[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2487-S2492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY OF THE YEAR 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have started our debate, and later 
this afternoon we will have a vote on the disposition of the waiver of 
the gas tax.
  Upon arriving on the floor, I had the opportunity to hear the remarks 
of the Senator from California relative to an issue we have discussed 
on previous occasions; that is, the export of petroleum, energy 
products. I think the generalization was that she was concerned with 
the export from the State of Alaska of some 60,000 barrels a day of oil 
product.
  As I have explained on this floor before, the export of our oil 
product, which is surplus to the west coast, has been carried on by one 
company that had that access, British Petroleum. British Petroleum has 
since acquired the non-Alaska segment of ARCO, which includes a number 
of refineries. BP did not have refineries on the west coast. I have 
introduced a letter in the Record from BP indicating they will curtail 
exports of Alaskan oil at the end of this month. I also have a letter 
from Phillips, which has acquired ARCO Alaska, and it is not their 
intent to export Alaskan oil.
  I hope that addresses and resolves the issue and satisfies the 
concerns of those who continually bring this up in spite of my 
explanation.
  But I will also submit for the Record the list of exports of 
petroleum products by States of exit for the current month. I note that 
Alaska is listed on this list at 3.9 million barrels a day; that 
California, the State of which my friend was speaking, shows exports of 
6.2 million barrels a day of energy products; that Texas, for example, 
has 14 million barrels a day of petroleum, energy products; that 
Louisiana has 4.4 million.
  We are currently exporting about 37 million barrels of energy 
products. This is a combination of jet fuel, motor gas, crude oil, and 
so forth. But it simply points out a reality that I think the Record 
should note.
  Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is going to have a chance to 
vote on whether we can quickly give the American motorists some relief 
from spiraling gasoline costs. I urge my colleagues to objectively 
evaluate the responsibility they have in representing the American 
people on this issue and whether the American people clearly want 
relief.
  The 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax, that was adopted in 1993 after Vice 
President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaking vote, raised the gas 
tax by 30 percent. It is interesting to go back and look at the issue. 
I know some of my colleagues will come to the floor because they think 
it is a mistake to establish a precedent wherein general revenues are 
used to finance highway construction. Ordinarily I would agree with 
them, but not in this case.

  As the record will show, in 1993, when this was passed, the revenue 
went to fund the general fund. That is the budget. That is the 
expenditures of the administration as they see fit. There was a 
substantial revenue stream that went into the general fund of about $21 
billion. That is what was collected in that timeframe between 1993 and 
1997, when the Republican majority changed the formula and directed 
that the 4.3 cent a gallon be put into the highway trust fund. That is 
a little background to keep in mind, as we address the appropriateness 
of supporting or rejecting the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act, which is 
before us.
  The point I make again is that the administration had the benefit of 
$21 billion of expenditures from the revenue generated from 1993 until 
1997, when the Republican majority changed the funding mechanism and 
put it in the highway trust fund. I also remind my colleagues that the 
Vice President broke the tie back in 1993 when the 4.3-cent-a-gallon 
tax was initiated. I think the Vice President has to bear the 
responsibility of defending his position on the Gore tax, as it has 
been fondly referred to by those of us on the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  I find it curious to reflect that not a single penny of that tax was 
dedicated to highway or bridge construction. All the money was 
earmarked for the administration's spending.
  I think we have an obligation to hear from the American public. What 
do

[[Page S2488]]

they think? This is a Gallup poll, March 30 through April 2. It asked 
the question: Would you favor or oppose a temporary reduction in the 
Federal gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing with the 
increased price of oil? Notice, it does not ask about the highway trust 
fund. It does not ask whether we will reimburse the highway trust fund. 
It is quite specific: Would you favor or oppose a temporary reduction 
in the Federal gas tax of 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing with 
the increased price of oil?
  In response to this poll, 74 percent of the respondents favor a 
temporary reduction; those in opposition, 23 percent. I think this is a 
fair sample of the attitude of the American public with regard to this 
issue. Seventy-four percent favor the temporary reduction. I encourage 
my colleagues, as well as the staffs, observing the debate today, to 
recognize this. I remind all Members of the Gallup poll, March 30 to 
April 2, 74 percent of the respondents favor a temporary reduction. I 
think that is significant and represents, certainly, the attitude of a 
significant portion of the American public.
  I think it is appropriate that we make it clear it is the intention, 
the commitment of those of us who happen to favor providing the 
American public with relief that we ensure there is no sacrifice made 
in the highway trust fund program. In addition, our legislative 
guarantees that if the failed Clinton-Gore energy policy results in the 
price of gasoline rising above $2 a gallon--that is for regular--all 
fuel taxes will be lifted until the end of the year.
  Let me make sure everybody understands. We are proposing to waive the 
4.3 immediately, suspending it for the balance of this year, with the 
proviso that the highway trust fund will be totally funded. I 
emphasize, there is no free lunch. It has to come from the budget 
surplus. I would like to see it come from savings on wasteful 
Government spending. But it will provide immediate relief, and it will 
not jeopardize the highway trust fund.
  In addition, the legislation guarantees that if the failed Clinton-
Gore energy policy results in the price of gasoline rising above $2 a 
gallon for the average price of fuel--that is regular self serve--all 
fuel taxes will be lifted until the end of the year.

