[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 44 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2456-S2458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY OF THE YEAR 2000
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am very pleased today to join with
the majority leader, Senator Lott, Senator Craig, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, and a number of Senators on a very important piece of
legislation that is before this body, entitled ``The Federal Fuels Tax
Holiday of the Year 2000.''
This legislation is necessary because it will put a brake on the
ever-rising gasoline prices that American families face every day.
Unlike the airlines, the American family can't pass on the increased
price in gasoline. Recently, the truckers came to Washington to express
their concerns about the gas tax.
Energy and the cost of energy affects all of us in our lives in
varying ways. So the idea of putting the brake on the ever-increasing
gasoline prices that American families pay each day is very important.
It is my hope that we invoke cloture tomorrow to ensure that the
American motorist and workers get a break.
Our legislation provides a tax holiday for all Americans, from the
gas tax, that Democrats, with Vice President Gore casting the deciding
vote, adopted in 1993. That 30 percent gas tax hike was the centerpiece
of one of the largest tax increases in American history and we believe
with gas prices approaching $2 a gallon in some parts of the country,
the American motorist should not have to continue paying the Gore tax.
I don't know if all my colleagues on the other side would agree with
that nomenclature, but I think it is appropriate since the Vice
President broke the tie which added a 30-percent gas hike.
In addition to temporarily ending the Clinton/Gore gas tax, our
legislation guarantees that if the failed Clinton/Gore energy policies
result in the price of gasoline rising over $2 a gallon, all fuel taxes
will be lifted until the end of the year.
That means the American motorist will be relieved of the 18.4-cent-
per-gallon gas tax. The trucking industry will not have to pay the
24.4-cent-per-gallon diesel tax. Barge operators will be relieved of
the 4.4-cent-per-gallon inland waterway tax, and commercial and
noncommercial aircraft operators will be relieved of the aviation tax.
It is certainly my hope that average gasoline prices do not rise
above $2. But it is clear to me that $2 gasoline is well within the
probability of becoming a reality because despite the administration's
claims of victory about last week's OPEC meeting, Americans should not
expect much, if any, of a price decline at the gas pump. Why? Let's
look at it.
OPEC's decision to increase production by 1.7 million barrels per day
is not, in my opinion, even a hollow victory for the Administration's,
which lobbied for a minimum increase of 2.5 million barrels. The
reality is that there isn't a real 1.7-million-barrel increase by OPEC.
Why do I say that? Let's look at the arithmetic.
OPEC agreed last year to 23 million barrels as their quota of
production. They cheated by an additional 1.2 barrels, moving it up to
24.2. As a consequence, the difference between 1.2 and what they said
we got as an increase of 1.7 is only 500,000 barrels of real increase.
OPEC makes up 15.8 percent of American imports. As a result, we will be
lucky to see another 78,000 barrels of oil in our market.
Will 78,000 barrels make a dent in gasoline prices? Not likely.
Consider that motorists in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area use
more than 121,000 barrels of oil in a single day.
With no relief in sight for the American motorist, we believe that
the Gore fuel tax should be temporarily lifted. That would save
American motorists about 4.4 barrels over the next 8 months.
If gasoline goes above $2, our bill suspends all fuel taxes resulting
in a $19 billion saving to American motorists, truckers, barge
operators, and airlines at the same time that fuel prices are near an
all-time high. I believe the Government should suspend those taxes and
ease the financial burden OPEC has placed on the American motorist and
the industries that rely on fuel to move goods throughout this country.
I know some are concerned, if we suspend these taxes, that the
highway trust fund, which finances roads, bridges, and mass transit,
could be in danger. Again, I would like to put that fear to rest.
Our legislation ensures that the Highway Trust Fund will not lose a
single penny during this tax holiday. We require that all monies that
would have gone into the fund had the taxes not been suspended be
replaced by other Federal revenue. That could come from the on-budget
surplus, as I have indicated, or from what I would like to see, which
is a reduction of wasteful Federal spending.
I can assure the American motorist that highway construction projects
[[Page S2457]]
this year and next year will be unaffected by the tax holiday that we
are proposing. And when the trust fund is fully restored, all projects
scheduled for beyond 2002 will be completed.
Some of the colleagues believe it is a mistake to establish a
precedent wherein general revenues are used to finance highway
construction. Ordinarily, I might agree with them, but not in this
case.
All of my colleagues should remember that when the Clinton/Gore 4.3-
cent gasoline tax was adopted in 1993, not a single penny of that tax
was dedicated to highway or bridge construction. All the money was
earmarked for Federal spending.
As I stated earlier, it was not until the Republicans adopted the
1997 highway bill that we shifted the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax back to
the highway trust fund.
Further, as I have indicated, Americans have paid $42 billion since
the Gore tax went into effect. Of that $42 billion, $28 billion was
spent not on highways but on general government and went into the
general fund.
Let me repeat that. Of the $42 billion Americans paid under the Gore
tax, $28 billion was spent not on highways but on general government.
I believe under these circumstances that it is perfectly reasonable
for general revenues to be used to repay the trust fund money that
should have been spent on highways.
The question before the Senate today is very simple. Do Senators want
to give American motorists a break at the gas pump when gas prices are
at near record highs?
I think it is important for everybody to understand that we are the
elected representatives of the people. What is their choice? Do the
people want to have relief from the gas tax? Is that their priority?
