[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4889-S4893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

[[Page S4890]]



                 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 clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2937) 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.

  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. 3960 (to amendment No. 3955), to provide 
     for the repeal of the 4.3 cent increase in fuel tax rates 
     enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, to 
     clarify that an employer may establish and participate in 
     worker-management cooperative organizations to address 
     matters of mutual interest to employers and employees, and to 
     provide for an increase in the minimum wage rate.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3960

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to discuss, again, legislation 
that has been before us, which is support for the Teamwork for 
Employees and Management Act, the TEAM Act.
  During the past couple of days, we have had some lengthy debate on 
this legislation, as well as, of course, repeal of the 4.3-cent gas 
tax, and raising the minimum wage. I thought it might be useful at this 
point to review some of the debate back and forth on the TEAM Act, what 
it does and does not do, and dispel some of the myths that have 
surfaced over the course of the debate.
  The TEAM Act responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor 
Relations Board that invalidated numerous employee involvement 
programs. The NLRB decisions that have been made regarding employee-
employer relationships have been very broad. They found that the 
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 prohibited supervisors from 
meeting with workers in committees to discuss workplace issues like 
health and safety, working conditions, family leave, and other 
important areas of mutual concern.

  The TEAM Act simply establishes a safe harbor in Federal labor law to 
permit these types of employee involvement programs, where workers meet 
with supervisors to discuss issues of mutual concern, to continue to 
exist without running afoul of Federal labor law. Under the TEAM Act, 
workers may discuss quality, productivity, efficiency, health and 
safety, or any other issues that are important to them.
  It seems to make so much sense, Mr. President, and it is very hard 
for me to understand why this is being so vigorously challenged and 
fought by the unions in this country, particularly the chairman of the 
NLRB, William Gould, who does not support the TEAM Act, but does say 
that we need a clarification of the law so that there can be the 
ability of employers and employees to come together with a clearer 
understanding of what is within the parameters of the law.
  I believe that workers have important contributions to make to 
improve the quality of their work life and the quality of the product 
or service their company delivers. America needs to harness workers' 
ideas and put them to good use. They are the ones who are there making 
the day-to-day effort, who best know the whole condition of workplace 
health and the safety of the atmosphere--on the line, perhaps, in a 
factory--and can come up with innovative suggestions.
  The legislation also has important worker protections. For instance, 
teams may not have, claim, or seek authority to negotiate collective-
bargaining agreements, or amend existing collective-bargaining 
agreements, and the TEAM Act also clearly prohibits employers from 
bypassing an existing union if the workers have chosen to be 
represented by a union.

  I do not fault the NLRB for the breadth of their decisions 
invalidating employee involvement. I think they did the best job they 
could under the circumstances. Our Federal labor laws were written in 
the 1930's at a time when employers had used company unions to avoid 
recognizing and bargaining with unions after workers had selected union 
representation. So the Congress wrote our Federal labor laws very 
broadly to prohibit that type of activity.
  In fact, the law was written so broadly that it invalidated the 
legitimate employee-involvement programs that we see today. So the TEAM 
Act permits these legitimate employee-involvement programs to move 
forward, while requiring firms to recognize and negotiate with 
independent unions if that is what the workers want.
  Why do we need the TEAM Act? This has been mentioned many times. 
Because it has worked very successfully in the union businesses where 
the union shops exist. There have been many times effective employee-
management teamwork. But we have, I think, also heard compelling cases 
of why there is great uncertainty.
  During the debate over the last 2 days, some of my colleagues have 
asked, if there are so many employee-involvement programs going on 
right now, why then is it necessary and why do we need the TEAM Act? I 
will respond to my colleagues that the NLRB interpreted the law so 
broadly that it has cast great uncertainty on the legality of all 
employee-involvement programs. Some companies have disbanded their 
teams, either by order of the NLRB or because they are concerned with 
whether they are legal and fearing they might not feel it is worth the 
effort to even try, and other companies are not expanding their 
existing teams.
  For example, during our committee hearings on the TEAM Act, we heard 
from David Wellins, a senior vice president of a human resource 
consulting firm in Pittsburgh, PA. Mr. Wellins' firm assists clients, 
from Fortune 500 companies to small nonprofits, to establish high-
performance work organizations.
  Mr. Wellins testified:

