Moderator: Good afternoon and welcome to Capital Chat with our guest today, state Sen. Dan Swecker, a Republican from Rochester. Swecker has been particularly involved in two issues this session, opposing any movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage, and helping craft a transportation budget.

That proposed transportation budget relies on increases in the per-gallon gas tax, 3 cents starting in July, another 2 cents next year, and a penny every year after for 10 years to build up $9.1 billion for 200 projects. Before construction can start or the tax can be charged, however, Swecker and his supporters must drum up the votes in a closely divided Senate.

Moderator: Washington currently has the third higher U.S. gasoline prices, and the price per gallon is 40 cents higher than last year. Do you think taxpayers will respond with an initiative to roll back a gas tax increase?

Swecker: Well, there's two ways of looking at it. One way is that gas prices are higher and therefore it's hard to get additional revenue from a gas tax. Gas prices in my area have gone up 60 cents in the past six months and none of it has gone to roads. Our proposal is a modest increase over a long amount of time so people can plan purchases and trips, and I hope the gas tax impact will be minimal.

The second way to look at it is that in the last two weeks, prices have gone up 20 cents, with the gas prices bouncing around so much the increase would be imperceptable. But we still have to be responsible to our consitituents.

Moderator: Would you consider an "excess profits tax" on oil companies as an alternative to higher gasoline taxes? This might work as a disincentive to oil companies increasing prices on Washington motorists.

Swecker: There was a source tax proposed on oil companies, and the problem I have with that is it spreads it way out past gasoline and the users of roads, and at that point anyone who uses petroleum products, or products with petroleum ingredients, plastics, would be penalized, and I would like to keep the source of the tax as close to the users as possible.

Robert, Rainier: Another 3-cents-a-gallon gas tax. Why is it the people have to be responsible for all the wasteful spending by our elected officials? The increasing cost of fuel already has raised the the cost of consumer goods, food, etc. because of the cost of transportation being passed on. Now another 3 cents.

Swecker: The fortunate thing in our state is that gas taxes can only be used for highways and ferries, so it's specifically directed towards transportation infrastructure improvement. We've also been working on ways to hold the Department of Transportation accountable for the cost of projects, the locations of projects and biennium in which dollars were spent. We've also created transportation performance audit board which has scheduled performance audits over every action they take for the next six years.

We had the nickel tax two years ago and it had very specific restrictions on it, and the Department of Transportation has done a good job of conforming to the requirements of the Legislature. We have confidence going forward that the same kind of acountablity will ensure the money is used for its intended purpose. Any other spending would be prohibited by the Constitution.

Kevin, Lacey: How come the Legislature always takes the easy way out? I guess one has to work for the state government to see how raising gas taxes at a time when gasoline prices are at an all time high makes sense. There are many other options other than raising the gas tax. Toll roads, fees for single drivers using the carpool lanes, and reallocating budget funds are a few. I realize these take more effort on your part, but that's what you are paid to do. The public just voted down a gas tax -- we don't want this and it's about time you realize who you work for.

Swecker: All of the options he suggests except the last are things currently either being implemented or being studied so we can implement them. As for the latter, we take money out of general fund and shift it into transport budget, but right now we have a $1 billion-plus deficit in the general fund and those resources are badly needed elsewhere.

Our goal is to not raise general taxes for those programs. Instead we want to concentrate any increase on the part of the state infrastructure that will most benefit the economy. The accompanying legislation has over 200 projects throughout the state. During the 16 years that it takes to complete those projects it's estimated that we will generate 35,000 to 40,000 new jobs, construction jobs, family wage jobs, $120,000,000 in sales tax revenue alone that will enhance the general fund budget. So my feeling is, if we're going to spend public money on anything, this is the exact right time to do it.

That doesn't even speak to the issue of needs. The first thing we addressed in the Legislature was the failing structures in the Seattle metro area, the Alsaskan Way Viaduct and 520 Bridge. If either of those were to fail it would have a devastating effect on the economy. We decided to fund a little less than half of those projects and have the region come up with the rest. Even with that, the tax will only come up with a portion of those projects, so to pay for the rest of the projects around the state, this incremental tax will help us finish these projects. The most inefficient thing to do for transportation is to start a project and not finish it. Projects can get out-of-date very quickly and then you need to start over, so getting them done is paramount.

Moderator: Why should the entire state pay for King County megaprojects?

