[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4813-S4832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 2937 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2937) for the reimbursement of attorney fees 
     and costs incurred by former

[[Page S4814]]

     employees of the White House Travel Office with respect to 
     the termination of their employment in that office on May 19, 
     1993.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole amendment No. 3952, in the nature of a substitute.
       Dole amendment No. 3953 (to amendment No. 3952), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.
       Dole amendment No. 3954 (to amendment No. 3953), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.
       Dole motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith.
       Dole amendment No. 3955 (to the instructions to the motion 
     to refer), to provide for an effective date for the 
     settlement of certain claims against the United States.
       Dole amendment No. 3956 (to amendment No. 3955), to provide 
     for an effective date for the settlement of certain claims 
     against the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate to be equally divided.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as in morning 
business for the next 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the leader's time. How 
much time is there of the minority leader's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to yield 
leader's time, to take 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have been informed by the leader that 
he is willing to let me have the leader's time prior to vote on the 
cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may have that.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will now have 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Over the period of the last 24 hours, there have been a series of 
different proposals for Senate action that I hope will eventually be 
resolved. One deals with the minimum wage, which we have tried to raise 
at different times over the period of the last year and a half and have 
been denied the opportunity for a vote up or down.
  I understand we will have a chance to vote on, hopefully, the gas 
tax. There are other measures on education that I had hoped we could 
have included as well. But I want to speak right now on another issue 
which had been talked about earlier today and certainly yesterday, and 
that is the Anti-Workplace Democracy Act, otherwise known as the TEAM 
Act.
  We have really not had the opportunity for much debate and discussion 
on that measure, and I will just take a few moments now to raise some 
of the very important questions that I think this legislation 
effectively raises. That is, whether this legislation is really what it 
is suggested to be, and that is just legislation to permit cooperation 
between employers and employees in order to deal with a lot of the 
issues that might be in the workplace, and, as we have seen, as I 
stated yesterday, the type of cooperation which has been talked about 
here on the floor as being the reasons for that cooperation is already 
taking place. It has been included and recognized in the findings of 
the bill itself and has also been referenced in the report itself where 
cooperation is taking place between management and workers.
  There are only three areas where that kind of cooperation is not on 
the table and which would be altered and changed by the TEAM Act, and 
that is with regard to wages and working conditions. That has been 
recognized to be a position since the time of the 1930's to be issues 
reserved to representatives of employees. Effectively, that is the rock 
upon which workers are able to negotiate their working conditions and 
also their wages, and the matters that will affect their take-home pay 
and what will be available to them to protect their interests and their 
families.

  So the idea that this is just legislation that is going to move us 
into the next century and increase America's capacity to compete is a 
false representation.
  It is interesting to me that Republicans and Democrats alike stood so 
strong with Solidarity and Lech Walesa. Why did they stand with Lech 
Walesa? Why did they stand with Solidarity? There were unions in 
Poland. They were government/employer-controlled unions. There was not 
union democracy. I can remember hearing the clear, eloquent statements 
by then-Republican George Bush that said, ``We support democracy, and 
we support real workers' rights in Poland, and we support Solidarity.''
  Why did they support Solidarity? Because Solidarity represented 
workers. The TEAM Act effectively is going to be company-run union 
shops or company-run management teams. Does anybody in this body think 
that if they establish that an employer picks representatives of 
workers, pays their check, that those particular workers are going to 
buck the management that put them on the team? Of course, they will 
not. That is as old as the company-run unions that we had in the 
1930's. That was the issue when this body debated the National Labor 
Relations Act in the 1930's and implemented that particular 
legislation.
  That is what the issue is, plain and simple: Are we going to say that 
company CEO's and management are going to be able to dictate to the 
workers in this country exactly what their wages are going to be, or 
are we going to let employees represent their interests and go ahead 
and bargain with the employers as to what those wages and working 
conditions are going to be? It is just that simple.
  The TEAM Act is effectively company-run unions. That is effectively 
what it is. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is so interesting to me, 
Mr. President, as someone who has followed the whole debate about 
company-run unions and antidemocracy representation in the workplace, 
where these organizations were when they had the Dunlop commission only 
a few years ago that was trying to look over the relationship between 
CEO's and companies and also the employees. The same groups that are 
supporting this legislation testified in that committee that they did 
not think there ought to be a change in the labor laws. The only thing 
that changed was the 1994 election and the Republicans gaining control 
in the House and the Senate. If you look over what presentations were 
made before the Dunlop commission, you would say they feel that the 
relationship between employer and employees is fine with them.

  So, Mr. President, we ought to understand exactly what this is going 
to be. It is going to be the government-run kind of unions in a 
different way.
  All of us fought for and wanted to see the restoration of democracy 
in Eastern Europe. Most of all, the Eastern European countries had 
government-run unions, effectively employer-run unions. And here in the 
United States, we were giving help and assistance to workers for worker 
democracy. Now we are saying on the floor of the U.S. Senate, ``Well, 
we want the TEAM Act,'' and the TEAM Act effectively is going to 
eliminate the workers' rights in this country. No ifs, ands, or buts 
about it.
  I hear on the floor of the U.S. Senate the central challenge that we 
are facing as we move to the end of this century is to give life to the 
65 or 70 percent of Americans who are being left out and left behind.
  I hear a great deal about income security, about job security being 
the issues that this country ought to address. I tell you something, 
you might as well write off those speeches if we are going to go ahead 
and pass the TEAM Act. Write them off. What you see is continued 
exploitation.
  You talk about the battle for the increase in the minimum wage. Write

[[Page S4815]]

that off, because you will give such power to the employers in this 
country that they will be able to write any kind of wage scale that 
they want. Does anyone think that the team makes the judgment and 
decision about workers' rights, about what the employees will get paid? 
Of course not. They make the recommendation to the employer, and the 
employer decides. That is the principal difference: Whether the workers 
are going to be able to make that judgment and decision, sitting across 
the table from the employer, or whether the team is going to make a 
recommendation to the employer, then the employer will make the 
judgment.
  Mr. President, with respect to all of our colleagues who talk about 
where we are going to go in terms of the U.S. economy, what we need to 
be able to compete in the world at the turn of the century is a mature 
economy with mature relationships between workers and employers and an 
economy which is going to benefit all of the workers and workers' 
families.
  We are going in that wrong direction, as we have seen. The right 
direction for the wealthiest corporations, the right direction for the 
wealthiest individuals--we have seen the accumulation of wealth in 
terms of the richest individuals and corporations taking place in this 
country unlike anything we have seen. But those 65 or 70 percent of 
American working families are being left out and left behind. You pass 
this particular act and you will find that it will not be 65 or 70 
percent, but it will be 80 percent. They will not just fall back 
somewhat; their whole life will be disrupted and destroyed with regard 
to their economic conditions.
  Mr. President, we are entitled to have some debate and discussion on 
this issue because its implications in terms of working families are 
profound. It is basically an antiworker act. It ought to be labeled 
such. That is something that we ought to at least have a chance to 
debate and discuss.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague. Nobody 
argues more forcefully for big labor than the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Although I want to talk about the Billy Dale matter, I do have to say 
that most of what the Senator has said is pure Washington-inside labor 
line. The fact is, the NLRB went way beyond where it should have gone 
and took the rights of individual employees to meet with management to 
resolve problems that really have nothing to do with collective 
bargaining. It seems ridiculous to call this antidemocracy. Give me a 
break. What is antidemocracy is to close shop where 51 out of 100 
employees want a union and the other 49 have to comply and have to pay 
dues and have to be part of the union whether they want to or not. That 
is not democracy.

  On the other hand, what is wrong with management and labor being able 
to get together in teams and make the workplace a safer, better place 
to work in?
  I had to say that because I listened to the distinguished Senator. He 
is eloquent and forceful. He just happens to be wrong.
  Mr. President, why we are really here this morning is the Billy Dale 
matter. Billy Dale and his colleagues at the White House were very 
badly mistreated by greedy people who wanted to take over the White 
House Travel Office--and I might add, there is some indication that the 
travel offices of every agency in Government--so they could reap 
millions, if not billions of dollars of free profits at the expense of 
these people who had served eight Presidents over a pronounced period 
of time and had served them well, done a good job, and who Peat Marwick 
says did it in a reasonable manner.
  They were mistreated. The law was used against them in an improper 
way. The FBI was brought in an improper way. I might add, the power of 
the White House was used against them, the power of the Justice 
Department was used against them. Virtually everybody who looks at it, 
especially those who look at it honestly, say this is a set of wrongs 
that ought to be righted. In the process, their lives happen to be 
broken because they are now stuck with all kinds of legal fees that 
would break any common citizen in this country.
  We want to right that wrong. Yesterday, my colleagues on the other 
side voted en masse against cloture which would allow this matter to go 
to a vote. One of the arguments which was superficial and fallacious 
was they cannot even amend it. Of course they can. After cloture, 
germane amendments are in order. If they want to bring up a germane 
amendment to this Billy Dale bill, they are capable of doing so. That 
is just another false assertion and false approach.
  I think it is time to do what is right around here. It is time to 
rectify these wrongs. It is time to do what is the right and 
compassionate thing. In all honesty, we have not been doing it as we 
listened to the arguments on the other side as to what should be done. 
It has been nearly 3 years since the termination of the White House 
Travel Office employees, and they are still in the unfair position of 
defending their reputations. It is time to close this chapter on their 
lives.

  The targeting of dedicated public servants, apparently because they 
held positions coveted by political profiteers, demands an appropriate 
response. Although their tarnished personal reputations may never fully 
be restored, it is only just that the Congress do what it can to 
rectify this wrong.
  This bill will reimburse Travel Office employees for the expenses of 
defending themselves against these unjust criminal persecutions. I call 
it ``persecutions'' even though there was a ``prosecution'' of Billy 
Dale.
  The argument that invoking cloture will foreclose the option of 
amendments is nonsense. Germane amendments can still be offered, 
although I question why anyone would want to delay any further the 
compensation of these people who have been so unjustly treated. The 
argument that passing the Billy Dale bill will undermine the likelihood 
of seeing the Senate vote on the minimum wage increase is equally 
hollow. In fact, it is superficial and wrong.
  Only yesterday the majority leader proposed a plan which would ensure 
a vote on the minimum wage increase this week, and my colleagues on the 
other side rejected it. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
should be careful about what they ask for because they might get it. 
That is what happened yesterday.
  Here we are today, back on the Billy Dale bill, and their excuse for 
filibustering is still the minimum wage. Given the political 
transparency of this filibuster, I hope our colleagues will get 
together to do the decent and honorable thing and pass this important 
measure.
  Let me say, I think it is almost unseemly my friends on the other 
side are saying we just want the minimum wage bill and you Republicans 
should not do anything else because we want this and we have a 
political advantage in talking about it. That is not the way it works 
around here. Of course, we are able to ask the majority, combined other 
good bill aspects, to make this bill even more perfect. Frankly, the 
repeal of the gas tax would do that. It will make it more perfect. The 
TEAM Act bill would certainly be more fair to employees throughout 
America, more fair to businesses throughout America, more fair in 
bringing economic cooperation among them, without interfering with the 
collective bargaining process. The NLRB is very capable of making sure 
that management does not abuse that problem.
  For the life of me, I cannot see one valid or good argument about it. 
Bringing what happened in Eastern Europe does not necessarily cut the 
mustard here in America, where we have the most protective labor laws 
in the world. Rightly so. I have worked with those laws for years, long 
before I came to the Senate, and, of course, as former ranking member 
and chairman of the Labor Committee, worked with them during that 
period of time as well.

  Mr. President, all of that aside, those are hollow arguments with 
regard to holding up this bill. I hope my colleagues on the other side 
are willing to vote for cloture so that we can pass the Billy Dale bill 
and go on from there, then face the minimum wage, the TEAM Act, gas tax 
reduction, and go on from there and do what is right.
  The bottom line is that the minimum wage bill is controversial, 
should not be attached to a bill that has broad bipartisan support, 
that the President has said he will sign and support and that will 
right some tremendous wrongs that need to be righted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 52 seconds remaining.

[[Page S4816]]

                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the cloture motion.
  The assistant legislative 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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2937, an act 
     for the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs incurred by 
     former employees of the White House Travel Office with 
     respect to the termination of their employment in that office 
     on May 19, 1993:
         Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Spencer Abraham, Chuck Grassley, 
           Larry Pressler, Ted Stevens, Rod Grams, Strom Thurmond, 
           Thad Cochran, Judd Gregg, Paul D. Coverdell, Connie 
           Mack, Conrad Burns, Larry E. Craig, Richard G. Lugar, 
           Frank H. Murkowski.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The mandatory quorum has 
been waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on H.R. 2937, the White House Travel Office bill shall be 
brought to a close.
  The yeas and nays are required, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on this vote, I have a live pair with the 
Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Leahy]. If he were present and voting, he 
would vote ``nay.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``yea.'' 
I therefore withhold my vote.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                     PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR

       
     Pell, for
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Leahy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). On this vote the yeas are 53, 
the nays are 45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 3956 Withdrawn

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment numbered 3956.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 3960 to Amendment No. 3955

