[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.

                          ____________________