[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2497-S2506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            INSTITUTING A FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 10 minutes equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. WARNER. Do I understand, the Senator yields herself 5 minutes? Is 
there not 10 minutes under joint control on the subject of gas taxes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. There are 10 minutes equally divided. She 
has yielded herself 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Off the control of which Senator's time? My understanding 
is Senator Byrd controls the time for Senators in opposition, of which 
I am aligned. Senator Murkowski controls the proponents' time.
  Am I not correct on that, Mr. President?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. As an opponent on the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is taking her 5 
minutes in opposition.
  Mr. WARNER. That would then remove all opposition time; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask the Senator, could I have the benefit of a minute 
of that time?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I spoke briefly last week about this proposal to 
reduce the gas tax. I spoke on the need for reforms in our Nation's 
energy policy.
  However, because this bill did not go through committee, and because 
it has had little technical scrutiny, there are just two points that I 
believe should be considered before we move ahead with this idea.
  First, I appreciate the concern that has recently been shown for the 
highway trust fund. There is a nice clause in this bill that would take 
money out of general revenues to pay for the reduction into the highway 
trust fund.
  Last week I called this hocus pocus. It is creative, to say the 
least. But let's get honest here. This tax cut has to come from 
somewhere, and this method of accounting is not without consequence.
  Regardless of the good intentions being professed by my colleagues, 
the transfer of this burden to general revenues would result in a tax 
increase to the people of my State and perhaps other States.
  In Arkansas, any reduction, either whole or in part, of the existing 
excise tax on motor fuels will result in a penny-for-penny increase in 
tax at the State level. This is the law in my State, and I know that 
there are similar provisions in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nevada, and 
California.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of section 27-70-
104 of the Arkansas Code be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Sec. 27-70-104. Federal excise tax on motor fuels

       (a) Should the Congress of the United States extend an 
     option to the State of Arkansas to collect all or part of the 
     existing tax on motor fuels imposed by the Internal Revenue 
     Code, Chapter 31, Retailers Excise Tax, Sec. Sec. 4041 and 
     4081, it is declared that the option is executed.
       (b) Further, if the federal excise tax is reduced in any 
     amount, the amount of the reduction will continue to be 
     collected as state highway user revenues.
       (c) Any increase in the federal excise tax, accompanied by 
     state option, shall be disbursed as set forth in subsection 
     (d) of this section.
       (d) Any revenues derived under subsection (a) of this 
     section will be classified as special revenues and shall be 
     deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of the State 
     Apportionment Fund for distribution under the Arkansas 
     Highway Revenue Distribution Law, there to be used for the 
     construction of state highways, county roads, and municipal 
     streets.

       History: Acts 1975, No. 610, Sec. Sec. 1, 2; 1981, No. 719, 
     Sec. 1; A.S.A. 1947, Sec. Sec. 76-337, 76-338.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. I agree that this bill might give a minor tax reduction 
for the oil producers of 45 States, but the tax burden would remain 
level in as many as five States. Without a reduction in spending, this 
amounts to a tax increase in my home State and two of my neighboring 
States, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. In short, if this bill were to pass, 
taxes, in effect, would go up in Arkansas.
  My second point is that this bill would not get relief to the people 
who need it. I said last week that this tax is collected on the 
wholesale level and all that this bill offers is a suggestion that the 
wholesalers pass this on to the consumers. I am not sure that this 
point is getting out to my colleagues, so I have a quote here from the 
Supreme Court of the United States concerning this tax.
  According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Gurley vs. Rhoden:

     the Federal excise tax on gasoline is imposed solely upon 
     statutory producers, and not on consuming buyers.

  Let me repeat that:

     the Federal excise tax on gasoline is imposed solely upon 
     statutory producers, and not on consuming buyers.

  Therefore, I assert that even the Supreme Court agrees that this tax 
reduction will not go to consumers. This tax cut will go exclusively to 
oil producers who will have no legal requirement to pass the cut on. 
That won't help truckers in my State. It won't help farmers in my 
State. It won't help small business people in my State. It won't help 
average consumers.
  We cannot forget that despite the fact that the administration has 
successfully compelled OPEC to pump more oil, and that oil prices are 
coming down, the high cost of the oil price spike will still be on the 
bottom line at the end of the year.
  We have to do something real and substantial for our truckers, our 
farmers, and our fuel dependent small businessmen and women.
  A 4.3-cent gas tax cut will do essentially nothing for anyone.
  I again suggest that a suspension of the heavy vehicle use tax would 
be a way to get real relief to real truck drivers. This would not drain 
the highway trust fund to the degree that this gas tax cut would and it 
would directly help the people who have been hurt the most by the spike 
in fuel prices.
  I have also advocated a short-term no-interest loan program for 
diesel dependent small business, and lastly I have called for a 
formalized end-of-the-year tax credit, that would take into account the 
totality of this oil spike in an environment of dropping prices.
  We all want to help those in need and we should consider giving tax 
credits, but we should also protect the Treasury from windfalls that 
could arise in this economic environment.
  This bill is a bad idea, it would in effect raise the tax burden on 
my constituents, and it would not help the people who are really 
hurting from the high prices at the gas pump.
  I urge my colleagues, especially those from Oklahoma and Nevada, 
California and Tennessee, to look at how this bill will affect the tax 
burden in your States. Ask how this bill will affect the bonds that 
your State has issued. And most importantly, consider how little this 
bill will do to help the consumers of our Nation. We can do better, and 
I hope we can continue the debate on this bill so we will have that 
opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  In this legislation, there is full recovery to the highway trust 
fund, if indeed

[[Page S2498]]

this suspension takes place. There is a balance in it, too. That 
balance puts the onus on the administration to encourage that the price 
remain low because if it doesn't and the price goes to $2 a gallon, 
clearly what will happen is we will eliminate this tax, which is 18.4 
cents.
  The question has been asked, How do we ensure that it is passed on to 
the consumer? That is a legitimate question. We provide in the 
legislation a requirement that the GAO audit and make an issue of 
anyone who breaks the trust that this differential has to be passed on 
to the consumer. We have the support of the National Food Processors 
Association, a letter to that effect, and support from the National 
Foundation of Independent Businesses and the Independent Truckers 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     National Food


