[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4786-S4791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 2937 is the business.
  Mr. DOLE. That is the Billy Dale legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, we 
can arrange to modify, chop a limb off the tree here, if we can agree 
on an amendment process.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why do we not just accept the pending amendment, which 
will open up the slot, and let us offer the minimum wage?
  Mr. DOLE. We could not do that, but I think we can work out 
something. If you would rather have it on the Billy Dale travel matter 
just by itself, we can probably accommodate. But based on what the 
Senator from Massachusetts indicated--and I think we are closer maybe 
than we have been--I am going to ask the majority whip if he would 
visit with the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me again indicate, I did 
not think we would be rejected when

[[Page S4787]]

we offered our colleagues what they wanted. But we have been rejected. 
So we will try maybe a different approach. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum, unless you want to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are obviously in a situation now where 
nothing is going to get done. I think the President's answer to the 
question is the right one. We are not going to get anything done. We 
are not going to get the Travel Office issue done, we are not going to 
get the gas issue done, we are not going to get the Amtrak 
authorization or anything else done until we can resolve this impasse.
  I know the majority leader is acting in good faith to try to find a 
way with which to do that, but we will remain committed to ensuring our 
rights as the minority to offer these amendments until we can have that 
assurance.
  I think the distinguished Senator from Louisiana said it as clearly 
as anyone can. If they are good bills, regardless of whether there is 
opposition, you could argue about the merits of the bill, but they are 
bills offered in good faith. They ought to be voted up or down, 
independently of one another. Mixing them, as is now being proposed, 
clearly obfuscates the question and ultimately defeats the purpose.
  I hope we can recognize that instead of continuing to be mired in 
absolute paralysis. We do not want to continue that. We want to find a 
way out, but we are not going to give up our rights. We are certainly 
not going to give up the opportunities we need to raise the issues we 
care deeply about.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think there is probably one more 
refinement we could make, and then if cloture was invoked on the 
amendment, the Dole amendment, then we could divide the issue: division 
I being minimum wage and division II being the TEAM Act, and then we 
could have a separate vote on each of those.
  It seems to me that would be going one step further, and then if 
there were majority votes for the TEAM Act, that prevails, and if there 
are majority votes for minimum wage, then there are separate votes on 
each issue, if that will resolve the problem.
  My view is, if my colleagues in the minority are entitled to vote on 
what they want, why are not my colleagues in the majority entitled to 
vote on what they want to vote on? We are told we cannot pass anything 
unless those in the minority vote on what they want to vote on. I had 
problems at the policy luncheon explaining that to my colleagues in the 
majority. The minority has that right. Do we have that right to vote on 
what we want to vote on? It should not be debatable.
  So maybe there is another way we can attack it, and we will certainly 
look for that. We would like to resolve this issue today if we can. Tax 
freedom day does not end until midnight, so we have several hours here. 
I will ask the majority whip to get to work and see what we can come up 
with.
  It was our mutual understanding that legislation on the gas tax 
repeal through December 31 of this year would be offered today. Due to 
ongoing negotiations on the spectrum language in the bill, I hope that 
language will be prepared for introduction tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
the minority leader in this exchange effectively. But as he has pointed 
out, we are foreclosed from offering any amendments to H.R. 2937, which 
is before the Senate. We were foreclosed from offering amendments on 
the illegal immigration bill. We had cloture imposed and the request 
that was made would have foreclosed us from any opportunity of voting 
on minimum wage or on the gas tax repeal legislation.
  I want to say, quite frankly, I understand the position which has 
been taken by the majority leader where he says, ``Well, if the 
majority wants to vote, why shouldn't the majority vote?'' The problem 
is the minority happens to be the majority with regard to minimum wage. 
We have the majority of the U.S. Senate on the issue of the minimum 
wage. That is the reason that the majority ought to be able to vote and 
not be denied that opportunity to do so.
  I, quite frankly, with all respect, find it exceedingly difficult to 
understand the rationale for denying us the opportunity to deal with 
this issue up or down. We have done it in the past. The majority leader 
has voted in favor of that legislation in the past four times since he 
has been in the House and the Senate. He has voted against it eight 
times. He has voted for it in the seventies and eighties. We had hoped 
he would vote for it in the 1990's. That legislation, it is my 
understanding, were separate pieces of legislation. That is all we are 
asking, do what we have done before and permit the Senate to address 
it.
  So, Mr. President, it is important to know that we have every 
intention of offering that amendment on every piece of legislation that 
is going to come through here. We can go through these gymnastics in 
terms of denying Members the opportunity to raise issues and present 
them to the Senate, although that is inconsistent with the great 
traditions of the Senate over a long period of time. Maybe that is the 
way it is going to be run at the present time, but that is certainly 
inconsistent with the Senate that I have seen here, both under 
Republican and Democratic leaders, for over a period of some 30 years.
  I hope that we will have the opportunity to work out this impasse 
because, basically, all we are talking about is trying to provide for 
working families who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year the 
opportunity to get a livable wage to provide for themselves and their 
families. There is a great deal of rhetoric on this floor about the 
importance of work, and yet we have a key opportunity to do something 
to reward work, working families, which we have done under Republicans 
and Democrats alike over the history of time, and for over 60 years, 
and yet we are being denied that opportunity to do so now. I think that 
is often a tenable, unfair position to assume.