  Mr. DOLE. I send an amendment to the desk, which is the text of the 
gas tax repeal, with the minimum wage language suggested by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the TEAM Act, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3960 to amendment No. 3955, to the instructions of 
     the motion to refer.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday we discussed how we might resolve 
the issues at hand. So now we have an opportunity for all Members to 
repeal the gas tax, which I think has broad support, probably 80 votes, 
to adopt the minimum wage suggested by my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, 45 cents July 1 this year, 45 cents next July, and then 
adopt this small provision on the TEAM Act, which means that in America 
employees can talk to management, which I thought was sort of the 
American way. We are prepared to vote on the whole package right now. 
It would also reimburse Billy Dale and others who incurred legal 
expenses because of charges brought against them.
  I should like to take this opportunity to support the Teamwork for 
Employees and Management Act. I think my colleague, the chairman of the 
Labor Committee, is in the Chamber, and she will be addressing that 
later.
  It is hard to believe that in 1996, Federal laws tell employers and 
employees that they cannot work together in cooperative teams to 
jointly resolve issues of concern in the workplace. Since 1992, the 
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 has been interpreted to prohibit 
forms of collaborative discussions between groups of employees and 
management that deal with key issues such as workplace safety, 
productivity rewards and benefits, and job descriptions.
  Does that make sense? No. And it does not make sense to most 
Americans. The TEAM Act simply allows common sense to reign in the 
workplace. Employees and employers can and should be able to resolve 
workplace issues among themselves without the fear of lawsuits.
  So, why is the other side so exercised by this commonsense effort to 
help employees? Because of the big labor bosses. They see any effort to 
improve the workplace environment without their involvement as a 
threat. In other words, they do not want the employees to come up with 
any idea unless it goes through the labor bosses.
  Suddenly, the minimum wage is not at all that important because 
somewhere, someplace, some employee might have an idea that improves 
productivity, that makes the workplace safer, all without the blessing 
of the labor bosses. So that is what this debate is all about. I am not 
certain, many of the employees even--in fact, I understand that some 
employees came to lobby people on the TEAM Act and they were asked what 
it was and they did not know what it was. Once it was explained to 
them, they did not see much wrong with it.
  It might occur to some employee that he or she does not need a labor 
boss, that he or she can be their own boss. So, it is all about power. 
It is not about politics, it is about power. It is about contributions. 
It is about power. I think it is time we pass this package, increase 
the minimum wage, repeal the gas tax.
  Yesterday at midnight tax freedom day ended. I hope that workers can 
have some control over their lives and workplace, the conditions in the 
workplace. I believe we ought to do everything we can to encourage this 
relationship, talking back and forth. We do it here from time to time. 
Sometimes we are able to work things out by talking to each other. If 
we cannot talk to each other, if employees cannot talk to management, I 
do not see how anything can be worked out.
  In fact, President Clinton used to think so, too. I never cease to be 
amazed about how he can shift his positions, but even on this issue he 
had a position. In his State of the Union Address last January 
President Clinton said, ``When companies and workers work as a team, 
they do better--and so does America.''
  Let me repeat that, because many people probably forgot that 
President Clinton said that. I bet he has forgotten that he said it. 
``When companies and workers work as a team, they do better--and so 
does America.'' That is all the TEAM Act is. We have taken what 
President Clinton said in the State of the Union Message and drafted it 
so it is now a statute. So it is a Clinton provision, really, the TEAM 
Act. If President Clinton was right then, he is right now.
  So what happened between January and May? The labor bosses called in

[[Page S4817]]

and contributed $35 million. That is one thing that happened. I do not 
know what else happened. They may have also spent millions on 
television, attacking Republicans on Medicare and everything you can 
think of. A lot of the workers are now having their dues increased who 
may not want to participate in that process, who may want to vote for 
somebody else. They cannot be dictated to, anymore than we can dictate 
to anybody.

  So, it seems to us that we have an issue here now. We are all set. We 
have accepted the minimum wage offer. We have accepted what the 
American people want; that is, repealing the gas tax, 4.3 cents, $4.8 
billion a year. We pay for it. It does not add to the deficit.
  But now we are hung up on whether or not we ought to focus on the 
American worker. If that worker has an idea, should that worker be able 
to go to his employer, or be with a group of workers? Apparently, my 
colleagues on the other side say you cannot do that in America, you 
cannot talk to each other. Employees cannot talk to employers. It does 
not interfere with the activities unions already have established in 
companies, and it leaves in place protection against sham unions. It 
simply extends to nonunion workers the rights union workers already 
have, to have an effective voice for change in the workplace.
  So it seems to me that we have an opportunity here, now, to move this 
legislation forward. We are obviously not going to get cloture on the 
Billy Dale, the underlying bill. It was hoped that this amendment might 
be an incentive for everybody to move forward, end the gridlock. It 
used to be called gridlock by the liberal press when Republicans were 
holding up things, but I have not seen the word ``gridlock'' used by 
the liberal media in the past 15 months. They cannot spell it anymore, 
the 89 percent of those who cover us who voted for President Clinton.
  But it is gridlock. We have had to file 63 cloture motions this year 
in an effort to move the Senate forward. Since it takes 60 votes and we 
only have 53, it is rather difficult. But I know the Washington Post 
will figure out somewhere to come down on the right side, the side of 
the liberals. So will the New York Times. So will the L.A. Times. So 
will the other liberal papers.
  But this is an argument about workers, maybe some who work at the 
Washington Post; maybe they do not cover the Hill. Maybe some who work 
for the Washington Times; maybe they do not cover politics. This is 
about workers and it is about power and it is about power of the labor 
bosses. That is what this is about. I do not care how they report it, 
the word will go to the workers that we are prepared to say they have a 
right to talk. They can talk for themselves. They can exercise their 
first amendment rights. They do not give up their rights to free speech 
or to engage in discussion when they join a labor union.

  So, it seems to me we have a package here that should be 
irresistible. If, in fact, the Senator from Massachusetts is serious 
about the minimum wage and if, in fact, those of us on both sides are 
serious about repealing the gas tax, as we are, this bill can be passed 
by noon and be on its way to the House. I think the Speaker would act 
expeditiously. It is going to take a while, July 1, the first increase 
in minimum wage--it is going to take a while to implement it to make 
all those things happen. It will take a while for the gas tax repeal to 
be implemented.
  So, I hope that we can proceed, get an agreement, say an hour on each 
side. I ask unanimous consent that there be an hour on each side, that 
each side have 1 hour, there be no intervening amendments, and then we 
can proceed to vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. Two hours? Two hours on each side?
  Apparently there must be something other than the time that is the 
problem on the other side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. For a question. Does the Senator from Kansas anticipate 
he will not allow an amendment on the gas tax proposal to make sure the 
consumers get the benefit of a gas tax reduction? My understanding is 
the request the majority leader made would preclude any amendments to 
be offered on the gas tax reduction issue; is that correct?
  Mr. DOLE. We have a provision in the gas tax proposal that requires 
that a study has to be completed and that mandates that the savings go 
to the consumer. I do not know how--I would be happy to look at the 
amendment. In fact, we could probably agree on it. We have gone so far 
as to say if we get cloture on the amendment, we could have a separate 
vote on TEAM Act, so all my colleagues on that side could protect 
themselves and vote against it. We could vote for it. We have minimum 
wage, where I think some on each side are not certain how they are 
going to vote. So we would have a separate vote on minimum wage and a 
separate vote on TEAM Act. If we could agree now to have a cloture vote 
on the amendment without waiting until Friday, and get 60 votes on 
cloture, then we could have a separate vote on each. Some of my 
colleagues would probably like to vote against some portion of it; I do 
not know which. That would seem to be even going the extra mile.

  I do not know how we can put into law, how we are going to mandate 
that in every, every, every case. I do not know how many thousands of 
service stations there are in America, but there are millions of people 
out there who buy gasoline. I do not know how we are going to make 
certain that that 4.3 cents goes into the pocket of the consumer.
  The service station operators will tell you that is going to happen. 
We hope to have letters today from their national association. I have 
had some tell me personally that is going to happen. They know their 
customers. In most cases they are regular customers. They want to keep 
those customers. It is all a good-faith business practice.
  But if the Senator had some idea on how we can adopt some language 
that is going to make certain it happens, we would certainly be pleased 
to look at it. Or if there are other amendments that deal with the 
minimum wage, we would be happy to look at that. Since it is the 
minimum wage package of the Senator from Massachusetts, I do not think 
he would want to amend it.
  So, Mr. President, if I can just suggest the absence of a quorum----
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. Excuse me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we go into a quorum, if I could 
just respond to the distinguished majority leader. I guess I begin by 
saying, here we go again. Once again, the Republicans have put together 
a package that they know will go nowhere.
  We have one of two choices here. We can pass legislation, or we can 
play games. If this package is good, let us get a little bit more 
elaborate, more inventive. How about adding campaign finance reform? 
Why not add MFN for China? Let us add the budget. How about a peace 
treaty? There may be something in there we could deal with as well. Let 
us put it all in and pass it in one vote. That seems to be the practice 
around here these days: Load it up, no amendments, no debate and that 
is it. ``We're telling you, you have to do it this way or there's not 
going to be anything at all.''
  Mr. President, that is unacceptable. They would not have stood for it 
2 years ago and we cannot stand for it now. We have suggested a way 
with which to resolve our outstanding differences here procedurally. We 
ought to have an up-or-down vote on minimum wage.
  We are prepared to have a good debate about the TEAM Act, and I want 
to touch on that in just a minute.
  We are prepared to have a debate about gas taxes, but we want to make 
absolutely certain that the benefit goes to the consumer, and if we 
cannot figure out a way to do that, then maybe we should not do it at 
all. It seems to me that if we cannot guarantee the consumer is going 
to benefit--and there is a pretty good possibility that they will not 
benefit if you read the papers again this morning--then we will not be 
providing the relief we claim to be providing in this proposal. We can 
lash out against the press, we can lash out against labor if we want 
to, but the

[[Page S4818]]

fact is the arguments ought to be debated and we ought to make some 
decisions. We ought to have some understanding of whether or not this 
is going to work before we do it. That is really what the amendment 
process is all about, to have a good-faith debate and some 
opportunities to discuss these important matters.
  The distinguished majority leader noted that he has had to file 
cloture a few times. Well, I must say, when you load up the tree and 
deny opportunities for Democrats to have votes on amendments that we 
care about, I really do not know what option we have. We are not trying 
to prevent legislation from being considered. In fact, in the last 
week, there were two examples where we worked through our differences 
as soon as we were allowed to offer amendments. The immigration bill 
and the Presidio bill both passed because we wanted to work with the 
majority to pass them. We did not want to hold up those bills. But we 
wanted the right to offer amendments.
  And that is true, again. We have no desire to hold up the gas tax 
bill. We will have some good debate about it. We want to get this 
minimum wage issue behind us. We have a whole agenda. We have not 
talked yet about pensions, and we are going to talk a lot more about 
pensions in the balance of this year. We have not talked about losing 
jobs overseas, an amendment the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
is talking about. We want to do a little bit of that.
  And if we are not resolved on this health care bill pretty soon, we 
are going to be bringing that up in the form of an amendment. So we 
will have a lot of action agenda items, a lot of issues we care deeply 
about that we want to offer and have a good debate about.
  Now, as to the TEAM Act, let me just say, Mr. President, I listened 
carefully to the majority leader. He said all we want is the right for 
employers and employees to be able to talk together. If that is all 
they want, they ought to be satisfied with current law.
  Ninety-six percent of large companies today have employee involvement 
programs. Seventy-five percent of all workplaces already have programs 
where employers and employees work together, and guess what? The only 
issues on which they cannot make agreements with employees are 
mandatory bargaining issues such as hours and wages. Furthermore, if 
they violate what the National Labor Relations Board and the law 
requires with regard to what is legitimate consultation and what is 
actual negotiations with labor on issues involving pensions or security 
issues or work issues or wages, there is no penalty, there is no 
penalty at all. They must only disband the committee that has violated 
the law.
  So workers are encouraged to work through their problems with 
employees through the arrangements that are set up right now under 
current law.
  What the Republicans want to do is roll back 60 years of labor law. 
They want to be able to allow companies to set up rump organizations to 
negotiate with themselves. It is like the father asking the son-in-law 
to negotiate on behalf of the employees and to come up with a plan the 
employees are supposed to accept as fact in that workplace.
  That is unacceptable. But we ought to have a debate about it. We 
ought to decide whether or not we want to roll back 60 years of labor 
law. This may be one of the most antiworker Congresses we have seen in 
decades--blocking an increase in the minimum wage, fighting health 
care, and now rolling back labor law that protects workers. We are not 
in any way, shape or form opposed to good discussions and good 
negotiations and good opportunities for employers and employees to work 
out their differences. That should be a fact. It is a fact in 96 
percent of large corporations. But we will not tolerate rump 
organizations negotiating with companies in the name of labor and 
calling that some advancement in the workplace.
  So, Mr. President, we ought to have an opportunity to debate it. We 
ought to have an opportunity to offer amendments. We ought to have some 
up-or-down votes. That is what the Senate is made for. That is what we 
have always done. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. You cannot yield the floor except to yield for a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota yield to 
the Senator from North Dakota for a question only?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, I 
heard this discussion about delay and stalling. Is it not the case that 
in a couple recent occasions, just in recent weeks, we have seen 
legislation filed in the Senate and a cloture motion filed on the bill 
that was before the Senate before debate began on the legislation? In 
other words, a motion to shut off debate before debate began on two 
pieces of legislation in the last several weeks; is that not the case?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. A bill is filed, a 
bill is proposed; the amendment tree is completely filled; and cloture 
is filed. It is a pattern now that has been the practice here for the 
last several weeks.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one further question. I 
guess what I observe about that is that it is hardly stalling to 
suggest there ought to be some debate on legislation. Filing a cloture 
motion to cut off debate before debate begins is apparently a new way 
to legislate but not, in my judgment, a very thoughtful way to 
legislate.
  I ask the Senator one additional question. In this morning's 
newspaper there is a story that says ``Experts Say Gas Tax Wouldn't 
Reach the Pumps.'' It quotes a number of experts. One of the experts 
says, and I would like to ask you a question about this:

       The Republican-sponsored solution to the current fuels 
     problem . . . is nothing more and nothing less than a 
     refiners' benefit bill . . . It will transfer upwards of $3 
     billion from the U.S. Treasury to the pockets of refiners and 
     gasoline marketers.

