[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 60 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4661-S4663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     REPUBLICANS' SELECTIVE MEMORY

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the 
colloquy by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I wanted to 
come to the floor for a couple of minutes to respond and I know that a 
number of our colleagues will also be doing so a little bit later on 
this morning.

[[Page S4662]]

  I find the selective memory very intriguing, and I certainly 
appreciate the good words by so many of our colleagues about the impact 
that the 4-cent gasoline tax has had. What I am surprised at is that 
they have chosen not to also direct some of their concern and attention 
to the dime's worth of increases in gas taxes in the 1980's and early 
1990's--increases that most of them supported.
  We raised the tax in 1982 by 5 cents and again in 1991 by an 
additional 5 cents. As I understand it, almost every single Republican 
supported those two increases--a dime. In fact, our distinguished 
majority leader was one of those who supported the increase in gasoline 
taxes of 10 cents. We like to refer to that 10-cent increase as the 
``Dole dime'' because, in effect, that is what has been the result of 
the gasoline tax policy over the last 15 years. Mr. President, a 10-
cent increase was supported by virtually every single Republican in 
1982 and again in 1991.
  In order to cure this selective memory about gasoline taxes, I would 
remind my colleagues that the 4.3-cent increase that we passed in 1993 
was part of an overall budget package that has led to the single most 
consequential deficit reduction program in the history of this country. 
We have not seen 4 consecutive years of deficit reduction since the 
Civil War, but we did it in 1993, we did it in 1994, we did it in 1995 
and now for the 4th year in a row we have done it in 1996. What a 
remarkable achievement. We have brought the deficit down to about half 
of what it was when the Republican Presidents left office after 12 
years of dramatic increases in the size of the deficit.
  The deficit in 1980, as everyone recognized when President Reagan 
took office, was about $800 billion. After 12 years of Republican White 
House domination, that deficit had ballooned from $800 billion to $4.5 
trillion. This, despite all the rhetoric about deficit reduction, 
despite all the promises we were given about how we would bring down 
the size of the debt--it increased to $4.5 trillion.
  It took a Democratic White House, with leadership from this 
President, beginning the first year he was in office, to force this 
deficit to come down now for 4 years in a row. We want to continue to 
do that. The President has made every overture I would expect him to 
make, urging the majority leader, the Speaker, and others to continue 
negotiations, trying to find a way, in a bipartisan effort, to maintain 
this downward trend in the deficit.
  We can achieve a meaningful deficit reduction package for the next 7 
years, bringing deficits to absolute zero if we have the courage and 
the wherewithal and the determination to do what this President did in 
1993. The opportunity is there. The door is open. We do not have to use 
new gas taxes. We do not have to find new sources of revenue. We can do 
it with the cuts proposed in this President's budget.
  As everyone understands, it is a budget that has been scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office, something that the Republican leadership 
has said again and again is one of the key ingredients to coming to 
some resolution. The President's CBO-scored budget is, in large 
measure, the effect of many months of negotiations with the Republican 
leadership in an effort to continue the progress that this President 
has made now for the last 4 years.
  I must say, this selective memory amazes me--I did not hear a word 
today about the dime increase, the 10-cent increase supported by 
virtually every Republican Senator in the past decade. If they are so 
concerned about the 4.3 cents, why is it we have not heard anything 
about the 10-cent increase proposed by our colleagues and supported 
almost unanimously on the other side? If we are going to give tax 
relief, maybe we ought to go to the Dole dime as well as to the 4.3-
cent increase that has been discussed this morning.

  I think the real issue here is obfuscation with regard to meaningful 
ways of which to help working families. If they really wanted to help 
working families who are struggling to make ends meet--in many cases, 
with reductions in purchasing power year after year after year--the 
best thing they could do would be to pass the minimum wage increase. We 
are talking about a 4.3-cent reduction in taxes, when if we wanted to, 
this very day we could pass a 45-cent increase in the minimum wage. 
This afternoon we could pass a 45-cent increase, 41 cents more than the 
relief we get out of a gallon of gasoline, providing purchasing power 
to millions of struggling American families.
  This week marks the 35th anniversary of the signing of President 
Kennedy's increase in the minimum wage back in 1961. As a result of 
raising the minimum wage in 1961, purchasing power for a working family 
increased, in 1996 dollars, to $6.61 an hour. You heard it right: $6.61 
an hour in 1963. That is what working families had at the lowest rung 
of the economic scale 35 years ago--$6.61. Today, they are relegated to 
$4.25. Their purchasing power goes down year after year after year 
after year.
  We are now at a 40-year low in terms of purchasing power. While CEO's 
across this country saw a 28-percent increase in their purchasing power 
just last year to an average of $950,000 per year in salary, the 
purchasing power of working people at the lowest rung of the economic 
scale has gone down to a point where it is almost more beneficial for 
them to stay on welfare than to go out and work. How wrong is that, Mr. 
President?
  I do not deny any one of those CEO's a good income. In many cases, 
they deserve it. But if we can find ways in which to advance the 
economy and build the growth within the economy that we have seen in 
the last several years--8.5 million jobs, an economy that is booming, 
the stock market has reached unprecedented levels--why is it we cannot 
come up with the wherewithal in this country to provide some purchasing 
power for people at the lowest end?
  We have produced an action agenda that we want to pass sooner rather 
than later. That action agenda has everything to do with the paycheck--
first, passing a minimum wage that every single American could 
ultimately benefit from; secondly, passing retirement security that 
allows people to take their health insurance with them; and finally, 
passing pension and retirement security, making sure that every time a 
worker changes jobs--and the average worker changes jobs now seven 
times in his or her lifetime--they can take that pension with them. 
They can go from one job to the next with the assurance they will have 
a pension when they ultimately retire. Pension security, especially for 
women, is something we ought to talk a lot more about in the Senate. We 
will do that in the coming weeks.
  Mr. President, we can talk about gasoline taxes, this 4.3 cents. I 
suppose that is something that has relevance to the increase in gas 
prices. We ought to figure out a way to ensure that taxpayers have 
relief. I think we better make absolutely certain that if we provide 
relief, it goes in the pockets of the consumers and not the oil 
companies. For every 1-cent decrease in tax, we could see $1 billion in 
additional profit for the oil companies, unless we ensure that the 
benefits actually get back to the people who need it. We must make 
absolutely certain our tax relief is for consumers and not some bailout 
for the big oil companies.
  If we are really serious about economic security, if we are really 
serious about helping working families, then the best way to help 
working families, Mr. President, has a lot more to do with minimum 
wage, it has a lot more to do with health security through passing the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, it has a lot more to do with pension security 
and making sure retirements are secure when people retire, than it has 
to do with 4 cents on a gasoline tax.
  So we hope to work with our Republican colleagues and do a number of 
things this year that can provide real relief. No. 1, let us pass 
minimum wage. No. 2, let us pass Kennedy-Kassebaum. No. 3, let us 
ensure that we have pension security. No. 4, let us continue this 
deficit reduction effort that the President has laid out for us in such 
an able way now for the last 4 years. No. 5, let us pass a balanced 
budget resolution that allows us deficit reduction, and reduced 
interest rates, and a healthy economy which can be brought about by a 
balanced budget. All of this is within our grasp. It is going to take a 
bipartisan effort to do it, but we ought to do it. We can do it now. 
Let us do it, commit to it, and send a clear

[[Page S4663]]

message to the American working family that we are on their side.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, what business is the Senate 
in at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business, 90 minutes 
controlled by the minority leader.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, then I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to continue as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________