  Finally, Mr. President, I am more than glad to get into a discussion 
on the action of the TEAM Act. As I mentioned earlier, even from the 
existing findings by our committee, it indicated this kind of 
cooperation is taking place today with some 80 percent of the largest 
employers. From those surveyed, 75 percent of responding employers, 
large and small, have incorporated means of employee involvement in 
their operations. That is happening at the present time.
  The question is whether those who are going to be representing the 
employees are going to be the representatives selected by the employees 
or whether they are going to be selected by the company store or the 
company union. That is the basic issue. No one is against cooperation. 
We are in complete support for cooperation. With all respect, the case 
in 1992, the Electromation case, does not deny the opportunity for that 
kind of cooperation.
  We have supported that type of cooperation that we have seen in the 
State of Washington where employers and employees worked effectively 
together to reduce occupational health and safety risks and have seen 
about a 38- or 40-percent reduction in workers' compensation, and the 
associated industries in that State have said that it saved 
manufacturers about $1 billion over the last 6, 7 years.
  That is happening today. That is happening today. We are all for 
that. That can take place today. It is happening in the State of 
Washington and the State of Oregon. Basically, what this proposal is is 
an antiworker and an antiunion kind of a proposal. I do not question 
that that is the position of the majority. They have been opposed to 
the minimum wage. They are opposed to Davis-Bacon to try to provide a 
construction worker with an average of $27,000 a year. They oppose 
that.
  They put further restrictions on the earned-income tax credit which 
is for workers making below $25,000, $27,000 a year, a program that 
President Reagan warmly endorsed as the best antipoverty program that 
can help have a positive impact on children. They are against that 
particular program as well. They have come out here with

[[Page S4788]]

opening up the pension programs for workers to permit corporations to 
take those pensions that did not belong to the corporations. We voted 
on that, and in spite of the fact we voted on it, the same provision 
came right back out after the conference.
  The families of workers have taken it on the chin with the proposed 
reduction in education programs, the largest one that we have had in 
the history of the country, which we have defeated, and also the 
assaults on the increase in the Medicare Program and standards for 
nursing homes on Medicaid. These are the parents of working families.

