[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4878-S4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE THREE PROPOSALS BEFORE THE SENATE

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, to lay a framework here, we have three 
proposals that are before the Senate offered by the majority leader, 
Senator Dole of Kansas. We have an opportunity to repeal a 4\1/2\-cent 
gas tax that was imposed by President Clinton in August 1993. This is 
the gas tax that the President, while campaigning, said should not be 
imposed because it is especially harsh on the poor families in our 
country. But when he became President, he changed his mind and imposed 
a 4.3-cent gas tax that, as I said, is very, very difficult for the 
poorer sectors of our society to deal with, the rural sectors, rural 
communities that have to utilize gas extensively in their travels and 
in their work. This has added a deficit in a family checking account 
between $100 and $200 per family.
  It is interesting we are discussing that on this day, because May 8 
is the first day that wage earners get to keep

[[Page S4879]]

their checks for their own housing, their own food, their own 
transportation. From January 1 to yesterday, every check that was 
earned by every worker in America went to the Government. It is hard to 
believe we are at a point in time in our country where you work from 
January 1 to May 7 and you have to wait until May 8 to keep the first 
check that you earned. So repealing this gas tax is just the beginning 
of a series of steps that ought to occur to lighten that load and push 
those days back.
  If you ask Americans what date they think is the appropriate one, 
they say March 1. Now it is May 7, and you have to wait until May 8 
until you can begin to keep what you worked for, for your own family.
  So we are talking about repealing this gas tax. We are talking about 
the minimum wage, which the Senator from Massachusetts has argued now 
for several weeks ought to be passed. I disagree with him, but there 
would be a vote on the minimum wage in this proposal the majority 
leader has put before the Senate.
  I agree with the Senator from Utah that the minimum wage will hurt 
those that they argue it will help. Entry-level, beginning employees, 
minority employees will find it harder to get a job. That debate has 
been aired now for several weeks, and there will be a vote on that 
proposal.

  Then there will be a vote on legislation that makes it possible--it 
is called the TEAM Act. But basically it is a proposal that allows 
employers and employees to meet together and discuss the modern 
workplace. Today, representative employees from a company in 
Lawrenceville, GA, visited our office and said their working groups had 
saved $6 million. A team that consisted of nine employees, people from 
the assembly line to plant managers, chosen by coworkers, met for 6 
months, and they saved that company $6 million. They are up here saying 
we want that flexibility in labor law.
  A small business from Macon, GA--they employ 30 people in Macon--they 
have created a committee called TRAQ, total responsibility in quality, 
made up of employee-selected representatives. Top management does not 
participate but makes recommendations. These employees from this 
company in Georgia have written endorsing this new concept. The concept 
has been endorsed by the Savannah Morning News, the TEAM Act concept, 
the ability of people to come together.
  Mr. President, do I need to ask unanimous consent for another 2 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is about to expire.
  Mr. FORD. If I do not object, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I sure will.
  Mr. FORD. You will?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. So I will not object.
  Why do we need to change the law when these people you are talking 
about now are on a team?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Because we are a right-to-work State, and they can 
function under the law here. There are many shops where that is not the 
case.
  Mr. FORD. But 96 percent of all businesses now, I understand, have 
the team concept, but what they do is try to improve the assembly line, 
to try to improve, so that the nuts and bolts ought to be here on the 
right instead of on the left. The Ranger truck in Louisville that was 
not doing so well, management and the employees got together and they 
were able to learn to put the truck upside-down and be able to lean on 
the machine that tightens the bolts and turn the truck back up and were 
able to do these things. That is fine. But now are you saying that 
these teams will be able to negotiate wages? Negotiate hours? Is that 
the team concept that you want?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Frankly, if it were up to me----
  Mr. FORD. Oh, I understand that.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It would.
  Mr. FORD. But what this law----
  Mr. COVERDELL. No; and to respond to your question--I know neither 
one of us want to put a full page in here.
  Mr. FORD. I am trying not to, but some people just say some things.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The National Labor Relations Board has called into 
question all of these concepts.
  And is it very simple to read what this act does. It simply would 
make this possible. I simply quote Secretary Reich:

       Many companies have already discovered that management 
     practices fully involving workers have great value beyond 
     their twin virtues.