       On manufacturing plant floors and in corporate offices 
     across this country, work teams are making employees and 
     their companies more productive than at any other time in the 
     history of this country. . . The second point I want to make 
     [is that the NLRB decisions] have dramatically dampened the 
     enthusiasm for teams. Many of the Nation's leading companies, 
     both union and nonunion, are confused about which aspects 
     of teams are allowable and correspondingly reluctant to 
     proceed with team initiatives.

  Mr. Wellins then cited several examples, including a large Midwest 
bank, a major beverage manufacturer, and a consumer product packaging 
plant that eliminated their employer involvement program due to the 
uncertainty which has been caused by the NLRB's interpretation of 
Federal labor law. It is clear from Mr. Wellins' testimony that we need 
a legislative solution to this problem.
  Some of my colleagues have also asked whether the TEAM Act permits 
employers to establish company or sham unions. The answer is absolutely 
not. This is very clear, and has been very misleading in the debate so 
far that has gone back and forth for a couple of days.
  The TEAM Act permits workers to choose independent union 
representation at any time. The TEAM Act does not replace traditional 
unions, and once workers select union representation, the employer must 
recognize and then negotiate with the union.
  Moreover, the Team Act specifically states that employee teams may 
not ``have, claim, or seek authority to negotiate or enter into 
collective bargaining agreements with the employer or to amend existing 
collective bargaining agreements.'' It does not in any way interfere 
with the collective bargaining agreements that are in place and working 
and clearly understood. So the TEAM Act does not permit employers to 
create company or sham unions.
  Mr. President, one of the other issues that has come forth also 
during the debate is who selects team members?

[[Page S4891]]

 This has been debated in our committee hearings as well. Some of the 
colleagues have asked whether the TEAM Act promotes true employee 
involvement because the legislation does not mandate that workers 
select all team members. I respond to my colleagues who have questioned 
this that the TEAM Act avoids mandating a one-size-fits-all for the 
employee-involvement program. Instead, it recognizes that there are a 
variety of worker teams that exist and would encourage workers and 
managers to develop flexible teams that best suit their needs.
  Sometimes workers select team members, sometimes the team members 
volunteer, and sometimes the whole company is run on the team concept. 
So the question of team member selection is moot. At other times, 
particularly if a worker has a necessary job skill required by the 
team, such as appointing an EMT to a safety team, the employer may 
choose team members.