Swecker: About half of proposed gas tax revenue will come from the King County area. Not only will they pay their share of the gas tax but will add additional revenue to finish those projects, probably more than is projected by the gas tax, so we're getting double bang for our buck. This package does a great deal for the rest of the state, like the toll bridge over the Columbia River and the 385 in Spokane.

In our area we'll continue the widening of I-5 from the Rochester exist to the Mellen Street exit in Centralia. In order to do that we have to widen three overpases and replace a major bridge so that project alone is over $100 million, but that's the area where we see most of the crashes and fatalities in the Centralia area. And that's a necessary step to move forward. This isn't unique to our area or King County -- one of the largest safety hazards we have is rollover accidents on two-lane roads. This project will provide guard rails on two-lane roads all over the state.

We also have 100 failing bridges around the state that are old and deteriorating. Many our in our earthquake sensitivity zone on the west side of the state, so any seismic activity can bring them down. So we want to upgrade them to withstand seismic activity as well as increased traffic. This is a huge bill that would benefit every part of the state.

Sheryl, Olympia: Is there ever any discussion regarding a minimal sales tax on food to generate revenue?

Swecker: There has not been. The reason is because a citizens' initiative took the sales tax on food off the table. I think that would be a punitive tax that would affect those least able to pay the most. The good thing about the gas tax is it's restricted by 18th amendment to (only pay for) highway infrastructure.

Gina, Olympia: Why all this taxing of items that affect low-income people? How about imposing a 5 percent tax on all adult tickets sold for college and professional sporting events? Consider the traffic jams these events cause and the extra city, county, and state personnel they use.

Swecker: You know, every kind of tax has been considered. I've been in the Legislature for 11 years and every possible tax has been proposed at one time or another. In fact we do tax those going to major sporting events, primarily to support the stadiums they take place in. But we've left no stone unturned. I am not in favor of general tax increases and I am in favor of government cost savings and we have done this over past four years with regard to trasnportation costs.

I was a member of the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee for four years and we've reduced costs and redeuced litigation. It's been very successful and created new strategies for speeding up the permitting process and leaving litigation to the most needed areas. So the outcomes have sometimes been very ineffective and expensive. We are coming up with ideas to go elsewhere in the watershed, and it will have a much better outcome for the wildlife we are trying to protect, and that's only one outcome from the push to make transportation more efficient and accountable.

Phredd, Onalaska: What can be done about the high gas prices?

Swecker: That's so politically loaded. I think one thing to consider is to reduce the consumption of gas. Right now I have a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon. I could double the gas tax and get a car over the next 20 years that gets 30 miles to the gallon, and I would be money ahead even at today's gas prices. So fuel efficiency is a major issue. I am providing leadership for the push to improve fuel efficiency in the state. I think people will choose better options if the vehicles are available. I would personally like more options.

So using less gas is one option. I guess there's been talk of finding more sources outside the Mideast, like ANWR. That's not a total solution, but is part of it, and marrying that with new technologies like hybrids and electric cars, I think we can deal with the problem.

Lauri, Lacey: What's the solution to the I-5 snarl and how much will it cost?

Swecker: It's a huge problem and it just depnds on where you're at. One option is to get cars and trucks off the hghway. I proposed creating a new corridor for trucks up to Ii-90. I had committed funds to study that option, but talking to my colleagues there's two things to do first. One, we need a statewide study on rail, and we will do that this year, and two we have to look at a corridor on the other side of the mountain, becuase I think a lot of folks could cut miles off their commute and provide more economic development to the central part of the state. So I took the $1.5 million earmarked for my study and reallocated it to these two studies.

Rita, Lacey: I know you've been a leader in finding innovative ways to improve transporation in the state. Wouldn't it be more effecient if we could locate many kinds of linear transportation (highways, rail) and utilities (pipelines, power) along the same corridors?

Swecker: That was my original belief. We did have a commerce corridor study that did examine every one of those options -- pipelines, power lines, rail, passenger traffic -- on a new corridor that would run from Lewis County to the Canadian border, but looking at all those plans there was no critical mass that looked like one single corridor could address all those needs. Instead a truck corridor rose to the top. I think if we create an attractive corridor it will rise to the top, but unfortunately people in those industries don't plan ahead well enough to ensure they would use it wisely.

My goal was to bring resources from other providers of infrastructure to this corridor to pay for a major portion of it. I served on the transportation infrastructure alternatives committee that examined those options as they've been applied around the nation, and that really encouraged me to look at as many possiblities as I could. One impact of a new corridor would be environmental. There are certain parts of the state where the environmental impacts exceed the value of the corridor, so the area that has the most promise is from I-90 south. When you bring all that together, that one project (truck route) rose to the top.

