Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I did not say they wanted a vote. I said every Senator has a right.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been in this Senate now going on 42 years. I know what is going on. We have time. We could come back next week and vote on these amendments. The Senators who have offered the amendments are entitled to a vote on each amendment. They are entitled to have some debate. Those of us who do not know what are in the amendments are entitled to know what they are about, and we are also entitled to a vote on the amendments if we so desire. I have already objected. We can stay here this evening. We can come back tomorrow. We can come back Monday and finish voting on the amendments. We do not have to legislate in this fashion. I am just not going to be a part of it. I may earn the enmity of every Senator in this body, but I am keeping a good relationship with my own conscience on this. We are seeing the legislative process go downhill in this Senate. More and more, this Senate is becoming like the other body. I am not for that. And if I have to stand alone, I will stand alone. I have no problems with that. I object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 2 years ago Congress enacted landmark transportation legislation, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In that legislation we restored the trust to the highway trust fund and we set forth highway funding levels that State and local governments could expect to receive over the 6-year life of TEA-21. There are efforts now to reduce the gas tax revenues going into the highway trust fund, thereby endangering the promises we have made regarding funding levels for the Nation's highways and bridges. This amendment puts the Senate on record in opposition to any efforts to repeal or to reduce gas tax revenues, either temporarily or permanently. In adopting this amendment, the Senate will confirm the position that it took in enacting TEA-21, that all gas tax revenues should go to the States for critical transportation infrastructure needs and that we meant it when we said we were restoring the ``trust'' to the highway trust fund. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank the 64 Senators who joined this morning in making an affirmative statement in opposition to any reduction in the gasoline tax. The vote this morning on the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond amendment represented a defining victory for those Senators that want to keep the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund and assure that every penny of highway spending is backed up by fuel taxes deposited into that Trust Fund. It was a defeat for any effort to reduce the gas tax or substitute gas tax revenues with general revenues in the distribution of federal highway funds. I especially want to thank the original cosponsors of my amendment who joined with me to protect the Highway Trust Fund. It is no coincidence that all of these original cosponsors are members of the Environment and Public Works Committee that has jurisdiction over the Trust Fund. They are the experts in this area. They know better than anyone the threat that is posed by reckless proposals to alter the funding stream to the Trust Fund. They know better than anyone that monkeying around with the funding stream to the Trust Fund poses great danger to our ability to provide our states, counties and cities with a consistent, predictable and growing allocation of federal dollars for the repair and expansion of their highways and bridges. During the debate over the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Senator John Warner served as the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. Senator Max Baucus served as the Ranking Member of that subcommittee as well as the full Environment and Public Works Committee. It would be impossible to overemphasize the contributions those two Senators made to that landmark legislation. Senator Warner permanently altered the long-standing debate over so- called ``donor'' states by guaranteeing each state a fair return on its investment to the Trust Fund. Senator Baucus saw to it that the legislation recognized the unique circumstances of the rural Western states, those states with relatively few citizens but a great many miles of highway. When Senator Gramm of Texas and I developed an amendment to assure that the 4.3 cent gas tax would be fully spent on highway construction, we were just two non-Committee members with a good idea. When Senators Warner and Baucus agreed to join as original cosponsors and lend their prestige and expertise to our amendment, our good idea became a genuine movement that garnered 54 co-sponsors and would eventually result in our adding close to $26 billion in guaranteed spending to the highway bill. Senator Voinovich was not in the Senate during the debate over TEA- 21. He was, however, one of the most outspoken governors on the importance of adequate transportation funding. He has been diligently attentive to transportation issues since he assumed the Chairmanship of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee from Senator Warner. I appreciate very much his leadership in this area. Senator Lautenberg, like Senator Bond, has the unique role of serving on both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Indeed, Senator Lautenberg has served either as the Chairman or the Ranking Member of that subcommittee for more than a dozen years. As such, his name is always at the center of every transportation debate. He represents the most congested state in the nation and, as such, has been a national leader in protecting and expanding