[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1968-S1970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GAS TAX REPEAL ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The Senate resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today's fuel prices are a daily reminder
that America is now at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations.
However, before you blame your neighbor's SUV, your local fuel
distributors, the oil companies, the automakers, or any of the other
usual scapegoats, consider this fact--America is one of the leading
energy producing countries in the world. This country has the
technology, alternative resources and enough oil to be much more self-
sufficient. America does not have to revert back to the practices of
the 1970s.
This country is faced with a very serious problem. Our nation's
farmers and truckers are being hit the hardest--simply because of this
Administration's lack of energy policy. In fact, Secretary Richardson
recently admitted that this Administration was caught napping when
energy prices began to rise. As a result, U.S. crude oil production is
down 17 percent since 1993, and consumption is up 14%. America now
imports 56% of the oil consumed--compared to 36% imported at the time
of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At this rate the DOE predicts America
will be at least 65% dependent on foreign oil by 2020.
This Administration has close ties to radical environmentalists--
environmentalists whose strong rhetoric and drastic actions appear more
like a new-age religion than a clarion call for good stewardship. It
appears that the White House has spent eight years trying to slowly
kill our oil, coal, natural gas and even our hydroelectric industries.
The Administration began this process in 1993 with an effort to
impose a $73 billion five-year energy tax to force the American people
away from the use of automobiles and American industries away from
their primary energy sources. The Clinton/Gore EPA is still attempting
to shut down coal-fired electric generating plants in the South and
Midwest. Meanwhile, the Administration is providing no offsets to this.
In fact, they have done nothing to increase the availability of
domestic natural gas, which is the clean alternative for coal in
electric plants. Federal land out West is expected to contain as much
as 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but the Administration
refuses to allow drilling. Similarly, the Administration will not allow
exploration on federal land in Alaska, which is estimated to contain 16
billion barrels of domestic crude oil.
None of these facts should be surprising. Vice President Gore has
vowed to prohibit future exploration for oil or natural gas on our
outer-continental-shelf. He has bluntly stated that the internal
combustion engine--the very mechanism which drove America's industrial
development and led to the creation of our middle class--is a threat.
Maybe that's why he embraces the Kyoto Protocol which would impose
staggering consumption restrictions on our economy, while exempting
other countries. This treaty is so bad that my colleagues from Gore's
own party joined the Senate leadership in voting against it 95 to zero.
Al Gore may not depend on the internal combustion engine for his
livelihood, but a lot of folks beyond the Washington beltway do.
There has to be a solution to this problem. Even without tapping all
of America's resources, this country still produces almost half of her
fuel needs--far more than most industrial countries. In the long run, a
national energy policy that looks at all realistic alternative sources
of energy must be developed. Congress must also provide incentives for
independent producers to keep their wells pumping. Tax credits for
marginal wells will restore our link to existing oil resources,
including many in Mississippi. These solutions will be needed someday
soon.
In the short term, Congress can reduce or temporarily suspend federal
fuel taxes, which, along with state excise taxes, account for an
average of 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. This would include the
``Gore Fuel Tax'' ram-rodded by the President back in 1993 in a
decision so close that Al Gore headed to Capitol Hill to cast the tie-
breaking vote. Yes, the Vice-President is the very reason the 4.3 cent
gas tax was implemented. Now, as the Administration continues to do
nothing to remedy this crisis, the Congress can make a difference.
Repealing the Gore Gas Tax immediately, and providing a complete
federal fuels tax holiday if prices reach a nationwide average of
$2.00, will provide real relief for American consumers at the pump.
This can be done for the remainder of this year without touching one
cent of the Highway Trust Fund, Social Security, or Medicare. This is a
real solution to a very real problem.
This reflects the leadership of a number of our colleagues on this
important issue. One provision to suspend the diesel fuel tax has been
championed by the senior Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse
Campbell. A trucker himself, Senator Campbell has led the way on ways
to assist truckers and their families who are suffering from the rising
price of diesel fuel. He has met with the truckers who have traveled
great distances to Washington to make their voices heard. Senator
Campbell's unique insights and personal experiences have been helpful
to the leadership in crafting this comprehensive gas tax bill.