                                       Processors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, United States 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.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                   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 a long 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 Fuel 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 American's 
     independent truckers. We look forward to working with you to 
     enact S. 2285 into law.
           Very Sincerely,
                                                   Mike Parkhurst,
                                                National Chairman.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Some say this isn't much of a cut. Tell that to the 
working man or woman who gets up at 4:30 and drives 75 miles one way to 
work in this city in his pickup because the Government won't let him 
work at home in the coal mines, or building roads, forests, because 
they don't support resource development. It might not mean much to the 
folks who can afford it, but it means a lot to the folks at home.
  As a consequence, ask the public what they think. It is in a Gallup 
Poll: 74 percent favor a temporary reduction of the 4.3-cent gas tax.
  This is a balanced piece of legislation. It is balanced because it 
would take off the Gore tax. This tax was put on as a consequence of 
Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie in this body back in 1993. That 
didn't go into the highway trust fund. That went into the Clinton 
general fund, and the Clinton administration spent that money as they 
saw fit. It was the Republican majority in 1998 that turned it around 
and put it into the highway trust fund. The Clinton administration has 
enjoyed $21 billion, a windfall they expended out of the general fund 
for their programs.
  As Senators look behind the scenes on this one, be careful because 
reality dictates that this is good for the consumer. The consumers of 
this Nation want it. Seventy-four percent favor the temporary reduction 
of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax.
  If there is anyone who has been misled by this administration and 
their opinion of what is going to happen, they should have read the New 
York Times today. The president of OPEC 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 the organization agreed 
to last month would be cut back by one-third.
  OPEC is saying: If the price goes down below $22 a barrel, we will 
cut our production. We are nowhere near home on this by any means. We 
have been sold a bill of goods. Give the taxpayer a break.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the 20-plus years I have been 
privileged to serve in the Senate, this is a day I will long remember. 
It is the first time I ever voted against a tax decrease in over two 
decades.
  I see no certainty to this program. The Senator says 74 percent favor 
a temporary reduction. Why isn't it 100 percent? I know very few people 
who want to increase taxes. And with all due respect to my friend, the 
GAO monitoring 100,000 gas stations across America to see whether or 
not it came down 4.3 cents? That I just cannot accept.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If that is a question, I would be happy to respond.
  Mr. WARNER. On your time, you are welcome to do it.
  Mr. President, in all seriousness, the Senate really was a leader in 
passing

[[Page S2499]]

the landmark legislation to modernize America's transportation system. 
This gas tax was included in that highway fund by 80-plus Senators. It 
is a foundation block for this program. Let us not bring uncertainty to 
the modernization of America's transportation system by beginning to 
pull a block here and a block there.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  At the same time, both the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and 
Airways Trust Fund are held completely harmless. It is a bogus argument 
that the Trust Funds will be impacted by giving consumers a tax break 
at the gas pump. The progress of important highway and airport projects 
will not be affected because the impact would be zero. This legislation 
allows for reimbursement of the Trust Funds that are financed by the 
gasoline and aviation fuel taxes. For both of these funds, any lost 
revenues to be replaced from the budget surplus.
  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 high 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 any savings at the pump.
  Some of my colleagues say that repealing the 4.3 cent per gallon gas 
tax will not amount to enough savings for the consumers to even care 
about. Well, I guess people in Maine think differently, especially 
after a winter of paying the highest prices in decades for both home 
heating oil and for fuel at the pump.
  This past week, the Maine legislature, both the Senate by a vote of 
26-9, and the House, by a vote of 94-54, endorsed a bill that allows 
for rebates to truckers for the state diesel fuel taxes they paid 
between February 1 and March 15 when diesel fuel prices skyrocketed to 
over $2.00 per gallon. While the funding decision now rests with the 
appropriators, the Maine legislature has spoken clearly that they know 
it makes a difference, especially where the trucking industry is 
concerned.
  I am aware of a trucking company in Maine that has lost at least 
$200,000 in the last three months because of the failed energy policy 
of this Administration that caused diesel prices to spike. How can an 
owner buy equipment, hire people, keep his trucks rolling, and function 
within a set budget for the year with losses such as these? Tell him 
that temporary repeal of the federal 4.3 cent tax on diesel fuel won't 
make a difference. Well, let's run the numbers.
  This company has a fleet of about 50 trucks that take 200 gallons of 
diesel every time you fill them up, and since these large rigs get no 
more than five miles to the gallon, they get filled up quite regularly. 
So, if we temporarily repeal even just the 4.3 cent federal gas tax, 
every time the fleet of trucks gets filled up, the company will be able 
to save at least $430, adding up to thousands of dollars a month. No 
wonder hundreds of truckers drove their rigs to Washington, D.C. to 
protest on two different occasions in the past month. Tell them that a 
temporary repeal of 4.3 cents per gallon diesel fuel tax won't make a 
difference.
  Look to your own states--California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, 
New York, Wisconsin--all around the country state legislatures are 
considering their own responses to the rise in all fuel prices.
  In California, there is a proposal for a four-month suspension of the 
15 cent per gallon state tax. In Connecticut, the Legislature's Finance 
Committee unanimously approved a seven cent per gallon state gasoline 
tax over a three-year period. In New York, both parties have called for 
some sort of state gas tax relief. In Illinois, the State Senate has 
approved an elimination of the five percent sales tax on gasoline and 
diesel fuel. Lawmakers in Wisconsin have proposed both repealing or 
temporarily suspending the state gas tax.
  In Florida, the Republican House Speaker has proposed a 10 cents per 
gallon tax cut, saying, ``If the federal government is not going to 
help the people of Florida, then we need to''.
  What this legislation before you today does is take a concrete step 
toward more reasonable fuel prices for everyone, helping to serve as a 
buffer for consumers and businesses 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 the purchasers of the gasoline products.
  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 $34.00 recently from a price of $10.50 in February of 
1999. That is a 145 percent increase.
  While OPEC agreed last month 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''.

  While the Administration has ``monitored'' the situation, crude oil 
prices have gone up and up, and our inventories have gone down and 
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 and inventories 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. In that same time 
frame, conventional gasoline prices rose 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. 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 while their gauge is on empty.
  The Administration's projections of an average of $1.46 per gallon 
for gasoline this summer--which is still 25 percent higher than last 
summer I might add--does not presume production disruptions at the 
refinery. I would like to point out that one of the reasons prices went 
up and supply ran dangerously low a few months ago was the unexpected 
shutdown of four different refineries that serve the Northeast.

[[Page S2500]]

