[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12178-S12191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued to consider the conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take the bulk of my time to 
talk about really the underlying fundamental issue, which is how we are 
going to treat working families, because we have heard a great deal 
about technical amendments, nontechnical amendments, holdings, 
committee reports, and all of the others. I will just reference some of 
those items very, very quickly and then get to what I think is really 
the fundamental issue. That is the issue of fairness. Are we, by the 
action that has been included in the legislation, really denying some 
fundamental justice to scores of American workers who have been playing 
by the rules and believe that they ought to have their rights 
considered and adjudicated under the National Labor Relations Act, a 
process and procedure which is being considered at this very time?
  Mr. President, just to reiterate the points that have been made by 
Senator Feingold, Senator Murray, Senator Simon yesterday, and others, 
all of us are for the FAA conference report--without this particular 
provision. We were prepared to offer the FAA conference report without 
this provision as an amendment to the continuing resolution and do it 
within a 5- or 10-minute time limit. That would have been over and been 
accepted in the House of Representatives, and we would not be here this 
afternoon discussing this particular amendment. Or we could follow 
another procedure by just calling a clean bill up from the calendar 
this afternoon and acting on that this afternoon and doing that by 
voice vote, and our colleagues and friends would not have to 
inconvenience themselves by being here tomorrow.
  There is a question then about whether the House would accept it or 
not. But the precedent is quite clear that the House has taken 
favorable action in such situations in the past and are still acting on 
some measures, even as we are here.
  There is really very little reason to doubt that they would accept 
it, particularly when you look back over the debate and discussion in 
the House of Representatives when they were considering the FAA 
conference report.
  So that is where we are, Mr. President, and that is why we continue 
to maintain that it is those who are continually committed to this 
provision who are the ones that are really holding up the Senate. It is 
not those of us who want to move along into other endeavors but feel 
compelled to protect the rights of working families to make this case.
  Mr. President, just very briefly, the National Mediation Board has 
ruled 12 times since 1978 on cases involving Federal Express. There has 
been a discussion of that by my friends and colleagues, the Senator 
from South Carolina and others. These cases involve requests for union 
elections, unfair labor practice charges, and other labor-management 
issues. In one case involving the Airline Pilots Association, the

[[Page S12179]]

court Board found that FedEx had engaged in unfair labor practices that 
tainted the election so badly that a new election was ordered.
  In all 12 of these cases the National Mediation Board exercised its 
jurisdiction over Federal Express as an airline. Federal Express argued 
over and over to the National Mediation Board that it was an express 
company too. The National Mediation Board ignored this argument every 
single time. No court or board has ever held Federal Express is an 
express company under the Railway Act.
  That is the statement I made yesterday. Individuals can quote various 
cases and draw various conclusions. But those statements remain 
uncontroverted.
  Mr. President, just again very briefly, was this really an oversight, 
or was this just a technical question? If we accept the arguments that 
have been made by my friend and colleague from South Carolina--he 
interprets the cases favorably to Federal Express, and states that the 
National Mediation Board ruled that all of its trucking operations 
would be considered under the Railway Labor Act, there is no real 
reason why we have to even be in the situation that we are in. You 
can't have it both ways. You can't say they have all ruled in all of 
these cases to include it and, therefore, they would achieve what 
Federal Express wants to achieve, and that is to get all of their 
trucking operations under the coverage of the Railway Act so that there 
will not be the possibility of the workers to get together to pursue 
their grievances. We are not under any illusion--and nobody should be--
about exactly what the issue is really all about. So if it is, as the 
Senator said, they should not really need this measure. But, 
nonetheless, they have fought tooth and nail, tooth and nail in order 
to get it, which basically sustains the point that I have made.
  How did we come to this situation? I refer just to the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995. That act struck the term ``express company'' 
from the Interstate Commerce Act. In the conference report, by Senate 
amendment it said ``Outdated references to express and sleeping car 
carriers, which no longer exist, would be removed.'' A conforming 
amendment struck the same term from the Railway Labor Act.
  This is the conforming measure in the ICC Termination Act. You have 
it specifically in the legislation, and specifically in the conference 
report. And that conference report was signed by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Hollings, and many others.
  So it is difficult again for us to perceive that this was somehow 
just a hyphen that was overlooked. Those are the facts. There may be 
different conclusions drawn from this fact. But, nonetheless, that is 
so.
  Mr. President, the fact remains that when we asked an independent 
review board to review and evaluate whether this was a technical 
correction, or whether it was a substantive correction, the 
Congressional Research Service reviewed the history, reviewed the 
legislative history, reviewed the various documents, and indicated that 
it was not. It was a substantive issue. I know the Senator from South 
Carolina is unwilling to accept the Congressional Research Service's 
independence in its review of this and its conclusion. But, 
nonetheless, they have found and supported the same position that I 
have taken. Senator Feingold, Senator Murray, Senator Simon, and I have 
not taken the position of the Senator from South Carolina. I can 
understand why he differs with it. But, nonetheless, the Congressional 
Research Service again supports our position.

  If you review what the debate was over in the House of 
Representatives--where the members of the House Transportation 
Committee and Aviation Subcommittee, Democratic members, indicate very 
compellingly their view--they never viewed this as a technical 
amendment. And, as a matter of fact, the House Parliamentarian ruled it 
was outside of the scope of the conference itself because it was 
nontechnical and required an independent vote. The House 
Parliamentarian is not under the purview nor under the control of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, nor our other colleagues. He made a 
judgment that it was outside of the scope of it and required the House 
of Representatives to vote on it. Virtually all of the Democrats voted 
in opposition--30 Republicans voted in opposition, and 15 Democrats 
voted in favor of it.
  So, I took time yesterday to review the relevant statements of the 
members of the House Transportation and Aviation Committee that made 
comments on this, that are basically in support of the Congressional 
Research Service and others that this is not a technical correction. It 
is an effort by Federal Express to have this growing operation of the 
utilization of trucks considered under the Railway Labor Act, and 
thereby be able to have a competitive advantage over any of their 
competitors. Make no mistake about it. This provision is only for one 
company.
  I mean the idea that we are making a technical correction out here 
like it was generic and it was going to apply to a whole class defies 
any kind of logic, or understanding, or truthfulness, as has been used 
here on the floor of the Senate. It only affects one company; and that 
is Federal Express.
  So, let us try to at least not to misrepresent exactly what the 
significance of all of this is. The reason for that is Federal Express 
currently has 560 aircraft, and 37,000 vehicles, according to the 
fiscal year 1997 earnings statement, Federal Express makes no secret of 
its plans to increase its trucking-only operation.
  In May 1996, a top Federal Express official told a House staffer 
preparing a paper on Federal Express for a graduate school course that 
FedEx's ultimate goal is to send 80 percent of its packages by truck. 
In the future, according to this Federal Express official, only 
overnight packages traveling more than 400 miles will be flown, and all 
others will travel on the road.
  So this business shift is the real reason Federal Express wants 
``express company'' reinserted in the Railway Act.
  To date, Federal Express has successfully argued that the Railway Act 
applies because the company is an airline. But, as Federal Express 
looks less and less like an airline and more and more like a trucking 
company, its argument that the Railway Labor Act applies becomes much 
weaker.
  That is what this is all about. Those facts have never been really 
disputed or argued with, and that is because this is the essence of 
what this whole special interest provision is all about. Federal 
Express wants assurance that its workers will forever be covered by the 
Railway Labor Act, thus requiring nationwide bargaining units and 
making union organizing far more difficult. If ``express company'' is 
reinserted in the Railway Labor Act, Federal Express can argue in the 
future that its trucking operations qualify and, therefore, block its 
employees' efforts to organize.
  Mr. President, that, all respects to the contrary, I think is the 
fair representation as to the reasons that we are here and why this 
particular provision has been put into this legislation.
  Mr. President, I have here the letter from the Executive Office of 
the President, the Office of Management and Budget. I will include the 
whole letter in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that the whole letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the 
     Administration's position on the conference report to H.R. 
     3539, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996.
       Let me begin by stating that there are many positive 
     aspects of the conference report including many vital 
     provisions which we strongly support. The bill authorizes 
     Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) programs, including 
     the Airport Improvement Program, which enables the award of 
     critical safety, security, and capacity expansion grants to 
     airports throughout the country. H.R. 3539 also includes 
     several important aviation safety and security initiatives, 
     including many recommended by the Vice President's Commission 
     on Aviation Safety and Security. In addition, the bill 
     provides for many important reforms to the FAA that will 
     enhance air travel safety
       Unfortunately, the conferees to this bill also added a new 
     controversial provision which would reinstate coverage of 
     ``express companies'' under the Railway Labor Act.

[[Page S12180]]

     The provision appeared in neither bill and was agreed to 
     without hearing or public debate. Congress deleted express 
     companies from the scope of the Railway Labor Act last year 
     in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination At (P.L. 
     104-88) believing that the last express company went out of 
     existence years ago.
       The Administration believes that the provision is not a 
     ``technical amendment'' to transportation labor law. In fact, 
     it could result in a significant shift of the relationship 
     between certain workers and management. We hope Congress will 
     not jeopardize aviation safety, security, and investment 
     initiatives as it comes to closure on this issue.
       Accordingly, the Administration opposes inclusion of this 
     extraneous ``express company'' language in H.R. 3539, and 
     urges the Senate to complete action on this important 
     authorization bill.
           Sincerely,
                                               Franklin D. Raines,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just review it very quickly.

