[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S4878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE TEAM ACT

  Mr. BENNETT. Finally, on the TEAM Act, as it is called, I want to 
make these observations.
  Going back to a headline that appeared in a local U.S. paper--I ask 
unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for another 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. The headline coming from another circumstance but 
driving to the heart of this issue said this: ``Why are the liberals 
afraid of democracy?''
  This had to do with another circumstance where liberals were 
complaining about people voting on an issue and saying that the 
Government should dictate it. Why, said the speaker at this particular 
symposium, himself a liberal, ``are the liberals afraid of democracy? 
Are they afraid they would lose? Why are the unions afraid of the TEAM 
Act? Are they afraid that workers, speaking for themselves, exercising 
democratic rights, will in fact end up in a circumstance that might be 
good for those workers? Do they not trust the workers?''
  Here are the kinds of things that are illegal now, without the 
passage of the TEAM Act, in terms of discussions between workers and 
businesses. They cannot discuss an extension of employees' lunch breaks 
by 15 minutes. That is illegal. They have to have the union discuss 
that in their behalf. They cannot discuss the issue of decreasing rest 
breaks from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. You would think they could get 
together, exercise their democratic rights, rights of free speech, to 
talk about that? Oh, no. Under the present law that is illegal. The 
union has to be the one to do that.
  How about sitting down with management and the workers to discuss 
tornado warning procedures? Oh, no, we cannot trust the workers to have 
that kind of discussion. They may give away the store. We have to have 
the union there to protect their rights. The union must decide, not the 
workers who are directly involved.
  How about rules about fighting? Oh, no, we cannot have that 
discussion with the workers. We have to have that discussion with the 
union.
  Sharpness of the edges of safety knives? No, we cannot have the 
people who actually handle the safety knives discuss that with 
management. We have to have the union there. The list goes on and on.
  I am willing to vote on minimum wage. I am willing to vote on TEAM 
Act. I am willing to vote on the gas increase. I am not willing to have 
some people in this body say to us, ``You can vote on the ones that we 
think are important, but we will not let you vote on the ones that you 
think are important.''
  I say, in closing, to those who are so concerned about the minimum 
wage, why, if it is such a vital social benefit for so many people, was 
it never mentioned by the then-majority party for the 2 years that they 
held both the Presidency and the Congress? Never once did it come up 
when they had the opportunity to control the agenda, control the veto, 
and control the passage through here. They did not even mention it, let 
alone raise it. Now, all of a sudden, it is an amendment that must be 
offered to every single bill.

  I think the coincidence is that $35 million has been pledged in 
support of the President's campaign by the labor unions, and the 
decision has been, suddenly, well, it is important. So now we will 
bring it up, even though we never did when we were in charge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________