[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4783-S4786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2337

  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 374, H.R. 2337, an act to 
provide for increased taxpayer protections; that one amendment be in 
order to the measure, which will be offered by the majority leader, 
regarding the gas tax repeal; that no other amendments or motions be in 
order, other than a motion to table; further, that immediately 
following the disposition of the Dole-Gramm amendment, the bill be read

[[Page S4784]]

the third time, and the Senate proceed to passage of the measure, as 
amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, let me 
begin by saying that I believe this whole effort has a lot more to do 
with politics than the price of gasoline. We all know what is going on 
here. We all recognize what day it is.
  We all ought to recognize, as well, that this is the first time in 
our recent history--perhaps in 100 years--that we have been able to 
reduce the deficit for 4 years in a row--4 years in a row.
  So, Mr. President, we find ourselves in a situation here where, 
because we were able to show some courage and send the right message to 
the American people 4 years ago with regard to meaningful deficit 
reduction, now the American people are less in debt and have less 
difficulty visualizing ultimate success with regard to a real balanced 
budget than they have had in generations.
  So, Mr. President, a lot of our colleagues are very concerned about 
what this really means. If we can find so convenient an offset, what is 
wrong with dedicating that offset to real deficit reduction, rather 
than a gesture which may or may not help the American consumer?
  I reserve the right to object now because, I must tell you, I am not 
convinced that a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is all this is, 
with regard to ensuring that the consumer gets the benefit, is going to 
provide any confidence to anybody out there. We cannot accept a simple 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution as our only message to the American 
consumer that indeed they are going to benefit. With every 1-cent 
decrease in the tax, we are talking about a billion dollars in new 
profit to the oil companies.
  And so, Mr. President, because we do not have that assurance, because 
we really think this merits some debate, I would ask that Senator 
Dole's request be modified to permit other amendments to be offered 
from our side of the aisle. Otherwise, this will be the fifth or sixth 
bill to which Democrats are completely precluded from offering any 
amendments.
  We cannot accept that. If we want to serve in the House, we ought to 
be in the House. If we want to serve in the Senate, we ought to have a 
good and open debate about this bill and all other bills that come 
before us. That is what the Senate process is all about.
  So unless we can ensure that other amendments will be offered, then I 
would object, but I will offer that as a modification and ask unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is asking unanimous consent to 
modify the unanimous-consent request----
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Of the Senator from Kansas?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will reserve the right to object.
  First of all, if the amendment is to make certain that the savings 
are passed on to the consumers, I am not certain how that is going to 
be implemented. I cannot imagine how the Federal Government can in 
every case determine that in every service station in America--I do not 
know how many thousands there are--savings are passed on to the 
consumer. That might take an army of additional Federal employees.
  We do require in our bill that the Department of Justice, Treasury, 
and Energy study fuel prices and make certain it is passed through and 
report back to Congress by September 30.
  I assume, if we found cases of price gouging, then we could take 
appropriate action. I do not know how we would do it in advance, how we 
would monitor, police such an effort all across America. So I do not 
know what else--we did it to indicate our concern, too. Obviously, 
consumers want to get a price decrease. They are not looking for repeal 
of the tax and then nothing changes for the consumer.
  So I say if the amendment is with reference to the gas tax, we might 
be able to reach some accommodation, but I assume the Senator has in 
mind other amendments that reach far beyond the gas tax. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield to allow me to 
respond, the answer is in the affirmative. Obviously, we have attempted 
in good faith to offer the minimum wage amendment to a number of other 
bills simply because, as the minority, we do not have the opportunity 
to have an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. Studies have shown that 
an increase in the minimum wage provide over 100 times more benefit to 
the consumer and to the average working family than this meager amount 
of tax relief will provide.
  So what is wrong with having a good debate on this and other 
amendments? That is really the essence of the Senate. It is to have a 
debate about amendments, offered by the minority or the majority, to 
improve legislation--make it more responsive to people. We are simply 
trying as best we can to protect our rights in this case as we have in 
so many other cases. That seems to me to be the price of working 
through legislation on this bill and on other bills.
  So, yes, it is our intention to offer the minimum wage amendment and 
other amendments to this bill as the current majority did when they 
were in the minority.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, I 
have thought about this a great deal. I would be prepared to go, I 
think, further than many of my colleagues would be prepared to go. We 
would call up another revenue bill--and there are some on the calendar, 
I guess; H.R. 2684 comes to mind--and modify the text of that with the 
repeal of the gas tax and that would be considered, 1 hour of debate--I 
know the Senator from Massachusetts would only take 30 minutes on the 
minimum wage proposal; it is in the Record a couple of times--and then 
I would offer an amendment which would be the amendment discussed by 
the Senator from Massachusetts on minimum wage, 45 cents and then 45 
cents, which would raise it from $4.25 to $5.15, and we would add to 
that the so-called TEAM Act.