       I am writing to express the administration's position on 
     the conference report on the Federal aviation authorization.
       There are many positive aspects of the conference report, 
     including vital provisions, which we strongly support. The 
     bill authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     program, including the Airport Improvement Program, which 
     enables the award of critical safety and security capacity 
     expansion granted to the airports throughout the country.
       H.R. 3539 also includes several important aviation security 
     initiatives including many recommended by the Vice 
     President's Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. In 
     addition, the bill provides for many important reforms to the 
     FAA that will enhance air travel safety.
       Unfortunately, the conferees to this bill also added a new 
     controversial provision which would reinstate the coverage of 
     ``express companies'' under the Railway Labor Act. The 
     provision appeared in neither bill and was agreed to without 
     hearing or public debate. Congress deleted express companies 
     from the scope of the Railway Labor Act last year in the 
     Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act believing that 
     the last express company went out of existence years ago.

  That is the REA.

       The administration believes that the provision is not a 
     technical amendment--

  I will stress, ``not a technical amendment.'' ``Not a technical 
amendment.''

     to transportation labor law. In fact, it could result in a 
     significant shift of the relationship between certain workers 
     and management. We hope Congress will not jeopardize aviation 
     safety, security and investment initiatives as it comes to 
     closure on this issue.
       Accordingly, the Administration opposes inclusion of this 
     extraneous ``express company'' language in H.R. 3539, and 
     urges the Senate to complete action on this important bill.

  Mr. President, there you have it as well. They understand us. I do 
not know how much more we have to do. I do not think much more because 
anybody who has followed this discussion or debate can see and 
understand very clearly that this is not a technical amendment. Here it 
is in the administration's review, Congressional Research Service 
independent review, members of the various committees who understand 
the history and the background of this review, that it is substantive, 
and as the administration's own letter points out, ``the provision is 
not a technical amendment to transportation. In fact, it could result 
in a significant shift in the relationship between certain workers and 
management.''
  That is the issue. That states the issue. It affects the relationship 
between workers and management. Now, let us get to what that really 
means in terms of the workers and the management.
  Mr. President, I regret very much that we are facing the impasse, but 
an important issue of principle is at stake--whether a large and 
powerful corporation can abuse its power and misuse its influence and 
obtain an unjustified benefit that flagrantly undermines the basic 
rights of employees. Let us get to the real issue, and that is the 
rights of working families. That is what is at stake, the rights of 
these workers' families who have pursued their interests under what 
they believed would be the law under the National Labor Relations Act, 
and that is the trucking operations would be under the National Labor 
Relations Act. They have not been able to get the final judgment and 
decision but the matter is in litigation. They believed they would be 
under that National Labor Relations Act. I think any fair evaluation, 
looking at UPS and other examples of holdings, would say they would.
  Now, the issue at stake here has nothing to do with aviation 
security. It has everything to do with special interest legislation of 
the worst kind. The Senate Republican leadership is cynically using the 
aviation bill to conceal their antiworker payoff to the Federal Express 
Corp. The delay in the vote gives us time to shine the spotlight of 
public opinion on this unacceptable antilabor rider. I am optimistic 
that in the coming days we can succeed in passing a clean aviation bill 
without the Republican personal interest provision. That provision is 
designed solely to deny employees of a single corporation their right 
to join a union.
  Truck drivers employed by the Federal Express Co. in Pennsylvania 
began organizing a union because they had not received a raise in more 
than 7 years. It is unconscionable for the Senate to intervene on the 
side of management to deny those men and women their rights.

  Federal Express is a company that has grown rapidly in the past 20 
years. The original motto of the company was, ``People, Service and 
Profit.'' But as the company grew the rank and file men and women who 
contributed so much to the growth of the company found that they were 
being left further and further behind.
  In 1991, truck drivers at Federal Express in Pennsylvania began 
organizing to address the same economic issues that face most working 
families. Not only had Federal Express truck drivers been denied a pay 
increase for over 7 years but the drivers also were concerned about 
company decisions subcontracting their routes, hiring temporary drivers 
instead of full-time regular employees, and reducing their hours on the 
job.
  The organizing effort started with a group of 12 employees in 
Pennsylvania. After months of preparation, the workers filed a petition 
with the National Labor Relations Board for an election to form a union 
of 1,200 truck drivers in Federal Express' Liberty District in 
Pennsylvania.
  The corporation, with its intense antiunion bias, has used legal 
maneuvers ever since to block those employees' efforts, and 1,200 truck 
drivers still have not been granted a chance to vote on whether to have 
union representation. Federal Express' delay has not cooled the 
drivers' commitment to work together to improve their conditions of 
work. In fact, more and more Federal Express employees are standing 
together and standing up to management. Employees are organizing not 
just in Pennsylvania but in 48 other States as well.
  Now in desperation Federal Express has come crying to Congress to 
obtain this special interest rider to block their employees' efforts.
  Now, who are these workers? Let me tell about some of the people at 
Federal Express, people who have worked hard year after year, people 
who want nothing more than to provide for themselves and their 
families. They are loyal workers. They are proud of Federal Express and 
the work they have done to build the company into a national powerhouse 
but they want to join together to better themselves. They want a voice. 
They want the ability to organize and address issues that are of 
concern to them.
  Let me tell you about some of them. We heard from Leanna Cochran, 
from Indiana, who worked for Federal Express for 14 years as a courier, 
truck dispatcher and, in her own words, ``anything else that needed to 
be done.''
  When she joined there were 80 employees in the area. Now there are 
4,000. She told us how proud she was to wear the uniform.

       We dedicated our lives to making Federal Express what it 
     is. In the late 1980's, I often worked over 100 hours per 
     week. My friends say I have purple blood.

  Meaning the symbolic color of the Federal Express.

       My friends say I have purple blood. Now there is no 
     overtime because the company is contracting out more and more 
     of its work. As Federal Express grew, management stopped 
     caring about the people. The company's President, Fred Smith, 
     has said there will never be a general pay increase in 
     Federal Express, only performance standards that are 
     impossible to meet. Even Fred Smith could not meet them.

  Joe Carney, a tractor-trailer driver at Philadelphia station for 16 
years, is 1 of the 12 original employees who met in 1991 to try to 
start a union.


[[Page S12181]]


       I've always given 150 percent of my effort loyally to the 
     company, and I still am. I'm a team player, but I feel 
     strongly that we need to have a union to help the workers. As 
     a senior employee, I've seen my wages, benefits and other 
     conditions steadily erode. At one point I didn't have a raise 
     for nearly 7 years.

  He explained that Federal Express' success, growing from 5 to 17 
truck terminals in the Philadelphia area while he has worked there, has 
not translated to better wages or job security for the workers.

       We are all dismayed by what is happening in Congress. It's 
     difficult for us to understand why any Senator would support 
     a special interest provision for Federal Express that will 
     undermine our efforts to get a union or try and build a 
     better life for ourselves and our families.

