. The distinguished
Presiding Officer was a former Governor and was active in that
association. Also, there is the National Association of Counties, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State Legislators,
Association of Road and Transportation Builders, Associated General
Contractors, Building and Trades Unions, American Highway Users
Federation, American Automobile Association. That list is growing by
the hour.
I believe the Senate, at this critical hour, should be directing its
attention in a constructive way to point out the failures of the
Clinton energy policy. My colleague, the junior Senator from Alaska,
has been a tireless worker on this effort. I believe either today or
tomorrow he will be addressing the Senate on this subject. We should be
focusing our attention on how, legislatively or otherwise, we can help
the American free enterprise system to increase production. That
production has been stymied time and time again by a number of
Government regulations, such that today America is dependent for 56
percent of its petroleum energy requirements--56 percent coming across
the ocean to our shores.
We are now finding ourselves in this great Chamber, watching intently
as to what OPEC might do. A series of nations, the majority of whom--
certainly not Iraq and Iran and others--we have come to their defense
time and time again when their security and freedom have been
challenged. Yet, we are sitting here by the hour waiting to see how
they might provide this great Nation, the United States of America, an
energy program of imports combined with our own domestic production to
meet our needs, to continue to strengthen this economy, which is not
only helping to support our Nation and provide jobs but, indeed, is
relied on by economies throughout the world--all because of this
petroleum.
We recognize that the price of gasoline has reached such a high level
that it is beginning to have tragic consequences on families, on small
businesses, on truckers, and many others across this Nation. Indeed,
this Chamber is directing its attention to see what relief we may
give. But I say most respectfully to those who are proposing the
suspension of this 4.3-cent tax and the possibility of another trigger
requiring that to be subsumed into an 18.4-cent tax, that this is not a
wise course, and I oppose it. I oppose it because the proposal is
fraught with uncertainty. We could be taking an action which would not
translate into relief for the drivers of our vehicles--those who are
suffering from this. There is simply too much uncertainty in this
course of action. That is one reason.
The second reason is it would impact negatively on legislation which
I and others fought for years for and finally got through in the form
of new highway legislation. I will address that in detail.
I ask the question: Is the repeal or temporary suspension of the 4.3
cents going into the pockets of the drivers? Can we give them that
assurance? That is the question each of you will have to answer if you
want to support this proposal.
What is the guarantee that this tax cut will be passed on to the
consumer? What is the likelihood it might go in part or in whole into
the pockets of the middlemen, the wholesalers, or the distributors? How
are the drivers protected from the oil refiners and wholesale marketers
from taking off some of this for their own reasons? Will the free
marketplace enable them to charge the same price at the gas pump even
after you achieve the rescinding of the 4.3? What is there to indicate
that the price at the gas pump is going to come down? I can find no
certainty.
I come back time and time again to one word-- ``uncertainty.''
If it is not to be passed on to the consumers and the high prices
continue, I think Americans will feel betrayed. They are now mad. But
they could be more irate if they are betrayed by what could be
perceived as a course of action. That could happen. But there is no
certainty 4.3 cents will be put into their pockets.
What is the impact of this hollow tax cut? Is it a significant impact
on our budget surplus? Very clearly--the way the bill is drawn, it will
have an impact on that surplus.
The Department of Transportation estimates that the 9-month
suspension--as proposed in this legislation--of this portion of the gas
tax will result in approximately $6 billion less in the highway trust
fund. That money, which by law in the context of the highway
legislation that I worked on, will be taken out. That means there will
be a shortfall in the next 9 months of $6 billion.
While the legislation as proposed by the distinguished leader has a
unique provision--I am not sure I have ever seen one like it before--
calling on the surplus--that is the general revenues and surplus--to
replenish the lost revenue in the highway trust fund, there is some
trigger mechanism in there.
But I ask my colleagues in the Senate: Do we want to be spending a
significant part of our limited surplus for this uncertainty? If we
knew it was going into the consumers' pockets, that might be one thing.
But I have yet to find anybody who says it is absolutely going to
bypass all the middle people and go into their pockets.
Do we want to take that surplus, which we are examining for debt
reduction, tax reduction and other purposes, do we want to suddenly
have $6 billion with just the 4.3 cents go into this type of scheme? If
we go to 18.4, then it could well consume all the surplus. The question
you have to ask yourself is, Is that what we want to do with the
surplus? This Senator says no.
In other words, I would rather see such tax legislation as can pass
this Chamber, tax legislation which guarantees by law taxpayer relief--
the marriage penalty tax for one and the estate tax relief for another,
specifically--relief that they need. And there is certainty. That is
the word; there is certainty. But there is uncertainty with this
proposal.
Do we want to use the on-budget surplus to give a tax cut to gasoline
wholesalers? I don't. Do we want to use our surplus for other, more
certain tax legislation? Yes, I do. That is the position I take this
evening.
Let's go back and look at the highway legislation that we worked on
several years ago, called TEA-21. For over a decade in the Senate, I,
along with many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle with strong
bipartisan support--the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, our
former colleague, Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, myself, and
others--teamed up in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I was
then chairman of the transportation subcommittee, a position now
occupied by our distinguished Presiding Officer, who I believe is in
concert with me on the views with regard to this tax. Over a period of
years we worked towards several goals, and we achieved them.
We wanted to first restore faith with the drivers who were promised
over the years that the gas taxes they paid at the pump would come back
to their respective States to be used for new highways, improvements in
safety, and the like. But it never happened. We had the donor-donee
situation, where various States got higher than they sent to Washington
for taxes; others got less. And finally we struck a note of fairness in
that legislation. It was landmark legislation. It has worked in our
States. That is why the Governors in all 50 States are opposed to this.
That is why the highway administrators in all 50 States and their
organizations are opposed to the legislation. They made it work.
Tens upon tens of thousands of contracts are operating today to
modernize and improve our highways and
[[Page S1917]]
other transportation facilities. Millions of people are engaged in
employment and others in providing the supplies and engineering and
design. The system is working as it was intended when this Senate
together with the House of Representatives put this legislation into
law.
TEA-21 guaranteed that all the taxes motorists paid at the pump would
be placed in the highway trust fund. It would go into the trust fund,
and, indeed, 100 percent went for highways and highway safety.
Before TEA-21, the gas tax was increased by 4.3 cents. I voted
against an increase in taxes of 4.3 cents. But it went into the general
revenues. As a part of the legislative process in devising TEA-21 right
on this floor, we voted--I believe the vote was 80-18--to take that 4.3
cents which was going into the general revenue and put it into the
highway trust fund. Now we are asked to suspend that source of income
going into the highway trust fund. I am opposed to it.
