[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4887-S4888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOT GRIDLOCK, BUT A GAG RULE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it has been kind of an interesting couple 
of days in the Senate, and I noticed in the newspaper this morning in 
the headlines the word ``gridlock,'' which I am sure will please some 
in this Chamber, because yesterday they were trying to persuade the 
press to use the word ``gridlock.'' They said what is happening in the 
Senate is gridlock.
  What happened yesterday was quite interesting. Those who suggest this 
is gridlock in the Senate came to the floor of the Senate yesterday, 
offered a piece of legislation and then, prior to any debate beginning 
on that legislation, the same people who offered the legislation filed 
a cloture motion to shut off debate that had not yet begun on a piece 
of legislation that had been offered only a minute before.
  Someone who does not serve in the Senate or does not understand the 
Senate rules might scratch their head and say, ``How on Earth could 
someone do that with a straight face? How could someone, without 
laughing out loud, offer a piece of legislation before debate begins, 
file cloture to shut off debate on a piece of legislation they have 
just now filed, and then claim that the other side is guilty of causing 
gridlock?''
  Only in the Senate can that be done without someone laughing out loud 
at how preposterous that claim is.
  This is not gridlock. It is more like a gag rule, where you bring a 
piece of legislation to the Senate because you control the Senate floor 
and you say, ``Here's what we want to do, and, by the way, we're going 
to use parliamentary shenanigans to fill up the parliamentary tree so 
no one has an opportunity to offer any amendments of any kind, and then 
we are going to file a motion to shut off debate before you even get a 
chance to debate.''

  No, that is not gridlock, that is a gag rule. From a parliamentary 
standpoint, it can be done. It was not done when the Democrats were in 
control in the 103d Congress. We never did what is now being done on 
the floor of the Senate: filling the legislative tree completely and 
saying, ``By the way, you have no opportunity, those of you who feel 
differently, to offer amendments.''
  But we will work through this, and we will get beyond this. I will 
say to those who claim it is gridlock, it is clear the Senate is not 
moving and the Senate is not acting, but at least the major part of 
that, it seems to me, is because we have people who decide that it is 
going to be their agenda or no agenda, and they insist on their agenda 
without debate, their agenda without amendments.
  What we have are three proposals that have been ricocheting around 
the Chamber the last couple of days, and there is a very simple 
solution. We have a proposal called the minimum wage. Many of us feel 
there ought to be some kind of adjustment in the minimum wage. It has 
been 5 years. Those working at the bottom of the economic ladder have 
not had a 1-penny increase in their salaries. Many of us feel there 
ought to be some adjustment there.
  The second issue is, the majority leader wants to cut or reduce the 
gas tax by 4.3 cents a gallon.
  And the third issue is a labor issue called the TEAM Act.
  The way to solve this, instead of linking them together in Byzantine 
or strange ways, is simply to bring all three measures to the floor one 
at a time, allow amendments to be offered and then have an up-or-down 
vote. This is not higher math; it is simple arithmetic. Bring the bills 
to the floor.
  Our side has no interest, in my judgment, in filibustering on any of 
those bills, at least not that I am aware of. I do not think we ought 
to filibuster any of those bills. Bring the bills to the floor, have a 
debate, entertain amendments, have a final vote, and the winner wins. 
That is not a very complicated approach. It is the approach that would 
solve this problem.
  I listened carefully yesterday to a speech on the Senate floor that 
was essentially a campaign speech--hard, tough, direct. It was a 
Presidential campaign speech. You have a right to do that on the Senate 
floor. I do not think it advances the interests of helping the Senate 
do its business. I almost felt during part of that speech yesterday 
there should be bunting put up on the walls of the Senate, perhaps some 
balloons, maybe even a band to put all this in the proper perspective.

  The Senate is not going to be able to do its work if it becomes for 
the next 6 months a political convention floor. I hope that we can talk 
through that in the coming days and decide the Senate is going to have 
to do its work. We have appropriations bills we have to pass. We have 
other things to do that are serious business items on the agenda of 
this country. I do not think that we can do this if the Senate becomes 
the floor of a political convention from now until November.
  I want to speak just for a moment about the proposed reduction in the 
gasoline tax. Gasoline prices spiked up by 20 to 30 cents a gallon 
recently. When gasoline prices spiked up and people would drive to the 
gas pumps to fill up their car, they were pretty angry about that, 
wondering, ``What has happened to gasoline prices?''
  Instead of putting a hound dog on the trail of trying to figure out 
who did what and why, what happened to gas prices, immediately we had 
some people come to the floor of the Senate and say, ``OK, gas prices 
spiked up 20, 30 cents a gallon. Let's cut the 4.3-cent gas tax put on 
there nearly 3 years ago.''
  I do not understand. I guess the same people, if they had a 
toothache, would get a haircut. I do not see the relationship. Gas 
prices are pushed up 20 to 30 cents so they are going to come and 
increase the Federal deficit by cutting a 4.3-cent gas tax.
  I would like to see lower gas taxes as well, but I am not going to 
increase the Federal deficit. The Federal deficit has been cut in half 
in the last 3 years. Why? Because some of us had the courage to vote 
for spending decreases and, yes, revenue increases to cut the deficit 
in half.
  The central question I have is this: If you cut the gas tax, who gets 
the money? There are a lot of pockets in America. There are small 
pockets, big pockets, high pockets, and low pockets. You know who has 
the big pockets and small pockets. The oil industry always had the big 
pockets. The driver has always had the small pockets.
  Guess what? When you take a look at what is going to happen when you 
see