  Elizabeth Tucker, 42 years old, has been paying taxes for 24 years. 
She is a Vietnam era veteran. She enlisted in 1973. She served her 
country. She was a married mom for a number of years but was divorced 
and had to go to work to support herself and her 10-year-old daughter. 
She took a job at Federal Express in 1987. She started as a package 
handler, then a service agent, then become a truck driver, which she is 
today--a hard working, loyal employee since she started.
  Last year, her mother was diagnosed with cancer. She asked the 
company to work with her so the family could help her mother with 
cancer treatments. She asked to use all of her own time, her vacation 
time, and her personal time to arrange her schedule with her sister and 
four brothers so that their mother would not have to go through the 
cancer treatment alone. Federal Express told her she could use her own 
time and arrange it with her sister and brothers so that they could 
take care of her mother.
  They all arranged their schedules to take care of their mother, but 7 
days before she was to take the time off to take care of her mother, 
Federal Express said they were not going to honor their agreement with 
her, they were not going to let her take the time off to take care of 
her mother. She had to rearrange everything with her sister and 
brothers so that their mother did not have to undergo cancer treatment 
by herself. To make matters worse, her daughter had recently had an 
infectious intestinal disease which required her to take time off to 
care for her. She was also exposed to the disease and therefore could 
have been contagious.
  What did Federal Express do? Just before they finally agreed to let 
her go to take care of her mother, they gave her a disciplinary letter 
due to her absenteeism--because she missed work because she and her 
daughter were sick. Imagine the stress. Her mother has cancer, her 
daughter is sick, all she wants to do is use her own time to take care 
of her mother. Her employer finally lets her, but sticks a disciplinary 
letter in her hand.
  Her job is stressful also. Her truck has to make 100 stops a day. 
Federal Express gives a money-back guarantee if a package is not 
delivered before 10:30 a.m. Drivers are required to deliver packages 
within 3 minutes of each other during the morning. From the time they 
hand one customer a package they only have 3 minutes to get the next 
package delivered. This is not only stressful, but raises serious, 
serious safety issues because it requires the drivers to drive as fast 
as possible to get to the next stop. If drivers take more time than the 
company requires, they can be denied performance pay, or get a letter 
that they are not working up to par--or it could lead to a disciplinary 
letter. The pressure is intense.
  The company has asked drivers to shorten their time between 
deliveries and asked for them to get there at 90 percent of the time 
they had last year, and are asking for it to be done in only 87 percent 
of the time this year. They can only drive so fast.
  Elizabeth Tucker has been working hard for Federal Express, driving 
and meeting the demands of her employer for many years now. She is 
trying to meet her family needs also. She is doing her best.
  Bill Chapin lives in Indianapolis, has a wife and two children, a boy 
and a girl; he served 6 years in the Navy, enlisted. He is a Vietnam-
era veteran. He has been working for Federal Express for 13 years as a 
truck driver; works with another 125 truck drivers at his shop. He is 
very proud of his work. He worked 96 hours one week, did everything to 
build the company, did everything he was asked to do, did whatever it 
took to get the job done. ``Now the focus is all on profits, not 
people,'' he says. ``They have been reducing the hours, hiring more and 
more part-time and temporary employees. No pay raise for many years.''
  But pay is not the only issue. Bill was chairman of the safety 
committee in his shop, and there were numerous workplace injuries and 
accidents. Most of these resulted from the requirement to meet very, 
very strict time deadlines. People injured themselves trying to meet 
these deadlines. People also got into car accidents trying to meet the 
deadlines.
  Bill talked about the danger created by drivers who had to make the 
10:30 money-back deadline. He said that from 10:15 to 10:30 every 
morning, people's lives are in danger as drivers go as fast as possible 
to meet the deadline. He said if a driver is late, he could get written 
up or he could lose his job. These drivers have families. They cannot 
afford to lose their jobs.
  Unfortunately, that means people get injured, and it means that there 
are truck accidents. Bill heard about these at the safety committee 
meetings he attended. He remembered one meeting in particular, in 1993, 
when a truck driver in Chicago was trying to meet a 10:30 deadline. It 
was about 10:28 or 10:29 and the driver was trying to find the address 
of his next stop and did not see a 70-year-old woman crossing the road, 
and the driver hit her.
  After listening to this report at a safety meeting, Bill quit the 
committee. Pay is important and Bill wants better pay and benefits, but 
Bill also wants a safe workplace and wants a voice to talk about these 
issues. He wants to organize. He served his country in the Navy. He is 
a good and loyal employee. He has worked hard to support his family. He 
just does not understand why the U.S. Senate would help his employer 
prevent him from joining with his fellow workers.
  Ros Ranamon has a wife and a 21-month-old daughter. He is a truck 
driver in Washington, DC. He works with 300 other truck drivers, and 
has been with Federal Express since 1992, but he is considered a senior 
employee because the turnover is so high. He started as a part-time 
employee with Federal Express. When he was part-time, he was sick with 
the chicken pox, but the company had no disability benefits for part-
time employees. He had only 5 sick days. After they started to organize 
in the company, the company began a part-time disability program for 
its part-time employees.

  So it is not just pay. Sure, pay is important, and he would like 
better pay. But the employees need better benefits also.
  There are other parts of the job that they need to organize for. For 
example, the company requires them to take a job knowledge test every 6 
months. If you fail the test you could lose your performance pay. You 
get written up or lose your job, but no employee has a right to see the 
tests or the answers. Some were told they failed the test and would 
suffer the consequences, but they found out the test scoring system did 
not always work right. Sometimes it failed people who passed the test. 
He just works hard to raise his family. He is just trying to make a 
decent wage. He is just looking for fair treatment.
  Ros Ranamon talked about how Federal Express gives all its employees 
nice, sharp uniforms, but employees' pockets are empty. They just do 
not give the employees raises, not until some of the employees tried to 
organize a union.
  These workers, and thousands more like them, deserve better.
  We had these people who commented today in our committee room, and 
behind them another 20, from Federal Express. These are individuals who 
need those jobs, and talked about their own personal experience. They 
talked about the sickness and illness of members of their family, about 
their children. It is a very difficult thing to do.
  They were willing to share that. Frankly, it takes a good deal of 
political and moral courage, because there is no question that those 
individuals are going to be targeted. I hope not. I hope I am wrong. We 
will watch very closely those workers who are loyal, dedicated to 
Federal Express, each and every one of them. They indicated dedication 
to Federal Express, but that they wanted fairness and decency in the 
workplace

[[Page S12182]]

to deal with some of these grievances. They wanted at least the 
opportunity to be able to see if they could convince other members to 
be able to join a union.
  Maybe they could not, but they were trying to play by the rules of 
the game that are defined under the National Labor Relations Act. Their 
case is moving ahead since 1991.
  But after this amendment that we are talking about here on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate, effectively you are wiping out their efforts to 
play by the rules. Men and women who have served in Vietnam, have been 
working since childhood, who have children of their own, playing by the 
rules--but, nonetheless, the big company comes in, planning to expand 
its trucking operation, trying to get an inside deal, trying to get an 
inside advantage. One company benefits and its name is Federal Express, 
and we are being asked to go ahead and continue with that, which is no 
more technical than a man in the moon.
  CRS recognizes it, the administration recognizes it, the House 
Members who are members of this committee recognize it. And any fair 
reading of the history of this measure and the actions that were taken 
would understand that as well.
  These workers, and thousands more like them, deserve better. They 
deserve the right to decide for themselves whether and how they want to 
organize and deal with their employer. They should be allowed to join 
with other Federal employees in their area to form a union to protect 
their interests. There is no reason whatever for Congress to intervene 
on the side of management to block that effort.
  Make no mistake about it, that is what this is about, tilting the 
scales for management. That is what the purpose is, to give them a leg 
up against those workers. Federal Express is determined to deny these 
Pennsylvania workers and other groups of employees in other States 
across the country the right to organize on a local basis. That is what 
this antiworker rider is all about.
  So, I say: Shame on Federal Express for their pursuing this, and on 
our Members of Congress, in the final hours, for including it. Let us 
fight to reject cloture and reject this special interest rider, and 
permit employees of this company to decide for themselves whether and 
how to bargain with their employer.
  The aviation bill will pass in a second once this antilabor rider is 
removed. There is no threat whatever to the aviation bill. The 
Republican Senate is knee deep in Republican hypocrisy as Republican 
Senators talk about the importance of the aviation bill. We all agree 
on its importance.
  What we don't agree on is that this bill should be used by the 
Republican leadership in the House and the Senate to sneak through into 
law a special interest antiwork payoff to Federal Express at the 
expense of the corporation's deserving, long-suffering employees.
  Few things more vividly illustrate the antiworker bias of the 
Republican Congress than this shameful antiworker rider. Republicans 
say, ``Who cares about a handful of truck drivers in Pennsylvania?''
  We reply, ``We do. Democrats do. Democrats are on their side.''
  We make no apology fighting for them against this shameful Republican 
maneuver. Those Pennsylvania workers are a symbol of what is wrong with 
this Republican Congress. A farewell gesture by the Republican-
controlled Congress as we adjourn for the election is to try to enact a 
law, one more in their long line of antiworker proposals. The American 
people understand what happens here. There will be two votes on this 
issue: one is on Thursday in the Senate, and another on election day in 
communities across this country.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned, these will be the final actions that 
will be taken by the Congress, and in thinking about this particular 
measure and listening to those who hold a different position, I was 
thinking back over the period of the last 2 years and what has been the 
record with regard to working families by the leadership in the House 
and Senate of the United States.
  I step back to the early part of this Congress, to the period in 
February and March of a year ago, and see one of the first actions that 
was being put forward in the Congress and the Senate of the United 
States was the repeal of what we call the Davis-Bacon Act. That is to 
use a prevailing wage, whatever the average wage is in a particular 
labor market area, on the building of Federal construction, so that the 
fact the United States is contracting in a particular geographic area 
will not either raise or depress the wages of working families. That 
applies to the construction industry, which is the second most 
dangerous industry--mining, No. 1, construction, No. 2.
  The average wage across the country and in my State of Massachusetts 
under the Davis-Bacon work for construction workers is $27,500--
$27,500. I was asking myself, what do our Republican friends have 
against workers who are working in one of the most dangerous 
occupations making $27,500, individuals who have acquired skills, have 
gone through various training programs? What is it about those workers, 
given the range of different challenges that we are facing in this 
country, what is it about those workers in the construction industry 
that we are going to say, ``We're going to undermine and we're going to 
make sure they are not even going to average $27,500.''
  Nonetheless, that effort was made not just once, not just twice, not 
just three times, but on a whole series of pieces of legislation. They 
added the repeal of Davis-Bacon to the National Highway System, and we 
blocked that. Then they tried to include the repeal of Davis-Bacon in 
their budget bill in 1995, but, once again, we forced them to remove 
it.
  Time in and time out, not just to raise this issue and let the Senate 
judge it and then say, ``All right, so the decision has been made that 
we are not going to repeal it,'' but relentless--relentless--to try to 
undermine working families that are going to make $27,500 in the 
construction industry.
  So we said, ``All right, that is just the beginning. That is just the 
first program.'' But it was just about that time that we had the 
Republican budget, and the Republican budget was going to provide over 
a 10-year period an additional $4 trillion for what would be considered 
corporations and individual tax benefits. There was only going to be 
one area where there were going to be tax increases--$4 trillion for 
companies and the wealthiest individuals, but only $20 billion of 
raising the taxes.
  One could say, ``Look, out of all of those tax loopholes, certainly 
we ought to be able to find $20 billion in there.'' I can think of 
several of them. They come to mind now about the issues of deferral or 
title transfer, and other items, which are just gimmicks which work to 
an unfair advantage for those who take advantage of them.