  My question is, does the Senator from South Dakota believe, when we 
deal with the issue of reducing the gas tax by 4.3 cents, that we ought 
to be able to offer some amendments on the floor to make darn sure that 
it goes in the right pocket?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. That is all we want to do here. 
We want to have an opportunity to debate the issue, to offer amendments 
to provide assurance to the consumer and taxpayer that we are simply 
not asking the taxpayers to bail out the oil companies with a $4 
billion bailout this year. That is what it could mean if we are not 
careful about how this is handled.
  Everybody ought to understand that if we do not have the assurance, 
and it is going to take more than a study to give us that assurance, if 
we do not have the assurance, what this means. I heard the majority 
leader talk about power and contributions, I do not know what power and 
contribution connections there may be with the gas tax, but I will tell 
you this, that it is a $4 billion bailout this country cannot afford 
if, indeed, the result of repeal of the gas tax is $4 billion in 
additional profits for the oil companies.
  We ought to work through this, and if we can do that, I am sure there 
is not going to be a problem with regard to providing that assurance to 
the American people.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It is a very brief question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Listening to the Senator talk about 
the distinction between games and moving this forward, am I correct 
that the Senator is saying, the minority leader is saying that we ought 
to have the opportunity to have amendments and debate on these issues, 
legitimate debate, and then have separate votes on the wisdom of 
enacting all three bills, whether it be minimum wage, whether it be 
TEAM, or whether it be a repeal of the gas tax, that that is what we 
are aiming for, that we want to have an opportunity for amendments and 
we want to address each bill in turn?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Consider each one separately, so all of us are 
accountable, no putting different kinds of combinations together, no 
confusion for people,

[[Page S4819]]

no blurring distinctions, just straightforward accountability to people 
in the country as to where we stand. Is that what the Senator is 
proposing?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. That is 
how we do things around here. We provide opportunities for Senators to 
offer to bills amendments that are legitimate questions of public 
policy. That is all we are suggesting here. That is why we offered the 
minimum wage in the first place. When we first offered it, we said, 
``Look, we prefer to have the independent freestanding vote.'' If we 
cannot do that, obviously, we will offer it as an amendment. If we 
start packaging all these disparate issues together, then I think it is 
fair to ask why not add campaign finance reform and MFN for China and a 
whole range of other things we might want to debate some time this 
year.
  I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have a question for Senator Daschle. That is, as I 
understand the National Labor Relations Act as it exists now and as 
proposed in the TEAM Act, is that the TEAM Act would apply not only to 
the 13 million workers who are organized, but it applies to about the 
107 million American workers that are in the workplace as well, and 
that the Senator might agree with me that effectively what we are 
talking about is company unions replacing legitimate collective 
bargaining appearing by workers pursuing their own interests.
  Is that the effect of the TEAM Act?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct, that is the effect.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator concerned that, as he pointed out, part 
of a whole process evidently against working families, where we have 
had the repeal of some of the EITC, the opposition to the minimum wage, 
the undermining of the OSHA Act, and feel that this would be a further 
reduction in the protections for American workers, and that they may, 
if this legislation goes into effect, be further left out and left 
behind in the modern economy?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Let me just say that there is this perception sometimes created by 
some of our colleagues on the other side that efforts to protect 
workers somehow automatically position you against business. We ought 
to be for business, probusiness, just as this administration has shown 
itself to be with so many of its policies.
  Business has never had a better 3-year period than they have had in 
the last 3 years. We have seen growth in this economy. The stock market 
has boomed to levels we never dreamed of a couple of years ago. Export 
sales are up. Everything is going exceedingly well. This economy is as 
strong as it has been almost in my lifetime. So this administration has 
been probusiness. There are a lot of things we have proposed that are 
probusiness, but we ought to say probusiness also ought to mean 
proworker, making sure that not only corporate executives benefit from 
this wonderful growth in the economy, but the workers do, too: that the 
workers have a chance to benefit, whether it is in health care, a good 
paycheck, or retirement security. Those kinds of things ought to be 
part of the overall economic agenda here so that we do not see the 
stratification within our economy that we are seeing right now.
  Be probusiness and proworker. If we do that, I think we can look 
forward to a lot stronger economy and a lot more blessings for all the 
American people than we have had in the last couple of years.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we would certainly be agreeable we could 
have three separate votes, gas tax repeal, TEAM Act, minimum wage. In 
fact, we are prepared, if cloture is invoked, to have three separate 
votes. We cannot get agreement to have three separate votes. So they 
will have to filibuster gas tax repeal and increase in minimum wage 
because of the one deal that upsets the labor bosses. That is certainly 
a right they have.
  Somehow the Washington Post and other papers will figure out some way 
to make it sound good, but the facts are the facts. We are prepared to 
move right now. The Senator from Massachusetts said on the floor, and I 
have his quotes here, a couple of times he only needs 30 minutes on the 
minimum wage. We will have 30 minutes on that, 30 minutes on TEAM Act, 
and 30 minutes on gas tax. That is an hour and a half equally divided, 
and then we can vote.

  The Senator from North Dakota has some amendment, if he has figured 
out a way to make certain that in every single case the 4.3 cents will 
go back to the consumer, maybe have to station a policeman at each 
service station, or a Federal employee, that would be one way to do it. 
I am not certain what he has in mind.
  The bottom line is we are prepared to take action. So now we have on 
this floor the minority saying we will not let you do anything unless 
you do it our way. We want to do it our way, and even though you are 
the majority, you do it our way. As I said, I had a little trouble 
explaining that to my policy luncheon yesterday. They said if they can 
have their way, why can we not have our way? My view is why not 
everybody have their way? We will have a separate vote on minimum wage, 
a separate vote on gas tax repeal, and a separate vote on TEAM Act. It 
seems fair and reasonable to me.
  I hope that will be the resolution. If there are amendments that 
should be offered, we have always been able to work out reasonable 
amendments. But that is not the thrust coming from the other side. The 
thrust is they will raise this, the experts say maybe the 4.3 cents 
will not get back to the consumer and this is somehow antiworker, it is 
antiboss, it is antilabor boss, it is proworker.
  Again, let me quote the President of the United States who said in 
the State of the Union Message last January, ``When companies and 
workers work as a team they do better and so does America.''
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Not right now.
  We are prepared to accept the President--in fact, the Senator from 
Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, chairman of the Labor Committee really 
understands the TEAM Act--and explain how this statement by the 
President sort of underscores and supports what we are trying to do 
here today.
  We have the support of the President, apparently, on the minimum wage 
and on TEAM Act. I do not know where he is on the gas tax repeal.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just so we can bring this matter to a head, 
I send a cloture motion to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 pending Dole 
     amendment, No. 3960:
         Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, John Warner, Trent Lott, Thad 
           Cochran, Slade Gorton, Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, Connie Mack, Strom Thurmond, Dan Coats, 
           Craig Thomas, Dirk Kempthorne, Jesse Helms, Bob Smith, 
           Jim Jeffords.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
rule XXII, the cloture vote occur at 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 9, the 
mandatory quorum being waived and the time between now and 5 p.m., 
Thursday, be equally divided in the usual form for debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. So the cloture vote will occur on Friday, but I ask 
unanimous consent at this time if cloture is invoked on amendment 3960, 
the amendment be automatically divided, with division I being the gas 
tax issue, division II being the TEAM Act, and division III being the 
proposal for minimum wage, and the time on each division be limited to 
2 hours each, equally divided in the usual form, and following the 
conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on 
division I, division II, and division III, back to back, with no 
further motions in order prior to the disposition of each division.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent 
that the unanimous-consent agreement also include campaign finance 
reform and MFN.

[[Page S4820]]

  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
  Mr. DOLE. Objection to this.
  So, we will have a cloture vote, then, on Friday, if not before. If 
there are amendments, we always try to accommodate our colleagues.
  I learned about how you introduce and file cloture by my friend, the 
former majority leader, Senator Mitchell. I thought it was very 
effective. I made notes at that time.
  Mr. FORD. Fill the tree.
  Mr. DOLE. We do not have it down to the art he had it down to, but we 
want to tell the press how to spell ``gridlock,'' something they used 
extensively when we were in the minority. You never see the word. 
Suddenly the word has disappeared. This is gridlock. This is Democratic 
gridlock, because the labor bosses do not want this to happen. And he 
who controls the purse I guess controls the agenda. We will see what 
happens in the next few days.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader. The Democratic leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I know a lot 
of our colleagues want to be able to speak.
  This is unnecessary gridlock. This has nothing to do with the 
Democratic minority. This has everything to do with Republicans simply 
not allowing the Senate to be the Senate. I do not recall a time--and 
we can go back and check--when my predecessor, Senator Mitchell, filled 
the tree every single time a bill was presented on the floor. I would 
like to go back and find that time in the last Congress when that 
happened.
  I can recall, woefully, how many times we worried about Republican 
amendments and how we were going to come up with second-degree 
amendments because we were not going to stop them from being offered. 
And they were offered.
  So, Mr. President, we have different views about what happened in the 
last Congress. I will tell my colleagues on the other side, we are 
taking notes, and should we have the opportunity again--and I know we 
will--to be in the majority, what goes around comes around. It may be 
that we are going to have to extend the session of Congress to 4 years 
rather than just 2, because I am not sure we are going to get anything 
done in 2 anymore. How unfortunate. How unfortunate.
  This does not have to be gridlock. We did not want gridlock. Just 
last week we passed some good legislation. We can do that again. We 
ought to do that again, but we ought to be respectful of the minority 
and the opportunities that we have always had to offer amendments. That 
is all we are asking. In the name of fairness, in the name of 
tradition, in the name of this institution, we owe it to the American 
people to have these reasonable and fair debates.
  The majority leader offered a unanimous-consent to have up-or-down 
votes on amendments collectively to a bill that he knows is going 
nowhere. What we have said is, let us have independent votes, free of 
the opportunity to obfuscate these issues, opportunities to offer 
amendments, opportunities to ensure that we can have a good debate 
about each of these issues--no limits, no filled trees, simply a good, 
old-fashioned Senate debate about all the issues that the majority 
leader and I and others want to confront.
  So as soon as that happens, I have a feeling we can get a lot of work 
done. But until that happens, nothing will get done.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I want to inquire of the Senator from South Dakota, 
having listened with great interest to the presentation by the Senator 
from Kansas, which was an interesting political presentation but a 
presentation that complained that there was stalling and gridlock in 
the Senate, first, and then a second presentation that concluded with a 
cloture motion being filed to shut off debate on something where debate 
has not yet started, I guess the presumption is that we are pieces of 
furniture on this side of the aisle, we are not living, contributing 
Senators that are interested in legislation. But we are more than 
furniture. We have a passionate agenda that we care deeply about.

  I guess I am confused by someone who alleges that there is stalling 
and then files a cloture motion to shut off debate before debate 
begins. What on Earth kind of process is this? It does not make any 
sense.
  I ask the Senator if he finds it unusual that we have a circumstance 
where the majority leader and others come out and they offer a 
proposition to fill up the tree so that no one else can intervene with 
amendments and then claim somehow that somebody else is causing their 
problems. Is it not true they are causing their own problems?
  The way the Senate ought to do its business is to come and offer 
legislation on the floor of the Senate, in a regular way, and ask for 
those who want to amend it to offer their amendments, have up-or-down 
votes, and then see if the votes exist to pass legislation. But instead 
we have these parliamentary games, and then we have this pointing 
across the aisle to say, ``By the way, you're the cause of this,'' and 
then the filing of a cloture motion to shut off debate before debate 
begins. Apparently, it is a new way to run the Senate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Apparently the Senator is right. That is the essence of 
the problem we have here. It is why we are absolutely paralyzed until 
we can resolve it. All we are trying to do is have the opportunity to 
have a good debate about each of these issues.
  We can debate the TEAM Act. We are not averse to having a good old-
fashioned debate about whether you roll back 60 years of labor law. We 
can debate the gas tax and figure out whether there is a way to address 
the issue that the Senator from North Dakota and others have raised 
about making sure the consumer, and not the oil companies, get the 
benefit.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We can debate the minimum wage for whatever length of 
time we want. A half-hour is fine with us, but if they want more time, 
we can do that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to my colleague on my side, the 
Senator from Louisiana, and then to the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished minority leader for yielding.
  There has been some negotiation and talks on the floor about votes on 
these three different issues. I just want to ask the leader whether he 
has had any discussion about packaging the three, because I do not 
propose, myself, to allow that, except to the extent the rules allow 
it, for a vote to come up on this gasoline tax, because I think that is 
one of the wackiest ideas I have heard. To the extent that we can 
successfully filibuster, yes, filibuster. Call it gridlock, call it 
what you want. I am opposed to it. I am not willing to let that come 
up. I think there are a lot of people who feel like I do.
  I wonder if there has been any negotiation toward saying, ``Well, 
we'll let you have that on a majority vote as opposed to 60 votes, as 
long as you will allow a vote on minimum wage''?
  Mr. DASCHLE. There have been a lot of different discussions regarding 
various packages and various scenarios, and it is obvious from the 
exchanges this morning that no decisions and certainly no agreement has 
been reached.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. I was trying to seek the floor in my own 
right. I would ask a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate very much the distinguished Senator 
yielding to me for a question. My question is, when I heard your 
discussion of the unanimous-consent request propounded by the 
Republican leader, there seemed to be--is this correct--the complaint 
that the minimum wage issue is something that had not been scheduled 
and, therefore, this was an issue that needed to be scheduled and have 
a full debate, and we had to have votes.

  My question is, why were there not debates and why were there not 
votes

[[Page S4821]]

when the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate and in the House 
and in the administration for the 2 years in the previous Congress?
  We never had an amendment offered by a Democrat, we never had a bill 
offered by a Democrat, and we never had a unanimous-consent request on 
the floor propounded by the Democratic leader on that issue. Now, on 
another unrelated issue, we have to stop now and cannot proceed to take 
up anything because of the request being made on the Senator's side 
that there be an immediate debate and a vote on a minimum wage proposal 
that has never been to committee and never had any hearings in either 
the last Congress or this Congress. All of a sudden the facts are 
overwhelming that this is something that has to be done right now. Why 
is that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am so blessed that the Senator from Mississippi asked 
the question. I was hoping that one of my colleagues would ask it, 
because obviously it is an issue that has come up before.
  We made a very calculated decision in the beginning of the last 
Congress that we were not going to be able to do both health care and 
the minimum wage. Obviously, if we could have done both and had the 
agreement of our Republican colleagues to do both, we would very much 
have wanted to be able to do that. But we decided that at best--at 
best--we were going to be able to pass a bill that does a lot more than 
90 cents for the American worker.
  So what we decided to do--and people could accuse us of being 
conservative here and not wanting to do both--but what we decided to 
do, in a conservative approach to our agenda, was to say, ``Look, we'll 
take this one step at a time. Let's pass health care. Let's find a way 
to deal with health care that will affect every one of our workers in a 
monetary, as well as a personal way.'' That is what we decided to do.
  Unfortunately, because of the opposition of our colleagues on the 
other side, we could not even pass benefits for our workers for health 
care in the last Congress. So we are relegated now to the Kennedy-
Kassebaum bill, and we may not even pass that, given the insistence by 
some on the other side to add unrelated and very devastating provisions 
to this bill that would deny the American worker some opportunity for 
benefit. So that is the answer to my colleague and good friend from 
Mississippi.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, let me suggest that it appears to this 
veteran of 18 years in the U.S. Senate and, before that, 8 years as 
Governor of Nebraska, that this place is more off balance than any 
supposed representative body that I have ever witnessed. To put it 
bluntly, it has gone bonkers.
  Here we have a group of supposedly thoughtful and mature men and 
women wallowing in politics, throwing aside what is right for America, 
in a seizure of fiscal madness, at the very time we are about to vote 
on a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  No one--no one--in this body has been more intent on amending the 
Constitution to require a balanced budget. But the irresponsible bed 
that we are making, and the grandiose plans for what represents fiscal 
balance down the road, is so fraught with craziness that I am 
reconsidering my support.
  I am very concerned that the recent political circus, with more than 
three rings, designed to present ``The Greatest Show on Earth'' and 
prove beyond a doubt that there is ``a sucker born every minute,'' will 
go down in history as one of the most shameful exercises in the history 
of the Senate. This year, 1996, could go down as the year that we deep-
sixed the people under a guise of fiscal sanity that is, in reality, 
insanity.
  Mr. President, America deserves better. Unfortunately, the 
ringmasters of all of this are the Republican majority leadership in 
the House and the Senate. The Republican majority leader in the House 
even suggested making up the billions in lost revenue by reducing 
education funding even more than the Republicans have previously 
announced. That will not fly.
  The Senate majority leader, 20 points behind in the race for the 
Presidency, has come up with a gimmick to reduce the gas tax by 4.3 
cents, which would cost the Treasury $34 billion in revenue by the 
magical year 2002, when we are already far short of any attainable goal 
to meet the constitutionally guaranteed balance by that date.

