[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4895-S4921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I understand we are on the pending 
business and there are no time limits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the actions

[[Page S4896]]

taken by the majority leader earlier this week. Just to outline, we 
have the underlying proposal, which is the effort to reimburse the Dale 
family for the costs they have that they were unjustly burdened with. 
That has been objected to by the other side.
  The majority leader has come forward with a full-ranging proposal 
that, first, repeals the 4.3-cent gas tax that was imposed on America 
by President Clinton in August 1993; second, would grant the other side 
their vote for which they have sought on raising the minimum wage; and 
third, would call for a vote on what is characterized as the TEAM Act, 
but which is properly described as giving American workers the 
opportunity to meet without threat to the National Labor Relations 
Board, to meet with management to discuss the general improvement of 
their work environment, an idea that came to us out of a tough 
competitor, Japan, where they had experimented with management 
employees organizing themselves into various work groups to improve the 
product and to improve their competitiveness. We have before us these 
three very important proposals.
  Mr. President, when President Clinton was running for the Office, he 
told the American people that a gas tax was the wrong thing to do. He 
said it was the wrong thing to do because it was particularly offensive 
or hard on low-income families and on the elderly. I would expand it. I 
think it is not only hard on low-income families and the elderly, but 
it creates a hardship among small business people. It is particularly 
difficult for rural communities who are confronted with long distances 
to travel. I think it has been just one more brick on the back of our 
middle-class families.
  Yesterday, May 8, Mr. President, was the first day that an American 
wage earner could keep their paycheck. That is pretty remarkable, Mr. 
President. May 8 was the first day that wage earners could keep their 
paycheck. Their paycheck for their own needs, his or her housing needs, 
transportation, and all the things we ask of the American people.

  You ask, rightfully, anyone listening to this, ``Well, what happened 
to all the paychecks from January 1 to May 7?'' I can tell you. All of 
those paychecks went to a government. As hard as it is to believe, from 
January 1 to May 7, every dime earned is taken by the government, taken 
out of the resources of that family. When we take a snapshot of an 
average family in my State, they earn about $45,000 a year, both 
parents work and they have two children. By the time the government 
sweeps through their checking account and you add on that family's 
share of regulatory costs, which is now about $6,800 a year, and by the 
time you add on their share of higher interest rates because of the 
size of the Federal debt imposed on America by the Congress and the 
President of the United States, that is about $2,100 a year.
  At the end of the day they only have half of their wages left to do 
all the work that we ask that family to do for our country. That must 
make Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave. If you read through his 
works he warned over and over of the propensity of the Government to 
take the rightful wages away from those that earned them. That is 
exactly what we have done in this United States of America.
  Repealing the gas tax is a long way from redressing and correcting 
this horrible imbalance. It would have been much better if the $245 
billion in tax relief--children's tax credits, eliminating the marriage 
penalty, alleviate the pressure on those living off Social Security--if 
all those things we sent the President had been signed into law, then 
we would have put about $3,000 to $4,000 back into the checking account 
of the family I just described. What a difference that would have made. 
That is the equivalent of about a 10- or 20-percent pay raise for that 
family. When you think of the responsibilities we put on those 
families, that kind of resource is an enormous difference.
  Repealing the gas tax, one piece of it, will help. It will put 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $400 back into their checking 
account. It will be used a lot better there than having been shipped 
off to the Federal Government.
  Just to cite some figures here, we have just gotten a report from the 
Heritage Foundation. This 4.3-cent gas tax on motor fuel, $168 million 
was removed from Georgia and shifted up here to this burgeoning Federal 
Government. On diesel fuel, another $28.5 million was shipped up to 
Washington. And in jet fuel, of course, we have Atlanta Hartsfield 
International, $27.5 million, for a total $224 million. That is a 
quarter of a billion dollars taken right out of the State, right out of 
the homes, right out of the businesses and shifted up here so that we 
could have a larger Federal Government.

  Now, Mr. President, I think leaving the quarter of a billion dollars 
in Georgia, in those families, in those businesses, in those 
communities, in those school districts makes a lot better sense. We 
have heard people say, ``Well, that does not amount to much.'' If it 
does not amount to much, why are there so many headaches about giving 
it back? If somebody wants to worry about it, let us let the folks at 
home worry about it. This quarter of a billion dollars being used by 
our families, businesses, our communities, makes much better sense.
  Mr. President, the report goes on to say, ``The poor and lower middle 
class will be the biggest beneficiaries of this repeal.'' Susan Perry, 
the senior vice president of the American Bus Association, testified on 
May 3 before the Senate Finance Committee that as a result of higher 
fuel costs since the imposition of the fuel tax, there are fewer bus 
stops. The very poor, the very elderly, and the very rural are mostly 
affected because they disproportionately ride buses. And the fuel costs 
are passed on to passengers.
  It is a regressive tax. I suspect that is why the President, during 
his campaign, said it was not a good idea. It only became a good idea 
after he was elected. Because three-quarters of those Americans earning 
less than $10,000 per year commute to work in privately owned autos, a 
flat tax rate falls disproportionately on these poor as a percentage of 
their income. In 1987, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that 
the poorest 20 percent of Americans devote 8.8 percent of their 
expenditures to gasoline and motor oil, while the wealthiest 20 percent 
devote only 3.1 percent of their expenditures to gasoline and motor 
oil.
  There is another feature of the gas tax the President imposed on 
America that I disagree with, and that is that the tax was taxed on a 
user fee concept, but was not used to build better roads or safer 
roads. The tax was imposed on the user of gasoline and motor oil, but 
it was shifted into other expenditures and a growing Government. It is 
regressive. It is hurting the middle-income family, hurting our 
communities, and it was not used in a dedicated form for highways and 
safer roads.
  This tax should be repealed, and it should be followed, Mr. 
President, by other reductions in taxes, so that we can get more money 
in the checking account of the average American family, where it 
belongs, so that they can do the things they need to do to raise 
America.

  Now, Mr. President, a second feature of the proposal that Senator 
Dole put on the floor was, as I mentioned a moment ago, entitled the 
TEAM Act. The TEAM Act merely adds a short provision to section 8(a)(2) 
of the National Labor Relations Act, to make it clear that employers 
who meet together in employee involvement programs to address issues of 
mutual interest, as long as they do not engage in collective 
bargaining, or attempt to, they can meet and discuss general conditions 
in the workplace. The President, in his State of the Union Address, in 
1996, said, ``When companies and workers work as a team, they do 
better.'' So does America.
  His Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich, has said, on December 14, 
1995, ``Many companies have already discovered that management 
practices fully involving workers have great value behind their twin 
virtues, higher profits and greater productivity.''
  Those quotes are correct. So why is the other side so energized to 
keep this modern idea from coming into law? Many American companies are 
intimidated from having these kinds of sessions for fear of the current 
law, and that ought to be changed.
  Mr. President, yesterday, I had two separate groups of employees of 
companies--a large numbers of employees--contact our office, who think 
this concept is superior and belongs in the

[[Page S4897]]

workplace. They want to be able to engage in these kinds of activities 
in their companies in Georgia so that they can improve what they do, so 
that they can compete, so that they can protect their jobs.
  Mr. President, one of those companies engaged in this kind of 
activity produced a $6 million annual savings by one of the work groups 
that had met together between employees and management for 6 months. 
They produced a $6 million savings for that company. That helps make 
the company stronger, more competitive, and able to hire more 
employees, and protects the jobs of those who work there now.
  We were taken by the number of employees we have heard from seeking 
this kind of innovation in the marketplace. Mr. President, candidly, we 
ought to be doing a lot more to make the new workplace modern, as we 
come into the new century, with ideas and laws that relate to the new 
century. Labor law, today, is greatly governed by laws that were 
written 30, 40, and 50 years ago. Those are old ideas. Those are 
restraining ideas, and those ideas will keep America from competing 
with the rigorous competition that is developing throughout the world. 
The workers in the workplace know this, and they want these changes.

  The working family, today, in 1996, versus 1930 and 1940, is vastly 
different. That family, in the mid-1950's, had one spouse in the 
workplace. You could count on one hand the number of families that had 
both spouses working in the workplace. Today, you can count on one 
hand, almost, the families for which both spouses are not in the 
workplace.
  Mr. President, just as an aside, I believe the Government is 
principally responsible for that. You might ask, why is that? It is 
because we have pushed the tax burden higher and higher and higher, and 
in order for these families to fulfill their responsibilities, they 
have to have two or more people in the workplace to keep the family 
going, to keep it educated, to keep it housed.
  In fact, about a year ago, Mr. President, I did a graph, and I 
graphed the new tax burden, beginning in 1950, and ran it up through 
1996. And then I did another graph. That graph was of the number of 
American families for which both spouses were working. You are not 
going to be surprised that the two lines track each other almost 
identically, because as that tax burden went up each succeeding year, 
as Congress spent more, built more, got bigger, with more programs, it 
had to take more of the earnings from that family. And at the end of 
the day, that family had to put more workers in the workplace.
  I do not believe there is any institution that has had a more 
profound effect on the American family than our own Government, more 
than Hollywood. What other institution would sweep through an American 
family and take half its wages? None.
  So, Mr. President, families in the workplace today have both parents 
out there, and sometimes children. And they need a new workplace. They 
need more flexibility in the workplace. They need more options in the 
workplace.
  The TEAM Act that Senator Dole has put before the Senate this week is 
a great first step. It is an initial step, just like the repeal of that 
gas tax. It is a first step going in the right direction leaving a 
little more money in that checking account. This TEAM Act is a first 
step to start moving America to a new, a modern, a flexible, and a 
friendly work environment.
  Mr. President, by a 3-to-1 margin, when asked to choose between two 
types of organizations to represent them, workers chose one that would 
have no power but would have management cooperation over one with power 
but without management cooperation. The American worker wants this 
flexibility in the workplace.
  I am very hopeful that at the end of this extended debate we will 
come to a conclusion on the other side of the attempt to block the 
repeal, to block the TEAM Act. They are going to get their vote on 
their idea of the minimum wage which I personally believe will cause 
about 500,000 people to lose their jobs. But they are going to have 
their chance. We want a modern provision in the workplace, a new idea, 
one that we have seen make our competitors tough, and we want to be as 
competitive as those other companies in those other countries.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 1:30 p.m. be equally divided for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority whip and I 
have had a number of consultations over the last several hours, and we 
still have not reached any resolution to the impasse that we are 
facing. But I do want to note that over the last couple of days, as we 
have had the opportunity to more closely examine the gas tax repeal 
legislation, it has now been made evident to us that the offset that is 
incorporated in the legislation falls $1.7 billion short of the 
revenues needed to provide for the offset in 1996.
  Throughout this debate, we have indicated that we would be supportive 
under two conditions. The first condition was, of course, that it was 
adequately offset. By adequately offset, obviously, we are talking not 
only about the source of revenue, but also about the amount. And, of 
course, the second issue was that it be directly targeted to consumer 
relief and not to the oil companies, or others.
  Unfortunately, given the current legislative draft, as I said, we are 
told now that the revenue loss--the addition to the deficit--would be 
$1.7 billion in 1996. Clearly, that is not in keeping with the two 
criteria that we set out. Our hope was that we could find an adequate 
offset and, for whatever reason, that offset has not been achieved. It 
is ironic in some respects that, as the Budget Committee is now meeting 
to find ways to reduce the deficit and reach a balanced budget in 6 or 
7 years, the very legislation we are now considering falls short by 
$1.7 billion of the necessary offset required to ensure that this 
legislation is entirely paid for.
  And so, at an appropriate time--I expect it will be about 1:30--I 
will make a point of order that the amendment is not fully offset. 
Because Senator Dole is not here, and because Senator Lott and I have 
had the opportunity to talk about their response, and to accommodate 
the majority, we are going to wait until 1:30 to officially raise this 
point of order.
  Mr. President, this situation, again, illustrates why having separate 
bills is so important. Obviously, now, you have a point of order 
against an amendment dealing with gas taxes that has an effect on the 
travel legislation, on the minimum wage, and on the so-called TEAM Act. 
So this is becoming more and more convoluted, the more we get into this 
debate and the closer we look.
  I think it, again, makes the point that, unless we can separate these 
issues, unless we can have individual debates and votes on each bill, 
we are going to continue to be frustrated by the complex nature of this 
very intricate legislative structure that we have created for 
ourselves. So I hope that we can, again, find a way to separate out the 
legislation and have a good debate, a good vote, and deal with these 
issues one at a time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as the distinguished Democratic leader 
noted, Senator Dole will be back around 1:30. I am sure that we will 
have continuing conversations in between now and that time, and the 
leader will be here and prepared to take action, also.
  I want to emphasize that we are continuing to work to find a way to 
get through this process. The Members clearly want an opportunity to 
vote on the gas tax repeal. I understand the Democratic leader wants a 
straight vote on the minimum wage. My understanding of the offers we 
have been discussing back and forth would provide a

[[Page S4898]]

clear, straight, separate vote on minimum wage. We have looked at 
different ways to approach that, including different combinations of 
the three matters that are pending--the gas tax repeal, minimum wage, 
and the freedom in the workplace, known as the TEAM Act. We are still 
working on that, and I have faith that we can find a way to address all 
of these issues in an appropriate manner.
  We do have some proposals pending right now that we hope to be able 
to agree to here within the next hour, as to how we will proceed for 
the balance of the day, and what time we might expect votes to occur, 
and how we would deal even with Friday and next Monday. So we will 
continue to work with that.

  With regard to the tax repeal, I indicated privately--and I will do 
it here publicly--on behalf of the leader yesterday that I thought we 
could get some agreement on what amendments might be offered. I do not 
think the leader is opposed to having some amendments as long as we do 
not have a filibuster, as long as they are relevant, as long as there 
is not a filibuster by amendment, and if we could get an amendment 
identified.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota is looking for some way to make 
sure that this gas tax repeal actually gets to the people buying the 
gas. We agree with that. We want to make sure that it actually gets to 
the people who have been paying these taxes. We have some language in 
the gas tax repeal that we think addresses that. But if there is a way 
to help in a way that it can be administered to help guarantee that 
that actually happens, I would like to look at that because I want to 
make sure that the people of my State get this 4.3-cent gas tax repeal 
because I personally did not think they should have been paying it in 
the first place. That is why I spoke against it and voted against it in 
1993. I thought it was a tremendous mistake at the time to start taking 
on a permanent basis a gas tax--not for the highway trust fund to build 
interstate highways and Federal highways and bridges that we need 
desperately--and move it over to the deep, dark, black hole of the 
General Treasury never to be heard or seen from again. I thought that 
was a mistake. So I would like to repeal that. I would like to 
guarantee that it gets to the people. If we can identify some 
amendments, or an amendment, I would like to see that. I think the 
leader would be willing to look at that, if we could work out an 
agreement on it.
  As to the offset, we have an offset in our proposal. We think it is a 
credible offset. We have a small amount--$2.4 billion, as I understand 
it--from spectrum, plus some savings from travel at the Energy 
Department. There may be some lag time because, if this gas tax repeal 
is signed into law and goes into effect, if in fact the President signs 
it--I am not sure; the indication is that maybe he would or would not. 
Now I think maybe he indicates that he would, if it were sent to him in 
such a way that it did not have things that he would call poison pills 
and which he would call the opportunity for him to use his poison pen 
again. But we do have offsets in this legislation.
  The only problem is that the gas tax repeal would take effect 
immediately and for some of these offsets it takes some time before 
they actually begin to start coming in.
  But, again, I think we can work out the offset in such a way that it 
is fair and would cover the loss to the Treasury. We do not want to add 
to the deficit. But we also are very committed to trying to help the 
working people of America get this gas tax off of their backs. We will 
continue to work on that.
  I point out, also, as the distinguished Democratic leader has, as I 
understand it, that the minimum wage probably is subject to a point of 
order. I do not think the leader would want to have that happen because 
I believe it would be identified as an unfunded mandate where it would 
direct that we have the minimum wage, and it would mean loss of jobs. 
So that would be subject to a point of order.
  So I would be inclined, if we get into this point of order process, 
to think we should waive that and not have the gas tax knocked out 
because it is a revenue bill that did not begin in the House, for 
whatever purpose, or have the minimum wage knocked out. I do not think 
the Democratic leader would want that to happen. If we should by chance 
combine those two issues, the gas tax and minimum wage, we would not 
want either of them to be knocked out by a point of order, whether it 
is a revenue measure our unfunded mandate, because with minimum wage 
you are mandating that small businesses throughout this country have to 
bear the burden of this increase, which I am convinced would lead to 
the loss of jobs of people who need them the most.
  But there are these arguments on both sides. I think a good-faith 
effort is being made to work through it to see how we can address the 
offsets and how we can address guaranteeing that the gas tax repeal 
gets to the people we want to get it--and that is the working people, 
the people who drive long distances, paying for this unfair gas tax to 
go into spending by the Federal Government. But we will have a chance 
to work on this further here in the next 30 or 40 minutes. I will be 
glad to talk with the distinguished Democratic leader and others, and 
then we will communicate with the majority leader when he returns.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I know there are at least two Senators on our side who 
wish to speak, and I see those on the majority side as well.
  I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and 
10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island as the 
allocation of the time that we have remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. That would mean 15 
minutes. So we would get at least 15 minutes on our side to offset 
that. So we should have enough time to cover the speakers that we have.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes 
of the time on our side to talk about the issue that is before us.
  This has been going on for some time. I have not been privy to the 
internal workings of it. But I have to tell you, I am a little bit 
disappointed in the system where we have gone now for almost 2 weeks 
and have effectively done nothing. It seems to have been perfected on 
that side of the aisle--the idea of being able to keep things from 
happening. Let us talk about what we are really doing here.
  As I recall, the basis is the Travelgate question, the question of 
reimbursing those employees who were unfortunately, and I think perhaps 
unfairly, accused regarding their fees in the Travelgate affair at the 
White House.
  We are talking about minimum wage, which I do not happen to support. 
I think it takes more jobs than it creates. But I am certainly willing 
to have a vote on it. I think it is interesting. You get accusations 
about politics. The minimum wage did not come up for 2\1/2\ years when 
the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, as well as the White 
House. But suddenly--I guess it was just happenstance--when the AFL-CIO 
was here, they promised to give $35 million for the election, this 
issue came forward. I am sure that was an accident.
  The TEAM bill, which seems to me to be pretty hard to argue against, 
is an opportunity for people to work with their employer to find ways 
to deal with issues that affect them as a business person. It seems to 
me that is a great idea. There seems now to be questions about whether 
it can be done, and that needs to be clarified. I support that.
  The tax reduction, I think, is one of the most important things that 
we have talked about here. I was in the House when this came up. I 
voted against it for several reasons. One is that it does not have 
anything to do with the maintenance of highways. It does not have 
anything to do with roads. Someone in our hearing this morning said, 
``Well, why don't we do the 10 cents that came up earlier?'' There is a 
significant difference between the two. This one goes into the general 
fund for social programs, or whatever. The other one goes to the 
maintenance of highways, which has traditionally been our system, where 
the gas tax goes for the maintenance and building of the highways.