  Just last week, DOE's Energy Information Administration stated that, 
``. . . motor gasoline markets are projected to exhibit an 
extraordinarily tight supply/demand balance.'' Against this backdrop, 
we cannot depend upon the Administration's predictions turning into 
fact, when they have so far been so incorrect.
  Now is the time for Congress to act, even if the Administration 
refuses to. I want to at least make sure that American businesspeople 
and consumers have in their pockets what they would have otherwise paid 
in fuel taxes if the Administration is underestimating 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 surcharge--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?
  Consider the impacts to the nations' farmers. In some locations, the 
planting season has begun. The New York Times reported two weeks ago 
that a farmer paying 40 cents a gallon more this year to fuel his 
diesel tractors and combines, will be 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 still can't get truckers to 
come into the State to move the potatoes because they are discouraged 
by the particularly higher price of diesel in Maine.
  The only help the potato industry has had recently in getting their 
product to market was certainly not due to the energy policy of this 
Administration, but to local truckers who turned to hauling potatoes 
because wet weather 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 the high price of gasoline, we need relief now, and that's what 
this bill provides. As a matter of fact, we could have used the relief 
in Northern Maine a few months ago--that's a big tourist season for 
them as snowmobilers from all over the East head to Maine to use the 
hundreds of miles of trails throughout the northern part of the State.
  The choices are clear--do nothing for the taxpayers who are being 
gouged by failed energy policies, or do something by supporting 
legislation that gives some relief at the gas pump right now. We should 
temporarily repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax and support a bill 
that also acts as a circuit breaker, giving citizens a break at the gas 
pump if gas goes over $2.00 a gallon while protecting the Trust Funds 
that build our highways and airports. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill by voting for cloture.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am as upset by the gasoline price 
spikes as anyone else. Price spikes have been worse in California than 
in any other State. Today, as I speak, though prices have recently 
started to come down a bit, they still average more than $2 per gallon 
in some parts of California.
  Having said that, I feel obliged to oppose S. 2285, despite 
understanding the sentiment behind it. The problem with S. 2285 is that 
there is no way to guarantee that a reduction in the federal gasoline 
tax will be passed on to consumers. Why is this? Because price is a 
function of supply and demand, not taxes. And right now, world oil 
markets are extremely tight, so prices are high.
  The way to relieve the pressure on the market is to boost supply and 
reduce demand.
  With regard to supply, fourteen nations sell oil to the U.S. under a 
cartel known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 
OPEC. Like any monopoly, OPEC controls the price of oil by limiting 
supply. Decreased production in non-OPEC countries like Venezuela, 
Mexico, and Norway has also contributed to the squeeze.
  Since OPEC is not bound by U.S. law, there are only a few things the 
U.S. can do to encourage the cartel to increase supply. The preferred 
alternative is diplomacy. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has had some 
success on this front. OPEC ministers announced last month that the 
cartel would immediately increase supply by 1.7 million barrels a day. 
Mexico has also agreed to increase production by a small amount.
  It takes several weeks for production increases to be felt at the 
pump, in lower prices. And California has unique problems affecting its 
supply. No other State requires the kind of reformulated gasoline that 
California does. So the gasoline has to be refined in California. And 
California refiners have had problems--including two fires--operating 
their plants at full capacity. They are at full capacity now.
  Notwithstanding these problems, the announcement of OPEC production 
increases has driven spot gasoline prices down. They have dropped more 
than 40 cents, for instance, in the greater Los Angeles area.
  The spot price is the price of gasoline on the open market without 
taxes and other markups figured in. Spot prices are usually good 
harbingers of the price movement we will eventually see at the pump 
about a month or two later.
  But the increase in OPEC production is, at best, a short-term 
solution. By the middle of summer when demand for gasoline will peak, 
we may be back in the same predicament.
  As I said a moment ago, S. 2285 doesn't solve the problem of high 
gasoline prices. Under California law, if the federal gasoline tax 
drops by 9 cents per gallon or more, then the State tax automatically 
rises to off-set the federal decrease. The law is designed to protect 
the Highway Trust Fund. I have spoken with members of the California 
legislature about this. They do not seem inclined to change the law.
  Even if the law were changed, the price still wouldn't drop. At least 
that's what the chief executive officers of the three major California 
refiners told me. Collectively, they produce 70 percent of California's 
gasoline. None could guarantee that prices would drop at the pump. They 
cited the fundamental problem with supply, and also pointed out that 
they have no control over other entities in the supply chain.
  What are our options?
  The fact is, we have limited control over supply. Too much of the 
world's oil is produced elsewhere. The one thing we can control is 
demand.
  The best way to reduce demand is to require that sports utility 
vehicles (SUVs) and light duty trucks get the same fuel efficiency that 
passenger vehicles do. If SUVs and light duty trucks had the same fuel 
efficiency standards as passenger cars, the U.S. would use one million 
fewer barrels of oil each day.
  This is roughly equal to the U.S. shortfall before OPEC increased 
production.
  The Department of Transportation is responsible for setting fuel 
efficiency requirements under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
program. Abut two-thirds of all petroleum used goes to transportation, 
so boosting fuel efficiency is an important way to wean ourselves off 
OPEC oil and reduce the price motorists pay for gasoline. Consider, 
too, the significant environmental and health benefits of higher fuel 
efficiency.
  But CAFE standards have not increased since the mid- 1980s. And the 
situation is made worse by a loophole in the CAFE regulations. SUVs and 
light duty trucks--which are as much passenger vehicles as station 
wagons and sedans--are only required to average 20.7 miles per gallon 
per fleet versus 27.5 miles per gallon for automobiles.
  Since half of all new vehicles sold in this country are fuel-thirsty 
SUVs and light duty trucks, this stranglehold on energy efficiency has 
produced an American fleet with the worst fuel efficiency since 1980. 
We are going backwards!
  According to the non-partisan American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy, the U.S. saves 3 million barrels of oil a day 
because of CAFE standards. Close the SUV loophole, as I said a moment 
ago, and save another million barrels each day.
  Overall, SUV and light duty truck owners spend an extra $25 billion a 
year

[[Page S2501]]