  Isn't this the kind of a safety net the American consumer needs, like 
the mom who goes down to fill up the Suburban at $1.80 a gallon? That 
shoots a pretty good hole in a $100 bill for that 40-gallon gas tank. 
What about the guy who gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning to drive 
into Washington, DC, to work as a carpenter. He drives 50 or 60 miles 
in the morning, the same in the evening. Is he looking for some relief? 
You bet he is.
  This is real relief. It appropriately puts the responsibility back 
where it belongs--on the administration--to ensure us that their 
projections stand the test of time.
  If you look at their projections, they are pretty weak. The 
statements by the Secretary of Energy were pretty weak as far as 
predicting the price. I note that on the CBS ``Early Show'' of March 
29, the Secretary indicated, when asked by Jane Clayson about the 
price:

       . . . gasoline prices will gradually and steadily decline, 
     possibly, according to the Energy Information Administration, 
     my department, as much as 11 cents by the end of September. . 
     . .

  What are we going to do on Memorial Day? What are we going to do on 
the Fourth of July? They are hedging. This administration knows it is 
in trouble on this issue because it does not have an energy policy and 
is simply saying, ``Well, it is going to go down a little bit, maybe by 
the end of September.''
  Further questioning by the interviewer Jane Clayson:

       So the bottom line, how much can we expect to see a drop at 
     the pump?

  Secretary Richardson replied:

       Well, bottom line--I'm just quoting our investigators and 
     other official people--they are saying 11 cents by the end of 
     the summer, possibly over 15, 16, 17 by the end of this year.

  That is their answer, not very encouraging.
  Let's get a little more current. If my colleagues have any doubt that 
prices are not going to come down very much, all they have to do is 
read today's New York Times. The headline story is: ``Oil Prices Fall 
Nearly Enough For OPEC''--to do what--``to cut production.''
  Imagine that: We are seeing a decline, and they are talking about 
cutting production.
  I quote:

       Less than two weeks after OPEC agreed to increase 
     production to bring down the cost of oil, prices have fallen 
     abruptly and are near the level at which the cartel had 
     agreed it would then cut back its output. Ali Rodriguez, 
     President of the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries, 
     said today that it the price of the organization's benchmark 
     basket of crude oil remained below $22 a barrel, the 1.5 
     million a day agreed to last month would be cut back by one 
     third.

  There is the leverage. They are calling the shots. We are not calling 
the shots.
  I find it extraordinary that as this administration looks at the 
energy crisis, we would simply look to the Mideast for relief by 
increasing imports.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Times be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 11, 2000]