As our Nation's transportation infrastructure aged and crumbled, it
was imperative that we transfer the 4.3 cents from general revenues to
the highway trust fund. Eventually, TEA-21 guaranteed spending reform
which resulted in a 40-percent increase in funds for transportation
over the past 2 years. Today, we are just beginning to see the benefits
of TEA-21 with more projects under construction, jobs being created,
products moving more efficiently across the country, and, most
importantly, improvement in highway safety.
Do we want to now turn back the clock and inject uncertainty--that is
the key word, uncertainty--into the funding profile needed for our
highway program?
While the legislation has an untested triggering mechanism to restore
general revenues to the highway trust fund, what happens if that
trigger is pulled and it doesn't work? Again, uncertainty will
jeopardize highway safety for the driving public and thousands of jobs
once created by TEA-21. In order to accomplish these significant budget
reforms in TEA-21, adequate funding in the highway trust fund was
critical to meet the many demands for the highway dollars. The highway
trust fund is the sole source of revenue to improve our highways and
bridges and maintain our bus and rail systems.
The consequences of a suspension of 4.3 cents of the Federal gas tax
are very significant if that triggered mechanism doesn't work. First,
State and local transportation activities will lose approximately $6
billion just from the 4.3. Second, there will be a tremendous loss of
high-paying jobs. I have heard upwards of a quarter of a million jobs
would be lost. Certain representations have been made by some of my
colleagues, and I am not in a position to agree or disagree, that all
the contracts that are currently signed in an operation have adequate
funding. That could well be correct. However, I could not get the same
representation from those individuals regarding the 18.4. If that
suddenly comes in, it could jeopardize some of the contracts that are
outstanding.
As Members come to the floor to vote tomorrow, they must have in mind
an answer if the triggers go in effect--there are several triggers to
the 18.4--what happens to the current contracts out there now and the
people who are on the highways of this Nation working with trucks and
all the other equipment to improve these roads. State and local
transportation activities, as I say, will lose significant funds.
Second, there will be a tremendous loss of the highway-paying jobs. I
have covered that.
Third, the safety of American drivers would be jeopardized. I am
going to have printed in the Record the AAA letter which goes to the
question of safety on the highways of America.
Fourth, there would be severe disruptions in maintaining the planning
schedules. In other words, every week in my State the highway
departments, as they do in other States, are analyzing the needs of
that State and beginning to project the work, contract for the work,
design the work. Suddenly, they hear from Washington; wait a minute,
the funds that may not come in. We promised the transfer from the
general revenues. Try to explain the triggering mechanism, and what
happens. Uncertainty comes into the equation.
We all know it takes years, far too long for a highway or transit
project to make it from the drawing board to construction. Severe
swings or even the uncertainty of the availability of funds in
transportation funding will make it nearly impossible for States to
effectively manage their highway programs. Consistent funding levels
are critical to the seamless steps of planning, designing, engineering,
the permitting process, contracting, and construction. A stable
program--where States, local governments, and contractors have the
benefits of a long-term funding cycle--translates into a reliable
supply of new and improved highways. That is elementary.
Do we want to stop the modernization of our Nation's transportation
system to give the gas middleman a few more pennies in his pocket? It
could well happen. Or do we keep on course to improve transportation
and highway safety for all Americans while providing more meaningful
and lasting tax relief with such limited surplus as we may have?
Those are the fundamental questions.
I read off the various organizations, and I will make a brief
reference to the following from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials:
Dear Senator Warner: I would like to express AASHTOs
profound concern with, and opposition to, bills recently
introduced in the House and the Senate that would repeal or
suspend all or a portion of the Federal motor fuel taxes.
We appreciate the economic hardships caused by the sharp
rise in the price of oil to the trucking industry, to the
motoring public and to other sectors of our committee.
However, we are concerned that the recently introduced
legislation, designed to relieve the current economic
distress, will inadvertently jeopardize the financial
stability of the federal program that supports the various
surface infrastructure on which motorists, the trucking
industry, and indeed the economy depend.
From the Small Business Legislative Council, addressed to Senator
Lott, with a copy came to me:
On behalf of the Small Business Legislative Counsel (SBLC),
I want to indicate that we must object to the initiative to
temporarily roll back the Federal gas tax. While small
businesses are clearly suffering as a result of the highway
gasoline prices, we are long time staunch supporters of
reserving the integrity of the highway trust fund and making
sure that we have the proper infrastructure to deliver our
goods and services.
From the American Automobile Association, one of the great hallmarks
in our transportation system for many years, they write:
Even more troubling is the proposal to temporarily suspend
the 18.4 cents per gallon Federal tax prices if prices top $2
per gallon this year.
That is an average; it is a complex formula. It could happen. I
understand in California today the prices are over $2. It would not be
just one State that triggered it. It would be a national average.
Continuing:
Despite assurances that revenues lost by the Highway Trust
Fund will be replaced with revenues in the budget surplus,
this action fundamentally alters the basic principle
governing surface transportation funding. The Federal excise
tax is a user fee. Motorists are paying for road and bridge
repairs and safety programs through the fees paid at the gas
pump.
Now, from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
They listed 10 points which will be printed.
Last, I did not know what a coincidence it would be that the
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, would be in the Chair. I
obtained the following editorials which appeared in his State today,
again, solidly supporting the distinguished Senator's stance on
opposition to these taxes. It is very clear. I will read one editorial
which appears in the Akron Beacon Journal:
And all that gas tax, the difference that 4.3 cents can
make.
George Voinovich doesn't like paying $1.60 or more for a
gallon of gas. In that sense, the Ohio Senator stands with
the majority of his fellow Republicans, heck, the majority of
Americans. Where he departs from the party line is
determining what to do about the increase.
Not surprisingly, Voinovich takes a practical approach. On
Thursday, he joined Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican,
and Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, to voice their
bipartisan opposition to repealing the 4.3-cents-per-gallon
tax levied in 1993 for deficit reduction. All three
understand the cost if the tax is repealed.
[[Page S1918]]
Cost? Old motorists might save a few cents. What they would
lose is money for highway repair and construction. In 1997,
Congress altered the purpose of the tax, dedicating the 4.3
to the highway use only.
What would Ohio lose? If the repeal took effect in July,
the State would forfeit $650 million the next three years.
The State Department of transportation is already budgeted
$300 million in Federal money for new construction. That
would disappear.
In its place? The headaches of drivers as they navigate the
roads in desperate need of repair. Voinovich knows deficient
roads exact their own toll.
All across America today, tonight, people will be joining in
notifying their Members of Congress that this piece of legislation, no
matter how sincere, how principled in its presentation to this body, is
not in the best interests of the country for the reasons I have stated.
