[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4921-S4926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DOLE. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

[[Page S4922]]

  The bill clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dole 
     amendment, No. 3961:
         Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Craig Thomas, Larry E. Craig, R.F. 
           Bennett, Mark Hatfield, Ben N. Campbell, Spencer 
           Abraham, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Don Nickles, Chuck 
           Grassley, Conrad Burns, John Ashcroft, Jim Inhofe, P. 
           Gramm, W.V. Roth, Jr.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information all Senators, this 
cloture vote on my new amendment, which contains only the gas tax bill, 
will occur on Tuesday, May 14. I will consult with the Democratic 
leader prior to setting the next cloture vote.
  Let me explain precisely what this amendment contains. My Democratic 
colleagues have just blocked repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. They 
blocked an increase also in the minimum wage. So I have laid down 
another amendment to repeal the gas tax. This amendment contains 
additional funding that completely offsets the cost of the repeal. The 
amendment raises $4.1 billion in fiscal 1996 and by adopting provisions 
the President and Secretary Rubin have specifically asked for. I have 
their letters here for the Record. The amendment will also help avert 
another savings and loan crisis. This is the so-called BIF-SAIF 
provision.
  In the spirit--I have thought about it--in the spirit of the 
President's press conference yesterday asking for cooperation, I have 
decided to offer the gas tax repeal, which he said he would sign, and 
pay for it with a measure that he wants desperately. In fact, on April 
14 he said that there is a proposal before Congress from the 
administration to:

       . . . restore the Savings Association Insurance Fund to 
     full health and assure that interest payments on the so-
     called FICO bonds continue uninterrupted. With the enactment 
     of this legislation, we could all take pride in achieving a 
     resolution of the last remaining consequences of the thrift 
     industry's problems of the 1980's. Moreover, we can do this 
     without imposing additional costs on American taxpayers.
       This necessary proposal will protect taxpayers, who have 
     already paid over $125 billion to assure that no insured 
     depositor suffered any loss as a result of these problems.

  I am accommodating the President's request. I know some of the 
bankers and others may not be totally satisfied with this, but I 
suggest they call area code 202-456-1414.
  I also will have printed in the Record a letter from Secretary Rubin 
received just yesterday, pleading with us to move on this legislation 
which is important. Underscoring the importance of the legislation, it 
would ``restore the Savings Association Insurance Fund.'' They said we 
have had it before us for some time and they have ``consistently urged 
the SAIF legislation should receive immediate action.''
  Again in response, and I discussed this with my assistant leader, 
Senator Lott, in response to the request of the President, his 
bipartisan appeal yesterday, and the letter from the Secretary of the 
Treasury, we have offered that as a way to pay for the repeal of the 
gas tax.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the President and the 
letter from the Secretary printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Dole, Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The Congress has before it a proposal from 
     the Administration that would restore the Savings Association 
     Insurance Fund to full health and assure that interest 
     payments on the so-called FICO bonds continue uninterrupted. 
     With the enactment of this legislation, we could all take 
     pride in achieving a resolution of the last remaining 
     consequences of the thrift industry's problems of the 1980's. 
     Moreover, we can do so without imposing additional costs on 
     American Taxpayers.
       This necessary proposal will protect taxpayers, who have 
     already paid over $125 billion to assure that no insured 
     depositor suffered any loss as the result of these problems. 
     I believe this legislation has broad bipartisan support, and 
     I urge the Leadership to consider immediate Congressional 
     action.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____



                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole, Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: I am writing to you in furtherance of the 
     President's letter of April 24, 1996. As the President 
     explained, it is a matter of great national importance to 
     enact legislation that would restore the Savings Association 
     Insurance Fund (SAIF) to full health and assure that interest 
     payments on the FICO bonds continue uninterrupted. The 
     Congress has before it a proposal from the Administration 
     that would accomplish these ends. As the Administration has 
     consistently urged, the SAIF legislation should receive 
     immediate action. Moreover, we believe that the SAIF 
     legislation would be a suitable means to help pay for other 
     appropriate legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert E. Rubin.