  It is politics at its worst. Sooner or later, the American people 
will see it for what it is, if they have not already.
  I call on the Republican leadership to announce that they have come 
to their senses and renounce their fiscal indiscretion, and get on with 
balancing the budget, passing a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget, and putting the campaign back on a sane course.
  Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced Federal budget and a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I used to think that if 
you favored one, you almost had to support the other. But I have to 
admit that the antics around here on the gas tax have caused me to 
question whether people who favor a balanced budget amendment in 
speeches really do want to balance the budget at all.
  You hear all of these pious speeches about how we want to balance the 
budget. I suggest that if we had a dollar for every speech in the 
Senate that favored a balanced budget, we would have reached a surplus 
a long time ago.
  But then comes along a year divisible by 4, and all of a sudden 
Senators are falling over themselves to cut taxes. I heard one Senator 
say this was not the first tax that he would cut, but, heck, it was an 
opportunity to cut taxes, and he was not going to miss it. It is a 
transparent political ploy, Mr. President, and this Senator, for one, 
has had about enough of it.
  Repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax is a costly enterprise. Between June 
of this year and the end of the year 2002, it would cost $34 billion in 
lost revenue, and it would worsen the deficit by the year 2005 to $52 
billion. Yes, I say, ``worsen the deficit,'' because the offset that 
the majority cobbles together to pay for the tax cut will, in all 
likelihood, be something we were already counting on, or desperately 
need, to help balance the budget by the year 2002 under a 
constitutional amendment. One way or the other, we are going to have to 
come up with another $52 billion in additional deficit reduction, or 
increase taxes, over the next 10 years. I suggest, Mr. President, that 
that will not be easy.
  As I said when I started these remarks, this whole gas tax charade 
has made me reconsider the sincerity of the debate that I have heard 
about the balanced budget amendment. The willingness of Senators and 
Congressmen to rush headlong to cut the gas tax makes me question 
whether I want to be a part of an enterprise that promises to balance 
the budget down the road but avoids every hard vote to cut the deficit 
in the here and now.

  In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that I will consider very 
closely and see how Senators vote on the balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. I certainly feel that, as of now, the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution that I voted for previously, and 
supported, needs to be examined as to how Senators vote and how sincere 
they are, which will be keenly measured, I suggest, on the gimmick of 
repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. If people vote to cut taxes with wild 
abandon and then ask me to join them in support of a balanced budget 
amendment, they may find this Senator unwilling to go down that crooked 
road of no return.
  The people should understand that if the tax cut proposed by the 
Senate majority is followed with a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget by the year 2002, the Congress at that time will face, by 
far, the largest tax increase ever imagined in history.
  I do not want a small tax cut now that probably would trigger and 
find its way into higher taxes in the future. In this regard, I must 
also say that even if the Senate and the House would invoke a law that 
eliminates that tax, there is no assurance whatsoever, or likelihood, 
that the money would end up in the consumers' pockets. It would end up 
elsewhere. Unless someone can rationally explain to me how the numbers 
work out on this, I will not vote again for a constitutional amendment 
under the Republicans' changed scenario.

[[Page S4822]]

  In my view, Mr. President, as a fiscal conservative it would be the 
height of fiscal and budget irresponsibility to do so.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I tried to be recognized earlier 
because I wanted to ask the distinguished minority leader a question 
when he was on the floor talking about the TEAM Act. I find it hard to 
think that the people of South Dakota would not be very supportive of 
the ability to have employers and employees form teams in which they 
can talk about conditions in their own company. These teams clearly 
will enhance the quality of work, the quality of working relationships, 
and the productivity of the company.
  I think there is broad support for that. The distinguished majority 
leader indicated that President Clinton in the State of the Union 
speech mentioned the importance of working together as a team and how 
that enhances the productivity and the competitiveness of American 
industry. We all know how important that is today.
  The other side of the aisle suggests that the TEAM Act permits sham 
unions. That is not correct, Mr. President. The legislation does not 
permit sham unions in any way.
  The question was raised, why do we need the legislation? I would 
suggest that one of the reasons we need the TEAM Act is that we need 
clarity regarding the barriers in Federal labor law regarding worker 
and management cooperation.
  William Gould, who was appointed Chairman of the National Labor 
Relations Board in 1994 by President Clinton, made the following 
statement on employee involvement to a seminar at Indiana University 
School of Law on February 29, 1996. I want to state that Chairman Gould 
is opposed to the TEAM Act, but he did say that although he opposed it, 
he does feel that an amendment to section 8(a)(2) is necessary to 
promote employee involvement. He said:

       Nonetheless, as I wrote three years ago an agenda for 
     reform, a revision of 8(a)(2) is desirable. The difficulties 
     involved in determining what constitutes a labor organization 
     under the act as written subjects employees and employers to 
     unnecessary and wasteful litigation, and mandates lay people 
     to employ counsel when they are only attempting to promote 
     dialog and enhanced participation and cooperation.

  Mr. President, I can think of no more effective statement than that 
of the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
  This is not a question of wanting to roll back 60 years of labor law; 
not at all. It is really designed to enhance labor law so that we can 
enter a new century and a new time in the strongest, most productive 
fashion. And it is only common sense, Mr. President, that would say 
employers and employees should be able to sit down at the table and 
reason together. This is not an effort to do away with unions. It is an 
effort to bring some clarity to section 8(a)(2), as was mentioned by 
Chairman Gould, so that there can be an understanding of what indeed 
constitutes, or does not constitute, a violation of Federal labor law.
  I would just suggest, Mr. President, that workers know their jobs 
better than anyone else. They are the ones who are there day in and day 
out listening to customers, making a product, and delivering it to 
clients. Their contributions improve productivity, reduce environmental 
waste, increase quality, and perhaps most important raise job 
satisfaction. Participation means that there is a commitment then to 
the success of that company. Yet Federal labor laws have stood in the 
way of unleashing, I suggest because of this lack of charity, a vast 
reservoir of human capital in America's workplaces.
  Yesterday there was I thought an exceptionally good exchange, and an 
elaboration of why the TEAM Act is important, between the Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft]. 
Just to quote from Mr. Ashcroft briefly:

       More importantly than trying to strike a balance from 
     Washington, DC, we should provide American workers with the 
     ability to strike that balance for themselves.
  Senator Ashcroft went on to lay out examples of reasons why this 
would become very apparent. Senator Jeffords had said, ``Why in the 
world would unions oppose this?'' It really is not trying to undermine 
the unions as has been portrayed. He said, ``They are nervous because 
they have been going down, and they did not want to do anything that 
would in any way enhance the workers and management to get together to 
improve productivity. Is it being done out of fear that, indeed, the 
unions would no longer be able to control the agenda?''
  I hope not, Mr. President, because that is not the intent of this 
legislation. I myself would like to provide an example to illustrate 
the obstacles to employee involvement.
  A group of workers in a manufacturing plant want to discuss health 
and safety issues with their supervisor. The supervisor forms a safety 
committee with the foreman and three or four workers and the group meet 
once a week. The workers know that the floor is often slippery, and 
workers have fallen causing injuries and significant worker 
compensation costs for the company. The workers also note that most 
accidents happened on Mondays. So perhaps a brief safety reinforcement 
briefing at the start of the shift coming off the weekend would improve 
plant safety.
  Acting on these employee suggestions the supervisor makes sure that 
mops are available to mop the floors and institutes a 5-minute safety 
meeting for workers each Monday morning. Sounds reasonable. I would 
think most of us would agree that these suggestions are reasonable 
ideas for workers to bring to their supervisor.
  What is incredible is that this type of employee involvement is 
illegal under Federal labor law. The National Labor Relations Act 
actually prohibits nonunion employees and supervisors from meeting in 
committees to discuss workplace issues like health and safety.
  I have never viewed the TEAM Act as a union-management issue. 
Instead, I think it is a quality of life issue for workers who do not 
want to just say, ``We are on the floor of our workplace and do what we 
are told to do and have no input into what we see may be something of 
real benefit in improving the quality of life there.''
  In the example I just mentioned the workers are the ones who observed 
the wet floors. They are the ones who were there. They are the ones who 
are injured when they slip on the floors, and they are the ones who 
have suggestions for dealing with the problem. This, I think, is the 
quality of work life issue for workers, and not a labor-management 
issue.
  And for firms, employee involvement is a necessary way to enhance the 
efficiency of the plant. That has been proven over and over again 
where, indeed, companies have had team relationships that have proved 
successful.
  I think since the 1980's many American companies have tried to copy 
what companies were doing in Japan, because frequently there were 
employee-employer relationships that our Japanese competitors were 
using some years ago that were found to be successful.
  We can even improve on what the Japanese have done. I would suggest, 
Mr. President, that employee involvement is a necessary way to enhance 
the efficiency of our workplaces. And more importantly, there are 
significant contributions that I believe workers can make with 
innovative and thoughtful ways of improving the workplace.
  Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a series 
of decisions beginning in 1992 that interpreted Federal labor law to 
prohibit many forms of employee involvement. These decisions have 
created uncertainty as to what types of employee involvement programs 
are permissible, as Chairman Gould pointed out.
  These decisions have cast doubt on all employee involvement in 
nonunion settings. In union settings it works all right. But in 
nonunion settings it has raised suspicion, doubt, fear, and an 
aggressiveness that I think has proven totally counterproductive on the 
part of the unions. I think we need a legislative solution to address 
the problem.

  Mr. President, the TEAM Act removes the barriers in Federal labor law 
to employee involvement. It clarifies what that involvement can be. At 
the same time, the legislation maintains

[[Page S4823]]

protections to ensure that workers have the right to select union 
representation. The TEAM Act assures that employee involvement programs 
may not negotiate collective bargaining agreements or seek in any way 
to displace independent unions. And nothing in the TEAM Act permits 
employers to bypass an existing union if that is what the union and 
that is what the workers have chosen.
  Finally, I point out that the Congress prohibited company unions in 
the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. They were prohibited then 
because firms were negotiating with company unions and refusing to 
recognize independent unions which the workers had selected. But the 
TEAM Act requires employers to recognize and negotiate with independent 
union representatives if that is what the workers have decided they 
want. It really is urging that workers become more involved. The 
workers are encouraged to participate and employers are encouraged to 
listen to their employees.
  I suggest, Mr. President, that the TEAM Act is good for workers. It 
is good for firms. It is good for America. It is not attempting to roll 
back labor law. It is attempting to enhance it in ways that I think 
will be far more constructive and productive.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Presidential years are referred to 
as the ``silly season'' and certainly this Presidential year is the 
silly season. The competition for the award for the most improvidently 
proposed bill is very keen in the Chamber, Mr. President, but surely 
the 4.3-cent gasoline tax decrease has got to take the cake for this 
year.
  Mr. President, all this Congress we have heard about the balanced 
budget. I endorse the balanced budget. I am part of that bipartisan 
group of Senators that is trying to get a balanced budget passed. But 
now that we finally propose it, it is not being accepted by my friend, 
the majority leader.
  On top of that, with budget deficits continuing, with no plan 
approved for the balanced budget, we now have a proposal to cut taxes. 
Surely, Mr. President, this has got to be in the category of bread and 
circuses of ancient Rome when proposals are put out not for the good of 
society but in order to please the voters.
  Now, the American voters may not be very smart on some issues, but 
they are not stupid, and they know that this is not good policy. At a 
time when we are trying to cut all kinds of programs, all across the 
board, to come in and then cut taxes on gasoline is surely not good 
policy. Gasoline in the United States is somewhere between one-half and 
one-fourth as expensive as it is in Europe. In France, in Germany, in 
Italy, in those countries you pay three and four times as much for 
gasoline as you do in the United States. But if the gasoline goes up a 
very small amount in the United States, it is used as a trigger to try 
to cut those taxes.
  Mr. President, let us look at the facts about gasoline.
  If you look at gasoline in real prices, in inflation adjusted prices, 
this chart represents what gasoline prices have been since 1950 through 
1996, and it shows that in real inflation adjusted prices, the price of 
gasoline is close to the lowest it has been since 1950--almost 50 
years. Now, to be sure, there is a small blip of, what, 20 cents a 
gallon in some places. But in terms of the actual purchasing price that 
you have to pay for gasoline, it is almost a historic low.
  The next question is: what is going to happen from here? Is this 
increase in gasoline prices permanent or is it likely to come down?
  It is clear it is going to come down. When you look at crude oil 
prices--these first two blocks on this chart are actual prices from 
April and May--you will note that they have come down from over $25 a 
barrel already to about $21 a barrel. Those are actual prices that are 
coming down very fast.
  These prices on this chart are futures prices, and futures prices, of 
course, are real prices. You can purchase the crude now for delivery in 
May or September or whatever these months are, so they are price 
reductions already realized. So we already have realized price 
reductions in the price of crude oil from over $25 a barrel to about 
$19 a barrel, or a decrease of $6 a barrel already realized in the 
price of crude oil.

  Now, Mr. President, this rather busy chart shows the relationship 
between crude oil and gasoline prices. On the bottom, we have crude oil 
prices, which shows a slight up-tick in crude oil for the month of 
April, and it already shows that crude oil is going down. With respect 
to wholesale regular gasoline prices--these are in real prices--we see 
that went up for the month of April and has already begun to go down.
  Wholesale California reformulated gasoline is already coming down 
rather precipitantly. California is the area of the country, of course, 
which has the greatest concern about this because you have the greatest 
runup in prices. But wholesale California reformulated gasoline prices 
are coming down very fast.
  Retail gasoline prices in the United States and retail in California 
have leveled off. They are not yet reflecting these downturns in prices 
of crude oil, wholesale regular gasoline and wholesale reformulated 
gasoline in California. But these prices will begin--already in retail 
it has come down slightly in California and leveled off in the United 
States generally. However, as night follows the day, it is inevitable 
that these prices will come down and come down precipitantly because 
wholesale prices are coming down.
  Mr. President, what caused the shortage and the runup? On this rather 
busy chart here, these hash lines show the historical range of gasoline 
stocks, and they go up and down every year because the summer driving 
season and the heating season call for greater or lesser supplies and 
usually the actual amount follows within those hash mark lines, and 
when that happens supply and demand are in balance.
  When we go to January and the spring of 1996, our supply line drops 
well below the traditional levels. And why was that? Well, it was, 
first of all, because the winter was much colder than usual. Second, 
because many refineries across the country, particularly in California, 
were down. Third, because there was an anticipation that the embargo on 
Iraqi oil was to be lifted, and that was not lifted as expected, so the 
influx of Iraqi oil was not as we expected, plus driving was up as well 
as the fuel efficiency of cars was down. That caused our stocks to be 
down. However, this is already being corrected. As you can see, the 
stocks have begun to come up. This chart shows gasoline imports, and 
gasoline imports are up precipitously.