our nation's rail and transit systems. Senator Bond should be credited for his longstanding efforts at streamlining the environmental review processes that govern our highway construction enterprise. As a Senator from a mountainous state that is sorely in need of improved highways, I applaud his efforts at ensuring that our highways can be built more expeditiously but in an environmentally friendly manner. Mr. President, our victory this morning was the result of the leadership of these fine Senators as well as the efforts of our other cosponsors--Senators Robb, Bingaman, Reid, Lincoln, and others. It was a victory for every American that drives on our nation's highways. It was a victory for the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund. It was a defeat for any proposal to de-link our federal highway spending from the level of gas tax revenues. amendment no. 2955

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may retain a minute. I wasn't commenting on the behavior of my distinguished friend. I understand his situation, and I have no quarrel with him, no complaint; I only have admiration for him. I am sorry for the circumstances with which he has to deal. I hope those circumstances will change.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I know that my remarks tonight will result in no favorable action that will override the die that has already been cast. I am confident of that. And to that extent, they were remarks made in futility. But for the record they were not futile. I think that we should let the people know what is being done here. The people out there want us to use our best judgment in the Appropriations Committee and to have our hands free when it comes to appropriating funds for disaster. We can't foresee those. They may strike my State next. They may strike the State of any Senator who sits within the sound of my voice; they may be the next. In all my years, I have never voted against a dollar for any State that has been hit with a disaster, and I don't expect to ever do that. I don't think we ought to be handcuffed and gagged and bound foot and hand when it comes to dealing with emergencies. Now we are going to have a supermajority thrust upon us. We have been laboring under that process. I had hoped that we could rid ourselves of those shackles--not for ourselves but for our people. Well, Mr. President, the wheel goes around and some day perhaps we will come to our senses and throw off these shackles and get back to where we are free agents and can act in the best interests of our constituents, without having to overcome supermajorities such as are being imposed upon us here.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me preface my remarks by saying I had joined with Senator Stevens in two amendments that were at the desk earlier, one dealing with section 208, and one dealing with section 210. I understand both of those have been modified. I still want to speak, however, to the subject matter here. In doing so, may I say I have no closer friend in this body than Senator Stevens. It has been that way, and it is going to continue to be that way. He is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I think I have supported him throughout all the time he has been chairman, and he has certainly been a great supporter of mine. He is the chairman; I am not. He carries some responsibilities that I do not carry at this moment. So what I have to say is not to be perceived as any criticism of Ted Stevens. I hope no one will perceive it as that, and I hope he will not. I merely want to speak to the subject matter of the two sections we were about to strike and to say why I am opposed to those two sections. I want to make that case for at least my side of the aisle, and I want to make it for the people out there who are watching. I do not bear any rancor toward anyone on the other side of the aisle, but I think these things ought to be said. I rise, Mr. President, to speak about the two amendments we would have offered. The first of our amendments would have stricken section 208 of the budget resolution. That section would establish a 60-vote point of order in the Senate against the use of an emergency designation in any spending or revenue legislation. Senators will recall that last year's Senate budget resolution contained a simple majority point of order against any emergency designations on all discretionary spending--both defense and nondefense. But, when the budget resolution last year came out of the conference with the House, the Senate provision had been changed. The conference agreement on last year's budget resolution did away with the simple majority point of order and replaced it with a 60-day point of order on nondefense discretionary spending only! The conferees chose to eliminate the point of order for defense emergency spending altogether. When the conference agreement on last year's budget resolution came back to the Senate, there was no way to attack that particular provision. Budget resolution conference reports are limited as to time and, therefore, filibuster proof. The Budget Act sets a time limit on their consideration, after which a final vote will occur. The majority had the votes to adopt that conference agreement, and did so. That is why, for fiscal year 2000, we have the ridiculous and totally unjustifiable requirements on emergency spending. Let me say that again, Mr. President. When the budget resolution last year was acted upon by the Senate, it had a simple majority vote point of order, but when it went to conference with the Members of the other body, it came back to us with a 60-vote point of order. The House conferees had a voice in