  So the idea that we have under the proposal of cooperation, the TEAM 
Act, and to say, ``Look, all we want to be able to do is, in a 
competitive society, permit workers and employers to be able to work 
together to increase productivity,'' that is taking place all over this 
country. The report from our Committee on Human Resources indicates 
that, not only in the bill itself, in the findings, but also in the 
report.
  There is something more behind it. And that is, instead of the 
workers being able to be chosen by their fellow workers to represent 
their interests, the boss gets a chance to do it. The boss gets a 
chance to set the agenda. The boss gets a chance to--the CEO of that 
company--to say when they will have those meetings. The CEO has a 
chance to decide whether these employees will continue to serve. That, 
my friends, is a dramatic change in the whole question of collective 
bargaining, and it deserves some debate.
  This is not about cooperation in the workplace. It is far from it. We 
will have a chance to address that issue. It is a serious issue. We 
ought to have an opportunity to address it and to consider it. As I 
said, if the majority leader wanted to make sure that the employees 
that are going to be represented in that negotiation and in that 
cooperation are going to be employees that are selected by their fellow 
workers, by the unions in the companies and plants where they are 
unionized, and by the workers themselves in other plants, then we can 
move, I think, in an important way toward attempting to try and deal 
with this legislation in a very expeditious way. But that is not at the 
bottom of it. We know what is driving this legislation. It is 
antiworker legislation. It deserves to come under the debate and 
discussion here on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I have just received a letter that has been sent by 
Secretary Reich on the TEAM Act. I will just take another moment of the 
Senate's time. I see others who want to address the Senate. This is a 
copy that was sent to the chairman of the committee and to the ranking 
minority member.
       Dear Chairman Kassebaum: We understand that your Committee 
     may consider S. 295, the ``Teamwork for Employees and 
     Managers Act,'' on Wednesday, April 17. This bill would amend 
     section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to 
     broadly expand employers' abilities to establish employee 
     involvement programs. I am writing to emphasize the 
     Administration's opposition to S. 295, and to urge your 
     Committee to not order the bill reported.
       Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA states that it is an unfair 
     labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere with 
     the formation or administration of any labor organization. 
     This provision protects employees from the practice of 
     unscrupulous employers creating company, or sham, unions. 
     Although S. 295 does not state an intent to repeal the 
     protection provided by section 8(a)(2), S. 295 would 
     undermine employee protections in at least two key ways. 
     First, the bill would permit employers to establish company 
     unions. Second, it would permit employers, in situations 
     where the employees have spoken through a democratic election 
     to be represented by a union, to establish an alternative, 
     company dominated organization. Neither of these outcomes is 
     permissible under current law nor should they be endorsed in 
     legislation. Either one would be sufficient to cause me to 
     recommend that the President veto S. 295 or other legislation 
     that permits employers to unilaterally set up employee 
     involvement programs.
       The Administration supports workplace flexibility and high-
     performance workplace practices that promote cooperative 
     labor-management relations, but has concerns about the impact 
     of the TEAM bill. Current interpretations of the law permit 
     the creation of employee involvement programs that explore 
     issues of quality, productivity, and efficiency.

  Just as I said.

       Current interpretations of the law permit the creation of 
     employee involvement programs that explore issues of quality, 
     productivity, and efficiency.
       It should be noted that the National Labor Relations Board 
     has recently decided five cases involving employee 
     involvement programs. In two of the five cases the Board 
     found that the cooperative group at issue did not violate 
     section 8(a)(2). The other three present classic cases 
     supporting the concerns voiced above. Moreover, it appears 
     that several more cases are pending before the Board which 
     concern the relevant issue.
       For the foregoing reasons, the Administration opposes the 
     enactment of S. 295. If S. 295 were presented to the 
     President, I would recommend that he veto the bill.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert B. Reich.

  The point is, Mr. President, as the letter indicates, this 
legislation, for the reasons outlined here, and that I stated very 
briefly, would provide a dramatic change in the current law. The idea 
that we could dispose of it in 10 or 15 minutes--that was going to be 
suggested for it--I think demonstrates a real disrespect for the 
legitimate rights of workers in this country to be able to pursue their 
interests, both those that are unions as well as those that are 
nonunion. It is too important a bill and too important a concept to be 
treated trivially. We will have more to say at an appropriate time. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at the request of the distinguished majority 
leader, I will be happy to meet with the Senator from Massachusetts and 
talk about a procedure whereby these various bills could be brought up 
for consideration in the Senate later on today or certainly tomorrow.
  I will repeat what the leader just said. This is a case where the 
majority has offered a deal to the Democrats that they ought to just 
say yes to. It is a fair proposal. As a matter of fact, the leader 
offered not one, not two, but three proposals as to how we can get 
these issues up for consideration.
  First, he urged that we not hold up this White House travel matter, 
that we go ahead and proceed with the legislation that will allow for 
Billy Dale to be reimbursed for his expense that he had to very 
unfairly endure.
  As a part of that, the leader asked that we be able to go ahead and 
bring up this afternoon the gas tax repeal amendment. That was objected 
to.
  He then said, we could come up with a procedure that could be offered 
tomorrow whereby we could consider the gasoline tax repeal, the minimum 
wage that the Senator from Massachusetts has been so aggressively 
advocating, and the TEAM Act, which I want to point out right at the 
beginning is supported by the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee, supported by Senator Kassebaum from Kansas, and one that has 
broad support, not only from employers, but from a lot of employees 
that would like to work together with the employers on these issues. I 
will talk more about that in a moment.