This is not the 1970s. America has better technology, more efficient
and cleaner automobiles as well as more energy options. The question
is: how long will we hold these options and be held hostage to nations
abroad or radical environmentalists at home? America can solve her
energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of our entire
nation, rather than a select few.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to explain the procedural
situation we are in with regard to the motion to proceed on the so-
called gas tax repeal. I could not be more strongly in opposition to
the repeal of the gas tax because of its potential to devastate our
highway and transit programs.
Nevertheless, I intend to support the motion to proceed this
afternoon and I urge my colleagues on this side to do so for a couple
of reasons.
First of all, it seems to me this ought to be a debate that we have
early next week. I think there are a lot of very important questions
that ought to be raised about the advisability of the repeal of the gas
tax. I think Governors and those from industries that are involved in
the construction of our infrastructure this year ought to have the
opportunity to be heard.
I will read for my colleagues some of the comments made by my
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle with regard to the gas
tax. I think they ought to be heard, as well.
Let me quote from Speaker Dennis Hastert, who on March 26, said:
But the problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. .
.that's just a little tick in what the cost of gas is. We
need to solve the real problems out there.
So said the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The House Transportation Committee chairman, Bud Shuster said:
Repeal of the fuel tax is the wrong way to go. [It's]
counterproductive because reducing a portion of the price
without reducing the underlying cost of crude oil makes it
easier for OPEC countries to keep prices high.
So says the chairman, the Republican chairman of the House
Transportation Committee.
Here is what the House majority leader, Dick Armey said:
Let's not get bogged down on only one dimension of the
problem--a short-term dimension that offers scant relief.
Even if we repealed, that it would give little relief to
consumers.
Here is what my colleague, the very respected and distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner said:
Repealing the 4.3 cents will have little or no impact on
the price of fuel. It will, however, severely limit all of
our States' abilities to make needed surface transportation
improvements.
Here is what our colleague, Senator George Voinovich, said on March
24:
Even with this repeal, there is no guarantee it is going to
bring down the cost at the pump. It defies common sense.
Here is what the GOP conference chair, J.C. Watts, said in the House
of Representatives on March 19:
[[Page S1969]]
I don't know if the tax has any affect on fuel tax. Supply
and demand is driving price right now.
Finally, here is what Congressman Don Young said. He gets the award
for the bluntest assessment of the advisability of this particular
legislation.
Absolutely the dumbest thing ever thought of.
This ought to be debated. We ought to have a good discussion about
its advisability. This is one of those rare occasions when I happen to
be on the same side as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
majority leader on the House of Representatives, the conference chair
on the House of Representatives, Congressman Young from the House of
Representatives, and some of my distinguished colleagues here in the
Senate.
We ought to debate it. It ought to be amended. We don't oftentimes
have a vehicle that could be offered that will allow an opportunity to
debate energy and tax policy such as this. I am hoping we can offer
amendments to this bill and we would expect we would have the
opportunity to do so. This is one of those rare occasions when many of
our colleagues share the view expressed so powerfully and eloquently by
our Republican colleagues.
I am not giving the credit they deserve to my Democratic colleagues
on the House side. I could come up with at least as long a list on that
side.
We look forward to this debate. We are certainly not going to object
at all to having the motion to proceed presented to us this afternoon.
We just want to get to the bill and have this debate. That is my
reason for supporting the motion to proceed, to have a good debate, to
ensure the American people know what the implications of this
particular vote will be and the unusual coalition that has already been
created in opposition to this repeal. I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is not often that so many of my
colleagues come to the Senate floor in opposition to lowering a tax.
They do so and I join them today for good reason. The legislation to
repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline is a wolf in
sheep's clothing.
In fact, several members on the other side of the aisle from House
Majority Leader Dick Armey and Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, to
House Transportation Chairman Shuster are opposed to this measure. The
National Governors Association has voiced its adamant opposition, as
well.
The proposal, S. 2285, is fiscally irresponsible and will not lead to
lower gasoline prices for consumers. This measure could cause the state
of Connecticut to lose more than $280 million to highway funds for FY
2002 and 2003, in addition to hundreds of lost jobs as highway projects
are put on hold or shelved indefinitely. Congress made a commitment to
help states like Connecticut repair and maintain our highways and it
should not break that commitment.
