[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4997-S4999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE GAS TAX, THE BUDGET, AND OBSTRUCTIONISM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about several 
things.

[[Page S4998]]

I am not the one who is, of course, engaging in the obstruction of the 
gas tax repeal that we have been going through now for nearly a week. I 
would like to comment just a bit on the budget. Even though we are not 
into the budget debate, there are comments that have been made this 
afternoon that I think require some little comment. Finally, just a 
little comment on where we have been this year in terms of 
obstructionism and holding us back.
  It is kind of frustrating, maybe more so for those of us who are new 
here, and I think very frustrating for the people in the country, to 
see the Senate not able to move forward on issues that certainly cause 
disagreement. Nevertheless, we do have a system for that, and that is 
called voting. If the issue gets more votes than it does not get, then 
it passes. It if does not, it does not. That is the concept of most of 
us on how to run things. So it is a little frustrating finding yourself 
in the position of not moving when there are things to be done, when 
there are things that are important to families in this country.
  One of the other things I think is particularly frustrating is we 
have here, and very proudly so, a government of the people and by the 
people, where people make the final decisions on how they stand, how 
they believe on issues. But, to do that, it is necessary to have the 
facts. Increasingly in our society, I think, and it troubles me a bit--
we have more ability now to communicate than we have ever had. We have 
the opportunity now, regardless of what happens here or what happens 
around the world, to know about it instantly through this 
communications system. Yet, at the same time, despite that system, we 
find ourselves with more noninformation all the time. It is not the 
province of any one particular party, it is not the province of any one 
person, but we find ourselves, I think, with more and more information 
that is spun to make a point and that is not, frankly, accurate. I 
think that is too bad. It is really difficult to make decisions with 
respect to policies and issues if the information we have is distorted. 
I think we see that increasingly happen to us.