[[Page S4899]]

  The other is, of course, that it is another tax that is added on. It 
is a tax that some claim is used, of course, to balance the budget. I 
would like to suggest that we ought to be a little more proud about 
balancing the budget if we reduce the spending rather than raising 
taxes, rather than talking constantly about how we are coming closer to 
balancing the budget because we had the largest tax increase in our 
history. Instead, we might talk a little bit about how we might reduce 
the size of Government. I think people in my State say the Federal 
Government is too big, that it costs too much. But instead we talk 
about how we are going to balance the budget by raising taxes.
  I am a little surprised that that tax increase passed at all, of 
course. The President said, and I quote from 1992. ``I oppose Federal 
excise tax increases for gas.'' That is when he was campaigning. After 
he was elected, then he started with a Btu tax and ended up with this 
one. Bill Clinton said in 1992, commenting on the gas tax proposal, 
``It sticks it to the lower income, middle-income retired people in the 
country, and it is wrong''--talking about a gas tax.
  So, Mr. President, I think we ought to move forward. I understand 
that this is the deliberative body. I understand the rules that, when I 
ask about them, I usually am told, ``Well, they have been that way for 
200 years.'' But their needs to be a way for us to move forward. We are 
here to solve problems. We are not here to find ways to keep from 
solving them. I think we ought to move forward. I am pleased with what 
I hear from the leaders that we might be in a position to move forward 
and make some decisions.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  The Senator from Rhode Island has been allocated 10 minutes.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, and 
I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I listen from time to time, and I wonder some morning 
whether we will not come out to hear the other side blame the President 
for thunderstorms and tornadoes that rolled across the Midwest the 
night before. It seems to be a popular sport in the Senate. I guess I 
understand that.
  However, I wanted to just comment for a moment on what it appears to 
me the vote will be on soon. It appears to me that the proposal to 
reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents is a result of the gas price spiking up 
20 or 30 cents in recent weeks. Some have come to the floor and said 
let us reduce the gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon. I said this morning 
that is like treating a toothache by getting a haircut. There is no 
relationship between the two.
  The 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax put on 2\1/2\ years ago was put on to 
reduce the deficit. The deficit has been reduced in half. The fact is 
after the gas tax was put on, for market force reasons the price of 
gasoline came down, having nothing, of course, to do with the tax.
  Those who say let us reduce the gas tax now might listen to the oil 
company executives who are telling us there is no guarantee that the 
gas price is going to come down if you repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon 
gas tax.
  So the question is, which pocket will be the beneficiary of some $30 
billion in the next 7 years--the big pocket of the oil industry or the 
pockets of the drivers? There is no guarantee it is going to be passed 
on to the drivers.
  The point I want to make is this. My understanding is that the bill 
brought to the floor by those who want to change the Constitution to 
require a balanced budget, by those who say today they are working in 
the Budget Committee to produce a balanced budget, will now result in a 
vote by a point of order on the budget; that we will be required to 
vote to waive the Budget Act, as I understand it, because this proposed 
repeal of the gas tax will increase the Federal deficit by $1.7 billion 
to the end of this fiscal year and by $2.8 billion by January 1. The 
offsets they propose will come apparently in 1998.

  So we will have the interesting prospect that those who are bringing 
a bill to the floor saying we want to balance the budget also come to 
the floor to move to waive the Budget Act to allow the budget deficit 
to grow, as a result of their proposal on the gas tax, $1.7 billion in 
this fiscal year and $2.8 billion by January 1.
  I will not intend to vote to waive the Budget Act to do that. But 
that will apparently be the vote, the vote to waive the Budget Act and 
against the point of order that will be made. It will be an interesting 
debate.
  I think it makes no sense for us to begin running backward on this 
issue of the budget deficit. The budget deficit has been cut in half 
and is coming down 4 years in a row, down very substantially. If you 
reduce the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon and to do so will increase the 
budget deficit, which is going to happen in this proposal and which is 
why the point of order and the motion to waive the Budget Act to 
increase the deficit, it does not make any sense. We will have an 
interesting debate about that. But that will eventually be the vote in 
the Chamber--to permit a higher Federal deficit in order to repeal a 
4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax which oil company executives say there is 
no guarantee it will show up in the price of gas at the pumps in this 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to reiterate that we should not rush 
headlong, like lemmings to the sea, to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon 
gasoline tax. When this tax was enacted in 1993, it was specifically 
dedicated to deficit reduction, and experience to date indicates that 
the gas tax has been helpful in this regard. Under President Clinton, 
the deficit, which was at a high of $290 billion in 1992, has been 
brought down to an estimated $144 billion in the current year. Why 
repeal this tax, when to do so will slow down or reverse this favorable 
trend and add billions of dollars to the deficit? Rather, we should 
consider raising, not lowering the gasoline tax in order to further 
reduce our deficit.
  I join the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] in expressing 
the thought that we should not accept even a temporary repeal.
  It has been suggested that the funds with which to finance this 
repeal may be found by cutting education spending, requiring banks to 
pay more to the savings association insurance fund, cutting Energy 
Department expenses, and/or, selling off unused wavelengths on the 
broadcast spectrum. The disparity of these suggestions seems to 
indicate that there exists no credible consensus as to exactly how we 
will be able to pay for this ill-advised tax cut.
  Probably for these same reasons, the States show no inclination to 
cut the tax. Across the country, State gasoline taxes often exceed the 
Federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. The State tax on gasoline in my 
home State of Rhode Island is the second highest in the Nation, at 28 
cents. Yet no State legislature thus far has moved to cut their 
gasoline tax, reasoning wisely, that it helps stave off operating 
deficits, enabling States to balance their budgets. A task, I might 
add, which they seem to perform better than we.
  I recognize that higher gas prices impact adversely upon commuters 
and those whose daily livelihood depends upon the availability of low 
priced fuel. But it should be noted that the price of gasoline today, 
when adjusted for inflation, is as low as at any time since World War 
II. With prices relatively low, demand for gasoline has been steadily 
rising; motorists today are driving more, at higher speeds, and in cars 
that are less fuel-efficient than in years past. In consequence, we now 
depend on foreign suppliers for close to half of the oil we consume.

  Partly as a result of this dependency, we now have a temporary 
shortage of supply, making it unlikely that prices will go down in 
response to this tax decrease. Rather, the forces of the market, 
inexorable as they are, will delay a drop in the price of gasoline 
until sometime later this summer, when supplies are expected to 
increase. To quote the Los Angeles Times, ``the grim lessons about 
over-dependency of the 1970's are being forgotten, and the conservation 
ethic is slipping away.''
  Finally, there is absolutely no certainty that the oil companies will 
pass

[[Page S4900]]

this rebate on to the consumer. Economists across the spectrum, ranging 
from William Niskanen of the Cato Institute to Phillip K. Verleger at 
Charles River Associates, agree that the 4.3-cent-a-gallon cut will 
benefit the oil industry, not the consumer. The total effect of this 
gesture will be to add $2.9 billion to the Federal deficit over the 
next 7 months, while transferring the same $2.9 billion to the pockets 
of refiners and gasoline marketers.
  I urge my colleagues to resist the siren's song of the inevitability 
of this tax cut. Economist Michael Toman of Resources for the Future is 
quoted in the Washington Post as describing such a cut as ``nutty.'' I 
would simply add that it is wrong-headed and ill-conceived. It should 
be rejected.
  Mr. President, several weeks ago, when the Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee met to mark up S. 295, the TEAM Act, I once again 
spoke of my longstanding interest in innovations in the conduct of 
labor-management relations. As I said at that time, I have been 
particularly interested in the efforts of many European countries to 
involve workers in policy deliberations at all levels of corporate 
bureaucracy. In Europe, this practice is referred to as ``co-
determination,'' and means that management and labor sit on the same 
board.
  While it is not suggested that what works in Europe would work here 
in the United States, the notion of worker involvement is no less 
valid. Now, after years of regrettably bitter, contentious, and even 
violent interaction and with the ever-increasing demands of a high-
technology workplace in a global economy, a more collaborative process 
has developed that brings workers and employers together on an ongoing 
basis. Companies ranging from Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley-
Davidson motorcycles have instituted ongoing employer-employee work 
councils.
  There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these 
councils. There is, however, considerable debate about the current 
legality of these groups. We are told by some that this disagreement 
produces a chilling effect that hinders the continued and future 
development of employer-employee work councils.
  I have tried for some time to find the proper balance. During the 
last Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, that, among other 
aspects, established a formal election process for employee 
representatives.
  While not introducing legislation during this Congress, I have 
continued to explore other avenues in this area. I had hoped to offer 
an amendment during the Labor Committee markup that would give 
employees the right to select their own council representatives; ensure 
that council agendas were open to both employees and employers and, 
finally, prohibit the unilateral termination of a council. I decided 
not to offer language of this nature, however, because of a lack of 
support from both the majority and organized labor.
  S. 295, the TEAM Act, is certainly not the answer. The bill, as 
passed by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, amends the 
National Labor Relations Act to allow the employer, I repeat, the 
employer ``to establish, assist, maintain, or participate in any 
organization of any kind, in which employees participate to address 
matters of mutual interest.'' At no point in this section of the TEAM 
Act is there any mention of employee rights, nor are employees given 
the right to designate their representatives.
  I must say I was very encouraged on Tuesday to hear that the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] suggested an amendment to the 
TEAM Act allowing workers to select their representatives.
  I regret that we find ourselves faced with the current deadlock. Not 
only are Senators prohibited from amending any of the three issues 
under consideration but American workers are faced with the choice of 
giving up their rights in return for a raise.
  It is clear that the path out of this predicament is to separate the 
minimum wage increase, the gas tax repeal, and the TEAM Act, allow each 
to be amended and then individually voted on.
  Furthermore, the only solution to the stalemate over the TEAM Act--as 
I have said for many years now--is to allow employees to freely select 
the employee representatives of the work councils.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document titled ``Co-
determination in European Countries,'' prepared by my staff, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Codetermination in European Countries


                                germany

       Coal & Steel Co's (1,000+ employees): Equal number of 
     worker and shareholder representation along with an 
     additional independent member agreed on by both sides.
       Joint Stock Company (less than 2,000 employees): worker 
     reps. hold \1/3\ of seats on Supervisory Board of company. 
     These reps. can't be proposed by the union and must be 
     elected by all company employees.
       Limited Liability Co's. (500-2000 employees): worker reps. 
     hold \1/3\ of seats on Supervisory Board of company. These 
     reps. can't be proposed by the union and must be elected by 
     all company employees.
       Others: An equal number of both employees and shareholders. 
     Depending on size of company each side has 6-10 
     representatives. Trade union must have at least 2 reps, 3 if 
     the total employee representation = 10. Other employee groups 
     (blue collar, white collar, and executives) must also have at 
     least one representative.


                                denmark

       Co-determination laws only cover companies with 50 or more 
     employees.
       Workers are entitled to elect 2 or more representatives to 
     the company Supervisory board. Shareholders appoint at least 
     3 members. There is no upper limit to the number of 
     representatives but shareholder representatives must hold the 
     majority.


                               luxembourg

       Co-determination laws only cover companies that have had 
     1,000 or more employees for 3 years. The State also must have 
     at least a 25% interest in the firm.
       Worker representatives account for \1/3\ of each 
     Administrative Board. In reality, however, day-to-day work is 
     handled by a separate Management Board that has no 
     requirement for union membership.


                                 france

       Nationalized companies have Supervisory Boards with equal 
     membership of Government representatives, worker 
     representatives, and consumer representatives.
       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.


                             united kingdom

       Boards of nationalized companies contain minority worker 
     representation.
       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.


                            the netherlands

       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.


                                belgium

       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.
       Only the most liberal unions in the country favor worker 
     representatives.


                                 italy

       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.
       Italian unions view Co-determination as an effort to dilute 
     worker power. Instead, they favor worker self-management.


                          republic of ireland

       There are no legal provisions for worker representation in 
     private sector companies.

       Source: Intereconomics. No. 78, 1978, pg 200-204.

  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1741 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1741 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4901]]

                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have had continuing consultation with the 
Democratic leader and with the majority leader. I believe we have 
worked out an agreement as to how we can proceed for the balance of the 
day.
  I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII that the 
cloture vote occur on the Dole amendment at 5 p.m. this afternoon; that 
the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived, and the time between 
now and the cloture vote be equally divided in the usual form for 
debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor for a point of order, I 
believe, from the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have already articulated the concerns 
that we wish to raise about the pending amendment. I will simply 
restate, in its current form, it falls $1.7 billion short of the 
revenues needed to cover the offset the gas tax provisions in fiscal 
year 1996.
  At this time, I make a point of order that the amendment violates 
section 311 of the Budget Act.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that the 
pending Dole amendment, which contains the Democratic proposal for the 
minimum wage increase, violates the Budget Act by creating an unfunded 
mandate.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have been requesting they 
get a clean vote on this minimum wage amendment for some time now, and 
it seems to me if the amendment were to fall on the point of order just 
raised, that our colleagues would lose their opportunity for such a 
vote.
  With that in mind, I move to waive titles 3 and 4 of the Budget Act 
for consideration of the Dole amendment No. 3960.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe now under the unanimous-consent agreement we do 
have time for debate under the agreement. I see Senator Grassley from 
Iowa is waiting to speak. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to continue my remarks from this 
morning and express my support for the TEAM Act. I support the TEAM Act 
because it would allow employees the privilege to participate in 
workplace decisions, giving the workers a greater voice in matters of 
mutual interest such as quality, productivity, and safety. These are 
rational things and ought to be a subject of discussion between workers 
and employers. But, current law prohibits this type of participation.
  The bill before the Senate would, among other things, encourage 
worker-management cooperation. It would preserve, without a doubt, the 
balance between labor and management, while allowing cooperative 
efforts between worker and employer. It would permit voluntary 
cooperation. It would do it between workers and employers and would 
allow all we want to encourage to continue working.
  Current law prohibits 85 percent of working folks from talking with 
their employers in employee involvement committees. I know that does 
not sound reasonable, but present law prohibits it. It prohibits 
discussing things like the 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 no smoking policies. We know that because employee-
employer committees have tried to discuss these things and their 
efforts have been found illegal. The President spoke in support of this 
sort of cooperation in his State of the Union message this year. He 
said:

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

  Mr. President I agree with the President of the United States. I also 
agree with what Secretary Reich said in July 1993. He said this in an 
article in the Washington Post:

       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.

  As astounding as it might sound that a Republican would be agreeing 
with the Secretary of Labor, I wholeheartedly agree. But things said in 
Washington do not always come out at the end of the pipeline in policy 
the way that they are really stated. In other words, rhetoric is not 
always followed through by performance in office.
  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 pledged 
President Clinton's veto of the bill that we are debating on the floor 
of this body right now. This bill, in every respect, fits into 
compliance with the statements made by President Clinton in his State 
of the Union Message and Secretary Reich's article in the Washington 
Post. The TEAM Act is an act that does nothing more and nothing less 
than legalize workplace cooperation between nonunion employees and 
management.
  Union representatives tell me that they fear that the TEAM Act would 
prevent them from organizing union shops. I want to emphasize that 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. But as 
it stands now, if employees choose not to organize--and 88 percent of 
the private sector has chosen not to--they are penalized by not being 
able to conduct this sort of worker-employer cooperation through 
committees.
  In other words, they are gagged and prohibited from discussing 
workplace issues with their employers. Throughout this debate, I have 
heard some of my colleagues talk about how they mistrust the intention 
of management. My colleagues who make these statements must assume that 
workers and managers have a built-in adversarial relationship, or they 
want to promote some adversarial relationships, instead of promoting 
cooperation, which this legislation would allow them to do.
  At one time that may have been true, but that was decades ago and is 
generally not true today. The employers, as well as the employees, 
whether from my State or other States--but I listen primarily to those 
in my State--tell me they only want the legal privilege to form 
partnerships to promote cooperative work environments. They just want 
to be able to talk to each other.
  One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated that most 
companies already legally meet with their employees. But I would like 
to tell him about the possible consequences that a company faces if 
they choose to do so.
  The Clinton-appointed Dunlop Commission invited the Donnelly Corp. to 
testify before the commission. This company was chosen because it was a 
shining example of how well employee involvement in these committees 
works. The company was praised for its promotion of workplace 
flexibility and formation of worker-management teams.

  But this public announcement brought them and their employees a great 
amount of grief. The Donnelly Corp. was slapped with a labor lawsuit 
filed by the NLRB. Why? Because of its progressive operations. The 
Corporation was temporarily forced to cease its employee involvement 
programs. The company was accused of breaking Federal law, a law that 
the TEAM Act would reform.
  After a long year of litigation, the case was settled, but the 
company is still threatened by possible labor lawsuits, unless the law 
is changed.

[[Page S4902]]

  In 1995, Secretary Reich, when speaking to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, called on the SEC to find ways to encourage 
companies to voluntarily disclose workplace practices that contribute 
to higher profits. He said he had heard that many companies were 
reluctant to provide information about such programs to the market for 
fear that they would be sued.
  He said, ``I believe there is a chilling effect. Why disclose if you 
subject yourself to potential liability?''
  President Clinton, Secretary Reich, and their own commission, the 
Dunlop Commission, up until the union leaders made a $35 million 
campaign pledge to their party, supported reforms of current labor law. 
Now the Clinton administration has threatened to veto the TEAM Act in 
its present form.
  The Clinton administration says that it is not beholden to special 
interests. But it seems like with a lot of vetoes, or a lot of threats 
of vetoes, this administration listens just to trial lawyers or to 
labor union leaders. Is it possible that the same administration that 
marches in lockstep with the National Education Association and the 
Trial Lawyers of America is more interested in a $35 million campaign 
pledge than in correcting the wrong that was done to the Donnelly 
Corp.?
  So I encourage my colleagues today to recognize the need for the 
people to have a real voice in decisions affecting their workplace and 
urge them to support this act.
  I know that everybody knows I am a Republican, and I know everybody 
believes that Republicans do not have any understanding of the 
workplace or the labor union environment. So I want to repeat what I 
stated this morning when I spoke about this same piece of legislation. 
I had the experience of working in a sheet metal factory from August 
1960 until March of 1971. I worked on the assembly line, making furnace 
registers for the Waterloo Register Company in Cedar Falls, IA, a 
company that went out of business in 1971. I was a member of the 
International Association of Machinists from February 1962 until March 
1971. I have an understanding of the workplace environment. I have an 
understanding of the cooperation that is necessary between labor and 
management if productivity is to increase. I have an understanding that 
you can have workplace committees and dialog between labor and 
management, outside of the normal collective bargaining process, and 
enhance productivity within the workplace.
  Not only does it happen, but we need to encourage more of it, so that 
nothing is done in that process to interfere with the statutory right 
and the constitutional right that people have to organize in unions.
  I was a member of the International Association of Machinists for 
that period of time. If I were still working at that company, I presume 
I would still be a member of that union. But the union that I used to 
be a member of, and most of these other unions that are stationed here 
in Washington, are against this bill. I think that is kind of like 
having your head stuck in the sand, because we are going to have to 
increase productivity in the workplace if we are going to keep up with 
international competition. We ought to be enhancing and doing 
everything we possibly can to make our manufacturing and our service 
industries more productive to meet the competition from overseas. And 
this bill would encourage that. I do not know why leaders here in 
Washington cannot understand that.
  The people that were on the assembly line with me in the 1960's 
understood that, even though we did not have the international 
competition we have now. But also I think I learned something in the 
process, too, that labor union leaders here in Washington, DC, do not 
always represent the voice of their leaders at the grassroots. The 
people I worked with felt the necessity of encouraging this cooperation 
between labor and management so that we would be more productive, so 
that we could make more money, get higher salaries, and better fringe 
benefits.
  So I hope that we can pass this bill and get it to the President. I 
hope the President will stick to his message in the State of the Union, 
that we have to enhance cooperation between workers and employers, 
because that is what this bill does.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, I attempted to offer an 
amendment repealing the 1993 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Two 
weeks ago today, the Democrats objected to that amendment coming up, 
and we find ourselves in a situation where, all over America, people 
are talking about the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel.
  The President now says he is in favor of the repeal. Our Democratic 
colleagues say they are in favor of it. But yet 2 weeks after I tried 
to offer this amendment, we have yet to get an opportunity to vote on 
it. When I tried to offer the amendment, our Democratic colleagues 
said, ``Well, we want to vote on the minimum wage.'' So Senator Dole 
said: ``OK, let us vote on the gasoline tax, and let us vote on minimum 
wage with a relevant amendment if the Democrats want to offer an 
amendment to try to guarantee a pass-through on the gas tax.''
  The majority leader said that he would allow that amendment to be 
offered. If they come up with a reasonable amendment, we will support 
that amendment. But the majority leader said that, with the minimum 
wage bill, he would like to try to do something about an absurd 
situation which has had the effect of preventing workers and managers 
from using the teamwork approach which has increased productivity all 
over the world. The National Labor Relations Board has come in and 
denied employers and employees the ability to meet and talk together 
about such issues as company softball teams, appropriate work clothing 
for pregnant women, and other issues involving quality, efficiency and 
productivity because the union bosses believe that somehow their power 
is diminished if people who work for companies and people who run 
companies learn how to work together.
  So, as a result, we are in a situation where the American people 
continue to await a repeal of the gas tax. I do not have any doubt in 
my mind that if we had a vote on repealing the gas tax this afternoon, 
75 Members of the Senate, minimum, would vote for it.
  The Democrats say they want to raise the minimum wage. The majority 
leader says: ``Great, we will give you that vote.'' Yet, here we are 
where people are affected by rising gas prices, where we have the 
ability through legislative action to reduce the cost of a tank of 
gasoline when working families fill up their car or their truck or 
their van--about $1 for every fillup. Yet, for 2 weeks nothing has 
happened.

