[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1944-S1946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FUELS TAX REDUCTION

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 2285--a bill 
that is so flawed I can't believe the majority wants to end debate on 
it before the debate has even begun, with no committee hearings, no 
floor debate, no bipartisan discussion over something as important as 
the tax base for our highway and transportation infrastructure needs. 
This is literally an ``Our Way or the Highway'' bill, and I will choose 
the highway.
  As a southerner, I represent a large number of farmers and about 
1,600 independent trucking firms. Eleven hundred of those firms are 
one-truck operators; 250 operate 10 or fewer trucks. I've got at least 
seven of the largest trucking firms in the Nation based in my State, as 
well as the world's largest retailer, which operates about 4,000 
trucks, and one of the largest food processors which operates about 
1,500. I am opposed to S. 2285 and should I have the opportunity, I 
will vote against it.

[[Page S1945]]

  First of all, none of the truckers or farmers that operate in my 
State would receive any benefits from the bill being discussed today, 
or any of the other bills that are based on a reduction in Federal 
excise taxes.
  They are calling this proposal the ``federal fuels tax holiday'' I 
can tell the Senate that if this bill passes, we won't be celebrating 
in Arkansas.
  A key point that must have been overlooked by the authors of this 
bill is that some States like Arkansas, any reductions in Federal fuel 
excise taxes automatically require a penny-for-penny increase in the 
State fuel excise tax.
  If we could have had committee hearings on this bill, perhaps the 
entire body might know that my State, along with Oklahoma, Nevada, 
Tennessee, and California all have provisions that will in some way 
negate any decrease in the Federal tax by increasing the state tax.
  Many States use the funds they receive from the Federal Government 
transportation formulas to issue bonded debt. They depend on the gas 
tax to pay for these bonds and to fund their transportation needs.
  Smartly, many of the States recognized that you can't always rely on 
the promises you get from Washington. I am glad that the State 
legislators of my State had the wisdom and the foresight to anticipate 
ill-conceived notions by Congress such as the bill before us today that 
would put our highway and transit programs at risk.
  Further, even in those States that would not automatically increase 
excise taxes, there is no guarantee that the consumers would see a 
price decrease at the pump. These taxes are charged at the wholesale 
level.
  The only thing this bill offers is a ``sense-of-the-Congress'' clause 
that says to the big business: ``Here you go, have a huge tax decrease; 
by the way, we sure hope you guys will pass it on.''
  Further, there is no credit in the bill for retail stocks. That means 
that even if this tax reduction were to pass both Houses and make it 
past the President with lightening speed, the gas in retail inventories 
would still be priced with the tax. There is no telling how long it 
would take for the fuel that wasn't taxed to finally make it to 
consumers.
  One last thing about cutting the Federal excise taxes on fuels: these 
are the dollars that go into our highway trust fund. I know that this 
bill has some statutory hocus-pocus that takes the money out of general 
revenues, but are we really protecting the highway trust fund, and 
Social Security by hopping from trust fund to trust fund until we find 
one that the voters aren't watching?
  They say this bill is paid for out of the ``on-budget'' surplus. I 
ask, where is that? We don't even have a budget resolution, let alone a 
surplus. I think we should make sure that a surplus exists before 
deciding to spend it. The bottom line is this bill isn't paid for and 
the money is simply going to come out of debt reduction, education, and 
out of Medicare reform dollars that are so needed in the country.
  I have spoken with the truckers in my state and they have told me 
that they need help. And I want to help them in a way that is 
reasonable and will actually reach them. But the way this bill is 
structured no relief will make it to them. If we really want to help 
truckers and consumers effectively then we should have a package that 
helps them right now and through the end of the fiscal year.
  In the very short term, we should consider a suspension of the heavy 
vehicle use tax that is due on every big rig. This tax break would go 
directly to the people in need, and it would have a very quick impact.
  This tax is due on July 1, but it can be paid quarterly. Suspending 
the heavy vehicle use tax would equal about $550.00 in relief for every 
truck on the road, and we wouldn't have to wait for the effects of 
market pricing to see relief at the consumer level.
  Also, we should consider low-or no-interest loans to help small 
business men and women make it through this price spike. In the 
intermediate months, truckers, and producers who have been pushed to 
the edge could find help in load assistance until oil prices come down.
  Finally, we should consider end-of-the-year formula tax credits that 
would go directly to the consumers and could be directly tied to oil 
prices which, as I speak, are dropping.
  We are all aware of the recent announcements that have been made by 
the oil exporting countries. Prices are falling and the price spike is 
coming down. While we all want to ensure that the high prices we have 
had will not drive small business people into bankruptcy, our relief 
package should be flexible enough to take falling prices into account.
  Beyond the rash and reckless way that we have come to consider this 
bill, and beyond the abomination that it is, there remains the 
underlying issue of our nation's energy policy. This knee-jerk bill is 
a reaction to a host of problems and just because oil prices are 
starting to come down we should not let this issue fall to the wayside.
  There is no excuse for the lack of a comprehensive energy policy that 
we suffer from in this country. The roller coaster ups and downs of oil 
prices in 1999 and 2000 are evidence that we have been completely 
reactive to market forces and have not established stable, long-term 
energy policies.
  It is obvious that no immediate, cost-effective government action 
could eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil entirely, but there are 
things that we should be doing to help reduce our dependence on oil as 
an energy source.
  To help lessen the economic shocks that oil price spikes have 
created, we should couple short term relief provisions such as the ones 
I have spoken about with smart, stable, long-term, energy policies.
  Through the use of petroleum supply enhancements such as energy 
conservation, use of renewables, and expanded U.S. production we could 
lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We must provide incentives to try 
to bring ourselves away from dependence on oil in general. We must set 
out a course to promote oil production at home, to promote the use of 
renewable sources of energy, and to promote the more efficient and 
cleaner uses of the fossil fuels we are still using.
  Mr. President, many of us in this body have been pushing for expanded 
uses of renewables for quite some time and we will continue to do so. 
This spike in fuel prices demonstrates that we need to shift our 
emphasis from research to the practical use and application of 
renewable sources of energy.
  Simply put, Mr. President, this knee-jerk reaction to high oil prices 
represents a reckless abandonment of the priorities we brought to the 
Congress last year--Social Security, Medicare, paying down our national 
debt, and educating our children.
  I want to do whatever I can to help my constituents who are dependent 
on diesel for their livelihoods, but if we adopt measures to eliminate, 
albeit temporarily, gas taxes, we will not get the help to those who 
need it.
  When a core business segment of this nation is under duress we should 
address that segment directly. We must get the help to the ground where 
it is needed. In our present situation, we should be pursuing targeted 
assistance in the forms of loan assistance, grants, and reasonable tax 
measures that actually get to the level of the consumer who need it the 
most.
  We can't afford to jeopardize funding for our roads, the stability of 
Social Security and Medicare, or the long-term goal of paying down our 
enormous debt. This bill would do just that, Mr. President, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the ``fuel tax holiday'' bill before the party 
gets out of hand, to ensure our roads will be funded and, more 
importantly, that we go about it in a reasonable way and get relief to 
the individuals who need it the most.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas, and I 
hope that other Senators pay close attention to her and her very 
persuasive remarks as to why legislation that will potentially come up 
in this body to repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax is a bad idea.
  The long and short of it, as the Senator said, is that the reason for 
the high gasoline prices is basically OPEC. OPEC made an announcement 
which will have the effect of lowering gas prices. I think the 4.3-cent 
tax is a phantom reduction. There will not be lower prices as a 
consequence of the