  Or as President Clinton said in his 1996 State of the Union Message:

       When companies and workers work as a team, they do better, 
     and so does America.

  We could not agree more. So why not make it possible and make it 
certain that no one is under a threat from the National Labor Relations 
Board?
  Mr. FORD. I say to my colleague, you take one line out of a statement 
and then you do not read the paragraph before or the paragraph under of 
the President's State of the Union Message. My interpretation of that 
was that employees ought to be recognized as assets, to be nurtured and 
improved and trained--that was No. 1--so that management and the 
employees could work together.
  Second, I think his intent was the employees should not be used to be 
fired so the CEO could get $5 million as a bonus for that year while 
they are out walking on the street. So what he was saying, as long as 
the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senators the additional 
2 minutes has expired.
  Mr. FORD. I request 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe the Senator from Georgia----
  Mr. FORD. You have the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I have the floor.
  Mr. FORD. I like what we are doing. We are having a good time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Let me finish this statement and I will not object to 
an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. I do not want the meat loaf to get too hard, and I do not 
want to stay around here. I would like to talk with you now.
  Mr. COVERDELL. All right.
  Mr. FORD. Because I think the team concept is fine. I understand that 
well. That is to improve the flow of the----
  Mr. COVERDELL. I ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. But I like the team concept of working together, making the 
assembly line work better, put out a better product, make more profit 
for the employer. But if you take this out, if you pass this bill, as I 
understand it, as my lawyers tell me, then the employer selects the 
team and that is the end of it. He appoints his son-in-law and a couple 
of others and that is the end of it, because you do not allow what is 
going on now. You eliminate the law, and the law then gives the 
employer the opportunity to select the teams.
  Now you say, ``Well, that will never happen.'' That is what this law 
says.
  Mr. COVERDELL. No; that is not what this law says. Now I am going to 
take my prerogative and finish my statement.
  Mr. FORD. You disagree. Well, I had fun while it lasted.
  Mr. COVERDELL. This is a good debate, because talking about the TEAM 
Act or the ability for employers and employees to work together is 
something that actually came out of Asia. We have all sat back and 
noticed the efficiencies that some of the Japanese companies have. This 
is where this concept comes from.
  This is talking about a new workplace. Labor law in this country is 
essentially drawn for industry and the workplace that is 50 years old. 
We are about to go into a new century, and we ought to be talking about 
a more flexible workplace, like this suggests. We ought to be talking 
and acknowledging the fact that the American family is under severe 
pressures and anxiety today. Both of them have to work today just to 
keep up with the point I made a minute ago that half their income is 
taken by the Government now.
  Mr. FORD. Plural; plural.
  Mr. COVERDELL. And we ought to be guiding them to a more flexible 
workplace, a more friendlier work environment. I think the President's 
statement sort of speaks for itself. It is not a question of 
interpreting it. He simply says, this is a quote:

       When companies and workers work as a team, they do better 
     and so does America.

  He is right, and we ought to be shaping law that gets us ready for 
the new century, that allows a friendlier environment, that allows 
workers and management to work together. That is what the TEAM Act will 
do.

[[Page S4880]]

  I might point out that it is not management that was up here from 
these Georgia companies, it was employees who were up here trying to 
help endorse these newer concepts for the new century and the new 
workplace.
  Again, we have three proposals here. One is to repeal the gas tax 
that President Clinton and the administration imposed in August 1993. 
It is an initial step to lighten this burden on the American family. 
The second is the minimum wage that the Senator from Massachusetts just 
tried to propose for America. And the third is a modification that 
frees companies not to be threatened by the National Labor Relations 
Board if employers and employees set up work groups to cover the very 
points that the Senator from Utah espoused.