  We thought we might be able to recover the $20 billion. The answer to 
that was no. The Republican leadership wanted to increase the taxes on 
working families, again, by reducing the earned income tax credit. Who 
benefits from the earned income tax credit? Workers who make below 
$28,000 who have children. They are the principal beneficiaries. As the 
income goes down, they are able to participate in the program, and it 
is actually phased out at about $30,000. Here we have a $20 billion tax 
increase on working families that are below the $30,000.
  Cutting back on construction workers, cutting back on workers who 
have children with the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. President, it did not take long right after that when I, Senator 
Daschle, and a number of our colleagues--my colleague, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Wellstone, Senator Levin, and many others--introduced an 
increase in the minimum wage for working families, for individuals who 
work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year.
  Since the late 1930's, Republicans and Democrats have come together 
to make sure those people who are going to work are going to be able to 
acquire sufficient income so they do not live in poverty. We were going 
to honor work in America.
  In 1980, a family of three was at the poverty line. But over the last 
5 years, we have lost the purchasing power. It is at a 40-year low. All 
we wanted to do was to try and bring that purchasing power just about 
close to what the poverty line would be for a family of three.
  All we found out was the strong opposition of the Republican 
leadership.

[[Page S12183]]

 This is what House Majority Leader Dick Armey said on January 24, 
1995:

       I will resist any increase in the minimum wage with every 
     fiber in my being.

  This is what the Republican whip, Tom DeLay, said:

       Working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour don't 
     really exist.

  Well, Mr. DeLay, why don't you talk to the approximately 4 million 
families that got the 50-cent addition yesterday?
  The increase in the minimum wage is a woman's issue. Sixty-six 
percent of those who get the increase in the minimum wage are women. It 
is a children's issue, because of the millions of children living in 
families that are dependent on that increase in the minimum wage. It is 
an adult issue. Seventy-seven percent of those who receive it are 
adults.
  Mr. President, not according to our Republican leadership. Here is 
our Republican conference chairman, John Boehner:

       I'll commit suicide before I vote on a clean minimum wage 
     bill.

  And so they went on, refusing to permit at least our committee to 
have a hearing on the increase in the minimum wage so we could review 
whether it is inflationary or whether there is going to be a job loss. 
Important studies indicate in a number of instances an expansion of the 
job market, because more people, who had gotten out of the job market, 
will come back because they want to participate because they think it 
is well worth their efforts to work at that figure. We wanted to have a 
hearing to put some of those issues to rest, but we were denied even an 
opportunity to have the hearing.
  Then we came to the floor, and time in and time out, the Republican 
leader, Senator Dole, resisted every single effort that we made in 
order to get a minimum wage increase scheduled on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and went to extraordinary heights to make sure we were not going 
to get it.
  We finally did get it, and after we got it, what did the Republican 
leadership try to do? Tried to reduce it, No. 1, and delay its 
implementation, No. 2. It was supposed to go into effect July of this 
last year. It went in effect in October. There were talks about trying 
to do it in mid-January or February.

  You know, the interesting reason why it was that time was so that the 
large commercial stores could have the lower wages during the Christmas 
period. That was the reason. Thinking about working families? Thinking 
about those people that are out there trying to make a living? That was 
the position with regards to working families.
  That is why, Mr. President, when we are coming with the last action 
of this legislation, many of us are not surprised of the virtual 
uniform support for this provision on the other side and the virtual 
Republican unanimity in the House of Representatives. We have seen what 
that record has been and what value they have placed on the interests 
and the grievances of working families--working families.
  Another area, of course, that they have great interest in the working 
families is the----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to continue.
  Mr. STEVENS. I think the Senator's time has expired some time ago.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I asked consent to be able to proceed, and I was granted 
consent to be able to proceed.
  Mr. STEVENS. When was that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. When I started.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't remember the Senator being granted extra time. I 
was very indulgent. The Senator has been speaking for 40 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I don't believe it has been that long.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not spoken on this issue now for 2 hours.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was here at 2 o'clock. And we know, at least in the 
earlier time, you indicated that you were prepared to see that I was 
going to be able to be given time.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is true.
  Mr. President, isn't the Senator from Alaska entitled to half of his 
time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the regular order, Mr. President, to be able 
to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is acting 10 
minutes over his time. And I am not aware of the consent before I took 
the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, as we found out earlier in the 
afternoon--I mean, the Senator from Alaska has pointed out--my good 
friend and colleague, Senator Hollings, spoke using other time 
yesterday, and using, allegedly, our time today under the 
interpretation that was made on this. I had understood that I was going 
to be able to have the chance to speak. And I will ask for 10 more 
minutes to be able to conclude my remarks.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not have any objection if the Senator wants 
additional time, but I would like some time now. I mean, I thought this 
was equally divided. The Senator has spoken for now almost an hour this 
afternoon. It is very interesting, a Democratic campaign speech, Mr. 
President. But I have not heard much about the bill before us for the 
last 40 minutes.
  So I do not have any problem giving the Senator extra time to speak 
on the bill, but why should I listen to this bunch of stuff that is 
going on over here that is not true? We can speak all night and half 
run the campaign from here. We are the only ones listening to the 
campaign here. But I have been hearing about nothing but a bunch of 
stuff about taxes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I could interject here, the Chair asks that 
Members to address other Members through the Chair.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has made a request to be granted 10 
more minutes. Do I hear an objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object, unless after this Senator gets to use some of 
his time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw the request, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from ----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I asked earlier to be able to proceed without 
interruption. I was granted recognition for that. I would ask, is the 
Chair going to respect that or not going to respect it? I will be glad 
to abide by whatever the Chair says. I intend to sometime be able to 
make this talk, whether it pleases the Senator from Alaska or not. I 
intend to make it. And I know that he might not want to hear it. But I 
will be glad to do it at one time or the other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Alaska would withhold, the 
Chair is not aware of any arrangements prior to my tenure in this 
chair. The Chair advises, the Senator from Massachusetts has gone 9 
minutes over his time, and he has asked for 10 more minutes, and I did 
hear objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask to be added to the Senator's time that he has 
previously been allowed such time as he seeks now, 10 minutes.
  Is that what the Senator seeks?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am not making any--I will take my chances when I--I 
know the rules of the Senate, and I will get a chance to speak tonight. 
I will take my chances and get the floor when I can.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is what I am afraid of.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is too bad.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no desire to be here all night because the 
Senator is piqued now.
  I want to ask how much time he wants so we have some understanding. 
We were supposed to have 3 hours equally divided. We had 3 hours 
equally divided. How much more time does the Senator want?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Such time as I might use. And I yield the floor at the 
present time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like in on this discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. When the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
Massachusetts have completed, I think I ought to be able to answer the 
charges about my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator seek now?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Ten minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first, let me ask unanimous consent that 
the time of the Senator from Massachusetts be extended for 10 minutes.

[[Page S12184]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the sincerity of the Senator's inquiry on 
this, but I will take--under the rules of the Senate, I will be able to 
get recognition at an appropriate time. I will take such time as I will 
use. We were all set to have an hour and a half divided, as we did 
yesterday, Senator. We would have finished this whole debate at 5 
o'clock. And then we have had the jiggling of what I consider rules by 
skewing the time between those that either favor the amendment or not. 
I know the Senator has a different time. But since that has been the 
case, I know my rights under the Senate rules. And at the appropriate 
time I will regain the floor and complete my statement.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I again read, ``on Wednesday, October 2, 
there be 3 hours for debate only, to be equally divided between the two 
leaders.'' And we are trying to do that. I would be willing to, in view 
of the misunderstanding, to extend that time for the Senator from 
Massachusetts. But as I understand it, this is the only debate today. 
Maybe the Senator knows something I don't know. But at the present 
time, the Senator from Massachusetts objects to the extension of time 
to meet his needs.