Exhibit 1
[From the Akron Beacon Journal, Mar. 27, 2000]
All That Gas Tax--The Difference That 4.3 Cents Can Make
George Voinovich doesn't like paying $1.60 or more for a
gallon of gas. In that sense, the Ohio senator stands with
the majority of his fellow Republicans, heck, the majority of
Americans. Where he departs from the party line is
determining what to do about the increase.
Not surprisingly, Voinovich takes the practical approach.
On Thursday, he joined Sen. John Warner, a Virginia
Republican, and Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, to voice
their bipartisan opposition to repealing the 4.3-cents-per-
gallon tax levied in 1993 for deficit reduction. All three
understand the cost if the tax is repealed.
Cost? Oh, motorists might save a few cents. What they would
lose is money for highway repair and construction. In 1997,
Congress altered the purpose of the tax, dedicating the 4.3
cents to highway use only.
What would Ohio lose? If the repeal took effect in July,
the state would forfeit $650 million the next three years.
The state Department of Transportation has already budgeted
$300 million in federal money for new construction. That
would disappear.
In its place? The headaches of drivers as they navigate
roads in desperate need of repair. Voinovich knows deficient
roads exact their own toll.
____
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2000.
Hon. John William Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to you on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) which represents the highway and
transportation departments of the 50 States as well as the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. I would like to express
AASHTO's profound concern with, and opposition to, bills
recently introduced in the House and Senate that would repeal
or suspend all or a portion of the federal motor fuel taxes.
We appreciate the economic hardships caused by the sharp
rise in the price of oil to the trucking industry, to the
motoring public, and other sectors of the economy. However,
we are concerned that the recently introduced legislation,
designed to relieve the current economic distress, will
inadvertently jeopardize the financial stability of the
federal program that supports the very surface infrastructure
on which motorists, the trucking industry, and indeed, the
economy depend.
Each penny of motor fuel tax currently generates almost
$1.7 billion per year in revenues to the Highway Trust Fund's
Highway and Mass Transit Accounts, with the funds dedicated
to highway and mass transportation improvements. The loss of
revenue from a repeal of federal motor fuel excise taxes
would have a devastating impact on the ability of states to
deliver, as promised to their citizens, critically needed
surface transportation improvement projects. Projects that
would be eliminated or delayed include those designed to
reduce accidents and fatalities and to improve the overall
operation and efficiency of the surface transportation
system.
While the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA 21) established record levels of federal surface
transportation investment, the U.S. Department of
Transportation still estimates that the level of investment
needed to maintain current highway conditions alone is $211
billion over the next four years. The U.S. Department of
Transportation maintains that poor road conditions are a
factor in an estimated 30 percent of traffic fatalities. A
repeal or suspension of a portion of the federal motor fuel
tax would virtually eliminate all of the gains we made with
TEA 21, and put us that much further behind in meeting our
surface transportation needs.
We respectfully urge you to examine the loss of revenues to
the Highway Trust Fund and the impact on highway and mass
transportation funding to your state resulting from a repeal
of the federal motor fuel tax. I have attached a table that
shows the state-by-state effect of a repeal of 4.3 cents of
the tax. We hope that you will consider alternatives to a
repeal or suspension of the federal motor fuel excise tax
that would not seriously impair the abilities of the states
to deliver much-needed projects that will maintain and
improve the safety, condition and performance of our surface
transportation system.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Warne,
Executive Directors.
____
American Road & Transportation
Builders Association,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, Mar. 29, 2000.
Top 10 Reasons Why Repealing Part of the Federal Gas Tax Is a Bad Idea!
On Thursday, March 30, the U.S. Senate is expected to take
up legislation--S. 2285--that would: (a) repeal 4.3 cents of
the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax from April 15,
2000, to January 1, 2001; or (b) repeal the entire 18.4
Federal gas tax during that time frame if the national
average price of gasoline exceeds $2.00 per gallon. The bill
proposes to use the ``on-budget surplus'' to ``reimburse''
the more than $20 billion that could be lost to the Highway
Trust Fund under this scheme.
1. S. 2285 introduces uncertainty and risk into state
highway funding. Federal highway investment is already
guaranteed under the 1998 highway bill known as the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
There is no need to risk this guarantee for a promise that
things will be taken care of using the ``on-budget surplus.''
Uncertainty will slow down state highway and mass transit
improvement programs.
2. S. 2285 could utilize the entire FY 2000 ``On-Budget
Surplus.'' According to the Senate Budget Committee's
Informed Budgeteer of March 13, 2000, the Congressional
Budget Office has reestimated the FY 2000 ``on-budget
surplus'' to be $15 billion. Repealing the entire federal gas
tax from April 15 to September 30--a possibility under S.
2285--would cost the Highway Trust Fund approximately $15
billion. This would leave no room for other Republican budget
priorities . . . or to protect Social Security and Medicare.
A $9 billion supplemental appropriation bill is currently
pending in the House.
3. Cutting highway investment jeopardizes lives. According
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 12,000 Americans
die each year in auto crashes in which poor road conditions
or alignments are a factor. Traffic accidents are the leading
cause of death of young Americans 6 to 28 years of age and
result in more permanent disabling injuries than any other
type of accident. Cutting the federal highway user fee could
cut programs that are aimed at helping reduce that public
health crisis.
4. American jobs would be put at risk. Rolling back 4.3
cents of the federal gas tax motor fuels tax would risk
eliminating over a quarter million American jobs that are
sustained by public investment in highway construction
programs--with concurrent losses of federal and state income
tax revenue and increases in unemployment-related government
expenses.
5. S. 2285 could negatively affect state bond ratings. The
perception of uncertainty about the flow of federal highway
funds to the states that S. 2285 would create could affect
the bond ratings of states that have borrowed funds for
highway projects against future federal-aid revenues. The
National Highway System Act allows federal-aid highway and
mass transit funds to be used to pay principle and interest
costs on bonds for highway and mass transit projects. Bonds
issued under this provision are called GARVEE bonds. Here are
a few examples:
Ohio: $90 million for the Spring-Sandusky project with a
moral obligation to seek gas tax or general revenues if there
is a shortfall in federal aid.
Mississippi: $921.7 million for a four-lane highway
program, with the state gas tax as back up.
New Mexico: $100.2 million for State Route 44, with no
back-up (a ``naked GARVEE'').
New Jersey: $151.5 million to purchase 500 new buses,
backed solely by anticipated funding from the Federal Transit
Administration.
States that have passed enabling legislation or are
planning to issue GARVEE Bonds in the near future include
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Nevada and Virginia.
6. The uncertainty raised by S. 2285 will hurt publicly-
traded companies in the transportation construction sectors.