  This is a good law. It actually ought to be just the beginning. We 
ought to be thinking of other forms of flexibility and other forms of a 
new environment in the workplace that adjusts itself to the modern 
workplace and modern family of employees are having to contend with.
  With that, Mr. President, I am going to do the leader's notice for 
the end of the day.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I asked for recognition.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield----
  Mr. FORD. You yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I apologize for taking so much time here, 
but I think what we are getting into is important. There is no way 
under the 4.3-cent gasoline tax any assurance that the consumer will 
get it. So all we ask is let that proposal stand alone and we will have 
relevant amendments and a time agreement. But we are blocked out of 
amendments; we have to take it as is.
  Why, you could give an income tax credit of 4.3 cents, and that would 
assure that the consumer, the taxpayer would get the money. We do not 
even have a chance to put up that kind of amendment. You know, a blind 
hog every once in a while finds an acorn. We might come up with a good 
suggestion, but we are precluded from amending. That is No. 1.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FORD. I am glad to yield--you yielded to me--as long as I do not 
go beyond.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I think we heard the majority leader say to the 
minority leader that he was prepared to discuss an amendment, that he 
was prepared to meet this evening----
  Mr. FORD. But he wants to keep it in the same package.
  Mr. COVERDELL. He did not say that.
  Mr. FORD. Absolutely, absolutely, that is the whole theme here, and 
you have to approve of the amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will say this, I am encouraged the Senator from 
Kentucky is talking as though he is prepared to grant some time.
  Mr. FORD. We have been prepared all along, but what you do is put a 
poison pill in, and we are not going to accept the poison pill. Wait a 
minute. We are not going to accept the poison pill. You say this is it, 
and we say we cannot be for it if you put that in. Well, you put that 
in and so, therefore, we have told you in advance we cannot be for it.
  So we are put in a position of having to be against it, and I do not 
particularly like that. But I wanted to tell you, if I am precluded 
from offering any amendment, I think I have the right, and this side 
has the right, and some on that side will have the right to offer 
amendments and be quite disturbed about not being able to offer 
amendments.
  So what we did is we offered three stand-alone bills with relevant 
amendments and a time, and you say, ``No, we want to put it all in a 
package, and we have to vote on it as a package. We get three votes and 
then a vote on the package.''
  I do not understand why you will not take the offer. There must be 
some reason, because the minimum wage was the only threat you had. That 
was the only threat. Now you are agreeing to the minimum wage to take 
it as an amendment or vote on it. And there is a majority in this body 
that will vote for it, and the majority leader stated that this 
afternoon. So the majority wants to increase the minimum wage in the 
Senate. The majority leader agreed to that.
  So, that is one vote. That is stand alone. That is the only threat 
you have had. That is the only thing that the majority leader has been 
building the tree for, so we cannot have an amendment, so we cannot put 
on the minimum wage.
  Now something happened out there beyond the beltway, and all of a 
sudden we are agreeing to the minimum wage, because you have Senators 
on your side who want to vote for the minimum wage increase.
  So we just say there are three bills. Let them stand alone, let us 
have relevant amendments, let us do a time agreement, if that is what 
is necessary, instead of putting it in a package and then having three 
votes and then the fourth vote to approve the package. There is some 
reason beyond the minimum wage.