  I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold for just a minute?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me try it this way.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Massachusetts be given the time following the time that the Senator 
from South Carolina has asked, equal to the time that the Senator from 
South Carolina uses--it's 24 minutes, I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yielded time to the Senator from South Carolina time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, aside from the procedure, the allocation 
of time where you can't even move at this particular point to satisfy 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, let me refer immediately 
to the chart that is behind the Senator.
  As you know, irrespective of the time allocation, Mr. President, the 
subject allocation was clear. And the subject allocation was an 
amendment by the Senator from South Carolina governing Federal Express 
or express companies in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act.
  And if the TV could go around, they could come right to this, ``Why? 
Pay for tax cuts for the rich, help Republican special interests.'' 
``Republican attack on the middle class, slash Medicare, slash 
education, slash college opportunities, slash wages for working 
families.''
  I think, Mr. President, of the octopus method of defense, whereby the 
octopus, once cornered, squirts out this dark ink around the waters and 
then escapes within his own dark ink. I can tell you here and now by 
the references of the--and I quote--``Republican special-interest 
provision'' that nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  This Senator from South Carolina has been a Democrat since 1948.
  I am not yielding to the Senator from Massachusetts on who is the 
Democrat and what is the Democrat's proposal. I proposed this, I 
proposed it proudly, I proposed it fairly, and exactly as the Senators 
and House members on the committee, by a vote of 8-6, would have it 
proposed, and by a majority vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
and has been approved.
  I am not coming here with this talk about the Republican special 
interest provision, ``Shameful Republican maneuver.'' I put it in 
there. Why is it important? To answer the question of the Senator from 
Wisconsin, it is a matter of honor. We made the mistake. Federal 
Express did not make a mistake. Federal Express did not ask for 
anything. I was told that we left out the reference ``express company'' 
inadvertently--not at the time we voted; it was after we voted. This 
particular ICC Termination Act, back in December, and after it was 
voted out, Mr. President, in the drafting of the final measure that we 
automatically signed, it was eliminated as I related earlier.
  To come up with an antiworker charge, an issue of fairness and 
fundamental justice and all of that--they are ready to vote everything 
else. They are holding it up, after they moved to postpone, after they 
asked the entire report be read, and then make again the categorical 
statement, ``No court has held Federal Express as an express company 
under the Railway Labor Act.''
  Well, we have some U.S. court decisions since commencing operations 
23 years ago, and I ask unanimous consent that this listing, Mr. 
President, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Federal Express Is Covered by the Railway Labor Act--The Technical 
                 Correction Does Not Change That Status

       Since commencing operations 23 years ago, Federal Express 
     and its employees consistently have been determined by the 
     federal courts, the National Mediation Board and the National 
     Labor Relations Board to be subject to the RLA. See e.g., 
     Chicago Truck Driver, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union v. 
     National Mediation Board, 670 F.2d 665 (7th Cir. 1982), 
     Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union v. 
     National Labor Relations Board, 599 F.2d 816 (7th Cir. 1979); 
     Adams v. Federal Express Corp., 547 F.2d 319 (6th Cir. 1976), 
     cert. denied, 431 U.S. 915 (1977); Federal Express Corp., 22 
     N.M.B. 57 (1995); Federal Express Corp., 22 N.M.B. 157 
     (1995); Federal Express, 22 N.M.B. 215 (1995); Federal 
     Express Corp., 22 N.M.B. 279 (1995); Federal Express, 20 
     N.M.B. 666 (1993); Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 486 (1993); 
     Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 404 (1993); Federal Express, 20 
     N.M.B. 394 (1993); Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 360 (1993); 
     Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 7 (1992); Federal Express, 20 
     N.M.B. 91 (1992); Federal Express Corp., 17 N.M.B. 24 (1989); 
     Federal Express, 17 N.M.B. 5 (1989); Federal Express Corp, 
     and Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 16 N.M.B. 433 (1989); Federal 
     Express Corp., 6 N.M.B. 442 (1978); Federal Express, N.L.R.B. 
     Case No. 22-RC-6032 (1974); Federal Express, N.L.R.B. Case 
     No. 1-CA-22,685 (1985); Federal Express, N.L.R.B. Case No. 1-
     CA-25084 (1987); Federal Express, N.L.R.B. Case No. 10-CCA-
     17702 (1982); Federal Express Corp., N.L.R.B. Case No. 13-RC-
     14490 (1977); Federal Express, N.L.R.B. Case No. 13-CA-30194 
     (1991). The charges filed with Region 13 in Chicago, Case No. 
     13-CA-3019 and Region 1 in Boston, Case No. 1-CA-22,585 were 
     withdrawn after we presented the above evidence of our 
     jurisdictional status.
       The National Mediation Board (NMET) recently ruled on 
     Federal Express RLA status by stating unequivocally that 
     ``Federal Express and all of its employees are subject to the 
     Railway Labor Act.'' Federal Express Corporation, 23 N.M.B. 
     32 (1995).
       The term ``employer'' under the National Labor Relations 
     Act excludes ``...any person subject to the Railway Labor 
     Act:'' 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152 (2). Excluded from the definition 
     of ``employee'' under the National Labor Relations Act 
     is''...any individual employed by an employer subject to the 
     Railway Labor Act...'' 29 U.S.C.Sec. 152 (3). The Railway 
     Labor Act defines ``carrier'' as ``... (including) every 
     common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign 
     commerce...''45 U.S.C. Sec. 151, First and Sec. 181. Federal 
     Express is a common carrier by air engaged in interstate and 
     foreign commerce, and is certificated pursuant to Section 401 
     of the Federal Aviation Act.
       That interpretation of the statute consistently has been 
     applied by the NMB. Section 201 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. Section 
     181, provides that the Act ``shall cover every common carrier 
     by air engaged in interstate and foreign commerce . . . and 
     every air pilot of other person who performs any work as an 
     employee or subordinated official of such carrier or 
     carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to 
     supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his 
     service.'' (Emphasis added). In accordance with that 
     legislative directive, anyone employed by an air carrier 
     engaged in interstate or foreign commerce is covered by the 
     RLA. As was explained in REA Express, Inc., 4 N.M.B. 253, 269 
     (1965):
       ``It has been the Board's consistent position that the fact 
     of employment by a ``carrier'' is determinative of the status 
     of all that carrier's employees as subject to the Act. The 
     effort to carve out or separate the so-called over-the-road 
     drivers would be contrary to and do violence to a long line 
     of decisions by this Board which embrace the policy of 
     refraining from setting up a multiplicity of crafts or 
     classes. As stated above, there is no question that this 
     particular group are employees of the carrier.''
       The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit noted in regard to the NMB's Federal Express 
     case that ``the NLRB had `never' asserted jurisdiction over'' 
     (Federal Express'.'' United Parcel Service,

[[Page S12185]]

     Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board. 92 F.3d 1221 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1996). Federal Express has participated in five union 
     representation elections conducted under the auspices of the 
     National Mediation Board, the most recent in 1995, and 
     presently is participating in a sixth RLA election.
       The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Federal Express Corp. 
     v. California Public Utilities Commission, 936 F.2d 1075, 
     1978 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ______ U.S. ______, 119 
     LEd.2d 578 (1992) found:
       ``The trucking operations of Federal Express are integral 
     to its operation as an air carrier. The trucking operations 
     are not sonic separate business venture; they are part and 
     parcel of the air delivery system. Every truck carries 
     packages that are in interstate commerce by air. The use of 
     the trucks depends on the conditions of air delivery. The 
     timing of the trucks is meshed with the schedules of the 
     planes. Federal Express owes some of its success to its 
     effective use of trucking as part of its air carrier 
     service.''
       That court also stated:
       ``Federal Express is exactly the kind of an expedited all-
     cargo service that Congress specified and the kind of 
     integrated transportation system that was federally desired. 
     Because it is an integrated system, it is a hybrid, an air 
     carrier employing trucks. Those trucks do not destroy its 
     status as an air carrier. They are an essential part of the 
     all-cargo air service that Federal Express innovatively 
     developed to meet the demands of an increasingly interlinked 
     nation.''
       It clearly has been established that Federal Express is a 
     carrier subject to the Railway Labor Act. Its employees are 
     likewise subject to the Railway Labor Act. No court or agency 
     has ever determined that Federal Express or any of its 
     employees are subject to the National Labor Relations Act.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, citing just a few, Chicago Truck Driver, 
Helpers and Warehouse Union, 670 F.2d 665 in the 7th circuit; Chicago 
Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union v. National Labor 
Relations Board, 599 F.2d 816. Go right on down the list, Adams v. 
Federal Express Corporation, 547 F.2d 319, Federal Express Corp. 22 
N.M.B.--that is not the court decision, but I can continue to cite 
them.
  Court after court, board after board, and on the contrary, the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts refuses to acknowledge the 
truth, refuses to acknowledge that fact, and continually, the first 
day, yesterday, and now again today, stating, and I listened to him 
clearly, ``No court has held Federal Express as an express company 
under the Railway Labor Act.''
  Absolutely false. Mr. President, that is the whole point about the 
modification here--this is a technical amendment. This is an important 
amendment. It was an important error because it was very, very clear, 
the intent, as I read from the ICC Termination Act of 1995 conference 
report the following sentence: ``The enactment of the ICC Termination 
Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and 
help employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' So they were covered at that 
particular time. They were covered under a 5-year proceeding, under 
that Philadelphia case, finally found unanimously on November 22, 1995, 
and we said our intent was not to change it. Through the drafting 
error, we found out, months later, in 1996, that it was changed.
  They do not ever ask and they do not want to find out. Mr. President, 
there is a letter relative to the Office of Management and Budget. They 
got a spurious one from the Congressional Research Service. Now, 
October 2, 1996, Franklin D. Raines says:

       Congress deleted express companies from the scope of the 
     Railway Labor Act last year in the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission Termination Act believing that the last express 
     company went out of existence years ago.