  He said we will get all three of them up, have a chance to discuss 
these issues, and be able to vote on it. That was objected to. Now, the 
minority leader got an opportunity to have the minimum wage considered, 
a repeal of the gas tax, which the American people overwhelmingly 
approve, with this one small addition of the TEAM Act. That was 
objected to. They got what they were asking for. They just do not seem 
to be able to say yes to a fair offer from the majority leader.
  Then, the third proposal he made was, look, we will just consider 
them independently, separately. We will have the minimum wage that can 
be offered and voted up or down, the TEAM Act can be offered and voted 
up or down. Apparently that is objected to. The indication is that the 
minority would even filibuster a fair offer where each side gets to 
offer a proposal they feel strongly about. We would have a vote, and go 
forward. But that, once again, as I say was objected to.
  I really think the American people need to take a look at what the 
majority leader just did. He offered not one, two, but three very fair 
proposals on how we can proceed on these issues. I will talk to the 
minority leader and to the Senator from Massachusetts more about that.
  Let me talk a little bit about the proposals we have been talking 
about. On the gas tax repeal, I want to remind

[[Page S4789]]

my colleagues that this was included in the tremendous tax increase 
that was passed with no Republican votes in 1993. This 4.3-cent 
gasoline tax would not go into the highway trust fund as we have most 
often done in the past, but would go into the General Treasury, into 
the dark, deep hole of the General Treasury and, as a matter of fact, 
probably made no contribution to reducing the deficit, but it did raise 
gasoline taxes.
  Now, the minority leader said that we are now looking at deficits 
that have gone down, but the fact of the matter is we have more debt 
now than we have ever had in the history of this country. The debt has 
gone up. It continues to go up. If we had gone along with the 
President's proposals, there would be no end to $200 billion deficits 
into the future. We also have the highest tax burden on the American 
people right now than we have ever had in history--not just income 
taxes, but gasoline taxes, estate taxes, all the myriad of taxes the 
American people have to deal with. That is why we go right up until May 
8 where people finally get a chance to get out from the burden of taxes 
to make use of their own money without it being taken for taxes.
  It is a very fair proposal that we repeal this 4.3-cent gasoline tax 
and that we not allow this money to go into the General Treasury. We 
should have a gasoline tax go to build roads and bridges. We need that 
all over this country. We have highways and bridges that are 
deteriorating, need work, and the highway trust fund is not being 
released so that the bridges and highways can be improved. It is 
argued, well, 4.3 cents a gallon does not amount to much. Tell that to 
people driving 40 miles, 50, or 60 miles a day round trip or more to 
get a job, in many rural States in America. It adds up to over $25 
billion over the next 7-year period. This is a lot of money.

  It is one way we can provide some immediate relief on the gasoline 
tax increase, or gasoline price increase that we have seen. It would go 
to the people. There is no way that these companies and gas stations 
would just take that 4.3 cents and absorb it. They would pass it on to 
the people. It was a telling point that the Senator from Texas made 
that 23 percent of the taxes that have paid for this is from families 
that make $20,000 a year or less. They are the ones that are hit the 
hardest by this gasoline tax.
  Let me talk a little bit about the TEAM Act because I think a lot of 
misinformation has been given. Over many years, the Federal Government 
laws have more or less assumed that workers and managers have an 
adversarial relationship. We should not have that. I think we are 
beginning to get away from that. Managers and employees should be 
working together. The attitude over the past 50 years has been that the 
employers and the employees really cannot work together to improve 
efficiency and productivity. The TEAM Act responding, though, to the 
NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, a decision in 1992, the 
Electromation decision that has had significant consequences in recent 
months and in the last 2 years. There is beginning to be, now, a 
movement away from the cooperation that we had seen over the past few 
years.
  Yes, there are currently 30,000 companies with workplace cooperative 
programs, but this decision and others have put a chill on that. There 
is an effort to move away from this cooperation. This act, the TEAM 
Act, just amends the Federal labor laws to make clear that employers 
and employees can meet together, in committee, or other employee 
involvement programs to address issues of mutual concern. Perhaps it 
could be smoking or it could be something that involves the quality of 
the workplace or productivity and efficiency--as long as they do not 
engage in collective bargaining.
  There are a couple of other points that have been overlooked in some 
of the things that have been said on the floor today. The bill does not 
allow employees or employers to establish company unions or sham unions 
that undermine independent collective bargaining. So that is a mistake 
when it is inferred that there will be these company unions that would 
be formed. The bill ensures that workers will, however, be able to 
continue to retain the right to choose an independent union to engage 
in collective bargaining.

