[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5033-5035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             THE FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY OF THE YEAR 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am very pleased today to join with 
the majority leader, Senator Lott, Senator Craig, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, and a number of Senators on a very important piece of 
legislation that is before this body, entitled ``The Federal Fuels Tax 
Holiday of the Year 2000.''
  This legislation is necessary because it will put a brake on the 
ever-rising gasoline prices that American families face every day. 
Unlike the airlines, the American family can't pass on the increased 
price in gasoline. Recently, the truckers came to Washington to express 
their concerns about the gas tax.
  Energy and the cost of energy affects all of us in our lives in 
varying ways. So the idea of putting the brake on the ever-increasing 
gasoline prices that American families pay each day is very important.
  It is my hope that we invoke cloture tomorrow to ensure that the 
American motorist and workers get a break.
  Our legislation provides a tax holiday for all Americans, from the 
gas tax, that Democrats, with Vice President Gore casting the deciding 
vote, adopted in 1993. That 30 percent gas tax hike was the centerpiece 
of one of the largest tax increases in American history and we believe 
with gas prices approaching $2 a gallon in some parts of the country, 
the American motorist should not have to continue paying the Gore tax.
  I don't know if all my colleagues on the other side would agree with 
that nomenclature, but I think it is appropriate since the Vice 
President broke the tie which added a 30-percent gas hike.
  In addition to temporarily ending the Clinton/Gore gas tax, our 
legislation guarantees that if the failed Clinton/Gore energy policies 
result in the price of gasoline rising over $2 a gallon, all fuel taxes 
will be lifted until the end of the year.
  That means the American motorist will be relieved of the 18.4-cent-
per-gallon gas tax. The trucking industry will not have to pay the 
24.4-cent-per-gallon diesel tax. Barge operators will be relieved of 
the 4.4-cent-per-gallon inland waterway tax, and commercial and 
noncommercial aircraft operators will be relieved of the aviation tax.
  It is certainly my hope that average gasoline prices do not rise 
above $2. But it is clear to me that $2 gasoline is well within the 
probability of becoming a reality because despite the administration's 
claims of victory about last week's OPEC meeting, Americans should not 
expect much, if any, of a price decline at the gas pump. Why? Let's 
look at it.
  OPEC's decision to increase production by 1.7 million barrels per day 
is not, in my opinion, even a hollow victory for the Administration's, 
which lobbied for a minimum increase of 2.5 million barrels. The 
reality is that there isn't a real 1.7-million-barrel increase by OPEC.
  Why do I say that? Let's look at the arithmetic.
  OPEC agreed last year to 23 million barrels as their quota of 
production. They cheated by an additional 1.2 barrels, moving it up to 
24.2. As a consequence, the difference between 1.2 and what they said 
we got as an increase of 1.7 is only 500,000 barrels of real increase. 
OPEC makes up 15.8 percent of American imports. As a result, we will be 
lucky to see another 78,000 barrels of oil in our market.
  Will 78,000 barrels make a dent in gasoline prices? Not likely. 
Consider that motorists in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area use 
more than 121,000 barrels of oil in a single day.
  With no relief in sight for the American motorist, we believe that 
the Gore fuel tax should be temporarily lifted. That would save 
American motorists about 4.4 barrels over the next 8 months.
  If gasoline goes above $2, our bill suspends all fuel taxes resulting 
in a $19 billion saving to American motorists, truckers, barge 
operators, and airlines at the same time that fuel prices are near an 
all-time high. I believe the Government should suspend those taxes and 
ease the financial burden OPEC has placed on the American motorist and 
the industries that rely on fuel to move goods throughout this country.
  I know some are concerned, if we suspend these taxes, that the 
highway trust fund, which finances roads, bridges, and mass transit, 
could be in danger. Again, I would like to put that fear to rest.
  Our legislation ensures that the Highway Trust Fund will not lose a 
single penny during this tax holiday.

[[Page 5034]]