at the pump because of the ``SUV loophole.'' Making SUVs and light duty 
trucks get better gas mileage would save their owners some $640 at the 
pump each year when the price of gasoline averages $2 per gallon.
  The ``bottom line'' is that eliminating some or all of the federal 
gasoline tax won't lower prices at the pump. The best way to do that is 
to reduce our demand. The best way to reduce demand is to increase the 
gas mileage requirements for SUVs and light duty trucks.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I've come to 
the Senate floor on a number of occasions in recent weeks to express my 
concern with rising fuel costs and the lack of an energy policy by this 
Administration. I don't have to remind my colleagues how the rising 
cost of oil threatens almost every aspect of our economy and 
communities. Senior citizens on fixed incomes cannot absorb extreme 
fluctuations in their energy costs. Business travelers and airlines 
cannot afford dramatic increases in airline fuel costs. Families 
struggling to feed and educate their children cannot withstand higher 
heating bills, increasing gasoline costs, or the domino effect this 
crisis has on the costs of goods and services. To be sure, this problem 
is impacting virtually every facet of American life and may only get 
worse as we approach the high energy demand of the summer months.
  I look at the situation we're now facing with high oil prices and 
limited supply and have a hard time understanding why it's such a 
surprise to so many people. I've heard Secretary Richardson refer to 
the fact that the Energy Department may have been caught ``napping on 
the job.'' Since coming to Congress in 1993, I've been saying the 
Energy Department is asleep at the wheel. We have an Energy Department 
that spends less than 15% of its budget, and even less of its time, on 
the core energy issues within the Department. I dare say that energy 
consumers are the last thing they think about over on Independence 
Avenue--certainly not the first.
  With all due respect to Secretary Richardson, I don't think he was 
necessarily caught napping on the job, but flat out neglecting the 
energy needs of this country. Under the tenure of the last three 
Secretaries of Energy, this Administration has done nothing but weaken 
our energy security, increase our reliance on foreign oil, shut down 
domestic oil and gas production, and ensure the closure or removal of 
many of our primary means of electricity generation--coal, nuclear, and 
hydropower. I think it's time that policy-makers in Washington come to 
the realization that we are now a nation with no energy policy and no 
ability to respond to even the most limited energy supply disruptions.
  Consider the recent effort of the Administration to address the oil 
price crisis. We've all witnessed this Administration's ``tin-can 
diplomacy'' over the past few weeks. Instead of planning for the energy 
needs of our country, this Administration waits for a crisis and then 
responds by sending its appointees to grovel, plead, or otherwise beg 
other nations into helping us out. The United States, thanks to this 
Administration, is a nation running around the world looking for a 
handout from friend and foe alike.
  It's embarrassing that the economy of our nation hinged on the 
decision of a few oil ministers sitting in a room in Vienna just a 
couple of weeks ago. Do we realize that Iran was blocking an OPEC 
increase of 1.7 million barrels of oil a day? The strength of our 
economy now may rest on the ability of OPEC oil ministers to convince 
countries like Iran to help us out in the future. That is quite a 
statement on the viability of the Clinton Administration energy policy.
  But still, this Administration maintains its steadfast opposition to 
doing anything here in the United States to dramatically decrease our 
reliance on foreign oil and increase our domestic exploration and 
production. ANWR is off-limits. They don't want to discuss off-shore 
drilling. They claim they're open to looking at some activity on public 
lands, but at the same time they're on a blitz to lock up every last 
acre of land they can find into some type of new, restrictive 
designation before President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt leave 
office.
  Well, the farmers of Minnesota can't wait for President Clinton or 
Secretaries Babbitt or Richardson to leave office before our country 
places a renewed emphasis on a sound, long-term energy policy. Truckers 
across America cannot wait for President Clinton to leave office to get 
some relief at the fuel pump. And energy consumers far and wide cannot 
stand by while this Administration begs countries like Iran and Libya 
to ``feel our pain.''
  Regrettably, I fear the oil supply and price crisis we're now 
experiencing is only an early warning of the pain the Clinton 
Administration's neglect of energy policy is going to level on American 
energy consumers. It won't be that far into the future before this 
Administration's appetite for closing down nuclear and coal-fired power 
plants and destroying hyrdopower facilities will bring similar price 
increases for electricity consumers.
  Many of us have suggested that we need to look closely at both short- 
and long-term approaches to easing the pain of the current oil crisis 
on American energy consumers and reducing our nation's reliance on 
foreign oil. I've spoken at length about how we need to focus our 
efforts on developing a long-term energy policy that puts American jobs 
and productivity first, instead of last. Doing so, however, will take 
time and produce few immediate results to help consumers in the coming 
months.
  In the short-term, I believe Congress must consider temporarily 
suspending some or all of the federal fuel taxes, which, along with 
state excise taxes, account for an average of 40 cents per gallon of 
gasoline. That is why I've joined Majority Leader Trent Lott, Senator 
Larry Craig and a number of my colleagues in offering S. 2285--The 
Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act of 2000. Our legislation would 
temporarily suspend the 4.3 cent tax on gasoline, diesel fuel, and 
aviation fuel while protecting both the Highway Trust Fund and the 
Social Security surplus. The bill will suspend the 4.3 cent tax 
starting on April 16 through January 1, 2001. For farmers, truckers, 
airlines, and other large energy consumers, this action will have an 
even greater positive impact on the large amounts of fuel they consume.
  This legislation reflects the leadership of a number of our 
colleagues. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado has 
championed legislation to suspend the diesel fuel tax. Once a trucker 
himself, Senator Campbell has led the way in assisting truckers and 
their families who are suffering as a result of the rising price of 
diesel fuel. And Senator Murkowski, as Chairman of the Senate Energy 
Committee, has been a leader in calling attention to the growing energy 
needs of our nation and the Administration's energy policy failures.
  I want to add that I'm very aware that many of my colleagues have 
argued that 4.3 cents a gallon has a negligible impact on consumers. To 
them, I say look at the amount of fuel a farmer or trucker consumes 
during an average week. Look at the diesel fuel required to operate a 
family farm or deliver products across this country. Or look at the 
tight profit margins that can make the difference between going to work 
and being without a job. I'm convinced this action is going to help 
farmers, businesses, truckers, and families in Minnesota and that's why 
I strongly support it.

  I firmly believe that federal gas taxes should go to the Highway 
Trust Fund for road, highway and bridge improvements. That's why we're 
restoring revenues being provided to energy consumers by the 4.3 cent 
gas tax suspension. The Highway Trust Fund will be reinstated with non-
Social Security budget surplus funds from the current fiscal year as 
well as fiscal year 2001. In addition, no highway projects or airport 
projects will be delayed or jeopardized, because funds going into the 
trust fund are fully restored by the surplus. There will be no impact 
on these projects.
  If gas prices reach a national average of $2 a gallon for regular 
unleaded gasoline, federal excise gas taxes would be suspended, again 
without impacting the Highway Trust Fund in any way. This would 
suspend, until the end of the year, the 18.4 cents per gallon federal 
gasoline tax, the 24.4 cents per gallon tax on highway diesel fuel and 
kerosene, the 19.4 cents per gallon for noncommercial aviation 
gasoline, the 21.9

[[Page S2502]]

