Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand, the Democrats have had a caucus, and they might now be willing to agree to the unanimous-consent request that I made earlier this morning that there be three votes; division I being the gas tax issue; division II being the TEAM Act issue; and division III being the Democratic proposal for the minimum wage; that each division be limited to 2 hours each, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to division I, division II, and division III. Then I assume there would be a vote on final passage. If I am correct in that, I would be happy to try to obtain that consent agreement now.

Mr. DOLE. With amendments?

Mr. DOLE. Let me say that I did indicate--I do not negotiate with the press. As far as I know, they are not Members of the Senate. Some have more power than we have, but they are not voting. I was asked that question, and I repeated the question. I might subscribe to that. But I went on to say, I made almost the identical offer today, but I never made any offer that would indicate we would have amendments to these separate bills. That is an entirely different process. Plus, I am no rocket scientist, but it did occur to me that obviously the President could veto the TEAM Act and sign the other two. He said he would do that today. I would not buy into such an agreement. I do think this is a very reasonable agreement that I have suggested. Since I have been asked to object to the Democratic leader's proposal, perhaps he would be kind enough to object----

Mr. DOLE. I find it strange that our colleagues on the other side are filibustering minimum wage. We are prepared to have that vote right now. We will not even need 30 minutes of debate. We are prepared to have the vote on TEAM Act, prepared to have the vote on gas tax. Again, the TEAM Act is just a very little piece of the pie or the puzzle. I hope we could find some way to reach an agreement. If there are amendments, I know the Senator from North Dakota--I have written him a letter, Senator Dorgan, if he has any way to tighten up the effort to make certain that the 4.3 cents will go to the consumer. I had a letter from Texaco, and we will have a response from ARCO. Somebody raised a question about ARCO in the press conference. I did not have the answer, but we are getting the answer from ARCO. I think we will have the assurances that some would need before they act on the gas tax repeal. As I said at the press conference earlier, we do pay for it. This is really an effort--the President's spending is why we have to have it. He wanted to spend more money, so we had to raise the gas tax. We will not let the deficit grow any larger. We will make certain we offset any loss. I hope that this is a reasonable agreement, and I would like to proceed with it. If not, I do not see any reason to stay in later this evening.

Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. Certainly.

Mr. DOLE. Three separate votes.

Mr. DOLE. As I have indicated, I said in that response, I might and I might not. And I will not. That will take care of that. Again, nobody is trying to negotiate. Democrats like to negotiate, but I do not negotiate with press people unless there is one up there who works for the Democrats, but I do not think so, not directly. We would be very happy to proceed on the basis we have outlined this morning. We think it is very reasonable. I think the President ought to accept it in the spirit he invoked in his 1:30 press conference. He did indicate he would sign--he mentioned something about workers' rights. That is what we are talking about, workers' rights. I do not understand how we expect the majority to permit the minority to have their way and we not be entitled to have any say at all. We are prepared to repeal the gas tax, have that vote, have the TEAM Act vote, and have the minimum wage vote and then have a final vote. I think my colleagues on the other side might appreciate the fact we would probably have a fairly healthy vote on final passage, which I think would bode well for what might eventually happen to this legislation. There is a lot of merit to keeping the three together. There may not be any merit on that side of the aisle, but there is merit on this side of the aisle. Again, I tried to work with--certainly, always tried to work with-- the Democratic leader. I am happy to meet with him at any time and see if there is some agreement we can reach.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, again, I think we all try to work things out around here. At least that has been my experience. I see my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, may not agree on what will be the final outcome, but we try to agree. If there is an effort or wish to offer substitutes, we might have a substitute to the minimum wage. We are willing to divorce these three matters from the Travel Office bill and bring them up separately, or if there is another H.R. bill around here somewhere--there is another H.R. bill. We can accommodate that request. We can go ahead and separate, if that would help, and let the Billy Dale matter be passed. I think the point is that the Senator from Massachusetts made it very clear he was going to amend every bill with the minimum wage, which, in effect, served notice on us that anything that we brought up would be blocked. We want to resolve this issue, get it behind us, so we can move on a number of legislative areas that we think are important, important to the people of America. I am perfectly willing to try to work it out with the Democratic leader. We have never had a problem before. Sometimes these things are not easy. Sometimes they can be resolved. I make no offer to the Democratic leader.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I meant--and I talked about Senator Mitchell as my friend and the friend of everybody on this side and the other side, and he is doing quite well in the private area--that he would file cloture rather quickly. But the point is, I can recall the stimulus package being held up. I think Senator Mitchell did a good job of preventing us from voting on capital gains for many years. I cannot remember, it has been so long. So I think he was quite effective. Maybe I have not been quite as effective and I had to fill the trees because I did not know the other ins-and-outs of the place. He did a good job, and I certainly have high respect for Senator Mitchell. I very much appreciate the fact that he was willing to pass on some of the ideas he had that I have been able to pick up. But I would be very happy to visit with my friend, the Democratic leader. If it is a question of working out an agreement with amendments, I think we can do that. But when the Senator from Massachusetts makes it impossible to bring up any bill--and he says he is not going to do it on Megan's law, but he has everything else, with the exception of the bill he wanted passed, the health bill--then it makes it rather difficult to do the business of the Senate. So I do not believe that we are doing anything that cannot be resolved, regarding the efforts initiated on that side. I am perfectly willing to work it out, if we can, with the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Massachusetts, and everybody else. I know the Senator from Mississippi is willing to try and has tried. I think we have all been in good faith. So if we can work it out, that is fine. We would be happy to meet this evening and see if we can resolve this and have not only these three issues behind us, but a number of others that should be dealt with, if we are to have a Memorial Day recess. I will be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it would be my view that when that vote comes, there will be a substantial majority. The vote the Senator refers to is a cloture vote, and sometimes they are a bit deceptive, as I have learned.