These companies have already taken a hit on Wall Street over
the past month with just the suggestion of a cut in federal
highway investment. Many of these companies have made very
substantial capital investments in anticipation of increased
highway work under TEA-21. S. 2285 could leave them hanging
in the wind!
7. S. 2285 would only save the average American motorist 46
cents a week. The motorist driving 12,000 miles a year in a
car getting 20 miles per gallon would save $18.28 between
April 15 and January 1, 2001, with a 4.3 cents gas tax cut.
8. S. 2285 acknowledges consumers may not even benefit from
the proposed tax rollback at the pump. The bill would direct
the Comptroller General of the United States to ``conduct a
study of the reduction of taxes under this Act to determine
whether there has been a passthrough of such reduction'' with
details to the Congress ``not later than September 30,
2000.''
9. Gasoline prices can be expected to decline in the next
two to three months by between 5 cents and 21.25 cents per
gallon due
[[Page S1919]]
to OPEC's quota increase. According to a Department of
Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA) study released on
March 6, crude oil prices would drop to $25.50 per barrel by
August and $23 per barrel by the end of the year if OPEC
increased its quota by 1.7 million bpd starting in April.
Also according to EIA, for each $1 per barrel decrease in the
price of crude oil, gasoline prices drop approximately 2.5
cents per gallon at the pumps. According to market analysts,
such price adjustments take between 6-8 weeks. However, if
current gasoline prices reflect the peak crude prices, then
the gasoline price decline will be closest to the higher
figure.
10. Greenspan says ``Save the Surplus''. Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Senate Special Committee on
the Aging March 27, ``Saving the surpluses--if politically
feasible--is, in my judgment, the most important fiscal
measure we can take at this time to foster continued
improvements in productivity.''
____
AAA,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
AAA wishes to go on record in its opposition to measures
that seek to suspend all or portions of the federal excise
tax on gasoline. While attractive at first glance, this
course of action will do little to address the root cause of
our gasoline price problem today, which is a shortage of
supply caused by curtailed production of crude oil, by OPEC
states.
AAA recognizes that many motorists are suffering because of
high gas prices. But, the benefits to motorists from reducing
the gas tax are, at best, minimal. Temporarily suspending 4.3
cents of the gas tax would translate to less than $1 per week
in possible savings to motorists. The resulting loss of
revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, however, would impede the
important work of rebuilding our nation's transportation
infrastructure and improving highway and motorist safety.
That is an unacceptable risk for AAA's 43 million members.
Even more troubling is the proposal to temporarily suspend
the entire 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal tax if prices top $2
per gallon this year. Despite assurances that revenues lost
to the Highway Trust Fund will be replaced with revenues from
the budget surplus, this action fundamentally alters the
basic principle governing surface transportation funding. The
federal excise tax is a user fee. Motorists are paying for
road and bridge repairs and safety programs through the fees
paid at the gasoline pump.
Congress recognized the importance of fully investing in
the nation's infrastructure when it passed TEA-21 in 1998 and
ensured that federal gas tax dollars are dedicated for their
intended purpose. Because of this historic legislation,
motorists now trust that their taxes are invested exactly
where they belong--improved mobility across all surface
transportation modes--and safety.
Make no mistake about it. Lower receipts into the Highway
Trust Fund will compromise safety for the traveling public.
Is that truly what Congress wants to do? Reducing the federal
gasoline tax will do nothing to increase fuel supply. That is
where Congress and the Administration should focus their
attention. To focus legislative efforts on the federal gas
tax, rather than the real problem--supply--is a shortsighted
and regrettably expedient response to the problem.
In the meantime, AAA is doing its part to reduce demand by
issuing its ``Gas Watcher's Guide'', which details the many
ways in which motorists can conserve fuel. A copy is enclosed
for your review. The guide shows motorists that how a vehicle
is used can be just as important as which vehicle is used.
Thank you for your consideration of AAA's view.
Sincerely,
Susan G. Pikrallidas,
Vice President,
Public & Government Relations.
____
Small Business Legislative Council,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Majority Leader: On behalf of the Small Business
Legislative Council (SBLC), I want to indicate that we must
object to the initiative to temporarily roll back the Federal
gas tax. While small businesses are clearly suffering as a
result of the high gasoline prices, we are long time staunch
supporters of preserving the integrity of the highway trust
fund and making sure that we have the proper infrastructure
to deliver our goods and services.
We understand that you intend to pay for this roll back
using the ``surplus.'' Right now we have many priorities for
the use of that surplus. Repeal of the death tax, increasing
direct expensing, full deductibility for the self-employed's
health care costs, FUTA tax relief, repeal of the installment
sales repeal and national debt reduction to name just a few.
As you know, the SBLC is a permanent, independent coalition
of nearly 80 trade and professional associations that share a
common commitment to the future of small business. Our
members represent the interests of small businesses in such
diverse economic sectors as manufacturing, retailing,
distribution, professional and technical services,
construction, transportation, tourism and agriculture. Our
policies are developed through a consensus among our
membership. Individual associations may express their own
views. For your information, a list of our members is
enclosed.
We appreciate your outstanding leadership on behalf of
small business. We believe there must be a better way to
provide relief for small business from rising gasoline prices
without jeopardizing other small business priorities.
Sincerely,
John S. Satagaj,
President and General Counsel.
members of the small business legislative council
ACIL, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Alliance of
Independent Store Owners and Professionals, American
Association of Equine Practitioners, American Bus
Association, American Consulting Engineers Council, American
Machine Tool Distributors Association, American Moving and
Storage Association, American Nursery and Landscape
Association, American Road & Transportation Builders
Association, American Society of Interior Designers, American
Society of Travel Agents, Inc., American Subcontractors
Association, American Textile Machinery Association,
Architectural Precast Association, Associated Landscape
Contractors of America, Association of Small Business
Development Centers, Association of Sales and Marketing
Companies, and Automotive Recyclers Association.
Automotive Service Association, Bowling Proprietors
Association of America, Building Service Contractors
Association International, Business Advertising Council, CBA,
Council of Fleet Specialists, Council of Growing Companies,
Cremation Association of North America, Direct Selling
Association, Electronics Representatives Association,
Florists' Transworld Delivery Association, Health Industry
Representatives Association, Helicopter Association
International, Independent Bankers Association of America,
Independent Medical Distributors Association, International
Association of Refrigerated Warehouses, International
Franchise Association, and Machinery Dealers National
Association.
Mail Advertising Service Association, Manufacturers Agents
for the Food Service Industry, Manufacturers Agents National
Association, Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.,
National Association for the Self-Employed, National
Association of Home Builders, National Association of
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, National Association of
Realtors, Manufacturers of RV Parks and Campgrounds, National
Association of Small Business Investment Companies.