  So it would be repeal of the gas tax, the minimum wage proposal 
tendered by my colleagues on the other side, with the TEAM Act, and we 
would have 1 hour on that and then we would vote.
  Now, that seems to me to address all the concerns raised by my 
colleagues on the other side. It would be the win-win that I read about 
over the weekend. You would have repeal of the gas tax, and you would 
also have the adoption of the minimum wage which would take you to 
$5.15. I am not certain it could be done by July 1. It will take 
probably longer than that to implement the first increase, and then the 
second increase would take place a year from then.
  So if that offer would be acceptable to the Democratic leader, it 
seems to me that would answer all of his concerns; it is the minimum 
wage proposal discussed on the other side of the aisle; it is the gas 
tax repeal that I think many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would vote for, and it would contain a measure reported out of 
the Labor Committee called the TEAM Act.
  I think that might be one way to resolve this, and we would have that 
debate, have it this afternoon, repeal the gas tax, pass the minimum 
wage, and send it on to the House. We would be happy to do that at this 
point.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly, and I know 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is prepared to respond as 
well. We have discussed as many scenarios as the imagination will 
allow. This is yet another iteration.
  Basically, all we have said is that we want an up-or-down, clean 
vote. There are a lot of scenarios that could bring that about. This is 
another example. Senator Lott and I have discussed many different ways 
in which to do this. But we still have not been given the assurance 
that we could have an up-or-down vote on freestanding legislation. So 
if the majority leader is now proposing that as an option, not marrying 
the two but have them freestanding, we will consider that. That is not 
my understanding, however. I will yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Texas, and then I will be happy 
to

[[Page S4785]]

yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the tragedy of this thing is that 23 
percent of this gasoline tax we are trying to repeal today is paid by 
families that make less than $20,000 a year. So whatever we are going 
to do in the future about allowing management and employees to get 
together and talk about safety measures, something that I think makes 
perfectly good sense--I understand the National Labor Relations Board 
intervened and stopped companies from talking about safety clothing for 
pregnant women, and that is what the TEAM Act is trying to provide, to 
allow supervisors and workers to get together as teams--I am for that.
  I know the distinguished minority leader is for raising the minimum 
wage. The point is we can today cut the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents a 
gallon, we can lower the cost of filling up your tank by the end of the 
week by a dollar a tank and 23 percent of those savings will go to 
families that make less than $20,000 a year.
  Can we not do this one thing to help the very people whom we say we 
are helping with these other provisions? Can we not move ahead with 
this one provision today and debate these other provisions tomorrow? I 
do not see why we want to hold this up. The American people are 
strongly for it. I have heard the distinguished minority leader say 
that he does not object. We could pass this today. The House could pass 
it tomorrow. The President could sign it on Thursday. And Friday 
morning when filling stations all over America open, the posted price 
could come down by 4.3 cents a gallon, saving a dollar a tank for 
working people.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I do not control the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader controls the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. My point is that this is something that helps everybody, 
and 23 percent of the benefits of repealing this gasoline tax accrue to 
people who make $20,000 or less. Let us help them today and then we can 
debate whether something else helps or hurts tomorrow.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I just say that we would like, of course, first of all, to 
just pass the repeal of the gas tax today. We have the taxpayer bill of 
rights at the desk. We can amend that and send it back to the House, as 
I said earlier. I think it would be an overwhelming vote. We have it 
paid for. We are not going to add to the deficit. Keep in mind, this 
4.3 cents does not go to highways or mass transit; it goes to deficit 
reduction and that is the big difference.