  I wanted to come over today to express my frustration. I think we 
ought to bring up the gasoline tax repeal and have a vote on it. The 
majority leader has said he is willing to bring up the minimum wage and 
have a vote on it. The majority leader would like to have a vote on the 
so-called TEAM Act. My guess is that 98 percent of the American people 
would support the concept of letting people who work in the same 
company, whose retirements are tied to the progress of the company, who 
have the shared goal of creating jobs and growth and opportunity, talk 
to one another. Only in America do we have an absurd system where the 
Government tries to stop people who work for the same company from 
talking to each other to improve safety and efficiency and to improve 
the quality of life. Yet, while we have three proposals and we have an 
agreement from the majority leader to vote on all three of them, we are 
denied that ability.
  While I am in the process of listing legislative agenda items, recall 
that we recently passed a health care bill. It was touted by both sides 
of the aisle. It was going to help 25 million people in making health 
insurance more affordable and by making it more available. And the 
majority leader, in his capacity as majority leader, sought to appoint 
conferees so we could go to conference with the House, adopt this bill, 
send it back to both Houses, and attempt to make it the law of the 
land. Now we have an objection to even going to conference with the 
House because the Senator from Massachusetts does not like the makeup 
of the conference decided upon by the majority leader.
  So it seems to me that what we are seeing here is an effort to 
prevent the will of the American people from being exercised in the 
Senate. I think it is

[[Page S4903]]

outrageous when we have had a consensus in the country for over 2 
weeks, when we have probably 75 Members of the Senate who want to 
repeal the gasoline tax and bring down the cost of gasoline for working 
families, when we have a President who has said he would sign the bill, 
we cannot bring it up for a simple yes-or-no vote in the U.S. Senate. I 
think it is very clear to anybody who wants to watch the process that 
it is our Democratic colleagues who are denying us the ability to 
repeal the gasoline tax.
  Let me say just a little bit about the gasoline tax. Many people do 
not understand, really, what this issue is about. Let me try to explain 
it in two ways.
  First of all, prior to 1993, we had never had a permanent gasoline 
tax that was not tied to building highways. In fact, the gasoline tax 
has historically built up a transportation trust fund which has been 
used to build the transportation system of the country. It has in 
essence been a user fee. So you pay taxes on gasoline, and that builds 
roads. We have now taken part of that money, unwisely, in my opinion, 
and put it into mass transit, instead of a mass transit user fee paid 
for by mass transit. So we have mass transit systems all over the 
country, and nobody rides mass transit in many cases.
  Quite aside from that point, before 1993 and the Clinton gasoline tax 
increase, the gasoline tax went to build highways. In 1993, the 
President tried to impose a general energy tax called a Btu tax. We 
defeated that tax. As an alternative, without a single Republican vote, 
the President and the Democratic majority raised taxes on gasoline, but 
none of the money that went into the Treasury from the gasoline tax 
went to building roads. For the first time, it went into general 
Government, which under the budget that we adopted----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the gasoline tax bill be made 
in order and be brought before the Senate at this point.
  Mr. FORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. I object.
  Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator says this is the first time that we have ever 
used gasoline taxes for the general fund.
  Mr. GRAMM. I said this is the first permanent gas tax we have ever 
had that did not go to the highway trust fund. We have adopted gasoline 
taxes in the past on a temporary basis, but we have never adopted a 
permanent one that did not ultimately go into the trust fund. This is 
the first.
  Mr. FORD. For 1932 and 1956, all of it went to the general fund. That 
is No. 1. No. 2, the Bush nickel was divided, 2.5 cents for 
transportation and 2.5 cents went to deficit reduction. It did phase 
out in 1995.
  So when you get back and start looking at all these things, there has 
been some tax that has been used in past administrations, and that is 
10 cents, if you want to look at it, 5 in 1982 and 5 in 1990, and 2.5 
cents was used in the general fund for 5 years. So when the Senator 
says it is the only one that has been dedicated, technically he might 
be right. But when you take it out of my pocket and you put it in the 
general fund, then I expect that I feel a little bit differently than 
the way the Senator explains it technically. So, yes, we have used 
taxes before for the general fund put on gasoline. Am I not correct, I 
ask the Senator?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, obviously, before we 
established the highway trust fund, there was no trust fund to which 
the taxes could be directed. The Senator makes it very clear that we 
have had temporary taxes in the past that were not dedicated to the 
trust fund, but were planned to expire. The point I am making is this 
is the first permanent gas tax that we have had since we have had the 
highway trust fund that has not gone to the highway trust fund.
  Let me tell you why that is important. We are taxing people who work 
for a living, people who have to get in their car or their pickup truck 
and, in my State, drive 30 and 40 miles to work to subsidize social 
programs for people who do not work, and I object to that tax. We are 
taxing people who live in the West and who live in rural areas who have 
to drive great distances to work for a living to subsidize people who 
live in the big Eastern cities, and I object to that tax. I do not 
think this is a fair tax.
  I think it ought to be repealed on its merits. The American people 
want to repeal it because gasoline prices are up. The only thing we can 
do that will bring down prices at the pump is to repeal this tax.
  Now, we have had the administration suggest that we have 
investigations. We have various committees that are holding hearings. 
But the point is, if we want to bring down the price of gasoline, we 
know how to do it. We could do it this afternoon. If the Senator had 
not objected and we had brought up the gasoline tax repeal as I just 
asked consent to do, we could have passed it this afternoon; it could 
have gone to the House; they could have passed it tonight; the 
President could have signed it tomorrow; and Saturday morning when 
every filling station in America opened, they could have lowered their 
posted price by 4.3 cents a gallon.
  Let me also note that the price of highway diesel would come down 4.3 
cents a gallon; the price of diesel used on the railroad would come 
down 4.3 cents a gallon; the price of commercial and noncommercial jet 
fuel and aviation gasoline would come down 4.3 cents a gallon. So we 
are not just talking about what you save filling up your gasoline tank. 
We are talking about consumers who pay this tax every time they go to 
the grocery store, because the cost of everything from red meat to 
beans has the cost of the diesel fuel tax in it because all of those 
groceries had to be brought in by truck or by rail to that grocery 
store. Every time you get on an airplane, you are paying this tax 
because it is built into the price of your ticket. So the plain truth 
is, the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that the annual cost of 
this 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to Texans is $445 million a 
year.
  So my point is this. We have an issue here where the American people 
are overwhelmingly for repeal of this gasoline tax and in favor of 
bringing down the price of gasoline by about a dollar a tank. We should 
stop taxing working people who have to use their car or truck to go to 
work to subsidize social programs for people who do not work.
  I do not understand, when we have such a clear consensus, when the 
President says he is for it, why we cannot vote on it.
  Now, maybe they are not for it. I would never suggest that someone 
does not stand where they say they stand, but I think it is up to 
people who claim they are for repealing this tax but yet will not let 
us vote on it to explain to us why it is that they are for it. They 
think it is a good idea. The President, who is from their party, says 
he will sign it. But yet this now represents 14 days we have attempted 
to bring up the gasoline tax repeal, and we have been denied that 
ability.
  So I just wanted to come over this afternoon to express my 
frustration at where we are. I do not understand. If people want to 
vote on the minimum wage, the majority leader has offered them an 
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on it. People want to vote on 
guaranteeing the right of people who are in management and who are 
working on assembly lines to get together and talk and work together as 
a team, as the whole world is doing now and doing very effectively, and 
as American companies are doing but now they are being stopped by the 
National Labor Relations Board from doing it. I do not see why we 
cannot have a vote on it.
  Now, I know that the people who run the AFL-CIO are against it, but I 
am against a lot of things that we vote on every day in the Senate. I 
do not know what gives them the power to dictate our agenda. I 
certainly wish we could submit this to popular referendum because most 
Americans would laugh in your face if you told them that you want to 
protect the ability of Government to tell employers and employees, 
blue-collar, white-collar workers working for the same company with the 
same interests that they cannot sit down and talk about safety clothing 
for pregnant women, about softball teams, and about jointly seeking 
quality.

[[Page S4904]]

  It seems to me that is an eminently reasonable proposal. My point is 
why not vote on all three of these things? The one I am most concerned 
about, the one that I have tried now for 14 days in a row to get a vote 
on is repealing this unfair gasoline tax, unfair because it does not go 
to build roads; it goes to general revenues. It is being spent, every 
penny of it, on social programs, and we are taxing people who have to 
drive their cars and their trucks to work to subsidize in many cases 
people who do not work, and I do not think it is right. I would like to 
have a vote on it. I would like to be able to cut gasoline prices and 
do it today. I would like, when people tomorrow go to the filling 
station, that they look and see that the posted price is down 4.3 cents 
a gallon. If we acted today, we could make it happen.

  I just express frustration that we are not allowed to bring it up and 
vote on it. If you are against it, fine, vote against it. We heard the 
Senator from Louisiana say yesterday that he was going to filibuster. 
Great, I admire that honesty. At least he admits that he is against the 
repeal. He is not pretending that he is for it and it is just that we 
are not going to bring it up and vote on it. He says, no, he thinks it 
is a lousy idea, he is against it and that he is going to filibuster. 
Great, let him filibuster. He has a right to do that, but let us bring 
it up. Let us let him talk, and let those of us in favor of repeal 
talk. And when everybody gets tired, then let us vote.
  We could have cut gasoline prices 2 weeks ago if we had chosen to do 
it. So I hope when people go to the filling station to gas up the car 
for the weekend, when they are going to get the kids in the car and the 
dog in the back and go see mama, and they look at that posted price of 
$1.279, I want them to remember that Republican Members of the Senate 
wanted to cut that price 4.3 cents a gallon; when they filled up their 
Suburban with 42 gallons, we wanted to save them about $2. But we could 
not do it because people who say they are for repealing this tax, who 
are every day in the paper saying, ``Yes, we do not object to it; we 
could vote for it; the President says he could sign it,'' but, yet, 
these are the very people that are preventing us from repealing this 
tax and cutting the price of gasoline at the pump.
  So let me say to Mr. and Mrs. America, when you fill up your tank on 
Friday to go see mama and you look at that posted price, remember those 
who wanted to cut the tax and remember those who said they were for it 
but they would not let us vote on it.
  If you will just enshrine that in your elephantine memories, it will 
serve the public interest and perhaps bring some good to the U.S. 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. Ford addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                  Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 2337

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that order No. 374, 
H.R. 2337, be immediately brought to the Senate floor and taken under 
consideration.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I would ask to amend that 
unanimous-consent request to say that the bill be brought up and that 
the gasoline tax be in order and that there be 1 hour equally divided 
on the gasoline tax.
  Mr. FORD. I object.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FORD. He objects. Is it not wonderful? If you want something, 
they object. We want something--``we object.'' It is rather interesting 
around here.
  What the Senator fails to tell us in his eloquent remarks, his Ph.D. 
philosophy here, and verbiage--and I am just a country boy from Yellow 
Creek trying to explain my position and I will do the best I can--what 
the Senator does not tell those who are watching on C-SPAN--and we had 
a big story on C-SPAN junkies today; he speaks to them--is that what 
the Republicans are trying to do is to have all this in one package. 
You have absolutely locked the minority out, and they cannot amend any 
one of those three items that you have talked about today. It is called 
the Dole gag order. The Dole gag order.
  Let me quote what the distinguished Senator said, I guess back in 
1993--we all go back to those--when he was frustrated. But he was wrong 
in his frustration. He says, ``But as the distinguished chairman 
knows''--talking about the distinguished Senator from West Virginia--
``we also have rights.''
  You said that--excuse me--the Senator said that. I want to be careful 
not to use improper language.

       One of the rights we have is to refuse to participate in a 
     situation which we believe, though it is totally fair and 
     totally within the rules, creates a playing field on which we 
     believe that we are not capable of getting a fair contest 
     underway.

  That is the language of the Senator from Texas. At that time he had 
the ability to offer four amendments. Right now we have no time to 
offer any amendments. And it is not, ``Oh, we just want a vote.'' Vote 
on what? Vote on a package that you cannot offer an amendment to? They 
have us locked out. They have us locked out.
  You know something, this 4.3 cents--look at it. Because it increases 
the deficit almost $2 billion this year. And there is no offset--no 
offset. To offset it in the language they have, they do two things. 
Over 6 years, they get the $800,000 out of the Department of Energy. 
And we have a $2 billion debt this year--deficit. Then they want to 
sell the spectrum. That cannot go into effect until 1998.
  So we have no ability to amend it to be sure that the consumer gets 
the 4.3 cents. You say they could--the distinguished Senator from Texas 
says, ``The consumer could get it.'' If he had been at the hearing in 
the Energy Committee this morning, he would have found out there is 
nothing we can do. If we give the 4.3 cents back, we create a deficit 
of almost $2 billion, because you do not offset it for 6 years and the 
spectrum sale does not occur until 1998.
  Now, I have heard about the Gramm-Rudman bill, you know. You ought to 
read what the former Senator, Senator Rudman, talks about, how we 
cannot get together here. That is one of the reasons he left.
  So the Democrats are the minority in this case. We always want to 
protect the minority, that is one of the reasons for the rules of the 
Senate. Sure, I can quote the Senator from Texas again: ``We also have 
our rights.''
  So we have our rights. We want a cloture; we want to have the ability 
to amend. We offered yesterday afternoon three stand-alones, one on the 
gasoline tax, with amendments, relevant. We wanted the minimum wage, 
with amendments, relevant amendments; and the TEAM Act, with 
amendments. That is all. That is our rights. To quote the Senator: That 
is all we are asking for, is our rights.
  You know something? Ninety-six percent of all the businesses today 
have committees that get together and talk about the very things the 
Senator says that they want under this legislation. They talk about 
safety. They talk about that now. Mr. President, 96 percent of all the 
businesses have those committees now. If they want to talk about 
health, they all could talk about that. But in this bill they eliminate 
present law, and the employer will appoint the committee. The employees 
do not have the opportunity to make that selection.
  You know, we get out here and it sounds so good, and we are so bad. 
If I had not been on the floor--I think it is kind of unprecedented 
that you ask for a unanimous consent when the opposite party is not on 
the floor. I just happened to walk out here and we get a unanimous-
consent request. I suspect the Chair may have recognized that, and I 
think that would have been disastrous, not only for the Senate's 
procedures but for the Members themselves.
  So, yes, we are ready to vote on the 4.3-cent tax, but we want to 
offer an amendment to say that the consumer will get it.
  You go back and listen to the very crafty language of the Senator 
from Texas. He says you ``may'' get it. We can save you, but if the oil 
companies, when you take off 4.3 cents, add a nickel on, the only 
people who make any money really, putting more money into their 
pockets, is the oil companies.
  If I represented Texas and big oil, I imagine I would want to do the 
same thing, but I am here trying to protect the low-income people in my 
State and in this country.
  When gasoline prices go up and you have no control over it, only 4 
cents,

[[Page S4905]]

and the minimum wage does not go up, they are still making the same 
amount of money, why do we not have our right?
  So the choice here is whether we are able to have a question on the 
4.3-cent gasoline tax removal and the ability to amend, that is all we 
ask. Then we have--and give a time agreement--and then we have the 
minimum wage. If you want to amend it, well and good. But the majority 
leader gave the Senator from Massachusetts exactly what he asked for. I 
doubt seriously if the Senator from Texas likes that. I do not imagine 
he does, but that is a stand alone. If they want to amend it--the other 
side--they can. We are giving them that right.
  Then on the TEAM Act: stand alone, time limit, but give us an 
opportunity to amend it.
  My dad used to tell me, ``Son, when you miss a train, stand there 
with your suitcase and hat and another one will be by.'' What goes 
around comes around. We can fill the tree one of these days, and some 
of the Senators on the other side may just be here --may just be here. 
I understand the rules of the Senate. I understand them very well.
  So, Mr. President, we want to be sure that an offset is there, and it 
is not there in this bill for 4.3 cents. Just increase the deficit, 
increase the deficit, increase the deficit. I have been preached to 
ever since I have been here by the Senator from Texas about balancing 
the budget. Well, he wants to dig into Social Security, $147 million a 
year. I am not going to allow that. I have a contract with my senior 
citizens around the country.
  I hope he is making a lot of notes on this. I want to hear the 
rebuttal. Probably will be good; probably will be good. I can hardly 
wait. I will wait with bated breath, I guess.
  Insurance? The insurance bill that was agreed to here I think was 
something very good for the retiring Senator from Kansas, Senator 
Kassebaum. I think it was good that we had bipartisan agreement with 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum joining together and asked we 
have no amendments. An amendment was offered and it lost. Then you want 
to put conferees on who would say, even though we lost the amendment in 
the Senate on a vote, we are going to put it on in conference. Sure, 
you have something to object to. We have our rights. We have our 
rights, and that is what the distinguished Senator from Texas said: ``I 
have played by the rules in sending up the pending amendment.''
  So we have our rights.
  Well, we are going to have a little debate on the budget, I guess 
now. We did not have a chance to have any input into it. Read the paper 
today. It is the Dole budget. You know, it looks like they are reducing 
the amount of tax cuts, but it is a ``fooler.'' The last budget was for 
7 years; this budget is for 6 years. So you have one-seventh more taxes 
into that one little frame--6 years.
  So we have to be very careful. One thing Dad told me, too, ``The 
devil's in the fine print.'' If you do not read the fine print, you 
might not understand what you are voting on. That is one reason, I 
think, that we ought to be sure we understand that if the 4.3-cent 
gasoline tax comes off, we will have almost a $2 billion deficit this 
year, and this year ends September 30, and it takes 6 years to repay 
it. We cannot even pay for part of it until 1998.
  We think we ought to have an ability to amend it to be sure that the 
consumer receives the money rather than ``might save,'' ``might 
receive.'' The dealer does not have to pass it on. I think that is a 
true statement. The oil companies do not have to pass it on. I think 
that is a true statement.

  So give us an opportunity to amend, to the best of our ability, to be 
sure that the consumer receives the 4.3 cents. That is all we have 
asked. That is all the fairness we want, and I think that fairness is 
what the argument is about--not gridlock, not refusing to let you vote, 
but principle. I intend to stay here and work as hard as I can for 
principle and for the rules of the Senate and to operate in the best 
manner possible. So when you get down to it, that is all that you can 
ask for.
  So I go back and one more time read:

       But as the distinguished chairman knows, we also have 
     rights.

  I am quoting the Senator from Texas.

       And one of the rights we have is to refuse to participate 
     in a situation which we believe, though it is totally fair 
     and totally within the rules, creates a playing field on 
     which we believe that we are not capable of getting a fair 
     contest underway.