  Where did he get that? I was there. You were there. Come on. We said 
specifically, ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall 
not expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the 
Railway Labor Act.''
  So he never called me. I could have told him, as far as I know, it 
was an innocent mistake. He says, ``This particular Hollings amendment 
and the FAA was agreed to without a hearing or public debate.'' Where 
was the public debate? Where was the hearing? Where was the Members' 
knowledge? At least the Members know of my particular amendment. We 
never knew of the dropping of the language there. So they want to get 
so official there ``that could result in a significant shift of the 
relationship.''
  Why do they not call you up and find out what really went on, and why 
the positive interest? They continue to make these false statements. 
The Railway Labor Act was not to be modified in any way and the board 
has decided when they continue to say it has not decided, why it is as 
important a matter, I reiterate again and again, a personal matter with 
us and members of the committee that we would correct this. It is not 
for any special interest corporation. Federal Express had nothing to do 
with it when it was knocked out, and it certainly does not have 
anything to do with it other than trying to help me get some votes, I 
hope, now, but it is not being done for them; it is being done for our 
particular consciences. Maybe some in the Senate do not have any 
conscience left anymore.
  Mr. President, there was another point. They keep on talking, all 
that about Davis-Bacon and minimum wage. I was going to come in and get 
the good Government award because I voted for Davis-Bacon, and I 
believe the Senator from Massachusetts was trying to give me the good 
Government award and get on my good side, but it had nothing to do with 
this particular amendment.
  A list of the board of directors of Federal Express is here and we 
find that Howard Baker, the former majority leader on the other side of 
the aisle, and George Mitchell, the former majority leader on this side 
of the aisle are among the current board--I do not believe they would 
go along with that particular picture of a Federal Express truck, 
unfair or antiworker corporation.

  I have so many things to go down and begin to correct because they 
are just running a touchdown in the wrong direction, part of a broader 
agenda, and all of these things that they put in, they have yet, since 
the very beginning, given me the name of the Senator or the name of the 
House Member that knew about this particular mistake being made.
  This letter, as indicated from OMB that we thought the term express 
company was out, a staffer over there at the ICC apparently thought 
that, and that is why he left it out. It was not any part of our staff, 
it was not any Senator, it was not any House Member, it was not any 
hearing, it was never discussed. Does not anyone feel, as a matter of 
honor, we ought to correct the mistake?
  It is not technical or superfluous. It is important. You can see how 
they are trying to roll the U.S. Congress, how many in here with 
fairness and tax cuts for the rich and Republican special interests and 
making it a partisan thing, so we can get a partisan vote if we cannot 
get the 60 votes to go to cloture. It is an embarrassment. They just do 
not have the facts on their side. They do not have the truth on their 
side. They do not have the decisions on their side.
  Their rights, the rights of all workers, have been protected over the 
many, many years, long before the Senator from Massachusetts came and 
the Senator from South Carolina came. But they are trying a political 
gimmick here with news conferences and workers, and going down the list 
of the workers.
  I thanked the Senator from Arizona yesterday. He happened to be 
attendant to the particular cases. He went down to those workers. I 
can't keep up with the number of workers they continue to bring. I 
guess with over 120,000 workers the world around, they can find a few. 
But the ``best of the best'' labeling of the 100 best companies to work 
for in America puts Federal Express at the very top in every regard. It 
is an outstanding company. They have nothing to do about taking 
advantage. I have something to do about not being taken advantage of 
and correcting the mistakes that were made, never heard, never 
discussed, never talked about, and put it where it is. So this crowd 
can't come in here rolling with their getting letters written from OMB. 
They have political power. I know their influence. They have influence 
over the CRS. The poor lawyer can write, except for the sentence he was 
asked about. Some say he ought to be fired from the Congressional 
Research Service, saying it was done intentionally, when the language 
says affirmatively, word for word, it wasn't done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The time yielded to the Senator 
has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S12186]]

  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to get back now to talking about 
the bill that is before us. I am saddened that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has seen fit to attack the Republicans on the floor 
because of the situation we are in right now. As my friend from South 
Carolina said, the amendment being objected to by the Senator from 
Massachusetts is the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. It 
is not a Republican plot. I don't know what all that stuff is over 
there. As a matter of fact, I don't think it complies with the rules. 
You can have billboards, as I have here, of a certain size, in order to 
illustrate a point pertaining to the matter pending before the Senate, 
which is the FAA bill.
  In any event, Mr. President, I want to make sure that everyone 
understands this is probably the most far-reaching bill in the history 
of the United States dealing with aviation security and safety. It is a 
bill that, if it does not become law, is going to make us next year go 
back to square one and start the process all over.
  Meanwhile, any tragedies that happen in this country, in terms of 
aviation safety or security, are going to be laid right at the feet of 
the people who prevent this bill from becoming law. There is a 
possibility that tomorrow a point of order will be raised against the 
bill even if we shut off debate, on the basis of the scope of this 
conference report.
  In the conference report, we have included a series of matters that 
we thought were absolutely essential to the outcome of this process. 
The President appointed a commission. It was called the Gore 
Commission. That commission represented a series of things. In the 
things that were recommended, we have tried to include in this bill 
provisions that were in either the House bill or Senate bill to respond 
to the Presidential Commission on Airport Security and Safety.
  For instance, there is the child pilot safety provision, Mr. 
President. That is title VI of this bill. I spoke earlier today about 
the family assistance provision, which was H.R. 3923. That is title VII 
of this bill. They are beyond the scope of the conference, there is no 
question about it. It takes the forbearance of the Senate to pass the 
bill that the House has already passed, recognizing the emergency that 
exists in our country coming out of recent tragedies in the aviation 
field.
  Now, we have in this bill a provision that requires the FAA to study 
and report to Congress on whether some security responsibilities should 
be transferred from airlines to airports. That is in section 301. The 
FAA is directed now to certify companies that provide security 
screening. No longer is that going to be just an airport activity. It 
is an FAA responsibility now. We have provisions to bolster weapons and 
explosive-detection technology. Money for that is in the appropriations 
bill that passed now. It passed on Monday. The authorization to spend 
the money is in section 303. Unless the bill passes, that will not be 
done. There will not be explosive-detection facilities at our airports 
until Congress gets around to passing the bill again in the next year--
hopefully. It has taken us 2 years to get it in this Congress. I 
predict that it will take at least 18 months in the next Congress to 
get back to this point.

  This bill requires that background and criminal history records 
checks be conducted on airport security screeners and their 
supervisors, on those people, airport security screeners and 
supervisors. In other words, we are not going to let the fox in the 
henhouse in terms of the security of the aviation facilities.
  We require the FAA to facilitate the interim deployment of currently 
available explosive-detection equipment. That means they will do it 
immediately. It is going to happen immediately if this bill passes.
  We require the FAA to audit the effectiveness of criminal history 
records checks and encourage the FAA to assist in the development of 
the passenger-profiling system. We permit the Airport Improvement 
Program and passenger facility charges funds to be used for safety and 
security projects at airports. That is direct availability of funds for 
that purpose.
  The FAA and FBI must develop an aviation security liaison agreement. 
They must lay out in advance how they are going to work together on 
security problems. FAA and FBI must carry out joint threat assessments 
of high-risk airports. That begins immediately when this bill passes. 
There is money in the appropriations bill to do it. It requires the 
periodic assessment of all airport and air carrier security systems, 
and it requires a report to Congress on recommendations to enhance and 
supplement screening of air cargo.
  Mr. President, this bill is absolutely essential to the future 
security of our airports and our airway systems.
  Further, let us talk about aviation safety. This bill reiterates in 
section 401 that safety is the highest priority of the FAA. It 
facilitates the flow of FAA operational and safety information 
primarily. It authorizes FAA to establish standards for the 
certification of small airports so as to improve safety at those 
airports.
  The NTSB and FAA must work together to improve the system for 
accident and safety data classification so as to make it more 
accessible and consumer friendly. It requires the sharing of pilots' 
employment records between former and prospective employers to ensure 
that marginally qualified pilots are not hired. That is one of the 
basic defects in our laws today. This mandates that a new employer has 
the right to the pilots' records from all prior employers. Now, Mr. 
President, if there is any reason, above all, to pass the bill, it is 
right there, title V: No more defective pilots being hired by someone 
who does not know of the prior record of the pilot.
  This will discourage attempts by child pilots to set records or 
perform other aeronautical feats. Unfortunately, that is required 
because of the recent problem we had with regard to a child pilot. 
Beyond that--look at this, Mr. President--this provides the authority 
to expend $1.46 billion on airports through this AIP program. That 
money can't be spent until this bill passes.
  I have a whole list of things that are underway, Mr. President--
underway now--and they are items that ought to proceed. I want to put 
some of them in the Record. Let me talk about some of them.
  In northwest Arkansas there is a grant for the replacement of a 
commercial service airport. If these funds are not available the new 
regional airport will cease until grant funds are made available in the 
early next year.
  In Reno at Lake Tahoe, the international airport there, they have 
completed a major parallel runway. But they have to have additional 
funds in order to complete that runway, and that must be available in 
the next 30 days.
  They are in this bill.
  The Sacramento International Airport just completed reconstruction of 
another parallel runway system. The immediate need is for the 
entitlement and discretionary funds to pay the debt for that process.
  In other words, that can't be finished.
  Over in Rhode Island at Providence, the Teddy Green State Airport, 
there is money in this bill. And if it is not available immediately the 
Rhode Island Airport Corp. will suffer financial hardship, and cash 
flow problems, if this grant is not made by the end of this first 
quarter of fiscal year 1996.
  In Philadelphia, there is a runway under construction;
  In Ithaca, NY, another runway construction;
  Albany, NY, construction;
  Clarksburg, WV;
  Buffalo, NY;
  Right here in Washington, the Metropolitan Washington Airport 
Authority;
  Danville, VA;
  Roanoke, VA;
  The State airport in Baltimore;
  Charlottesville, VA;
  Out in Portland;
  In Denver;
  And, the Seattle-Tacoma Airport which is very familiar to people from 
my State and the occupant of the chair.
  Mr. President, this is a national bill. It is money that is spent 
from a trust fund. It does not come from the Treasury. It comes from 
the trust fund. In order to take money out of the trust fund it must be 
specifically authorized. And this is the authorization right here. This 
is the bill before us.

