[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.
____________________