  So now I say to the Senator from Texas, all we are asking for is a 
fair contest. I think we have offered you a fair contest--or to the 
distinguished majority leader. Stand alone, give us an opportunity to 
amend. We cannot amend. You have it your way, we cannot get it our way.
  Fairness in this Chamber is one thing that we have always prided 
ourselves on, but when we have a gag order--a gag order--and we are 
unable to amend, then I think we have every right under the 
Constitution and under the ability of use of the rules that we do the 
best we can.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to our colleague from 
Kentucky. I am always enlightened by his views. No one is saying that 
the Senator from Kentucky, or the distinguished minority leader, or 
every Democratic Member of the Senate does not have the right to deny 
us the ability to vote on repealing the gasoline tax.
  I have certainly exercised my right as a minority Member of the 
Senate, when we were in the minority, as much as any other Member. In 
fact, we debated in one form or another the President's health care 
bill for 86 days. As much as any other Member of the Senate, I fought 
it and denied, until we had the votes to defeat it, the ability of the 
majority to vote on it. But the point is I never denied doing exactly 
that. In fact, I said in front of God and everybody the Clinton health 
care bill is going to pass over my cold, dead political body. I said in 
front of God and everybody, the Clinton health care bill is deader than 
Elvis.
  Mr. FORD. Elvis is not dead.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, when he comes back maybe he could moderate this 
dispute we are having.
  Mr. FORD. I would rather him than some I have.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, let me put it this way, the point is, for a period 
of time, I was one who helped deny a vote on the Clinton health care 
bill.
  But the difference between me and my colleagues is I made it clear I 
was not for the Clinton health care bill. I never intended to see it 
passed. And it will not ever be passed. What I do not understand is all 
these people who say that they are for repealing the gasoline tax, but 
they will not let us vote on it.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. GRAMM. If I may just make my statement, then I will yield the 
floor and let our colleague have it back.
  Mr. FORD. OK.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. GRAMM. I will go back to the Budget Committee.
  My colleague says all they want is an amendment to assure that if we 
repeal this tax it is passed along to the consumer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the gasoline tax bill be the pending 
business of the Senate, that there be one amendment in order, to be 
offered by a minority Member to guarantee a passthrough to the 
consumer, and that debate on that amendment occur within an hour, and 
that there then be a final vote on the passage of the gasoline tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, I am considering modifying 
that to go to the Kennedy minimum wage amendment. What the Senator has 
done here--and I need to confer with the leader. I am sure you have not 
conferred with Senator Dole as to your unanimous consent.
  Mr. GRAMM. Senator Dole--reclaiming my time----
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, I have that time. So I want 
to consider modifying that amendment to add the minimum wage to that 
and under the amendment that was used by the majority leader in his 
proposal that we will vote on cloture at 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would note there is a pending 
unanimous-consent request. Does the

[[Page S4906]]

Senator from Texas modify his request?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am not going to modify the request.
  Mr. FORD. Then I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reclaiming my time, the point I want to make is, despite 
our dear colleague from Kentucky saying all he wanted to do was to 
offer an amendment to guarantee that the tax cut was passed through to 
the consumer, that in fact----
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is not all that the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky wants to do.
  Mr. FORD. He is quoting me as all I wanted to do was to add an 
amendment. That is not true. I said--and I regret that he misunderstood 
me--that we have the right to offer an amendment or amendments--I said 
plural--and that we wanted to be sure that the consumer received the 
4.3 cents and not the big oil companies that he represents.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader said 
yesterday and the day before and the day before that he would look at 
any language the minority had concerning a passthrough of the tax cut 
from the filling station to the consumer.
  In terms of oil companies, I do not think--first of all, I am proud 
of the fact that my State is an oil producer, as I am sure my colleague 
is proud of the fact that his State is the producer of tobacco and 
cigarettes.
  Mr. FORD. Add coal to that. That is energy.
  Mr. GRAMM. My point is, the gas tax is collected by filling stations. 
They collect the tax. And they remit it to the Government. The average 
filling station in my State collects about $300,000 of gasoline taxes a 
year. If we want to lower prices, the quickest way to do it is to 
repeal that tax.
  Let me touch on a couple of other things here.
  Our colleague says, 96 percent of companies are engaged in some form 
of joint work between management and labor. That is not the point. The 
point is, the National Labor Relations Board is now denying companies 
that ability. What we want to do is to guarantee that workers and 
management on a voluntary basis can meet together and talk about things 
like safety and health and productivity.
  Mr. FORD. Would the Senator say that includes collective bargaining 
and wages and hours worked and things of that nature under your 
proposal?
  Mr. GRAMM. Under the proposal that I am making--I believe in free 
speech. So I think if people want to get together and talk about any 
legal act between two consenting adults, they ought to be able to do 
it. It is an amazing thing to me that two consenting adults can engage 
in any kind of activity other than industry, commerce, work, 
investment, job creation, but when they try to do those things they 
stand either naked before the world in terms of protection from our 
Government or they are impeded. If they want to do any other thing as 
consenting adults, they have a right to do it. I have never understood 
that. But there are many things that I do not understand.
  Finally, I see two of our other colleagues are here. I want to yield 
the floor, but here is my point. For 2 weeks we have been trying to 
repeal the tax on gas. It is a simple issue. It is not a complicated 
issue. You either want to repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax or you do 
not. I do. A few people say they do not. Most people say they do. But 
yet we do not get a vote on it.
  I am simply frustrated about it. But I have been frustrated before. 
But I just hope people will make note of the fact that even though for 
2 weeks we have been talking about it, even though for 2 weeks people 
say they are for it, for 2 weeks we have not been able to do it. I hope 
that something can be worked out. I certainly, for my part--this is a 
decision that will be made by the majority leader and the minority 
leader--but I am perfectly willing to see votes on other issues. I want 
a vote on repealing the gasoline tax. I hope something can be worked 
out. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been sitting in on this debate, and 
I have been presiding during part of the time. There are some things 
that I think should be said at this point that have not been said so 
far that would be appropriate.
  It is shocking, it seems to me, the issue of raising taxes is a 
partisan issue. I mean, if you look at the way that the debate is 
going, those on the Democratic side are trying to raise taxes.
  I reread a statement that was made by Laura Tyson who is the chief 
economic adviser to the President of the United States. I am going to 
quote it right now into the Record.

       There is no relationship between the level of taxes a 
     nation pays and its economic performance.

  If you really believe that, then it is understandable why we are 
having the discussion that we are having today. But the difference in 
the way we treat our attitude toward taxes, between the Democrats and 
the Republicans, is incontrovertible.
  In the 103d Congress, under a Democrat-controlled Congress, they had 
the ``largest single tax increase in the history of public finance in 
America or any place in the world.'' That is a direct quote from 
Patrick Moynihan who at that time was the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee.
  Mr. FORD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. Not until I am through with my remarks.
  Mr. FORD. I have a question about that.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am kind of slow, and it takes me long to get my train 
of thought back.
  During that time, it was the first ever retroactive tax increase, in 
other words, we passed a tax increase that went back and imposed taxes 
on people who were adjusting their behavior and their activities 
predicated on the existing tax structure at the time. They made it 
retroactive.
  The third thing they did--the top tax rate increased to 39 percent, a 
dramatic increase. It has been increased again since then to 42 
percent. The tax on Social Security for many of the senior citizens in 
this country went up by 50 percent to a total of 85 percent.
  I believe we need also to make a couple of statements in response to 
what has been said about the economy, this glowing economy that we 
supposedly have right now. I have some figures here that show there is 
no glowing. I know if you say it is long enough, the people will 
believe it. Then they will say, ``Well, someone's doing a very good 
job.'' But it is not.
  Right now, under President Clinton, the economy grew at a slower rate 
in the first quarter of 1996, 2.8 percent, than it did in the first 
quarter of 1992, which was 4.7 percent. There have been lost--this 
comes right out of the Bureau of Statistics, published on May 3, 1995--
in that particular year, 17,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in April, 
bringing the total number of jobs lost in that sector to 338,000 since 
last March.
  I guess the reason I bring this up is that I am one of those 
individuals who has read history and who believes that you can increase 
revenues by reducing marginal rates. We saw this happen in the 1980's, 
during the decade of the 1980's, when we saw the largest number of rate 
decreases. We increased revenues substantially. The total revenue that 
was generated in 1980 was $244 billion for marginal rates. In 1990, it 
is $466 billion. We almost doubled it by reducing dramatically the 
rates.
  This is not just a Republican concept. President Kennedy, back when 
he was President of the United States, made a statement, ``It is a 
paradoxical and economic statistic that the way to increase revenue is 
to reduce marginal rates.''
  It is something we have seen history repeated over and over again. 
You are not going to increase revenue by increasing taxes. Therefore, 
if we can reduce any of these taxes, we should take this opportunity to 
do it.
  As he said, 1993 was the largest single tax increase in the history 
of public finance in America or any place in the world. If you opposed 
that increase, the largest increase in history, you should be 
supportive of repealing any part of it. This is just a small part of 
it.
  I think, also, if you remember what President Clinton said in Houston 
not too long ago when he was talking to a

[[Page S4907]]

group of people who were pretty offended by the increases in taxes, he 
said, ``A lot of people think I increased taxes too much in 1993. It 
might surprise you to know that I think I did, too.''
  I want to help the President. I want to help him reduce the taxes 
that he admits were too high in 1993. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, a couple of items. The Senator from Texas 
[Mr. Gramm] talked about the payment at the pump, the taxes collected 
at the rack. That is what I thought. I was not sure. I got the 
information. So the wholesaler or the distributor collects the tax, and 
it is not the dealer that would be able to give or reduce his price. I 
thought that ought to be brought out here now. I do not want my service 
station operator to be jumped on when we say you did not get the 4.3-
cent reduction tomorrow or next week. It is at the rack. So I am trying 
to protect them.
  My colleagues, as they make these speeches, they leave the floor. I 
have to give the Senator from Texas a compliment because he stayed here 
and we had a little back and forth. The Senator from Texas is going to 
the budget meeting, I understand. My figures--and I always stand 
corrected because somebody will find a way to get at me with words--but 
under the Republican Budget Committee's mark yesterday, taxes will 
increase more over the next 6 years than they did over the past 6 
years.

  Think about that: $415 billion. Under the Republican budget 
chairman's mark advertised yesterday, taxes will increase more over the 
next 6 years than they have over the past 6 years. That is $415 
billion, if I figure that right.
  Everybody will say, well, the economy is increasing and all that 
stuff. If it is increasing, give this administration some credit. I 
understand the criticism. This has become a Presidential campaign 
Chamber. It is not a Chamber dedicated to the people of this country, 
trying to do the best job we can for them. If we could stop the 
Presidential campaign in the Chamber, I think the overwhelming majority 
of U.S. Senators could get together and pass something in the best 
interests of the people.
  We just cannot continue to have the Democrats shut out with a gag 
rule on us. The principle here is not whether we are for or against a 
4.3-cent reduction in gasoline tax. That is not the question. The 
question is, we are being eliminated from having the opportunity to 
debate it and offer amendments.
  The Senator from Texas said that he could not guarantee they could 
give them 4.3, or the big oil companies could keep it, or the 
wholesaler at the rack could keep it. It does not have to pass this 
price on. We just want to have the opportunity.
  The point of being for or against removal of that tax is not the 
question. Fairness is the question, and the ability to have an up-or-
down vote and to offer amendments. We have offered stand-alone 
amendments and a time agreement on each one of those three. We have 
been turned down. We will consider an amendment to get this, but we 
want to put it in our package. We do not want it outside that package. 
So the gag rule still is extended.
  Nowhere, nowhere--we may have filed cloture, but we did not say you 
could not file amendments. I quoted from the Senator from Texas in 1993 
where he said that he had his rights. That is the same thing I am 
talking about. Nothing different. When he was fussing then, he had the 
ability to offer four amendments under that tree. He had a right to 
offer four amendments. We never excluded anybody from offering 
amendments, as is happening to us now.
  Where is the fairness, Mr. President? All we are asking is for a 
little fairness.
  The gag rule is being applied to the minority. The gag rule is being 
applied to the minority. As long as I have the ability and breath in 
me, I am going to speak out against that, as the Republican side of the 
aisle did for so long. I listened to it. We can quote and quote and 
quote what they said and what statements they made, and now we are 
trying to say the same thing. We never instituted a gag order on the 
minority in all the 22 years I have been here.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is time to repeal the 1993 Clinton gas 
tax increase. On Wednesday, Senator Dole, Senator Gramm and I, along 
with a number of our colleagues, introduced legislation that would do 
just that. I wish we would have been able to repeal this tax on tax 
freedom day. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were unable to agree to the compromise package that Senator Dole 
had offered them. Today is another day, one in which I hope we will see 
repeal of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax.
  During the 1992 Presidential election campaign, then-candidate 
Clinton, when asked about Federal excise taxes, said, ``I oppose 
Federal excise tax increases.'' But as with other views that Bill 
Clinton has held, this one was not adhered to for very long. In fact, 
in 1993, President Clinton, as part of a $268 billion tax increase, the 
largest tax increase in history, embraced a permanent 4.3 cent per 
gallon motor fuels tax.
  I like to remind my colleagues that President Clinton originally 
proposed a Btu tax, which translated into a 7.3 cent per gallon motor 
fuels tax increase. Just last October, the President admitted to 
Americans that he had raised our taxes too much. I agree and believe 
that right now every driver in America also agrees.
  Last month, gas prices were higher than they had been in a decade. 
The administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have responded to this crisis by calling for investigation of the 
oil companies.
  Certainly, if there is any price gouging going on, we ought to know 
about it and we ought to stop it. But, we need to take action now. What 
we in Congress can do right now is repeal a tax that only adds insult 
to injury for every driver in America, a tax that, again, is part of a 
package of increases that Bill Clinton himself admits is too high.
  Last Friday, the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the 
effect of the Clinton 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax increase and 
to explore the possibility of repeal. We heard from several 
representatives from industries that are affected by the increase. The 
panel included representatives from the Air Transport Association, the 
American Trucking Associations, the American Bus Association, the 
Association of American Railroads, as well as the Service Station 
Dealers of America and Allied Trades. These panelists provided our 
committee with useful insight to the damaging effect the permanent 4.3 
cent per gallon motor fuels tax has upon their industry and their 
customers. In addition, the American Automobile Association, which 
serves more than 38 million drivers, submitted testimony supporting 
repeal of the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax.
  The American Automobile Association said in their written testimony 
that repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax restores the 
integrity to the gasoline tax as a user fee, and it helps restore 
public trust in the Federal Government and integrity to the Highway 
Trust Fund.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at the Finance 
Committee hearing and here on the Senate floor have expressed concern 
that the tax benefit derived from repeal of the 4.3-cent-per-gallon 
motor fuels tax would not be passed on to consumers. During the 
hearing, one of the witnesses was Mr. Melvin Sherbert, chairman of the 
legislative committee of the Service Station Dealers of American & 
Allied Trades. He is also an owner and operator of two Amoco stations 
in Prince Georges County, MD. I asked Mr. Sherbert whether he and other 
service station owners would pass on the tax benefit from repeal of the 
4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax. Mr. Sherbert responded, and I 
quote:

       I know that [prices] would go down. . . . The moment we 
     receive [the benefit from repeal of this tax] we would put 
     that on the street.

  The other witnesses at the hearing testified that they too would pass 
on the benefit. Since the hearing we have also received letters from a 
number of oil companies and industries assuring us that the benefit 
from repeal will be passed through to their customers. We

[[Page S4908]]

in Congress cannot control market prices. But what we can control is 
the tax burden we impose on the American people. Repealing the 4.3-
cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax, therefore, will reduce the tax burden 
on gasoline and that which the American people must bear. It will also 
send a clear message from Congress to the industry, that we want to 
keep prices low for the consumers, and that we are willing to do our 
part. We strongly encourage them to do theirs.
  I would like to remind my colleagues, that when President Clinton 
raised taxes $268 billion in 1993, he said he was raising them on the 
rich. We knew then that that was not true.
  Now there is no doubt. President Clinton has raised taxes not only on 
the middle class but also on low-income families, and now my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle are denying these low-income families 
tax relief. The truth is, Mr. President, that every person who drives a 
car, who buys groceries, who takes the bus, the train, or a plane has 
to pay this tax. These are not all rich Americans. In fact, Americans 
who are hit the hardest by this regressive tax are people at the lowest 
income levels, those making less than $10,000 a year. Repeal of this 
regressive tax, therefore, would benefit all Americans, especially 
those with modest incomes.
  It is a well-known fact that 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax not 
only disproportionately affects low-income people, but it also hits 
people in rural areas harder than it does those in more metropolitan 
areas. President Clinton knows this. In February 1993, just months 
before he signed into law the largest tax increase in history, said:

       For years there have been those who say we ought to reduce 
     the deficit by raising the gas tax a whole lot. That's fine 
     if you live in the city and ride mass transit to work. It's 
     not so good if you live in the country and drive yourself to 
     work.

  Despite this statement, the 4.3-cent-per-gallon-tax increase was 
enacted. I agree with President Clinton's 1993 statement. People in 
rural areas should not be penalized because they live in areas that 
require them to use their cars and travel longer distances. For 
example, in my home State of Delaware, which contains many rural areas, 
the average family pays $463 in gas taxes per year. This figure 
includes both State and Federal gas taxes. When the 4.3-cent-per-gallon 
motor fuels tax is repealed, the average Delaware family's tax burden 
will be reduced by $48--a good first step.
  Some of my colleagues argue that the 4.3-cent-per-gallon motor fuels 
tax is no different than other gas tax increases used for deficit 
reduction. I disagree. The 1993 Clinton gas tax increase is different 
from other gas tax increases before it. This gas tax increase went, and 
continues to go, entirely to the general fund. Unlike in past years, no 
portion of the Clinton gas tax increase goes to the highway trust fund. 
Thus, none of this money goes to pay for building and repairing 
highways. President Clinton and many of my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle have argued that this tax is going to reduce the 
deficit. But, in fact, a study released last week shows 44 cents of 
every dollar Americans paid for the Clinton tax increase did not go to 
reduce the deficit. Instead, once again, Americans' tax dollars went to 
pay for more Government spending--for bigger government.
  The Clinton gas tax increase did not get a single Republican vote 
because Republicans believe in cutting wasteful Government spending, 
rather than increasing taxes to pay for more Government spending. So 
while in the scheme of Government programs the 4.3-cent-per-gallon 
motor fuels tax may not seem to be a paramount issue, it represents 
what separates Republicans from the big Government spenders. While the 
President purports to favor balancing the budget, at best he would do 
so by matching big spending with high taxes. Our belief is that we 
should cut spending and lower taxes on the American people.
  Mr. President, it is time to give Americans a break from taxes and 
big Government. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle will allow the Senate to move forward, and stop blocking tax 
relief for working Americans.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to take some time to respond to 
a remark made by President Clinton in his press conference Wednesday. 
President Clinton said, and I quote, ``I ask the Republicans in 
Congress to consider something else. This is the first time your party 
has controlled both Houses of Congress at the same time since 1954. 
What is the record you will present to the American people and leave 
for history?''
  Well, I must say I am glad that President Clinton asked. As chairman 
of the Senate Finance Committee, I would like to respond in the area of 
taxes: this Congress cut taxes. By contrast, when President Clinton's 
party controlled Congress, taxes skyrocketed Again: we cut taxes. 
President Clinton and the 103d Congress raised taxes.
  Here is a chart that shows what happened to taxes when the Democrats 
controlled both the White House and the Congress: taxes increased by 
the largest amount in history--$268 billion. Now, on the other side of 
the chart, in green, we see what happened with the Republicans in 
control of Congress--we passed a $245 billion tax cut. But, that was 
vetoed by the same President who signed the $268 billion tax increase.
  So, our Republican record is of tax cuts--letting Americans keep more 
of what they earn so that they can spend it or save it as they see fit. 
Tax cuts that allow businesses to expand, hire more people and pay 
their employees more. Tax cuts that allow Seniors to keep more of their 
Social Security benefits. Tax cuts that allow more Americans to save 
tax free for their retirement, or their first home, or their children's 
education, or their health care. Tax cuts that end the Tax Code's 
penalty against marriage.
  President Clinton, tax cuts are the record of this Republican 
Congress. What is the record of President Clinton and the 103d 
Congress? A world record tax increase and a veto of a tax cut. Frankly, 
Mr. President, I prefer our record, and I think that most of America 
does too.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee. I would add, in addition to his answer to the 
President, what has been the record of this Congress. This Congress, 
despite news coverage and quarrelsome attacks from our opponents, has 
been able to change the pattern of Government spending. We just reduced 
discretionary spending $23 billion. Most people do not know that. We 
have put appropriations bills through that actually cut Government 
spending--unheard of in recent years. A little over a month ago we put 
through a very significant regulatory reform measure that is going to 
benefit small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and others who believe 
that Government regulation, while necessary, ought to be reasonable and 
sensible. We got that done. I am proud to say that we did that one in 
this body on a totally bipartisan basis. So we can make progress.
  But, Mr. President, I want to talk today just a few minutes and set 
the record straight on something called the TEAM Act. Our Small 
Business Committee recently held a hearing on the TEAM Act. We heard 
from small businessowners who achieved better productivity, quality, 
and safety by involving their employees in workplace decisions. 
Frankly, in the years when I was Governor, we tried to figure out how 
we could help small businesses improve their productivity. We talked to 
the best civil and manufacturing engineering and engineering talent 
from the University of Missouri at Columbia, and from the University of 
Missouri at Rolla, people who set up the Japanese management style, who 
said we could really improve productivity by involving employees in 
decisions to improve productivity, getting them actively involved in 
teams, not the same as the TEAM Act today, but we used teams. Small 
businesses seized on that model, and they were successful and they did 
reduce their costs. They were able to achieve productivity increases, 
getting better wages, and keeping their jobs because of it.
  At the hearing that we held in the Small Business Committee, we were 
bringing in people to talk about it, and some of those people had great 
stories. Let me tell you that five other

[[Page S4909]]

businessowners and their employees who had enthusiastically agreed to 
come and testify before our committee had to back out. They backed out 
because their lawyers said they were crazy, because, if they went in 
front of a Senate committee and admitted that they had involved their 
employees in improving productivity, they might be brought up by the 
NLRB for violating the National Labor Relations Act. They were proud of 
their accomplishments and proud of what employees had done, working 
together with their employers, to improve productivity and their job 
security for the future.

