[Page: S2607]
---

   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.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I spoke on S. 2285. I now ask unanimous consent that an ARCO letter concerning gas prices be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   ARCO,

   Los Angeles, CA, April 5, 2000.
Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Thank you for your phone call on Friday, March 31, regarding gasoline prices in California. During that conversation, you inquired regarding the status of ARCO's gasoline inventory. I have outlined below some statistics that were not available to me when we talked.

   Currently, ARCO's inventory of CARB gasoline is at our operating target. Total industry gasoline inventories on the West Coast appear to be recovering. The last weekly West Coast gasoline inventory report showed an increase of 1.5 million barrels over the previous week, which was the low point of the year.

   With respect to the issue of gasoline prices, no one can predict the future. However, crude oil prices have been coming down over the last few weeks as a result of the recent OPEC meeting. Spot prices also appear to have peaked. Barring some unforeseen circumstances, we can assume that retail gasoline prices will follow suit.

   I hope you find this information helpful.

   Sincerely,
Mike Bowlin,

   Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer.

   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,

[Page: S2608]

   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 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.

END