  Mr. DOLE. So, I would say hopefully on Tuesday, then, we can obtain 
cloture. Then we will decide how to deal with the TEAM Act and minimum 
wage. They are still floating around out there, or will be. We are 
still prepared, I think, as Senator Lott has had a couple of meetings 
today, to pick a time certain, sometime in June--or maybe, if we can, 
do it before the recess--to take up those questions.
  There has also been a question raised. I have written a letter to the 
Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to see if he had any 
suggestion, because he was concerned if we did repeal the gas tax it 
would not reach the consumers. I was asked in a press conference 
yesterday about a statement by ARCO, Atlantic Richfield Co., that maybe 
they would not be passed on to consumers.
  But I now have statements from bus and trucking groups who say they 
would pass along the savings from the repeal to their customers in the 
form of lower travel costs. And I also have a statement from ARCO and 
Exxon and others.
  I ask unanimous consent all these statements be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                         Arco,

                                     Los Angeles, CA, May 9, 1996.

 ARCO Will Immediately Reduce Total Gasoline Price if 4.3-cent Federal 
                       Gasoline Tax Is Eliminated

       Los Angeles.--ARCO Chairman and CEO Mike R. Bowlin said 
     today that ``if the federal government reduces the gasoline 
     excise tax by 4.3 cents per gallon, ARCO will immediately 
     reduce its total price at its company-operated stations and 
     to its dealers by 4.3 cents per gallon.''
       The ARCO chairman said in an interview on ABC's 
     ``Nightline'' broadcast on May 7, that he had ``simply been 
     cautioning that ARCO is not able to accurately predict 
     industry behavior, cannot legally control its dealers' 
     pricing, and that other factors may influence changes in 
     overall market prices. All other things being equal, we would 
     expect the price of gasoline to fall 4.3 cents per gallon.''
       An ARCO spokesman said that ARCO has a proud tradition of 
     acting responsibly in its gasoline pricing decisions in times 
     of national upsets. He noted that during the Gulf War crisis 
     in 1990, ARCO had been a leader in announcing that it would 
     freeze gasoline prices. Eventually, that led to a situation 
     where ARCO was unable to meet demand for its gasoline and was 
     forced to raise prices in line with market conditions in 
     order to prevent its dealers from running out of gasoline.
       The ARCO spokesman said that ``gasoline prices have 
     increased some 20 to 30 cents per gallon over the last few 
     months. Obviously no one can promise that even though the 
     marginal cost of gasoline is reduced by a 4.3 cents per 
     gallon tax reduction on a given day, some other factors may 
     not simultaneously influence the market price of gasoline.''
       ARCO chairman Bowlin said: ``What we can say is that ARCO 
     will immediately reduce the total price of gasoline at our 
     company-operated stations and to our dealers by 4.3 cents per 
     gallon. I can also tell you that our internal forecasts 
     suggest that gasoline prices are headed lower. We believe 
     that the vast majority of responsible economists would say 
     that a reduction in excise taxes would be passed through 
     about penny-per-penny at the pump.''
                                                                    ____


 Exxon Comment Concerning Potential Market Impact of Change in Federal 
                         Motor Fuel Excise Tax

       Pricing decisions are based on competitive market 
     conditions in each of our markets. Exxon cannot predict 
     future prices.
       The marketplace decides what the price of gasoline will be. 
     If the federal excise tax on gasoline is rolled back as 
     proposed, we believe the very competitive market will result 
     in a gasoline price that is 4.3 cents less than it would have 
     been without the rollback, but we don't know what the 
     absolute price will be.
       Retail gasoline prices at most Exxon service stations 
     (about 7,900 of the approximately 8,300 Exxon branded outlets 
     in the nation) are established by the independent dealers and 
     distributors who operate them. Exxon is

[[Page S4923]]

     prohibited by law from dictating the price that its dealers 
     and distributors charge their customers at the retail level.
       Retail prices at the approximately 400 outlets operated 
     directly by the company also are set in response to 
     competitive factors in the markets in which they compete.
       Competitive factors include, among others, the supply of 
     gasoline, consumers' demand for gasoline, crude oil costs, 
     state and federal excise taxes, and the cost of complying 
     with environmental regulations.
                                                                    ____


