[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.
____________________