        Oil Price Falls Nearly Enough For OPEC to Cut Production

       CARACAS, Venezuela, April 10 (Bloomberg News)--Less than 
     two weeks after OPEC agreed to increase production to bring 
     down the cost of oil, prices have fallen abruptly and are 
     near the level at which the cartel had agreed it would then 
     cut back its output.
       Ali Rodriguez, president of the Organization of Petroleum 
     Exporting Countries, said today that if the price of the 
     organization's benchmark basket of crude oil remained below 
     $22 a barrel, the 1.5 million barrel-a-day increase that the 
     organization agreed to last month would be cut back by one 
     third. OPEC was expected to announce that the basket price 
     dipped below $22 today, falling from a five-month low of 
     $22.14 on Friday.
       The price ``may fall a little further,'' Mr. Rodriguez said 
     in a television interview. ``But OPEC has already established 
     a corrective mechanism, and if prices fall below $22 a barrel 
     for 20 consecutive days we'll immediately cut back 
     production.''
       Mr. Rodriguez, who is also the energy minister of 
     Venezuela, said the traditional slump in demand for oil 
     during the spring also could make the cutback likely. The 
     German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported today 
     that Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, would endorse the 
     cuts if prices slipped further.
       Oil prices have plunged about 30 percent since last month, 
     when they reached nine-year highs. After a meeting March 29 
     in Vienna of the 11-member organization, 9 OPEC members 
     agreed to raise oil output quotas by about 1.5 million 
     barrels a day and keep prices within a range of $22 to $28.
       Crude oil plunged 4.8 percent to a three-month low of 
     $23.85 on the New York Mercantile Exchange today. OPEC's 
     basket has been trading $2 to $3 cheaper than New York oil.
       Mr. Rodriguez said he had the authority as OPEC president 
     to order small adjustments before the group's next meeting in 
     June.
       ``If the price falls I can communicate to each country how 
     much it must cut back,'' he said.
       Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, refused to join the 
     agreement to increase production, saying the move would lead 
     to a price rout. Iraq, another member that does not 
     participate in the cuts, also said new production would hurt 
     prices.
       Mr. Rodriguez said he still expected demand for oil to 
     surge this year, perhaps prompting OPEC to approve further 
     increases in output in June or later.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if OPEC decides to cut back its 
increased production by one-third, then where are we? We are right back 
where we were before OPEC made the decision to raise production.
  Think about that--full circle.
  I spoke before the ocean industries this morning and expressed my 
concern. The Secretary of Energy, the Honorable Bill Richardson, spoke 
before me. I don't think he was able to convey much of a feeling of 
assurance that, indeed, we had this issue of an energy crisis under 
control.
  If OPEC makes the decision to raise production, I think we have to go 
back and examine the deal the Secretary made with OPEC. That is rather 
interesting. I think we need to because OPEC never really increased 
their production by 1.5 or 1.7 million barrels. If you factor in the 
reality that OPEC was cheating, what really happened on or before March 
27 was OPEC's actual increase of production was a bare 500,000 barrels 
a day. That is what we really got.
  The rationale for that is the recognition, if you read the agreement, 
that they acknowledge they were posting in the cartel a production of 
23 million barrels a day. They were cheating and

[[Page S2489]]

put out 24.2 million barrels a day. When the administration announced 
that it was going to get an additional 1.7 million barrels a day, they 
didn't take into account the reality that they were already cheating by 
1.2 million barrels a day. If you subtract 1.2 from 1.7, you get 
500,000 barrels a day. That is actually what we got.
  In that case, we are right back where we started before OPEC met.
  Do not be misled, my colleagues. All of that doesn't go to the United 
States. There are other customers of OPEC. We traditionally get 16 
percent of our crude oil from OPEC. By the time you look at the 
allotments of the other countries, it is estimated that out of 500,000 
barrels, the U.S. gets somewhere in the area of 75,000 to 88,000 
barrels.
  Furthermore, if you look at what we consume in the general 
metropolitan area of Washington, DC, and its extensions, it is about 
121,000 barrels a day.
  We haven't gotten anything. We are almost assured that we will see 
higher gasoline prices this summer.
  For that reason alone, I believe we should give relief now to the 
American motorists by rolling back the Gore gas tax.
  Yesterday, I indicated that 74 percent of the American people think 
that the 4.3 cents per gallon should be temporarily lifted.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Gallup Poll 
of March 30 to April 3 which indicated that 74 percent favor a 
temporary reduction of the Federal gas tax of 4.3 cents per gallon as a 
way of dealing with the increased price of oil, and 23 percent oppose 
that.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Would you favor or oppose a temporary reduction in the 
     federal gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing 
     with the increased price of oil?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................74
Oppose...............................................................23

Source: Gallup, Mar. 30-Apr. 2.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is not just the American motorists 
who want to see gas taxes come down. There are business organizations, 
especially small businesses, that have been hit hard by the fuel price 
jump. Their businesses are being devastated.
  I have a letter of support from the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses which represents more than 600,000 small 
businesses in America. In their letter, they cite the fuel price hike 
and what it has meant to an average small business.
  I quote:

       For a small company that consumes 50,000 gallons of diesel 
     fuel in a month, the increase it prices in the past year will 
     cost that company an additional $40,000 per month. If fuel 
     prices remain high, these costs could eventually be passed on 
     to consumers in the form of higher prices for many goods and 
     services. A 4.3 cent reduction in the cost of fuel would save 
     the company more than $2,000 per month.