               Chevron Response To Gasoline Tax Decrease

       In response to many comments in the press and from 
     customers concerning possible oil company actions in the 
     event of a decrease in the federal gasoline tax, a Chevron 
     spokesman said the following:
       Any decrease in the federal gasoline tax would be 
     immediately reflected in the prices Chevron charges to 
     motorists at our 600 company-operated stations in the U.S. 
     through reductions which, on average, would equal the amount 
     of the tax decrease. We also separately collect these taxes 
     from our thousands of Chevron dealers and jobbers throughout 
     the U.S. and we would immediately reduce our collections from 
     these dealers and jobbers by the amount of the tax decrease. 
     However, these Chevron dealers and jobbers are independent 
     businessmen and women who independently set their own pump 
     prices at the more than 7,000 Chevron stations they operate.
       Many factors influence gasoline prices which are set by 
     competition in the marketplace. It is impossible to predict 
     where gasoline prices may stand in absolute terms at any time 
     in the future. However, if these taxes are reduced, it is 
     logical in a free market economy that overall prices will in 
     the future be lower for our customers than they otherwise 
     would have been by the amount of the tax decrease.
                                                                    ____



                                                  Texaco Inc.,

                                     White Plains NY, May 3, 1996.
     Response to media inquiries:
     Re Gasoline tax debate.
       Question. If the 1993 federal gasoline tax increase of 4.3 
     cents per gallon is repealed, what would Texaco do regarding 
     prices at the pump?
       Answer. For the approximately 15 percent of the Texaco 
     service stations where we set the pump prices, all things 
     beings equal, repeal of the 4.3 cents per gallon tax would 
     reduce the pump prices accordingly.
       For the 85 percent of the Texaco stations owned or operated 
     by individual business people, Texaco is precluded by law 
     from setting pump prices. Nevertheless, for the industry 
     generally, we believe lower taxes will result in lower 
     gasoline prices for consumers.
       Retail gasoline pump prices are highly competitive and the 
     prices at individual stations are determined by the 
     competitive environment in which that station does business.
       The repeal of the 1993 4.3 cents per gallon federal 
     gasoline tax would reduce the average nationwide state and 
     federal tax on gasoline from 42.4 cents to 38.1 cents per 
     gallon.
                                          Anthony J. Saggese, Jr.,
     General Tax Attorney.
                                                                    ____

                                                 American Trucking


                                           Associations, Inc.,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: It was my pleasure to appear before the 
     Senate Finance Committee on May 3rd and testify in support of 
     your efforts to repeal the 4.3 cents fuel tax that goes into 
     the general fund. The American Trucking Associations 
     represents an industry composed of small businesses with an 
     average profit of 1.5 cents on a dollar of revenue. The 
     current spiraling fuel prices are putting many of our small 
     companies in a precarious financial position.
       I was relieved to hear the representative of the service 
     station industry testify that they will pass along tax 
     savings to their customers. We have heard similar statements 
     from the major oil companies.
       I am confident that, after covering the cost of rising fuel 
     prices, the savings will be passed on to our customers and 
     consumers because we are a highly competitive industry with 
     over 350,000 interstate trucking companies.
       Thank you for the opportunity to expand upon my comments. 
     Please call me if I can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                            Thomas J. Donohue,

                                                     President and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____



                                     American Bus Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: On behalf of the American Bus 
     Association, I want to thank you once again for your proposal 
     to repeal the 4.3 cents per gallon deficit reduction fuel 
     tax. We fully support your efforts in this regard.
       We want to assure you that any benefits as a result of a 
     tax repeal will accrue to the consumer, in our case, the 
     intercity bus passenger.
       With all our best wishes.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Susan Perry,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Relations.
                                                                    ____



                            Association of American Railroads,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Dole: On behalf of the Association of 
     American Railroads (AAR), I write to advise that customers 
     should benefit from the elimination of the 4.3 cents-per-
     gallon deficit reduction fuel tax imposed in 1993. Some 
     adjustments or ``hold downs'' may be automatic given cost 
     adjustment factors in rail contracts.
       Competition among the freight transportation modes is 
     intense. As a result, the freight railroads are constantly 
     improving service to shippers and offering competitive rates. 
     In fact, rail freight rates have declined by 22 percent since 
     1981 in current dollars and by 51% in inflation-adjusted 
     dollars.
       AAR supports your efforts to eliminate the 4.3 cents-per-
     gallon deficit reduction fuel tax. AAR also urges you to 
     repeal the additional 1.25 cents-per-gallon deficit reduction 
     tax resulting from the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act which 
     is paid exclusively by the railroad industry. The inequity in 
     current law should be remedied so that the railroad industry 
     will no longer be required to pay more for deficit reduction 
     than its competitors.
       We appreciate your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,