  Mr. President, I think employee involvement has special implications 
for American small business. By definition, small business employees 
have to be used in a variety of ways because the small business owner 
has many duties to delegate and the line between manager and employee 
is much less distinct than it might be in a larger business. The TEAM 
Act is also important because many small employers cannot afford to 
hire a labor law expert or consultant or lawyer each time they want to 
try something new or to talk with their employees.
  I can tell you from listening to small employers throughout America 
that they are scared to death of having another expensive confrontation 
with the Federal Government. They particularly are afraid of having the 
NLRB come down on them. No small businessowner wants to invest precious 
time and resources in an employee-involvement system to utilize the 
good ideas of their employees and then find out it has to be dismantled 
if the union, or the NLRB, gets wind of it.
  My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, in arguing against 
this measure, has emphasized that employee involvement is used in many 
businesses now. That is probably true. But this does not change the 
fact that many of the employee-involvement teams in existence today may 
actually be in violation of the law as it is written. The argument, I 
gather, that is being made on the other side is that because some 
businesses and employees work together and do not get caught by the 
NLRB, they do not need a law. That sounds a little strange to me.
  Secretary Reich and President Clinton have said we need to encourage 
corporate citizenship and employment and employee involvement in 
decisionmaking if America is going to compete globally. It is not just 
a question of competing globally. For many small businesses in my 
State, it is a question of competing in the marketplace right now. They 
can do it. They can provide a better product or a better service for 
their customers. But they want to be able to rely on the good ideas of 
their employees. The reality of the modern workplace for businesses of 
all sizes is that workers are being given more power, and that is good. 
Management likes employee involvement because it increases 
productivity, improves safety, and creates skilled workers. Employees 
like to work in teams because it gives them a voice both in their 
working conditions and the quality of the goods or services they 
provide.

  The National Labor Relations Act apparently right now gives employers 
and managers two options: employee involvement through unions, or no 
involvement at all. This means that 90 percent of workers in America 
who do not belong to a union, or who have chosen explicitly not to 
belong to a union, are not allowed to have a substantive voice in what 
they are doing in the workplace. The TEAM Act offers employees who are 
not unionized a way to participate.
  Opponents of the TEAM Act have argued that employee teams are really 
sham unions that delude employees into thinking they have power. I must 
tell you sadly that I heard one news report this morning which said 
that the purpose of the TEAM Act was to permit companies to establish 
unions. That is just not true. That is absolutely false. I do not know 
who is spinning the story, but they really suckered a news broadcaster 
on that one.
  The TEAM Act amends the National Labor Relations Act, section 8(a)(2) 
to allow employees and managers at nonunion companies to resolve issues 
involving terms and conditions of employment. These include things such 
as scheduling, safety and health, even when they get coffee, and 
company softball teams, but it does not allow and it would not allow 
employee teams to act as exclusive representatives of employees or 
participate in collective bargaining. In other words, the teams of 
employees would not have the power of unions. Section 8(a)(2) would 
continue to prohibit the domination of unions by the employer. So 
employers that tried to set up teams of employees to bargain 
collectively would still be in violation of 8(a)(2) both because they 
are dominating and because of the collective bargaining aspect. It is 
important to note that any bad-faith actions on the part of the 
employer would also result in violations of other parts of the National 
Labor Relations Act, particularly section 8(a)(1).
  Mr. President, we have seen the National Labor Relations Board. I do 
not think there is any problem with their being vigilant to make sure 
that the statutes that will remain on the books are thoroughly 
enforced. I think it is time to give employees and employers a little 
credit for good sense.
  Workers are smart enough to know when they are getting a fair shake 
from management and to look elsewhere if they are not. Management knows 
that without meaningful employee involvement the improvements in 
efficiency, safety, and quality simply are not going to be there. 
Employees and employers must be given the right to choose what is right 
for them--unions if they want it, employee involvement if they want it, 
or maybe in some circumstances both or neither. We ought not to be 
saying that employees cannot work in teams with employers or employers 
cannot work with teams of workers when they are not bargaining 
collectively. Small business owners want to work closely with their 
employees. These employees have often been there from the inception of 
the small business. They are the ones who can make it grow. They are 
the ones who can ensure it prospers. They are the ones who can ensure 
that it will provide good job opportunities in the marketplace.
  President Clinton has said time and time again he is a friend of 
small business, but the fact that he has already issued the veto threat 
and called the TEAM Act a poison pill shows that simply is not true. He 
is marching to a different drummer. It is not the drumbeat of small 
businesses and their employees today who know how they can compete and 
provide a better product and get more satisfaction from their jobs.
  America's business needs the flexibility and the legal ability to 
involve employees in every facet of business in order to compete with 
large businesses, with other businesses and to compete globally.
  I sincerely hope that we can move to votes on this measure and adopt 
into law reform, incorporating the provisions of the TEAM Act which 
will let businesses and employees work together.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what we are doing this afternoon is trying 
to move forward to get approval of a piece of legislation, S. 295, 
called the TEAM Act--T-E-A-M, TEAM Act.
  Now, what the TEAM Act says is that it is perfectly permissible for 
an employer to sit down with a group of his employees and say, what do 
you think is the best way to make this place more efficient? Or how can 
we make this place safer? Or what can we do to increase our 
productivity? Now, apparently--and I must say I was stunned to learn 
this--that is illegal. You cannot do that. Now, of course, it is 
happening across the country, but if it is discovered it is illegal, 
you can be hauled up before the National Labor Relations Board.
  There is something about this that has an Alice in Wonderland complex 
to it. What is going on in the United States of America when an 
employer cannot say to a group of workers out there, the fellow down 
the road is producing our product at a lower price and faster than we 
are. What can we do to improve our productivity? And so they give him 
some suggestions. But it turns out that is against the law. It is 
against the National Labor Relations Act which was passed in 1935. So 
we are held up, ensnarled in an act that was passed 61 years ago.

[[Page S4910]]

  So what this act, introduced by the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. 
Kassebaum], reported out of the committee, says is that there are 
certain things you can do. No, you cannot do collective bargaining with 
a group of employees like that. That is separate. But certainly you can 
sit down and decide how you are going to increase productivity or how 
you are going to make the place safer or what can we do to make it more 
attractive to get other workers to come and join with us in this 
effort.
  That is what this is all about. The mere idea that we need a law to 
do this seems to me--I must say I never dreamed this would be required. 
Frankly, when they started talking about the TEAM Act, I did not know 
what it was and had to have somebody spell it out. So that is why we 
are here today. This is vigorously resisted by the unions, and it is 
vigorously resisted by the administration. The administration has gone 
so far as to say if this law is passed, this TEAM Act, it will be 
vetoed.

  I must say I think that is unwarranted and extremely shortsighted. 
There are two factors, it seems to me, that make it very important we 
pass this legislation. First--and this is no secret to anybody who is 
watching this or in the galleries or anywhere--American industry is in 
the fight of its life against competition. We now have a global 
economy, no question about it. Something made in China or the 
Philippines or in the Caribbean nations comes into the United States 
and is sold is competition.
  So we in this country have seen the loss of tens of thousands of 
high-paying American jobs. I have seen this regrettably in my State to 
a considerable degree. So what this intense competition abroad has 
required is for American industry to produce better products at a lower 
price, increase productivity and be more efficient in every fashion. So 
this painful but necessary reexamination has required more intensive 
labor and management cooperation than in the past.
  The second thing that has taken place--the first is the global 
competition. We have to compete or our jobs will not survive--our laws 
have not kept pace and in many ways impede our progress toward reaching 
this global competitiveness. Labor law must change just like 
manufacturing processes must change or cooperation has to be greater. 
And that is true of labor laws likewise. Labor laws have to reflect the 
need for cooperation and teamwork that is critical for our survival.
  The National Labor Relations Act, as I previously mentioned, was 
enacted in 1935 and has changed very little in those ensuing 61 years. 
Unfortunately, that law is rooted in adversarial--when that law was 
passed in 1933, it was there to take care of a situation. At that time, 
there was great turbulence in our industries. There was an adversarial 
situation between labor and management. Indeed, workers were prohibited 
from organizing in many States. They were prohibited from going on 
strike. All of that changed in the early 1930's with the National Labor 
Relations Act and other laws such as that.
  The act, as I say, has not been adequately changed in the 61 years 
that have passed, and it does not recognize that now there is a great 
deal of cooperation that is needed in our factories and workplaces, so 
efforts to increase workplace cooperation were substantially hindered 
in 1992 by a decision called the Electromation case. That was a 
National Labor Relations Board case some 4 years ago. In that case, the 
National Labor Relations Board said that employers and employee 
committees which talk about attendance--people are not getting to work 
on time. What is going on around here? What can we do to increase the 
attendance? We have a lot of people who are not showing up. We have 
some people who work a 4-day week when they are meant to be here 5 
days. What can we do about it? What can we do about no-smoking 
policies? What do you want? Do you want a separate place to smoke? Do 
you want no smoking? What do you want? It was decided you cannot do 
that. You cannot even talk to your employees about what is the best 
smoking policy or no-smoking policy.

  This act we are talking about today, called the TEAM Act, would 
simply conform labor law with what is already happening. As I say, all 
across our country there are, in fact, these committees, and our 
managers and our owners of these companies do not realize it is against 
the law. Indeed, there are some 30,000 of these labor/management 
committees across the country. But if any one of them is discovered, it 
could well be that it is in violation of the National Labor Relations 
Act and could be punished with fines of a very severe nature.
  It is said that this bill is a threat to labor unions. I must say, I 
do not understand the rationale for that argument. This bill 
specifically states in its language that the committees that are 
entitled to be formed under this act cannot negotiate, cannot amend 
existing collective bargaining agreements. All they can do is talk 
about better productivity, talk about greater efficiency and matters of 
that nature.
  As has been mentioned previously, the hitch is that the law says 
employers cannot enter into the formation of any organization that 
deals with these problems that I have mentioned: attendance, 
productivity, efficiency. This, as I further mentioned, has received a 
very broad interpretation from the National Labor Relations Board. So 
it makes illegal most of those employee-involvement committees that I 
previously dealt with and mentioned.
  What we seek in this act is to have some clear definition of what we 
might call a safe harbor. What is a safe harbor? A safe harbor is an 
area where the employer knows it is safe for him to enter into 
discussions with employees without running afoul of the law. That is 
what this is all about. The TEAM Act is this safe harbor. It would do 
nothing to undermine union organizing or collective bargaining. It 
would recognize and authorize a simple fact of life: Employers are, 
indeed, nowadays looking to their employees more than ever before to 
help them, the employers, have a better workplace, a smarter workplace, 
a more efficient workplace, a more successful workplace that, 
hopefully, will result in more jobs, not only for those employees and 
their families but others across our Nation.
  This is very simple. It is a good idea that, as I say, I am stunned 
it is causing this furor, this fuss, because it ought to be adopted, I 
think, unanimously. Democrats and Republicans and unions all ought to 
embrace something that is going to make our country more efficient.
  I do hope this TEAM Act, S. 295, will be adopted, and I thank the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be divided equally between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise again to support the concept that 
workers are America's most valuable asset. If we are to succeed in the 
next century, if we are to survive in a world of universal competition, 
we cannot go into the competition forbidding workers and employers from 
talking to each other.
  If the 1960's and 1970's taught us anything at all, it was a lesson 
taught when foreign competition, especially in automotives and 
electronics--competition that gained from taking suggestions from the 
production floor and incorporating them in the process of the 
operation--almost drove some American businesses under. Suddenly, 
American manufacturers began to replicate this awareness of the great 
resource that employees can bring to business. I watched that happen 
when I was Governor of the State of Missouri. I observed as companies 
started to develop a sensitivity and how they would increase their 
productivity in the process.
  On numerous occasions I have come here to support the TEAM Act, which

[[Page S4911]]

provides specific authority for employers to talk to employees, even in 
the absence of a labor union--specifically in the absence of a labor 
union--in order to gain the benefit of those employees, their views and 
their opinions.
  A series of cases with the National Labor Relations Board has found 
illegal the contacts between employers and employees on fundamental 
issues like safety, like working conditions, like working hours, like 
flexible work time, something that would help resolve this tension that 
exists between the demand that we seem to have for both parents being 
in the workplace and the fact that we need to raise children in our 
homes.
  I believe it is good to say to our companies, ``Talk to your workers, 
get their suggestions, become more competitive, become more productive 
and, as a consequence, help us be survivors in the next century; be 
swimmers, not sinkers, in the competition which we're going to be 
encountering all across the world as those tremendous nations of the 
Far East come on line, nations like China, like Korea, Japan, 
Singapore, Indonesia, tremendous populations which will be very 
competitive.''
  So I believe the TEAM Act is one of those fundamental things that 
America should stand for, and that is working together.
  This already can happen in union settings. But only one out of nine 
workers is a union worker in the United States--outside of government--
and we do not want to tie the hands of eight out of nine of our 
competitors by not allowing them the advantage of working together with 
management to improve situations.
  One of the great examples that has been talked about in this entire 
debate has been a company named EFCO. It is a company in the State of 
Missouri that makes architectural glass, window wall systems. If you 
build a skyscraper that is going to be made out of glass, you order 
glass from someone like EFCO.
  In the process of their conferring with their workers, they went from 
about 70 percent on-time deliveries to well over 90 percent on-time 
deliveries. They improved their performance so substantially that the 
company exploded the jobs and literally had lots of new jobs, and that 
is the kind of thing we want to have happen.
  One of the Senators came to the floor to criticize the EFCO company, 
and in listening to him, I cannot really tell you that it is much of a 
criticism. But in attempting to criticize the company, he said the 
committees met on company property. I think that is nice for the 
company to say to employees and their committees that they are 
interested in helping the employees by allowing them to use company 
property.
  They met during working hours. I think that is good. It did not 
require these folks to come back away from their families.
  He said they had high management officials who attended these 
meetings. I think it is good when management and workers talk together.
  He said the committee members were paid for the time spent on 
committee work and that EFCO provided any necessary materials or 
supplies.
  I suppose that might be an indictment, but it does not sound like an 
indictment to me.
  But also represented was that somehow these committees were 
established in response to union activity. But the conclusion of the 
administrative law judge, who reviewed the evidence in this case, 
indicated that simply was not so.
  These committees were started in 1992, and the administrative law 
judge indicated, in his opinion, that there was no ``noticeable union 
organization'' activity until July 1993. The first committee was 
established in April 1992 which was 15 months before any noticeable 
union activity. Besides, the case law states the employer's motivation 
would be irrelevant in any event.
  The Senator who came to the floor to criticize the EFCO decision said 
that EFCO was found to have dominated these discussion groups; it sort 
of had a dark and nefarious tone about it. Let us find out what this 
domination really amounted to.

  The company set up the committee and said, ``We want to talk.'' I do 
not find that to be particularly onerous. I think that is really nice. 
So many companies do not bother to listen to their employees. As a 
matter of fact, that EFCO set up the committees is a commendation for 
EFCO.
  No. 2, that Senator said it was pretty bad that EFCO initially 
selected the members of these committees. What a terrible thing that 
is. To get them started they did. What was not said is they wanted to 
have broad membership and, second, that the employees soon established 
a policy whereby they chose their own members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  It sounded pretty bad that the company chose the members until we 
found out that was just a way to get it started, and then it sounded 
very generous that the company allowed the employees to select the 
members after that. That is more generous than most labor unions that 
unilaterally select employees.
  Then it was charged that management participated in most of the 
meetings. It turns out they participated, but they did not vote on 
matters before these committees. They wanted to participate for 
purposes of discussion and learning. In addition, they attended the 
first committee's meeting, but then after that, they only attended by 
invitation of the workers.
  Of course, it was then charged that management in some instances 
suggested issues. I happen to believe that such employee groups would 
want to hear from management and management would want to hear from the 
employees.
  All these things that were said to have been so disastrous seem to me 
like good, constructive things to do, and that is really why we need to 
pass the TEAM Act.
  This company was hauled into court for asking for the opinion of 
employees, for letting them express their opinions on company time, for 
providing a place where they could meet, for providing supplies, papers 
and pencils upon which notes could be taken. That is a throwback to a 
bygone era that we can no longer afford to tolerate.
  Because this company has provided that it would share not only 
decisionmaking with its employees but share ownership. Twenty-five 
percent of the company has now been transferred to a special account 
for employee ownership. I think that is the kind of company we want to 
have, and it is a shame that this company owner, Chris Fuldner has had 
to spend $64,000 defending himself from having conducted himself so 
nobly. We ought to pass the TEAM Act.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, I believe is on his way, and some others are on the way 
additionally to visit on our time.
  My understanding is we are discussing several areas. One is the TEAM 
Act. The other is the proposed reduction of the gas tax. And a third is 
the minimum wage proposal to adjust upward the minimum wage.
  All of this, of course, started some weeks ago when some of us 
suggested it was important to consider some kind of an adjustment in 
the minimum wage. Those who work at the bottom of the economic ladder, 
the lower rung of the economic ladder, have not had an increase for 5 
years. The minimum wage has been frozen for 5 years.
  It is easy, I suppose, for some, especially some in this body, 
perhaps to not think much about those who work on minimum wage, not be 
acquainted with those who are trying to live on minimum wage. But there 
are a lot of folks in this country who go to work, work very hard all 
day, are paid the basic minimum wage in this country of $4.25 an hour, 
and at the end of a long week still cannot make ends meet.
  There is a legitimate reason to question should there be a minimum 
wage, and there are some, I think, in this body who think we should not 
have a minimum wage. I know there are some in Congress who said 
publicly we should not have a minimum wage, and that is a very 
legitimate position. I do not share it, but some believe there should 
not be a minimum wage. They do not bring legislation to the floor of 
the Senate suggesting we repeal the current minimum wage, but they just 
say a minimum wage is inappropriate.

[[Page S4912]]

  But, by far, the majority of the Congress would say it is appropriate 
to have some minimum wage. Not only does the Federal Government have 
it, but virtually every State has a minimum wage, and some States have 
a minimum wage nearly identical to the Federal Government. Some have a 
higher minimum wage than the Federal Government does.
  But if you believe there should be a minimum wage, then certainly you 
would believe from time to time it ought to be adjusted.
  Among all recent Presidents during their terms, we have had some 
adjustment in the minimum wage. Sometimes it occurs after 4 or 5 years, 
sometimes a little longer. By and large, we do make periodic 
adjustments in the minimum wage.
  I received a letter from a woman last week, and I will not use her 
name. I will not read it. But I read it last evening because, like most 
Members of the Senate and the House, I spend my last hours of the 
evening reading and signing mail and going through the substantial 
amount of paperwork that we do in the Senate, and I read constituent 
mail and sign mail, sign letters back to them late in the evening.
  I read this letter late in the evening, and it almost broke my heart. 
It is a letter from a woman. I am just going to read the last two 
paragraphs, but it is a 4-page letter. She describes her circumstances 
and her husband's circumstances and her children's circumstances, 
medical problems, problems of not being able to get the education they 
wanted. They tried, but they had to quit school to take care of this or 
that and getting pregnant, having four children.
  What she describes in this letter is a rather long list of setbacks 
from two people who married very young and struggled and tried to make 
it but without much skill and without much education were always forced 
to take a job at the bottom of the economic ladder and were always 
forced by circumstances, a fire that destroyed their trailer home and 
every single thing in it, and no insurance, always forced by 
circumstances like that, just as they started to get ahead a little 
bit, to be completely pushed back to start over.
  It is a 4-page letter. I shall not read it, but it does break your 
heart to read these kinds of things. And it is not just this woman, it 
is so many people in this country who try very hard to get ahead but 
never quite seem to be able to do it.
  She talks about all of her circumstances, and she said:

       I wonder how we can make it like this. How can I tell my 
     children? I wish somebody in some official office would help 
     me tell my boys that they're not going to be able to play 
     baseball this summer because I can't afford a $25 fee for 
     each of them, let alone paying for the baseball glove, the 
     bats they would need to play ball this summer.

  She says:

       We don't spend our money on alcohol or drugs. We don't go 
     out on the town. Our lives revolve on trying to make ends 
     meet. Our dream of owning a home and of being financially 
     secure is long gone. We're better off, I know, than a lot of 
     other people that, for instance, have to live on the street, 
     but how far are we from that? One paycheck? Maybe two? We're 
     the forgotten people in this, called the working poor, the 
     people who fall through the cracks somehow.