National Association of the Remodeling Industry, National
Community Pharmacists Association, National Electrical
Contractors Association, National Electrical Manufacturers
Representatives Association, National Lumber & Building
Material Dealers Association, National Ornamental &
Miscellaneous Metals Association, National Paperbox
Association, and National Retail Hardware Association.
National Society of Accountants, National Tooling and
Machining Association, National Tour Association, National
Wood Flooring Association, Organization for the Promotion and
Advancement of Small Telephone Companies, Petroleum Marketers
Association of America, Printing Industries of America, Inc.,
Professional Lawn Care Association of America, Promotional
Products Association International, The Retailer's Bakery
Association, Saturation Mailers Coalition, Small Business
Council of America, Inc., Small Business Exporters
Association, SMC Business Councils, Society of American
Florists, Turfgrass Producers International, United
Motorcoach Association, and Washington Area New Automobile
Dealers Association.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from Virginia leaves the
floor, I want to say a couple of things in his presence.
When I came to the Senate, the Senator from Virginia was a Member of
the Senate. I had the good fortune of being assigned to the Environment
and Public Works Committee, as was the Presiding Officer when he came
to the Senate.
I worked putting myself through law school in the Capitol complex.
I never talked to a Senator during that period of time. I always had
a kind of a vision of what a Senator was like. I have to say, the
Senator from Virginia fills what I think a Senator should be. If there
were ever a gentleman Senator, the Senator from Virginia fits that
bill.
We have worked together on committees over the years. When we were in
the majority, I was the chairman of a subcommittee. I was a junior
Member of the Senate at the time, but the respect shown as the chairman
of that subcommittee was as it should be from the Senator from
Virginia.
We are no longer in the majority, and the Senator from Virginia is
now the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Even though we have
not always worked together on issues, and we have voted differently on
occasion, I have the greatest admiration for the way the Senator from
Virginia handles himself as a person and as a Senator.
[[Page S1920]]
I say with the deepest respect, the Senator's statement today
amplifies--and the people of Virginia should understand--the courage it
takes to be, in this instance, a minority in a majority who speaks out
against what, at first glance, seems very popular--reducing taxes.
In short, I commend, applaud, and appreciate this Senator for the
courage he has shown. One of my jobs on this side of the aisle is to
make sure we have enough votes on issues or at least know where the
votes are. The Senator's statement today will allow the Senate to act
tomorrow in a bipartisan fashion and defeat this motion to invoke
cloture. We need to do more things in the Senate in a bipartisan
fashion. We do not always need this line dividing us. We need to work
together more often.
I hope this will be the beginning of this Senate working together on
more issues. I appreciate the example set by the gentleman Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
assistant leader of the minority, a great Senator in his own right. We
have worked together and will continue to work together. These are
matters of conscience. Bottom line, it is the fervent hope of all
Americans that a Senator, when he or she votes, votes what is in the
best interest of the United States and as a matter of their own
personal conscience. That I do, and I know my distinguished colleague
from Nevada follows that credo. I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came to the floor when I heard the Senator
from Virginia beginning to speak on this issue and, of course, stayed
to hear him complete his remarks. I underscore and underline what the
Senator said.
It was maybe 10 or 12 years ago that every weekly publication in
America, and many newspapers, featured articles about the deteriorating
infrastructure of this country--highways, roads, bridges, dams. They
were falling apart. They still are, but we have made great progress.
Why? Because we dedicated money in a trust fund to be used for only one
purpose, and that is highways.
When someone buys a gallon of gasoline in Ohio, Virginia, or Nevada,
they can rest assured that money is going to go toward our
deteriorating infrastructure. It is so badly needed.
I am going to Nevada on Friday, and we are going to have a
celebration. Why are we going to have a celebration? Because we are
going to cut the ribbon to the largest highway public works project in
the history of Nevada. It was done with the help of the Senator from
Virginia. It was a direct allocation to the people of the State of
Nevada to take care of a very serious traffic problem we had in
downtown Las Vegas. It is something known as the spaghetti bowl. That
will be completed on Friday. It is a project that cost over $100
million.
From where did that money come? From people all over the country,
including the people in Nevada, buying gasoline and diesel fuel and
paying the taxes on that gallon of fuel. It went into the fund. There
are other spaghetti bowls around America to which this tax has gone.
No one is happy about the cost of a gallon of gasoline, and I am not
here to justify the cost of gas. I think it is too high. I wish it were
lower. We, in America, should look at this as a glass being half full,
not half empty. The reason I say that is, in spite of the spiraling gas
prices which none of us like, we have the lowest gas costs in the
world. Other countries buy gas by the liter, and they pay a lot for it.
I hope, with the OPEC nations going to produce 1.7 million barrels of
gasoline a day extra and Norway and Mexico and other countries
producing more, we are going to get over 2 million barrels of gasoline
a day. It will take some time for the price of gas to drop. We cannot
be rushing forward on these issues. We have to be calm and deliberate.
This is a tax bill, and we should handle tax bills by having hearings
in the Finance Committee. We have two very fine people there, some of
the most experienced legislators not only in the Senate today, but in
the history of the country--the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, the
chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the Senator from New
York, Mr. Moynihan. They have wide-ranging experience.
Senator Moynihan is not only a ranking Democrat on the Finance
Committee, he was chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee. They should have a hearing on this and talk about--the good
and the bad about lowering this gas tax. We have not had a single
hearing. This bill is here as a result of what we call rule XIV. There
is no companion bill in the House. If this bill is passed, it will
either be held here at the desk indefinitely, or if we send it to the
House, it will be blue slipped. It is a tax bill. It will go nowhere. I
am sorry to say, this is for show.
We have a tax bill, H.R. 3081. This is what we need to do. There is
no one in this body who does not want to see a decrease in the price of
gasoline. This is not the way to go about it.
The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, has suggested maybe we
should direct the 300,000 barrels a day that flow from Alaska to
places, other than the United States, to the United States. Use Alaska
oil for us, not them. That would help.
In fact, this legislative action that is going to take place tomorrow
is a step in the wrong direction. I will not go into the details. The
Senator from Virginia has done a good job of that. Let's be more
careful and more calculating in what we do.
Because my two colleagues from Virginia and Ohio are here, both
members of the majority, I am only going to touch briefly--because I do
not think this should be a partisan issue--on George W. Bush's stand on
this issue. I am disappointed in Governor Bush. I hope he does not
think the solution to every problem is lowering taxes. I wish he would
reassess his view on this. He has come out for lowering this gas tax. I
am sorry he has done that.
That is enough on partisan issues. We have been very bipartisan and
will continue to do so.