changing that point of order by which the Senate has had to live in the intervening time. I think our Members ought to be fully aware of that. It did not leave the Senate floor last year with a 60-vote point of order. It went to the conference with the other body, and they helped to change the rules, if I may use that term, by which we have to live. They are not bound by the 60-vote point of order, but we are. It came back to us in the conference report which we could not change. We ought to be aware of those things when we send these resolutions to the other body. I do not blame the other body. I am not criticizing them. They may actually have had nothing to do with it, but it was changed in conference. Here is the perfectly ridiculous aspect of this 60-vote point of order requirement under which we have to live here. If your constituents suffer from any of the myriad natural disasters that can occur at any time, such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or any other catastrophe--maybe an act of God--emergency spending for the relief of those constituents is subject to a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The House has no such supermajority point of order. In the Senate for fiscal year 2000, if any Senator wishes to raise a point of order against emergency spending in the nondefense area, it will take 60 votes, or that emergency spending will be deleted from any appropriations bill or conference report thereon. For example, if the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, has a catastrophe, if there is an act of God that is visited upon his State, he may be perfectly justified in asking for an emergency appropriation to deal with that catastrophe. But in the Senate, a 60-vote point of order will lie against that funding for the relief of his State, and 41 Members of the Senate can deny him and deny his people relief. God forbid that any catastrophe should hit his State, or the State of the Senator from Nevada who is sitting before me. If his State is suddenly hit by a catastrophe and they need disaster relief, 41 Members, a minority in the Senate, can say no, and the people of Nevada would be denied that relief. In other words, we can send our brave men and women in uniform around the world, whether it be to Bosnia or to Kosovo or to Iraq or anywhere else, and provide emergency funding to pay for those operations, regardless of the costs, without facing a point of order against such spending. But when it comes to helping the people at home, the constituents who send us here, when it comes to helping them in their dire extremities that have been brought on by an act of God, no, a point of order can be made against that funding, and it would take 60 votes for those people in that disaster-stricken State to get relief. That is preeminently unfair. One can say what one wants, but that is unfair. I cannot understand why anyone would want to insist on a point of order that would require 60 votes when it comes to helping the people who send us here, the people who pay the taxes. We should not unduly hamstring spending intended to cover either defense or nondefense emergencies. While we have discretionary spending caps in the law, provisions must be made to deal with the unexpected. And we should not encumber the flexibility to answer those emergency needs with parliamentary devices which make responding to them difficult. I should point out, Mr. President, that, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee during the time of the 1990 budget summit and as a participant in that summit, I worked very hard to include the exemption for emergency spending that is now contained in section 251(b)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. That 1990 budget summit between the Bush administration and Congress was necessary in order to avoid huge across-the-board sequesters of Federal spending that would have otherwise occurred under Gramm-Rudman. Those sequesters, or automatic across-the-board cuts, were in the magnitude of 40 percent, and could have devastated the Nation. And so, we had no choice but to reach an agreement. In the end, after months of negotiations both here in Congress and at Andrews Air Force Base, an agreement was finally reached and subsequently enacted by Congress and signed by President Bush. An important feature of the 1990 budget agreement was that, for the first time, statutory caps were placed on discretionary spending. As a participant in those negotiations, I was intimately involved in the setting of those discretionary spending caps and the other budgetary enforcement provisions contained in the 1990 budget summit agreement. In order to agree to those caps, I felt that it was critical that the Appropriations Committees be held ``harmless'' for economic and technical miscalculations that occur in each year's budget projections. In other words, if discretionary appropriations were to be held to a specific spending cap each year, that discretionary spending should not be automatically cut because of technical or economic miscalculations by either the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office. Another critical exception was the allowance of emergency spending to be included in annual appropriations acts, without having the cost of those emergencies charged against the discretionary spending caps. No human being can determine what nature has in store for the Nation in terms of natural disasters, such as, hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods, fire, or military emergencies around the world. So, we had to have some way to address those needs outside of the very stringent budgetary caps that were being placed on