Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)

[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.

____________________