cents per gallon for noncommercial jet fuel, and the 4.4 cents per 
gallon for commercial aviation fuel.
  Let me make this very clear: we are not going to raid the Highway 
Trust Fund with this legislation. In fact, we've ensured that the non-
Social Security budget surplus will absorb all of the costs of the gas 
tax reduction. I also want to assure my colleagues and my constituents 
that this legislation walls off the Social Security surplus. We will 
not spend any of the Social Security surplus to pay for the gas tax 
reduction.
  Our legislation is quite simply a tax cut for the American consumer 
at a time when it's needed most. We're going to use surplus funds--
funds that have been taken from the American consumer above and beyond 
the needs of government--and give them back to consumers every day at 
the gasoline pumps. This legislation takes concrete steps toward more 
reasonable fuel prices, helping to serve as a buffer for consumers who 
are already feeling the impact of the high cost of gasoline and other 
fuels.
  In closing, I want to say that I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the coming days, weeks and months in forging a number of 
both short-term and long-term responses to the needs of farmers, 
truckers, the elderly, and all energy consumers. I've been a strong 
supporter of renewable energy technologies and increased funding for 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LiHEAP. I strongly 
support the efforts of my colleagues to increase domestic oil and gas 
exploration and production. I remain committed to finding a resolution 
to our nation's nuclear waste storage crisis--a crisis that threatens 
to shut down nuclear plants and further weaken our nation's domestic 
energy security. And I'll continue to be one of the Senate's strongest 
critics of the Department of Energy's unconscionable neglect of the 
long-term energy needs of our nation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 2285, 
the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act of 2000. Our country is in dire need 
of a comprehensive energy policy, including a strategy to reduce fuel 
prices. Immediately suspending the 4.3 cent per gallon Clinton/Gore gas 
tax is one thing we can do in the short-term to provide some relief 
from the high fuel prices we have been experiencing.
  S. 2285 would further suspend all but 0.1 percent of federal excise 
taxes on fuels if the national average price of a gallon of regular 
unleaded gasoline rises to $2. While I fully support this concept, we 
should consider doing more. I have cosponsored legislation in the past 
that would permanently repeal all but two cents per gallon of the 
federal gas tax, allowing states to make up the difference if they 
choose to fund their own highway-construction needs.
  Mr. President, we Arizonans have been sending more gas tax revenues 
to Washington than we receive back in federal highway funds. For 
Arizona, and other so-called donor states, repeal of the federal tax 
would either mean significant tax relief or, if the state does increase 
its own tax, more dollars actually spent on highway improvements in-
state. It is time to divest the federal government of this authority, 
and give it back to the states where it rightfully belongs.
  To ensure our energy security in the long-term, we also need a 
strategy for reducing our dependence on imported oil. Today we are 
extremely dependent on other countries for our oil--56 percent comes 
from foreign sources. While our imports are rising, domestic production 
is decreasing. In just the last decade, U.S. production has declined 17 
percent. At the same time, our consumption has increased 14 percent. 
Unfortunately, we are moving in the direction of greater dependence on 
foreign oil, not less.
  To reverse this trend we need to stop the decline in domestic 
production, which can only be done by increasing access to lands with 
high potential for oil and gas resources. Of course this can, and must, 
be done in an environmentally sensitive manner. While extraction should 
be part of a larger energy strategy, including the development of 
alternative fuels, and conservation efforts, it is a critical 
component. Increasing domestic production will help reverse our rising 
reliance on imported oil, and will boost supply, thereby lowering 
prices.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I intend to vote for cloture this 
afternoon on the Federal fuels tax holiday bill to help address the 
soaring cost of fuel and our rising dependency on foreign oil. We have 
had numerous hearings and many statements have been given on the floor 
to address this grave situation we are in. Unfortunately, it seems like 
we are going to have to endure this problem for a while longer.
  Over the last few weeks, I have had many conversations with truckers, 
shippers, and concerned citizens about how this problem affects them. 
Specifically, my conversations boiled down how this crisis affects our 
American truck drivers. Over 95 percent of all commercial manufacturing 
goods and agricultural products are shipped by truck at some point. 9.6 
million people have jobs directly or indirectly related to trucking. In 
addition, trucking contributes over 5 percent of America's gross 
domestic product which is the equivalent of $372 billion to the 
economy.
  Along with these astonishing facts about trucking, here are some more 
facts about this fuel crisis:
  fuel taxes account for about 28 percent of what you pay for a gallon 
of gas at the pump;
  the government imposes 43 different direct and indirect taxes on the 
production and distribution of gas, bringing the total burden to 54 
percent of the price of a gallon of gas;
  U.S. oil production is down 17 percent from 1992, consumption is up 
14 percent;
  DOE estimates the United States will use 65 percent foreign oil by 
2020;
  the United States spends $300 million per day, and $100 billion per 
year on foreign oil;
  and oil makes up one-third of our trade deficit.
  I know what our truckers are going through. I put myself through 
college driving a truck and I just recently got my Colorado commercial 
driver's license so that I could get back into driving. Since I own a 
small rig, I know firsthand how the fuel crisis impacts those who 
depend on it. My fuel bills have doubled in the last year alone.
  Hundreds of truckers from all over have come to Washington to ask for 
help on three different occasions in the last few weeks. One thing I 
have learned is that when many private citizens give their time to come 
to Washington, the issue is not profit margins, or stock prices, it is 
because they are fighting for their families' very livelihood.
  I met a man named Wesley White from Oregon, who said he was on his 
last run. He could not afford to continue fueling his truck. He has 
spent his pension to buy the truck, but when he gets home, he's parking 
it for good. Without the income derived from delivering goods he will 
not be able to make truck payments and will lose the truck. Another 
trucker I met was living with his wife and two small children in the 
truck sleeper because the increase in diesel costs did not leave them 
enough money to pay their house rent.
  Unfortunately, the administration has ignored the plight of these 
hard working Americans. This administration got us into this mess by 
their total lack of an energy policy. They stand in the way of domestic 
oil production by locking up public lands and refuse to release federal 
fuel stockpiles already in place.
  Now, faced with skyrocketing diesel prices, they still do nothing of 
substance, instead they wanted to wait for OPEC to meet in Vienna which 
happened on March 27 and 28 of this year, hoping that the outcome would 
be favorable for the U.S., which is debatable. But can we trust this 
outcome when the U.S. has sanction on 8 out of the 11 OPEC nations?

  Recently, the Energy Secretary went to the Middle East with hat in 
hand, to beg for fuel. He claims that this increase in oil production 
will lower fuel costs by approximately 11 cents by the end of the 
summer. Well, what do we do until then? The crisis is happening now. 
Also administration officials come before Congress to propose studying 
alternative energy sources, which is fine, but I have news for them: 
Trucks today run on diesel, not wind or solar power. Everything we buy 
to eat and wear comes on a truck. If the trucks stop rolling, this 
Nation stops rolling.

[[Page S2503]]