  Mr. COVERDELL. What we are worried about is the poison pen.
  Mr. FORD. Pill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Pen, the one that vetoed the tax relief earlier this 
year, the one that vetoed welfare reform.
  Mr. FORD. The one that signed the tax in 1990, that was a poison pen 
too, my friend?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am talking about----
  Mr. FORD. You want to talk about the President. There was a history 
of a $300 billion deficit when President Clinton took over. It is now 
$140 billion, down 4 consecutive years--4 consecutive years--after you 
built it up over almost $5 trillion.
  You say, we have not done very well? Let us look at the record. You 
are saying, we had to swallow the poison pill to vote for that.
  Mr. COVERDELL. You are about to run past your $389.
  Mr. FORD. You got me worked up, and I am sweating a little bit. But 
the thing that really bothers this Senator is to say that it is all 
President Clinton's fault. Why, I even saw one story that he was 
responsible--an op-ed piece--that he was responsible for the Unabomber. 
Keep on keeping on, because he is going up in the ratings. He is even 
16 points ahead in Kentucky. Will you believe that? I yield the floor. 
And I will go to dinner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, just in response--I do not speak for 
the leader, but I do not believe the package will be separated, because 
of the fear of the poison pen of a veto. So they will not be taken up 
in separate votes. I am sure there can be an accommodation to other 
amendments. But the separation that would allow the President the 
authority to accept what that side wants and reject what our side wants 
is not likely the case.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia yield for a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia agree that at the present 
time we on this side of the aisle have sought to pass a very simple 
bill, which has already passed the House of Representatives, to 
reimburse attorney's fees and costs to those people who were wrongfully 
fired in the White House Travel Office just a couple years ago, and 
that we have been denied the right to pass that bill without any 
changes and without any conditions?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator is absolutely correct. It is the 
underlying bill to which the majority leader's package would be 
attached.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia not agree that we asked 
for the ability to debate a repeal of the gas tax, an unprecedented gas 
tax, not for use for transportation infrastructure, but for the first 
time in the history of our country the gas tax increase passed 3 years 
ago simply went into the general fund for various social programs, and 
we are denied the ability to deal with that issue standing alone?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator is absolutely correct. It was under threat 
of amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia agree that we now have 
before us not only those two together, but also an increase in the 
minimum wage, the very increase in the minimum wage that the other 
party has asked for, but at the same time that we deal with that 
aspect, the questions relating to labor, that we have wanted to

[[Page S4881]]

ensure that the Senate majority could work its will with respect to the 
TEAM Act, an act which will authorize the kind of cooperation which is 
in fact taking place right now in more than 30,000 places of employment 
throughout the country, in which members of a corporation management 
and labor can work together for safer conditions, for better 
productivity, for the creation of production teams and the like, things 
that are not specifically collective bargaining, and that we have 
thought it was quite appropriate that we deal with both the minimum 
wage on one side of the equation and this one as a package and ensure 
that, if we are going to have one passed along, we would pass the other 
as well?
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Washington is correct. He is 
articulating very well the balance here. If we are going to deal with, 
in my judgment, the old systems of managing the workplace, I think 
coming to the new century is a wonderful time to begin talking about 
some of the newer ideas.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Georgia agree that the only 
offer--perhaps not offer; demand--demand we have from the minority 
party is that we deal with these issues in a way in which those that 
the minority party favors are assured to become law while those that 
the majority party favors are assured to be vetoed?
  Mr. COVERDELL. As I said a moment ago, I could not envision us 
separating this thing in a form where the President's poison pen versus 
this poison pill they are talking about could be applied to the issues 
we want to become law and he could accept the provisions that they want 
to become law.