Mr. DOLE. I did not even raise cloture. I thought that was the position of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DOLE. I think I do understand your position. I sometimes admire it--sometimes. But I think the point is that we need to resolve this, if we can. I would be happy to try to work with the Senator from Massachusetts, or the Democratic leader, or both, and see if we cannot work out some arrangement where they can offer amendments. But I do believe it is pretty difficult to explain to the majority--and I do not often refer to the minority. I think we are all Senators. It is pretty hard to explain to the majority on this side why we should permit the Senator from Massachusetts to do everything he wants, but we cannot do what we want. If the Senator can help me with that, maybe we can work it out.

Mr. DOLE. Oh. I will say the same about a lot of things President Clinton has vetoed, such as the child tax credit, welfare reform, balanced budget, all those things were vetoed. The Senator from Massachusetts did not vote for them. The child tax credit will help 50- some million children in 28 million homes. So if we want to get into the numbers game here, we can extend the debate for some time. I think, since I have an appointment at 5, I will be happy to either recess until tomorrow morning, or if we want to continue debate, we can. I know the Senator from Georgia is here, and the Senator from Idaho wishes to be recognized.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2137 be placed on the calendar.

Mr. DOLE. Hopefully we can take up that bill tomorrow. I do not know of any reason--if there are amendments that are relevant, germane, or maybe there can be a separate bill. But I know that the family is very concerned about that. I had an opportunity to visit with Megan's parents. They feel very strongly about this. I do not believe there will be any objection. But there has been objection to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that repeals the 4.3-cent gas tax increase imposed by President Clinton in his 1993 tax bill--a $265 billion increase--the largest in history. I am confident that this legislation would pass immediately, and by a wide margin, if my Democratic colleagues would remove their objection to a vote. As we all know, gas prices are at their highest level since the gulf war. This bill will provide much-needed tax relief to American travelers. I am happy to be joined by more than 20 of my colleagues who are cosponsoring this legislation to repeal the gas tax hike. The 1993 tax increase raised fuel taxes on all modes of transportation by 4.3 cents per gallon. This tax increase was not dedicated to the highway trust fund to maintain and to improve our Nation's highways, roads, and bridges. Rather it was used to fund a larger and more pervasive Federal Government. President Clinton and his Democratic colleagues would rather tax more and spend more than cut wasteful government spending. In 1993, they raised income, estate, and Social Security taxes. This $265 billion tax increase passed without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. And their taxes particularly hurt working Americans, making it harder for them to make ends meet. As we repeal the gas tax hike, 60 percent of the tax relief would go to Americans making less than $50,000 a year-- almost half of the total relief would be for families making less than $40,000 a year. These drivers probably didn't feel rich when the President increased their taxes in 1993, but they will certainly be better off when we repeal the tax hike. I also would note that if the President had his way, gas prices would be rising yet again--by another 2.5 cents per gallon tax that would have begun on July 1, 1996--the last installment of a 7.5-cent-per- gallon tax that was part of his overall energy tax increase proposal. Republicans fought against that increase and this bill will remove the last vestige of the 1993 gas tax increase. This legislation does not increase the budget deficit. It is paid for by reductions in the Department of Energy administrative overhead account, which includes the Secretary's travel budget. These Energy Department cost savings were proposed by the President in his latest budget. The bill also calls for a limited auction of Federal communications spectrum. Together, these offsets raise the $2.9 billion necessary to fund the repeal through 1996. I will work for a long-term repeal in the context of our efforts to eliminate the Federal budget deficit. Repealing the 1993 gas tax is the fastest and surest way to lower gas prices. It will provide immediate relief--especially to American families who drive to their summer vacations. The bill provides for an immediate tax credit for service station owners and others that purchase gas for resale to customers. This way they can pass the savings on to their customers as they have told us they will. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I particularly thank the Senator from Texas, who first raised this issue several weeks ago, and I thank him for his leadership. I think it would be an excellent day, since today is tax freedom day. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement here. I think repeal of the gas tax will pass. The Senator from Texas has outlined how we pay for it--the spectrum sales, which is about $2.5 billion in savings, and the Energy Department, about $800 million over the next 7 years. This would repeal it through the end of this year, and the Budget Committee would then come forth with repeal thereafter. I also add that, of course, it is tax freedom day, and a lot of people have noted that. I am not certain how many taxpayers have thought about it, but, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, tomorrow they are sort of on their own. For the first 128 days, they have been working for the local, State, and Federal Government, just to pay their taxes. That is on the average. Since President Clinton came on board, we have added 1 week to that because of the big, big tax increase in 1993 of $265 billion to $268 billion. So it has already been extended. You have to work an extra week, after 3 years of President Clinton, to get to tax freedom day. Some would say, well, 4.3 cents is not really worth it. I think that, from the standpoint of sending a signal to the American people, we are serious about tax reduction, serious about tax freedom day. It is not just a day to make an appearance somewhere or make a statement on the Senate floor. We are serious about it. As the Senator from Texas pointed out, this 4.3 cents is not going for highways, or bridges, or mass transit, or construction of any kind. It is going for deficit reduction. I have voted for tax increases in the past, as has been pointed out by my colleagues on the other side, to build highways and bridges. That is what we thought the fuel taxes were all about. In 1990, for a very short period of time, we had to divide a 5-cent tax increase between the deficit and the trust fund so that we could get our colleagues on the other side to go along with the budget agreement of 1990. That would have expired at the end of 5 years. But before that expiration date occurred, the big tax bill of 1993 took that 5 cents and put it all in the trust fund, but then added 4.3 cents to deficit reduction. Therein lies the problem of today. We have a permanent 4.3 cents gas tax for deficit reduction. The people who build highways, who travel our highways, and use mass transit can understand if you are doing it to make the highway safer, for