  The Independent Truckers Association also sent a letter of its 
support to our legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record along with the 
letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         NFIB,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I want to 
     express our support for Senate Bill 2285 which would 
     temporarily repeal the 4.3 cent excise tax on fuel, provide 
     additional tax relief should the cost of fuel continue to 
     rise, and protect funding levels in the Highway Trust Fund. 
     NFIB urges members to support its adoption.
       Gas prices have been soaring. According to the U.S. 
     Department of Energy, gas prices, which have increased by as 
     much as 50 percent in the past year, are likely to continue 
     to rise into the summer, if not beyond.
       These high fuel prices are hitting many Americans, 
     especially small businesses, extremely hard. For a small 
     company that consumes 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel in a 
     month, the increase in prices in the past year will cost that 
     company an additional $40,000 per month. If fuel prices 
     remain high these costs could eventually be passed on to 
     consumers in the form of higher prices for many goods and 
     services. A 4.3 cent reduction in the cost of fuel would save 
     the company more than $2,000 per month.
       Your bill goes along way towards providing America's small 
     business owners valuable relief from rising fuel costs. We 
     applaud your proactive efforts to reduce this tax burden on 
     small business while at the same time providing a hold 
     harmless provision for the Highway Trust Fund. This will 
     guarantee that full funding will continue to flow to states 
     and local communities for planned infrastructure projects.
       Mr. Leader, thank you for your continued support of small 
     businesses. We look forward to working with you to enact S. 
     2285 into law.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                               Sr. Vice President,
     Federal Public Policy.
                                  ____



                             Independent Truckers Association,

                                 Half Moon Bay, CA, April 4, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: The Independent Truckers Association--
     the oldest association of the nation's long-haul independent 
     truckers and small fleet owners--endorses wholeheartedly the 
     swift passage of S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act 
     of 2000.
       This measure would temporarily repeal the 4.3 cents excise 
     tax on fuels and protect funding levels in the highway Trust 
     Fund. We see this as an important first step to help ensure 
     that prices for consumer goods shipped to market will remain 
     stable.
       It's important to recognize that truckers--not just the 
     independents and small fleets, but the whole industry--work 
     on a very small profit margin. So, the recent increase of oil 
     prices by OPEC, along with the failed energy policy of the 
     Clinton-Gore Administration, strikes deep into the heart and 
     wallet of America's truckers. Enacting S. 2285 today will 
     help those injured by excessive oil and fuel prices, and help 
     keep the economy rolling along.
       Senator Lott, thank you for your support of America's 
     independent truckers. We look forward to working with you to 
     enact S. 2285 into law.
           Very Sincerely,
                                                   Mike Parkhurst,
     National Chairman.
                                  ____

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I quote from this letter. It says:

       It is important to recognize that truckers, not just the 
     independents and small fleets, but the whole industry, work 
     on a very small profit margin. So the recent increase in oil 
     prices by OPEC, along with the failed energy policies of the 
     Clinton/Gore administration, strikes deep in the heart and 
     wallet of American truckers. Enacting Senate bill 2285, the 
     Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act, today will help those injured 
     by excessive oil and fuel prices and will help keep the 
     economy rolling along.

  I also have a letter of support from the National Food Processors 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter also be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                         NFPA,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: On behalf of the National Food 
     Processors Association (NFPA), the nation's largest food 
     trade association, I am writing to urge that Congress take 
     action to address rapidly rising fuel prices. From the food 
     industry's perspective, the effects of higher energy prices 
     are about to move from the gas pump to the grocery store, 
     threatening to put a serious crimp in the incomes of 
     America's working families.
       You no doubt have heard from the transportation sector 
     about the serious effect of the 50-plus percent fuel price 
     increase since the first of the year. America's agribusiness 
     industry relies heavily on trucks and the rails to transport 
     food from the farm to processor and on to kitchen tables all 
     across the United States. Additionally, the nation's food 
     processors--an industry employing more than 1.5 million 
     workers in some 20,000 facilities across the country--consume 
     no small measure of energy to make available the tasty and 
     nutritious foods that consumers enjoy. Given the intense 
     competition and very small profit margins, under which most 
     food manufacturers operate, they are in no position to absorb 
     these dramatic increases in energy prices.
       I believe the absence of an effective national energy 
     policy is largely responsible for this budding crisis. 
     However, there are tools available now to help address this 
     problem, at least for the short term. First, portions of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve could be released, helping reduce 
     prices by increasing, temporarily, the supply of fuel. 
     Second, I encourage Congress to enact at least a temporary 
     suspension of the most recent 4.3-cent gasoline tax increase, 
     which was adopted in 1993 for the purpose of deficit 
     reduction. NFPA also has urged President Clinton to support 
     such actions.
       Leadership by Congress is needed to address this serious 
     issue. I hope that the U.S. Senate will work with the 
     President to take action promptly to ease the strain of 
     rapidly increasing fuel costs.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John R. Cady.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, many Americans accepted the gas tax

