[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5020-S5023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              GAS TAX REPEAL, MINIMUM WAGE, AND THE BUDGET

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is unfortunate, indeed, that we are 
not getting a vote on the repeal of the gasoline tax that was imposed 
in 1993, the 4.3-cent gasoline tax that has been debated and discussed 
here on the floor for these past 2 weeks now.
  When the Senate came back into session following the recent recess, 
the majority leader indicated to the Senate that the order of business 
would be that we would debate and dispose of the so-called taxpayer 
bill of rights, legislation that has been reported from the Senate 
Finance Committee, that had been discussed for some time over a period 
of the last several years; as a matter of fact, a priority of Senators 
on both sides of the aisle. I can recall when my good friend from 
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, introduced legislation along that line some 
time ago and invited Senators to cosponsor. I joined in cosponsoring 
the legislation.
  There have been enactments of similar legislation in the past but 
this seemed to address the current problems. It had bipartisan support. 
To that legislation, the majority leader proposed to add a temporary 
repeal of the gasoline tax that had been imposed at the President's 
request, and with the opposition, the active opposition of all 
Republicans in the Congress.
  The fact of the matter is, this was a part of the initial deficit 
reduction package proposed by President Clinton soon after he came into 
office. It was opposed by Republicans because for the first time there 
would be Federal taxation of gasoline that would not be earmarked for 
road and bridge construction under the Highway Trust Fund Act.
  Gasoline, tires, batteries, and accessories had been taxed in the 
past, at the initiative of President Eisenhower some time ago, to try 
to build a national defense highway system. It was thought at the time 
that the American people would support that, if the highway users could 
support and pay for it through Federal taxes on gasoline, oil, 
batteries, and the like, those things that would be purchased by the 
users of the Nation's highways, those funds would be dedicated for that 
purpose.
  Now, President Clinton comes into office as President and, for the 
first time, suggests that there be a Federal tax on gasoline that would 
go into the General Treasury, which would not be a part of the highway 
trust fund. There was strong objection to that. We had a rollcall vote 
in the Congress, and Republicans unanimously voted against that tax. 
With gasoline prices rising, with people finding it more and more 
difficult to operate their trucks and cars with these new, high prices, 
it was appropriate, in the view of this side of the aisle, that we act 
to repeal, temporarily, that gasoline tax.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a question because my friend made a statement that 
President Clinton was the first President to suggest that gasoline 
taxes be used to reduce the deficit. In 1990, under George Bush, there 
was a tax put in until 1995 on gasoline which was used to reduce the 
deficit. It was part of an agreement under the leadership of President 
Bush. So I just wanted to know whether my friend was aware of that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would like to respond by saying I do not think that 
was a suggestion by President Bush. I think at the time of that 
summit----
  Mrs. BOXER. He signed onto it. It happened under his administration, 
and he signed the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not yield further, Mr. President. I am responding 
to the Senator's question. I will continue to respond. That summit 
meeting was held for a lot of purposes, to try to deal with a lot of 
issues that had been brought up in the Congress. The gasoline tax was 
not proposed by President Bush.
  I stand by what I said. President Clinton is the first President who 
suggested an addition to the gasoline tax that would not be used as a 
part of the highway trust fund.
  The fact is, the Republican leader in the Senate proposed that there 
be a repeal of this 1993 tax. He stated the reasons for it. It had 
almost unanimous support on this side of the aisle and, I think, 
support on the Democratic side as well. What happened next was, the 
Democrats offered an amendment that they wanted to have voted on before 
the gasoline tax repeal would be voted on, which was to increase the 
minimum wage. Now, it is not unusual to have some Senator offer an 
amendment on a completely different subject from the legislation that 
is pending before the Senate. It is one of the unique characteristics 
of the Senate that any Senator on either side of the aisle, at any 
time, can offer an amendment to any bill or any other amendment and 
discuss the merits of that proposal without interruption for as long as 
that Senator seeks to do so, or at least until 60 Senators vote to 
impose cloture and cut off debate. That is one of the unique features 
of this body. So I am not criticizing Senators who seek to use the 
rules to call to the attention of the Senate a matter of some urgency 
that needs the immediate consideration of the U.S. Congress.

