[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.
____________________