Moderator: How much do you think fear is motivating your fellow lawmakers on today's scheduled vote on a transportation-tax package -- including a 15-cent gas-tax increase over 12 years? How do you think opponents will use the votes in the next round of campaign advertising, and what do you think of that kind of campaigning?

Swecker: Well it is a big consideration for my fellow legislators. It has been used in the past as a weapon against folks who have supported gas-tax increases -- the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats at using that tactic, which I personally detest. The current Democratic chairman of the Transportation Committee and I will sign a letter of appreciation and emphasize the importance of those who vote (to pass the gas tax) so they can share it with the public.

I've had discussions with people in the business community who have provided resources for some of the hit pieces on candidates and gotten assurances they won't employ that tactic in the futre, but there are no guarantees. At some point people have to put politics aside and do what's right. I have no choice -- I have to do what's best for the people of Washington and let the chips fall where they may. There are a lot of people who do appreciate (the gas tax increase) and support it. It seems the more information people get about the need, the more likely they are to support it. But needless to say it's not a popular proposal.

Eva, Chehalis: This concerns the bill currently being considered that would guarauntee 5 weeks family leave. This leave is already being abused by patients as personal time off for surgery. Whatever happened to taking responsibilty for oneself, saving and planning ahead when possible? Isn't this just another welfare situation that the working middle-class taxpayers will have to cover?

Swecker: I don't support the family leave legislation. I think it creates too much of a burden on our small businesses. Being a small business owner for 20 years with as many as 60 employee, I know owners can make time available for those that need it, I just don't think government needs to mandate a whole new set of mandates that will impact the economy at this stage.

Brandon, Shelton: Why do we cling on to loved ones who should have died years ago? The Schiavo case made me both sad and angry. A person who can't get better on a feeding tube should not be forced to suffer and be kept alive. This may sound cruel, but why dont we give people like her a lethal injection at the choice of parents and spouse? I know if I was like her, I would want someone to shoot me. I would not want to be forced to live 15-plus years on a machine.

Swecker: I think if people have made a choice and specified the circumstances that they want the life support to be removed, but I think where there are close family who have questions on that, I would default on the side of preserving human life. I think one argument in the Schiavo was that she was braindead and that she wouldn't feel it if she was starved to death. I question whether the medical evidence was there to support that and if we were to keep her alive, who would it hurt? especially since her family was so intent on keeping her alive.

When we talk about abortion, as a society we've come down on the side of the will of the mother, and that's the deciding factor. Maybe we should use the same criteria in cases like Terri Schiavo. I too question the husband's motives -- I think there were reasons to suggest he had a conflict of interest. I would always put the weight of government down on the side of preserving life.

Moderator: Senate Republicans, joined by two conservative Democrats, headed off a vote Tuesday on the gay-rights measure, House Bill 1515, sending it to the Judiciary Committee rather than let it come up for a vote on the Senate floor. Why do you oppose this bill, and why, if it’s a matter of conscience, are Senate Republicans afraid to let it come up for a vote?

Swecker: I think there's a lot of political pressure right now to validate the homosexual lifestyle. I don't share that perspective. I'm not interested in condemning them in any way, but I do believe problems with that lifestyle impact government, society and culture. Iit's one thing to say they are free to pursue their choice or their heartfelt beliefs, but to have government mandate that the rest of society take one perspective on it -- I think that's a mistake and I think it sets a bad precedent not just for homosexuality but for other kinds of choices.

You have to realize this particular piece of legislation validated other choices, like transexuality. In fact the things in validated, like sexual experession -- what is that? I think there are some weird kinds of sexual expression government shouldn't validate. I don't think there's a need or a critical mass to create a protected class. Usually when you protect a class you have to observe impacts that disenfranchise that class from education and political power, and I would suggest in this case that none of those criteria applied to this group. They are guaranteed equal access and we already have rules in place to ensure that. They have the right to vote, the list goes on and on, so to say that rises to the same test as race, where generations had economic hardship and lacked the right to vote, I don't think that's there.