[[Page S12187]]

  If a point of order is made tomorrow against this bill and allows the 
bill to be destroyed, the whole conference report falls--the whole 
conference report.
  From there on, you can only operate by unanimous consent; unanimous 
consent. This whole bill will then be dependent upon unanimous consent. 
Any one Senator can say, ``No. I do not want go along.''
  Now we have three or four Senators right now who say they don't want 
the bill to go forward as it is. And we are flying people back here 
from all over the country to get 60 votes. We will get 60 votes to stop 
this filibuster.
  That is what it is. It is a filibuster against FAA security and 
safety legislation because of one small provision, and the Senator from 
South Carolina stated what it is. It is to correct an error that was 
made when a bill was passed here last December.
  Under the circumstances, all this business--I am a very patient man 
normally. At least I think I am. Some people may disagree. But I think 
I am patient with regard to expressions of opinion here on the floor. 
But I never thought I would come out here and listen to this campaign 
speech from the Senator from Massachusetts when we agreed to 3 hours 
equally divided today to debate this conference report.
  Suddenly, it has developed into a campaign debate. If it is to 
continue, I am going to call for the campaign people to come out here 
and conduct the debate. I was prepared to debate this bill, and the 
reason this bill must become law.
  I want to say, Mr. President, in all seriousness now, if this bill is 
to be destroyed by a point of order on a technicality tomorrow, we are 
going to be around I think a long time next year, and we are going to 
be hearing the charges that will come out of the terrible calamity that 
will happen in the event there is another serious airline crash, and we 
end up with the same laws--the same inadequate laws--trying to deal 
with them. Because that has been the problem--whether it is the ValuJet 
in Florida or the crash over New York, these crashes now are involving 
so many different problems; problems of recovering the remains of the 
aircraft from deep water off our shores, or to try to get it out of a 
terrible swamp down in Florida, and all of the various problems 
particularly of the victims.

  I think I am about ready.
  What is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 13 minutes and 50 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Massachusetts has no time 
remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from South Carolina wish any more time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Just a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator because on the 
subject here, the point of order, I remind all of my colleagues. That 
is what is required under this unique session that we had here in the 
U.S. Congress this year. We could not complete our work on six of the 
very important appropriations bills. Many of the provisions here early 
on Monday and all of Tuesday were included. I got upset with all kinds 
of provisions that never appeared in the House side and never appeared 
in the Senate side.
  So I am very careful not to roll anybody, or pull any tricks. And I 
am rather taken aback that they are trying to talk and use the 
expression ``blackmailing,'' and everything else, when that is exactly 
what has occurred--all through the very organized Senator trying to say 
``blackmail'' this body. And the reason the Senator from Alaska has all 
of this documentary evidence up here to help the Republican special 
interests is to, by cracky, do their dead level best to make it a 
partisan issue when it is not; and making it a partisan issue requiring 
some 60 votes; all the time clothing themselves as being so reasonable; 
so interested in issues of fairness; fundamental justice; and, all of 
that. They are clothing themselves in those garments, and then come 
around and gut you. We know what is going on.
  With respect to pay--and then I will yield--the statement was made 
earlier that the young lady, or someone, who had not had a pay raise in 
7 years took me aback. So I called. And I will now read what was 
delivered to me by Federal Express, and I quote.

       The average pay growth of the entire FedEx work force with 
     over 1 year of service, including over 30,000 couriers, has 
     exceeded 50 percent over the last 8 years, and has averaged 
     in excess of 6.5 percent per year over that same time period. 
     The officers of Federal Express are excluded from this 
     calculation.

  So the smearing of the corporation--the company--the smearing of the 
sponsor with the charge of ``blackmail'' and ``jamming'' it, and 
running around the end, and trying to pull the rug out in the middle of 
the game, those are all smear tactics. They know it. They know I 
wouldn't engage in it. I am taking exception to it as strongly as I 
know how.
  We will stand here with the rest of them because we have the truth on 
our side. Hopefully the truth will prevail tomorrow in spite of these 
labels and machinations that go on here trying to adulterate the 
process. That is what they are trying to do because they don't have 
fairness on their side.
  We are not changing any fundamental law with the Hollings amendment 
in the FAA bill. Rather, we are restoring the parties to where they 
are, we think, at the moment, but certainly where they were in December 
of last year before this drafting error was made at the time of the 
termination of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that approximately 75 
percent of our people who travel between cities in this country now go 
by air. In my State, as I have said before, over 75 percent of the 
communities in my State can be reached only by air. No one, I think, 
here is more sensitive to the problems of aviation safety and security 
than those of us from Alaska. It is an area one-fifth the size of the 
United States. We literally are one-quarter the size of the continental 
United States. When you look at our problems in terms of aviation, we 
live and sleep and some of our people are born and many of them die on 
airplanes. We have to have aviation security. I have worked long and 
hard on this bill. We have had some disagreements over funding of the 
future expansion and modernization of our airports and airway system, 
but I must tell the Senate there has never been a disagreement in our 
committee that we had to have a bill this year. It has to be done.

  When we got in conference and we started adding other issues --as I 
have said, we added the victims rights, victims assistance legislation, 
the rights of families legislation, we added a couple other items here 
and the measure obviously was opened beyond the original scope. The 
Senator from South Carolina offered his amendment. I believe it was the 
last amendment to be adopted----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. STEVENS. In the conference, and it was adopted. There was a 
debate on it but an overwhelming vote, bipartisan vote in the 
conference.
  I have to tell the Chair I never suspected that we were going to have 
this kind of delay on this bill. To me and to the people I represent, 
it is the most important bill of the whole Congress. I thought that the 
fishing legislation, extension of the 200-mile limit bill, the Magnuson 
Act was important--I still think it very important--but this bill 
affects the lives of every Alaskan several times a week. I cannot tell 
the Senate how strongly I feel about getting it passed, and how sad I 
am to learn that in all probability there is going to be a point of 
order raised on this bill tomorrow.
  Incidentally, we must have 60 votes here tomorrow, and we are sending 
throughout the country alerts to everyone to come back and vote. I 
think there is an obligation of all Senators to be here, but obviously 
it is going to take at least 60 here tomorrow to terminate this 
filibuster. If the filibuster is not terminated, obviously the 
conference report fails. If the point of order is granted, obviously, 
the conference report fails also. It is not going to be an easy thing 
to explain to the country if we are not able to pass this bill.
  So, again, I urge Senators to come back, that they be informed about 
this bill, to understand what it is. It is not part of the chart that 
is behind the Senator from Massachusetts. It has

