The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TAXES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S1702-S1704 on March 27, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TAXES
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about oil prices. I guess most everyone wants to talk about oil prices and gas prices at the pump--those things that affect each of us. First of all, I have had the opportunity to meet in the Chamber this morning and hear a little discussion about taxes. So I will comment for a moment on that.
We are now dealing with the budget, which of course is one of the basic responsibilities of Congress, and the question of how much money we spend in the Federal Government. That has to do with the whole philosophical question of how large a Government we want and the things we want the Federal Government to be involved in, how much involvement we want in all of those things--what is the division between the responsibility of the Federal Government, local government, and State government. I think these are obviously some of the most important issues with which we deal. These are broad issues. These are philosophical issues. The budget has a great deal to do with it.
In fact, I suspect that the total amount of expenditures is probably the most important issue we deal with all year, depending on how you view the role of Government. Keep in mind this year we will spend about
$1.8 trillion. That is $1,800 billion in the Federal budget. About a third of that will be so-called discretionary funding, which is determined by the Congress. The remainder, two-thirds of that, $1,800 billion, will be mandatory spending-- things such as Social Security, Medicare, and others.
We are dealing with setting a budget that basically is an expenditure limit on that discretionary spending, which last year, as I recall, rose about 7.5 percent more, much more than inflation. This year I think there is an effort being made to see if we can control that level of spending. It has to do with the size of Government. Clearly, everyone has different views, of course, as to how to adequately fund programs we think are most important--the priorities the public sets through their representatives in terms of Government programs.
One of the things it seems to me we haven't done as well as we might is to review programs that have been in place for a very long time. Some of them, obviously, are important programs that need to go on. Others were designed to do something for a relatively short time, but they are always there. They never go away because we do not have the opportunity to have the oversight to see if, in fact, those programs have accomplished the things they were designed to accomplish, and if, indeed, those dollars can be spent more productively in some other programs.
We find ourselves in a situation of having these programs that have been in place forever and are almost automatically funded and the obvious need for new programs from time to time as time and needs change. It is simply an accumulation of programs. Those of us who occasionally say to ourselves that we ought to control the size of Government, have to take a look at those kinds of issues.
I hear my friends talk about the evils of tax reduction. They ought to review that a little bit, it seems to me.
First of all, we ought not spend Social Security dollars for operating funds. We have been doing that for 40 years, but we have not done that in the last 2 years. We hear our friends on the other side of the aisle and the administration and President Clinton saying: Save Social Security. Not one program has come from them as to how to do that.
These young pages sitting here will pay out of their first paycheck 12.5 percent for Social Security. The likelihood is, if we don't do something, that they will not have benefits when they are eligible for them.
We need to do something. We have a plan. We set aside at least a portion of that for individual retirement accounts. Let it belong to the persons who made it, and, indeed, let them invest in private sector equities or bonds so that the return is much higher.
The choices we have are fairly simple. We can reduce benefits. Nobody wants to do that. We can increase taxes. I don't know of anybody who wants to do that. Social Security taxes are the highest that most people pay of any tax. Or we can increase the return for the trust funds. We are for that. The administration has no plan at all other than to say: Save Social Security.
We need to do something about paying down the debt. Most everyone would agree with that. The debt that the President brags about paying down is taking Social Security money and putting it into debt. It would be replacing public debt. But it is still debt. It is debt to the Social Security trust fund.
What I propose and what I think we ought to do is set money aside just like with a home mortgage, and each year we will take so much money. It will take this amount of money to pay this year's obligation to pay off the debt in real dollars. So instead of being replaced by Social Security dollars, that debt is being reduced. That is what we are for. The President has no plan. All we hear is this great talk about it but nothing is happening.
Then, quite frankly, we talk about taxes. What we are talking about, at least to some extent, is not simply reducing debt. It is a fairness issue. The marriage penalty tax is a fairness issue. Why should two people who work independently and are married pay this amount of tax? That isn't fair. It is a fairness issue. It is not just tax reduction.
There are ways to change the estate taxes. The Presiding Officer has a proposal that estate taxes ought to be paid when they pay taxes as a matter of capital gains. Good idea. Then there is money left, unless one continues to spend it.
People talk about taxes and balancing the budget and the economy growing starting in 1993. I am sorry, it didn't start in 1993; it started in 1991. It has been going on for a good long time. I cannot imagine the President's tax increase has contributed a great deal to the economic growth.