discretionary spending. The result was the enactment of section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. That Section of the Budget Act has by and large worked well since its enactment in 1990. However, in recent years, without going into detail, there have been a number of instances where such emergency designations might not have been fully justified. Therefore, I would support the inclusion in the budget resolution, criteria such as those set forth in section 208(a)(2). Those criteria read as follows: (A) In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is an emergency requirement are: (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial); (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; These are real emergencies. (iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (v) not permanent, temporary in nature. (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen. So, Mr. President, what I object to is not that any emergency requirement should have to meet those criteria. What I object to is the creation of a 60-vote point of order against all--against all-- emergency designations in any appropriations bill, whether they meet the criteria or not. In other words, Section 208 of the budget resolution would allow any Senator to make a point of order against any emergency designation, even if it met the criteria set forth in section 208. That point of order could then be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn. In other words, a minority of 41 could thwart the efforts of Senators or a Senator to deal with a catastrophe that had stricken his State. A minority, a minority of 41, could thwart the effort. It takes 60 votes, a supermajority. Mr. President, this onerous section should be stricken from the budget resolution. Mr. President, Alexander Hamilton had something to say about supermajorities. Let's see what he had to say about supermajorities. In the Federalist No. 75, here is what Hamilton said: . . . all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. That is Alexander Hamilton speaking. What did Madison have to say about supermajorities? In the Federalist No. 58, here is what James Madison said about supermajorities: It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the need for more than a majority--60 votes for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. That is what we are talking about here. Let's read that again. Madison said: In all cases where justice-- Any Senator whose State has been hit by a catastrophe would feel it is only justice--only justice--that his State receive some disaster relief. Madison said: In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued-- We are talking about an active measure here. That is what Madison had in mind. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. He is talking about the requirement of supermajorities now. He is saying that the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority. In this instance, in this legislation, the power to rule is going to be transferred to a minority. This is a democratic republic. A lot of people say it is a democracy. It is not a democracy. It is a republic. All legislative bodies that abide by democratic principles, all republics that abide by democratic principles, have as the basis of those principles the principle that the majority rules. That is not the case here. If Senator Inouye's State needs help because of a typhoon, the majority won't necessarily rule. It won't in the State of New Mexico. It won't in the State of Senator Reid. It won't in my State. A minority can rule. Forty-one votes can come between justice and the people of our States. I am against the 60-vote point of order when it comes to nondefense or defense spending. That is what we were trying to do in the amendments that were originally sent to the desk. Madison again is speaking: It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Madison foresaw that in situations where supermajorities were required, there could be situations in which the minority would extort unreasonable indulgences in return for their support. So much for Hamilton and Madison for today. They are certainly not going to be listened to, I would anticipate. Its adoption would severely curtail the ability of Congress to respond to the unforeseen urgent needs of the people of this country who have suffered devastation caused by floods, severe droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Under section 208, a minority of just 41 Senators could prevent the enactment of the spending to address all of these needs. What would happen under this provision in the case of regional emergencies which may only affect one State, such as an earthquake in California or a hurricane in North Carolina or floods in North Dakota, or drought conditions in Texas? Funding for disasters such as these, which affect only one area of the country, could be in danger. If a point of order is made by any Senator who may have his nose out of joint for some reason--he may just not want to help another Senator to help his people--those emergency funding provisions for particular States or regions would need 60 votes or funding for disaster assistance would not be forthcoming.