[[Page S1946]]

proposal. I think the refineries will keep it and they won't pass it 
on. There are a whole host of reasons. The main point that is worth 
considering is that we labored mightily in this body and in the other 
body a couple years ago to pass a very significant highway program; we 
called it TEA 21. Was that significant? It said that for the first time 
all of the Federal gas taxes were going to the highway trust fund, and 
the highway trust fund would be used only for highways. It was a 
commitment: People who drive cars and trucks in our country and pay the 
Federal gas tax or diesel tax will know that tax is going to the 
highway trust fund and it should stay in the trust fund, with the trust 
fund dollars to be allocated among the States to build and repair our 
highways. That was it. It was that simple.
  So if the bill that may come before this body, which the Senator was 
addressing, were to be enacted, it would break that trust, break that 
commitment. It would open up the highway trust fund to potentially any 
purpose. It would just be the camel's nose under the tent. It would be 
the first step down the slippery slope of taking trust fund money and 
using it for other purposes. Why do I say that? Because part of the 
amendment is to say, OK, let's replenish it with general revenue. We 
all know ``general revenue'' is a slippery slope around here. We don't 
know how much general revenue there is going to be; therefore, the 
solidarity of the dollars going into the trust fund and dollars coming 
out of the trust fund to pay for highway modernization and new highways 
has to be kept sacrosanct. I hope the Senate rejects the position to 
repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax. It is a bad idea.

                          ____________________