  Talking about the budget, a little bit ago there was discussion on 
the floor about the budget that will be brought out and talked about 
tomorrow. Among other things it was said EPA takes a whopping cut. The 
fact of the matter is discretionary spending at the EPA would remain at 
the level provided in the recently signed appropriations bill. It is 
not a cut. It stays as it is.
  The allegation was also made that education would be cut. Education 
will increase from $47.8 to $52 billion. That is not a cut. Last year 
we got into this business about Medicare and talking about the cuts. 
There were no cuts. What it was was reducing the level of growth so we 
could maintain that program. If you like Medicare, if you like health 
care for the elderly, then you have to do something. We thought then 
that you had to do something by about 2005 or whatever. Now it has been 
refined to where you have to make some changes by 2001 or the system 
will go broke. That is no one's projection except the trustees, three 
of whom are appointed by the President.
  The resolution, as a matter of fact, would increase the spending for 
beneficiaries from $4,800 in 1995 to $7,000. That is not a cut. Yet we 
hear, and the media continues to utilize that word, ``cut.''
  So it is very difficult, it seems to me, to really deal with this. 
There is a legitimate difference of view. I understand that. Much of 
the conversation that goes on here, even though we talk about details, 
is basically a philosophical difference. A little bit ago one of our 
associates on the other side of the aisle was talking about the 
benefits of tax increases because they helped reduce the deficit. Of 
course they do. But the philosophical question is, do you want to 
reduce the deficit by controlling spending and reducing the level of 
spending, the rate of spending which would balance the budget, or do 
you want to continue to spend at the same level and raise taxes to 
offset it? That is a philosophical difference. That is basically what 
we talk about here.
  It is a defining choice. I suspect everyone, even though it does not 
happen, says: Yes, let us balance the budget. We have talked about a 
constitutional amendment here, talked about it this year--everybody, 
when they initially stood, said, ``I am going to balance the budget. We 
do not need a constitutional amendment. We can do it.''
  Yes, we can. We have not done it for 25 years, however. So it does 
seem to me a constitutional amendment is something reasonable. But 
further than that, and at least as important, is what is the philosophy 
of doing it? Do you want to continue to grow at the rate we have in the 
past, which is like 8 percent a year faster than the growth in the 
economy? Or do we want to reduce that level, that rate of growth, and 
balance the budget that way? I happen to favor that idea.
  I think voters said, in 1994, the Federal Government is too big, it 
is too costly, we need to do something to contain it. I think we should 
do that. So that is the great debate. To have that debate, you have to 
have some facts there. You have to talk about the same numbers. Then we 
argue about the philosophical difference, because there is one.
  The idea, somehow, the statement that ``I am not going to vote for 
any tax cuts'' does not seem to me to be the kind of thing that I 
support. I think we ought to have tax cuts. I think we ought to be able 
to leave more money in the pockets of American families. About 40 
percent, on average, of our income goes to some level of taxation. I do 
not think anybody ever intended for that to be the case.
  Of course, there are functions of Government that we all support. 
There are functions of Government that we need to fund and finance, but 
I do not think anyone had the notion that we would be doing it at the 
level of 40 percent of our income.
  So I hope as we go through this budget--and it is more apparent in 
budgets than anything else--that we can say: Here are the basic sets of 
facts. We ought to start there. Then if you disagree, fine. 
Disagreement is what it is all about.
  Let me talk a minute about the gas tax filibuster. We have been 
trying to do that for a while. What are we talking about? First of all, 
the bill that is on the floor has to do with Travelgate reimbursement, 
reimbursing those employees who were unjustly taken to court, who had 
worked at the White House, to pay their legal fees. That is the basic 
issue.
  The amendments to that included a gas tax reduction of 4.3 cents. It 
has to do with the minimum wage, a controversial issue, but a valid 
issue, useful. It has to do with the TEAM concept of allowing employers 
and employees to be able to come together to use some of the new 
techniques that have been developed in management, to allow employers 
to call upon employees to find better ways to do things. We have seen 
this happen around the world. I come from Cody, WY. The guy who started 
that kind of management in Japan came from Cody, WY, of all places. And 
it works. But we do not allow that to happen unless there is a change.
  The minimum wage is a legitimate issue. Interestingly enough, it came 
up here in the Senate about a month ago and had not been talked about 
for 3 years. But when the AFL-CIO was here and promised $35 million for 
the election, suddenly it became an issue. It is a legitimate issue. We 
ought to talk about it.
  The gas tax, however, the 4.3 cents--the average gas tax paid in this 
country is about 38 cents. About half is Federal, about half State. I 
come from Wyoming where people drive a good deal more. Someone 
mentioned their family, when using their car, would save about $20. 
Ours is about $70, because we do drive a great deal more. So it is a 
little unfair regionally. I have a parochial concern about that.
  I think one of the interesting things, though, is that this 4.3 
cents, out of the 18 cents, is the only portion of the gas tax that 
does not go to the maintenance and building of highways. It goes into 
the general fund. I think it would be a mistake to begin to tax this 
commodity generally for nonhighway uses. That is what we have done. So 
we have an opportunity now to change that.
  One of the reasons it comes up, of course, is because of the 
extraordinary recent prices in gasoline over the last month or less. Is 
this the answer to that? No, of course not. But this needs to be 
repealed under any circumstances. It provides an opportunity

[[Page S4999]]