  This is caused by two things. First of all, the market. When the 
price is high, then that extra refining capacity in Europe is used to 
export to the United States. Consequently, our imports are drastically 
up. With imports coming up, it is clear that this upswing in gasoline 
prices is soon to be over with. I mean it is not a problem to worry 
about in the first place, as I mentioned, because we are at almost 
historic lows in the price of gasoline--almost. We are up only slightly 
from historic lows for the last 50 years. But even that small upswing, 
about 20 cents a gallon, is soon to be over with because of these 
factors: Additional imported crude oil, the supply; imported gasoline; 
supply of crude oil coming up.
  Finally, there is this vexing problem of why is it? I mean, are we 
being ripped off? Is there price gouging by the oil companies? Oil 
companies, I know, are those we love to hate. People think this market 
does not work. The fact of the matter is, it is a highly competitive 
market and it does work, as those imports of gasoline show. This is 
evidence that that market is working. As the price goes up, the imports 
of gasoline go up.
  Let us deal with this question of profits. What this rather busy 
chart shows is the spread between gasoline prices and the price of 
crude oil, in this case west Texas intermediate, which is usually the 
marker for the price of crude oil. The gasoline is the New York harbor 
price of gasoline.
  This shows the spread, starting in January 1989 through April 1996. 
You will notice that there are ups and downs every year. There is a 
higher spread starting in the spring and that always ameliorates every 
single year as you get further, as the summer driving season is over 
with. What this shows is that there is an increase in price level, an 
increase in the spread in

[[Page S4824]]

April 1996 compared to March 1996. However, if you go back to Aprils--
go back to April 1995, the spread was even greater. The spread was less 
in April 1994, slightly less in April 1993, but in April 1992 it was 
more, and in April 1991 it was much more, in April 1990 it was much 
more, and in April 1989 it was much more.
  What does this tell us? It tells us that, if you look at the last 7 
years, the spread between the cost of crude oil and the price of 
gasoline is less now, on the average, than it has been in the past 7 
years. It tells you that this is not an unusual spread compared to past 
years. It also tells us that April is one of the very highest months 
and that the spread comes down from April because of competitive 
pressures.

  I mention this because many people think--there have been these 
charges without one shred of evidence, without a whisper of evidence to 
support them--that there is a conspiracy to make that price go up. But 
as you can well see, profit margins are less than the average they have 
been in the last 7 years, even though slightly more than they were in 
1994, but less than they were in 1995.
  Any legislation such as an amendment I have heard that would say, in 
effect, that it shall be unlawful for any person to fail to fully pass 
through a price reduction--it would be completely impossible, as you 
can see, to identify what the price reduction is, because every year 
there is wild fluctuation between the price of crude oil and the price 
of gasoline, the spread between those two prices. So if you say you 
have to pass through this price reduction--compared to what? What is 
your baseline? Is it the average of the last 7 years? Is it this 
month's price the day on which you price it? Suppose you had a big 
spread on the day on which this amendment passed; can you rely upon 
that? Could you up your prices at the pump on that particular day and 
thereby say, I am going to pass this on by giving you 4.3 cents less 
than the highest level we have charged in the last 7 years?
  I think any such amendment would be impossible to draw, impossible to 
enforce, and a very improvident thing for this Congress to do.
  It is always nice to be for a tax decrease. But at a time when we are 
trying to bring this deficit down, to decrease taxes, whether they be 
income taxes, whether they be taxes on beer or gasoline or anything 
else, I believe the American public has sense enough to be able to see 
through that kind of political pandering. That is all it is, to try to 
pander to the American public and give them a little bread and 
circuses.
  I do not know what the polls show. I have heard that the polls show 
that people like tax decreases, not surprisingly. But I believe that 
any blip in polls caused by giving a small amount of decrease in price, 
even if it was passed on--and who can possibly say whether it is passed 
on or not? How can you identify a 4.3-cent decrease against the 
background noise of swings, which are annual swings in the price? You 
could not identify that.
  So there is hardly anything that the driver in America can point to, 
to thank the Congress for reducing his price, because you are not going 
to be able to determine what that decrease is or, indeed, whether it is 
passed along at all. But whatever that recompense, whatever that thanks 
would be they would give would surely be short-lived because the 
American public would understand that the deficit, about which we have 
been preaching for 2 years solid, nonstop rhetoric about the deficit--
they would understand that that deficit is only to be higher because we 
reduced taxes in an election year.

  It is not a good thing to do. It is not good policy. Prices are lower 
than they have been at almost any time in the last 50 years in real 
terms in the United States. They are a third to a fourth what they are 
in Europe. They ought to be higher, from the standpoint of 
conservation. Whatever happened to conservation in this country? Don't 
we care about that anymore? Do we want to encourage gas guzzlers? Do we 
want to encourage bigger cars, more gas-guzzling cars? I guess so, 
because that is the direction in which this goes.
  It is not good policy, Mr. President. I hope we will not do it. If it 
is done, it will not be with my vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, perhaps a brief review of what it is that 
we are debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate might be in order at 
this point for those who may be watching or listening. The bill before 
us is to provide a modest degree of relief, the reimbursement of 
attorney's fees and costs incurred by former employees of the White 
House Travel Office who were fired at the beginning of the Clinton 
administration and one of whom was unsuccessfully prosecuted. That bill 
has passed the House of Representatives.
  If the Senate were permitted to pass it, it would go to the President 
and, I presume, be signed. It is not particularly controversial. But 
the majority leader of the Senate has been unable to get consent from 
the other side of the aisle simply to pass that bill and send it to the 
President without conditions being imposed upon that consent.
  So now this modest House resolution has had included with it a 
reduction in the tax on motor vehicle fuel, the 4-plus-cents-a-gallon 
tax that was imposed in 1993.
  At the time at which it was imposed, at the time at which that tax 
hike was passed, every Member on the Republican side of the aisle voted 
against it. In some measure, that vote was simply a statement that we 
did not feel that increased taxes was appropriate.
  But there is another element in the opposition then and the desire to 
repeal it now, which is equally important. That element is the fact 
that for the first time in the history of the Congress and almost 
without precedent in any of the 50 States of the United States, a motor 
vehicle fuel tax was imposed to pay for various social and political 
programs entirely unrelated to transportation. I think it is 
appropriate to say that perhaps the least objectionable tax to most of 
the people of the United States is a gas tax, a motor vehicle fuel tax, 
when it is used to improve transportation, when it is used to maintain 
or to build roads and highways or, for that matter, to improve mass 
transit systems in our major metropolitan areas.
  Lord knows that we have fallen far behind in that traffic 
infrastructure. This gas tax increase in 1993, however, was not for 
that purpose. That was not a part of the agenda at the beginning of the 
Clinton administration. It was simply for the wide range of other 
spending programs in which the then new President desired to 
``invest,'' in his own words, to ``spend'' in ours. And so much of the 
impetus for this reduction comes from the fact that that was a terrible 
precedent to set.
  The gasoline tax is not a general purpose tax, should never have been 
used that way in the first place and should not be used that way now 
and, therefore, ought to be repealed. If the President wishes to come 
to the Congress with a proposal that would build our infrastructure by 
the use of user fees, he would certainly get a more positive response 
than he does when it is simply to disappear into the mass of hundreds 
of other programs.
  This view, that we ought to repeal this gas tax, is not partisan in 
nature. There are, I think, at least a few Republicans who feel it to 
be unwise. There are a significant number of Democrats who are quite 
ready to vote for it, and the President has at least indicated that he 
will sign and approve it. But, Mr. President, when the majority leader 
asked that we deal with the gas tax repeal alone, he was denied that 
right unless certain other unrelated demands on the part of the 
Democratic Party were met.

  So we cannot provide the relief for people wrongly fired in the White 
House Travel Office; we cannot deal simply with a gas tax repeal which, 
whether wise or not, is something the American people understand and 
understand the debate about; no, we cannot do any of these things 
unless, Mr. President, paradoxically we agree that we will, in fact, 
have a vote on an increase in the minimum wage uncluttered by any 
irrelevancies.
  So it is do as I say, not as I do. Those on the other side of the 
aisle demand the right for absolutely uncluttered votes on their agenda 
but deny that right to the majority party.
  Personally, I think an increase in the minimum wage undesirable for 
the very people it is nominally designed to benefit. My inclination is 
to believe

[[Page S4825]]

that it will cost a significant number of jobs, both among those who 
lose their jobs, because their employers do not think that they really 
produce this larger hourly wage, but even more significant, among those 
who are attempting to work their way off welfare or are teenagers 
coming into the job market who will not get jobs in the first place 
because of a minimum wage that is too high.
  It also seems to me that it is an extremely blunt instrument with 
which to increase the obviously too low income of those Americans who 
are the primary support for families and who are now on full-time 
employment at the minimum wage, something like 3 percent of those who 
are making the minimum wage at the present time.
  But, I am perfectly willing to admit that there is an argument on the 
other side of that question. Most middle-of-the-road economists think 
that an increase in the minimum wage is neither a particularly good 
idea nor a particularly bad idea; that it will not have all of the 
harmful effects that some of its opponents state and clearly will not 
have the positive effects that its proponents assert.
  As a consequence, I think as a part of an overall look at the economy 
of the country, it is perfectly appropriate that we vote on increasing 
the minimum wage. But, Mr. President, I think it is perfectly 
appropriate and far more logical that we vote on it at the same time 
that we vote on something else which really will help the economy of 
the United States, which will improve labor-management relations, which 
will increase productivity and which will increase the number of jobs 
that we have for people who are coming into the job market or seeking 
to improve the position that they hold in it. But we are told that the 
TEAM Act, which has actually been the subject of hearings in the Labor 
Committee and approved by the Labor Committee, unlike a minimum wage 
increase, is such a hard prospect that we will not be allowed to vote 
on it by a minority that demands the right to vote clean on a minimum 
wage increase.

  Mr. President, that is simply an unsupportable position. If we are to 
do something that clearly makes it more difficult for people who 
provide jobs to provide them for those who are coming into the market, 
we certainly at the same time are overwhelmingly justified in saying 
that a practice that is now in place in some 30,000 places of 
employment in the United States, the setting up of informal teams to 
deal with questions of productivity and vacations and the incidental 
frustrations that are a part of everyday life, should be validated as 
against a decision of the courts not wanting that which says, ``No. You 
can't do any of these things unless you have a union and engage in them 
through collective bargaining.''
  That is great for the people who lead labor unions. And there may 
even have been the remotest justification for it in the 1930's. But in 
the 1990's, and a more prosperous time, in a more competitive time, the 
time at which the United States is very much in competition with the 
rest of the world, and a time in which the ancient total antagonism 
between management and labor is being increasingly succeeded by 
cooperation, a system, a proposal which encourages that cooperation is 
not only a good idea, it is a necessity.
  So what we have before us right now is a refusal by filibuster, 
however politely described, to allow a vote, to allow a majority to 
determine whether or not we should have the passage of the TEAM Act, 
very much needed in a growing economy, together with an increase in the 
minimum wage, together with a reduction in the gas tax, and tend to 
this horrid precedent that we use it for other than transportation 
purposes, together with the relief of the victims of the White House 
Travel Office.
  Mr. President, that seems to me to be highly reasonable. If a 
majority of the Members of the U.S. Senate do not like it, they can 
certainly vote against it. Personally I think it is quite clear that a 
majority of the Members of the Senate would vote for it. But the demand 
that we can only deal with a minimum wage and that the minimum wage is 
the only proposal to which this rule applies, without attaching 
anything else to it, that it is so important, so pristine, that it must 
go through without amendment, while everything else can be 
filibustered, that is a demand that is as unreasonable as it is 
unlikely to succeed.
  So, Mr. President, my suggestion is that we go forward, we have a 
debate on the merits, the shortcomings, of the TEAM Act, on the merits 
and the shortcomings of a minimum wage increase, on the merits and 
shortcomings of the gas tax increase, being the three elements in this 
amendment, and then vote on the amendment and determine whether or not 
we are for it, or alternatively, as the majority leader has suggested, 
without acceptance, that we vote separately on those first two. And if 
both are passed, they go out of this body together to the House of 
Representatives. If one is passed, and one is defeated, the survivor 
goes out as it is.
  All kinds of alternatives have been offered to the minority party. 
But it will accept only its own proposition for the way in which the 
business of the Senate will be conducted. That is neither in the 
interest of the Senate, Mr. President, or of the people of the United 
States. Let us go forward and by the end of the afternoon vote on the 
amendment that the majority leader has proposed for us, and get on to 
other business.

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I fail to be persuaded by the argument of 
my good friend from the State of Washington. I think that the point was 
made very, very well by our leader that there were going to be some 
amendments that would be offered to the gas tax. It would be directly 
related to that issue to try and make sure that if there was going to 
be a repeal, that actually it would go down to benefit the families 
that would be going to the gas pumps. And that has effectively been 
denied.
  I know the majority leader said, ``Well, if there's an amendment that 
makes some sense, we'll be glad to consider it.'' But this body is not 
a traffic cop for just the majority leader or the minority leader or 
any particular Member to say what a Senator can offer, outside of the 
issues of cloture, to a particular measure. That is a rule of the 
Senate. It might not be acceptable to some other Members, but that has 
been the rule here for 200 years.
  Effectively you are closing out the Senator from North Dakota, you 
are closing out the Senator from Massachusetts, other members of the 
Human Resources Committee, who offered other amendments to the TEAM Act 
during the committee's consideration of the bill. All one has to do is 
look over the debate that took place in the House of Representatives, 
for example, and review that debate, and see that Congressman Sawyer, 
for example, offered a substitute to try to address the kind of 
questions about the particular language that some had raised to provide 
some additional clarity about the effect of 8(a)(2). And that was very 
thoughtfully debated over there.
  I think the Sawyer amendment included a number of different measures 
that I think the Senate would be interested in. It may very well help 
work out a point of accommodation so that that legislation would pass 
unanimously. But we are denied any opportunity to consider any such 
possibility either today or tomorrow or after the period of cloture.
  So with all respect, the right of Senators to offer amendments is 
being cut off--and there might have even been Members who wanted to go 
back to the original proposal on the minimum wage. That was 50 cents--
50 cents--50 cents over a period of 3 years, and also had an increase 
in the cost of living, so that we would not have the situation where 
workers would fall continuously behind. That is a directly related kind 
of subject matter, probably worthy of debate, in trying to deal with 
the fact that this program of the increase in the minimum wage it is 
exceedingly modest. People are denied that opportunity as well and are 
just foreclosed any opportunity to do anything other than speak. There 
was not a desire to prolong the debate and discussion on any of these 
measures, but we are denied the opportunity even to offer them.
  So we will have a chance to vote whether the Senate is going to be 
willing to be gagged or not gagged on the proposal that is now before 
the Senate.

