Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I remind the Chair, ordinarily we go back and forth.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with the suggestion by my good friend from West Virginia. I am conducting a hearing on electric deregulation. I am going to turn the remaining time on this side over to my good friend from Texas to yield to those in support of the gas tax holiday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I assume the proponents and opponents control the time. We have other speakers who are coming to speak in support of the holiday. The Senator from Texas supports the holiday. I do not know the disposition of the other Republican Members.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I assume that will mean the 37 minutes, approximately, for each side, would be used. Then the other morning business would come up. Is that the wish of the other side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 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.

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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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. 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. 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.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senators Reid, Bryan, and McCain have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 421, H.R. 1832.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I hope much of Monday and Tuesday morning will be designated for debate on the gas tax issue. With that in mind, I announce the next rollcall vote will occur at 2:15 on Tuesday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask consent that only gas-tax-related amendments be in order to the pending bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In light of the objection, and in order to keep the Senate on the subject matter of the gasoline tax that is affecting virtually every American who fills up his or her automobile at the gas pump, I now send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This cloture vote will occur on Tuesday. I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote occur at 2:25 p.m. on Tuesday, and there be 10 minutes equally divided prior to the vote, and the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 12 noon on Monday and will be in a period of morning business throughout the day, with some debate on the gas tax repeal legislation. Cloture was filed on the gas tax legislation today, and that vote has been scheduled to occur on Tuesday at 2:25 p.m. That cloture vote will be the first vote of next week. Also, during next week's session, we expect to begin consideration of the marriage tax penalty legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe it was just a few years ago we had this stage of frustration. We were addressing the merits of these nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I put the matter to a vote. After much self-examination, why, the Senate decided not to support my amendment to do away with these nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. But the debate was rather interesting because it addressed the right of a Senator to express himself or herself. Yet the realization that these should not be a part of the budget process, I think, was generally agreed upon by most Members. I leave that for you to ponder because I think it represents a degree of frustration here. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 284, submitted earlier by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see no other Senator wishing to be recognized. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order. It has been a relatively long and busy day. Let me wish the Presiding Officer and the collective professional staff a happy weekend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 478, S.J. Res. 43.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask consent that an amendment to the resolution, which is at the desk, be agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, April 10, 2000. I further ask consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, 12 noon to 1 o'clock; Senator Murkowski, 1 o'clock to 1:30; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 1:30 to 2 o'clock; Senator Brownback, 30 minutes; and Senator Craig, 30 minutes.