[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5124-5125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 5124]]

                             GAS TAX REPEAL

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the reason I take to the floor today is 
not only to underscore what Senator Durbin has said but to say that 
while I think we should be doing this juvenile justice bill and passing 
the gun measures that lie within it, what we are doing today makes no 
sense at all, in my view, which is to cancel, if you will, the 4.3-cent 
Federal tax on a gallon of gasoline which, in the case of my State, if 
carried out over 2 years, would lose my State $1.7 billion in highway 
funds and transit moneys.
  The people in my State are very smart. We are suffering from the 
highest gas prices in the United States, but we also understand the 
answer is not to use this as an excuse to slash highway funds, to begin 
drilling off the coast of California or to open up the Alaska Wildlife 
Refuge to drilling. People in my State understand we need an energy 
policy, not some kind of gimmickry that the other side is using to lash 
out at Vice President Gore and say he, in fact, wants higher gas taxes, 
which is just a made-up story.
  What we need in this country is an energy policy. What does that 
mean? First, it means having a Department of Energy that comes forward 
with an energy policy for safe ways to produce energy in this Nation 
and ways to save energy.
  What does the Republican Congress want to do? I think we can look 
over history if we want to find out. First, when they took over in 
1994--they got sworn in in 1995--one of the first things they tried to 
do was eliminate the Department of Energy. That makes a lot of sense. 
We need an energy policy, so what is the first thing they do? Try to 
eliminate the Department of Energy? I have to say, Bill Richardson did 
a masterful job of going around the world convincing the producers of 
oil to do a better job, to increase their supply. But, if the 
Republicans had their way, there would be no Cabinet position because 
there would be no Department of Energy. So that is the first thing they 
did in order to have an ``energy policy.''
  What else did they try to do? Every year, year in and year out since 
they took over, they have not provided adequate funding for alternative 
and renewable energy, which would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 
This is shortsighted and it only means our dependence on foreign oil 
will increase. We need more investment in energy-efficient 
technologies, not less.
  If you think I am just stating something that perhaps I cannot back 
up, let me give you the facts. On solar and renewable energy research 
and development, between the years 1996 and 2000, the Republicans have 
cut President Clinton's requests by 23.6 percent. On energy and 
conservation R&D, they have cut the President's requests 20.3 percent. 
Energy conservation grants, which are so important to encourage energy 
conservation--by the way, that is the best kind of energy policy, 
conservation; everybody wins. It costs the consumer less, and it 
destroys our environment less--they cut those grants by 25.4 percent. 
So the bottom line is they first wanted to do away with the Department 
of Energy. That was their program. Then they took the funding for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy and cut it by 22.2 percent.
  How about this one? Our Secretary of Energy goes around the world and 
gets an increased oil supply of about 1.7 million barrels a day, which 
is excellent work--he did a good job. We could save 1 million barrels 
of oil a day if we increased the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks 
to 27 miles per gallon. Now they are at about 20. We could save 1 
million barrels of oil a day from that simple step. What happens around 
here? The Republicans, in 1995, put a rider on appropriation bills 
prohibiting the administration from raising fuel economy standards for 
SUVs and light trucks just to get it to 27 miles per gallon, which it 
is at now for cars.
  This sounds like ``and a partridge in a pear tree.'' We have 
continual moves here: Eliminating the Department of Energy, providing 
in adequate funding for alternative and renewable energy, and riders 
prohibiting raising fuel economy for SUVs and light trucks.
  Here is another one. We know when energy prices go up, it is very 
important that the President have the ability to tap the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. It is there when there is an emergency. It is very 
important that he have that power. The Republican Congress has failed 
to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and without new 
reauthorization, no funds can be appropriated for the purchase of new 
oil for the reserve. So the reserve is not going to increase. That is 
very important.
  This is four policies, all of which undermine an energy policy for 
this country to lead to U.S. independence from foreign oil: Eliminating 
the Department of Energy, providing inadequate funding for alternative 
and renewable energy, stopping us from increasing fuel efficiency for 
SUVs and light trucks, and failing to reauthorize the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
  What do they come up with today? Repealing the gas tax. That is not 
an energy policy; it is a disaster--$1.7 billion lost over 2 years to 
my State. It would hurt my State. The country as a whole would lose 
$18.8 billion from the measure that is going to come before us. I hope 
we will not get cloture so we do not take it up. The Senate, frankly, 
has expressed itself on the budget resolution against this shortsighted 
amendment.
  This is not, however, the only thing my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are pushing. I mentioned in my opening statement drilling in 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There is a big debate over that: Should we 
allow drilling in a wildlife refuge? I say we give this the commonsense 
test. When President Eisenhower set up this refuge, do you think he 
thought about oil drilling in a refuge for the most magnificent 
wildlife you could find? I do not think so. Just think about it. What 
kind of refuge is it, if you have oil drilling there, with the risk of 
spills and all the traffic that comes with it?
  Some are again calling for drilling off the coast of California. I 
have to explain to my friends who think that is an energy policy that 
that would undermine California's economy because our tourism industry 
is dependent on a beautiful, magnificent coast. Our recreation industry 
is dependent on a beautiful, unspoiled coast. We should not use this 
spike in gas prices as an excuse to destroy the highway fund, to 
destroy the coast, to destroy a wildlife refuge. I think the American 
people can see through this. It does not an energy policy make, to 
repeal a tax which is earmarked for highways. It makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  Here is another fact: Right now in America there are 68,000 barrels a 
day being drilled and exported out of our country. While colleagues are 
talking about drilling in a refuge and drilling off the coast, we are 
exporting 68,000 barrels a day.
  There are 1 million barrels a day wasted because they will not vote 
to increase the fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and light trucks. 
They vote down energy efficiency budget recommendations by this 
President. They do not give him the tools for increasing the quantity 
of gas or oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They turn a blind eye 
to the oil companies that are merging at a rapid rate. I was an 
economics major in college many years ago. I am the first one to admit 
that it was a long time ago. One thing I learned and which has not 
changed was that competition is important for the consumer. When we 
have less competition, the consumer suffers. We have seen merger after 
merger. Yet we do not hear anyone on that side of the aisle saying 
maybe it is time we put a moratorium on these mergers. On the other 
hand, they support these mergers, as far as I can tell. We need to 
impose a moratorium on these mergers.
  Mergers are at a near frenzy. Shell and Texaco entered a joint 
venture, which is essentially a merger, in 1997.