I'm particularly concerned now about the Supreme Court case on the defiinition of marriage. I would be very unhappy to see us redefine marriage any way outside of the traditionhal one-man-one-woman. The most compelling argument for me is the economic one. People think of marriage as a decision between two persons. In my mind it's not two persons, but about the next generation. The reason we have rules about people getting together is for the children, and our society is set up to make it easier to form families and have children. The redefinition, if you will, would shift massive amounts of resources from the younger generation to those who don't intend to have kids or are able to have kids. Some argue that some homosexuals have children, but I would argue they're most commonly children from a failed relationship, and setting up government programs to encourage relationships that fail is wrong.

I don't hold any ill feelings, but I feel we as a society we have to focus our resources on the next generation, which is really the most vulnerable group and always the result of a relationship between one man and one woman.

Albert, Olympia: I would like to thank you for you support of pay raises for state workers.

Swecker: I have a large number of constiuents who are state employees -- many people communt from Lewis County to Olympia. I think it's importat to keep pace with the wage scale and the general economy and I think state workers have mde some sacrifices in that regard. And if we can give the pay raises negotiated by the governor and pay rasies passed by the schools, and do that without a tax increase -- and the Republican plan to do it without the tax increase has been presented to me personally -- I very much support it.

I did support collective bargaining by state employees. They are an important and valuable resources and they are the most competitive unit in bidding against the private sector. I've had special opportunity in working with state employees from many agencies on my streamlining task force and many of these people are heroic in the way they try to improve things across the state for people that have to go through these things every day. Many state institutions experience institutional inertia against innovation and I have just been so impressed by those that are doing a great job at fighting that inertia.

Moderator: What's your opinion of the pension plan changes proposed, which would delay needed increases in state worker contributions, but save the state money now?

Swecker: No question the state will do what it has to to keep pension plans viable. The quesiton is, do we do it now or later, and by doing it now we keep the impact on the state budget much lower. Like any investment plan, if you put money in early and let interest accrue, your end result is better. If we delay contributions the cost becomes almost staggering, so again I'm in favor of these contributions and I believe the Republican party has a plan to allow us to do that without an increase in general fund taxes.

Andy, Olympia: At the current rate of investigation we may never know whether King County's latest "ballot find" and its stonewalling are gross negligence or blatant fraud. How many irregularities and coverups will it take before we see federal intervention? When do you feel federal intervention is warranted?

Swecker: I don't think we'lll ever see federal intervention. I think this is a mess the state of Washington has to clean up, and I'm hopeful that the Legislature will take leardership in providing what will be requeired to make the election system more foolproof. As an example, Republicans want picture ID at the polls. Just think -- you can't cash a check or buy liquor without a picture ID, we use it so much to make our economic system viable -- why can't we use it to make our elections system viable? For some reason the other party opposes this. The Republicans will have a comprehensive package to solve this or we will wait until we do. It is not something you can piecemeal into place and hope it works.

Moderator: Looks like we have time for one more question.

Gary, Olympia: You have spent more time than the average state legislator persecuting and defaming Washington's gay citizens (such as myself). Do you have any gay relatives? Any gay people who would call you their friend?

Swecker: I have gay relatives and I have gay colleagues in the Legislature. Interstingly enough I"ve debated Rep. Edward Murray [who is gay -- ed.] on television and I think we were both able to do that with a sense of mutual respect and compassion and still have our points of view heard. If I look at my deepest most fundamental principles, I have to go back to my Christian faith, and I think the Bible is instructive about what I look at as sexual sin.

Look at Christ dealing with prostitute who was about to be stoned. The first thing he said was, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and that leaves me and everyone I know out. The second thing he said was, "your sins are forginven," and that's the model we need to follow. But the last thing he said was, "go and sin no more." But that's between the individual and God. We are all sinners -- that includes me as much as any homosexual. What would be problematic for me is to stand back and say it's okay, because that would defy principles of the Bible. I want to see all those folks in heaven with me, so I'm going to keep working through it by the Bible.

Moderator: Any closing thoughts?

Swecker: This year's been particularly challenging because of my position as ranking member on the Transportation Committee. My colleague on the committee, majority leader Mary Margaret Haugen, has been willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, and we've accomplished a great deal together and we continue to cooperate. Neither one of us come from districts with megaprojects and our districts don't benefit disproportionately from the Legislation we are putting through, but the whole state has benefited. If we've ever had a chance to come up with a reasonable strategy to address problems in the whole state, this year is the best year and I'm looking foward to doing it.

Moderator: Thank you very much for your time, Sen. Swecker.

Moderator: Come back next week when we chat with Linda Villegas Bremer, new state director of General Administration.