[[Page S4826]]

 And all we have to do is look at the floor of the U.S. Senate right 
now.
  We invite all Americans to take a good look at the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. There are three Members here. We are effectively being denied 
the opportunity to address these issues that are going to affect 
working conditions for workers, not only those that affect the 14.5 
million that are part of a trade union, but the 110 million Americans 
who are not union members, their interests, their wages, their hours, 
their working conditions.
  It just seems to me at a time when about 65 or 70 percent of the 
American workers are falling further and further behind, it is 
unfortunate that our Republican friends have made a pretty wholesale 
assault on those conditions for workers by trying to fight the increase 
in the minimum wage, fight the earned income tax credit, fight against 
Davis-Bacon that provides an average of $27,000 for a construction 
worker in this country, and other matters which we debated at other 
times.
  We are foreclosed from making any changes. They said you either have 
to take it or leave it. I find it quite amusing to hear the leader talk 
about, ``Well, we will have to go along with what the majority wants.'' 
The majority have indicated they favor the increase in the minimum 
wage. He has the facts wrong. The majority of the Senators favor the 
increase. When he says, ``Well, the majority is going to insist you 
either take it our way or not,'' I do not think is a fair 
representation of what the fact situation is. We are where we are, and 
we will have to do the best we can. We will do so.
  I want to take just a few moments to correct the record on 
representations that were made in the last day or so and then speak 
briefly with regard to the TEAM Act and respond to some of the points 
that have been raised here. Then I will yield to others who want to 
address the Senate. I see my friend and colleague and a member of our 
Human Resource Committee, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, on 
the floor at this time. I was wondering if we might ask him--I know he 
has been very involved and interested during the course of our hearings 
on the TEAM Act, and also during the markup. I will ask him maybe a few 
questions, if that is all right.
  Mr. President, the Republicans say that an employer cannot talk to 
his employees in a nonunion shop about things like smoking policies or 
flextime schedules where employees work a 4-day week or whether to have 
a pension plan or how to do the work safely; is that true?
  Mr. SIMON. Absolutely not, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts. 
That is hogwash. In a nonunion shop, the employer can talk to his 
employees about anything. He can call them together as a group or talk 
to them individually. Nothing in the law prevents a nonunion employer 
from talking to his employees. In fact, section 8(c) of the National 
Labor Relations Act specifically protects his right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  As you know, this point was made yesterday about no smoking. There 
were a whole series of issues that were brought out in one of the court 
opinions, of which one was no smoking. But the rest of it dealt with a 
variety of different workplace issues.
  It is being used selectively in distorting and misrepresenting a 
legal holding to suggest that this kind of communication is not 
permitted at the present time. That is a gross distortion and a gross 
misrepresentation.
  It is interesting, our Republican friends must all be reading from 
the same briefing sheet, because if you read through the debate in the 
House of Representatives, you find exactly the same quotation. I would 
have thought that perhaps Members of the Senate might have changed at 
least a few words about it. I am glad to get the response of the 
Senator.
  Second, I mention that yesterday one of our colleagues said that the 
law prohibits an employee from going to the employer to ask for a day 
off to attend a child's award ceremony at school; is that true?
  Mr. SIMON. Senator Kennedy, that is absolutely not true. When you 
talk about distortions, you are absolutely correct. This thing has been 
so distorted.
  If this bill passes, we will have a huge imbalance. In a union shop, 
the employees bargain with the employer to have personal leave days. In 
a nonunion shop, under current law, any employee can bargain 
individually or ask the employer as an individual for time off.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Further, there were some suggestions yesterday that the 
whole future of labor-management cooperation is threatened if what they 
call the TEAM Act--I call it the antiworkplace democracy act myself--
but they say the whole future of labor-management cooperation is 
threatened if this bill does not pass.
  Now, does the Senator remember the testimony that we have had in 
probably the last Congress by the head of OSHA, Mr. Dear, about actions 
taken, for example, in the State of Washington, where employers and 
employees worked effectively together to reduce hazards in the 
workplace? As a direct result of that cooperation, we saw a 38-percent 
reduction in workmen's compensation costs, and we see corresponding 
increases in wages for workers. The associated industries from that 
State praised that cooperation, which is already taking place, can take 
place today without this legislation, that saved industry approximately 
$1 billion over the period of the last 5 years.

  Is the Senator aware of what is included in Senator Kassebaum's 
findings, that we already have a multitude of these working 
partnerships and relationships? Even in the Republican report that is 
on everyone's desk here they acknowledge that they are taking place in 
96 percent of the major corporations and over 75 percent of medium and 
small companies. That seems to be working.
  Mr. SIMON. Absolutely. This is taking place in thousands and 
thousands of plants in your State, in my State, in every State here. 
The law has permitted explosive growth in cooperative programs and 
employee involvement plans.
  The committee report claims that 75 percent, as you pointed out, of 
all employers use employee involvement; 96 percent of large employers 
do so. That has occurred without this so-called TEAM Act. I agree, it 
is misnamed. The law has not changed one iota with respect to company 
unions in 61 years. The TEAM Act is completely unnecessary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The reference was made yesterday by the majority leader 
that this was necessary because of the NLRB holding in 1992, the 
Electromation case in 1992, which allegedly changed the law and 
allegedly prohibits teams and committees and quality circles. I know 
the Senator is familiar with that case because it was a subject of a 
good deal of discussion in our committee hearing.
  It is always interesting that even after this case, as the Senator 
knows, we had testimony before the Dunlop Commission by the various 
groups that are pounding on the door. It is so interesting to listen to 
those who are complaining about those who present workers' rights and 
who complain about the money that is being spent presenting workers' 
rights.
  Maybe we should talk about the various companies and corporations 
that are supporting this legislation and what they have contributed to 
various candidates. Evidently that is the way you have to get along in 
these times to try to impugn those who might have some benefit in here. 
I guess that is what we are sinking to. We have not done that. I would 
just as soon avoid it. But it is worth noting that many of those who 
are going to benefit from this bill are companies and corporations that 
have made sizable contributions, I daresay, not to Democrats but to 
Republicans.
  Let me ask the Senator, is the Senator not interested that this 
legislation that purportedly is going to protect workers is being 
driven not by workers themselves that want that protection, but by the 
companies that are going to establish these company-owned, effectively 
company-run unions.
  Mr. SIMON. The Senator is absolutely correct. One of the things that 
is wrong in our society today and wrong in this body is those who are 
heavy contributors have an inordinate access and inordinate power. We 
have to struggle to get millions of people who are getting the minimum 
wage--they are not big contributors; 41 million Americans do not have 
health care, and

[[Page S4827]]

they are not big contributors. But a few, a very few employers would be 
affected here; they are contributing.
  It is interesting, you mention the Electromation case. A unanimous 
Labor Relation Board made up of Republican appointees held that the 
Electromation case was a typical garden variety case of a company 
union. It held that no new principles were involved in finding the 
company union unlawful. The court of appeals again unanimously found 
that the case had nothing to do with quality circles or productivity 
teams. The case was about an employer who was trying to control 
disgruntled employees by imposing on them a representative that they 
did not ask for or choose.
  I would add, when you mentioned the Dunlop Commission headed by 
former Secretary of Labor John Dunlop, he was the Secretary of Labor 
under a Republican administration. He says this kind of thing does not 
make any sense.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think you noted that all of the members of the 
National Labor Relations Board that made that unanimous judgment in the 
Electromation case had all been appointed by Republican Presidents.
  Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suppose that the reason for that is the one that is 
outlined in our own report. It says, on page 27 at the top:

       No good purpose is served by allowing the employer to 
     choose and dominate the employees' representative. 
     Cooperation is not truly furthered because the employer is 
     not really dealing with the employees if he is dealing with 
     his own hand-picked representative. An employer does not need 
     the pretense of a team or committee if he only wants to 
     cooperate with himself.

  Does the Senator think that sort of captures exactly what this piece 
of legislation is about?
  Mr. SIMON. I think that is well stated. It is a good summary of what 
this is all about.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Now, some claim that under the NLRB rule, management may 
not include nonmanagement employees in the decisionmaking process, is 
that true?
  Mr. SIMON. That is not the case. Ever since the General Foods case in 
1977, it has been clear that employees can be given decisionmaking 
authority without violating section 8(a)(2). If management wants to set 
up work teams and allow them to schedule their own hours, investigate 
plant safety, or redesign job procedures, the law permits it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Now----
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is parliamentary procedure being observed 
here?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is that the Senator from Massachusetts 
has the floor and is recognized. That is the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. And the Senator is so advised 
that he may yield for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield----
  Mr. McCAIN. You would think that after some years the Senator from 
Massachusetts would observe the regular procedure on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is doing that. Regular order, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It might not be pleasing to the Senator from Arizona, 
but that is the rule and that is the regular order.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator from Massachusetts 
a question. We talked about the fact that quality teams are legal, as 
long as they do not strain the questions concerning wages, hours, terms 
and conditions of employment. But what if they do, or what if an 
employer wants to appoint a safety team to figure out why so many 
employees had back injuries, for example? Can the employer do that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Very definitely. As the Senator knows, management has 
the right to direct employees to do the job it wants done, whether the 
job is driving a truck or figuring out the best pension plan. 
Management can direct employees working as a team to solve safety 
problems or production problems. What it cannot do is to appoint 
employees to a safety committee that is supposed to represent the views 
of other employees--other employees--about what pension benefits they 
want, or what safety issues concern them. Management can find out what 
the employees think by asking them, but it cannot establish an employee 
organization, choose its membership and deal with the organization as 
if it were the representative of the employees.
  I think the Senator would understand the logic of that position and 
the reason for it.
  Mr. SIMON. Finally, the Republicans have said in their official 
position that it is illegal for an employer to provide paper and 
pencils or a place to meet for a team or a committee; is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No. That is completely untrue. I just ask those that are 
coming up with those speeches to read the debate over in the House of 
Representatives, where the same examples are being used. These are pat 
and standard, evidently, speeches being handed out and used by our 
colleagues here, because the same language is included in the House 
debate. I do not know whether it would be worthwhile to include the 
debate that took place over in the House. But I urge my colleagues to 
read it because I think it is incisive as to what this whole issue is 
really about.

  I thank the Senator very much for those interrogatories. I will just 
speak briefly about this legislation that is before us.
  As I mentioned earlier, my good friend and highly regarded 
chairperson of our committee, Senator Kassebaum, indicated that the 
principal reason for this legislation was some ambiguity in terms of 
the language of certain holdings. I find myself at odds with that 
understanding and, if that is the difficulty, it is certainly not 
reflected in the number of cases that are being brought to the NLRB. If 
you look at the period of last year, and the year before, you are 
talking about a handful of cases. It is not of such an urgency because 
even if there is a finding that there is some misunderstanding about 
what a company can or cannot do, there are no penalties. There are 
problems out there in terms of protecting workers and workers' rights. 
But, quite frankly, this does not appear to be one of them.
  As I mentioned earlier, it is interesting to me that those who are 
pushing this particular proposal--you can go back and examine the 
testimony before the Dunlop Commission, in 1993, made up of a 
bipartisan group of labor relation experts in business and academia. 
They conducted an intensive study of labor-management cooperation and 
employee participation. And the committee held 21 public hearings, and 
had testimony from 411 witnesses, and received and reviewed numerous 
reports and studies. The commission made one recommendation that is of 
particular relevance. This is the recommendation: ``The law should 
continue to make it illegal to set up or operate company-dominated 
forms of employee representation.''
  That is one of the strong recommendations, and that runs completely 
contrary to the antiworkplace democracy act.
  It is for very sound reasons, Mr. President. It makes no sense for a 
company and a CEO to pretend to represent workers when that individual 
has bought that representation lock, stock, and barrel, with the 
paycheck. It is a disservice to those employees to appoint a worker and 
to say, ``Well, that worker is going to represent all of you in the 
workplace, and I am paying him. I have the ability to dismiss him, and 
I have the ability to fire him tomorrow. I have the ability to tell him 
when they are going to have a meeting and what the agenda is going to 
be.''
  That is what this legislation effectively does. It says that an 
employer can name anyone they want to be the representative of workers, 
and that individual is going to be paid by the employer, who can fire 
them the moment that person makes a recommendation or a suggestion that 
is at odds with the employer or the CEO, and they will set the agenda 
for that worker and tell them what the nature of the debate is going to 
be, and tell them who that worker will recognize in any debate, and 
effectively control that person.
  Now, if you call that representing employees, Mr. President, I do 
not. That does not represent the employees. That is what this 
legislation is about. It is not about just issues of cooperation.
  As I mentioned just yesterday, in the legislation, S. 295, the bill 
introduced

[[Page S4828]]

by Senator Kassebaum, on page 2, it says:

       Employee involvement structures, which operate successfully 
     in both unionized and non-unionized settings, have been 
     established by over 80 percent of the largest employers of 
     the United States and exist in an estimated 30,000 
     workplaces.