  But in response to the indication from the distinguished Democratic 
leader that they would like to offer additional amendments, it occurred 
to me if we are prepared to repeal the gas tax, which I think a 
majority of both sides are for here, and are prepared to bring up the 
minimum wage that the other side has talked for, but with just little 
amendment called a TEAM Act, we ought to be able to come together on 
this. Everything they want is in the package, except we have one little 
piece. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor laws to make clear that 
employers and employees may meet together in committee or other 
employee involvement programs to address issues of mutual interest.
  Who could be opposed to that, the employers and employees sitting 
down and talking about issues related to quality, productivity and 
efficiency, as long as they do not engage in collective bargaining? Who 
is opposed to this? Guess. The labor bosses. When the labor bosses say, 
``We are opposed,'' it reverberates on the Senate floor.
  So we are ready to, I guess, accommodate our colleagues on the other 
side in nearly every instance except in this one area. We would hope we 
could have an agreement. We could go ahead and finish this afternoon; 
have a couple of hours debate and pass it. If we cannot pass it, just 
repeal the gas tax in itself, then let us double up and repeal the gas 
tax, pass the minimum wage with the TEAM Act added to it, and send it 
on to the House. It seems to me that would be one way to satisfy 
concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I am sure the Senator is aware that 
the value for the average family with the 4.3-cent elimination of the 
gas tax, if it is passed on--and I think, as has been pointed out here, 
there is no guarantee it would be passed on--would be about $28 a year. 
The increase in the minimum wage is $1,800 a year, for those who are 
working on the bottom of the ladder. So the idea that was suggested by 
the Senator from Texas that ``why do we not just do what we can this 
afternoon and leave that to future times?'' is, I think, unpersuasive.
  Let me ask the leader, as I understand, on the measure that is 
currently before the Senate, H.R. 2937, the reimbursement of the White 
House Travel Office employees, as I understand from the parliamentary 
situation, it is not in order for either the minority leader or myself 
to offer the minimum wage amendment on that. Am I correct on that? Am I 
correct?
  Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am correct on it. Now, as I understand it, the 
proposal that is being put forward by the majority leader in effect 
would foreclose any opportunity under his unanimous consent agreement 
earlier to have any up-or-down vote on independent legislation with 
regards to the increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. DOLE. It contains the increase you suggested in the minimum wage, 
45 cents and 45 cents.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, I am puzzled by the need for attention--
for cooperation that the Senator points out, because, under Senator 
Kassebaum's bill, under the findings, she points out that employee 
involvement, which operates successfully in both unionized and 
nonunionized settings, has been established by over 80 percent of 
employers, the largest employers in the United States, and exists in 
30,000 workplaces.
  That is already in effect at the present time, according to Senator 
Kassebaum's findings. In her report it says the survey found that 75 
percent of responding employers, large and small, incorporate some 
means of employee involvement in their operations. Among larger 
employers, where there are about 5,000 or more employees, the 
percentage was at 96 percent.
  So I am just wondering, while many of us wonder about the wisdom of 
putting in the law another piece of legislation that is unnecessary, 
why we ought to confuse that with the proposal of an increase in the 
minimum wage which the overwhelming majority of the American people 
support, and, in fact, the leader himself has supported four out of 
four times--opposed it eight times in the past but has voted in favor 
of it in the past, and obviously thought it was meritorious then. Why 
should we wait for an early resolution of that issue, rather than to 
follow the suggestions of the leader? Is the leader telling us that is 
the only way we are going to have an opportunity to address this issue?
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, I guess it is the other way 
around. Your leader is telling us the only way we can move the Senate 
on anything is to vote on your version of the minimum wage.
  We have a majority in this body. We have some responsibility to 
advance legislation, and there is a lot of it on the calendar we would 
like to advance, including reconsideration of the constitutional 
amendment for a balanced budget and other matters that have a great 
impact. We have tried to work it out in discussion. Maybe I understand 
why it cannot be worked out. But it seems to me we have now suggested--
if we cannot do it today just with my first request, then I am prepared 
to make a second request that would deal both with the minimum wage and 
the TEAM Act and the gas tax repeal.
  The TEAM Act, we are advised by the committee that it is necessary 
because of the 1992 National Labor Relations Board decision. I do not 
see what is wrong with employers talking to employees, but the unions 
do not like it. The labor bosses do not want their people talking to 
anybody in management. So they have sent the word down we cannot have 
this, and if we have to filibuster this, we will filibuster this.

