[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4791-S4792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNDERMINING THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe it appropriate at this time to 
review where we stand because there has been some discussion that has 
occurred since the majority leader came to the floor and outlined a 
proposal. Maybe his proposal has been obfuscated a bit because it was 
such a clear and fine proposal that people are trying to undermine it. 
But the fact is that what the majority leader suggested was you can 
have your vote. You can have your vote on minimum wage. You can have 
your vote on repealing the gas tax.
  All we are asking is that in this process of having those two votes, 
we also have a vote on something called the TEAM Act, which is not, as 
the Senator from Massachusetts said, all that big a deal because so 
many companies have already signed off on it.
  Yet now we hear from the other side that they essentially intend to 
filibuster an attempt to increase the minimum wage and to reduce the 
gas tax, to roll it back, simply because of this TEAM Act proposal. 
That is pretty outrageous.
  In a moment, I would like to talk a little bit about what that 
proposal is because I think you need to understand that basically what 
we are hearing is a party has been captured by a constituency and is 
allowing that constituency to stand in the way of good policy.
  But let us talk about the gas tax first. Why should we not repeal 
this tax? To begin with, it was sold under false pretenses. Three years 
ago, when this administration proposed this gas tax, they began by 
proposing a Btu tax, if you remember that, where they were going to tax 
all energy consumption in this country. States like New Hampshire and 
other States that depend on oil to heat our homes would have been hit 
with this tax at the home heating level and at the gasoline pumps and 
throughout the system that delivers energy to their communities.
  That was such an outrageous idea that even Members on the other side 
rejected it. So the administration backpedaled and said, well, no, we 
will not do the Btu tax; we will do a gas tax. But at the exact same 
time we were hearing from the other side of the aisle that the taxes in 
the package which the President proposed 2\1/2\ years ago or 3 years 
ago were only going to affect the rich. In fact, the present Democratic 
leader, who was not the Democratic leader at that time, came to this 
floor and said this tax package is only going to affect people earning 
more than $180,000 or companies that make more than $560,000 a year.
  That was the tax package that was sold to the American people, that 
was passed on to the American people's back and which included $295 
billion of new taxes, the largest tax increase in history delivered to 
us by this President and Members on the other side of the aisle when 
they were in the majority 2\1/2\ years ago.
  Nobody on this side of the aisle bought that. We did not buy it for 
fairly obvious reasons. No. 1, a gas tax is not a tax on people who 
earn $180,000 a year. When you pull into your gas station, your 
attendant does not ask you, ``Do you make $180,000 a year?'' before he 
hits you with the tax. He has to collect that tax whether you make 10 
bucks a year or whether you make $1 million, whether you are in a small 
struggling company driving a pickup or whether you have a fleet of 
trucks. He still has to hit you with that tax.
  So this was not a tax on the wealthy. This was a tax that was 
actually targeted in, as was pointed out by the Senator from Texas, on 
low- and middle-income people disproportionately because they have to 
pay the same rate of tax as people in the high incomes, and 23 percent 
of this tax falls on people with incomes, I believe, as the Senator 
from Texas said, under $20,000, or something like that. A very low 
percentage comes out of people with higher incomes. So it was a 
disproportionately unfair tax when it was put in place and remains so, 
and it should be repealed.

  So why is the other side resisting repealing it? Why? Because big 
labor is upset, the Washington big labor leadership, the big bosses 
here in Washington are upset. That is why they are opposing repealing 
the gas tax.
  Now we come forward, and we on our side of the aisle say, OK, we will 
accept your proposal on the minimum wage, we will accept the Kennedy 
language as proposed to increase the minimum wage. We ask that you 
accept our proposal to repeal the gas tax at the same time. We allow 
you to divide the votes. Just give us the chance to get both on a 
majority vote instead of having to have a filibuster around here where 
you have to get 60 votes.
  What does the other side say? Nope. Sorry. We will not take the deal. 
We cannot accept that deal any longer. We are not that interested in 
increasing the minimum wage that we are going to stand in the face of 
the big labor bosses here in Washington who do not want this little 
thing called the TEAM Act. So we have the opposition, the other side of 
the aisle, saying essentially that two major points they consider to 
be, I suspect most of them, good policy--one, repealing this incredibly 
regressive gas tax that was put on 2\1/2\ years ago and, two, raising 
the minimum wage--are going to be held up because of what was described 
basically by the Senator from Massachusetts as an inconsequential 
amendment dealing with a minor point of labor law. Why? Because they 
have gotten the telephone calls from a couple streets over that said 
under no circumstances is TEAM Act going to pass this House.
  But what is this horror called TEAM Act? It is not much, folks. TEAM 
Act just simply says what used to be the law and what most people think 
should be the law and what was the law up until 1992, I believe it was, 
when something called the Electromation was passed by the NLRB, the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  Essentially, it says that people can get together in their 
workplace--what a radical idea--people can get together in their 
workplace and they can talk about issues that involve quality and 
productivity and efficiency. I think most of us have heard of things 
like TQM, the philosophy of management that basically grew out of the 
Deming approach which essentially revolutionized Japan and made them 
competitive in the world.