We require that all monies that would have gone into the fund had the 
taxes not been suspended be replaced by other Federal revenue. That 
could come from the on-budget surplus, as I have indicated, or from 
what I would like to see, which is a reduction of wasteful Federal 
spending.
  I can assure the American motorist that highway construction projects 
this year and next year will be unaffected by the tax holiday that we 
are proposing. And when the trust fund is fully restored, all projects 
scheduled for beyond 2002 will be completed.
  Some of the colleagues believe it is a mistake to establish a 
precedent wherein general revenues are used to finance highway 
construction. Ordinarily, I might agree with them, but not in this 
case.
  All of my colleagues should remember that when the Clinton/Gore 4.3-
cent gasoline tax was adopted in 1993, not a single penny of that tax 
was dedicated to highway or bridge construction. All the money was 
earmarked for Federal spending.
  As I stated earlier, it was not until the Republicans adopted the 
1997 highway bill that we shifted the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax back to 
the highway trust fund.
  Further, as I have indicated, Americans have paid $42 billion since 
the Gore tax went into effect. Of that $42 billion, $28 billion was 
spent not on highways but on general government and went into the 
general fund.
  Let me repeat that. Of the $42 billion Americans paid under the Gore 
tax, $28 billion was spent not on highways but on general government.
  I believe under these circumstances that it is perfectly reasonable 
for general revenues to be used to repay the trust fund money that 
should have been spent on highways.
  The question before the Senate today is very simple. Do Senators want 
to give American motorists a break at the gas pump when gas prices are 
at near record highs?
  I think it is important for everybody to understand that we are the 
elected representatives of the people. What is their choice? Do the 
people want to have relief from the gas tax? Is that their priority?
  We have polling information that I will submit for the Record that 
indicates overwhelming support for relief at the gas pump. I think the 
polling clearly shows that the American public, when offered an 
opportunity to reduce taxes, would much rather take it and run.
  A Gallup Poll released last week found that although Americans think 
high prices are only temporary, they believe several things should be 
done to reduce taxes.
  Eighty percent of the American people--I hope my colleagues and staff 
are listening and will take notes--favor lowering gas taxes. Seventy-
four percent--nearly three out of every four Americans--think that a 
temporary reduction of the gas tax is a worthy solution. That is three 
out of four.
  Think about that. Seventy-four percent of Americans think a temporary 
reduction in the gas tax is a worthy solution.
  Think about where we are and what the administration is telling us.
  First of all, since I have been speaking about policies of the 
administration and the position of our Vice President, I want to refer 
to an article that appeared on October 23, 1999, in the State Times 
Morning Advocate at Baton Rouge, LA. The Vice President says he would 
be more antidrilling than other Presidents. More anti-drilling? Let me 
read the quote.
  ``I will take the most sweeping steps in our history to protect our 
oceans and coastal waters from offshore oil drilling,'' he said in a 
press release. ``I will make sure that there will be no new oil leasing 
off the Keys of California and Florida, and then I will go much 
further. I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is no 
new drilling off these sensitive areas, even in areas leased by 
previous administrations.''
  He would cancel contracts and leases out there that were made by 
previous administrations.
  (Mr. CRAIG assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. He further states: Existing leases and what oil and 
natural gas companies could do with them already are the objects of 
long-running legal disputes.
  He says he would cancel leases in areas already leased by previous 
administrations.
  These are existing leases; where is the sanctity of a contractual 
commitment? I believe if Florida and California don't want OCS 
activities off their coast, that is fine; that should prevail if that 
is what people want. In Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and my 
State of Alaska, where we produce roughly 22 percent of the total crude 
oil produced in the United States, these States should go ahead because 
they want this. They recognize the alternative is not very pleasant--
and that is to import more oil.
  I leave Members with the very ambiguous reference this administration 
has given, suggesting things will get better. There is a certain 
psychology in reassuring citizens that the price will come down. 
However, in reality, the consumption is up, production is down, we are 
56-percent dependent on imports, and the forecast is we will be 65 
percent in the year 2015 or thereabouts. These are hardly reassuring 
notes, taken verbatim from this administration, to suggest things will 
get better.
  In conclusion, from the CBS ``Early Show'' on March 29, 2000, from 
Secretary Richards, the Secretary was being questioned on his view of 
whether we could likely see some relief. He states as follows: This 
means for the American consumer, gasoline prices will gradually and 
steadily decline, according to the Energy Information Administration 
and my Department, by as much as 11 cents by the end of September or 
the end of summer.
  That is quite a while. What do we do in the meantime?
  Then he says: The bottom line is, I am just quoting our investigators 
and our official people who are saying 11 cents by the end of summer, 
possibly 15, 16 cents by the end of the year.
  That is an indefinite forecast, in my opinion.
  I appeal to the Chair to recognize that we can't believe the 
Secretary that the price is coming down. Every Member should support 
this legislation because it will keep the pressure on the 
administration to ensure it stays below $2 and this tax holiday won't 
be a reality. It will give the American consumer a safety net. Think 
about that.
  The administration says: Don't worry, prices are on the decline. OK, 
if prices are on the decline--which I don't believe they are in the 
short term or the long term, but we will see who is right or wrong--we 
go ahead and pass the elimination of the 18.4-cent-gallon Federal tax, 
suspend it for the balance of the year, if the price goes to $2 a 
gallon for regular. That is a balance that puts the administration on 
notice to practice what they preach. If they preach the prices are 
coming down, this will never happen anyway. We are giving the American 
consumer a safety net. That safety net is real and it says if the price 
goes up to $2 the 18.4 comes off. I think that is a fair balance.
  I will show this chart one more time. I find it outrageous. Who do we 
look to for imports? We look to Saddam Hussein and Iraq: Last year 
300,000; now it is 700,000 barrels a day.
  Where does the money go? It is going to Saddam Hussein. We fought a 
war over there--remember--in 1991. We lost the lives of 147 U.S. men 
and women. We fought a war to keep Saddam out of Kuwait. What did 
Saddam do when he lost the war?
  Talk about environmental degradation. This is a picture of Kuwait 
with the oil fields on fire. We see the fires in the background. Here 
is an American with the firefighters helping put that fire out. That is 
the kind of guy we are dealing with to depend on imports. We had 23 
soldiers taken prisoner over there. It has cost the American taxpayer 
$10 billion since the war in 1991 to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in 
enforcing the no-fly zones. Within the last week, we did two bombing 
runs in Iraq because he was in violation of the no-fly zone, and we had 
antiaircraft action.

[[Page 5035]]

  Isn't it incredible? We talk about foreign policy or energy policy of 
this administration, and we are feeding Saddam Hussein millions and 
millions of dollars so he can take that cash-flow and pay his 
Republican Guards who keep him alive. He doesn't funnel that into his 
economic system for the benefit of his people. He is in cahoots with 
the North Koreans, developing missile technology and our bombing 
airplanes are carrying his fuel. How inconsistent, how ironic. Talk 
about a full circle. We are importing 700,000 barrels a day, we are 
bombing him, we are using his oil that we refine to fill up our 
airplanes.
  I may be reaching a little bit, but this is reality. We are importing 
700,000 barrels a day.
  It is my understanding this matter will come up tomorrow and we will 
have a number of Senators active in the debate on the merits of the 
basic presentation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________