[[Page S2490]]

increase because they believed that the money would go to rebuilding 
and expanding the Nation's highway infrastructure. Today, that is 
exactly how the money is used. But, again, since the 4.3-cent-per-
gallon tax was adopted in 1993, not a single penny of that went into, 
as I said, building a highway or repairing a bridge. When the tax was 
adopted, it was not earmarked for the highway trust fund. It was 
instead collected from the motorists, transferred to the Treasury 
Department, and then spent for whatever programs the Clinton 
administration wanted. But those programs did not include added highway 
construction.
  That changed when Republicans took control of Congress and enacted 
the 1997 highway bill. Only then did these fuel tax revenues become 
earmarked for highways, bridges, and mass transit.
  I know some are concerned legitimately that if we spend these taxes 
for the remainder of this year, the highway trust fund, which finances 
roads, bridges, and mass transit, could be in danger. That is a 
legitimate concern. I am sure it is going to be a concern in the debate 
that is forthcoming. But I would like to try at least to put those 
fears to rest.
  Our legislation is quite specific. If you do not believe that we can 
pass a bill that ensures something, then the argument is moot. But this 
legislation ensures that the highway trust fund will not lose a single 
penny during tax holiday. We require that all moneys that would have 
anything to do with the fund had the taxes not been suspended be 
replaced by other Federal revenues.
  That isn't a free lunch. That is going to be difficult to do. But if 
this legislation passes, that is what is going to happen. We are going 
to have to find the money. I hope it will come from on-budget surplus. 
I would rather see it coming from reducing wasteful Federal programs.
  Remember. The consumer can't pass it on. He or she can't pass on this 
increased price to anybody. They are stuck with it. The truckers that 
came to Washington can't pass it on. If you look at your airline 
ticket, it is passed on. Nobody can figure out the cost of an airline 
ticket. If you fly on a Monday or a Tuesday night, it is all different. 
The fishermen, the farmers--we don't really look at the impact on our 
economy. The farmer, for example, is dependent on fertilizer. Where 
does fertilizer come from? It comes from urea. Urea is made out of 
gas--all petroleum products. We have a multiplier here.
  We have the difficulty of recognizing that we have become beholden to 
the Mideast for the sources.
  I can assure the American motorists that highway construction 
projects this year and next year will be unaffected by the tax holiday 
that we are proposing in this legislation. When the trust fund is fully 
restored, all the projects scheduled for beyond 2002 will be completed. 
That is in the legislation.
  The question before the Senate today is simple. Do Senators want to 
give the American motorists a break at the gas pump when gas prices are 
high?
  Again, I refer to the Gallop Poll. Seventy-four percent of Americans 
say yes; 25 percent of Americans say no.
  I think we should adopt this temporary tax holiday and invoke cloture 
on the bill.
  The rationale is we are giving the American people a choice. We are 
the elected representatives. Aren't we? What is the priority? Is there 
a priority to have a choice and a reduction knowing that the highway 
trust fund is not going to be jeopardized because we are going to have 
to make it whole?
  I would like to show you a couple more things before I conclude.
  This is a picture of the hard, stark reality of where we are today 
and where we are going. Make no mistake about it. It is a very bleak 
picture. But it is very real because it shows the world oil balance for 
the year 2000. It shows where we are currently as we enter the second 
quarter of the year.