  Focusing on team member selection really misses the point because the 
real issue is management commitment to employee involvement. Workers 
are not stupid. They know when management values employee involvement, 
and workers quickly tire of making suggestions if management will not 
follow through on them; therefore, it is not going to succeed. It 
really has to be a management commitment even more than a worker 
commitment. So it would be useless for managers to limit teams to their 
favorite workers, because the value of those employee ideas would be 
limited. It really has to be a commitment that is on both sides, 
recognizing the changes that are taking place in our work force today, 
not in an attempt to undermine the unions but in an attempt to 
strengthen the initiative, the productivity, and the constructive 
environment instead of a suspicious, adversarial environment that can 
occur in the workplace. I think it has a very positive benefit.
  Ironically, the whole idea of team member selection reveals how 
narrowly critics are viewing employee involvement. They are assuming 
that there should be only one type of program, where the employees 
select their team representative. But many times, team members do not 
represent their coworkers on teams. Many times, the whole plant is run 
by self-directed work teams. So there are no employee representatives 
since everyone serves on a team.
  We cannot categorize every type of team in America, and we should not 
try. Instead, we should give workers and supervisors the flexibility to 
craft their workplace needs and craft how they can best be met.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. I think, 
Mr. President, it offers us an opportunity, that we have not had 
before, to clarify a situation that will allow us to move forward to 
meet the needs of a workplace, that will allow us to be ever more 
competitive, ever more imaginative, ever more inventive, and create an 
employee involvement that I think will add a lot of vitality in our 
workplace today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Kassebaum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as I was sitting in the chair presiding 
and I was listening to several people try to justify an argument 
against repealing the tax increase, a tax increase that was sold to the 
American people that it only affected the fat cats in this country, we 
are talking about the gasoline tax at 4.3 cents as if 4.3 cents is not 
a significant amount.
  I remind these people that this was part of a package in 1993, when 
Bill Clinton had control of both Houses of Congress, and they passed 
what was characterized by then the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as ``the largest single tax 
increase in the history of public finance, in America or any nation in 
the world.''
  I think it needs to be in the Record after these statements 
justifying continuing these taxes that if anyone was opposed to ``the 
largest single tax increase in the history of public finance, in 
America or any place in the world'' back in 1993, they would be 
supportive of repealing any portion of that tax increase today. It was 
not just a gasoline tax. It was many other taxes which included a 50 
percent tax on Social Security for thousands and thousands of senior 
citizens in America.
  So I think that those individuals who believe as the chief financial 
adviser to the President believes, that there is no relationship 
between the level of taxation in a country and its economic production, 
have lost the argument because truly that is not the case.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have before the Senate a proposal to 
repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon Federal excise tax on gasoline enacted 
in 1993 as part of a comprehensive deficit-reduction package. That 
legislation--the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1993 [OBRA]--
has been largely responsible for cutting the Federal deficit nearly in 
half since its enactment. The 4.3-cent tax on gasoline that was 
included in that legislation has contributed more than $10 billion to 
this deficit reduction. Though we have not yet completed the difficult 
task of balancing the Federal budget, in the middle of a Presidential 
election year we are suddenly being lured by a politically inspired 
proposal to repeal that very same 4.3-cent tax for the remainder of 
1996 to combat a recent increase in gasoline prices across the country. 
Our colleagues in the majority would have us believe that the 4.3-cent 
gasoline tax is the primary culprit for the current high level of gas 
prices. The American people are being asked to believe that a simple 
repeal of the 1993 tax for the balance of one year will cure the pain 
at the pump. And this is utter folly. It is not true.
  Mr. President, the current Federal excise tax on gasoline stands at 
18.3 cents per gallon--approximately 14 percent of the current average 
price of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. The 4.3-cent tax that 
this proposal would repeal represents less than 3.5 percent of the 
current cost of a gallon of gasoline. Are we to believe that 4.3 cents 
of this tax enacted in 1993 has had any really significant effect on 
the price of gasoline? Or, conversely, are we to believe that a repeal 
of this tax will substantially reduce the price of a gallon of gas?
  Simply put, gas prices have risen because of forces unrelated to the 
Federal excise tax on gasoline. They have risen because of factors 
associated with the basic economic principles of supply and demand. The 
reduced supply of world crude oil and the higher gasoline consumption 
in the United States and Europe as a result of a lengthy, cold winter 
have undoubtedly played a much larger role in the higher price of 
gasoline than has the much-demonized 4.3-cent gas tax approved in 1993. 
In fact, Mr. President, the repeal of the national speed limit by this 
Congress has probably contributed more to the price of gasoline than 
the 1993 tax.
  Is it not somewhat contradictory to first give drivers a green light 
to drive faster and then blame the recent surge in the cost of gas on a 
tax enacted 3 years ago. After all, it is no secret that cars use more 
gas when they are traveling at higher speeds. More gas means higher 
demand. Higher demand means higher prices. While rising gas prices do 
inflict financial burdens on some segments of the society, let us 
remember also that the current increases in gas prices has come after a 
prolonged period of low prices at the pump. According to the American 
Petroleum Institute, gasoline prices last year, adjusted for inflation 
and including Federal and State taxes, were at their lowest level since 
data were first collected in 1918. Thus, Mr. President, we may view the 
recent escalation in the price of gasoline not as a dramatic increase 
above its historical cost, but as an upward adjustment from unusually 
low

[[Page S4892]]

prices. It certainly stretches the imagination, however, to place the 
blame for the recent gas price increase solely on the shoulders of the 
4.3-cent tax enacted to reduce the Federal deficit.