[[Page S4786]]

  The facts were pointed out by the Senator from Massachusetts--what 
difference does it make if we have it codified? So we are prepared to 
take it up right now and pass the bill. But if my colleagues on the 
other side want to filibuster their minimum wage proposal and repeal of 
the gas tax, then they certainly are going to have that opportunity 
starting tomorrow.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to my colleague, the Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I admire the majority leader a great 
deal, as he knows. We all know what he is trying to do.
  We all know that the President, for good reason, opposes the TEAM 
Act, especially in its current form. Why? Because it gives license to 
companies to set up rump organizations to negotiate with themselves. 
That is what this is all about. This is not talking to employees. As 
the Senator from Massachusetts has indicated, they can do that right 
now. What they cannot do is set up rump organizations to negotiate with 
themselves and claim some new victory here. That is what this is all 
about.
  So that is what I said earlier, if you will recall. I said if the 
distinguished majority leader is prepared to separate the issues, the 
TEAM Act and minimum wage, so we are not amending a bill that is going 
nowhere, we will take a look at that. But that is not what I understood 
to be the suggestion here.
  So, again, as I said, we want to be real here. If we can be real--if 
we can come up with a scenario that we know will really work--then we 
are prepared to negotiate in good faith and come to some resolution 
here. But to add this amendment to a bill that the distinguished leader 
knows is going nowhere is not a deal at all.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator yield 
for one moment?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am rather new at this, but it seems to me, 
when you get what you want plus you get a little icing on the cake, you 
get to vote to repeal the gas tax, you ought to take it. But now we are 
told--I did not know the President was opposed to this. I thought 
certainly he would be flexible on something like this. He probably is. 
But I know the labor unions have been in town and they dumped $35 
million into different races, and they have certain priorities. I 
thought their priority was passing a minimum wage increase, not killing 
the TEAM Act, which is really minor. It is minor legislation.

  So here we are prepared--I will probably get a lot of criticism on 
this side for doing this, but I am prepared to make this very generous 
offer to give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a chance to 
vote to repeal the gas tax and to have their minimum wage proposal 
adopted. Who could be opposed to that? All we ask for is just one 
small, one little amendment. It probably would be hardly noticed by 
anybody. It simply says that employees can talk to management. They can 
talk about--in one case, they were talking about no smoking policies, 
and that was a violation of the NLRB. It seems to me we need to have a 
little common sense enter this debate.
  I have listened. I have been persuaded by the Senator from 
Massachusetts we ought to take 30 minutes and pass a minimum wage, and 
we can add another 30 minutes for the repeal of the gas tax. Then we 
will put in 10 minutes for this little, tiny piece that nobody really 
cares about called the TEAM Act. Then we would have a package that we 
could all be proud of and we could accommodate the concerns of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I hope. I have discussed 
this with the majority whip. I think he is willing. I think my other 
colleagues may not be so willing, but they are prepared to accept this 
procedure if we can only convince our friends on the other side that we 
are now willing to give them what they want if they will just say yes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will simply state----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the majority leader yield for a brief intervention 
for one question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would urge my leader to accept that proposal if the 
Senator would be willing to say that the workers will be selected by 
the employees rather than by the boss of the company. If you want to 
add that, I urge we move on ahead and get on with the business. That 
seems to me to be reasonable, that those who are going to represent 
workers will be selected by workers instead of the company. If the 
majority leader wants to make that as an amendment to give support to 
the TEAM Act, I urge we accept that this afternoon.
  Mr. DOLE. The bill already ensures workers will retain the right to 
choose an independent union in the case of collective bargaining. I 
will be happy to consult my colleague, Senator Kassebaum, chairman of 
the Labor Committee, and run that by her and see what she thinks of it. 
I have not discussed that. I hope we will not scuttle this whole 
package over some little modification that may or may not be necessary.
  So we are prepared now, or a half hour from now, to proceed, and I 
know my colleague from South Dakota--I guess maybe to clear up the 
present point, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two unanimous-consent requests 
pending.
  Mr. DOLE. I object.
  Mr. DASCHLE. And I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to both, and the majority 
leader has the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will.
  Mr. BREAUX. I want to ask a question. It is a legitimate question. If 
we can all--almost all can--agree that the minimum wage increase is a 
good idea, the repeal of the gas tax is a good idea, and the passage of 
the TEAM legislation, as the majority leader described it, is a good 
idea, why should we not just take these up separately, debate them 
separately and vote on them separately? The ones that are good will 
pass, and the ones not good will not pass. What is wrong with doing 
them separately?
  Mr. DOLE. Let me make it clear, some of my colleagues do not think 
minimum wage is a good idea. I read some of your colleagues feel the 
repeal of the gas tax is not a good idea and some of your colleagues 
feel the TEAM Act is not a good idea. So if you put them all together, 
it is not quite the good idea as taking them up separately, but when 
they are together, it becomes a fair idea that will get us enough votes 
to pass.

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will wait until the majority leader is finished.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand, everything has been 
objected to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. So where are we?

                          ____________________