  We have global demand at 76.8 million barrels a day and global supply 
at 74. We have the sources of our crude oil, where it comes from in the 
world, the non-OPEC, Iraqi production, OPEC 10 nations. The point is, 
in this country today, at the end of the first quarter, we are using 
reserves. The world is using up its reserves. In other words, the 
demand is greater than supply, so the world is drawing down about 2 
million barrels of its reserve.
  The projection in the second quarter is interesting. It shows a 
surplus of 200,000 barrels. The third quarter again draws down reserves 
of 1.3 million barrels a day. The fourth quarter is worse--2.7 million 
barrels a day.
  That is the harsh reality. If things are going to get better, we will 
have to import more from OPEC or other nations such as Iraq.
  I conclude with a reminder many people have forgotten relative to the 
administration's attitude of how we will get relief in this country as 
we look at various areas of domestic production. One of the most 
telling is to recognize that currently a significant portion of our 
activity is coming from the Gulf of Mexico. At the present time, OCS 
activity is primarily coming off Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and 
Alabama, producing 30 percent of our natural gas and 22 percent our 
crude oil. That is the OCS. That is in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I cannot help but note an article on October 23, 1999, from the 
Metropolitan edition of the Capitol City Press State Times, Morning 
Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA. Vice President Gore says he will be more 
antidrilling than any other President. It is significant because it 
represents the attitude, I think, of this administration and certainly 
the Vice President as he seeks the Presidency.

       I will take the most sweeping steps in our history to 
     protect our oceans and coastal waters from offshore oil 
     drilling.
       I will make sure that there is no new oil leasing off the 
     coast of California and Florida and then I will go much 
     further, I will do everything in my power to make sure there 
     is no new drilling off these sensitive areas even in areas 
     already leased by previous administrations.

  That is the Vice President saying, if elected President, he in effect 
would cancel leases leased by previous administrations.
  It is ironic our Secretary of Energy takes credit for deep-water 
royalty relief. I worked with Senator Bennett Johnston on that 
legislation. We got it passed. He takes some credit for it although it 
didn't pass on his watch. Now the Vice President of the United States 
wants to undo it. I find that ironic.
  The last point of irony is we are looking to receive our oil from 
Iraq. I have a chart showing our increased dependence and what the oil 
fields look like. It is germane to this debate. Our fastest growing 
source of imports is Iraq. Many people forget we had a war over there 
in 1991. We lost 147 American lives in that conflict. We had over 
500,000 troops over there. We were over there to make sure Saddam 
Hussein did not take over the oil fields of Kuwait. That is the harsh 
fact. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had visions of going into Kuwait, taking 
over the oil fields, and moving on to Saudi Arabia. That was a war over 
oil. We fought that battle.
  This chart demonstrates where we are today. I am outraged. Last year, 
we imported 300,000 barrels a day from Iraq; we are currently importing 
700,000 barrels a day. That is where we are.
  In addition to the loss of lives and the fact we had nearly 400 
wounded and 23 taken prisoner, what has it cost the American taxpayer? 
The American taxpayer has been hit for over $10 billion in costs in 
keeping Saddam Hussein fenced in. Imagine that, $10 billion.
  How many remember what happened when Saddam Hussein was defeated? 
That is what happened. Take a good look. It shows the burning oil 
fields of Kuwait he left behind. The fires are raging, and there are 
Americans trying to cap the wells and get this environmental disaster 
under control. That is the kind of person we are dealing with. We are 
looking to them to bail this country out from the standpoint of 
increasing our imports? This is the policy of this administration?
  One other thing on which I cannot help but comment. I think it is so 
ironic, this war is still going on. It is not reported in the 
Washington press. I don't know if the folks back home know it. An 
article from March 29, Wednesday, the International News Service, says:

       U.S. Jets Bomb Iraqi Defense System.
       U.S. warplanes bombed Iraq air-defense system Wednesday in 
     response to Iraqi artillery fired during their patrol.

  There is a little more detail in the French newspaper, Agence France 
Presse, press reports from April 9:


[[Page S2491]]


       U.S. war planes bombed northern Iraq Sunday after coming 
     under Iraqi fire during routine patrols over the northern no-
     fly zone, the U.S. military said. The aircraft dropped 
     ``ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense 
     system'' after Iraqi air forces fired anti-artillery 
     northwest of Musul and west of Bashiqah, the U.S. European 
     command base in Stuttgart, Germany, said.
       Baghdad said on Thursday that 14 Iraqis were killed and 19 
     wounded when U.S. and British planes bombed the south of the 
     country, in what was described as the deadliest raid since 
     the beginning of the year.
       A total of 176 people have been killed in Iraq in US-
     British bombings since December 1998.