We have polling information that I will submit for the Record that
indicates overwhelming support for relief at the gas pump. I think the
polling clearly shows that the American public, when offered an
opportunity to reduce taxes, would much rather take it and run.
A Gallup Poll released last week found that although Americans think
high prices are only temporary, they believe several things should be
done to reduce taxes.
Eighty percent of the American people--I hope my colleagues and staff
are listening and will take notes--favor lowering gas taxes. Seventy-
four percent--nearly three out of every four Americans--think that a
temporary reduction of the gas tax is a worthy solution. That is three
out of four.
Think about that. Seventy-four percent of Americans think a temporary
reduction in the gas tax is a worthy solution.
Think about where we are and what the administration is telling us.
First of all, since I have been speaking about policies of the
administration and the position of our Vice President, I want to refer
to an article that appeared on October 23, 1999, in the State Times
Morning Advocate at Baton Rouge, LA. The Vice President says he would
be more antidrilling than other Presidents. More anti-drilling? Let me
read the quote.
``I will take the most sweeping steps in our history to protect our
oceans and coastal waters from offshore oil drilling,'' he said in a
press release. ``I will make sure that there will be no new oil leasing
off the Keys of California and Florida, and then I will go much
further. I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is no
new drilling off these sensitive areas, even in areas leased by
previous administrations.''
He would cancel contracts and leases out there that were made by
previous administrations.
(Mr. CRAIG assumed the Chair.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. He further states: Existing leases and what oil and
natural gas companies could do with them already are the objects of
long-running legal disputes.
He says he would cancel leases in areas already leased by previous
administrations.
These are existing leases; where is the sanctity of a contractual
commitment? I believe if Florida and California don't want OCS
activities off their coast, that is fine; that should prevail if that
is what people want. In Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and my
State of Alaska, where we produce roughly 22 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the United States, these States should go ahead because
they want this. They recognize the alternative is not very pleasant--
and that is to import more oil.
I leave Members with the very ambiguous reference this administration
has given, suggesting things will get better. There is a certain
psychology in reassuring citizens that the price will come down.
However, in reality, the consumption is up, production is down, we are
56-percent dependent on imports, and the forecast is we will be 65
percent in the year 2015 or thereabouts. These are hardly reassuring
notes, taken verbatim from this administration, to suggest things will
get better.
In conclusion, from the CBS ``Early Show'' on March 29, 2000, from
Secretary Richards, the Secretary was being questioned on his view of
whether we could likely see some relief. He states as follows: This
means for the American consumer, gasoline prices will gradually and
steadily decline, according to the Energy Information Administration
and my Department, by as much as 11 cents by the end of September or
the end of summer.
That is quite a while. What do we do in the meantime?
Then he says: The bottom line is, I am just quoting our investigators
and our official people who are saying 11 cents by the end of summer,
possibly 15, 16 cents by the end of the year.
That is an indefinite forecast, in my opinion.
I appeal to the Chair to recognize that we can't believe the
Secretary that the price is coming down. Every Member should support
this legislation because it will keep the pressure on the
administration to ensure it stays below $2 and this tax holiday won't
be a reality. It will give the American consumer a safety net. Think
about that.
The administration says: Don't worry, prices are on the decline. OK,
if prices are on the decline--which I don't believe they are in the
short term or the long term, but we will see who is right or wrong--we
go ahead and pass the elimination of the 18.4-cent-gallon Federal tax,
suspend it for the balance of the year, if the price goes to $2 a
gallon for regular. That is a balance that puts the administration on
notice to practice what they preach. If they preach the prices are
coming down, this will never happen anyway. We are giving the American
consumer a safety net. That safety net is real and it says if the price
goes up to $2 the 18.4 comes off. I think that is a fair balance.
I will show this chart one more time. I find it outrageous. Who do we
look to for imports? We look to Saddam Hussein and Iraq: Last year
300,000; now it is 700,000 barrels a day.
Where does the money go? It is going to Saddam Hussein. We fought a
war over there--remember--in 1991. We lost the lives of 147 U.S. men
and women. We fought a war to keep Saddam out of Kuwait. What did
Saddam do when he lost the war?
Talk about environmental degradation. This is a picture of Kuwait
with the oil fields on fire. We see the fires in the background. Here
is an American with the firefighters helping put that fire out. That is
the kind of guy we are dealing with to depend on imports. We had 23
soldiers taken prisoner over there. It has cost the American taxpayer
$10 billion since the war in 1991 to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in
enforcing the no-fly zones. Within the last week, we did two bombing
runs in Iraq because he was in violation of the no-fly zone, and we had
antiaircraft action.
Isn't it incredible? We talk about foreign policy or energy policy of
this administration, and we are feeding Saddam Hussein millions and
millions of dollars so he can take that cash-flow and pay his
Republican Guards who keep him alive. He doesn't funnel that into his
economic system for the benefit of his people. He is in cahoots with
the North Koreans, developing missile technology and our bombing
airplanes are carrying his fuel. How inconsistent, how ironic. Talk
about a full circle. We are importing 700,000 barrels a day, we are
bombing him, we are using his oil that we refine to fill up our
airplanes.
I may be reaching a little bit, but this is reality. We are importing
700,000 barrels a day.
It is my understanding this matter will come up tomorrow and we will
[[Page S2458]]
have a number of Senators active in the debate on the merits of the
basic presentation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________