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished minority whip. This point of order is an unwise and cumbersome device that could prevent the committee from responding to the urgent needs of our Nation. Now, why do we want to do that? The second amendment, which I joined in offering, would have stricken section 210 from the budget resolution. That section would reinstitute a congressional firewall on defense and nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001. This section of the budget resolution would set defense spending for fiscal year 2001 at $306,819,000,000 in new budget authority and $295,050,000,000 in outlays. For the nondefense category, the cap would be set at $289.7 billion in new budget authority and $327.5 billion in outlays. In other words, this budget resolution would cap defense spending at a level that is $9 billion above what it would take to maintain this year's level of spending adjusted for inflation. But the cap for nondefense spending would be set at a level requiring a cut. The cap for nondefense spending--hear me now--the cap for nondefense spending would be set at a level requiring a cut of $19 billion in budget authority below this year's spending level. In other words, section 210 of the budget resolution now before the Senate would take away from the Appropriations Committee the ability to determine, through their committee markups, what the appropriate levels of defense spending or domestic spending should be. Imagine that. How silly can we get? The Appropriations Committee is being prevented from using the judgment of its members, their expertise, to decide even the most basic levels of defense and domestic spending for this Nation. Instead, this budget resolution sets that figure. I have been on the Appropriations Committee now going on 42 years. That is longer than anybody has ever served. The budget resolution sets that figure for the Appropriations Committee prior to their even having finished their hearings. The Budget Committee will have usurped all of those decisions with the construction of these firewalls. I believe this is unwarranted and unacceptable micromanagement on the part of some Members. I don't blame all of the members of the Budget Committee. I know they have their problems. I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has always been very fair to me. He sits on the Appropriations Committee likewise. He knows what this does to the Appropriations Committee. He is trying to do a good job and he does a splendid job. But a lot of these things, those who are in the driver's seat at a particular given moment have the votes, and those who would do otherwise, such as Senator Stevens, in other cases, or Senator Domenici, they have to look at the votes. I thought we had all learned our lesson about substituting structural devices for human judgment with the Gramm-Rudman experience. Setting up procedural barricades often creates more problems than are solved when it comes to funding real priorities for a vast and complex nation. Autopilot politics amounts to an abdication of our responsibility to debate and weigh reasonable alternatives, as we are expected to do and as we are elected to do by the people. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend, Senator Stevens, is one of the most knowledgeable experts in the history of the Senate when it comes to the funding needs of the Department of Defense. Do we have to squander his experience and the accumulated expertise of the members of the Appropriations Committee? Here sits one on my left, Senator Inouye. He is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the Senate. Do we have to squander their experience, their accumulated expertise, by constructing these mindless, artificial firewalls which attempt to game the funding process before it is even begun? Well, these sections, I assure you, my fellow Senators, will greatly increase the difficulty faced by the Appropriations chairman in marking up and presenting to the Senate the 13 fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. The speed and efficiency sought by all of us to get this essential work done will not be aided by these unwise and irresponsible budget barnacles. Let us scrape them off before they do their damage. Mr. President, how much time do I have left of my 9 minutes?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I would be happy and most honored. I ask unanimous consent that the name of Mr. Domenici be added to the list of cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. I will.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield whatever time the Senator wishes to consume.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the functional totals in this budget resolution do not assume the reduction of any Federal gasoline taxes on either a temporary or permanent basis. Mr. President, in 1996, just four years ago, the Senate considered a proposal to repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon federal excise tax on gasoline. As I recall, the issue was debated in the midst of the 1996 presidential election, as gasoline prices were on the rise. Today, we are considering a similar proposal under almost identical circumstances. American consumers are understandably upset about the rise of gasoline prices over the last year. In February 1999, average U.S. prices were under a dollar per gallon. Since then, the average price for gasoline in the United States has increased by about 55 cents per gallon. To make matters worse, the U.S. government has had to go hat-in-hand to the Gulf nations to beg them to produce more oil. Let us all remember that these are the very same Gulf states that the U.S. defended during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. In answer to the outrage of the American people over this latest hike in gas prices, we see, yet again, a proposal for a reduction in the federal excise tax on gasoline. The repeal of any tax, particularly a tax on gasoline, is always politically popular, and quite a temptation for politicians, especially in the midst of a campaign season. Additionally, the temptation to remind the electorate of a