  Still not much notice. That is a French translation.
  Here is a Russian translation on the Interfax Russian News, April 10:

       Moscow Worried Over U.S., Britain Bombing Southern Iraq.
       The foreign ministry has voiced concern over U.S. bombings 
     of southern Iraq.

  Baghdad made public its data about the victims of the latest raid, 14 
people killed and 19 wounded.
  How in the world can we justify being at war with Saddam Hussein, 
increasing our dependence to 700,000 barrels a day, lifting our export 
ban to give him the technology, which we did 2 weeks ago, to increase 
his production for his refining capacity even more, and be at war with 
him?
  I don't understand this. I think it is outrageous. We have lost 147 
lives in the Persian Gulf war. We are really taking his oil, putting it 
into our airplanes, and going over and bombing. Think about that.
  Is that the kind of policy we have on energy? Do the American people 
know what has happened? Do they care? It is unbelievable to me, as we 
address this issue before us. You might say it is a gas tax. It is the 
whole issue of lack of an energy policy. We do not have an energy 
policy for coal. The same clean coal technology supported by this 
administration--we have seen that. We do not have a nuclear policy. The 
administration will not address the contractual commitment it made in 
1998 to take nuclear waste, although the ratepayers paid the 
administration $15 billion. That is going to be a legal case of $40 
billion to $50 billion when the lawyers are through suing each other. 
They want to take down the hydrodams. The replacement for that, 
obviously, is going to put more trucks on the highway in Oregon and 
Washington if they remove the dams, because so much of the traffic in 
grains and other produce are moved by barge.
  Some say gas is the answer, just plug it in. The National Petroleum 
Council says we are using 21 trillion cubic feet of gas now, and in 
next 10 years we will be up to 31 trillion. The infrastructure is not 
there. It is going to take $1.5 trillion to put in that infrastructure. 
So don't think gas is going to be cheap. And this administration 
removed 65 percent of the public lands in the overthrust belt, which 
obviously means there is less area for exploration.
  So the crunch is coming. I think this administration hopes they will 
get out of town before this becomes a big political issue in the 
campaign. But I think it is going to be a big political issue in the 
campaign.
  I see many of my colleagues wishing to speak. I again encourage 
everybody to recognize the attitude of the American people as expressed 
by this Gallup Poll, which says 74 percent favor elimination of the 
tax--opposed 23. I had printed the letters of the Independent Truckers 
Association supporting this, and the NFPA as well, the National Food 
Processors Association, and the National Federation of Independent 
Business. We are not talking about jeopardizing the highway trust fund; 
we are talking about making it whole. We are talking about giving the 
American people a choice, whether this is a priority for them as 
represented through their elected representatives--which we are--
whether they want relief. It gives us a safety net for the public out 
there; most of all, a safety net to keep this administration's feet to 
the fire to ensure that gasoline prices for regular do not go over $2 a 
gallon, because if they do, then the entire 18.4 cents federal gas tax 
goes off, it is suspended for the remainder of this year.
  I think it is a fair trade. I think it is a reasonable compromise. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the effort and not be misled by the 
argument that this is going to jeopardize the highway trust fund. It 
cannot. We have to live by the commitment, if we pass this legislation, 
to find the money someplace else--out of the surplus, out of reducing 
wasteful spending, or whatever. That is actually in the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my 
colleague, the Senator from Texas, completes her remarks, if I can have 
10 minutes for purposes of introduction of legislation?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not 
object--our distinguished colleague from West Virginia is controlling 
the time on the gas tax. I would like to have 8 minutes in opposition 
to the gas tax. I know our distinguished colleague from Ohio has been 
here for some time. He should be accorded precedence over this Senator 
at least.
  I wonder if we could have some order so Senators can be convenienced. 
Then certainly we can put in this matter. I seek, from our 
distinguished colleague, how would he suggest we go about this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is reserved 
time. Senator Murkowski has approximately 37 minutes remaining and the 
Democratic side has approximately 35 minutes remaining. To utilize the 
time under the previously existing unanimous consent agreement, we 
would----
  Mr. WARNER. If I may interject, it is not necessarily the Democratic 
side because there is strong bipartisan support, am I not correct, I 
ask Senator Byrd?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the control of the Democratic 
side----
  Mr. WARNER. It is under the control of Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield to anyone he so chooses. 
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object to that consent for a moment, 
Mr. Voinovich has been waiting here for quite some time. I believe he 
should be recognized next. Then, ordinarily, when we have controlled 
time like this, we might go to this side. If that is the case, I will 
yield for 8 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with the suggestion by my good friend from 
West Virginia. I am conducting a hearing on electric deregulation. I am 
going to turn the remaining time on this side over to my good friend 
from Texas to yield to those in support of the gas tax holiday.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could we have the Senator from Maine, who 
has been waiting, and the Senator from Texas, enter the colloquy on 
timing? Again, they have been here for some time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I assume the proponents and opponents 
control the time. We have other speakers who are coming to speak in 
support of the holiday. The Senator from Texas supports the holiday. I 
do not know the disposition of the other Republican Members.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had 
requested time to introduce a bill. I do not, however, want to 
interrupt the debate on the gas tax. I suggest I go after the Senator 
from Florida, who I understand is also going to be introducing a bill, 
so as not to interrupt the debate on the gas tax issue.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assume that will mean the 37 minutes, approximately, 
for each side, would be used. Then the other morning business would 
come up. Is that the wish of the other side?