                                              Edwin L. Harper,

                                                     President and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____



                                    Air Transport Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We have been asked whether the reduction 
     in the 4.3 cents-per-gallon transportation fuels tax will 
     result in lower air fares to consumers. As you know, the Air 
     Transport Association has no role in the setting of air 
     fares. Moreover, we do not suggest or take any action which 
     may result in our member carriers adjusting fares in a 
     coordinated manner. However, notwithstanding those limits, I 
     would like to address your inquiry.
       First, we know that a decrease in the 4.3 cents-per-gallon 
     tax will be reflected in the price airlines pay for fuel. Our 
     members purchase fuel from vendors, in large measure, through 
     a competitive bidding process. The 4.3 cents-per-gallon tax 
     is thus added to the price bid by the vendors. Therefore, 
     once the tax is eliminated, we are confident that the 
     industry's fuel costs will be reduced.
       Secondly, because of the competitive nature of the airline 
     business, carriers continually try to keep their prices as 
     low as possible. The 4.3 cents-per-gallon tax has increased 
     carrier costs, thereby putting pressure on carriers' 
     operating margins. Eliminating the tax will remove one of the 
     cost pressures which individual carriers must consider in 
     setting their respective air fares. Thus, if operating costs 
     go down, there will be one less cost which needs to be 
     factored into air carrier fares.
       Inevitably, tax changes manifest themselves in the costs of 
     doing business which will ultimately impact the prices 
     airlines charge.
       Mr. Leader, I hope that this response to your inquiry will 
     be helpful. Please let me know if there is further 
     information we can provide.
           Sincerely,

                                             Carol B. Hallett,

                                                     President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. DOLE. The point being they are going to pass the savings on to 
consumers. Maybe in some cases, out of millions and millions of 
transactions, it may not happen, but that is the intent of all those 
who will be in the process. I think those letters might be helpful to 
some, such as Senator Dorgan, who does have legitimate questions. We 
want to respond to those questions. If he has a better idea than our 
amendment, which is a credit, we will be happy to consider it.
  So I would just say it seems to me we have now, sort of, on this 
single issue--if you want to vote for lower gas prices then you vote 
for cloture on Tuesday. If you want to vote for lower travel costs, 
lower inflation, better job protection for employees in the 
transportation industry, this will be an opportunity. It is something 
the President said yesterday in a press conference he would sign. We 
have now complied with the President's request and the Treasury's 
request that we pass BIF-SAIF. That is part of this amendment. It seems 
to me it is almost--it could have come from the White House. We are 
pleased to accommodate the White House when we can.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4924]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have just been informed of the majority 
leader's most recent proposal. I think it is fair to say that it is 
more of the same. It is similar to many of the other proposals we have 
been presented with over the last several weeks. Obviously, it is 
unacceptable.
  We have indicated our desire to have a vote on the gas tax. We would 
be prepared to accept that. But we would also obviously feel the need 
to have the same vote on the minimum wage. Of course, the majority 
leader has now indicated his desire to bring up the so-called TEAM Act. 
We would be prepared to have a vote on that. But they are connected, 
unfortunately, the way the majority leader has proposed them. If we 
could get a vote on minimum wage, we would be more than happy then to 
have a vote on the gasoline tax reduction.
  As I understand it, the majority leader has proposed a new offset 
that will take care of the point of order. The BIF-SAIF is an issue 
that has to be resolved. We recognize that. But I am not sure that we 
do it justice simply to use it as a convenient offset, in this case for 
a gasoline tax reduction amendment that may or may not go to the 
consumer, first of all, and that, second, may or may not require the 
entire amount that BIF-SAIF will provide.
  But the real issue is, should we have a good debate, a good 
discussion about the BIF-SAIF issue in and of itself? Should we analyze 
whether or not this is the right approach? Is this exactly the right 
formulation for BIF-SAIF? Those are issues we ought to discuss.

  I have not seen the BIF-SAIF proposal the majority leader referred 
to. It may be perfectly fine. To be buried in an agreement involving an 
offset for the gasoline tax reduction, in my view, does not do justice 
to the entire issue of BIF-SAIF, nor does it satisfy all of the 
difficulties that we have, of course, with the gasoline tax reduction 
itself.
  We still must address the issue, who gets the benefit? Will it go to 
the consumer? Will we have the opportunity to ensure that it is not the 
oil companies that benefit but the consumer? Can we offer amendments in 
that regard?
  I know our words sometimes come back to haunt us. I am sure in many 
cases mine have and will. But I was curious and very interested in a 
comment made by then-Republican leader Bob Dole in 1993. This is taken 
from the Record on page 3934, dated March 29:

       I guess the thing I need to resolve is whether or not there 
     is going to be any flexibility or whether everything is going 
     to be under the total control of the distinguished chairman 
     of the committee. Is there going to be free and open debate 
     on the amendments, or are you going to determine which 
     amendments can be offered? We cannot accept that on this 
     side.