  That is good. It is happening. That is taking place today. The report 
itself recognizes it.
  On page 99, the report talks about the commission on the future of 
worker-management relations. The survey found that 75 percent of 
responding employers, large and small, incorporate some means of 
employee involvement in their operation, meaning that larger employers, 
those with 5,000 or more employees, the percentage was even higher--96 
percent. It is estimated that as many as 30,000 employers currently 
employ some form of employee involvement or participation. Amen. That 
is the way to go. We urge that. It is taking place.
  We looked at the provisions. If there is some question about that, we 
looked at the various provisions to understand what is included and 
permitted and what would be prohibited. Basically, we are talking about 
encouraging people and company employee teams to work on everything 
other than the wages and the hours and the exact working conditions. 
There has been a point in talking about, Well, what about certain types 
of working conditions? I had hoped at least to be able to address that 
issue and work with our Republican colleagues to clarify that. I think 
those measures have been clarified in the proposal that was advanced in 
the House of Representatives when it talked about three different 
committees that would be set up and how they would be set up to address 
any possible question about what is permitted and what is not 
permitted. But that was summarily dismissed in the House of 
Representatives, which gives you a pretty good idea about what is 
underlying this bill.
  As a matter of fact, in the House of Representatives, they even 
excluded these kinds of activities in the House version--excluded the 
companies' employees who already had voted for representation. That was 
the Petri amendment to H.R. 743. We have not done so in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I want to just take a few moments to talk about why 
this concept is, I think, a dangerous one for working families, those 
families that are represented by the 120 million Americans who are in 
the workplace virtually every single day, not just the 13.5 million who 
are members of the trade union movement, but all working Americans. We 
know--and we have examined here on the floor very considerably--what 
has happened to the American work force from 1947 to 1970. All 
Americans had moved up with the expansion of the economy. All had moved 
up.
  What we have seen since 1972 to 1992 is that more than 60 percent of 
Americans have actually fallen further and further behind. It is close 
to about 75 percent. Many of us believe that is a major issue and 
challenge for us as a society.

  It boils down to one basic question. Are we going to have an economy 
in the United States of America that is only going to benefit the 
richest and the most powerful individuals in our country and society, 
or are we going to have an economy in which all Americans participate 
in a growing economy?
  I believe that was really the concept that was supported by 
Republicans and Democrats for years, and years, and years. It is now 
being undermined by these assaults on working families. We saw it in 
the early part of this Congress when one of the first actions of our 
Republican friends was to try to eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act. The 
Davis-Bacon Act provides a prevailing wage for workers who work in a 
particular geographical area. It works out effectively to about $27,000 
a year for working families that work in construction.
  I do not know what it is about our Republican friends that they feel 
that one of the major problems in this country is to try to undermine 
workers that are working for $27,000 a year. There are a lot of 
problems that we have in our society, but that does not seem to me to 
be uppermost, and it should be uppermost in the minds of the Members of 
the Senate. But that was there.
  Then, second, we have gone along a few weeks. We saw the assault on 
the earned-income tax credit. That is important as we are talking about 
the increase in the minimum wage because the earned-income tax credit 
helps those workers that are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder 
and who have children, and it goes on up to $25,000, $26,000, and 
$27,000. Sure enough. We saw that the one part of the Republic budget 
that was before the Senate was not only to provide $270 billion in tax 
cuts for the wealthy individuals but to cut back on that help and 
support for working families that have children. It was about the same 
time that Republican opposition came about in terms of opposition to 
the increase in the minimum wage; about the same time.
  What is it about--$27,000 for construction workers and $23,000 for 
working families with children--the opposition to the increase in the 
minimum wage that helps working families if they are by themselves, or 
just a couple? Families are aided more by the earned-income tax credit 
if they have several members in their families and working in that 
particular area. But we have the cutbacks in the earned-income tax 
credit and the opposition in terms of the increase in the minimum wage.
  Then we came out on the floor of the U.S. Senate on that budget which 
provided corporate raiders the opportunity to invade pension funds. We 
had a vote here of 94 to 5 to close that out. That went over to 
conference with the House of Representatives, and the doors had not 
even closed, and the action that was taken overwhelmingly by the Senate 
was effectively eliminated.

  We should not have been so surprised at that because when we tried to 
close the billionaires' tax cut that provides billions and billions of 
dollars to a handful of Americans who make it in the United States and 
then renounce their citizenship--the Benedict Arnold provisions--and 
take up citizenship overseas to escape paying their taxes here, we 
repealed that two different times, and we could not kill it. We went 
over in the conference, and it kept coming back. There just was not a 
tax break out there for powerful interests that the majority was not 
prepared to support.
  Here they go again looking after the company heads, those heads of 
companies that want to set up phony unions and exploit the workers. 
That is what this is all about. It was virtually unanimously rejected 
by the Dunlop Commission, a Republican, former distinguished Secretary 
of Labor, a balanced commission of Republicans and Democrats, 
representatives of employees and employers. They rejected that concept 
of going in this nefarious direction. We have got it back now.
  I talked earlier today about how Republicans cheered with the 
emergence of solidarity in Poland in opposition to effectively have 
company-run unions and company-structured benefits and wages in all 
workplaces in Poland and, for that matter, for all of Eastern Europe. 
The reason Republicans--President Bush, Republicans all over--hailed 
Lech Walesa and those brave shipyard workers--many of us have had a 
chance to visit that shipyard, and we have seen the memorial outside 
where those shipyard workers had faced down the military that shot many 
of them in cold blood as they were demonstrating for their own economic 
rights. We cheered them on and we supported them. Why? Not because they 
had a government-run union or controlled company union, but because 
power was going to the people and they were representing themselves and 
working for democracy and fighting tyranny.
  Now we are going just in the opposite direction here. We are falling 
over ourselves with time limits and no effective debate on this issue, 
which I call the antiworkplace democracy act.
  Mr. President, it will undermine that kind of effective empowerment 
which permits workers to be able to sit across the table and to be able 
to represent their own interests and to be able to try to work out a 
process by which their sweat and their work will be respected instead 
of being dictated to as was the case before the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  So, Mr. President, this issue that is before us today is basically 
about workplace democracy. It is about whether workers should have the 
right to choose their own representatives

[[Page S4829]]

and not have them dictated by the company, or the Government. This is 
not a new issue for our country or the world. This very issue was 
fought out in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union over many years. When 
the Communist Party controlled the governments in those countries, they 
established sham unions which were completely dominated by the 
government instead of being freely elected by the workers. In effect, 
these sham unions were the means by which the Communist Party 
subjugated workers throughout these countries, suppressing their wages 
and living conditions.

  The effect of the company-run unions is to suppress the wages and 
working conditions and living standards. As we know, Lech Walesa 
finally stood up and challenged the antidemocratic system when he 
jumped over the wall at the shipyard in Gdansk and led workers out on 
strike. The central issue was workplace democracy.
  This legislation, this antidemocracy piece of legislation, is not 
about empowering workers and workers' rights; it is about empowering 
companies and management rights. That is what it is about. That is what 
we are basically talking about. It is not just a little bill to talk 
about cooperation. We have already addressed that issue. We have 
cooperation. It is important. We support it. That is not what this is 
about. That is not what this bill is about.
  Now, thanks to the courageous actions of Lech Walesa and thousands of 
Polish workers, they finally prevailed in their struggle for workplace 
democracy, and the strike at Gdansk not only led to solidarity of the 
free and independent Polish trade union but also led ultimately to the 
collapse of communism.
  When Lech Walesa visited the United States, he was widely honored and 
acclaimed by Republicans and Democrats for his courageous struggle on 
behalf of workers' rights and democracy.
  Mr. President, I submit that American workers are entitled to the 
same fundamental rights as the Polish workers and workers throughout 
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. If we believe that workers should 
have the right to choose their own representatives in these countries, 
then we should also be committed to the principle that American workers 
should also be guaranteed this same right. If it is wrong for the 
government-run companies in Poland and other Communist countries to 
dictate who would serve as the representatives of their workers, then 
surely it is wrong for companies in this country to dictate who will 
serve as representatives of American workers.
  I do not understand why that concept should be so difficult to 
understand. We cannot shower Lech Walesa with praise and honors for his 
leadership in the fight for workplace democracy and then try to deny 
democratic rights to American workers. That is what the fight over S. 
295 is all about. That is why this bill should be known as the 
antiworkplace democracy act, because that is what it is designed to do. 
It is designed to undermine the rights of workers to democratically 
elect their own representatives who can sit down as equals with the 
employer to discuss wages, hours and other terms and conditions of 
employment. It is designed to allow employers to establish sham, 
company-dominated committees which can be controlled and manipulated by 
management as a means of suppressing legitimate worker aspirations. And 
it is no secret why big business is pushing the antiworkplace democracy 
act.

  Just as the Communist-dominated unions in Poland and the Soviet Union 
were an instrument for suppressing workers' wages and benefits, the 
sham company-dominated unions which would be legalized under S. 295 
would be used as a mechanism for holding down wages and benefits of 
American workers, just at a time when I thought we were beginning to 
understand the importance of addressing this fundamental development in 
our economy that working families are being left further behind in the 
last 10 to 12 years, and we ought to be trying to find ways of working 
together to try and see that they are going to participate in the 
economic growth and expansion of our society rather than freeze them 
out.
  If workers are denied the right to have their own independent 
representatives, clearly it becomes much easier for the employers to 
say no to their demands for better wages, better health care, better 
pensions, and better and safer work conditions. For as long as 
employees are precluded from having their own independent, 
democratically elected representatives, then it becomes very difficult 
for workers to improve their standard of living and conditions of work. 
Thus, the current effort by our Republican friends to pass S. 295 is 
simply another example of GOP attacks on workers' rights and the 
standard of living of working men and women.
  The Republican leader continues to block the efforts to pass a modest 
increase in the minimum wage which would help provide a living wage to 
millions of low-income working families at the same time their leaders 
are pushing S. 295 in an effort to give big business another weapon for 
suppressing the wages of millions of workers throughout this country. 
It is time to call a halt to these attacks on American workers. It is 
time to stand up for democracy in the workplace and the right of 
workers to choose their own representatives, not have them be dictated 
by the company or the Government. It is time to stand up for the rights 
of workers for better wages, better benefits, and better conditions of 
employment--in short, the right of workers to freely and democratically 
improve their standard of living.

  Mr. President, we will have an opportunity, I imagine, to address the 
Senate further on this issue. I see others of my colleagues wish to 
address the Senate, and I will return to this subject at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have listened intently to the impassioned pleas of my 
good friend from Massachusetts, with whom I have served either across 
the bodies here in the House and Senate or across the aisle in the 
Senate for 22 years now. He is articulate. He believes strongly in his 
issues.
  I would like to, however, try to get us back to the issues as I see 
them and as I believe they are before us in this body. Few of my 
colleagues in the Senate support all three of the measures that are 
before us today. I am one of those. I support repeal of the gas tax 
because it does not go where it ought to go--into infrastructure 
repairs which would benefit the users. I support increasing the minimum 
wage because I believe it is due time that it be increased to reflect 
the reality of the wages and cost of living in our country. And I am an 
original cosponsor and a strong supporter of the TEAM Act because I 
believe we are here talking about not the issues which have been raised 
by my good friend from Massachusetts but, rather, about improving 
productivity and working together to straighten out some provisions of 
the law which have created havoc with respect to businesses working in 
a friendly relationship with employees in order to improve 
productivity.
  That is the issue which we have before us. It is a volatile issue 
because the unions sense that this will somehow inhibit them from being 
able to organize and represent workers. However, they are wrong. The 
bill does not apply if there is a union present.
  We have also in the act before us, S. 295, specifically stated that 
it will not interfere with union operations or interfere with the 
desires of a union.
  Let me just read those words, and then I will be happy to yield to 
the Senator from Arizona.
  What we do is we modify the provision of the law which does define 
these matters, and we add these words. First of all, we do not change 
in any way section 8(a)(5), which defines the employer obligation to 
bargain collectively with the union that is the certified 
representative of the employees. We do change section 8(a)(2) because 
of the ambiguities inherent in the act. There are some 70 cases now 
which have tried to define the line as to whether or not discussions by 
employer-employee work teams or other cooperative groups are infringing 
upon workers' rights to only be represented by a union. But there is no 
clarity on this issue.
  We add these words. They can discuss matters of mutual interest, 
including issues of quality, productivity and efficiency, and then it 
adds:

       And which does not have, claim or seek authority to 
     negotiate or enter into collective

[[Page S4830]]

     bargaining agreements under this act with the employer or to 
     amend existing collective bargaining agreements between the 
     employer and any labor organization.