Supporters of this legislation say they would tap the non-Social
Security surplus to replace the lost tax revenues created by their
proposal. That is a mistake. We should be directing the surplus to debt
reduction, ensuring the solvency of Social Security, prescription
drugs, targeted tax cuts and investments in education and the
environment.
The likelihood that any reduction in the Federal gasoline tax will
reach consumers is unlikely. The tax is not imposed at the pump, but
rather shortly after the gasoline leaves the refinery. The gasoline
could pass through several other entities before it reaches the pump
and none of the middlemen would have to pass on the savings. The
legislation contains only a Sense of Congress that any benefits of the
tax be passed on to consumers. Past experience in Connecticut has shown
that decreases in a fuel tax have not been passed on to motorists. In
1997, gas prices shot up 11 cents in August despite a 3-cent cut in the
state gasoline tax that took effect on July 1.
Finally, it is worth noting that several states, including Arkansas,
Nevada, Oklahoma, California, and Tennessee, have laws that mandate an
increase in state gasoline taxes if the Federal rate decreases.
Obviously, a state's legislature can act to change its laws. But these
laws only underscore the complexity of gas pricing which the bill
before us does not.
The cut could be another 18.3 cents per gallon for gasoline and more
for other oil-based fuels. The gasoline tax is dedicated revenue that
we use to maintain our highways. The loss of funds for highway
improvements and mass transit, the loss of jobs and the uncertainty--if
not unlikelihood--that a gas tax reduction would result in lower gas
prices--make this bill unsound and unwise.
We all want to bring down the price of gasoline. Let's take
responsible steps to move in that direction. I commend the
administration for getting a commitment from the OPEC nations to
increase production. In addition, the administration has also proposed
tax credits for energy-efficient homes and energy-efficient cars,
funding for the development of clean and renewable energy and the
enactment of tax proposals to promote the use of alternative energy
sources.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the motion to
proceed to invoke cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act
of 2000, a bill introduced by Senator Lott which I have been pleased to
cosponsor.
This legislation will repeal, until the end of this year, the 4.3
cent-per-gallon increase to the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel,
kerosene, and aviation fuel added by the Clinton Administration in
1993.
Also, our legislation is set up so that should the national average
for regular unleaded gasoline prices breach the $2 mark, it would also
repeal, until the end of the year, the 18.3 cent-per-gallon federal
gasoline tax; the 24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on highway diesel
fuel and kerosene; the 4.3 cents per-gallon railroad diesel fuel; the
24.3 cent-per-gallon excise tax on inland waterway fuel; the 19.3 cent-
per-gallon for noncommercial aviation gasoline; the 21.8 cent-per-
gallon for noncommercial jet fuel; and 4.3 cents-per-gallon for
commercial aviation fuel.
This will provide the nation with a vital ``circuit breaker'' in the
midst of the very real possibility of skyrocketing fuel costs as
America takes to the road this summer--and the legislation ensures that
any savings will truly be passed on to consumers and not pocketed
before customers can benefit from the savings at the pump.
Some of my colleagues say this will not amount to enough savings for
the consumers to even care about. Well, I guess my constituents in
Maine are more thrifty than others, especially after a winter of paying
the highest prices in decades for both home heating oil and high gas
prices at the pump.
At the same time, it allows reimbursement of the Highway Trust Fund,
which is financed by the gasoline tax, and the Airport and Airways
Trust Fund, financed by the aviation fuel tax. Both these funds are
held completely harmless, with any lost revenues to be replaced from
the budget surplus. No one should have any concerns about the impact
this bill would have on the progress of important highway and airport
projects because the impact would be zero.
This legislation takes a concrete step toward more reasonable fuel
prices, helping to serve as a buffer for consumers who are already
reeling from the high cost of gasoline and other fuels. Of course, I
hope the provisions for temporary repeal of the full tax will not be
necessary. But if they are, they will provide immediate relief to
taxpayers and ensure that, if prices are skyrocketing, any savings in
fuel costs will be passed on to consumers.