  TQM is where you have a Deming approach, you have a team approach to 
managing the workplace. That is basically what TEAM Act does. It says 
you can have a TEAM Act approach operating in the workplace.
  Now, you cannot do it under this bill, under TEAM Act, in any way 
that would undermine the independence of the collective bargaining 
effort. You cannot establish a company union. The specific language 
says that you cannot establish sham unions. But you can get together to 
discuss things like smoking policy; you can get together to discuss 
things like productivity: How do you make the place work better? 
Workers happen to be the best source of good ideas in many instances, 
and probably in most instances actually, certainly in large 
companies. The chance to bring them together in working teams works for 
Japan. It produces products in a much more efficient and effective way

[[Page S4792]]

there. And it works here. It works very well here. It was working here 
quite well, extraordinarily well, until 1992 when, as a result of this 
NLRB decision, that policy was brought into jeopardy.

  So this bill simply clarifies the policy. It says you cannot set up a 
sham union, cannot set up a company union, you cannot use this to 
undermine collective bargaining, but you can allow people to get 
together to talk about how they can make the workplace work better. 
This concept of team effort in the workplace is what is holding up 
repeal of the gas tax and increasing the minimum wage.
  When people are cynical about Washington I guess sometimes they have 
a right to be, because what you have here is a money talks situation. 
The big labor bosses here in Washington have committed publicly, it has 
been reported across this country, $35 million to defeat members of the 
Republican Party running for reelection to Congress--$35 million. That 
is a lot of money. And money appears to talk, because the phone calls 
come in and the decision has been made to take down two items which, at 
least on that side of the aisle, although there are some on our side of 
the aisle who have reservations about some of these proposals--take 
down two items which have pretty much universal support and which were 
viewed as good policy: repealing the gas tax, which is regressive, and 
raising the minimum wage, simply because it affronts the big labor 
bosses here in Washington that we would try to make the workplace have 
a more cooperative atmosphere.
  It is pretty outrageous but that is where we stand today. That is 
where we stand after the majority leader's proposal was rejected. Not 
only did the majority leader propose that, he went even an extra step. 
He said not only am I willing to give you a vote on repealing the gas 
tax, increasing the minimum wage, and also the TEAM Act issue, but I 
will let you even divide the question. He went so far as to say you can 
have your up-or-down vote on the minimum wage and you can have your up-
or-down vote on gas tax. And that was rejected. That was exactly what 
has been asked for here for months by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Yet, suddenly we see the priorities. We see the priorities of the 
liberal side of the aisle. It is not this low-income worker about whom 
we have heard so much, it is not the person who has to pay that extra 
amount at the gas pump who is maybe having trouble making a living but 
maybe has to buy gas to get to work--it is not that person the other 
side of the aisle has as their No. 1 priority. No, it is some guy 
sitting in some building here in Washington who happens to have a big 
labor job. So that is what this is down to.

  This is a simple question of money talks. It is regrettable. 
Hopefully the other side of the aisle will see this more clearly and 
come to their senses, because this proposal the majority leader has 
offered is an extraordinary generous act on his part to try to resolve 
some fairly complex questions that have been confronting this 
legislative body.
  I yield the remainder of my time and make the point of order a quorum 
is not present.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be 
rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Pell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1730 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask that I be permitted to proceed as 
if in morning business for up to 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________