People have different views. That is what it is all about. We have different views of how we best serve this country. There are many views.
We talk about energy. Thirteen leaders of the OPEC nations are meeting in Vienna to discuss boosting oil production. I appreciate the efforts of Secretary Richardson. I hope the answer is they will increase production. That is a good thing to have happen.
We have to talk about how we got ourselves in a position of having to go over to OPEC, saying: We have real problems; will you help us out? And then we do not get much of a response from the very group we have contributed so much to, not only in dollars but in the gulf war. Then we find them deciding whether they will do us a favor by increasing oil production.
How did we get where we are? I think we have had a lack of a policy regarding energy, not only in petroleum but in the whole sphere of energy. I come from the largest coal-producing State. This administration has made it increasingly difficult to produce energy as it has sought to close down energy powerplants because of maintenance.
We find ourselves depending on others and that puts at risk not only our economy but also our security. We find ourselves now in the neighborhood of 57-percent dependent on foreign oil. We see consumption going up each year; domestic production is going down at the same time.
What are some of the reasons? Some are what have happened in the last few months in terms of this administration which has set about to leave a ``land'' legacy--and I understand Presidents desire to have different legacies. This is called a land legacy where they will set aside more and more private lands and put them into public ownership to have a billion dollars a year they can spend at their own discretion without going through the process of Congress and appropriations to acquire more Federal lands.
In my State of Wyoming, nearly 50 percent of our land belongs to the Federal Government. Selfishly, it makes a lot of difference if the land can be used as multiple-use public lands, if we can protect the resource, protect the environment, but also use those lands--whether for hunting, for recreation, for grazing, whether it be for coal and gas production. We can do these things in such a way that we have multiple use as well as protection of the environment.
This administration has moved in a different direction. I have been on the Energy Committee since I came here in 1994. We have not had from the Energy Department a coherent policy on energy for a very long time. We had a meeting this morning on the Kyoto treaty, the meeting in Japan where we were supposed to sign a treaty which would reduce our energy by about 40 percent, while asking less of the rest of the world. Of course that has not been agreed to. As a matter of fact, this Senate voted 95-0 not to agree to it--not that we shouldn't be doing something about clean air, not that we shouldn't be doing something to reduce the effect of economic growth--but not to just sign a treaty that says we are going to put ourself at a disadvantage.
This is part of where we are, including access to Federal lands, where we have 40 million acres, using the Antiquities Act, to set aside other lands for single purpose uses. We have had for some time offshore oil drilling, one of the great opportunities to provide domestic oil. We have tried from time to time to do something to give a tax advantage for marginal oil wells so they would produce, but the administration is opposed.
We talked about looking at ANWR, to do something in Alaska, to provide more domestic oil so we are not totally dependent on foreign countries to provide that energy source. That is not only good for the economy and jobs, but it is a security measure.
Since 1992, oil production is down 17 percent in the United States; consumption is up 14 percent. In just 1 year under this administration, oil imports increased almost 8 percent; they are now getting close to 60 percent. DOE predicts a 65-percent oil dependency on foreign oil by the year 2020. We have become even more dependent.
The United States spends about $300 million each day on imported crude oil, $100 billion each year. We are concerned the trade deficit from oil amounts to about one-third of the trade deficit. Now we are looking at short-term issues when what we have to do is take a look at the longer term resolution to these problems.
The policy that would change this, and one we look forward to, is increased access to public land, continuing to emphasize, however, the idea that we need also to protect the environment. We can do that.
I mentioned tax incentives that would increase production. We need to look at the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act which is being used to reduce the use of lands as well. It has a real impact to a lot of people in my State which is largely a State that has mineral production.
In 1990, U.S. jobs exploring and producing oil amounted to over 400,000; in 1999, these jobs are down to 293,000, a 27-percent reduction in the ability of America producing our own oil. In 1990, we had 657 working oil rigs; now it is down to 153, a 77-percent decline.
I think we need to take a long look at where we are and where we want to go. Any government looking at energy has to recognize the stewardship responsibility that we have for the environment. We do that. At the same time, we have to be able to produce for ourselves so we have the freedom and opportunity to continue to have the strongest economy in the world, the greatest for jobs, while strengthening our security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
____________________