  Contrary to what one might think in listening to the rhetoric 
surrounding this so-called Clinton gas tax increase, the 1993 deficit 
reduction package was not the first time that gasoline taxes have been 
increased for the purpose of deficit reduction. The fact is that the 
1990 Summit Agreement, which was negotiated by Congress and the Bush 
administration, contained a gasoline tax increase of 5 cents per gallon 
which went into effect on December 1, 1990. Of that amount, two-and-
one-half cents per gallon of that gasoline tax increase went to deficit 
reduction. This fact is set forth in a report of the Congressional 
Budget Office to the Congress dated January 1991, in the following 
statement relating to the 1990 Summit Agreement:

       For the first time since the Highway Trust Fund was 
     established in 1956, not all highway tax receipts will be 
     deposited in the trust fund. Revenue from 2.5 cents of the 5-
     cents-per-gallon increase in the motor fuel taxes will remain 
     in the general fund. The baseline assumes that this portion 
     of the tax expires on schedule at the end of fiscal year 
     1995.

  Ultimately, as Senators are aware, the 1990 Summit Agreement as 
negotiated with President Bush and which contained the gasoline tax I 
have just described, passed the Senate by a vote of 54-45. And, of the 
54 yea votes, 19 were Republican Senators--19.
  Mr. President, this being a Presidential election year, it is clear 
that this proposal before the Senate is being presented to the Congress 
for reasons beyond the question of whether or not a repeal of the 4.3-
cent gas tax represents sound fiscal policy. It is true that rising 
gasoline prices have permeated the country, particularly California, a 
State with a plethora of electoral votes. It is also true that 
repealing any tax, particularly a tax on gasoline, is politically 
popular. In addition, it is tempting to remind the electorate of a tax 
increase approved in the past by a political opponent, even if that tax 
increase was included in a responsible deficit reduction package. So, 
when we consider these factors, we may understand, without any unusual 
clairvoyance, why we are now considering a proposal to temporarily 
repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax until January 1, 1997. While this may 
be labeled a temporary repeal, I must question the likelihood of the 
gas tax being reinstated after its repeal. As soon as this tax is 
repealed, we will hear from countless interests claiming that the 4.3-
cent repeal needs to be permanent. Do we expect Members of Congress to 
ignore those inevitable pleas? The fact is, Mr. President, that if we 
repeal this gas tax now temporarily, we will have taken a giant step 
through the one-way door of permanent repeal, and I doubt that we will 
find the courage to break that door down. And why are we considering 
entering this dangerous aperture? Is it anything more than politics? 
Mr. President, the 4.3-cent gas tax was enacted in 1993 as part of the 
successful deficit reduction package crafted by President Clinton and 
enacted by the 103d Congress without one single vote by a Republican 
Member of Congress. But it was the right thing to do. It took courage 
for the President and the Congress to enact that bill. Tax increases 
are not known for their popularity. In fact, some Members of Congress 
may not be here today because of their vote in 1993. But the fact 
remains that the 1993 bill nearly halved the Federal budget deficit, 
and the 4.3-cent tax on gasoline contributed to that effort. And, Mr. 
President, I voted for it, and I do not regret it.
  Mr. President, the politics of this proposal notwithstanding, it is 
more important to focus on the economics of this proposal. Economics 
is, after all, often cited by advocates of tax cuts on the grounds that 
they spur economic growth. The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper 
frequently cited by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ran 
an interesting story on May 7 about the proposed gas tax repeal. Let me 
read the title: ``Economists Say Gasoline Tax Is Too Low.'' The title 
does not read ``too high,'' as some in this body would have us believe. 
It reads ``too low.'' Economics, Mr. President, is a field where the 
experts rarely reach agreement on any issue. Yet, the Wall Street 
Journal reports that ``there is widespread agreement in the field [of 
economics] that the Federal gasoline tax of 18.3 cents a gallon is too 
low.'' In fact, according to the article, more than half of the 
economists surveyed at a recent conference favor a gasoline tax of $1 a 
gallon or higher. Further, the article states that ``Economists cite 
various factors to justify a gasoline tax. Chief among them are the 
environmental and health costs of air pollution, along with the costs 
of traffic congestion, and road construction and repair.'' Finally, Mr. 
President, the Journal article states that the ``proponents of an 
increase [in the gasoline tax] point to foreign producers' control over 
oil supply, and favor a gasoline tax that is high enough to stem U.S. 
demand.'' On the other hand, cutting the gas tax would do just the 
opposite: It would increase demand for gasoline and drive up the price, 
thus making the United States more dependent on foreign oil. So, Mr. 
President, it appears from these statements that, if this gas tax 
repeal is being proposed on the grounds of economics, it is being 
proposed on very shaky grounds indeed.
  As I have already mentioned, the gas tax stands today at 18.3 cents 
per gallon, and many would have us believe that this amount is an 
anomaly in a world where other countries either do not have a gasoline 
excise tax or have substantially lower gas taxes. But, this is not the 
case. In fact, if you lived in Germany, France, the Netherlands, or 
Italy, you could not purchase a gallon of gasoline for less than $4. 
Gas excise taxes per gallon in those nations stood on March 1, 1996, at 
$2.92, $3.05, $3.09, and $2.91 respectively. Of course, lower taxes on 
gasoline could be found in the United Kingdom and Japan, where the tax 
per gallon stood at $2.37 and $1.99 respectively. Even if we combine 
the Federal excise tax on gas in the United States with a weighted 
average of the various State taxes, the typical American consumer pays 
only 37 cents tax per gallon on gasoline. That is quite a disparity, 
Mr. President. And what is the logical effect of this disparity? 
Americans drive more and consume more gas than their foreign 
counterparts. We rely less on public transportation and fuel-efficient 
automobiles than do citizens of many other industrialized nations. And, 
Mr. President, we have become very dependent on gasoline--a resource 
that is nonrenewable. In other words, if we continue to depend on free-
flowing fuel from abroad, and do not develop alternative methods of 
more efficient transportation, we are not placing ourselves in a 
position to remain competitive throughout the world in the 21st 
century, and we are endangering our economic independence and our 
children's future as well.