Mr. President, do you know who would love this proposal? The oil
cartel. Put yourself in the position of an OPEC minister. You set these
limits as high as you want or as low as you want, and the oil prices
are pushed up. You are afraid, the higher the price of gasoline, that
people will use less gasoline and heating oil and cut your exports.
Suppose, however, you can count on the U.S. Government to reduce
gasoline taxes whenever the price of crude oil rises. They have a great
deal going then. Then Americans are less likely to reduce their oil
consumption and conspire to drive prices up, which makes such a
conspiracy considered more attractive.
This is directly from the New York Times. It is not original with me.
They further go on to state: This tax cutback would lead directly to
cutbacks in necessary and popular Government services. This is one
instance where everyone agrees that if you cut taxes, it would lead
directly to cutbacks in necessary and popular Government services.
We have talked about what those Government services are; namely,
taking care of the deteriorating bridges, roads, and highways we have
in America.
Tax cuts are not the answer to this problem.
I hope people on this side of the aisle and people on that side of
the aisle will come here tomorrow and vote this down and, hopefully,
pave the way, in the ensuing weeks and months, so that we can do other
things in a bipartisan fashion.
I say to my friend, again, from Virginia, thank you very much for
your leadership on this issue. I say to the Presiding Officer, a member
of our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, thank you
very much for your courage and your leadership on this issue.
Obviously, from what has been read by the Senator from Virginia from
the newspapers at home, they see that you have your eye on the prize
and know what you are doing. Congratulations.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague for what I
regard as a very moderate and tempered and sincere approach to this
issue. There is always a temptation to lurch into what are the
political unknowns or intentions here. But our distinguished assistant
leader of the minority party, I think, just stated his case very
factually. I respect him for that.
[[Page S1921]]
I say, before the distinguished leader leaves the floor, I think the
Presiding Officer might have a perspective here. If you just wait a
minute, I shall take the Chair and enable the Presiding Officer to
address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. First of all, I thank the Senator from Virginia for
relieving me in my responsibility of presiding over the Senate, and
thank him also for his very kind words about my involvement in this
issue that I think is very important to our fellow Americans. I commend
the Senator from Virginia for his ability to stand up on an issue that
is fairly controversial, and to speak from his heart. I also appreciate
the kind words from the Senator from Nevada.
I speak today as a Senator from Ohio, and also as a lucky freshman
who is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
in the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate.
I also speak from a perspective as a former Governor of the State of
Ohio, and the former chairman of the National Governors' Association,
the chairman of the association when we negotiated TEA 21 with this
Congress and the President; one of the most significant pieces of
legislation that this Congress passed. As the Senator from Nevada has
pointed out, it was a piece of legislation that responded to the
tremendous infrastructure needs that we have throughout this great
country of ours. Even in spite of that wonderful piece of legislation,
we still have some great needs to fill in order to really have a
transportation system that will allow us to compete in this 21st
century.
One of the things we were concerned about in that legislation was the
issue of being able to depend upon a flow of money for a certain period
of time so that we could properly plan for new highway construction in
our States.
We needed something that was dependable and something that we could
work with our contractors and others that do work in our States, so we
could say we are going to be doing this program over a period of years
and not have these peaks and valleys that so many States experience.
We were pleased Congress decided to take the 4.3-cent gas tax that
had been used for deficit reduction and use it for our highways. I
might say, in 1993 I was not in favor of Congress using the gas tax for
deficit reduction because it was a user's tax. From a federalism point
of view, our feeling was that that was a tax that should be earmarked
for the user--the user being the people who use our highways--in order
to repair and maintain and build new highways, to allow them to move
goods, and also to eliminate some of the traffic problems and the
pollution problems created by traffic jams that we have throughout the
country.
I was pleased that Congress decided to take that and say: We are
going to make it a user tax. We all felt good about that and we felt
relieved.
We now have before us the situation where our gas prices have
increased substantially. I am not going to go into all the reasons for
it.
A 4.3-cent reduction in the gas tax, frankly, may have some short-
term political benefits. But when people consider the fact that if they
drive 15,000 miles per year, and they average 15 miles per gallon, that
they will save $43 with our 4.3-cent reduction in the gas tax. They
will be very cynical about Congress' response to a problem that they
are confronting at the gas pump--particularly when they come to realize
that it will have, even on a short-term basis, an interruption in some
of the highway projects that are underway throughout this country.
As the Senator from Virginia said, in the State of Ohio, we are
talking about, over 3 years, $650 million. That 4.3 cents is the
construction money that Ohio needs to move forward with their new
highway construction. I would suspect in Nevada and Virginia it is the
same thing. Other money is used just for maintenance and repair. This
is the money we are using for new construction.
In addition--this is something that has not been even spoken about--
that 4.3 cents, when Congress agreed to allow it to be used for the
highway trust fund, was the money that guaranteed donor States, such as
Ohio--and I do not know whether the Presiding Officer's State is a
donor State or not--but it was the thing that allowed us to be
guaranteed 90.5 cents on every $1 we sent to Washington.
I want you to know this is a big deal because one of the first things
I did when I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 was to say, we are a donor
State. At that time, we were only getting back 79 cents per $1. So one
of the first things I did was to try to lobby, through the National
Governors' Association, an increase for the donor States. You may
remember, ISTEA brought up a lot of the donor States. I think we went
from 79 cents up to 87 cents. With TEA 21, we are now at 90.5 cents.
That is very important in terms of our guaranteed funding. It is also
very important in terms of our new construction program.
I know there are some who suggest that we use the budget surplus to
make up for the money we would lose from reducing the highway gas tax.
But the fact of the matter is, if you want to look at the big
picture, what we are saying is, we are going to use the budget surplus
that could be used to reduce taxes or reduce the national debt, or be
used for prescription drug benefits in Medicare, and so many other
things--we're going to use that general pot of money to fund highways,
which are used by a certain select group of people in this country,
mainly, highway users.
We are basically saying to the highway users: You are having a
problem at the pump. Therefore, we are going to reduce your taxes by
4.3 cents, and we are going to find the money from the general fund of
the United States. So we will make everybody in the United States
subsidize that 4.3 cents we are reducing on the gas tax.
In spite of the fact that I am not happy about the high cost of
gasoline, I think the people who use the highways ought to be the ones
who pay for the new highways, and the repairs, and for new
construction. This bill would say we are going to open up the general
fund of the United States and use it to make up the difference. I think
from an equitable point of view, that is not fair. I think this
proposal, from a public policy point of view, is one that is not well
taken.
The passage of this reduction may take away from the fact that we
have a real problem in this country. The problem in this country is
that we have no energy policy. The reason we have the increase in the
price of gasoline in this country, in my humble opinion, is the fact
that this administration was asleep at the switch. They didn't do their
homework. As a result of that, the price of oil crept up.