  The benefits from this recent increase in oil production will not be 
seen for months. We need solutions now before any more Americans lose 
their jobs because of high fuel prices.
  I am pleased the pending legislation includes a provision which is 
similar to a bill I introduced more than a month ago on March 2, S. 
2161 the American Transportation Recovery and Highway Trust Fund 
Protection Act of 2000. My bill would temporarily suspend the federal 
excise tax on diesel fuel for one year or until the price of crude oil 
is reduced to the December 31, 1999 level. It would replace the lost 
revenues with monies from the budget surplus in the general fund, while 
protecting the Highway Trust Fund. S. 2161 is endorsed by the American 
Trucking Association, the Independent Truckers Association, and the 
Colorado Motor Carriers Association to name just a few.
  The provision in the pending legislation states that in the event the 
national average price of unleaded regular gasoline rises to $2 per 
gallon or more, it would further suspend all federal excise taxes on 
fuels, while retaining only the 0.1 percent portion devoted to Leaking 
Underground Storage Tanks Trust Fund. I believe this action would be an 
important step forward to help relieve the escalating burden on 
America's truckers and farmers.
  But, these bills are only short-term solutions, and only one step 
which could be taken. Our real problem is our dependence on foreign 
oil. In 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. bought 35 
percent of its oil from foreign sources. Today, we buy 56 percent, by 
some reports 62 percent. All the negotiations the administration is 
doing to get OPEC to open the spigots is not more than a band aid 
approach to a problem that will continually revisit us as long as we 
are dependent on foreign oil. It is unfortunate that we, a global 
superpower, are reduced to begging, and now we have to take what we can 
get from OPEC. More forceful actions need to be taken to expose the 
severity of this problem and address it now, not in the months to come. 
We cannot stand by and do nothing of consequence while good people lose 
their means of support.
  The Federal fuels tax holiday bill is an important step forward to 
provide relief to hard working Americans from the burden of rising fuel 
prices, and I urge my colleagues to support cloture so we can pass this 
bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish to take this 
opportunity to explain why I missed the vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday bill, and more 
importantly, to explain why I would have voted against cloture on this 
bill.
  I had to be absent for this vote because I was traveling to Taiwan, 
where I became the first Member of the U.S. Congress to visit its newly 
elected leadership. I made the trip to discuss and reinforce Taiwan's 
close economic ties with my state of West Virginia, and to relay our 
country's interest in Taiwan and its continued stable relations with 
China.
  Had I been in Washington, DC, for this vote, I would have most 
assuredly voted against it. I would have opposed cloture for a number 
of reasons, including my philosophical opposition to the frequent use 
of the cloture procedure by the majority to foreclose Democratic 
initiatives. However, I was happy to see that this cloture motion 
failed because of more substantive concerns. Quite simply, this bill 
represents bad tax policy, bad energy policy, and bad transportation 
policy, all dressed up in an election year wrapper.
  Proponents of the gas tax ``holiday'' would have us believe that this 
bill--which would have cut more than $200 million in federal highway 
money for West Virginia--was offered to do something about the recent 
price increases for gasoline and other fuels. Petroleum products are 
taxed at the refinery, not at the pump, and consumers would not have 
seen any of the savings passed through to them. Consumers in some 
states would even have seen their state gasoline tax go up in response 
to the federal tax going down. The effect of this bill would have been 
the creation of a windfall for oil companies and middlemen, with West 
Virginians still paying much more than the national average for a 
gallon of gas.
  Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss some of the problems 
with this legislation. The proposed 4.3 cent reduction would translate 
to more than $4 billion in lost revenue that would otherwise go to the 
Highway Trust Fund. The complete elimination of fuel taxes that would 
have been triggered by the price of gas going above $2.00 would explode 
that shortfall to more than $20 billion--all to be made up from a 
surplus that some would argue does not exist. These funding reductions 
would have put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, 
jeopardized projects to upgrade our aging transportation 
infrastructure, and put millions of highway users at risk.
  In addition to the severe cutback in the highway funding mechanism, 
which we were so happy to put in place two years ago with the passage 
of TEA-21, the impact of the fuel tax repeal would have left the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund under-funded to the tune of about $700 
million a year. The effect on airline passenger safety, and on airport 
construction and maintenance projects, would be devastating.
  Repeal of the gasoline excise tax would have eliminated the tax 
incentives we in Congress have instituted to expand the use of 
alternative fuels. Without the general excise tax from which to 
partially exempt alternative or blended fuels, there would be no 
realistic means of bringing our nation into compliance with fuel 
diversity standards we have previously worked to put in place. As this 
temporary worldwide shortage of gasoline demonstrates so painfully at 
the pumps, the United States needs an energy policy that weakens the 
grip of foreign suppliers.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to comment on an earlier cloture 
vote on this issue. On March 30 I voted for the cloture motion on the 
motion to proceed to this bill. I voted this way not because I 
supported the gas tax repeal, but precisely because I thought the 
Senate should proceed to consideration of the bill, so that its many 
faults could be debated, and the bill could be voted down.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the inquiry from the senior 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, I would like to pass on my views on 
the intent and impact of Section 1(f)(4) of S. 2285. This provision, as 
Senator Warner pointed out, is indeed unprecedented in the history of 
the law governing the Highway Trust Fund. As I read this provision, it 
is an attempt to make up for the losses in deposits that would occur to 
both the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds as a result of a 
reduced fuel tax in this bill with transfers from the general fund of 
the Treasury. As has been pointed out by other Senators during debate 
on this bill, the legislation does not state with specificity how this 
diversion of general funds is to occur. It is not clear whether these 
general funds would be derived from the non-Social Security surplus or 
be required to be diverted from other areas of federal spending.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the excellent staff 
work of Ann Loomis of Senator Warner's staff, Ellen Stein of Senator 
Voinovich's staff, Tracy Henke of Senator Bond's staff, Mitch Warren of 
Senator Lautenberg's staff, Tom Sliter and Dawn Levy of Senator Baucus' 
staff, as well as Peter Rogoff, of my Appropriations Committee staff, 
on this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from a 
number of interest groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 10, 2000.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Byrd: The Associated General Contractors of 
     America (AGC) greatly appreciates your vote in favor of the 
     Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the 
     Senate Amendment to the Budget Resolution. Your vote in 
     support of not tampering with the federal gas tax and the 
     Highway Trust Fund demonstrates your commitment to improving 
     our nation's highways, bridges and transit systems.
       The amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by the 
     Senate 66 to 34, declares the Senate's support for 
     maintaining the current level of federal motor fuels taxes. 
     The Senate has consistently rejected efforts to repeal 
     portions of the federal gas tax. In 1998, 72 sitting Senators 
     voted against

[[Page S2504]]

     repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. The next day, the entire 
     Senate voted to spend the 4.3 cents for badly needed highway 
     and transit improvements.
       It is imperative that the Senate continues to oppose any 
     efforts to reduce the federal gasoline taxes on either a 
     temporary or permanent basis. These user fees save lives, 
     reduce congestion and create thousands of American jobs. Any 
     reduction or suspension of the federal gasoline tax threatens 
     to erode the spending levels guaranteed in the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Moreover, the 
     reduction in gasoline taxes provides no guarantee that 
     consumers will experience any reduction in the price at the 
     pump.
       Again, thank you for your support of the Byrd-Warner-
     Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the Senate 
     Amendment to the Budget Resolution. Please continue to help 
     defeat any efforts to reduce the federal gasoline taxes and 
     preserve the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                               Executive Director,
     Congressional Relations.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Roberts: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the 
     American Road and Transportation Builders Association 
     (ARTBA), thank you for your April 6 vote in support of the 
     Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinvoich-Lautenberg-Bond Amendment to the 
     proposed FY2001 budget resolution.
       We greatly appreciate you going on record in opposition to 
     efforts to repeal or suspend the federal motor fuels tax in 
     response to rising gas prices. We have notified our members 
     in your state that you voted to support retaining the current 
     federal motor fuels tax and sent a strong signal against 
     proposals that would place funding for state highway and mass 
     transit improvement programs at risk.
       Unfortunately, this issue may come before the Senate again 
     the week of April 10. We understand S. 2285, or some 
     variation thereof, may be brought to the Senate floor in the 
     near future as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment to other 
     legislation. S. 2285 would temporarily repeal 4.3 cents of 
     the federal motor fuels tax from April 15, 2000, through 
     January 1, 2001. The bill would repeal the entire 18.4 cents 
     federal gas tax if the national average price for a gallon of 
     gasoline rises above $2.00. The bill proposes to use the 
     ``on-budget surplus'' to ``reimburse'' the more than $20 
     billion that could be lost to the Highway Trust Fund under 
     this scheme.
       We hope you will vigorously oppose S. 2285 or like 
     proposals.
       This bill introduces uncertainty and risk into state 
     highway and mass transit funding. Federal investment in these 
     areas is already guaranteed under TEA-21. There is no need to 
     risk this guarantee for a promise that things will be taken 
     care of using the ``on-budget surplus.''
       The fact is, S. 2285 could utilize the entire FY 2000 ``on-
     budget surplus.'' According to the Senate Budget Committee's 
     Informed Budgeteer, the Congressional Budget Office has re-
     estimated the FY 2000 ``on-budget surplus'' to be $15 
     billion. Repealing the entire federal gas tax from April 15 
     to September 30--a possibility under S. 2285--would cost the 
     Highway Trust Fund approximately $15 billion.
       This would leave no room for other Republican or Clinton 
     Administration budget priorities . . . or for using the 
     ``surplus'' to pay down the national debt . . . or to protect 
     Social Security and Medicare. The House has already adopted a 
     supplemental appropriation bill for FY 2000 that would tie-up 
     $16.7 billion of the ``on-budget surplus''! The proposed 
     supplemental is but one of many measures that would utilize 
     the ``on-budget surplus.''
       Again, we thank you for your vote April 6. We need you to 
     be with us again in opposition to S. 2285.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                                        AAA Washington Office,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: AAA is pleased to lend its support to 
     your amendment to the Senate budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 
     101, expressing the ``Sense of the Senate'' that the federal 
     gasoline tax should not be reduced or repealed.
       AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal 
     any portion of the federal excise tax on gasoline. While 
     attractive at first glance, this course of action will do 
     little to address the root cause of our gasoline price 
     problem today, which is a shortage of supply caused by 
     curtailed production of crude oil by OPEC member nations.
       The benefit to motorists from reducing the gas tax is, at 
     best minimal--repealing 4.3 cents would amount to about $1/
     week for the average consumer. However, as your amendment 
     points out, the resulting loss of revenue to the Highway 
     Trust Fund would be disastrous to the important work of 
     fixing the nation's highways and bridges and improving 
     safety.
       It is highway and traffic safety that is of most concern to 
     AAA. Lower receipts to the Highway Trust Fund compromise the 
     safety of the traveling public. We take these roads back and 
     forth to work and on vacations, our children take these roads 
     to school, and our public safety officials use these arteries 
     to respond to emergencies.
       Asking Americans to choose between a gas tax reduction and 
     safety is posing the wrong question. The right question is: 
     How should Congress and the Administration manage an energy 
     strategy that reduces dependence upon a foreign cartel? That 
     way motorists would have the safe highways they've paid for 
     through their gas taxes and an oil supply they can rely on. 
     Short-term fixes, while politically popular, are not in the 
     best interests of highway safety and the overall economic 
     well being of the nation.
       Congress made a very important decision by creating the 
     Highway Trust Fund and establishing the direct link between 
     user fees paid by motorists and trust fund monies dedicated 
     to improving the nation's surface transportation. Because of 
     TEA-21, the trust fund is now dedicated to providing 
     Americans the safe and efficient transportation system on 
     which they have paid and on which they rely.
       Again, AAA appreciates your continued leadership on 
     transportation issues and is pleased to support your 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                         Susan G. Pikrallidas,