  I can identify with that. I can empathize with Senator Dole's query 
in March 1993. I, second, appreciate his question because, ironically 
and coincidentally, we find ourselves in virtually the same situation. 
I say ``virtually'' because here it says, he asks, ``Is there going to 
be a free and open debate on the amendments, or are you going to 
determine which amendments can be offered?'' In our case, that has 
already been determined. There are no amendments to be offered. There 
is no opportunity for the Democratic side to even address the issue of 
amendments, because we have been precluded from doing so. We are 
farther off the mark now than we were even back in March 1993.
  Mr. President, regrettably, we end this week with the realization 
that we have not resolved the matter. We want very much to have a vote 
on the gasoline tax reduction. While there are very strong reservations 
expressed throughout our caucus, some of those reservations can be 
addressed if we can adequately address the question of who will 
benefit, if we can adequately address the question of what kind of an 
offset we will have.
  Maybe BIF-SAIF provides an adequate numerical offset, but there are 
very fundamental questions of policy we ought to be addressing, as 
well, and whether or not we can do that under these circumstances, I 
think is very questionable. For that reason, too, I am concerned about 
whether BIF-SAIF is an appropriate vehicle, at least under these 
circumstances.
  Mr. President, we will not support cloture. We will oppose the vote 
when it is presented next week.
  Mr. President, let me also address the issue that has been addressed 
by so many of our colleagues on the other side today with regard to the 
so-called TEAM Act. I listened with great interest on several occasions 
this afternoon as I was in and out of my office to the remarks made by 
so many of our colleagues. This is not the time nor is it necessarily 
the most appropriate way with which to address all of the issues 
raised. I do not intend to do so tonight.
  I do want to make four points. First of all, it has been said over 
and over on the floor--in my view, quite erroneously--that today 
businesses are prevented from discussing issues ranging from safety, 
workplace conditions, and all the other issues that may come up in a 
working environment in any company today. Mr. President, that is 
absolutely untrue. Untrue.
  I hope everybody will go back and look very carefully at what has 
been said. In many cases--I am sure not purposely--there has been a 
significant level of misstatement today regarding prohibitions on 
employers that has to be corrected in the Record and will be corrected 
as we get into this issue again next week.
  Employers today are given many opportunities--in fact, are using all 
opportunities--to discuss issues of quality and safety and workplace 
environment and all of the issues that certainly would come up in the 
normal discourse between employers and employees.
  Mr. President, 95 percent of all large businesses have team 
arrangements today--95 percent, according to the Department of Labor. 
Mr. President, 75 percent of small businesses have team arrangements 
with their employees today and in workplaces everywhere all these 
issues are discussed. Let there be no doubt, those discussions, that 
dialog, those relationships, are already working. That is not the 
issue.
  The second point, what I think a lot of employees are very concerned 
about, is that oftentimes there are situations that arise where an 
employer says, ``You, you and you are now selected to represent all of 
you. You are the ones who are going to be in the room as we make the 
decisions involving all the employees. That is the way it is going to 
be. I do not care whether there are any elections. I do not care 
whether there was any discussion about whether these three people are 
representative of all the work force. That is the way it will be. Take 
it or leave it. Accept it or find another job.''
  Our view is, if that situation develops, there ought to be some 
consultation with other employees, and there ought to be some 
understanding that if it will affect the entire work force, the workers 
themselves should have some opportunity to select who it is that will 
be their spokesperson. That is what we are trying to do here: To find a 
way to ensure that if there is going to be a representative 
organization, that the employees have some opportunity to articulate 
and select the people that will make the decisions for them.
  The third point: Current Federal law is affected, of course, by court 
decisions. Court decisions, in some cases, have clearly obfuscated the 
interpretation of current law. It is our view, clearly, that there 
needs to be legislation to address the lack of clarity today about what 
employers and employees can and cannot do. On that, there is no doubt. 
We acknowledge that. We support it. We want legislation to address the 
need for clarification. We will offer legislation to ensure that 
happens, that we clarify what the arrangements can be and all of the 
circumstances involving the workplace that need to be addressed, in a 
reasonable way.
  So, clarification, yes. Opportunities to encourage teamwork, yes. 
Ways with which to make an employment environment more effective, yes. 
We can do that. That ought to be a bipartisan effort. We ought to find 
ways with which to work together to ensure that happens.