  Her point is, after setting out her story in 4 pages, that they work 
for the minimum wage, both her and her husband, and just cannot make 
ends meet. They cannot balance buying groceries, paying the rent, 
trying to handle child care expenses and paying all their bills at the 
end of the month.

  So some of us think that there should be an adjustment in the minimum 
wage. It ought to be a reasonable adjustment. I am not suggesting that 
we have an adjustment that is out of line. But I think there is a 
reason for an adjustment.
  Some people have talked about it for some while. That is one of the 
discussions here in the Senate. Ultimately, I think there will be an 
adjustment this year, and I think one that will probably gain some 
bipartisan support.
  The second issue that was introduced in this discussion was a 4.3-
cent gas tax reduction. Presumably the 4.3-cent gas tax reduction was 
to draw attention to the fact that a 4.3-cent gas tax was added in 
1993. That is true. I voted for that. I do not regret voting for it. It 
was included in a long list of tax increases, some tax increases, 
mostly on upper income folks, but some tax increases, spending cuts, 
and other approaches to try to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
  The Federal budget deficit has been reduced in half since that time. 
And 4 years in a row the budget deficit has come down. I do not regret 
voting for that. But would I like to see lower gas prices? Yes, I 
would. Gas prices spiked up 20 to 30 cents a gallon in recent weeks, 
and as a result of that price spike, we are told now that we should 
reduce the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon.
  I said this morning, it is a little like treating a toothache by 
getting a haircut. I do not see much relationship here. The gas price 
spikes up and they say, let us reduce the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon. 
The industry executives say there is no guarantee it will be passed 
through to the consumers at the pump, there is no guarantee that the 
consumers will see a lower gas price at the pump. ``Experts Say Gas Tax 
Cut Wouldn't Reach the Pumps.''
  Energy expert Philip Verleger says, according to yesterday's paper:

       [This] . . . 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.

  If it is not going to go to the consumers--and there are an army of 
people out there who suggest there is no guarantee this is going to 
result in a lower pump price--then the question is, who is going to get 
it? And it is not pennies. I know they are talking about from now until 
the end of the year, but there is a discussion of a 7-year proposal for 
$30 billion. The question is, who divides the $30 billion pie? Who gets 
the $30 billion?

  The proposal that is before us has a point of order against it. And 
that brings me to the reason I rose again. The point of order against 
the proposal is that the proposal violates the Budget Act because the 
proposal that is brought to the floor to reduce the gas tax by 4.3 
cents a gallon, an act that will not guarantee lower prices at the gas 
pump, violates the Budget Act.
  Why does it violate the Budget Act? Because it increases the Federal 
deficit in this fiscal year by $1.7 billion. So this proposal violates 
the Budget Act by increasing the deficit in this fiscal year $1.7 
billion. So the next vote that will occur, after the cloture vote at 5 
o'clock this afternoon, will be a vote to waive the Budget Act so that 
Congress can reduce a gas tax that the experts say the consumers will 
not ever get the benefit of, and in doing so we will waive the Budget 
Act to increase the Federal deficit.
  I do not know whether others think this is kind of an incongruous 
situation, at the same time we are talking about bringing a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget to the floor of the 
Senate this week--which has now been postponed, I guess--and at the 
same time the Senate Budget Committee is talking about constructing a 
7-year balanced budget plan, we are also constructing a mechanism now 
to have a vote on waiving the Budget Act in order to allow an increase 
in the Federal deficit in this fiscal year of $1.7 billion in order to 
accommodate a reduction in the gasoline tax that the experts say may 
never reach the pockets of the consumers.
  I come from a town of only 300 people. I graduated in a high school 
class of nine. They might not have taught the most advanced or the 
highest mathematics available to students in America, but this does not 
add up. This does not pass the test. Those who say they want to balance 
the budget require the next vote to be one in which they will vote to 
waive the Budget Act so they can increase the deficit to create a tax 
break that the experts say is not going to reach the consumer. It 
sounds to me like a deal the American people can easily resist.
  I have heard huffing and puffing and ranting and raving. I have seen 
sidestepping that would befit an Olympic contest out here on the floor 
of the Senate in recent years about the issue of a balanced budget. And 
we have people who stand up, and they arch their back, and they point 
across the room, and they say, ``We're the ones that fight for a 
balanced budget. And none of you cares. You're big-time spenders who 
want to spend this country into oblivion.''

  Yet, in 1993 the last serious effort to do something to balance the 
budget, every one of us, every single one of us

[[Page S4913]]

cast the votes that were necessary to pass the bill to reduce the 
deficit, which has brought the deficit down by half, and we did not get 
one vote from the other side even by accident.
  I am not backing away from that vote. I say, I am glad I did it. 
Maybe there are legitimate reasons to be critical of some parts of it. 
I understand that. But I am not somebody who says I wish I had not done 
that. We did the right thing. But it is an incongruity, it seems to me, 
to decide with the first winds of politics that we should, on the floor 
of the Senate, decide to waive the Budget Act so we can increase the 
Federal deficit this year, to provide a tax cut the experts say will 
not reach the American people.
  There is room for disagreement. I mean, we are talking, as I said 
when I started, about three different issues, the TEAM Act and the 
minimum wage and the gas tax. There is great room for disagreement.
  I notice Senator Bennett, from Utah, on the floor. There are few in 
this institution for whom I have higher regard than the Senator from 
Utah. I think he is a straight shooter and a fellow who calls it like 
it is. There is plenty of reason for us to disagree when we disagree on 
the merits of issues. I understand all that.
  We might feel strongly about things and line up and end up on 
different sides of the same question. I think the country would be 
better off if on issues like this--and I admit to those who question 
that there is politics on all sides of this Chamber, and when the 
charge of politics ricochets back and forth across this room, there is 
plenty of blame to go around. I understand all that. I just observe 
that the closer we get to the first Tuesday in November of an even-
numbered year, the more likely it is that we will be seduced into easy 
decisions that are fundamentally wrong, that will move this country in 
the wrong direction. It is the wrong direction to decide now to 
increase the Federal deficit to accommodate a gas tax that the experts 
say will not reach the pockets of the American people.
  I hope as we move along here that we will find a way to not vote on 
this issue of waiving the Budget Act and increasing the deficit. Maybe 
this will be withdrawn and we can look where we ought to look: What 
caused the 20- to 30-percent increase in taxes? We can deal with that. 
Maybe it is simply supply and demand relationships. Maybe it is other 
things. Maybe those are things we can do something about. I hope we 
start looking in the right direction and choose the right set of public 
policies.
  Mr. President, I notice a colleague is waiting for the floor. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. I commend my colleague for his comments on the issue 
pending before the Senate. It has gotten so bad it is hard to figure 
what is pending before the Senate.
  I want to comment on two things--what we are trying to do, and a 
little bit on the merits of one of the proposals.
  I said, I guess, 2 days ago the Senate looked like what we were 
trying to do is mix and match pieces of legislation in order to try to 
accomplish something. It is like a woman who goes shopping for an 
outfit. My wife calls it mixing and matching because she buys a little 
bit of this, a little bit of that, and a little piece over here, and 
tries to put it all together and hope that it comes out in a wonderful, 
exciting new outfit by mixing and matching the different parts. That 
might be a good concept for buying clothes, but it is a very bad 
concept for writing legislation.
  I think that is exactly what the Senate is being asked to do here 
today, take a little bit of minimum wage, put it together with a little 
bit of TEAM Act, and stir in a little bit of gas tax repeal, stir it 
up, and hope it comes out as a good legislative package. It kind of 
reminds me in Louisiana of trying to make a gumbo. We put everything in 
the pot, stir it up, and hope it comes out eventually, after you cook 
it along with something that is edible. The problem is you have to be 
careful what you put in the pot. If you put something that will not 
fit, it will come out tasting pretty bad.

  The same analogy is true with regard to trying to legislate. There is 
no reason in the world why we should try to be putting a minimum wage 
bill on the back of a gas tax repeal and attach it to this TEAM Act 
dealing with labor-management relationships. There is not a lot of 
relationship between any of these three provisions, except politics.
  I said on the floor the other day, and I asked the distinguished 
majority leader, why do we not just take the bills up and vote on them 
in the normal course of following the Senate rules, debate minimum 
wage, vote on it, pass it if there is a majority for it and kill it if 
there is not. Do the same thing with the repeal of the gas tax. Let us 
debate it, let us vote on it, and then decide what the will of the 
Senate happens to be. The same thing on the TEAM Act. Bring it up, 
amend it, talk about it, debate it, have the normal rules of the Senate 
apply.
  I think our side has even gone further than that and offered bringing 
the measures up separately and give up one tool that the Democratic 
side, as members of the minority now, would have as a legislative tool. 
That is the filibuster. Just bring it up and agree that we will debate 
these measures and that we will offer amendments, but that we can agree 
on a time certain in which to vote, that we will not filibuster if it 
is not going our way, being willing to let us have a vote on these 
legislative packages. I think that is a pretty generous offer. I 
thought that the majority leader had agreed to that in his press 
conference yesterday but find out later on, no, that is not really what 
he meant.
  For the life of me, I do not understand why we do not just bring 
these three bills up and debate them and vote on them, and if we get a 
majority for them, they pass; if we do not, they do not pass. That is 
sort of the way legislation is supposed to be written.
  What we are engaged in now is a mix and match proposition where we 
are trying to mix and match things that do not mix and match. I do not 
think that is the way to legislate. Again, it may be the way to buy 
clothes, but it is not the way to produce legislation that is good for 
the people of this country. I think they desperately want us to start 
working in some type of a fashion that makes sense for the rest of the 
country.

  The other thing I want to comment on is the proposition that we 
should repeal the gas tax. There was an article that caught my 
attention this morning, the headline of the Los Angeles Times. The last 
time I was on the floor I talked about the law of supply and demand, 
which I thought really is what should govern this country, as opposed 
to price controls coming out of Washington, DC. What a frightening 
thought it would be to think that Washington will regulate the price of 
everything. I do not think we are qualified to come close to getting 
that done. Yet I think that, if we are going to say by removing the gas 
tax we will guarantee that people that buy gasoline at the pump are 
going to get the benefit of that reduction, the only way we can do 
that, folks, is very simple, and that is price control. The only way we 
can guarantee that tax cuts somehow worked their way through to the 
ultimate consumer is by passing a law that mandates that. That is price 
control. We have tried that, and it has not worked in the past. It will 
not work in the future.
  What does work and has always worked in this country is the law of 
supply and demand. The headline of today's Los Angeles Times is ``Gas 
Prices Show Signs of Decline as Production Surges.'' ``The average cost 
at the pump falls half a cent, and State officials predict more 
reductions. After lagging, refineries again operating at close to 
normal output.''
  That really should not be a headline. That is normally what happens; 
that is not news. But the law of supply and demand is at work. When the 
demand is great, the supplies are increased to meet that demand and 
prices adjust according to the ability to meet the demand. That is 
exactly what is happening.
  I also said 2 days ago that the price of crude oil in this country 
between April 23 and May 6 decreased 10 percent. That is over $2 a 
barrel that oil dropped. It usually takes 30 days from the drop of 
price in crude oil to be reflected in the finished product at the pump. 
It dropped 10 percent in 1 week, over $2 a barrel. That, naturally, 
shows up in the normal course of doing business at the pump and lower 
prices. This headline is not a surprise. It is not really news. Yet it 
is the lead story. It

[[Page S4914]]

says ``Gas Prices Show Signs of Decline as Production Surges.'' That is 
what has happened.
  This Congress is in a panic. This Congress is running for cover. We 
are hiding behind our desks trying to say, ``Well, we will fix the 
problem. We are going to lower the price of gas.'' That is not what 
this proposition does at all. It only lowers the tax that oil companies 
pay per gallon of gas. There is no guarantee that they do nothing more 
with that than put it in their pocket and take it as an extra profit 
over their normal course.

  The less we get into the business of determining what prices should 
be for all products, the better off Americans will be. Every time the 
price of wheat or corn or cotton or rice is going to go up, are we 
going to rush in here and say, ``Wait, we are going to regulate the 
price''? Are we going to go back to production and wage and price 
controls? I think not.
  I want to say from my home State of Louisiana, I think people who are 
outside the thin air that sometimes I think we breathe too much of here 
in Washington are thinking, I think, more sanely and more responsibly 
than we are here, and less politically. I think they know what this is 
all about. We have a Presidential election, a congressional election in 
a couple of months, Senate elections in a couple of months. People are 
desperately running everywhere they can to try to do something that was 
not the priority of the people of this country. I think the priority 
was for us to balance the budget.
  When they say, ``We want to do something for families,'' I say the 
best thing we can do for families in this country is to produce a 
balanced budget. That is what families want, so we will give them lower 
mortgage rates, lower interest rates on home loans, lower rates on 
sending their children to college and educating their families, and 
produce a more stable environment, make more money available, and add 
to the economy for growth, expansion, and job creation.
  One of the papers in the State of Louisiana, the Times-Picayune, has 
a column written by a guy named Jack Wardlaw, whom I know. The name of 
his column, I say to the Senator from Utah, is called ``The Little 
Man.'' He always sort of takes the side of the ``little man'' and 
represents what is good for the little man as opposed to what is good 
for the ``big man,'' big business, or the big corporations. His 
headline in today's paper says, ``Gasoline Tax Cut Will Mean More Red 
Ink in the Budget.'' He makes some good points. I will refer to a 
couple because I think it really says what I think we should all be 
thinking. He says, ``Sometimes it seems like Members of Congress have 
the attention span of a honey bee.'' It goes on to say, ``Congress has 
just come through months of tedious in-fighting over the national 
budget, the goal of which we were constantly told was to agree on a way 
to, over a period of years, get rid of the red ink. Now, all of a 
sudden, nobody cares about balancing the budget anymore. All of a 
sudden, the main thing to do is to cut the gasoline tax. Is everybody 
crazy?''
  I think that, by asking the question, he sort of also answers the 
question himself because of what he thinks we all are about at the 
present time by our actions. He says, ``It is a little hard to figure 
out what is going on, except that the national news media have been 
exaggerating what is going on. CNN puts on pictures of pump prices of 
$2.09 a gallon, but who is paying that?'' he asks. He points out that, 
in New Orleans, at his neighborhood gas station, the posted price for a 
gallon of unleaded regular was $1.19 a gallon, which had gone up from 
around $1.05 3 months ago. He later passed a convenience store offering 
the stuff for $1.14 a gallon. ``It appears to me that prices are 
dropping back into line on their own, without any action of Congress.''
  The same thing in Los Angeles: ``Gas Prices Show Signs of Decline as 
Production Surges.''
  This is the marketplace at work. We have had economist after 
economist--they generally are very nonpolitical--say this is the wrong 
thing to do. This proposal is a dagger to the heart of any effort to 
balance the budget. It would take over $30 billion out of any effort to 
balance the budget over a 7-year period. A penny tax per gallon is $1 
billion a year. I suggest that we should be concentrating more on how 
we, in a bipartisan fashion, can come together and do the right thing 
with regard to balancing the budget.

  I think we clearly do the wrong thing when we do what I think is 
about to happen, and that is, to make it even more difficult, if not 
impossible, to reach a balanced budget agreement.
  Let me close by saying that I have expressed my opinion on the gas 
tax repeal. There are others who will argue that it is the most 
important thing we could do. I disagree. Whether we agree or disagree, 
we should not try to concoct this scenario, whereby in order to pass 
one bill, you have to pass another bill, and in order to pass a second 
bill, you have to pass a third bill. Let us take them up separately, 
debate them on the merits. Let us consider and hear amendments that 
would be offered through these pieces of legislation. Perhaps the 
proposals can be improved by serious amendments that would be offered. 
But let us vote on the bills. Let us vote on the minimum wage. Yes, let 
us vote on the TEAM Act. Yes, let us vote on the repeal of the gas tax.
  What is wrong with taking up legislation, considering bills that have 
been offered, debating them? I think I signed an offering to do this 
without the use of the filibuster. It is a most generous offer--
incredibly generous. Look, we are in the minority, and we are not going 
to filibuster. We can take it up and vote on it. Why try to mix and 
match? Maybe that is good when buying clothes, but it is very bad when 
trying to write legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate. A bad bill 
cannot be made good by adding another good bill to it. It still is, in 
essence, a bad bill. The converse is also true.
  So my suggestion is, let us follow the proposal of the leaders on 
this side of the aisle to take these pieces of legislation up, debate 
them, consider them, vote on them, and move on with what I think is a 
priority in this Congress: to try to reach a bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are under a time 
agreement, and we will be voting at 5 o'clock. The time has been 
divided earlier today. As I understand it, there are 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator is correct. The 
minority has 43 minutes 36 seconds. The majority has 57 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from New 
York, who would like to address the Senate as well. I will take 15 
minutes, and then whatever other time is available I will yield to the 
Senator.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield myself 15 minutes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the past several weeks, we have seen 
the majority in the Senate and the House use every parliamentary trick, 
every legislative gimmick, every inside-the-beltway tactic they could 
conjure up to avoid a vote on increasing the minimum wage.
  At the same time, particularly when they were outside the beltway, 
they talked about helping America's working families make ends meet. It 
is not enough to say you care about working families, and it is 
certainly not enough to concoct a so-called alternative proposal that 
would raise taxes on 4 million of our lowest paid workers. The majority 
may think they can fool the American people, but the only people fooled 
by the Republican magic tricks are the Republicans themselves. The 
American people cannot be fooled by legislative sleight of hand. They 
want an increase in the minimum wage, and they want it now.
  While Republicans in Congress complain that increasing the minimum 
wage is a political issue, the American people know that it is an issue 
of fundamental fairness. The American people know that the time has 
come to raise the minimum wage and make work pay for millions of 
working families. The American people know that inflation has eroded 
nearly all of the bipartisan 1989 increase in the minimum wage. The 
American people know that the minimum wage is about to reach its lowest 
real value in 40 years. The American people know that there

[[Page S4915]]

are minimum wage workers who work 40 hours every week, yet their 
families live in poverty. The American people know that refusing to 
raise the minimum wage is wrong, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it 
should not continue.

  Nearly every national survey finds overwhelming support for raising 
the minimum wage. A national poll conducted in January 1995 for the Los 
Angeles Times found that 72 percent of Americans backed an increase in 
the wage. That survey confirmed the results of a December 1994 Wall 
Street Journal/NBC News survey, which found that raising the minimum 
wage is favored by 75 percent of the American people. A poll for ABC 
News in January 1996 found that 84 percent of the American people 
support a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. Other recent polls confirm 
that support for an increase in the minimum wage now stands at nearly 
85 percent.
  This support cuts across political parties. It cuts across gender and 
age lines. It cuts across ethnic and racial groups. In every segment of 
our society, in every region of our country, a large majority of 
Americans want the minimum wage to be a living wage. No one who works 
for a living should have to live in poverty.
  Another measure of broad support for raising the minimum wage is the 
large number of editorials from newspapers across the country 
supporting a higher minimum wage. Here are a few of the editorials.
  Here is a New York Times editorial of April 5, headlined, ``Boost the 
Minimum Wage:''

       There is a strong case for raising the minimum wage by a 
     modest amount. Unfortunately, the issue is caught up in 
     election-year politics, making compromise unlikely. . . .
       The Democrats proposed raising the minimum wage over two 
     years to $5.15 an hour, which would raise earnings for these 
     workers by 90 cents an hour, or about $1,800 a year. Even at 
     $5.15, the minimum wage would, after taking account of 
     inflation, remain 15 percent below its average value during 
     the 1970's.
       Will low-paid workers lose their jobs if employers must pay 
     higher wages? Yes, but there is widespread agreement among 
     economic studies that the impact would be very small. A 90-
     cent wage hike would probably wipe out fewer than 100,000 of 
     the approximately 14 million low-paid jobs in the economy--
     less than a 1 percent loss. Indeed, 100,000 represents only 
     about half the number of jobs the economy typically creates 
     each month.