                                                   Vice President,
     Public & Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                             Construction Industry


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: The Construction Industry 
     Manufacturers Association (CIMA) thanks you for your support 
     of the amendment to S. Con. Res. 101 to oppose a reduction of 
     federal fuel taxes. CIMA is the full service, innovative 
     business resource for over 500 construction equipment 
     manufacturers and services providers.
       CIMA's membership was alerted to this amendment and 
     actively lobbied for a favorable vote. The bipartisan support 
     for the amendment demonstrates that an overwhelming majority 
     of the Senate supports the user fee concept to build and 
     maintain our nation's roads, highways and bridges.
       A reliable transportation infrastructure is essential to 
     maintain the strength of the U.S. economy and for the 
     American public to enjoy safe and efficient modes of travel.
       CIMA thanks you for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dennis J. Slater,
     President.
                                  ____

                                     Laborers' International Union


                                             of North America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than 800,000 members of 
     the Laborers' International Union of America, I am writing to 
     urge you to oppose any effort to temporarily repeal the 
     entire 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax to offset the recent 
     increases in the price of gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. 
     While a repeal of the gas tax would most certainly result in 
     less spending on transportation infrastructure, safety 
     programs and job losses, there is simply no guarantee that it 
     would result in lower prices at the pump.
       The current plan likely to be considered on the Senate 
     floor proposes to suspend the 4.3 cents gas tax immediately. 
     However, even if the 4.3-cents tax is suspended, few 
     consumers will likely see savings at the pump for at least 
     two reasons. First, the tax is not actually imposed at the 
     gas pump; rather it is collected shortly after it leaves the 
     refinery. The fuel can pass through several middlemen before 
     it reaches the consumer. None of these middlemen would have 
     to pass along the savings. Those supplying the fuel could 
     simply keep the reduced tax. Past experience has shown that 
     as the wholesale cost of fuel goes up, prices at the pump 
     increase. Decreases in fuel taxes, however, have not 
     necessarily been passed on to motorists and motor carriers.
       Several years ago, Connecticut reduced their state fuel tax 
     but it did not translate into a price cut for consumers. As 
     the Hartford Courant noted in 1997, after prices failed to 
     come down.
       ``Gas taxes and prices are not connected in an ironclad 
     way. The tax can be cut, but the benefits to consumers will 
     be swallowed up in higher prices at the pump. In the future, 
     the governor and legislature should build tax policy on a 
     firmer foundation.''
       Secondly, some states, such as California, have laws that 
     automatically increase the state fuel tax with any reduction 
     in the federal fuel tax. In those states, the consumer would 
     realize no tax savings at all.
       The new Senate plan calls for funding the gas tax repeal 
     out of the budget surplus, a proposal that would supplant 
     other legislative priorities. In 1997, Congress transferred 
     the revenue from the taxes imposed on highway users to the 
     Highway Trust Fund to help pay for highway and transit 
     infrastructure, and for highway safety programs. The 4.3-cent 
     tax on gasoline and diesel brings in $7.2

[[Page S2505]]

     billion to the Highway Trust Fund annually--$5.8 billion for 
     highways and $1.4 billion for transit. When Congress passed 
     the TEA-21 bill, it established a direct link between these 
     funds and the funding returned to the states and cities for 
     highways and transit. Under TEA-21, all highway programs--
     highway construction, highway safety, transportation 
     enhancements and high-priority projects--are decreased 
     proportionally if tax revenues fall. Using the budget surplus 
     for transportation puts highway construction, highway safety 
     and transit programs at risk when Congress reauthorizes them 
     in 2003, because the funding levels in TEA-21 will not be 
     sustainable without a tax increase or continued transfers 
     from the General Fund.
       In essence, repealing the gas tax could reduce spending for 
     highway construction, transit and other transportation 
     infrastructure programs and draw down the budget surplus 
     without ever putting one cent, and at the very most pennies a 
     week, into the pocket of the average consumer. To put it 
     simply, it's a bad idea.
       For all the above reasons and more, we ask you to oppose 
     any effort to repeal or suspend any portion of the gas tax if 
     the full Senate considers it.
           Sincerely yours,
                                            Terence M. O'Sullivan,
     General President.
                                  ____

                                                 American Portland


                                              Cement Alliance,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2000.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of the American Portland 
     Cement Alliance (APCA), a trade association representing 
     virtually all domestic portland cement manufacturers, thank 
     you for voting in favor of the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-
     Lautenberg-Bond sense of the Senate amendment to the budget 
     resolution.
       As you know, an attempt to repeal or temporarily suspend 
     the federal fuels user fees (gasoline tax) may occur next 
     week, possibly during consideration of the Marriage Penalty 
     Tax legislation. Because the amendment would likely reimburse 
     the transportation trust funds with General Fund revenues, 
     its enactment could easily consume this year's entire 
     projected budgetary surplus (not required to protect the 
     Social Security Trust Fund). In short, if you have other 
     priorities, such as paying down the national debt, estate and 
     marriage penalty tax reductions, Medicare, or education, the 
     money will be gone.
       APCA is deeply concerned that any reduction in the user fee 
     would undermine TEA-21 and the funding commitment that 
     legislation made to the states for highway and mass transit 
     programs. Any reduction in these user fees would jeopardize 
     the funding guarantee under TEA-21 and, more importantly, 
     introduce uncertainty for state highway and transit 
     improvement programs, and the construction and material 
     supply industries, such as the cement manufacturers. 
     Therefore, I respectfully ask that you vote against any 
     measures to repeal the federal fuels user fees.
       Again, thank you for your support on the Byrd-Warner-
     Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond sense of the Senate 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Richard C. Creighton,
     President.
                                  ____