tax increase approved by a political opponent is close to irresistible in an election year. However, in our rush to craft a pseudo-solution to a real concern in this election year, I hope that the Senate will carefully consider the long-term implications of its actions. To suggest that the 4.3 cent per gallon gasoline tax enacted in 1993 is the precursor of all this pain at the gas pump, and that the cure for that pain is a simple repeal of that tax, is pure and utter folly. A look at the markets over recent months shows that gasoline prices have risen because of the basic economic forces of supply and demand. First, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) successfully agreed last year to curb crude-oil production in order to raise exceptionally low per-barrel prices--such low per-barrel prices that U.S. producers were in danger of being put out of business. Second, U.S. crude-oil inventories were allowed to fall to dangerously low levels in 1999. Because there was no cushion from U.S. inventories to respond to the cuts in oil production, gasoline prices, naturally, increased. What we are seeing is classic supply and demand at work. OPEC agreed last week to increase oil production, but that oil will not arrive from the Gulf states for at least another one to two months. In the meantime, there is a more or less fixed supply of oil available for U.S. consumption. This short-supply scenario means that even if the excise tax were repealed, gasoline prices would likely increase again, reflecting, guess what, the classic lack of equilibrium between supply and demand. In other words, there is no getting around the basic tenets of the problem, which are OPEC's cutbacks on production and low U.S. crude-oil inventories. Yet, some of my colleagues would have the American consumer believe that this tax cut proposal will effect a miracle cure. Faith in snake oil never seems to diminish in the Halls of Congress. They argue that we can get around the laws of supply and demand altogether by simply reducing the gas tax. I, for one, am doubtful that consumers would significantly benefit from this latest attempt to treat a serious malady with a political placebo. As I have said, over the past few months, gasoline prices on average have risen by about 55 cents per gallon across the nation. S. 2285, would roll back the price of gasoline to the American consumer by only 4 cents, and only until the end of this calendar year. If average U.S. prices increase to two dollars per gallon, this proposal would repeal the entire excise tax for this calendar year, which is still a reduction of only 18 cents per gallon. Assuming that these prices actually filter down to the consumer--a rather large leap of faith--how significant a difference will a 4 cent decrease be compared to a 55 cent increase in gasoline prices? Likewise, if prices reach as high as two dollars per gallon, will 18 cents make a noticeable difference in the average consumer's weekly expenses? As I mentioned before, supporters of the proposal to repeal a portion of the gas tax assume that the tax decrease would filter down to the consumer. But there is no guarantee that any savings whatsoever will be passed on to the consumer. Since this proposal does not address the low supply of oil in the United States, the benefits of the tax cut are likely to flow to the coffers of the domestic oil-refinery industry, not to the pockets of the consumer. As I mentioned before, even though refineries would be paying less in taxes to the federal government, lower prices at the pump would drive up demand for gas, further reducing supply and increasing the price for the remaining scarce gasoline. Until oil supplies in the United States increase, gasoline will continue to be scarce and prices at the pump will continue to climb, regardless of whether or not the federal excise tax is reduced. OPEC is also more likely to benefit from this proposal than the American consumer. Let us consider this proposal from OPEC's point of view for a moment. Gasoline prices can only rise so high before American demand begins to wane. Decreased demand means lower profits for OPEC, which is why OPEC agreed to increase oil production last week in Vienna. Stable prices are in the long-term interest of OPEC. This tax repeal proposal, however, would remove the incentive for OPEC to maintain stable oil prices. If the Congress chooses to cut the gasoline tax to reduce gasoline prices, it would effectively allow OPEC to maintain artificially low production quotas, and thus support artificially high prices, without suffering from the decrease in oil demand that the free market would otherwise dictate. A reduction in the gas tax removes the economic incentive for OPEC to keep oil production in equilibrium with demand. Mr. President, the economics of this proposal notwithstanding, it is also important to consider the impact it would have on transportation spending, since the excise tax revenues are intended to be reserved for maintaining and improving the Nation's highways. Spring is here, and on highways and roadways across the Nation, spring is an event marked by the thump and rumble of tires hitting potholes and crumbling medians. Mr. President, just three years ago, the Senate considered the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21. At that time, the Senate debated at length the appropriate mechanism to finance the needs of our Nation's infrastructure. I, along with many of my colleagues, was determined to reverse the trend begun in the early 1980's of federal disinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure. During the debate on TEA-21, I, along with my