[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.

                          ____________________