  That just clarifies it. What you have now is they say, well, why 
bother, because you have thousands and thousands of these teams out 
there, but every one of them, if you take a look at those 70 cases 
which cut one way or another, what you have is 70 areas of confusion, 
leaving employers in a position to have an action brought before the 
National Labor Relations Board where they can get a cease-and-desist 
order and demolish the team, they can be fined. So this is just an 
attempt to make sure that what ought to be done can be done and there 
should be no disagreement about it.
  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. For a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wish to ask a question of Senator Jeffords.
  I ask my colleague and the Chair if I was appropriate in demanding 
regular order as an aggrieved Senator when the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Illinois were in a colloquy which 
was not within the rights of the Senate. I would ask the Chair if I was 
within my rights in calling for regular order at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may call for the regular order.
  Mr. McCAIN. At any time, whether I happen to have the floor or not? 
If I saw a violation of the rules of the Senate, I was within my rights 
as a Senator to call for regular order; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By the rules of the Senate, you are correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is very unfortunate, I say to my friend from Vermont, 
the Senator from Massachusetts continues to violate the rules of the 
Senate and then--he has been here for more than a few years--and then 
rides roughshod over a legitimate objection made by a colleague. You 
know, it has characterized, I am sorry to say, my exchanges with the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I want to let it be on the Record that when 
I see the Senator from Massachusetts violating the rules of the Senate, 
I will act within my rights, and I hope the Chair, rather than what 
happened, his yelling for regular order, that the Chair will intervene, 
because I was fully within my rights as a Senator to intervene when the 
rules of the Senate were being violated.
  It is very unfortunate, and it does not help the comity around here, 
when the Senator from Massachusetts deliberately violates the rules of 
the Senate and then, when called that those rules are being violated, 
continues to just act in a bellicose fashion.
  I think he owes the Senate and me an apology.
  Mr. President, very briefly, the Democratic leader came to the floor 
of the Senate and, in response to a request for a unanimous consent--a 
request by the majority leader--he then asked that campaign finance 
reform be added. When the majority leader refused, the Democratic 
leader, Senator Daschle, then objected to the proposed unanimous-
consent agreement.
  I know it is getting very politicized around here. I know things are 
getting rather tense. I understand the tactics that are being employed 
by the minority. I understand them, and I do not disrespect those 
tactics.
  But when the Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, comes 
to this floor and talks about campaign finance reform and politicizes 
that issue, when I have been working with the Senator from Wisconsin 
and others on a bipartisan basis, and attempts to use it for political 
gain, then I have to come to this floor and take strong exception to 
this crass politicization of this issue which for 10 years was blocked, 
was blocked because it was politicized.
  The Senator from South Dakota is not a cosponsor of the bill. He has 
announced that he is opposed to certain portions of the bill. Yet, he 
has the chutzpah to come to the floor of the Senate and call for the 
inclusion of campaign finance reform being included in a unanimous-
consent agreement.
  I have been working with the majority leader and I have been working 
with my friends on the other side of the aisle, trying to work out an 
agreement where we can bring this issue up, where we can debate it and 
dispose of it one way or another. If the Senator from South Dakota 
wants to politicize this issue, then that is fine. But what he will do 
is politicize this issue, and then we will make no progress.
  I remind my colleagues, for the first time in 10 years we have a 
bipartisan bill, and we have to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. 
The distinguished majority leader has expressed his willingness to try 
to work out some kind of accommodation. But if the Democratic leader 
comes to this floor and politicizes this issue, then we will make no 
progress. Again, the American people will be deeply disappointed. I 
hope--I hope--the Senator from South Dakota will let us work through 
this, bring it up this month and have this issue disposed of one way or 
another.
  Again, I express my deep disappointment that the Senator from South 
Dakota should stoop to politicizing this issue in that fashion.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Vermont has the 
floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague, and this is asking for a 
courtesy, that I might have a moment? It will not be acrimonious at 
all.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield for a question only. I am trying to get back on 
the discussion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just in the form of a question, I guess. The Senator 
yielded for a question from the Senator from Arizona; is that correct? 
It sounded like----
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If you have a question for me, I will be happy to yield 
to you for the question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. I will be brief. I am sorry to put it this way 
but it is a question, in the form of a question, but it is a point. In 
the spirit of honesty, I just wonder whether the Senator from Vermont 
knows--whether or not the Senator from Vermont knows that, as much 
respect as I have for the Senator from Arizona, and I love working with 
him on issues, that I believe that this morning--I could be wrong, we 
can look at the record, but I was here out on the floor--I wonder 
whether the Senator from Vermont knows that when the minority leader 
came out, he was just simply saying that, if we keep putting together 
all these different kinds of pieces of legislation, what will be the 
final combination? He then went on to say, we could have campaign 
finance reform, we could have foreign policy, we could have something 
dealing with arms agreements.
  I do not think it was an announcement that in fact the minority 
leader intended to put the campaign finance reform bill, the bill so 
many of us have worked on, as an amendment on this.
  I wonder whether the Senator understands that? That is a 
clarification.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am not clear as to what all the discussion was on the 
floor at that time, so I will have to let the record speak for itself 
in that regard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think we ought to get back to the 
extremely important issue which is before us today, and that is the 
TEAM Act.
  I am a cosponsor of the TEAM Act because I believe that cooperation 
between employers and employees is the wave of the future, and it 
should have been the wave of the past.
  We went into it at length yesterday, in discussing what happened some 
40 years ago when the issues were how management and labor can get 
together and go into the future in order to work hand in hand to 
improve productivity. The problem was we did not change the then so-
called Taylor policy of real confrontation and arm's-length 
negotiations between the workers and management.
  Our competitors--and this is the issue of the day--on the other hand, 
in Europe and in Asia, said, ``Great idea over in America. You have a 
great idea.'' Briefly, I would say, there was a U.S. company that did 
the same thing, the Donnelly Corp. If you want to read a record of the 
difficulties they have had over the years, trying to defend what is 
entirely within the TEAM Act's perspective and would be allowable 
matters for them to get together

[[Page S4831]]

and improve productivity, you will understand why we are here today--to 
get rid of the ambiguities, to make it crisp and clear that, if a 
company works with employees on productivity, as long as they do not 
get into matters of collective bargaining, et cetera, it is perfectly 
allowable. But right now there are thousands of teams that are out 
there that are in jeopardy of being brought to the NLRB and then being 
given an order to get rid of the team they are working with, and they 
could be fined.
  So that is where we are. I want to make sure we understand that. Over 
30,000 companies use employee involvement programs. The TEAM Act 
addresses the concern that the National Labor Relations Board, the 
NLRB, will discourage future efforts at labor-management cooperation. 
Specifically in the Electromation decision, the NLRB held that the 
employer-employee action committees that involved workers meeting with 
management to discuss attendance problems, no-smoking rules, and 
compensation issues constituted unlawful company-dominated unions.
  Congress enacted section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act 
forbidding employer domination of labor organizations to eliminate the 
sham unions of the early 1930's. No one disagrees with that. The TEAM 
Act is a direct recognition that the world of work has changed since 
the 1930's. In that era, many American businesses believed that success 
could be achieved without involving workers' minds along with their 
bodies. In those days, with the kind of work that was there, that is 
probably true. But today, recognition is widespread among business 
executives that employee involvement from the shop floor to the 
executive suite is the best way to succeed.

  The employee involvement efforts protected by the TEAM Act are not 
intended to replace existing or potential unions. In fact, the language 
of the bill that I read earlier specifically prohibits this result. The 
legislation allows employers and employees to meet together to address 
issues of mutual concern, including issues related to quality, 
productivity and efficiency.
  However, those efforts are limited by language that prohibits the 
committees or other joint programs from engaging in collective 
bargaining or holding themselves out as being empowered to negotiate or 
modify collective bargaining agreements. That is all it does.
  Mr. President, the essence of the matter is that the definition of 
labor organization under the NLRA is so broad that whenever employers 
and employees get together to discuss such issues, that act arguably 
creates a labor organization. In that situation, the existing language, 
section 8(a)(2) comes into play. The question becomes whether the 
employer has done anything to dominate or support that labor 
organization. Such domination and support can be as little as providing 
meeting rooms or pencils and paper for the discussions. This is simply 
too fine a line to ask employers to walk successfully.
  We want to clear that line up to make it absolutely clear that things 
everyone would agree are sensible, logical and appropriate can go 
forward without having the NLRB stop in and say, ``No.''
  Earlier, I heard Senator Kennedy state that upward of 80 percent of 
American companies are engaging in some form of teamwork or other 
cooperative workplace programs. Fine. His conclusion is that all this 
activity is going on out there now without a change in the law, so 
there is no need to change the law.
  What that argument misses is the fact, as I have said, that much of 
this activity is a technical violation of existing law. While these 
programs may be doing wonders for the productivity of the company where 
they are employed, any one of them is no more than a phone call away 
from running afoul of the NLRA.
  What we have to remember is that the NLRA is very specific in all of 
the decisions, some 70 of them, where all these kinds of borderline 
cooperative activities are illegal and the defense of an employer is 
very fragile.
  It is no defense to an unfair labor practice charge that the program 
is working, that working conditions and productivity have improved and 
the company's bottom line has risen. None of this matters if it is a 
technical violation of the antiquated rule. The NLRB will shut down the 
team, fine the company and force it to sign papers swearing it will 
never do it again. The TEAM Act will prevent continuation of these 
absurd results so detrimental to the national interest.
  I recently was visited by a workplace team from my own State of 
Vermont. I am certain that many of my colleagues in the Senate have had 
similar visits, since there are successful teams operating all over the 
country. The workers who visited me were from IBM, the computer-
chipmaking facility in Burlington, VT. The more traditional top-down 
management style still prevails on most shifts and in most departments 
at their plant. However, on the night shift at this plant, the workers 
decided about 3 years ago to try a cooperative work team. They chose 
the name Wenoti, meaning ``We, Not I.'' In other words, the workers and 
the company would work together toward common goals. Wenoti was their 
group. That name is a combination, as I said, of the words ``We, Not 
I'' to symbolize their focus on what is good for all and not just one.
  When the team representatives came to my office a few months ago, 
they were as proud a group of employees as I have ever met. The Wenoti 
team consistently leads the plant in all productivity and quality-
control measures. Moreover, they told me that their job satisfaction 
has risen directly in relation to their ability to contribute 
meaningfully to the successful completion of their job. That is what 
this is all about. For God's sake, what is wrong with it? How can 
anybody argue that fostering this progress is not good for the country?

  IBM is a profitmaking organization. It is not promoting employee 
involvement solely out of altruism. Rather, IBM has come to the 
realization that employee involvement is vital to the company's bottom 
line. Doing so has the added dividend of giving employees a greater 
stake and greater satisfaction with their jobs.
  Time and again you hear employees praise companies that do not ask 
them to check their brains at the door. So if affected employers and 
employees support this legislative effort, what is the problem? It 
comes as no great surprise that organized labor takes a dim view of it. 
Oddly enough, to do so, it must take a dim view of American workers as 
well.
  Organized labor's arguments are based on the assumption that workers 
are not smart enough to know the difference between a sham union and a 
genuine effort to involve them in a cooperative effort to improve the 
product, productivity and their working environment. I think workers 
are smart, and I think that is exactly why employers are trying to 
harness their brains in the workplace as well as their backs.
  The real problem for unions is that under current law, they have a 
monopoly on employee involvement. Like the AT&T or the Vermont 
Republican Party of old, nobody likes to lose their monopoly. But 
consumers or voters or workers profit from choices and competition, not 
from static responses to a changing environment. This is clearly the 
trend of the future.
  Yesterday, I spent some time before my colleagues going back into the 
history and pointing out that I thought it was ironic--if you can just 
get the unions to sit down and look at what has happened in the last 40 
years--that it was back 40 years ago when the leaders in academia and 
others who had studied business and were looking toward the future and 
wondered what could be done to ensure that we improve productivity in 
this Nation. They came up with concepts that said if we could get 
workers and business to work together so that there is productivity and 
then profit, and then that profit can be split, everybody gains, 
everybody benefits.
  All sorts of suggestions were made. I went through them yesterday. 
What about dividends to the employees in terms of stock profit-sharing 
or stock options or even going so far as to put a member of the union 
or the workers' representative on the board of directors?
  What happened in this country? Little or nothing. A few companies 
like Donnelly, which I mentioned before, took it to heart and were very 
successful, but the majority of ours did not.

[[Page S4832]]

  What happened overseas? The Japanese, the Germans, and others looked 
at these and said, ``Hey, good idea.'' The ironic part is, their 
unions, having adopted that philosophy, are now stronger and much more 
dominant in their industries than ours are. So why would the unions in 
this country want to continue to do what created, in my mind, their 
failures? And that is, not to recognize that much more gets done by 
working with management with an eye toward improving productivity.
  Mr. President, if you really want to understand better what is going 
on, Hedrick Smith, who I am sure many of my colleagues know, is a 
Pulitzer Prize winner and author of ``The Power Game'' and ``The 
Russians,'' wrote a tremendous book. It is ``Rethinking America: A New 
Game Plan for American Innovators, School, Business People and Work.''
  It really outlines the serious problems we have in this Nation. It 
outlines those problems which are giving us trouble now. On education, 
Hedrick, as he traveled all over the world going to education centers, 
going to schools and examining what is going on in Japan and what is 
going on in Europe and what is going on in this country, finds that we 
have been placed way back in our ability to compete in our educational 
system.
  I will not dwell on it today. I dwelled on it before. That is a very 
critical part. What they learned is, you have to start cooperation of 
people in the schools. In Japan, for instance, they learn right from 
day one that everyone works together. In the grade schools, everybody 
works to make sure everybody reads, right on through.
  Then they also realized--this is true in Europe also--that the time 
for business to get involved, the time for business to get involved in 
education, is not after a kid graduates from high school, but, rather, 
when they are in high school or middle school. So they designed 
programs for skill training where businesses come in and they are held 
just to dramatize how the different systems are.
  In this country, our businesses spend $200 billion a year--$200 
billion a year--in the training and retraining of the kids that 
graduate from high school in our work force. The Europeans --and that 
is just Europeans--spend the same amount of money, $200 billion. You 
know where they spend it? In high school and middle school, so when the 
kids graduate from high school they are already a trained work force.
  Our schools have failed to recognize the importance of that. We have 
to change that. We are beginning to change that. I was in Mississippi 
this past weekend, and the area has had a very difficult time with 
their education. But they have learned from it. They are now 
revitalizing their schools and their whole vocational-educational 
programs to model them after what is going on in Europe and Japan. The 
rest of the country has to do the same thing.
  Hedrick Smith spent a lot of time putting this together. He went, 
articulately, through and documents exactly what happens. But for 
relevance today, he goes through what happened in the businesses in 
Europe and the businesses in Asia after the 1950's when our academia 
and some business leaders recognized that the wave of the future, due 
to all the technology changes and all, was to make sure we had a 
qualified work force that was available and ready to work but, most 
important, that when they were working, with all the kinds of 
technology changes and the complications of the industrial structures 
now, that the workers are the best ones to know when the quality is 
going down or what to do to improve the quality of your goods and 
services. So they worked with them. And, lo and behold, we had to learn 
that.
  There are wonderful stories about how Motorola got involved in 
understanding this and how they went through and realized that if they 
did not improve the skills of their workers and did not work together 
and get them to help them out, they could not compete in Japan. So they 
changed their whole operation, and they were able to keep jobs here 
instead of losing them.
  Senator Kennedy talked about--maybe it was the minority leader--about 
the huge expansion of the profits in our corporations, but if you 
examine those profits, you will find that most of those profits are 
coming from overseas ventures. We should be keeping those ventures 
here. But we cannot do that if we do not improve our education but 
also, as importantly, if we do not have the TEAM Act to allow the 
workers to work with the employers, to improve productivity, to 
understand what is going on on the assembly line, to correct the 
problems which are creating goods that are not saleable before they 
become that. That is the lesson that we have to learn in this country.
  It is productivity that is the issue here. Is this Nation going to be 
as productive as it can and must be in order to endure as a leader in 
economics in this next century? We are about there now. We established 
sometime ago--in 1983, we took a look at our educational system and 
said, ``Hey, yeah, you're right. We have to improve it. The present 
system isn't going to work.'' We have not entirely touched on improving 
it. So we have to do that.
  Also, essentially, at that time, especially with auto workers, there 
is another example, and I would hate to see it kind of reverting back. 
The UAW recognized that they had to change their ways when they saw the 
flood of cars coming in, much higher quality from Japan and Europe, and 
demolishing their markets. So they finally said, ``Oh, boy, we've got 
to change our ways.'' So they sat down, and, working with management, 
they improved their productivity, improved their quality and got 
together. And we were able to change things to meet the markets.
  We have to be ready to do that or we are going to be driven out. The 
future of this Nation depends upon our ability to compete in the world 
markets. There is fantastic opportunity out there, but we cannot be 
dragged down by old concepts from the 1930's on what worker-management 
relationships should be. We have to look to the future. The TEAM Act is 
a leading tool to do that. It will clarify the law. It will legitimize 
about 30,000 teams that are out there, which are in jeopardy right now 
if we do not change the law.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to please support the TEAM Act. As I 
said earlier, I support all of these issues that we are facing. I have 
no bias one way or the other. I am looking objectively at these things 
and think we should pick and choose those. And, finally, I would thank 
my colleagues for their time and would hope everyone would get down to 
the real issues here and not try to get tied up with the emotionalism 
and rhetoric.
  Mr. President, I yield floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________