colleagues Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, championed an amendment that would allow the revenue from the 4.3 cent gas tax imposed in 1993 to be used for highway construction. Just the year before, Senator Gramm had succeeded in seeing to it that the 4.3 cent tax was deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment during TEA- 21 was to ensure that the new revenue to the Trust Fund would, indeed, be spent on highways as it was intended, and as we informed the American people it would be. Mr. President, our amendment gathered no fewer than 54 cosponsors on a broad bipartisan basis--29 Democrats and 25 Republicans. The entire debate on the highway bill was characterized by bipartisanship. Back then, we heard talk about all the highway needs that were going unmet across our Nation and how the revenue of the 4.3 cent gas tax could help address those needs. Indeed, during the debate on TEA-21, an amendment was offered to repeal the 4.3 cent gas tax. By a vote of 80 to 18, the Senate refused--refused!--to waive the Budget Act to consider that amendment. Senator Mack's proposal was appropriately rejected by the overwhelming majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats. On that day, March 11, 1998, the 4.3 cent tax was the difference between a highway bill that continued the status quo of disinvestment and a highway bill that made real progress in repairing our deteriorated highways. With the adoption of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, the final highway bill that passed the Senate two days later was almost $26 billion larger than the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. And that $26 billion figure was derived directly from the Congressional Budget Office's estimate at that time of the expected revenue of the 4.3 cent gas tax. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the budget resolution, on behalf of several of my colleagues whose names I mentioned earlier, which states that it is the sense of the Senate that the Federal gas tax should not be repealed on either a temporary or a permanent basis. I am pleased to be joined in that amendment by five distinguished members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works; namely, Senators Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg, and Bond; and, in addition, Senators Reid and Domenici. This amendment provides the Senate an opportunity to vote, up or down, on the continued integrity of the Highway Trust Fund and the relative importance of infrastructure investment versus a short-term tax cut that may never be felt by the consumer. The recent effort to repeal a portion of the gas tax attempts to create a political issue where there really should be none. Thankfully, Republican Senators like John Warner, George Voinovich, Kit Bond, and Pete Domenici are not being baited by the hook of this foray into election year politics. Nor are senior House Members, including members of the House Republican Leadership, such as Richard Armey, J.C. Watts, and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster. The nation's governors, the nation's mayors, the state legislatures, and the nation's county executives are not going for the bait either. The national associations representing all those elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, are all opposed to efforts to repeal the gas tax. So is the ``Triple A'' whose sole responsibility is to the driving public that is paying the higher gas prices at the pump every day. So is the Association of General Contractors, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Public Transit Association, and scores of other groups. For those of my colleagues who wish to portray this issue as a political one, let me remind them that less than a decade ago, a bill to raise gas taxes for deficit reduction was signed into law by George Bush--that is, with George Herbert Walker Bush. I was there at Andrews Air Force Base, across the table from OMB Director Richard Darman and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu. It was at that summit where a 5-cent gas tax increase was first discussed. I did not participate in the final negotiations over the revenue measures in that agreement since they were handled by the Chairmen of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees and their Ranking Members. At the end of those negotiations, the Bush Administration was supportive of raising the gas tax by 5 cents--with 2\1/2\ cents being deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and 2\1/2\ cents going to deficit reduction. So it was the Bush/Quayle Administration that first laid the groundwork for using gas taxes for deficit reduction in 1990. Thankfully, today, every penny of the federal gas tax is deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and spent on transportation investments across the nation. Mr. President, S. 2285, as introduced by the Majority Leader, proposes to repeal 4.3 cents of the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax. Since every penny of the gas tax is now distributed to the states in the form of annual obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, that repeal will put at risk more than $7.1 billion in transportation funding beginning in 2002. Now, $7.1 billion will fill a lot of potholes and fix a lot of crumbling roadways. Under this bill, if the average price of gasoline reaches $2 or higher, then the entire 18.4-cent federal gas tax will be repealed, putting more than $30 billion in transportation funding at risk. Additionally, there is some very unique language in S. 2285 that seeks to mandate that spending from the Highway Trust Fund be maintained at the levels authorized in TEA-21, notwithstanding the fact that this bill will keep revenue from coming into the Trust Fund. Does anyone truly believe that this is a workable approach? The Chairman of Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Voinovich, clearly does not. Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, who joined me in restoring the ``trust'' to the Highway Trust Fund, certainly do not. I implore all Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in rejecting a plan which will compromise that trust which would take the ``trust'' out of the Highway Trust Fund. Mr. President, our highway and transit infrastructure can ill afford to forego several billion dollars in annual investment. Let me remind my colleagues that we have no reason to be proud of the current condition of our highways. According to the Department of Transportation's most recent figures, the condition of our nation's highways and bridges continues to deteriorate by many measures. Daily usage of our highway system has continued to grow each and every year, such that more than half of our nation's urban interstate miles are now perpetually congested--more than half! Less than half of our rural highway miles and less than half of our urban highway miles are considered to be in good or very good condition. That means that more than half of our nation's highway miles are considered to be at some level of disrepair. So when you look at the condition of our nation's highway bridges, the situation is no better. Roughly one-third of our urban highway bridges are either structurally or functionally deficient. The same is true for roughly one-quarter of our rural highway bridges. This is not just a matter of insufficient capacity. This is a matter of safety. The Senate must not turn its back to these troubling facts. It is quite appropriate that we are debating this issue as part of the budget resolution. Indeed, the Committee report accompanying the budget resolution parrots the assumptions contained in S. 2285. The report states that ``as part of a five year, $150 billion tax reduction package, the Committee-reported resolution could accommodate a suspension or repeal of the Clinton/Gore 4.3 cent tax increase on fuel.'' Mr. President, I believe we have reached the point where we must ask the Senate where it stands on just this question. This amendment provides that opportunity. This is an election year. I understand that this proposal is being presented to the Congress for reasons which just might have very little to do with sound fiscal policy. The American people are not foolish. They will realize that this bill would have an unfortunate effect on transportation spending. They will not thank us for handing them more of the congested, crumbling commuter routes they must already deal with every day. Likewise, they will realize that such a short-term fix does nothing to address the underlying problem of high gas prices--namely OPEC and the lack of a national energy policy to protect the United States against the roller coaster ride of gasoline price adjustments. I urge my colleagues to reject this voodoo chant remedy. We might as well hire a witch doctor to shake a tambourine over the heads of the OPEC states as adopt this approach. Our energy problems demand serious remedies, not pseudo-solutions. Vote against this bill for the people, the commuters, the truck drivers and the ambulance and bus drivers, of America. We need a serious look at the totality of our national energy policy, not a quick fix non-remedy that will only result in more broken promises and broken pavement for the American driving public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements in support of this amendment from the following organizations be printed in the Record: The Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Counties, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Association of Regional Councils, the American Consulting Engineers Council, and the American Portland Cement Alliance.

Mr. BYRD. Very well.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will shortly be speaking on an amendment which I will offer on behalf of myself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Reid. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Maine would like to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his very enlightening statement. I have listened to him on this floor many times over the years. I do not think I have enjoyed more any statement of his than I have this evening. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman, Senator Robb, and Senator Lincoln be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. We can do Mr. Warner and Mr. Bond--Mr. Bond talked with me several minutes ago. He has to go somewhere. Then Mr. Baucus and then Mr. Voinovich, if that is all right.

Mr. BYRD. As I close, I again thank Messrs. Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg, Bond, Reid of Nevada, and Domenici. Let me thank also Mr. Jim English and Peter Rogoff, fine staffpersons who have been so helpful in the work on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see no other Senator asking for time on this side. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind and supportive statement. I thank all Senators who have spoken on this subject for their remarks. I thank them for their support, and I hope all of our colleagues tomorrow will vote in favor of the amendment I have offered on behalf of myself and the other Senators named thereon.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for not to exceed 5 minutes, after which I will regain the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Mr. Grams to speak out of order.