[[Page 5125]]

British Petroleum and Amoco merged shortly thereafter. Last year, Exxon 
and Mobile merged. BP/Amoco is currently attempting to acquire 
California-based ARCO. If one overlays gas prices with these mergers, 
it is straight up. It is common sense: Less competition, higher prices.
  There are secret oil company documents that we know have been filed 
as part of the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit to block the merger. 
Those secret documents ought to be made public. One can see, if one 
reads the filing, that the FTC has made explosive charges of oil price 
manipulation by BP. We know that a lot of BP's oil is being exported 
from this country. If we are going to allow this merger to take place, 
we should at least insist that oil stay here rather than stand up in 
this Chamber and say we are going to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax 
which is going to destroy the highway trust fund. The people in my 
State are against this proposal.
  Between 1973 and 1995, we banned the export of the Alaska North Slope 
crude. The GAO has said that lifting this export ban increased the 
price of crude by more than $1 a barrel.
  We can create an energy policy that will result in the lowering of 
gas prices and, by the way, help the environment and clean up our air. 
What do we do around here? We do not do the long-range planning. We are 
not listening to the people who have studied this issue for years. We 
are turning a blind eye to these mergers which make prices skyrocket. 
We are not doing anything about stopping the exportation of Alaskan 
oil. We are not increasing the fuel economy standards.
  We are taking the short view and trying to make political points by 
saying: If we take away that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax, it is going to 
solve our gas price problem. That is not the answer. The American 
people are smart. They see this for what it is: A political ploy; it 
does not do anything; it robs our States of needed money for highways 
while they keep cutting back the funds the President requests for 
energy efficiency.
  I stand here as someone who has been involved in energy efficiency 
issues since I was a county supervisor in the seventies. That is when 
we had those long lines because gas prices were high and people were 
scared. By the way, that is when the American car companies lost their 
market share because it was the foreign carmakers that were making the 
fuel-efficient cars. Why don't we learn from history? Why don't we do 
the right thing instead of this short-term idea that makes no sense at 
all, that will only hurt our environment, will hurt our people, will 
hurt our ability to build the highways we need in the future, and 
absolutely does nothing about lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
  I am very pleased I had this opportunity to speak because I think 
this issue is clearly one of the most important we can consider.
  My last point is, half of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. 
What is reducing the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon going to do to lessen 
our dependence on foreign oil? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Let's do something 
that is going to help our balance of trade, that is going to help our 
environment, that is going to help our economy, and that is going to 
help our people.
  I thank the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. The Chair 
inquires how much time the Senator from Rhode Island will use.
  Mr. REED. Somewhere between 5 and 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I remind the Chair, ordinarily we go 
back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has been here 
waiting, so the Chair decided to recognize him.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, who controls time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska, or his designee, is to be recognized for up to 75 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________