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why don't we go in accordance with the times 
the Senators came to the floor and sat down and expected to be 
recognized? When I first came, Mr. Voinovich had been waiting and the 
Senator from Alaska was speaking. I was the next on the floor. I will 
be happy to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be happy if the Senator wishes to 
proceed and I can follow. Whatever the Senator from West Virginia 
wishes.
  Mr. BYRD. What does the Senator from Texas have to say?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, what he is 
proposing now is for Senator Voinovich to go next, and that is under 
the Senator's time; is that correct?
  Mr. BYRD. That is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Following that, I would be recognized on Senator 
Murkowski's time. Following that, then

[[Page S2492]]

the Senator would have the ability to yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia, on your time again. And following that, then----
  Mr. WARNER. I would like to speak on the gas issue in sequence after 
the Senator from West Virginia, if I may. We want to stay on the issue, 
I suggest, because we have a vote. Then we wish to accommodate other 
Senators.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, we have other speakers who want to speak on 
our side on the gas tax issue, so we can follow back and forth.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I can get an understanding, then it will be 
Senator Voinovich under Senator Byrd's time, then myself under Senator 
Murkowski's time, then back to Senator Byrd--and Senator Warner for 
however they are going to allocate their time under Senator Byrd's time 
allotment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BYRD. I always like to yield to the ladies. I was brought up the 
old-fashioned way. But the lady's proposal is going to automatically 
say she is going to be next after Mr. Voinovich. Is that the way she 
wants it done?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was my understanding we would go back and forth, 
according to the time allotments. Senator Voinovich is on the time of 
the Senator from West Virginia. I thought the sequence would be back to 
Senator Murkowski's side after that.
  If that is not correct, I will be happy to yield whatever time 
Senator Byrd wants on his side, and then I will control Senator 
Murkowski's time after Senator Voinovich, Senator Byrd, and Senator 
Warner. Is that what the Senator from West Virginia is suggesting? It 
is fine, as long as I know at what point our side will be able to 
reclaim our time.
  Mr. BYRD. Any way is fine. The Senator from Alaska had a lot of time. 
He spoke a long time. I sat here a long time. I was glad to listen to 
it. Mr. Voinovich was here before I came. He should have his time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from West Virginia wants to take all 
three from his side in answer to Senator Murkowski, I will be happy to 
do that. Then I will take my time after Senator Voinovich, Senator 
Byrd, and Senator Warner. Is that to what the Senator from West 
Virginia was referring?
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request we have before 
us came from the Senator from Florida, and he was not mentioned in any 
of this.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may modify the request, I am in the category with 
the Senator from Maine. We have topics we wish to discuss other than 
the gasoline tax. We appreciate that debate should be completed. We 
just want to have an order that, after the gasoline tax debate, we may 
introduce our legislation. We want to be included in the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Will somebody restate the unanimous consent request, please, so we 
have an understanding by everybody? Will the Senator from Texas restate 
the unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will make an attempt. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized on his time to 
allocate, as he sees fit, time to Senator Voinovich, himself, and 
Senator Warner, after which I will be recognized to take control of 
Senator Murkowski's 37 minutes, after which the Senator from Florida 
will be recognized for his introduction of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I apologize. I did not know the 
Senator from Maine--I made a huge mistake. I amend my unanimous consent 
request to suggest that Senator Collins follow the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________