  And the editorial goes on.
  The Washington Post headline: ``The Minimum Wage'':

       The purchasing power of the minimum wage is about to fall 
     to its lowest level in 40 years. The last time Congress voted 
     to increase it was in 1989. It is time--you could argue well 
     past time--to do so again.
       President Clinton has proposed to raise the minimum 45 
     cents in each of the next two years, to $5.15 an hour. That's 
     a one-fifth increase, and no such step is ever cost-free. It 
     would have a broad effect on wages, not just those at the 
     minimum but those in the zones immediately above, and it 
     would add to the pressures on smaller businesses 
     particularly to cut costs in order to survive. But the 
     president is proposing to restore the wage, not break new 
     ground. In real terms, it would remain well below the 
     levels that obtained from the 1960s through the early 
     1980s, and would be only a dime above the level to which 
     George Bush agreed, and Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich voted 
     for, in 1989.

  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, its headline is ``Workers Due for a 
Raise'':

       President Clinton has picked a good time politically and 
     economically to push for a modest increase in the minimum 
     wage. Millions of workers need the raise, and the economy is 
     healthy enough to absorb a hike without causing many job 
     losses or inflation.
       The administration and congressional Democrats want to 
     raise the minimum wage to $5.15 in two 45-cent steps over the 
     next two years.
       A raise would help the 4 million workers who get the 
     minimum of $4.25 an hour, and would nudge up the wages of 
     another 8 million who earn between $4.26 and $5.14 per hour. 
     The minimum wage hasn't been raised in five years. In terms 
     of purchasing power, the wage will fall to a 40-year low this 
     year if Congress doesn't act.
       Such low pay for workers puts a strain on society. Making 
     about $8,500 a year, a full-time minimum-wage worker with 
     children needs food stamps and welfare to survive. The 
     poverty line for a family of four is $15,600 a year which 
     means a worker would have to make at least $7.80 an hour to 
     keep a family out of poverty.

  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch headline: ``The Politics of 90 Cents an 
Hour.''

       President Bill Clinton made some interesting observations 
     the other day about Congress' failure to raise the minimum 
     wage. He pointed out that since the last time the federal 
     minimum went up--five years ago on Monday--senators and 
     representatives have increased their own salaries by about 
     one-third. He also noted that a member of Congress made more 
     money during the month that the government was shut down last 
     year than a minimum-wage earner makes in an entire year.
       Add those stark statistics to the more philosophical 
     point--that the GOP majority always stresses the need for 
     people to make it on their own, without the help of 
     government--and the Republican roadblock to raising the 
     minimum wage becomes even harder to swallow. At $4.25 an 
     hour, a full-time worker earns less than $8,900--far below 
     the $15,600 poverty line set for a family of four. How can 
     politicians try to push families off the welfare rolls on the 
     one hand and filibuster attempts to let them earn a livable 
     wage on the other?

  The San Francisco Chronicle, ``Rewarding the Work Ethic.''

       The minimum wage is approaching a 40-year low in terms of 
     its purchasing power.
       For those fortunate enough to have no idea what the minimum 
     wage is these days, it is $4.25 an hour. It has been at that 
     level for five years, while inflation has steadily gnawed 
     into the paychecks of workers at the lowest rung of 
     compensation.
       President Clinton has proposed a modest increase of the 
     minimum wage to $5.15 an hour.
       Unfortunately, the Clinton plan has become mired in 
     election-year politics. Republicans have characterized the 
     proposal as a big favor to organized labor that would cost 
     jobs and mostly benefit middle-class teenagers.
       Wrong, wrong and wrong.
       Yes, organized labor is supporting the minimum-wage 
     increase, but this is hardly a bonanza for unions. At most it 
     would have a slight indirect effect on collective bargaining, 
     as union negotiators try to keep rank-and-file pay above the 
     minimum wage.

  The St. Petersburg Times, ``Let's Vote on Minimum Wage.''

       Now that he has clinched the Republican nomination for 
     president, Bob Dole is back at work in the Senate. Last week 
     the Senate majority leader spent most of his energy trying to 
     keep Democrats from bringing a proposed minimum wage increase 
     to a vote.
       Dole should end the debate and allow senators to vote. 
     Democrats say they will keep trying to force a vote. Everyone 
     knows a minimum wage increase has little chance of clearing 
     the House. But that hasn't kept either side from trying to 
     score political points on this issue.
       Disregard for the country's poorer workers, those who try 
     to live on an annual salary of $8,500, is one of the 
     hallmarks of the Grand Old Party. As usual, opponents of a 
     minimum wage increase claimed they were acting in the 
     interests of the working poor. Allowing those workers another 
     90 cents per hour, they argued, actually could do them more 
     harm than good.
       Similar arguments have been made against every previous 
     increase in the minimum wage, and each has been proved wrong.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the 
Seattle Times and all of those editorials to which I have referred be 
printed in the Record in their entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Seattle Times, Apr. 5, 1996]

               Help the Working Poor, Raise Minimum Wages

       Presidential politics threaten an overdue 90-cent increase 
     in the federal minimum wage. As Republicans and Democrats 
     argue over who is the greater champion of the working poor, 
     the buying power of their paychecks wheezes near a 40-year 
     low.
       The current $4.25 hourly wage, which was last increased in 
     1989, is earned by four million Americans, and another eight 
     million workers range up to the proposed $5.15.
       Republicans are loath to help Clinton fulfill a 1992 
     campaign pledge, and Democrats want to scorch Dole for 
     raising his own congressional pay, and not the incomes of 
     those whose full-time jobs only bring in $8,500 a year. . . .
       Seven years ago another 90-cent increase was a largely 
     nonpartisan event, with Dole, Georgia congressman Newt 
     Gingrich and most all Republicans voting for the first 
     increase since April 1981.
       Over the years, the economic facts of life have drained the 
     issue of ideological force. Americans have overwhelmingly 
     supported the concept of a minimum wage since its creation in 
     the Great Depression. Current polls show strong support for 
     efforts to help poor people willing to work.
       Liberal and conservative economists agree that moderate 
     increases in the minimum wage have a negligible effect on 
     employers or the number of low-paying jobs available, 
     especially in the service industries where they are 
     concentrated. Most minimum-wage workers are over age 20, and 
     40 percent are the sole breadwinner in their family, 
     according to Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.
       Increasing the minimum wage to $5.15 is no windfall; that 
     is 15 percent below the wage's buying power of the 1970s. 
     (Today a worker

[[Page S4916]]

     has to earn $7.80 an hour to even reach the federal poverty 
     line of $15,000 for a family of four.)
       Raising wages takes on added importance if the Republican 
     Congress follows through on plans to cut the Earned Income 
     Tax Credit, which holds the working poor harmless from income 
     and payroll taxes. The EITC, a favorite of former President 
     Reagan, has been denounced by House Ways and Means Chairman 
     Bill Archer, R-Texas, as just another welfare program.
       One advantage of the minimum wage is that it puts money in 
     people's pockets quicker and throughout the year. EITC is a 
     vital supplement, but it is a one-time payment geared to tax 
     season, and people who file returns.
       The twin helping hands of a higher wage and the EITC 
     recognize the effort millions of Americans are making to help 
     themselves.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1996]

                         Boost the Minimum Wage

       There is a strong case for raising the minimum wage by a 
     modest amount. Unfortunately, the issue is caught up in 
     election-year politics, making compromise unlikely. . . .
       The Democrats proposed raising the minimum wage over two 
     years to $5.15 an hour, which would raise earnings for these 
     workers by 90 cents an hour, or about $1,800 a year.
       Even at $5.15, the minimum wage would, after taking account 
     of inflation, remain 15 percent below its average value 
     during the 1970's.
       Will low-paid workers lose their jobs if employers must pay 
     higher wages? Yes, but there is widespread agreement among 
     economic studies that the impact would be very small. A 90-
     cent wage hike would probably wipe out fewer than 100,000 of 
     the approximately 14 million low-paid jobs in the economy--
     less than a 1 percent loss. Indeed, 100,000 represents only 
     about half the number of jobs the economy typically creates 
     each month.
       The benefits of a higher minimum wage would be substantial. 
     At $4.25 an hour, minimum-wage workers cannot count on 
     earning their way out of poverty. But at $5.15 an hour, or 
     $10,700 a year, the goal is in reach. By combining earnings, 
     food stamps worth about $3,000 and tax credits of $3,500, 
     such workers can clear the poverty threshold for a family of 
     four--about $16,000--even after payroll taxes. That would be 
     a victory for public policy.
       The best antipoverty strategy is to mix the tax credits and 
     minimum wages. At President Clinton's urging, Congress 
     recently raised the [Earned Income] tax credit. The next step 
     is to raise the minimum wage by the modest amount the Senate 
     Democrats have proposed. The Democrats should try again. 
     Republicans supported such policies in the past. perhaps 
     Senator Dole can summon the will to do so this election year.
                                                                    ____


       [From the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Apr. 3, 1996]

                        Workers Due for a Raise

       President Clinton has picked a good time politically and 
     economically to push for a modest increase in the minimum 
     wage. Millions of workers need the raise, and the economy is 
     healthy enough to absorb a hike without causing many job 
     losses or inflation.
       The administration and congressional Democrats want to 
     raise the minimum wage to $5.15 in two 45-cent steps over the 
     next two years.
       A raise would help the 4 million workers who get the 
     minimum of $4.25 an hour, and would nudge up the wages of 
     another 8 million who earn between $4.26 and $5.14 per hour. 
     The minimum wage hasn't been raised in five years. In terms 
     of purchasing power the wage will fall to a 40-year low this 
     year if Congress doesn't act.
       Such low pay for workers puts a strain on society. Making 
     about $8,500 a year, a full-time minimum-wage worker with 
     children needs food stamps and welfare to survive. The 
     poverty line for a family of four is $15,600 a year which 
     means a worker would have to make at least $7.80 an hour to 
     keep a family out of poverty.
       Even though the Clinton wage proposal is quite modest, 
     Republican leaders are fighting it aggressively. Last week, 
     in a 55-45 roll call, Democrats in the Senate fell five votes 
     short of forcing a vote on an amendment to boost the wage. In 
     other words, most senators wanted to increase the wage, but 
     GOP leaders blocked the vote.
       Republican reasons for opposing the wage increase are weak. 
     If the country were in a recession, blocking the raise would 
     make sense because higher labor costs could cause more 
     unemployment. Certainly, a higher minimum wage is not always 
     a good idea: Timing is important.
       But this is the right time. In today's economy, low-wage 
     jobs are being created at an incredible pace. The 
     unemployment rate is at a mild 5.5 percent and inflation last 
     year ran at just 2.5 percent.
       Several highly respected economic studies in recent years 
     have suggested that few jobs would be lost if the minimum 
     wage were to rise slightly. Robert Solow, a Nobel prize-
     winning economist, says that among members of the American 
     Economics Association, a consensus has emerged that ``the 
     employment effect of a moderate increase in the minimum wage 
     would be very, very small.''
       Polls show that about three in four Americans want the wage 
     to rise. Republican senators, whose pay has increased by a 
     third over the past five years, ought to get out of the way 
     and allow the majority to increase the minimum wage.
                                                                    ____


            [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Apr. 2, 1996]

                    The Politics of 90 Cents an Hour

       President Bill Clinton made some interesting observations 
     the other day about Congress' failure to raise the minimum 
     wage. He pointed out that since the last time the federal 
     minimum went up--five years ago on Monday--senators and 
     representatives have increased their own salaries by about 
     one-third. He also noted that a member of Congress made more 
     money during the month that the government was shut down last 
     year than a minimum-wage earner makes in an entire year.
       Add those stark statistics to the more philosophical 
     point--that the GOP majority always stresses the need for 
     people to make it on their own, without the help of 
     government--and the Republican roadblock to raising the 
     minimum wage becomes even harder to swallow. At $4.25 an 
     hour, a full-time worker earns less than $8,900--far below 
     the $15,600 poverty line set for a family of four. How can 
     politicians try to push families off the welfare rolls on the 
     one hand and filibuster attempts to let them earn a livable 
     wage on the other?
       The administration is seeking to increase the minimum wage 
     to $5.15 an hour. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that, 
     measured in current dollars, the value of the minimum wage 
     has fallen 31 percent since 1979.
       At the same time, the percentage of hourly wage earners who 
     make the minimum has also declined, meaning that an increase 
     would affect proportionately fewer workers.
       Opponents of the increase often portray the typical 
     minimum-wage worker as a teen-ager peddling french fries to 
     earn gas money for his car.
       But Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich points out that most 
     such employees are age 20 and over, and 40 percent of them 
     are the only wage earner their family has.
       Given such facts, the strong support that pollsters find 
     among Americans for raising the minimum wage is 
     understandable. Harder to fathom is Republican opposition. 
     The traditional GOP argument, that a higher minimum wage 
     means smaller payrolls, has lost credibility; a study by two 
     Princeton professors of the effects of a higher minimum in 
     New Jersey showed no drop in employment at 331 fast-food 
     restaurants.
       Bob Dole and his Senate colleagues can stick to that tired 
     logic if they want, but it only highlights the differences in 
     philosophy and compassion between him and Mr. Clinton.
       The majority in the Senate blocked the increase last week, 
     but when Congress returns from its spring recess, the issue 
     will return, too. As House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt 
     put it, ``We're going to bring it back and back and back and 
     back until we finally prevail for America's families and 
     workers.'' Those families and workers are also voters, and 
     come November, they won't forget who stood in the path to a 
     decent wage.
                                                                    ____


            [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 8, 1996]

                        Rewarding the Work Ethic

       The minimum wage is approaching a 40-year low in terms of 
     its purchasing power.
       For those fortunate enough to have no idea what the minimum 
     wage is these days, it is $4.25 an hour. It has been at that 
     level for five years, while inflation has steadily gnawed 
     into the paychecks of workers at the lowest rung of 
     compensation.
       President Clinton has proposed a modest increase of the 
     minimum wage to $5.15 an hour.
       Unfortunately, the Clinton plan has become mired in 
     election-year politics. Republicans have characterized the 
     proposal as a big favor to organized labor that would cost 
     jobs and mostly benefit middle- class teenagers.
       Wrong, wrong and wrong.
       Yes, organized labor is supporting the minimum-wage 
     increase, but this is hardly a bonanza for unions. At most it 
     would have a slight indirect effect on collective bargaining, 
     as union negotiators try to keep rank-and-file pay above the 
     minimum wage.
       The lost-jobs argument is sharply refuted by many respected 
     economists, who have calculated that the minimum wage would 
     need to approach $6 an hour before having a measurable effect 
     on employment levels.
       And this debate is not about how much high-school students 
     should be paid for flipping hamburgers. Of the 10 million 
     people earning $4.25 an hour, 69 percent are age 20 and 
     older.
       It is, indeed, a tough living. Ninety cents an hour--or 
     $1,800 a year for a full-time worker--can make a difference 
     for someone at the poverty line.
       Politicians like to talk about restoring the work ethic, 
     about encouraging people to leave public assistance. Millions 
     of people are answering the call--and getting too little in 
     return.
       Congress should vote them a raise.
                                                                    ____


             [From the St. Petersburg Times, Apr. 1, 1996]

                       Let's Vote on Minimum Wage

       Now that he has clinched the Republican nomination for 
     president, Bob Dole is back at work in the Senate. Last week 
     the Senate majority leader spent most of his energy trying to 
     keep Democrats from bringing a proposed minimum wage increase 
     to a vote.

[[Page S4917]]

       Dole should end the debate and allow senators to vote. 
     Democrats say they will keep trying to force a vote. Everyone 
     knows a minimum wage increase has little chance of clearing 
     the House. But that hasn't kept either side from trying to 
     score political points on this issue.
       Disregard for the country's poorer workers, those who try 
     to live on an annual salary of $8,500, is one of the 
     hallmarks of the Grand Old Party. As usual, opponents of a 
     minimum wage increase claimed they were acting in the 
     interests of the working poor. Allowing those workers another 
     90 cents per hour, they argued, actually could do them more 
     harm than good.
       Similar arguments have been made against every previous 
     increase in the minimum wage, and each has been proved wrong.
       The proposed legislation would raise the $4.25 minimum wage 
     by 90 cents in two increments over 15 months. That may be 
     small change in Washington, but to those trying to live on 
     the minimum wage, who earn about three quarters of the 
     $12,500 income that marks the federal poverty level, another 
     90 cents an hour is real money.
       Dole says he is a doer, not a talker. Fine. Stop the debate 
     and bring the issue to a vote. It's time to raise the minimum 
     wage.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these are typical editorials from across 
the country, and they go on and on and on with the two themes that, 
one, it is time to act it is time to act here in the Senate now; and it 
is also an issue of fairness and decency north, south, east, and west.
  Mr. President, with this depth and breadth of support among editorial 
boards for a higher minimum wage, and the broad support among voters 
for a higher minimum wage, the question is obvious. Why are Republicans 
obstructing action on the minimum wage?
  Every day Congress fails to vote on this issue is one more day that 
millions of hard-working Americans have to survive on less than a 
living wage.
  While Americans sit around their kitchen tables trying to pay their 
bills, Republicans in Congress are huddled in back rooms plotting new 
parliamentary maneuvers to duck their responsibility to America's 
working families.
  The people are ahead of the politicians on this issue. While the 
Republican majority in Congress dithers and delays, working men and 
women across the country are waiting for our answer.
  Republicans love to talk about work. But when the chips are down, 
they deny the value of work. They refuse to support a fair day's wage 
for a full day's work.
  One of the biggest issues of 1996 is the declining standard of living 
for the vast majority of American families. The economy may be doing 
well, but the gains are flowing primarily to those at the top. The vast 
majority of Americans are being left out and left behind, and those at 
the bottom of the ladder are being left the farthest behind.
  Millions of working families are struggling to survive on the minimum 
wage, which is now only $4.25 an hour. They have not had a pay increase 
in 5 years. The value of the minimum wage is now near its lowest level 
in 40 years. It is no longer even enough to keep a working family out 
of poverty.
  Republican Senators have voted themselves three pay increases in that 
5-year period--thousands of dollars in pay raises for themselves, but 
not one thin dime for families struggling to survive on the minimum 
wage.
  How can the majority leader keep saying no? Raise the minimum wage. 
No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.
  We want a vote--a clean, yes or no, up or down vote on increasing the 
minimum wage.
  The American people look to the Congress for action on the minimum 
wage--and all they see are cloture petitions, quorum calls, and 
procedural gymnastics to avoid taking action. I say, end the gridlock, 
end the deadlock--act on the minimum wage. Let's get the Senate out of 
the Doledrums.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire of my distinguished 
colleague with respect to the time?
  There was some thought earlier that some additional time might be 
yielded from that side to this side. I wonder if I could ask for 10 
minutes such that I do not inconvenience my colleagues at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
knows that I have just come to the floor to speak and do not control 
time. But I see no other Senator on this side seeking to speak. If my 
friend from Virginia wants 10 minutes, I would be happy to, and I will 
assume the position that I can yield that time and would be honored to 
do so with the understanding as I shall listen with close attention to 
what he says for 10 minutes, that he might undertake to do the same.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I propose to discourse at some length on Alfred 
Marshall's ``Principles of Economics'' published in 1890.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might follow my 
distinguished colleague. I would profit greatly from the erudition that 
I assume will be displayed.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the erudition is from Alfred Marshall, 
not of this poor student of his or his successor three times removed.
  Mr. President, it fell to me, then chairman of the Committee on 
Finance, to reach agreement on our Democratic side on the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. There was no Republican involvement 
and no Republican support, for perfectly straightforward reasons. It 
fell to me to negotiate among ourselves the 4.3-cent increase in the 
gasoline tax which is suddenly under discussion today. The President 
had originally proposed an increase in the Btu tax. And I suppose it is 
not inappropriate if I am going to be speaking from Alfred Marshall's 
text, he having been a distinguished professor in Great Britain, to 
refer to the Btu, which stands for ``British thermal units.''
  The House voted a larger Btu tax increase, but the matter came to the 
Senate, and there was no disposition here to address the general range 
of energy uses--that involved coal and gas and other sources of 
energy--as against simply gasoline.
  It was not easy to reach agreement on the 4.3 cents. That was the 
last part of the budget deficit reduction that we had to put together, 
a total reduction of $500 billion, half of it by raising--I will use 
that dread word ``taxes''--not fees, not premiums--taxes, and a 
somewhat smaller proportion from reducing, cutting, and, in many cases, 
eliminating Federal programs.
  The last bit we had to get was that 4.3 cents. We had to get up to 
4.3 to reach our $500 billion mark. I record this simply to say it was 
not easy. It took 1 week with the Finance Committee Democrats in room 
301 of this building, some of the longest days I have spent in the 
Senate. In the end we did it because it had to be done. And we have 
results to show for it.
  So much of what happens in Government, as in other aspects of life, 
has indistinct or very long-run consequences not easily seen. To the 
contrary, today, the American economy is the wonder of the world. There 
is no nation in the OECD, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and 
Development, formed just after World War II, that comes anywhere close 
to our rate of growth, our unemployment rate, our price stability, and 
the long, sustained period of growth which we are in.
  We are now, sir, as of May, in the 63d month, more than 5 years, of 
continued economic expansion--not the longest, as in the 1960's, but 
something that would have been considered beyond imagining 50, 60, 70 
years ago.
  The budget deficit, Mr. President, has been cut in half. The numbers 
are astounding. We went from a budget deficit of $290 billion in 1992--
these are fiscal years--to what, if you average out OMB, which says 
146, and CBO, 144, is a deficit of $145 billion in the current year.
  Half--we have cut it in half in 4 years. The deficit now is the 
lowest, in proportion to our annual gross domestic product, it has been 
in 15 years.