  What is curious about that proposal and that amendment, though, was 
that, for 2 years, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and 
the administration. President Clinton came into office talking about 
giving a middle-class tax cut, talking about helping working people 
meet their goals and achieve their ambitions. Not once did a committee 
chaired by a Democratic Senator report out legislation to increase the 
minimum wage. Not once did a Democratic Senator offer an amendment to 
any bill to increase the

[[Page S5021]]

minimum wage and call this to the attention of the Senate as some 
matter of urgency or something that would have merit and ought to be 
considered by the Congress. But it was advanced as a way to prevent a 
vote on the repeal of a tax, a temporary repeal of a gasoline tax. It 
was suggested that this was of such grave national urgency--the 
increase in the minimum wage--that it ought to be considered in advance 
of any other issue that could be brought before or considered or voted 
on by the U.S. Senate.
  Now, if that is not political posturing and grandstanding, I do not 
know what is. The fact is, for 2 long years, the Democrats--suggesting 
that they are the friends of the working man, they are going to do what 
they can to help make life better for those who work for a living--
never suggested through legislative proposals on this floor of this 
Senate that the minimum wage should be increased.
  But at a time when there was a matter brought up by the Republican 
leader, who is in charge of the schedule of the Senate, for the orderly 
consideration of legislation that there be a repeal of the gasoline tax 
that this President requested be imposed and which the Democrats had 
agreed to impose, there was this cry to, ``Wait, you cannot even vote 
on that in the Senate until you not only vote on, but commit yourself 
to and enact an increase in the minimum wage.'' There is a difference 
between a vote on an amendment, or debate of an amendment, and a vote 
on a motion to table that amendment or a vote on that amendment as 
amended.

  Any Senator has the right, as I said, under the rules--and we are not 
criticizing that right--to suggest a change in the law, to suggest a 
discussion on any subject at any time. The purpose for that is so that 
no one party, no one leader, no one region, no one faction can keep the 
Senate from considering an issue that is of importance to the national 
interest. No one can keep that from happening. No one is that powerful 
in the U.S. Senate. No party is that powerful, no majority so great 
that that is prohibited or frustrated. That is why the Senate is so 
unique.
  In the House of Representatives, for example, on the other hand, if a 
Member of that body wanted to offer an amendment or call to the 
attention of the House of Representatives some issue, it would have to 
be approved by the Rules Committee, first of all. The Rules Committee 
is dominated by members of one party. That is the way it is. The Rules 
Committee is an arm of the leadership of the House of Representatives. 
In my experience as a member of the other body, even if you are a 
Member of the legislative standing committee and would like to offer an 
amendment in that committee for consideration, you have very little 
chance of success, if the chairman of that committee is intent on 
defeating your amendment, in getting an amendment approved by that 
legislative committee and then finding its way to the floor as a part 
of a bigger bill.
  Now, I will admit that, in recent years and since I have been in the 
Senate, those rules have been modified somewhat, I am told. But I can 
recall when it was nigh unto impossible to bring an issue to the 
attention of the House of Representatives on the floor of the House--
except in a 1-minute speech, but I am talking about in a vehicle that 
could be voted on or enacted--without the permission of the higher-ups, 
the leadership, the people who control the House.
  Well, that is not the case in the Senate. We are all members of the 
Rules Committee here. Every Senator has a right to say what should be 
discussed or debated or considered by the U.S. Senate and can bring 
that issue up at any time there is a legislative issue on the floor of 
the Senate. So that is what the Democrats did and took advantage of for 
the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Senate the minimum 
wage issue. But what needs to be remembered in all of this as we 
proceed now to consider the budget resolution instead of the taxpayer 
bill of rights, which has been on the schedule and scheduled for 
consideration by the leader, is that this is being used as a device to 
prevent the Senate from conducting the business that was proposed to be 
conducted by the Republican leader. He has sought to reach an agreement 
for consideration of a minimum wage amendment, and he has done that in 
a variety of different configurations--that there be three separate 
bills, that there be separate votes on amendments. There have been 
negotiations now for the last 2 weeks, and a strong effort has been 
made by the Democratic leader, I must say--and I agree that he has made 
every effort--to resolve some of these differences about how we proceed 
to consider the gas tax repeal, the minimum wage issue, and other labor 
related issues. The TEAM Act has been discussed as well.