                                        AAA Washington Office,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2000.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: AAA thanks you for your vote in support 
     of the amendment offered by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) to the 
     fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. The 66-34 vote in favor 
     of the Byrd amendment is a clear signal that the majority of 
     the U.S. Senate does not support efforts to suspend or repeal 
     any portion of the federal excise tax on gasoline.
       AAA continues to have serious concerns about efforts to 
     reduce the federal gas tax. Motorists will see very little 
     benefit from the repeal and they could, in fact, face 
     significant safety problems. The loss of revenue to the 
     Highway Trust Fund would be disastrous to the important work 
     that needs to be done to improve the nation's highways, 
     bridges, and safety programs. A gas tax repeal is a short-
     term fix to a long-term problem and is not in the best 
     interests of highway safety.
       AAA encourages you to stand firm in opposition to further 
     consideration of any effort to repeal or suspend the federal 
     gas tax.
           Sincerely,
                                             Susan G. Pikrallidas,
                                  Public and Government Relations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I respond by telling my friend, Senator Warner, that 
the gas station is the most competitive business in this country. I 
yield the remaining time to my friend, Senator Smith of New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, under S. 2285, lost 
revenues to the highway trust fund would be made up dollar for dollar 
from the on-budget surplus. Let's not forget that we are in this 
position because the President of the United States does not have an 
energy policy. We cannot continue to risk both the well-being of the 
American people and our national security. This policy of relying on 
overseas energy has left us vulnerable to the whims of foreign 
countries.
  Passage of S. 2285 will bring relief to working families and protect 
our highway trust fund. I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a few minutes of my leader 
time, if I may, because I understand we have no time on our side 
either.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me by two Cabinet 
officials, Larry Summers and Bill Richardson, be printed in the Record 
at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   April 10, 2000.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate; Washington, DC. 20910
       Dear Senator Daschle: The Administration believes that 
     Congress should pass critical tax credits and incentives that 
     would promote energy efficiency and the use of renewably 
     energy resources to enhance our energy security, instead of a 
     temporary suspension of fuel taxes that will offer consumers 
     little tangible benefit while risking highway and mass 
     transit funds and squeezing other key priorities like 
     education and law enforcement.
       We urge the Congress to adopt measures that would address 
     fundamental energy needs. The President has proposed a 
     comprehensive tax package, including new tax credits for 
     domestic oil producers and essential incentives to promote 
     energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. 
     Congress should pass the President's tax package and fund 
     fully his fiscal year 2001 budget and 2000 Supplemental to 
     promote energy security through the use of domestic energy 
     technologies. Enactment of these proposals would reduce the 
     effect of high energy prices, decrease our dependence on 
     imported oil, and improve the environment.
       Much of the benefit of the proposal would accrue to OPEC 
     and other producers rather than American consumers, in 
     contrast to the Administration's approach, which seeks to 
     enhance energy security by increasing domestic energy 
     supplies and energy efficiency. Reducing fuel taxes would 
     increase the demand for imported oil. The quantity of oil in 
     the world market in effectively fixed in the short term. The 
     combination of increased demand and a fixed supply would 
     increase the price of oil, with much of that increase 
     accruing to OPEC instead of American consumers.
       The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, PL. 
     105-178, signed by the President on June 9, 1998, guarantees 
     that funds deposited in the highway account will be 
     automatically spent on federal highway and construction 
     needs. The transportation fuels taxes are in the nature of 
     user fees to recoup those costs. We believe that this 
     legislation is inconsistent with this national policy that 
     users of the nation's transportation system should pay for 
     the costs of building and maintaining our transportation 
     infrastructure. There is no justification for shifting 
     transportation infrastructure costs, as S. 2285 would do, 
     from the users of this transportation system to taxpayers 
     generally.
       We are concerned that S. 2385 only partially protects the 
     Social Security Trust Fund. It provides that the revenue loss 
     from rate reductions in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon may 
     not exceed the on-budget surplus. The 4.3-cents-per-gallon 
     rate reduction, however, would apply even if it remits in an 
     on-budget deficit. In any case in which the rate reduction 
     results in a deficit, the ultimate effect is that a portion 
     of the Social Security Trust Fund equal to the deficit is 
     diverted to maintain highway spending programs at their 
     current level. In addition, S. 2285 would affect receipts and 
     is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
       Finally, we are concerned that this proposal cannot be 
     administered. S. 2285 provides that the aggregate revenue 
     effect of rate reduction in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon 
     not exceed the on-budget surplus during the period the taxes 
     are reduced. We are concerned about our ability to administer 
     this limitation if the rate reductions in excess of 4.3 cents 
     per gallon are triggered. Because the rate reduction period 
     does not coincide with normal budgetary accounting periods, 
     the budget surplus for the period may never be known.

[[Page S2506]]

       For the forgoing reasons, we strongly oppose S. 2285. We 
     look forward to working with you on meaningful legislation 
     that will promote domestic energy solutions and reduce our 
     long-term dependency on foreign oil.
           Sincerely,
     Lawrence H. Summers.
     Bill Richardson.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Basically, the letter says what a number of our 
colleagues have been saying throughout this debate, that this could 
have devastating consequences on general revenues as well as on the 
Social Security trust fund per se.
  It says, briefly reading a couple of paragraphs:

       In any case in which the rate reduction results in a 
     deficit, the ultimate effect is that a portion of the Social 
     Security Trust Fund equal to that deficit is diverted to 
     maintain highway spending programs at the current level. In 
     addition, S. 2285 would affect receipts and is subject to the 
     pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990.
       We are concerned that this proposal cannot be administered. 
     S. 2285 provides that the aggregate revenue effect of rate 
     reductions in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon not exceed the 
     on-budget surplus during the period the taxes are reduced. We 
     are concerned about our ability to administer this limitation 
     if the rate reductions in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon are 
     triggered. Because the rate reduction period does not 
     coincide with normal budgetary accounting periods, the budget 
     surplus for the period may never be known.

  We ought to have a very good and thorough discussion about the 
implications of this bill prior to the time we are called upon to vote 
on it. By voting for cloture now, we cut off debate that never was. We 
cut off a debate that ought to provide a thorough examination of the 
implications on the Social Security trust fund, of the budget overall, 
of highway construction this year, of the implications for 
infrastructure in the outyears, of the solvency of the trust fund in 
periods beyond this fiscal year. All of those issues have not been 
debated.
  For that reason, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to 
the cloture vote to be cast today.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  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 Calendar No. 
     473, S. 2285, a bill instituting a Federal fuels tax holiday:
         Trent Lott, Judd Gregg, Connie Mack, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, James Inhofe, Frank H. Murkowski, Paul 
           Coverdell, Michael Crapo, Thad Cochran, Charles 
           Grassley, Jim Bunning, Gordon Smith, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Larry E. Craig, Bob Smith, and Don Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2285, a bill instituting a Federal fuels tax holiday, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Abraham
     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________