  So, Mr. President, as we are met with this proposal to reduce the 
excise tax on gasoline, we must not allow ourselves to be swayed by the 
winds of the political moment. We all know that tax cuts are popular. 
There are few easier votes that a Member of Congress can make. But, is 
that why we are sent here? The American public is tired of this endless 
political pandering--that is what it is--and the people are not fools. 
They will see this debate for what it is--a fiscally irresponsible, 
extremely political initiative brought before the Congress in the 
middle of an election year. And we talk about a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget; a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget on the one hand and repeal the gas tax on the other. So we 
are going in two opposite directions at once. Of course, the gas tax 
proponents have claimed to offset the lost $4.8 billion in revenues 
that will result from this proposal. They intend to pay for this 
proposal by auctioning the spectrum to the private sector. Why not 
apply that against the deficit? Why not apply that savings against the 
deficit? However, it is my understanding, Mr. President, that the 
actual sale of the spectrum will not occur until 1998, and the 
reductions for the Department of Energy will occur over the next 6 
years, while the loss in revenues from the gas tax will occur right now 
in fiscal year 1996. Thus, this legislation is subject to a 60-vote 
point of order--and I hope we will keep that in mind and not waive 
points of order if unanimous-consent agreements are entered into--under 
both section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and the 
congressionally mandated pay-as-you-go, PAYGO,

[[Page S4893]]

requirement. Furthermore, Mr. President, using the spectrum sale now 
will remove another building block on which to construct a responsible 
balanced budget. The spectrum auction was, after all, included in last 
year's budget reconciliation measure. Is not a balanced budget a more 
lofty goal than a short-term, nonsolution to the recent elevation in 
the price of gasoline? Well, Mr. President, what I hear from my 
constituents is a real concern about the deficit and about the economic 
future of our country. I see a desire among the people to balance the 
budget in a way that does not undermine our Nation's ability to 
reinvest in itself or make us more dependent on foreign oil. Mr. 
President, reducing the gas tax now will make it harder to formulate 
any responsible plan to balance the budget in the future, and I will 
not support that effort.