  Mr. GORTON. Does the Senator from Georgia agree that the rationale 
for this is that the various labor union bosses find absolutely 
anathema any proposal which would allow informal arrangements between 
management and labor that does not go through formal labor unions, and 
for that reason they are perfectly prepared to filibuster and are 
filibustering, and the President is perfectly prepared to veto, and 
will veto a proposal that gives gas tax relief; and the minimum wage 
increase, if it is accompanied by this modern management technique 
which so many people, both the management and labor, whatever their 
devotion to lower taxes, whatever their devotion to a minimum wage 
increase, they are far less important than preventing the passage of 
the TEAM Act?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Well, I agree. It is a matter of public discourse at 
this point that the labor bosses in this city have publicly stated that 
they are going to expend $35 million to destabilize the majority----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator the time limit 
has expired.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That they will put 100 paid volunteers in some 70 
congressional districts. So you do not have to be a rocket scientist to 
figure out why the other side is scared to death of a procedure or 
management tool that those labor bosses do not want.
  I might add to that, but the employees--as I noted just a moment ago, 
it was the employees, not management, who came from my State today and 
yesterday asking for this new vehicle. I think the American worker, 
unlike the boss system in this city, the American worker wants these 
flexibilities.
  Mr. GORTON. Obviously, because they can only take place with their 
involvement.
  Mr. COVERDELL. That is right.
  Mr. GORTON. So those of us who feel that cooperation, rather than 
confrontation, is the future for America and labor-management 
relationships, that this is the way we will build more jobs and greater 
competitiveness, that the only way we can authorize what in fact has 
been going on until it was determined to be a violation of an act from 
the 1930's, that the only way that we could bring ourselves into the 
1990's or into the 21st century under this set of circumstances is to 
marry this proposal, which otherwise would be filibustered and vetoed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Being filibustered now.
  Mr. GORTON. Is being filibustered and would be vetoed.
  The only way we can possibly get it into law is to marry it with 
something that the other side would like to see passed and let them 
determine whether or not their expressed devotion to a minimum wage 
increase is sufficient to overcome their loyalty to these union 
leaders.
  Is it not the opinion of the Senator from Georgia that they have now 
shown us that their devotion to a minimum wage increase is far less 
than their devotion to following the dictates of union leaders who say 
that no relationship between management and labor can take place except 
through formal labor unions?
  Mr. COVERDELL. If this afternoon and whatever we uncovered from the 
Senator from Kentucky, the sensitivities that were raised here a few 
minutes ago would suggest that you are right.
  Mr. GORTON. I believe that I am. I thank the Senator from Georgia. If 
I may, I express my own opinion that while I think that a minimum wage 
increase, at least marginally, would decrease jobs and job 
opportunities, I nevertheless feel that creating a better overall 
economy through the TEAM Act is worth a compromise which puts the two 
of these together and sends it to the President of the United States 
with the hope that the President would sign them.
  I share the regret and opinion of the Senator from Georgia that 
devotion to the minimum wage increase is no more than lip deep, that it 
will disappear once anything else of a more balanced nature should 
appear with it.
  It seems to me we should continue to insist that if we are going to 
do the one, we ought to do the other at the same time and in a way 
which that poison pen of the White House can accept simply what he 
wishes and not have to do something which will really improve the 
economy and labor-management relations in the United States of America.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I underscore that regarding this 
proposal, 90 percent of the economists have alluded to the fact that it 
will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. The proposal we are talking 
about is part of a new workplace. It comes from nations that are using 
it that have become tough competitors of ours. We better start getting 
modern labor law in place if we are going to compete in the new 
century.
  Mr. MACK. Would the Senator from Georgia be willing to yield for a 
question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
  Mr. MACK. Would the Senator agree it is possible that our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this legislation 
because, frankly, it is an embarrassment if this 4.3-cent gasoline tax 
cut were to make its way to the President of the United States?
  Again, what I am trying to draw in your mind is a picture of the 
President of the United States who campaigned in 1992 that he was going 
to reduce the burden on America's middle-income families. In fact, I 
think he proposed a tax cut for middle-income families. Then within the 
first year after he was elected he introduced and enabled the passage 
of a tax plan that would, in fact, increase taxes on all Americans, 
part of which was the 4.3-cent gasoline tax.
  Now, we are in a situation where we would be saying that we want to 
give the President an opportunity to keep his campaign promise of 1992, 
but it puts him in an embarrassing position, because after he got 
through saying the things he said in 1992, he went ahead and supported 
the tax increase.
  Is it possible our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
engaging in this filibuster to try to protect the President from an 
embarrassing situation where he will either have to sign into law 
something that would reverse something he has done, or he will have to 
veto?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we be allowed 
to finish our colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Yes, there are two promises here. First, the President 
said he would lower taxes on the middle-class as part of the campaign 
of 1992. That was substantially reversed. Instead of lowering the 
economic pressure on America and America's working families, he 
reversed it and increased the economic pressure with a

[[Page S4882]]

historic tax increase of which the gas tax is a significant piece.
  Second, he said during the same campaign that a gas tax was 
regressive and would be particularly harmful on the poor and the 
elderly and should not be imposed, and then reversed that and imposed a 
new gas tax.
  So the debate is about reversing something the President imposed on 
the country through his leadership in the Congress, and more 
importantly, reminds us of a promise that was made that was not kept, 
which is what the Senator from Florida has alluded to.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________