[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5377-5378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               GAS TAXES

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted on a cloture 
motion to end debate on Senator Lott's proposal to roll back the 
gasoline excise tax. Senator Lott's bill is a sincere effort to address 
the hardships many Americans have been facing given the rising price of 
gasoline at the pump.
  I commend the majority leader for this legislation. But, I do want to 
clarify my vote on the cloture motion.
  I voted for cloture because I believe the majority leader, of all 
people, deserved an up-or-down vote on the proposal. I also believed 
that, if we were going to vote to cut or maintain the current gasoline 
tax, we ought not to confuse the American people about where we stood 
by deciding this issue on a procedural vote.
  Unfortunately, because cloture was not invoked, and there may not be 
a vote up-or-down on the proposal itself, it seems that Utahns are 
indeed confused about where I stand on this issue. As it frequently 
happens, the vote on the procedural motion becomes a proxy for how a 
senator would have voted on the bill. However, that assumption does not 
hold true for me in the case of this gas tax proposal. I would have 
reluctantly voted against it.
  While I respect Senator Lott for his effort at providing relief for 
truckers, farmers, landscapers, salesmen, and everyone else who depends 
on his or her vehicle, I have an equal concern for the quality of the 
highways they drive on.
  It is unclear to me that the loss of revenue that would have resulted 
from passing this legislation could have been immediately made up from 
other programs, thus necessary highway construction and repair projects 
in Utah and around the nation could have been delayed.
  Moreover, I believe that there are other measures we can find should 
take to address the issue of high gas prices. In the long-term, we 
should encourage development of alternative fuels vehicles. Toward this 
end, Senator Jeffords and I will be introducing legislation later this 
month that will provide strong tax incentives for the development and 
purchase of such vehicles, along with the alternative fuel they use.
  I also believe that there are other tax relief initiatives that will 
have greater positive impact for American families, and I will continue 
to press hard for these proposals.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, American consumers are feeling the impact 
of high oil prices. Obviously, the increase is noticeable at the gas 
pump, but it also is being felt in less visible ways through increases 
in the cost of goods and services as airline prices and shipping costs 
escalate. I have stated, in no uncertain terms, that I consider 
responsibility for the current situation largely to lie at the feet of 
the Clinton-Gore Administration. Thanks to nearly eight years of their 
short-sighted policies, we are increasingly dependent on foreign oil. 
To make matters worse, not only does the Clinton-Gore Administration 
not have any clear plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they 
actually appear to be moving in the opposite direction, seeming at 
every turn making it more difficult to develop domestic energy sources, 
whether it be gasoline, petroleum products, coal, oil, or hydropower.
  As it is largely through the bungling efforts of the current 
Administration that we are in this situation, I believe it is 
appropriate that the U.S. Senate counterbalance their efforts with some 
modest relief. A suspension of the 4.3-cent federal fuel excise tax, 
imposed in the early days of the Clinton Gore administration, should 
provide the short term relief consumers deserve.
  As Congress addresses these issues, however, we must seek a solution 
that not only attacks this problem from the perspective of energy 
supply, but also energy use. A key aspect of any debate on this subject 
must focus on motor vehicle fuel consumption. The United States 
currently uses about 17 million barrels of oil per day to run cars and 
trucks. Thanks to the existence of Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or 
CAFE, standards, three million barrels of oil are conserved each day. 
Despite the clear success of CAFE standards, however, Congress has 
prevented the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
from even considering whether we can do better, particularly in 
relation to the fuel efficiency standards of lights trucks, which 
haven't been significantly increased in ten years.
  Many constituents and colleagues are often surprised to learn of my 
advocacy for CAFE standards. My motivation is simple, and is based on 
the success of the original CAFE statute. I feel that NHTSA should at 
least be allowed to study whether an additional increasing CAFE 
standards is an appropriate action. As you may know, light truck 
standards have not had a significant increase in the last ten years. 
Light trucks are regulated separately from cars and are only required 
to get 20.7 mpg on fleet average as opposed to 27.5 for cars. In 1983, 
the average fuel economy of light trucks was already 20.7 mpg. Since 
1983 it has dropped .3 mpg to 20.4. This is hardly a technological 
breakthrough.
  I am not swayed by doomsday predictions from automakers who claim 
they will be forced to manufacture fleets of subcompact cars. These are 
the same arguments that were used during the original debate in 1974. 
One

[[Page 5378]]

only needs to examine the possible options available to consumers today 
to disprove this theory. When consumers can purchase SUVs as large as 
the Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion, it is hard to argue that consumer 
choice has been compromised. I have complete faith in American 
automobile manufacturers that they can continue to produce fuel 
efficient vehicles that are the envy of the world.
  Therefore, it was with great interest that I listened to Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson testify before the Interior Subcommittee this 
morning on the Clinton Administration's multi-faceted plan to address 
high gasoline prices. This testimony focused on a lengthy discussion of 
the results of last month's diplomatic efforts. When pressed on the 
Administration's plan to decrease this country's dependence on foreign 
oil sources, Secretary Richardson went on to tout his proposals to 
improve alternative fuel options and fuel efficiency. He suggested tax 
incentives and credits for U.S. oil producers, fuel efficient vehicle 
production, and alternative fuel development. Unfortunately, there was 
no mention of CAFE standards.
  In response to this omission, I had to ask why this Administration 
has failed to actively support new fuel efficiency standards. When I 
pressed Secretary Richardson to commit to making CAFE standards a 
centerpiece of the Clinton-Gore Administration's effort to address the 
current fuel shortage and long-term foreign oil dependency of this 
country, he ducked the question and told me he wished the EPA 
Administrator was available to answer.
  I am perplexed by this response. Obviously, U.S. auto manufacturers 
have demonstrated they are more than up to the challenge of producing 
more fuel efficient light trucks and SUVs. In fact, Ford Motor Company 
just announced plans to start selling within three years a hybrid gas-
and-electric-powered SUV that gets about 40 miles per gallon.
  Therefore, I fail to understand why the Clinton-Gore Administration 
can't make simply studying a possible increase in CAFE standards a top 
priority in this debate. I challenge the White House to embrace this 
common sense approach, which is certainly preferable to the groveling 
diplomacy it engaged in just weeks ago.

                          ____________________