[[Page S4925]]

  The fourth point, Mr. President, if we are, indeed, interested in 
paycheck security, health security, pension security, the workers 
themselves ought to have an opportunity to determine what that means 
and how they can empower themselves more effectively. If that is going 
to happen, we want to protect the rights we have established over the 
last 60 years for workers to organize themselves. It is just not right 
to set up rump organizations where employers are negotiating with 
themselves, therefore denying paycheck security, denying people the 
opportunity to grow in this economy along with everybody else, the 
opportunity to have meaningful health security, the opportunity to have 
good pensions.
  That is what collective bargaining is all about. That has worked in 
this country and other countries, collective bargaining where we can 
ensure some opportunities to workers to enjoy the fruits of the success 
of a given company.
  Mr. President, we will get into this a lot more next week. I do 
believe there has been a lot of misinformation. Again, I do not accuse 
anybody of purposefully misinforming, but I have never seen so much 
misinformation as I have seen this afternoon on any one issue.
  We will have more opportunities to clarify it, more opportunities to 
work on it and, hopefully, to work together. I know a lot of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see more of a 
cooperative spirit and more opportunities for comity, and maybe this 
will lend itself to that in the end.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to some of the remarks by 
the distinguished Democratic leader. We continue to talk and work to 
see if we can find a way to move these issues forward in an 
understandable and fair way. We have somewhat of a Gordian knot. We are 
trying to find a way to untie that and move forward. That is what the 
leader has done here today.
  Many of the leaders in the Democratic Party have indicated they want 
to vote for the gas tax repeal. The President indicated that he would 
sign that. And so the majority leader has set up a situation here where 
the pending business is a clear, direct vote on repealing the gas tax 
of 4.3 cents a gallon, which was voted in in 1993. And that money has 
been going into the General Treasury, not the highway trust fund for 
highway and bridge improvements. He has set it up so that we can 
address the issues. Everybody says they want to address this in a fair 
way. It is not connected to the TEAM Act or connected to minimum wage. 
It is the gas tax repeal, pure and simple.
  Earlier today, there had been objection to considering this issue 
because a point of order was made that the offset did not cover the 
cost of taking this 4.3 cents out of the general budget. That has been 
addressed here. Majority Leader Dole's proposal would repeal the gas 
tax, and it would be offset by BIF-SAIF. Some people may not 
particularly like that offset, but it is an offset that the Budget 
Committee put in the budget resolution.
  It is something that I believe the Banking Committee worked on and 
something the President has indicated he has wanted, and something the 
Secretary of Treasury has written letters seeking. So this is a good 
way to begin to unravel the situation we are in now, parliamentarily.
  Next week, we will have a vote directly on the gas tax repeal, unless 
it is delayed and filibustered by the Democrats. The choice is real 
simple. If you want the gas tax repeal and want it to be paid for, this 
does that. This is a fair solution to this problem.
  So I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to look at what 
the majority leader has proposed. Let us do this gas tax vote, and then 
we can move forward in trying to find a proper solution to the other 
items that are pending.
  We have no problem with trying to develop an amendment that might 
further guarantee that the consumers get the benefit of this gas tax 
repeal. On behalf of the leader, I have talked to Senator Daschle and 
to Senator Dorgan, who has been working on this and, great, we welcome 
any additional ideas you have. We want to make sure that happens. We 
are satisfied that the legislation we have takes care of that. Now 
people are coming forward in writing and saying that they will make 
sure that the consumers get this 4.3-cent gas tax repeal. But I think 
that the leader would be open to some reasonable recommendations in 
that area.
  Now, it has been suggested that we have not been having free and open 
debate here. I cannot believe that. That is about all we have had. We 
have not been able to get votes because it has been blocked by a 
variety of delaying tactics--points of order, filibusters, if you 
will--but that is the Senate. We have had free and open debate. We have 
been able to have this discussion during the past couple of days. In 
fact, in the past couple of weeks, on the minimum wage, on the freedom 
in the workplace, the TEAM Act, and the gas tax, there has been plenty 
of talk.
  So I want to address something I have heard two or three times today. 
We are clearly acting within the rules. We are not setting any new 
precedents here. I can remember when the majority leader was Senator 
Mitchell from Maine. I remember him offering second-degree amendments 
to block our amendments. I remember him filling up the tree so that we 
could not offer our amendments. This is nothing unprecedented here. We 
are clearly within the rules.
  I remind my colleagues that we are in the majority. We have some 
responsibility to try to move the agenda forward. That is what the 
leader has done with this proposal--get the issue that everybody says 
they are for out there where we can debate it and vote on it. So I 
think we need to make it clear that we are strictly playing by the 
rules.
  I might note that when the Senator from Massachusetts, who is here on 
the floor now, offered his minimum wage amendment, I believe he almost 
immediately sent down a cloture motion to the desk on that. At least, I 
believe that is true. Is that not correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will wait for recognition to speak. But the Senator is 
inaccurate in that characterization, as the Senator was when he talked 
about Senator Mitchell filling out the tree.
  Mr. LOTT. Did the Senator send a cloture motion to the desk on that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. After we were denied the opportunity for an up-or-down 
vote.
  Mr. LOTT. But he did send a cloture motion up to limit debate on that 
issue, is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator can characterize my position in any way that 
he likes to. It is a routine procedure around here.
  Mr. LOTT. That is the point I am trying to make.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will wait until I can be recognized in my own right, 
and I will address the Senate then.
  Mr. LOTT. That is my point. That happens around here. Cloture motions 
are not unusual. Second-degree amendments are not unusual. So we are 
strictly playing by the rules, and we would not have it any other way. 
I appreciate the cooperation, frankly, that we get from the Democratic 
leader. We have been working together for the last 2, 3 days to try to 
find a good solution to how we vote on these issues.
  Now, with regard to the TEAM Act, I want to make a couple of points, 
again, on why we are advancing this legislation and what it does. I 
call it freedom in the workplace, not the TEAM Act, because most folks 
do not realize what that is. We would like for employees and employers 
to be able to work together, to have teams in the workplace in order to 
promote safety and greater productivity. There are all kinds of 
benefits that will come from that.
  Why, then, are we pushing this? Because the point has been made that, 
well, this is already occurring. Some 30,000 companies, maybe, have 
some sort of team arrangements. There is a good reason for it. The 
National Labor Relations Board, in some of its rulings, and the courts, 
have been putting a chill on these relationships. They are beginning to 
stop them. There was one court decision that said when an employee 
notified the employer that there was a problem with one of the 
electrical devices, that was ruled to be improper under the current 
laws. So there needs to be some clarification of this.
  As a matter of fact, the President indicated he thought this was a 
good approach. In his State of the Union Address earlier this year, he 
said, ``When