  I wish the President would veto the bill instead of saying he will 
sign it. I wish the President would veto the bill repealing the gas 
tax, if it is passed by Congress. This is pure political pandering, and 
both sides are engaging in it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the legislation now 
before this body that is called the TEAM Act, which is an amendment to 
the Minimum Wage Act, which, in turn, is tied to the legislation to 
decrease the gas tax. I speak in favor of the TEAM Act. It is a very 
good piece of legislation.
  That position puts me opposite a union that I used to belong to. The 
union was the International Association of Machinists. I was a member 
of that union from February 1962 to March 1971, when the factory I 
worked for closed down and shut its doors. I was an assembly line 
worker making furnace registers. We were a sheet metal operation.
  The International Association of Machinists, along with most other 
unions, are against passage of the TEAM Act. I am a Republican and I am 
proud to be a Republican. When I was a union member, I was proud to be 
a union member, and if I were still working there today I would be 
proud to be a union member as well.
  But unions do not always speak for all workers, and this is an 
example, where the labor union leaders in Washington, DC, supposedly 
representing their members back at the grassroots, are not speaking for 
the rank-and-file members. I remember, even 30 years ago, rank-and-file 
members wanted to have something to say about the operation of the 
plant. They did not want it all to be confrontational. They wanted us 
to have a cooperative working effort, because with a cooperative 
working effort, we have more productivity, and the more productivity 
you have, the greater the chances are of preserving jobs and of having 
better wages, working conditions, and fringe benefits for the 
employees.
  This is even more important today, because we are competing 
internationally and must focus on productivity in the labor force. 
Having friendly relationships between labor and management means more 
productivity. And we have to be more productive if we are to compete in 
this global-interdependent market.
  So I support the TEAM Act because it would allow employees the 
privilege to participate in workplace decisions, giving them a greater 
voice in mutual interests such as quality, productivity, and safety. 
Current law prohibits this type of participation. This act would, among 
other things, encourage worker-management cooperation, preserve the 
balance between labor and management while allowing cooperative efforts 
by employers and employees, and permit voluntary cooperation between 
workers and employees to continue.
  I also support it because, without this legislation, 85 percent of 
working folks are not allowed to talk with their employers in employee 
involvement committees about such things as extension of employees' 
lunch breaks by 15 minutes; sick leave; flexible work schedules; free 
coffee; purchase of a table, soda machine, microwave, or a clock for 
the smoking lounge; tornado warning procedures; safety goggles for 
fryer and bailer operators; ban on radios and other sound equipment; 
dress codes; day care services; and nonsmoking policies.
  The President indicated he was for this type of legislation in his 
State of the Union Message this year. At least to me it seemed an 
indication. He said: ``When companies and workers work as a team they 
do better, and so does America.''
  I happen to agree with the President. Secretary Reich, in a July 1993 
feature article in the Washington Post, said:

  High-performance workplaces are gradually replacing the factories and 
offices where Americans used to work, where decisions were made at the 
top and most employees merely followed instructions. The old top-down 
workplace doesn't work anymore.

  Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of Labor. But just a 
few months ago, at a national union rally in Washington, DC, following 
a $35 million campaign pledge made to the Democratic Party and a grand 
endorsement by the AFL-CIO, Vice President Al Gore promised President 
Clinton's veto of this TEAM Act that is now before the Senate. This is 
an act that would legalize workplace cooperation between nonunion 
employees and management.
  Union representatives tell me they fear the TEAM Act would prevent 
them from organizing union shops. Let me emphasize, this act does not 
apply to union settings, and would not undermine existing collective-
bargaining agreements. Under the TEAM Act, workers retain the right, as 
they should, to choose an independent union to engage in collective 
bargaining. Mr. President, I plan to continue my remarks this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________