  I might say that the Democratic leader suggested that now it is a 
part of the requirement that is being made for proceeding by the other 
side that the bill, as passed by the House containing the minimum wage 
increase, must be subject to review before any agreement for 
consideration of that issue can be made here in the Senate for the 
purpose of ensuring that whatever amendment is adopted here would not 
cause that bill, as passed by the House, to be vetoed by the President.
  So what is being sought is not an opportunity to debate an issue of 
some national urgency, not an effort to vote on an issue to put 
Senators on record, but to enact a change in the law. That sounds sort 
of like extortion, does it not? It sounds like extortion. It may not 
technically and legally be extortion but it sounds like it to me.
  Well, where we are now is, with the agreement of the Democrats, we 
are proceeding next to consider the budget resolution which we ought to 
do. And we all agree, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we ought to 
proceed to the consideration of the budget resolution because it is a 
matter of high priority. And in the orderly course of legislative 
process following the budget resolution we will be able to then take up 
bills to reconcile the law with the resolution, requiring reductions in 
spending, or changes in the law so that we can achieve the goals set 
forth in the budget resolution, and so that the appropriations bills 
can be enacted consistent with the limits that will be contained in the 
budget resolution.
  So as we begin the funding process for the departments of the 
Government for the fiscal year that begins on October 1, we will not 
see--I hope we will not see--what we saw last year. And that was a 
logjam of activities that frustrated the orderly funding and 
authorization of Government programs so that there were shutdowns, 
there were conflicts--some serious--between the House and Senate, 
between Senators and among Congressmen of both parties, and with the 
President that we had the frustrating experience of seeing the 
Government actually having to shut down because of the inability of the 
Congress and the President to agree on the levels of funding for 
various activities.