better transportation, better highways, and mass transit, but not deficit reduction. So we need to cut taxes for the average family. We also need to go back and look at some of the things that were vetoed last year, such as the $500-per-child tax credit, the expanded IRA's, tax relief for education expenses, estate tax relief for family businesses, marriage penalty relief, and a whole host of things we think are good incentives and should be adopted and would create jobs and opportunities. American families--at least the ones I visit with--think they are paying enough in taxes. As I said, they are paying a lot more because of the legislation that was passed in 1993, without a Republican vote in the House or the Senate. So today I am introducing, along with Senator Gramm, and others, legislation repealing the 1993 gas tax hike. I am going to ask in a moment unanimous consent to bring the gas tax repeal to a vote on the taxpayer bill of rights. The taxpayer bill of rights 2 is pending at the desk. We can bring that up, offer an amendment, have 30 minutes of debate, and vote on it. It would then go to the House, and we will have repealed the 4.3-cent gas tax. I hope we can have an agreement on this. It seems to me that we know it is going to pass. It is going to happen one of these days. It may as well happen today, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, on tax freedom day. So this would be a good day to indicate that we are serious about it. There is some question as to whether the repeal would result in lower gas prices for consumers. On Friday, I was in Virginia at an Exxon station with Senator Warner, Congressman Tom Davis, and others, and we were assured by the owner of the station--in fact, he is the owner of several Exxon stations--that, obviously, it was their intent to pass the 4.3 cents on to consumers. That is how they do business. They know their customers, and the customers are going to know whether or not it has been passed on to them. Our amendment is drafted to ensure that this happens by providing an immediate tax cut against other applicable excise taxes. We also require that the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Energy study fuel prices in June, July, and August 1996, to determine whether the gas tax repeal is passed through to consumers. Those Departments would be required to report back to Congress by September 30. We also propose a sense of the Congress that the benefits of the gas tax repeal be made immediately available to consumers. So we have listened to the concerns expressed by our colleagues. We had the same concerns. We believe the benefits will go to the consumers. Just to make certain and erase any doubt or skepticism, we have added these provisions. Repealing the 1993 gas tax will cut driving costs for families who drive to work, to school, to worship, or on vacation. There are many reasons for the skyrocketing gas prices. Maybe they will go up. We are not suggesting that the repeal of the gas tax is going to put the halt to rising gas prices, but they will be at least 4.3 cents less. It is one way of cut driving costs for American families and businesses. I think it is something we should do, something we will do. Also, we would like to scrap--and at the appropriate time we will talk about it, later this year--the current tax system and replace it with a flatter, fairer, and simpler system that no longer discourages savings and investment, economic growth, and job creation. So I urge my colleagues not to object, so we can get on with the work of debating this. It should not take long. It is a fairly clear-cut issue at stake. I will now propound the unanimous-consent request, and I understand the distinguished Democratic leader may have some request of his own. I propound this request.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 374, H.R. 2337, an act to provide for increased taxpayer protections; that one amendment be in order to the measure, which will be offered by the majority leader, regarding the gas tax repeal; that no other amendments or motions be in order, other than a motion to table; further, that immediately following the disposition of the Dole-Gramm amendment, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to passage of the measure, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will reserve the right to object. First of all, if the amendment is to make certain that the savings are passed on to the consumers, I am not certain how that is going to be implemented. I cannot imagine how the Federal Government can in every case determine that in every service station in America--I do not know how many thousands there are--savings are passed on to the consumer. That might take an army of additional Federal employees. We do require in our bill that the Department of Justice, Treasury, and Energy study fuel prices and make certain it is passed through and report back to Congress by September 30. I assume, if we found cases of price gouging, then we could take appropriate action. I do not know how we would do it in advance, how we would monitor, police such an effort all across America. So I do not know what else--we did it to indicate our concern, too. Obviously, consumers want to get a price decrease. They are not looking for repeal of the tax and then nothing changes for the consumer. So I say if the amendment is with reference to the gas tax, we might be able to reach some accommodation, but I assume the Senator has in mind other amendments that reach far beyond the gas tax. Is that correct?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, I have thought about this a great deal. I would be prepared to go, I think, further than many of my colleagues would be prepared to go. We would call up another revenue bill--and there are some on the calendar, I guess; H.R. 2684 comes to mind--and modify the text of that with the repeal of the gas tax and that would be considered, 1 hour of debate--I know the Senator from Massachusetts would only take 30 minutes on the minimum wage proposal; it is in the Record a couple of times--and then I would offer an amendment which would be the amendment discussed by the Senator from Massachusetts on minimum wage, 45 cents and then 45 cents, which would raise it from $4.25 to $5.15, and we would add to that the so-called TEAM Act. So it would be repeal of the gas tax, the minimum wage proposal tendered by my colleagues on the other side, with the TEAM Act, and we would have 1 hour on that and then we would vote. Now, that seems to me to address all the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side. It would be the win-win that I read about over the weekend. You would have repeal of the gas tax, and you would also have the adoption of the minimum wage which would take you to $5.15. I am not certain it could be done by July 1. It will take probably longer than that to implement the first increase, and then the second increase would take place a year from then. So if that offer would be acceptable to the Democratic leader, it seems to me that would answer all of his concerns; it is the minimum wage proposal discussed on the other side of the aisle; it is the gas tax repeal that I think many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would vote for, and it would contain a measure reported out of the Labor Committee called the TEAM Act. I think that might be one way to resolve this, and we would have that debate, have it this afternoon, repeal the gas tax, pass the minimum wage, and send it on to the House. We would be happy to do that at this point.

Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Texas, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DOLE. I just say that we would like, of course, first of all, to just pass the repeal of the gas tax today. We have the taxpayer bill of rights at the desk. We can amend that and send it back to the House, as I said earlier. I think it would be an overwhelming vote. We have it paid for. We are not going to add to the deficit. Keep in mind, this 4.3 cents does not go to highways or mass transit; it goes to deficit reduction and that is the big difference. But in response to the indication from the distinguished Democratic leader that they would like to offer additional amendments, it occurred to me if we are prepared to repeal the gas tax, which I think a majority of both sides are for here, and are prepared to bring up the minimum wage that the other side has talked for, but with just little amendment called a TEAM Act, we ought to be able to come together on this. Everything they want is in the package, except we have one little piece. The TEAM Act amends Federal labor laws to make clear that employers and employees may meet together in committee or other employee involvement programs to address issues of mutual interest. Who could be opposed to that, the employers and employees sitting down and talking about issues related to quality, productivity and efficiency, as long as they do not engage in collective bargaining? Who is opposed to this? Guess. The labor bosses. When the labor bosses say, ``We are opposed,'' it reverberates on the Senate floor. So we are ready to, I guess, accommodate our colleagues on the other side in nearly every instance except in this one area. We would hope we could have an agreement. We could go ahead and finish this afternoon; have a couple of hours debate and pass it. If we cannot pass it, just repeal the gas tax in itself, then let us double up and repeal the gas tax, pass the minimum wage with the TEAM Act added to it, and send it on to the House. It seems to me that would be one way to satisfy concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.