  What we are talking about here is freedom of employers and employees 
to work together. That is not a big issue that is going to stir up a 
lot of controversy except for the labor union bosses. I repeat, even 
the workers, even employees like these arrangements. That is why in 
30,000 instances it has been occurring. But it has been drifting away 
because NLRB is putting out decisions that undermine this type of 
cooperation, this type of freedom of employees and employers to work 
together.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at this TEAM Act. I will work 
with the Senator from Massachusetts and others to see if we can come up 
with a very fair package that will allow us to vote on all three of 
these issues. Then we will have dealt with them, and in a reasonable 
amount of time. The TEAM Act is not new. It has been reported out of 
committee. It is ready for consideration by the Senate. I am sure the 
majority leader would say we would allow adequate time, but after a 
period of debate there would be a vote here on that without a lot of 
amendments to completely take it apart.
  We could have adequate debate on the minimum wage issue and on the 
repeal of the gas tax. All three of these issues could be addressed and 
we could move on with the business of the Senate. We have other issues 
that are very important that we would like to get debated and completed 
soon. We would have the budget resolution coming up next week. We need 
to get these issues addressed this week and move to budget and the 
appropriations process. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, what the majority leader has presented to 
the Senate as an option is the old idea of mix and match. My wife tells 
me it is a great idea when you are shopping for clothes that you go out 
and mix and match and buy different things and try to mix and match 
them until you come up with a pretty good outfit. The problem is mix 
and match does not work in dealing with legislation. It may be a good 
way to buy clothes but a lousy way to legislate.
  If you have three good ideas for bills, what is wrong with bringing 
them to the floor and debating? What is wrong with after you have dealt 
with the first, bringing up the second, follow the rules of the second, 
and then move on to the third. Let the Senate vote on each one of the 
appropriations. Why try and mix and match pieces of legislation that do 
not fit? When you are buying clothes and you mix and match and you buy 
the wrong size or color combination, you come out with a lousy product. 
The same is true when you try and put together pieces of legislation 
that do not fit, that are not the same color, that are not the same 
size. You come up with something that makes no sense. Mix and match may 
be good for buying clothes, but it is not for passing legislation.

  I suggest that what we ought to do is look at each one of these 
propositions and talk about, then debate them. Some have merit, some 
have less merit, and some, I think, should not be passed at all. But 
there is no reason that I can see that you should somehow bundle 
everything up and have one opportunity to vote up or down. If you have 
bad items with good items, it just did not fit and should not be put 
together. They should be voted on, should be debated, and we should 
follow the rules of the Senate in considering legislation when it comes 
up in an orderly fashion.
  I want to comment on the idea of repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax that 
has been suggested by the majority leader. I think it is an idea 
without merit. I think it is clearly a political idea, and being from 
Louisiana I have no problems with political ideas if they work. But if 
they do not work, a political idea is bad public policy.
  Here is a case of exactly that. I will comment on why. No. 1, it is a 
dagger to the heart of any effort to balance the budget. In 1992, 
before we had the 4.3-cent gas tax, the Federal deficit was $290 
billion. People in this country said, ``Senator, do what is necessary 
to reduce the Federal deficit, get us on a slope, a downward path 
towards a balanced budget.'' Congress took some tough steps. No one 
said it would be easy. Our constituents said, ``Do it,''