  So it is with the hope that we will avoid that result this year that 
we can agree quickly on a resolution on the budget, then move to the 
timely consideration of reconciliation bills and appropriations bills, 
and conclude this session of the Congress in a way that serves the 
collective interests of the American people. That is my hope. I did not 
say that ``serves'' the interest of a political party. I think there 
has been too much consideration in this body this year and last of what 
serves the interests of the political factions and not what proposals 
are really going to solve the problems this country faces.
  Some of us think the gasoline tax repeal would help solve a problem, 
that taxes are too high. Republicans are on record wanting to vote on 
that right now and to take up other tax reduction measures, too, as a 
part of the budget resolution, and we will get to that.
  But I am hopeful that the beginning of the debate on the budget 
resolution may signal a turn, a change in direction, at least in 
emphasis between political posturing and a good-faith committed effort 
toward achieving goals like reducing the deficit, tax reform, welfare 
reform, making Government more efficient, eliminating unnecessary and 
wasteful uses of tax dollars and all the rest that go into making for 
good Government and Government that is one that restores the confidence 
of the American people in our political system. That is important.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page S5022]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I note the order is to go out. I ask unanimous consent 
that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, very much, Mr. President.
  I listened carefully to my friend and to my colleagues on the other 
side as well as to the Democratic leader. I would like to put a little 
bit of perspective on where I see we are as my friends have done; my 
friend from Mississippi.
  First, I would like to bring out--in my question to him he was very 
kind enough to yield to me on--that in fact this is not the first time 
the gas tax has been used to reduce the deficit. Actually it came about 
under a Republican President, George Bush, a temporary tax for 5 years 
to reduce the deficit.
  My friend made the point, Well, it was not George Bush's idea. I do 
not know whose idea it was. Although I served at that time on the 
Budget Committee of the House, I was not at Andrews Air Force Base. But 
the President then, President Bush, a Republican President, agreed that 
we needed to reduce the deficit, and that was part of the plan. So this 
is not the first time gas taxes have been used to reduce the deficit.
  I have to say that what is so interesting to me is the passion that 
we see coming from the other side of the aisle on this reduction of the 
gas tax of 4.5 cents, a passion that goes so deeply that they do not 
even have anything in their bill that would make sure it goes back to 
the drivers. We have experts from all over the country saying that in 
fact it is very probable that the decrease in the tax would go into the 
pockets of the oil refiners, and we are going to try on this side--and 
we hope this comes up; we are all supporting bringing these bills up--
that we can amend it in such a way to ensure that the oil companies 
have to give it back.
  So I find the passion on the other side about returning $27 a year to 
the average driver without any guarantee that they will get it--I find 
it interesting since there is a lack of passion when it comes to an 
increase in minimum wage, which is at a 40-year low in terms of its 
buying power, an increase in wages for millions of people to the tune 
of $1,800 a year. And it would make a difference because I have met 
some of those working people. They work hard, and they have a hard time 
getting health insurance and paying for it. They have a hard time 
meeting their obligations. Sometimes they have to choose between going 
to a doctor or forgoing that for food on the table. These are real 
people, and where is the passion on that side? It is not there, and God 
bless the American people. Seventy percent of them agree that we ought 
to have an increase in the minimum wage.
  And my friend says, ``Where are the Democrats? Why didn't they bring 
it up before?'' We probably should have, you know. We miscalculated. We 
brought up the health care issue because we wanted to help working 
people, and we decided that we made an error in that regard to go with 
health care first. And we know we overreached, and we all know that we 
made a mistake. I am not afraid to admit mistakes.
  Now I hope we can get to the Kennedy bill to start addressing the 
issue of health care. But the fact of the matter is we postponed it, 
and that makes it all the more important to get it done now, Mr. 
President, because inflation continues to move. It is at a low level. 
But still, it moves. The minimum wage is not tied to inflation, as we 
all know. Congress can make it better. It has been my privilege to vote 
for the increases before--the last one under George Bush, where we came 
together as Republicans and Democrats.
  All we are asking on this side of the aisle is that you are 
passionate about the repeal of the gas tax, most of which is going to 
go to the oil companies. How about showing a little compassion and 
action for the people who work so hard for a minimum wage?
  If you have that same commitment with us, let us pass both bills. Let 
us get them to the President's desk. He says he will sign them both. He 
says he will sign them both. So instead of working at cross purposes, 
let us work together. It simply is not enough to say, well, we cannot 
guarantee what the House will do. I served over there for a long time, 
and my friend is right. There are different rules over there. But it 
turned out in the budget, in a document that addresses the issues for 
the next 6, 7 years in our country, there was no problem between the 
majority here and the majority there. Every issue, every detail was 
talked out before, and everyone here knows what the budget is going to 
look like. We are going to debate that tomorrow, and I cannot wait to 
debate that budget. I cannot wait to point out the differences between 
the two sides, but I will wait until tomorrow to do that, because we 
see huge differences in the parties in that document, which is really 
the vision of the future for this country.
  The point that the Democratic leader was making, I thought quite 
eloquently, is this, simply, that if a budget that is so complicated 
and so large and so encompassing, with so many issues, can be 
preconferenced between the House and Senate Republicans, why can they 
not come up with a clearly defined way to assure us that a minimum wage 
bill will get to the President's desk. You know on the other side how 
strongly we feel about that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for 
a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My question is whether or not the Senator is aware that 
today the leadership on the House side, the Speaker and the majority 
leader, sent a letter to the Republican leader here--a copy was given 
to the Democratic leader--which says as follows:

       In the next 2 weeks, the House will consider H.R. 2391 to 
     allow low wage earners greater choice and flexibility in 
     their work schedules. At that time, the Rules Committee will 
     make in order an amendment to increase the minimum wage as 
     well as other amendments to create jobs, expand worker 
     training and education opportunities, and increase take-home 
     pay for low wage workers. It complements our belief that a 
     first job is the best training for life-long success in the 
     world of work. We look forward to taking this measure to 
     conference with the Senate and getting legislation to the 
     President's desk.

