Connie Mack: “Would the Senator agree it is possible that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this…”

“Would the Senator agree it is possible that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this legislation because, frankly, it is an embarrassment if this 4.3-cent gasoline tax cut were to make its way to the President of the United States? Again, what I am trying to draw in your mind is a picture of the President of the United States who campaigned in 1992 that he was going to reduce the burden on America's middle-income families. In fact, I think he proposed a tax cut for middle-income families. Then within the first year after he was elected he introduced and enabled the passage of a tax plan that would, in fact, increase taxes on all Americans, part of which was the 4.3-cent gasoline tax. Now, we are in a situation where we would be saying that we want to give the President an opportunity to keep his campaign promise of 1992, but it puts him in an embarrassing position, because after he got through saying the things he said in 1992, he went ahead and supported the tax increase. Is it possible our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are engaging in this filibuster to try to protect the President from an embarrassing situation where he will either have to sign into law something that would reverse something he has done, or he will have to veto?”