[[Page S4790]]

and we passed a budget reconciliation bill that had the 4.3-cent gas 
tax in it.
  Today, instead of having a $290 billion Federal deficit, economists 
and the CBO tells us the projected deficit for this year is $140 
billion. Did that just happen? No, it happened because Congress had the 
courage and the guts to do something to bring the deficit down, to cut 
it by over 50 percent, which is where we are today. The first time 
things get tough, people start running for cover, and the first cover 
is, let us repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax. But let us just do it until 
after the election. Is that the clearest political proposition that you 
could possibly ask for in a political year? I think it is.

  When we passed the 4.3-cent gas tax, after we passed it, the price of 
gas at the pump was lower than before. Do you know what caused all of 
that? The whole thing I thought everybody really believed in--it is 
called supply and demand. When you have a shortage of supply and a high 
demand, the price for the product is going to go up. When the opposite 
is true, the equal opposite result is also true. When you have an 
excess of supply and low demand, the price goes down.
  I thought our colleagues on this side of the aisle were real 
believers in the marketplace. And the marketplace is what has caused, 
along with other congressional actions, a spike in the price of gas 
between the months of April and May.
  Interestingly enough, last year, if anybody wants to look at the 
records--not Democratic records or Republican records--prices at the 
gas pump have increased before by 6 cents a gallon between April and 
May. And, as normal, toward the end of the summer and early fall, the 
price started going back down. At the end of the year for 1995, the 
average price of gasoline in this country was lower than it ever has 
been in recorded history, when adjusted for inflation, which is the 
only fair way of looking at it. It was lower in 1995 with the tax than 
in 1994, which was lower than it was in 1993, which was lower than it 
was in 1992, which was lower than it was in 1990. And you can go all 
the way back to about 1920. But what the 4.3-cent gas tax helped us do 
was to reduce the deficit from $290 billion down to $140 billion. It is 
a consumption tax. It all went for deficit reduction, which my 
colleagues on that side of the aisle said is the most important thing 
we can do--get the deficit down. We got it down. And the first time it 
gets a little difficult, everybody runs for cover--well, not everybody, 
but a large number run for political cover because we have had some 
complaints in that the price of gas is too high.
  Instead of saying to our constituents, ``Let me tell you what really 
caused it. We produced 8 percent more heating oil over last year 
because we had colder weather.'' That is not the fault of anybody in 
Congress. That is just what happened. That was nature. The colder 
winter meant that we produced 8 percent more heating oil than gasoline.
  In addition, something that Congress did was, we took the speed limit 
off and people started driving faster. Guess what? When you drive 
faster, you burn more gasoline. When you use more, it is going to cost 
more. Remember the law of supply and demand? People are using 
substantially more gas because of the repeal of the speed limit.