[[Page S4926]]

companies and workers work as a team, they do better, and so does 
America.''
  So, that is what we are trying to do here. This bill simply amends 
the Federal laws to make it clear that employers and employees may meet 
together in committee, or other employee involvement programs, to 
address issues of mutual concern, such as quality, productivity, and 
efficiency. So it expressly says, also, that they cannot engage in 
collective bargaining. It expressly forbids company unions and sham 
unions. It simply lets workers and employers try to work as a team.
  I am amazed that there is such concern about this. But my attitude on 
that, also, is that if there are some amendments that can be offered on 
that and we can debate it and have votes, if they pass, fine, and if 
they do not, fine. But this is something we ought to move on.
  One other point, in terms of trying to block people or limit the free 
expression of ideas here. As a matter of fact, we have done a little 
research, and we have found that in the 104th Congress, there has been 
a need for cloture motions more than in any recent time. In fact, in 
the 102d Congress, there were 42 cloture motions filed, and in the 
103d, 47; but in the 104th Congress, it has been necessary, already, to 
file 63 cloture motions.
  Let me give one example of how ridiculous this really is. S. 1, the 
first bill we considered last year, on unfunded mandates, had broad 
support and passed overwhelmingly. I think the vote was 98 to 2, or 
something like that. It was overwhelming, whatever the final vote 
was. But we had to file four cloture motions to try to get it to come 
to conclusion, and get a vote on it.

  So I really find it sort of surprising when our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle seem to hint that we have been trying to cut 
them off. That has not been the case. But we have a responsibility to 
try to get the work done around here. Yes. Let us have free debate. But 
after a certain period of time you have to get down to voting. That is 
what we are trying to set up with our process this afternoon.

                          ____________________