to talk about it, some way to say, ``Well, the 4.3 cents will never get 
to the consumer.''
  I do not believe that. First of all, it has such a high level of 
visibility that it surely will have to go there. Second, there is great 
competition, as you know. If I have a gas station on one corner and you 
have one on the other, and I lower mine, you are going to lower yours, 
too. That is going to happen. Competition has a great deal to do with 
that.
  We had a hearing this week and took a look at the costs of gasoline, 
and it is roughly a third--about a third for crude oil, about a third 
in the refining and marketing, and about a third in taxes. Not many 
commodities are taxed that high. So we ought to do that.
  I am very disappointed that instead of voting on it, instead of 
following the advice of the President, who over the years has indicated 
that he was opposed to a gas tax, who indicated during his campaign 
that that was not a good tax because it taxed the poor at a much higher 
level of a percentage of their income than the rich--it is true--now 
supports it, brought it to us. So we need to change that. Why do we 
not? Because our friends on that side of the aisle will not let it come 
up.
  Filibuster. This is not the classic filibuster where people stand up 
and talk all night and bring their sleeping bag and cook dinner out in 
the back. This is the kind where it is simply obstructionism that will 
not let it come to the floor, and it continues.
  So we need to change that, Mr. President. We need to move forward. 
Let these issues stand for all as they will.
  Finally, I think there has been some frustration, at least on my 
part, this year in that this is not the first time or the only time it 
has happened. My friend from Georgia just indicated that some 60 times 
this has happened this year, more than any other time in recent 
history. We have set about to make some changes this year.
  I think those of us who just came last year in the last election are 
maybe more aware of the need for change, feel more of a mandate to make 
a change. I think, to a large extent, we have succeeded in causing that 
change to happen. We have not come to closure on as many things as I 
wish we would have and could have, but I can tell you that we have 
changed the debate here.
  Now we are talking about how do you balance the budget, arguing about 
which aspects of the budget we can change to balance it. For 25 years 
we did not talk about balancing the budget at all. Now we are. Now we 
are talking about ways to make Government more efficient and more 
effective and, indeed, to move some of the functions of Government back 
closer to people, the States and the counties. That is a new idea. Not 
since the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson have we talked about making 
it smaller rather than larger. So there have been a lot of things that 
this same sort of obstructionism has caused not to happen.
  Tort reform. A lot of people believe that we ought to do something in 
our legal system, do something about litigation so that we do not have 
this constant pressure. We cannot do that because there is obstruction 
from the White House.
  Regulatory reform. Almost everybody understands and recognizes that 
we are overregulated. Sure, we need regulations, but they need to be 
the kind that are efficient and effective and not so costly. We did not 
get regulatory reform because it was obstructed.
  The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution failed by one vote 
in the Senate. As I mentioned, people argue, ``Well, we don't need to 
do that.'' The evidence is we do. We do it in my State. We do it in 
most of our States. We do it in about 43 States, I think. There is a 
constitutional amendment that you cannot spend more than you take in. 
That makes sense. It is morally and fiscally responsible. We ought to 
do that.
  Welfare reform. Almost everybody believes that we need to help people 
who need help, but we need to help them back into the work force, and 
we need to make some changes so that can happen. We need to move that 
much more to the States. Certainly the delivery system in Wyoming for 
welfare needs to be different than it is in Pennsylvania. We have 
100,000 miles and 475,000 people, half of what is in Fairfax County 
across the river. Our system has to be different. We need to let the 
States devise that delivery system.
  Health care reform is stalled right now. It is not an extensive 
health care reform, but it has to do with portability; it has to do 
with accessibility to insurance. It is hung up now. We cannot move 
forward.
  I have been involved, as have many of us, with Superfund reform. 
Everybody knows Superfund reform has to come about. One of the main 
contributors to cleaning up Superfund sites are insurance dollars, and 
85 percent of those dollars go to legal fees, not to cleaning up 
Superfund sites. That needs to be changed. We need to reduce spending. 
Talk about balancing the budget--spending has continued to grow.
  So, Mr. President, those are some of the effects, it seems to me, of 
sort of obstructing moving forward. This one is more pronounced than 
most. We cannot move on the gas tax. But it has been going on all year. 
That apparently is the strategy to move into this election, to make 
sure we do not do anything. I think that is too bad.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we can do something about it. I hope 
we can make a move. I think the 4.3-cent gas tax needs to be repealed 
and needs to be returned. I hope, as we move into the debate on the 
budget, that we can at least talk about facts, put the numbers out 
there as they really are, and then argue about whether you like it or 
not. I hope that we can move forward on a great many of the issues that 
I believe people would like to see considered and would like to see 
passed.

  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.

                          ____________________