  In addition, because of the Clean Air Act, which most Members 
support, and which I support, we told refiners in this country--
particularly in California--``You are going to have to change your 
refinery, tear it down and rebuild it so you can now produce 
reformulated gasoline.'' Guess what? When they are not able to produce 
gasoline, you have less on the market and the price will go up as well.
  I will give you another item that I think is one of the major things 
that has been done. Today, cars do not get as good gas mileage as they 
did when we were concerned about the price of gas, 4 out of 10 cars in 
America average about 14 miles per gallon. People are buying utility 
vehicles, larger cars, and they drive faster and further, and they are 
using more gasoline. Is it any surprise why the price of gas has gone 
up in the country?
  For the life of me, I cannot follow anybody's argument that when you 
take the 4.3 cents off of the refineries at the pipeline, that it is 
going to automatically translate into 4.3 cents less at the pump. When 
I first heard this idea, I said the other day that lowering the gas tax 
by 4.3 cents has as much to do with lowering the price to consumers at 
the pump as spitting in the ocean does to raising the sea level, 
because there is absolutely no correlation that if you lower the tax 
that is paid for by oil and gas companies, they are going to 
necessarily pass it on to consumers at the pump--just like they did not 
increase and pass the increase on to the consumers at the pump when we 
passed it back in 1993. After we passed the increase, the price of gas 
at the pump was substantially lower than it was before we passed the 
gas tax. Why? The law of supply and demand. The price of crude oil 
started coming down, and the price of gas continued to go down. 
Consumers were not affected by the adding on of the 4.3 cents at that 
time.
  I suggest that unless my colleagues on this side of the aisle or on 
my side of the aisle want to come in here with price controls--remember 
those, wage and price controls both?--come in here and mandate that 
everybody pass it all the way down the line to the consumer, there is 
absolutely no guarantee, or even a reasonable expectation that a 
consumer is going to really see the difference at the pump. So I think 
we have to be very careful, because I am concerned, as one member of a 
group that is trying to reach a balanced budget in a bipartisan 
fashion, where are we going to make up $30 billion in lost 
revenues, which can go to balancing the budget. If we lose this 4.3-
cent gas tax, where will it come from? I heard a colleague on the House 
side suggested that we could cut education. Are we that weak in this 
country that we are willing to say we are going to cut education in 
order to pay 4.3 cents less at the pump? Is there no concern about our 
future and the future of our children, and we are willing to say we are 
so weak politically that we are going to cut education in order that we 
can have a 4.3-cent lower price at the pump, which is not guaranteed at 
all? Maybe all the oil companies--and my State has a few--will have a 
4.3-cent increase in their profits per gallon, but there is no 
guarantee that the consumer will benefit. But to cut education to pay 
for this? Where are our priorities? Have we lost sense of the fact that 
education is the most important thing to do for our children and for 
future generations? Are we willing to say we are going to cut education 
before we stand up and do what is right regarding this? I think that is 
the wrong priority.

  I heard somebody else say, ``Let us sell the spectrum.'' We have 
heard that before. Boy, we have sold the spectrum more than we have 
sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Every time they want something, they say, 
``Let us sell the spectrum, and we are not going to step on anybody's 
toes.'' We are going to get $30 billion from selling the spectrum--
again? For what purpose?
  I think that we have to be very careful about doing something in a 
political year and making it last only until the next election, which I 
think is very clear; you can see through it as clear as pure water. A 
lot of people talk about a flat tax. A flat tax is a consumption tax. I 
believe we ought to be taxing productivity less and consumption more. 
This proposal goes exactly contrary to that. We are taking a 
consumption tax, which, hopefully, regulates behavior in a proper way, 
and makes people more conscious about driving habits, and use it for 
deficit reduction. Instead we are chucking it and saying we would 
rather increase the deficit or cut education, or go back to selling 
something that we have sold so many times before that nobody believes 
it will ever work.
  The final point I want to make, Mr. President, is that the market 
does work. The marketplace does work. That is a fundamental principle 
in this country--that the law of supply and demand in this country 
works. This is from April 26. I am reading from the prices of crude oil 
on a weekly basis, west Texas intermediate crude oil prices, or the 
prices posted once a week for the price of oil per barrel. ``When the 
price of oil per barrel goes up, eventually it works its way down to 
the price of gasoline at the pump, and it goes up. But when the price 
of crude oil per barrel goes down, it generally takes about a month 
before it reaches the price at the pump. In this case, I will

[[Page S4791]]

share this with my colleagues because it is an indication of what is 
going to happen. If we just wait and have some political courage for a 
couple of days instead of running off and doing something that I think 
is damaging--as I said, a dagger to the heart--to a balanced budget in 
this country, the average price of west Texas intermediate crude on 
April 26 was $23.80 a barrel. The price of west Texas intermediate 
crude at the close of business on May 3 was $21.36 a barrel.

  That is a 10-percent drop in 1 week--a 10-percent drop per barrel of 
crude oil in this country in 1 week, from April 26 to May 3.
  Mr. President and all of my colleagues, I suggest that if you just 
hang around here a little bit longer, you will see that drop in the 
price of crude by 10 percent is going to be reflected in the 
marketplace. If we believe in the marketplace, which I think we should, 
that is going to be reflected in the price of a gallon of gas at the 
pump. I think that is the way this country ought to address this 
problem.
  What we have before the Senate is a political idea that does not 
work, and political ideas that do not work are bad ideas, and sometimes 
I think too often politics makes bad policy, and this is an example, I 
think, of exactly that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________