Now they are cramming in every way possible to try to influence the
people who supply the oil to bring the price down. What we should be
doing is following the leadership of Senator Frank Murkowski and others
who have come to the floor of the Senate, and work conscientiously to
develop an energy policy for the United States of America. We should be
concerned about the fact that we are relying too much upon foreign oil.
Last week, Senator Thompson had a hearing of the Governmental Affairs
Committee which included people from the administration. I asked them:
Do you believe we should be less reliant on foreign oil? Their answer
came back: Yes. I said: Statistics show we are going to become more
reliant on foreign oil.
I then asked the question: Do you have a number where you want to be;
i.e., 50-percent reliant, 45-percent reliant? They didn't have an
answer. They didn't have a number. Then I said to them: Logically, one
would say that if you wanted to reduce your dependence on foreign oil,
you would set a goal and say we are going to reduce it to 45 percent,
and we are going to reduce it by X year, and here is the way we are
going to achieve that goal. That would involve opening up more
opportunities--ANWR, for example. That would also mean looking at
alternative fuels. That would mean looking at our Tax Code to encourage
our small oil strippers who can't afford to be in the business, to get
back in the business. That would mean having a national policy, that
puts all of these things on the table, and that looks at environmental
concerns.
[[Page S1922]]
Yes, we want to protect the environment. Yes, we want to protect our
national defense, which is something we're not talking about. The
national defense of our country is in jeopardy. Reports have said that.
We can't be reliant on these other nations, particularly those who are
our enemies. We have been at war with one of them for 10 years now.
I think this situation with these high gas prices should be an
opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, to bring everybody to the table to
develop and start talking about what should be the energy policy of the
United States. It should not to be like so many instances around this
country where, when something happens, we treat it like a barking dog.
You give it a bone, the price will go down, everybody will continue to
do the same thing they did before, and we will have another crisis. It
is time to get this problem out of the drawer and onto the table, and
deal with it in a responsible fashion. We need to set out a plan we can
feel confident in that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and
protect our national economy and our national defense.
We should not be participating in a short-term proposal to reduce the
gas tax which will not make a whole lot of difference and may indeed
take the focus away from the real problem; that is, that the United
States of America does not have an energy policy.
(Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the Chair.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He has stood with me
throughout this battle, succeeding me as chairman. He fully
understands. He brings a perspective to the Government. He understands
the problem of long-term stability in contracting on our highway
programs. Of course, that is predicated on this trigger mechanism
working. Perhaps the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee
will know.
This is so serious, but I wish to inject a little humor. One of our
colleagues today said this reminds him of pool. It is a three-bank
shot. Picture the ball. That is the 4.3. You hit it off one bank, and
suddenly it gets stripped off and goes around the other balls, which is
the Budget Committee, so they don't have any voice in this. It goes off
another bank. When it hits that bank, it picks up funds from the
general revenue. Then it comes over and hits another bank to get around
the Appropriations Committee, which usually has some authority over
appropriating around the surplus, and then slowly goes into the pocket
of the highway trust fund. So this is a three-cornered bank shot. Maybe
our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee can throw a little
light on this triggering mechanism and how it works.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I think one of the significant things about this
proposal is the number of people who are opposed to it.
The AAA--a very respected organization in this country which
represents the folks who drive on America's highways--with the high gas
price, you would think they would be saying reduce the tax, or, get rid
of the tax. But the AAA is saying: No, we don't want you to reduce the
tax. We know it is not going to make a lot of difference in terms of
the price, and we are more concerned about having highways that are
safe and well-maintained and that are repaired. They are more
interested in seeing new construction projects undertaken.
Last but not least, I want to correct something that was said on the
floor. The Senator from Nevada indicated that Governor Bush supports
the repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. I talked with Governor Bush
yesterday or the day before. He clearly said he did not support--how
did he put it? I want to be very careful about how I say this--he is
not in favor of reducing the 4.3-cent gas tax. That is what he said,
and it was spoken as the Governor of the State of Texas who understands
how important highways are.
I also point out that the National Governors' Association has said
they are opposed to this proposal. The National Association of
Counties, the National Council of State Legislators, all of the people
who have been dealing with highways and the users are saying this is
not going to make a real difference. Let's get on with dealing with
this problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield to the Senator, my good friend from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank the Senator for his good remarks. He is
right on. I think he should add to his arsenal of words and discussions
about the energy crisis the following: The United States of America has
the greatest intelligence organization. We spend so much on
intelligence and information gathering. We have an agency within the
Department of Energy that is independent. We put a lot of money in it.
They call themselves the ``analysts of energy.'' They are supposed to
know everything you can know about crude oil. Tonight, as the cartel
and its member countries concluded a meeting and said, this is what we
are going to do, the United States of America has no way of finding out
whether they have or have not. We do not know how much they are
producing, how much they are exporting. That may come as a shock to
you, but I can guarantee you what I am telling you is right. We don't
know.
Now isn't this something? We are now sending diplomats, such as my
friend and former colleague from New Mexico, to go over and kind of beg
these countries to consider our economy and worry about our future and
that we are in this together, we are bosom buddies, and we bailed you
out of a few wars; don't do us in so bad; put a little more oil on the
market so the price will go down. We don't know, unless they choose to
tell us, day by day how much they are putting in the market, how much
is being exported to the world communities. We sort of know how much
the world needs. Our chairman of the Energy Committee has reported over
and over again what that number is. But if you ask the person from the
energy agency of the United States, Do you know how much they put on
the market months ago?--give us the month and tell us how much--they
will tell you: We don't know. As a matter of fact, they will tell you
they lost 500 million barrels somewhere. I don't mean that it sank
underground in a big hole and depleted away; they just lost it in
transit, didn't know what happened to it.
I submit that we ought to worry about all the things you are talking
about, but we had better get our heads together and find out who we are
going to assign the responsibility of finding out how much of this
international oil is being put on the market. After all, we ought to
know. We are paying the money for it. Our future is dependent upon it.
If they cut down the spigot and we don't know for 6 or 7 months what
they did, shame on us, don't you think? We have to know that.
Mr. VOINOVICH. If the Senator will yield further. One of the concerns
I have is, what kind of promises have we made to these people in order
to get them to turn on the oil spigot? I just heard earlier today, for
example, that Iraq, who has been our enemy--
Mr. WARNER. And still is, I might add.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Still is. In consideration of their giving us more
oil, we are shipping them some technology they say they need in order
to produce more oil. This is an awful position for the United States of
America to be in, that we are at the mercy of someone who has been an
enemy of ours, whom we went to war against and lost American lives
over, and we are negotiating with them. It underscores how vulnerable
we are because of a lack of an energy policy.
(Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, this has been a great
concern to me in my responsibilities on the Armed Services Committee.
As the three of us are debating here in the spirit of the Senate, we
have aviators flying missions over Iraq, containing that nation from
further aggression, further human rights violations, possible further
aggression from the very members of the OPEC cartel to which the
distinguished Senator just referred having this meeting. They are
risking their lives. What are we asking Americans to risk their lives
for, at the same time we are sending spare parts to Iraq to increase
oil production?
I asked in the Armed Services Committee the other day what, if any,
commitments we made. I was assured by administration officials there
was none. Iraq came up here the other day
[[Page S1923]]
and committed to the world market 700,000 barrels as part of the 1.7,
which my distinguished colleague from New Mexico just addressed. Then,
at the same time, we have naval units in the Persian Gulf, right off
Saudi Arabia, off the Emirates, off Kuwait, right off the coast of
these nations, risking sailors' lives, and other nations have joined.
Great Britain is flying with us over Iraq. They are taking risks as
they try to enforce the embargo of the illegal export of oil from Iraq
which, I understand from one of our colleagues, is coming now into the
United States. How can we ask these young men and women flying these
missions to take the risk of life in the face of this flawed energy
policy?
I thank my colleagues. This has been a very good debate. I started
off solo, and little did I know I would have the support of my two
distinguished colleagues. I thank them both.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I conclude on this subject, after
which time I want to make a short speech about Ted Stevens, my friend
and everybody's friend here in the Senate, I want to talk about this
administration for a minute.
Nobody will deny that President Bill Clinton is about as articulate
and as smart a President as we have ever had. He can get on television
and tell us things, and people believe him. When in fact we are doing
things, it is good to have a President like that because people find
out what we are doing.
As I look back on this administration now, I used to say there are
two difficult things--because I am a budget man, a fiscal policy guy;
that is what I have been doing around here. I used to say there are two
major problems left for America. If we solve them, we have our fiscal
policy house in order like we never thought we would. We are going to
be on the path of surpluses, of low taxation, which is when America
does well, when we are taxed at low levels. That is one of the most
significant differences between our country and its business success
and production of jobs and employment and those who compete with us. We
tax business low, not high. We let business pay money to employees, not
to welfare programs. This is pretty exciting stuff.
One of the two things we never fixed is Medicare, which is in no
better shape today than when the President walked into the office. In
fact, it is closer to bankruptcy. No major reform. No prescription
drugs. I used to say that. Then I would say the other one that is major
is Social Security--this gigantic program that has taken so many
seniors out of poverty, and we all have to be proud of that. I used to
say, if this President would leave us a permanent solution to that, he
would leave a great legacy. But he has ignored the two big problems of
the country.
Tonight, as Senator Voinovich was on the floor talking, I was
reminded that there is a third problem America has that this President
has not touched, which is America's dependence on crude oil from
foreign countries to operate our cars and use in our daily lives,
almost to the point that we could not survive without it. What has
happened? Growing dependency. It used to be that I thought when we got
to 50 percent, I would join Senator Bentsen, or someone, on the floor
saying put a program out. The prediction is that we will be at 65-
percent dependency in the next 10, 15 years.
It is not so important that we are 65-percent dependent, but when you
are that dependent, if somebody decides to cut your supply by just a
million or two out of the 65, the prices go up. That is what is
happening right now. The world needs X amount, and they are producing
about X minus 2.5 or 2.7 million barrels a day. Look at what happens to
the prices.
So we became vulnerable during this administration, which kind of
happily moved along saying: Isn't it neat? We have cheap oil, and it's
feeding this magnificent economic growth, and, boy, aren't we on the
gravy train?
Tonight, we are talking about the fact that that is not a gravy
train. We are really in big trouble as the world's most powerful
nation, and not a constructive thing has happened, unless one concludes
it is constructive to have Secretary Richardson going to all these
nations--some of them twice, some three times, I assume--urging that
they can't hurt their friend America by continuing to underproduce oil.
We have to produce more so the price will come down. That can't be an
energy policy--to go out to those big countries and rely on your
friendship to get some relief; that is not an energy policy.
How can we, as a great nation, say to our children and grandchildren:
That is the legacy we are leaving you? Boy, we hope we have a great
Secretary of State and a great Secretary of Energy in about 8 or 10
years, so they can meander around the world and know all these leaders
and go there and have dinner with them and talk about being their great
friends. What if it turns out that in a few years they are up to here
with us?
Some are already saying it. We have been so inconsistent with Kuwait,
our business friend, that they are asking publicly: What is it America
wants of us?
They have been trying to be helpful. We saved them. Incidentally,
while we saved them, they paid an awful price in terms of dollars to
pay for that war. America didn't pay much for that war. Between Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Japan, and others, they paid almost every penny for the
cost of that war. It was the slickest thing you ever saw. I was sitting
with the man who worked with the President and who set all of it out in
a formula for how these countries would pay. They paid it. We were
thrilled to have those countries go out and pay for that war. They paid
for it. They went into hock and mortgage to pay for it.
They are wondering: What do you want of us, America? We are trying to
do everything you are asking of us. But we don't know what to do.
That is pretty tough stuff to come from one little country. It is
little. But for a small country, it has more barrels of oil under each
square piece of its earth than any other similar piece of soil in the
world. That is Kuwait. It is small but hugely laden with oil supplies.
I am delighted that the gas tax pumps Senator Voinovich up enough to
come to the floor and not only talk about that gasoline tax which pays
for our highways. No matter what it was for when it was passed, it is
now in our highway trust fund. It is part of the formula that we used.
I will tell you, if you temporarily repeal it for 1 year, it will not
hurt the allocations for the year 2001. Everybody will get what they
currently plan on getting. But that means we have to eventually put the
money back in.
We are running around talking about trying to pay for future military
needs and trying to take care of some new Medicare needs, if we can get
reform, and, frankly, we ought not to be cavalierly talking about these
billions that we are going to have to take out of the general fund.
I want to say for the record so everybody will know when they hear
about their gasoline tax that the rule of thumb is for every penny of
tax for roads and the like, the U.S. Government gets $1 billion. That
is a pretty rough calculus. If it is 4.3, it is about $4.3 billion. If
it is 18 cents that is repealed temporarily, or otherwise, it is about
$18 billion. That is per annum, per year. The rule of thumb still
applies. It applied a few years ago. Nobody has changed it, to my
knowledge right now. It might change as the price goes up. We may see
some change. But I don't think so because these are not percentages.
They are pennies per gallon.
____________________