  Is the Senator aware that that commitment has been made?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. And let me tell the Senator, that is exactly 
the problem. What we are asking for is a clean minimum wage bill. We 
agreed to a clean, temporary repeal of the gas tax. We want a clean 
bill that increases the minimum wage. That is all we want.

  What my friend read makes the point of why the Democratic leader is 
not going to go down this road with you. I have been around this place 
for a while. We do not even know what all those things mean--a 
guarantee of greater take-home pay. We do not know what all these 
things mean. You could cut Social Security and you might wind up with a 
bigger paycheck, too. We do not know what that means.
  So the bottom line is, my friend made my point. A vague promise that 
in 2 weeks there will be another bill to which they will attach an 
amendment on minimum wage is not the vehicle. The President wants to 
break the logjam. He said: Send me a clean repeal of the gas tax and 
send me a clean increase on the minimum wage.
  I think the Democratic leader has laid it out. That is what we want, 
and that is not what we are getting. So I think we have a capability of 
coming together here. We are friends. I think we can come together as 
legislators. It is pretty easy. Let us make sure we have a package that 
results in a separate bill going to the President's desk on minimum 
wage and a separate bill on the gas tax.
  My friend mentioned other issues that are important to his side. We 
are willing to let those go through if we have an opportunity to amend, 
and so on, even though some of us have reservations about them. But 
that is not what has happened. So I think you are going to see 
Democrats in the Senate stand pretty firm. We are willing to give and 
give and give. We want to get a little. And when I say a little, I mean 
a little.
  We are talking about a minimum wage bill. We think it is good for the 
country. We know that workers are under stress today. We know there is 
downward pressure on wages. We know

[[Page S5023]]

the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. We know that 58 percent of the 
people on minimum wage are women who are struggling. The majority 
leader says he wants to get hold of that gender gap and make it 
smaller. He has a shot at doing that, it seems to me, if he would 
embrace this idea. If we could send a clean bill to the President, that 
is going to be good for the country, good for women, good for families.
  So I think we are really close to an agreement, I say to my friend. 
We are getting there. And I think if the majority leader would work 
with the leadership in the House the way he did on the budget, getting 
certain guarantees, getting agreement on how both Houses would handle 
it and do the same thing on minimum wages, we will be here passing that 
minimum wage, addressing the issue of the gas tax and the other issues 
that my friend is anxious to address.

  So I look forward to seeing us move together. I think the American 
people want us to reach across the party aisle. They are really crying 
out for that. And we have an opportunity to do it. I think the 
President gave us the way. He said: Send me a clean bill on the gas 
tax; send me a clean bill on minimum wage.
  I think we can make that happen. And if we do, everyone has fulfilled 
his or her responsibility, it seems to me, to his or her 
constituencies.
  So I am not overly pessimistic at the turn of events because I think 
we are making some progress, but I think we can really do better. I 
look forward to the budget debate that is coming tomorrow. I look 
forward to debating my friend again on some of those issues--Medicare, 
Medicaid, education, environment, deficit reduction, earned income tax 
credit. These are so important to the well-being of the people.
  With an increase in the minimum wage, I have to say that can do more 
to change the lives of working people for the better than almost 
anything else we can do. And I hope we will see it done. I hope we will 
cross party lines to do it. I might note that we have been blocked from 
doing it. A majority of the Senate has voted to increase the minimum 
wage. The majority leader has filled the tree to block us from offering 
it on certain bills. I just look forward to the day when the majority 
here, the majority of Senators here, get to vote on that minimum wage 
and we do the business of the people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer very much.
  Mr. President, as I understand it, this has completed the Senate's 
business.

                          ____________________