[[Page S4888]]

a gas tax reduction and have some people talk to the experts, here is 
what you find.
  This is yesterday's paper: ``Experts say gas tax cut wouldn't reach 
the pumps. Oil industry called unlikely to pass savings on to 
consumers.''
  Energy expert Philip Verleger says:

       The Republican-sponsored solution to the current fuels 
     problem . . . is nothing more and nothing less than a 
     refiners' benefit bill. . . . It will transfer upwards of $3 
     billion from the U.S. Treasury to the pockets of refiners and 
     gasoline marketers.

  The chairman of ARCO company says:

       My concern is, quite frankly, how the public will react to 
     what the Senate does.

  He said:

       Some Democrats have already said `before we pass the gas 
     tax, we want to make sure we see it at the pump.'

  He said:

       I'll tell you, market forces are going to outstrip the 4 
     cents a gallon. You're not going to be able to find a direct 
     relationship between moving that and 4 cents. Then prices 
     could go up, go down, could stay the same, and there you have 
     the question of how the public is going to perceive that.

  The majority leader's aides in the paper today said they had:

       . . . received assurances from the oil companies that the 
     full extent of any cut in the gas tax will be passed on to 
     consumers.
       However, officials at several major oil companies said 
     yesterday that no such assurances had been or could be given.
       ``Even asking for them represented a mistaken return to 
     direct government involvement in setting prices,'' several 
     energy experts said. . . .
       Bruce Tackett, a spokesman for Exxon Co. USA in Houston, 
     said, ``We have not made any commitments to anyone `regarding 
     a 'future' price. Not only have we not made a commitment, we 
     can't. In a competitive market, the market will set the 
     price.''

  An Amoco Corp. spokesperson said:

       We've received no official request, and we haven't spoken 
     to anyone about this.

  Mobil Corp. said:

       Mobil doesn't believe that a reduction in the tax will 
     automatically mean a reduction in the pump price. . . In the 
     end, it will be the marketplace that sets the price at the 
     pump.

  The point is this gas tax reduction sounds like an interesting thing, 
but if you take $3 billion out of the Federal Government and increase 
the deficit, which you will do--I think the so-called offset is a 
sham--but increase the Federal deficit, take $3 billion, put it in the 
pockets of the oil industry and the drivers are still going up to the 
same pumps paying the same price for their gas, who is better off? The 
taxpayer? No. Is the Federal deficit better off? No, that is higher. 
The oil industry is better off.

  I guess my hope is that we will decide for a change here in the U.S. 
Senate to do the right thing. The right thing, it seems to me, is for 
us to proceed on the agenda. Yes, the majority leader and the majority 
party have the majority, they have the right to proceed down the line 
on their agenda. We are 47 Members in the minority. We are not pieces 
of furniture. We are people that have an agenda we care deeply about. 
We also intend to exercise our right in the Senate to offer amendments 
and to try to affect the agenda of the Senate.
  For those who say we have no right to offer amendments, that we will 
be thwarted in any attempt at all to offer our agenda, we say it will 
be an awfully long year because we intend to advance the issue of the 
minimum wage. The minimum wage ought to be adjusted. People at the top 
rung of the economic ladder have a 23-percent increase in the value of 
their salaries and their stock benefits last year; the people at the 
bottom of the economic ladder, those people out there working for 
minimum wage, have for 5 years not received a one-penny increase, and 
lost 50 cents of the value of their minimum wage. We are not asking to 
spike it way up. We are just asking for a reasonable, modest adjustment 
of the minimum wage. We ought to do that.
  Gas tax, bring that to the debate. I do not intend to vote to reduce 
the gas tax. I would like to. I would like to see people pay less taxes 
in a range of areas, but I do not intend to vote to increase the 
Federal deficit. I have been one, along with others, who care and 
continue to ratchet that Federal deficit downward. I do not intend in 
any event to transfer money from the Federal Treasury, so the deficit 
increases, to the pockets of the oil industry, and leave drivers and 
taxpayers stranded high and dry.
  The TEAM Act that has been introduced in the last day or so, bring 
that to the floor, entertain amendments, have a vote on that. That is 
the way the Senate ought to do its business. It is probably not the 
most politically adept way. It does not most easily advance an agenda 
of someone, but a way for the Senate to advance these issues, have a 
vote, and determine what the will of the Senate is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________