The retail price we pay for refined petroleum products for gasoline,
diesel fuel, and home heating oil, for instance, substantially depends
upon the cost of crude oil to refiners. We have seen a barrel of crude
oil climb to over $35.00 recently from a price of $10.50 in February of
1999. That is a 145 percent increase. And while OPEC agreed this week
to only very modest increases in crude oil production, White House
officials say that the cost of gasoline at the pump will now decline in
the coming months, even though their own Economic Advisor Gene Sperling
was quoted in the Washington Post on March 29, as warning that ``there
is still significant and inherent uncertainty in the oil market,
particularly with such low inventories, and we will continue to monitor
the situation very closely''.
Mr. President, while the Administration has ``monitored'' the
situation, crude oil prices have gone up and up,
[[Page S1970]]
and our inventories went down. As a matter of fact, the Administration
admits that it was ``caught napping'' after OPEC decided to decrease
production in March of 1999--and while they napped through a long
winter's sleep, prices for crude climbed as temperatures plummeted.
The effect on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil was predictable,
and in fact was predicted. Last October--a half a year ago--the
Department of Energy, in its 1999-2000 Winter Fuels Outlook, projected
a 44 percent increase in home heating oil bills. In a severe winter,
the agency estimated, an additional 28 percent increase in costs could
be felt for residential customers.
In other words, the Department of Energy itself predicted an increase
of over 70 percent, but did nothing. In actuality, home heating oil
costs jumped from a fairly consistent national of 86 cents per gallon
in the winter of 1998-99 to as high as $2.08 per gallon in Maine early
last month--an increase of well over 100 percent. And, in that same
time frame, conventional gasoline prices have risen 70 percent or
higher.
So now the Administration tells us that gasoline prices will most
likely go down by this summer because of the small production increases
agreed to by OPEC. Well, even with an increase in OPEC quotas, there
will still be a shortfall in meeting worldwide demand for crude oil.
Approximately 76.3 million barrels per day are needed to meet demand,
but the anticipated new OPEC production is estimated to be only 75.3
million barrels per day. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little
hesitant accepting estimates from an Administration that seems to make
predictions by gazing into a crystal ball. I want to at least make sure
that Americans have in their pockets what they would have otherwise
paid in fuel taxes if the Administration underestimates prices once
again and gasoline hits $2.00 a gallon.
Beyond the pump, consumers are getting hit with extra costs directly
attributable to high fuel costs. If you've paid to send an overnight
package lately, you probably noted that you were charged a fuel fee,
because their cost of diesel fuel has increased by about 60 percent
over the past year. And with a 150 percent increase in jet fuel, that
airline ticket you buy today will probably include something you've
never seen before--a fuel charge of $20.00. How long will it be before
costs of other products will also be passed on the consumer?
And, consider the impacts to the nations' farmers. The New York Times
reported just this past Wednesday that a farmer paying 40 cents a
gallon more this year to fuel his diesel tractors and combines is
adding as much as $240 a day to his harvesting costs. In my home state
of Maine, we are at the peak season for moving last year's potato crop
out of storage and to the large Eastern markets. But the industry can't
get truckers to come into the State to move the potatoes because they
are discouraged by the particularly high price of diesel in Maine.
The only help the potato industry has had recently in getting their
product to market has certainly not been due to the energy policy of
this Administration, but to local truckers who have turned to hauling
potatoes because the recent wet weather has kept them away from taking
timber out of the Maine woods.
Soon, we will enter the summer months, when tourism is particularly
important to the economy of New England and to Maine in particular.
With gas prices climbing even higher, we need relief now, and that's
what this bill provides.
Mr. President, the choices are clear--do nothing for the taxpayers
who are being gouged by failed energy policies, or do something by
supporting legislation that acts as a circuit breaker that gives
citizens a break at the gas pump, protects the Trust Funds that build
our highways and airports, I urge my colleagues to support this bill
and I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to the Gas Tax Repeal Act, S. 2285:
Trent Lott, Frank H. Murkowski, Paul Coverdell, Conrad
Burns, Larry E. Craig, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Orrin
Hatch, Rod Grams, Susan Collins, Robert F. Bennett,
Chuck Grassley, Mike Inhofe, Don Nickles, Sam
Brownback, and Richard G. Lugar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to the Gas Tax Repeal Act, S. 2285, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--11
Baucus
Bond
Byrd
Enzi
Feinstein
Harkin
Lincoln
Robb
Roberts
Thomas
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Domenici
Inhofe
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 86, the nays are
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
____________________