[[Page S4918]]

 Real growth rate is at a solid 2 percent, which is very impressive, 
given the fact that we have full employment and no inflation.
  Our distinguished Director of the Congressional Budget Office--and I 
apologize for the initials CBO--Dr. June O'Neill, recently testified 
before the Senate Budget Committee:

       CBO continues to believe that the U.S. economy is 
     fundamentally sound and estimates that the chances of a major 
     downturn in the next two years are not high.

  Now, one of the reasons things are very good is that we did what was 
difficult to do in 1993, and we did it on our own on this side of the 
aisle. We are not complaining whatever about that. If it was to be our 
budget, let us do it. I could wish it was bipartisan. It was not. But 
that has nothing to do with the fact we found 50 votes here plus the 
Vice President. It was close. And that last tenth of a cent on the 
gasoline tax did it.
  In January 1994, our eminent Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 
Alan Greenspan, testified before the Joint Economic Committee as 
follows:

       The actions taken last year--

  Referring to our budget deficit reduction measure with the gasoline 
tax.

     to reduce the Federal budget deficit have been instrumental 
     in creating the basis for declining inflation expectations 
     and easing pressures on long-term interest rates. . . What I 
     argued at the time is that the purpose of getting a lower 
     budget deficit was essentially to improve the long-term 
     outlook, and that if the deficit reduction is credible, then 
     the long-term outlook gets discounted upfront. Indeed, that 
     is precisely what is happening.

  The term, sir, is the deficit premium on the interest rate, the 
expectation upfront that inflation will increase so that interest rates 
would be higher than they otherwise would be. They are now down. And 
that added another $100 billion of deficit reduction.
  That is how we were able to cut the deficit in half. Do we have 
problems in the outyears? Indeed, we do. But are we on the right track 
now? Indeed, we are. Unemployment for April was 5.4 percent. That is 
roughly full employment in our present jargon. Inflation is in check. 
The Consumer Price Index, which overstates inflation, is at 3 percent--
something unprecedented -- and real wages and salaries increased in the 
first 3 months of this year by 1 percent, a very handsome rate.
  One of the consequences, Mr. President--and I hesitate to use another 
chart on the Senate floor, but this one, I think is important. The 
public is watching and my colleagues might find it interesting. For the 
first time, sir, since the 1960's, the Federal budget has a primary 
surplus. A primary surplus is the difference between revenues and 
outlays for programs.
  I came to Washington in 1961 with the Kennedy administration, and I 
can report something that may have been lost to the memory of many of 
us. Our biggest problem as then seen by the economic advisers to the 
President was that the Federal Government was taking in more money than 
it was spending and hence depressing our move toward full employment. 
The term was ``fiscal drag.'' The efforts to get Federal revenues out, 
back into circulation, were extraordinary.
  I can recall my first visit, the first time I was ever in the Oval 
Office. It was with the beloved Secretary of Labor, Arthur Goldberg, 
and we were bringing to the President a proposal to increase the pay of 
public servants, postwar and such. And the President looked at our 
proposal and said, ``Is that all?'' Walter Heller, the chairman of the 
Council, said, oh, surely we need to do more than that; he added up the 
numbers on the page, just like that.

  We were about to propose revenue sharing. If Congress would not spend 
the money, perhaps Governors would. I am not speaking lightly of what 
you spend, but there is such a thing as seeing that you do not keep the 
economy depressed by taking in more revenue than goes back into the 
economic stream. In the 1960's we had those surpluses. Those blue marks 
indicate a slight surplus, primary surplus, not big, but big enough to 
preoccupy us.
  Then we had the oil crisis of the 1970's and deficits came. Then the 
1980's and deliberate deficits of enormous amounts and the debt that 
went from $995 billion at the end of fiscal year 1981 to where we just 
now, just recently, raised the debt ceiling to $5.5 trillion. We added 
almost $5 trillion to our debt. The debt is huge and the interest has 
to be paid and it will be. But in the meantime, if you can look at this 
chart, we are back to a primary surplus--we did a good job in 1993--a 
primary surplus averaging about $66 billion for the next 4 years. A 
little good news does not do any harm, sparingly. And this is solid 
good news.
  Now, suddenly, we are asked to dismantle that last, painful mile we 
had to travel in 1993, that 4.3 cents. It took 1 week to get from 4 
cents to 4.3 cents and then bring it to the floor where it passed just 
barely, with the remarkable results we now see.
  If a reasonable case could be made that to eliminate this gasoline 
tax right now would save consumers money, then it should be considered. 
Some have tried to make that argument. But it is simply not the case 
that there should be any expectation whatsoever of any impact on 
gasoline prices from a reduction of this tax, because the present spike 
in prices is the result of a series of very simple events. We had a 
very cold winter and used up more oil reserves than we might have done. 
There was an expectation that Iraq's petroleum might come out to the 
world market--it did not do so. In California, a number of refineries 
that were moving along well have ceased to do so. Then there is 
apparently a development within the refining industry of just-in-time 
inventories. Perfectly good economics. It has made a big difference in 
the profitability of firms all over the country.
  But what happens, when you have a short-term shortage, to prices when 
you try to do something such as this? Well, my good friend and deskmate 
and member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Louisiana, 
earlier cited Philip K. Verleger, Jr., an economist at Charles River 
Associates, who was quoted in the press just yesterday, in the 
Washington Post, saying, ``The Republican-sponsored solution to the 
current fuels problem * * * is nothing more and nothing less than a 
refiner's benefit bill* * *. It will transfer upwards of $3 billion 
from the U.S. Treasury to the pockets of refiners and gasoline 
marketers.''
  Is that the result of some conspiracy among the big oil companies? 
No, sir. I have no reason to think--it may be true, but I have never 
heard it mentioned--that an oil company came to anybody on Capitol Hill 
and said, ``Would you cut that tax?'' The reason Mr. Verleger said the 
reduction in the tax would benefit refiners is that for a century it 
has been the clearest understanding of the economics profession that 
under short-term supply conditions, a change such as a reduction in an 
excise tax does not affect the price paid by the consumer.
  In 1890, Alfred Marshall, as I mentioned to my friend from Virginia, 
the great professor of economics at Cambridge University--he taught 
John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern macro economics--produced his 
opus, his great text, ``Principles of Economics.'' I have here a volume 
reprinted in 1961. This was the summation of what economists knew at 
that time, in the late 19th century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is advised the 
majority has 13 minutes left, of which 10----
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Three. I would not bring up Marshall if I expected to 
hold my audience very much longer than 3 minutes.
  Marshall took the example--to illustrate short-term supply, a 
fascinating thing--he took the example of fish. He said, what happens 
if there is a sudden change in the situation? Weather makes fish more 
or less available--a nice point--or if there is an increased demand for 
fish caused by the scarcity of meat during the year or two following a 
cattle plague. Mad cow disease in the late 19th century. A scarcity of 
fish caused by uncertainties of the weather has its exact parallel in 
our cold winter. These things come. I do not have to tell the Senator 
from Vermont about cold winters.
  Would outside intervention change the price of fish to the consumer 
in that circumstance, when there was a fixed supply? The answer from 
Alfred Marshall is emphatically ``no.'' Students of economics my age 
will remember this book. It is a very heavy book, but it is still 
around and it works. What it propounded is very clear. He said:


[[Page S4919]]


       To go over the ground in another way. Market values are 
     governed by the relation of demand to stocks actually in the 
     market. . . .''

  This is something businessmen know. Mr. Mike Bowlin, Chairman of 
ARCO, said on ABC's ``Nightline'' Tuesday evening:

       My concern is that there are other market forces that 
     clearly will overwhelm the relatively small decrease in the 
     price of gasoline, and that alarms me, that people's 
     expectations will be that the minute the tax is removed, they 
     want to see gasoline prices go down 4.3 cents, and that won't 
     happen.

  This is something we know. Or it can be said as much as things like 
this are knowable, this we know. The businessman says it, the economist 
says it, the grandfather of them all explained it 100 years ago. There 
is good news, which is that the futures markets show the price of crude 
oil going down very sharply, from about $22 a barrel today to about $18 
for next September. Gas prices will go down. Can we not just let them 
go down by normal market forces and keep the budget agreement intact, 
the agreement which has brought us to this happy moment?
  I do thank the President for his patience. I look forward to 
listening attentively to my friend from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the TEAM Act. 
I was privileged, at the request of the distinguished chairman from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond, to chair the Small Business Committee and hold a 
hearing on this subject. In my remarks today, I will refer to a number 
of very important pieces of testimony, some coming from those in 
Virginia, who came before that committee to clearly, clearly support 
the need for this change in the law.
  I refer back to the 1930's when the original Wagner act was enacted 
in 1935.
  It is time that we should change the law. That is all we are asking. 
This is not the 1930's. Today, employees are highly skilled, far better 
educated, conscious of the fact they are in a global economy competing 
not with the company down the street or the company in the next State 
but, indeed, with companies all over the world. While they are 
sleeping, other companies elsewhere in the world are building much the 
same products that are flowing into this one global market.
  Yet, here they are, nonunion employees handcuffed by a law passed in 
the 1930's at a time when really workers were expected, like Tennyson 
once referred to soldiers, ``Yours is not to reason why but to do or 
die'' in the workplace.
  Those days are gone, and today we recognize each human being for 
their individual worth: man and woman, experienced worker, 
inexperienced worker, young and old. Yet they are hobbled by this act 
that goes back to 1935. All we ask is revision of that act.
  In almost every industrial plant or workplace in America today, be it 
large or small, there is a suggestion box. The workers are invited to 
drop suggestions in their suggestion box. All the TEAM Act really does 
is to enlarge the concept of the suggestion box so that they can sit 
down and discuss with management in that company their own ideas to 
increase productivity, to increase safety. It is just the bare 
essentials of everyday existence in a plant environment. Yet, they are 
hobbled by this ancient, ancient law.
  This is not an act to try and thwart the right to unionize. In no way 
does it do that. It simply gives the nonunion worker a chance to 
express his or her own view, such that their plant can become more 
productive, with the hope and expectation that their salary check might 
be increased. And to speak about safety issues so that they can live 
and work longer in a safer environment. That is all they ask.
  I urge my colleagues, no matter how strong your affiliation and ties 
are to organized labor, look at this law. Decide it upon its own 
merits. Think of those people all across our Nation today who are 
working to compete in this global market.
  This bill, again, in no way affects the rights of workers who have 
chosen to unionize. Rather, it assists only the workers who have chosen 
not to unionize, such as those in my State, which is, proudly, a right-
to-work State.
  I went back and looked at so much of the testimony from the Small 
Business hearing. Most people would be shocked to learn that the 
current labor law makes it illegal for employees in nonunion plants, 
workplaces, to discuss matters such as safety and productivity and work 
schedules, the daily routine, where they might have lunch, the quality 
of the food, safety of the machinery, the age of the machinery. It is 
such logical discourse between labor and management in today's market, 
yet this law stands there like a stone wall to prohibit the exchange of 
ideas.
  Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act just does that. 
The NLRA casts a cloud of illegality on all types of organized employee 
participation in the workplace; that is, when groups get together. You 
can drop your suggestion in, but you cannot join with four or five 
other workers and go into the boss' office, perhaps put your feet up, 
and have a discussion on these subjects. It sounds crazy. It is just 
totally out of context with our lifestyle today.
  Listen to the type of issues which cannot--I repeat cannot --be 
discussed in any organized group discussion. I am not talking about 
organized unions: I am talking about just organized group discussion, 
even if it is initiated by the employees. One has been the day care 
center. We did not have day care centers in the 1930's. I am not 
suggesting I was around and in the work force then, but my parents 
were. There may have been a work or day care center in some plant, but 
certainly they did not exist in the breadth that is all common in 
America today. But these people in their workplace cannot go in and 
talk about day care with the management.
  Then there are softball teams. Sports have become a part of the 
lifestyle, fortunately, in many industrialized places in America today, 
but the workers cannot go in and discuss the after hours, 
extracurricular athletic participation of the employees.
  Another example is the employee lounge: a reserved area in the plant 
where they might go for a break or have their lunch or just enjoy 
themselves.
  As far as vacations, no way, no discussion is allowed.
  How about rules on arguments among employees? Today, there is a lot 
of tension in many of our workplaces, but people are not free to go in 
and just discuss that with their bosses in the hopes to alleviate this 
situation of tension.
  Just stop to think, dress codes cannot even be discussed. Nor can 
parking regulations, smoking or nonsmoking policies and, indeed, safety 
in labeling. And on and on it goes.
  To me, this just defies common sense, defies good judgment. It goes 
back to the old days: Yours is not to reason why, but just to do or 
die. And that is totally alien to today's workplace.
  Mr. President, one of the biggest concerns of the American people and 
especially the people of my State is that the Federal Government, 
instead of helping them get ahead, helping them become more 
competitive, sets up these roadblocks to make that less possible.
  The TEAM Act is a piece of legislation which will help lessen that 
roadblock put on in 1935 and allow the workers in our industrial plants 
all across America to use their skills, their energies and their ideas 
to create a more productive and, hopefully, safer work environment, and 
to make America collectively more competitive throughout the world.
  Do the workers in comparable plants in Asia or Europe have these 
problems? No. They can sit down with their bosses. As a matter of fact, 
much of the concept of this TEAM Act originated abroad and has been 
brought to our shores and yet here there is a law to stop it.
  The TEAM Act is necessary to free business and workers from the 
shackles of an ancient law.
  Mr. President, do I note the time has arrived?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator has 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  I have met with a number of employees in the context of our hearing 
and in private meetings who have told me the actual stories and 
experiences of those who are participating in plants where they go 
ahead, despite the law, and sit down and talk with their bosses, 
risking prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board.

[[Page S4920]]

  I have met with employees and management from some Virginia companies 
which have had great success with the team concept. The AMP Corp. which 
makes electrical connectors used around the world has a plant in 
Roanoke, VA, is one such example. Employees and management established 
a number of teams to help meet the challenge of foreign competition. 
One team of workers went with management to another AMP facility, 
learned a new stamping process and implemented it in Roanoke, creating 
20 new jobs to increase output made possible by the new process.
  Another team of workers was assigned the task of comparing AMP's 
production processes to foreign competitors, a task which management 
had done by themselves previously. The team was better able to see how 
inventory levels, technology changes, and production cycles affected 
productivity than management had been. As a result, quality and 
delivery is better, prices are lower, and the company and its employees 
are more secure.
  Last, a third team of AMP, known as the community education team, 
reaches out to local schools. Through this team, AMP has been able to 
recruit new workers from the Roanoke area with the necessary technology 
training rather than recruiting out of the area.
  AMP's experiences have been mirrored at other Virginia companies. For 
example, at the TRW plant in southwestern Virginia in Atkins, VA, one 
customer, a huge automobile manufacturer, requested that the employees 
on a rack and pinion gear production line have a brainstorming session 
to seek ways to improve efficiency. Over 200 ideas were advanced by 
employees and, working together with management, nearly 90 percent of 
these were implemented. These ideas included everything from 
standardizing shelving heights to redesigning multiple parts into one 
piece. The results have been amazing, with production up one-third per 
operator and savings of over $100,000 to the customer.
  At R.R. Donnelly, Corp. in Harrisonburg, VA, the introduction of work 
teams to supervise various aspects of the production of hardcover books 
has had different results than organized labor might have you believe. 
Rather than being an attempt to subvert the employees, Donnelly's teams 
have resulted in an increase of over 50 percent in production jobs and 
a decrease of 33 percent in management positions. These statistics 
should not be surprising because what teams do, in effect, is to make 
the employees into managers of their operations.
  I am certain there are numerous other such examples from around 
Virginia, but the last I would like to mention is Universal Dynamics in 
Woodbridge, VA, just south of the beltway on I-95. UNA-DYN, as it is 
known, manufacturers industrial dehumidifiers and has implemented the 
team concept throughout their manufacturing and engineering processes.

  Mac McCammon testified at the hearing which I chaired last month. He 
described how employee suggestions are implemented by employee teams 
with only marginal involvement from management, these suggestion sheets 
have been at the heart of the company's huge growth over the past 5 
years.
  Unions have said that this bill is bad for workers: in fact, it is 
exactly what employees have been seeking for years. All of us know that 
a job is more satisfying when you have input into your responsibilities 
and help improve the product or service you help create. Today's 
employees give more than their sweat, they give their minds and their 
ability to work together. This bill provides that opportunity.
  In addition, more and more employees receive profit-sharing or 
bonuses based on the financial performance of their company, they have 
a direct stake in improving the productivity of their business.
  And then there is the issue of employee safety. Employees are the 
best experts on what is dangerous in their workplaces and what are the 
best solutions.
  In the Small Business Committee hearing, we heard from Ms. Donna 
Gooch, the human resources director of Sunsoft Corp. in Albuquerque, 
NM. In order to meet increased demand for their contact lenses, 
management and employees agreed on a 7-day workweek. Not only were 
teams used to meet the increased problems with child care and 
scheduling, they were essential in structuring job tasks to avoid 
expensive ergonomic injuries. Without full employee involvement, none 
of this would have been possible.
  My colleagues have explained in detail the nuances of current law. My 
main point is that most people would be shocked to learn that current 
labor law makes it illegal for employees in nonunion workplaces to 
discuss matters such as safety, productivity, and work schedules with 
management. Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 
unfortunately, does just that. The NLRA casts a cloud of illegality on 
all types of organized employee participation in the workplace.
  Among the issues which cannot be discussed in any organized fashion--
cannot be discussed even if initiated by the employees--have been day 
care, softball teams, an employee lounge, structuring of employee 
evaluations, vacations, rules on fighting among employees, dress codes, 
parking regulations, smoking policies, and safety labeling.
  Now of course it would be perfectly legal for the employer to dictate 
from on high how employees must be regulated. Isn't it clear that work 
productivity would be higher, that worker happiness would be better, if 
the employees had a voice in these matters?
  This cloud caused by the current law must be lifted. This is no time 
for our Government, through increasingly common enforcement cases 
brought by the National Labor Relations Board, to make it harder to 
create competitive and safe workplaces.
  The Clinton administration has recognized that employee participation 
in unionized workplaces have brought enormous gains in productivity and 
safety. President Clinton even remarked about this fact in his State of 
the Union Address. His thought is correct, but it must be applied not 
just to union workplaces. It is time that the 90 percent of 
nongovernment employees who have chosen not to unionize be given 
similar rights and opportunities.
  I am particularly concerned about small businesses most at risk under 
current law. Most small businesses are too small to have 
classifications like manager and employee--all employees have to act 
and think like managers. Second, many businesses cannot afford to hire 
labor attorneys to analyze every employee-manager interaction. Third, 
the expense of contesting a NLRB action is too great a threat to many 
businesses to even think about starting employee team programs.
  Unions seem to fear that employees able to contribute more to their 
workplace will be less anxious to unionize. Well, what's wrong with 
that? Unionization works where collective bargaining is necessary to 
balance the bargaining scale--it is not necessary for most workplaces, 
and if employees are happier and more productive without a union, the 
Government should not block their wishes.
  In conclusion, the TEAM Act is not only needed to keep America 
competitive, it is desperately sought by American workers. The world 
has changed since the 1930's, and the law must change as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the cloture motion.
  The 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, 
     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.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that the debate on amendment No. 3960 be brought to a close? The yeas 
and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessary 
absent.

[[Page S4921]]

  I also announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent 
due to death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     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--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Glenn
     Leahy
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________