[[Page S12188]]

nothing to do with taxes or any Republican attack on anybody. It is the 
most serious bill in the aviation era that has ever been passed by 
Congress. I hope it becomes law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be 30 
minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy, 30 minutes under the 
control of Senator Hollings, and 30 minutes under the control of 
Senator Nickles, and following the conclusion or yielding back of the 
time, the Republican whip be recognized to make appropriate consents 
for the Senate to adjourn until 9 a.m. on Thursday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator will yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the the Senator from Massachusetts yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield for a question. We have had some 
exchange on the question of how we are going to proceed now. If it is 
agreeable, I would like to take just a few moments. We have been 
working through this process.
  Unless it is a brief comment, I think I will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I do not want to take the additional time 
to repeat the fundamental core issue, whether this was the technical 
amendment or whether it was a substantive amendment. I think that case, 
although there is a difference in the expression of the Members on our 
side on this issue, particularly the Senator from South Carolina and 
myself, I will let the record stand. I think the independent evaluation 
by the Congressional Research Service, the administration's own 
position, the different statements made by the Members of the House of 
Representatives, and the history of the debate on this issue, the 
conclusions that one can draw from the conference committee when that 
measure was addressed--all indicate quite clearly that the measure was 
dropped with the abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission. And 
since there had not been any entity that lived up to the old railroad--
REA requirements, it was an anachronism and was effectively dropped. I 
think that case, hopefully, has been made to the satisfaction of the 
Members.
  Mr. President, I just want to add, this measure, with all respect to 
the comments that have been made around here, has been out there in a 
number of forms over the period of this last Congress, being pursued by 
Federal Express, by the Republican leadership, Bud Shuster over in the 
House of Representatives and later it was put forward by the Senator 
from South Carolina.
  But there were more than three or four instances where this was 
attempted by Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. The 
final action on this legislation came to 203 Republicans for the bill, 
15 Democrats; 168 Democrats, 30 Republicans, so it is 218 to 198, the 
overwhelming majority of the Democrats opposed; the overwhelming 
majority of the Republicans in support. I believe that is what we are 
going to see tomorrow. So, whether it was advanced by the Republicans 
or Democrats in the caucus--clearly this is a provision that is 
strongly, strongly supported by our Republican friends.

  I want to just finally point out, as I was mentioning earlier, we 
should not be surprised that it is being so strongly supported by our 
Republican friends because I feel that the fundamental issue is the 
issue of fairness and equity to these workers who are trying to follow 
precedent as truck drivers and to be considered under the National 
Labor Relations Act. They were following that precedent. The precedent 
most visible, I think, for most of us, was UPS, where the truck drivers 
are effectively doing the same thing. They are the principal 
competitor, as well as the Post Office. And there, the truck drivers 
are considered under the National Labor Relations Act. The issue is 
whether these truck drivers will be able to be so considered. The 
purpose of this amendment is to make sure that they are not.
  That is the bottom line on this. By not covering them, we see what 
the authority and the power is of Federal Express in dealing with their 
employees. I reviewed earlier in the day, some really extraordinary 
instances of grievances that Members have. I will put in the Record as 
well the pay rates that are significantly different from those that 
have been advanced.
  Nonetheless, if the workers were so happy the company would not have 
to worry about having a union for them. That is the bottom line.
  If everything is hunky-dory, they are not going to go ahead. That is 
what happens around here. It is only when there are legitimate 
grievances focused on pay and other grievances that there is a 
consideration of a union. All we are saying is let the workers make 
that judgment and make that decision and don't foreclose them. That 
happens, we believe, to be the current state of the law, and with this 
action, the interest of those workers would be circumvented, would be 
compromised. It is not the Senator from Massachusetts. We have had the 
CRS, the administration has said it, and those members of the 
Transportation Committee in the House have reaffirmed it.
  Mr. President, I wanted to take a final few moments to put this into 
some kind of perspective.
  Should we be surprised that the overwhelming majority, in this 
instance it will be the Republicans in the Senate, as it was in the 
House, are supporting a provision that would effectively undermine the 
legitimate interests and rights of those truckers? Should we be 
surprised with it?
  The point I was making earlier in the presentation is I don't think 
we should be surprised when we look at what the record has been over 
the period of these last 2 years on economic issues, minimum wage, 
EITC, other issues affecting income, the Davis-Bacon Act, or whether it 
has been the interest of workers versus the powerful special interests 
when we came to opening up the pensions.
  Here are legitimate funds paid in by workers, and the corporate world 
is trying to get its hands into those pension funds. We have seen the 
abuses in the 1980's and the attempt, again, that was being made, in 
spite of votes here in the U.S. Senate saying we shouldn't do it, to 
open up those pensions to the corporate raiders. That is a matter of 
fact. Senators might not want to listen to this. Senators might 
disagree with this fact. But the fact of the matter is, we took action 
here in the U.S. Senate that would have compromised the savings of 
workers. We have compromised their income, and we have compromised 
their savings they put away for a life's dream.
  Then we came back to issues that would have affected their health, 
their safety, and, under the fine leadership of Senator Kassebaum, I 
thought we had a bipartisan effort, virtually unanimous by our 
committee, unanimous here, eventually, on the floor, and we were 
delayed a period of 8 months before we were even able to bring this 
measure up.
  Who would that measure have affected? Working families playing by the 
rules, paying the premiums, that might have some preexisting condition 
and might want to go to another job or to be able to continue the 
payment of their premiums and retain their insurance to deal with some 
of the most important things. Who was delaying that? Many of the major 
insurance companies at the cost of the workers.
  That has been the history, Mr. President. Our friends on the other 
side might not want to hear it, they might not like it, but that 
happens to be the record.
  When we had a bipartisan effort to do something about mental health 
under the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone, it was 
passed here on the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill.
  Who weighed in against that provision in terms of mental health? The 
insurance industries. And who would have benefited from it? Working 
families. Who would have benefited from the leadership that Senator 
Bradley showed in trying to deal with the, I

[[Page S12189]]

think, unfortunate restrictions that are placed upon expectant mothers 
and their babies after delivery and putting a time limitation of 24 
hours, 48 hours with more complicated births. Who would benefit? It 
would be the mothers in working families, the wives in working 
families. Who opposed it? The insurance industry.

  Our friend and colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, had difficulty 
with that, and eventually it was accepted in the final hour.
  Whether it has been on what we call the baby bill, or whether it has 
been on mental health, or whether it has been even on the proposal 
Senator Wyden advanced to try and remove the gag on the doctors in this 
country in HMO's to give consumers full information--who are the 
consumers? Workers. Who is on the other side? The insurance industry. 
Because of the resistance we had on that, the proposal of Senator Wyden 
was not agreed to.
  All I am pointing out is time in and time out, over this period of 
time, whether it is working families, children of working families with 
the large cuts in the education programs--who benefits from those 
programs? It is the sons and daughters of working families. They are 
the ones who qualify for the Pell grants or the Stafford loans.
  You have to be under a certain income. It can get as high as about 
$62,000, if you have three or four children in school. But it is, 
basically, for the children of working families to try and permit them 
to go. Nonetheless, we saw the cutbacks on the Pell grants and the 
cutbacks in the loan programs.
  Whose children are going to benefit? It is the sons and daughters of 
working families.
  We have the assault on the incomes, wages of workers, we saw the 
reduction in the education program, we saw the reduction of Medicare, 
which would have meant $2,400 per couple over a period of 5 years they 
would have had to pay out, and if they weren't able to pay it under 
Social Security, who would have ended up paying it? It would have been 
the working families who want to make sure their parents have some 
degree of respect and dignity.
  It is with regard to cuts in the income of working families, the 
cutback in Medicare, or increase in the premiums of copays and 
deductibles, which, if the senior can't pay for it, will be paid for by 
those working families. There were even cuts in the Medicaid Program. 
We have 18 million children on Medicaid; 4.5 million under the 
Republican proposal would have been knocked off Medicaid. Two-thirds of 
the children on Medicaid have parents who are working. They are the 
poorest of the poor.
  What is going to happen with those cuts? It slashes the wages to 
working families, a slash in college, slash in education, slash in 
Medicare, for what? To pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in 
tax cuts. For whom? For the wealthiest individuals. That happens to be 
the fact. There are people on the other side who don't want to hear it. 
There were attempts to silence us on this side of the aisle from making 
those speeches. That was true yesterday, when my good friend, Senator 
McCain, said, ``We don't have to listen to this, we don't want to 
listen to it,'' and left the floor. Or the attempt to try and silence 
us here on the floor this afternoon. Those are the facts. Our 
Republican friends may not want to hear it, but those are the facts.
  To come back to the core issue, what we are talking about is the 
legitimate interests, rights, and grievances of those workers in 
Pennsylvania, and we referred to those earlier. Should we be surprised 
that in the final hours, we are going to give short shrift to those 
workers based upon what has been the Republican leadership in the House 
and the Senate over this period? We should not be surprised, Mr. 
President. We should not be surprised.

  Should we speak for those individuals? I think that we should speak 
for those individuals.
  Should we support the FAA conference report? Sure, we should support 
it. The Senator from Alaska knows we could call up a clean bill, and it 
would pass in 5 minutes--5 minutes. No one has to come back. That issue 
is resolved. Turn the lights down in the U.S. Senate and let's go back 
and have the debate with our constituents across the country on what 
kind of future the American people want to support.
  Do they want someone who is going to represent working families, or 
do they want someone who is going to be involved in the special 
interests? We do not have to bring all our Members on back. All we have 
to do is have the clean bill, take the conference report without those 
provisions that undermine the legitimate interests of working families 
in Pennsylvania. We could have passed that, and we would not be here 
this evening.
  But, oh, no. We are not going to do it that way. We are just going to 
insist that those provisions are going to be included in any provision. 
``We don't care whether you're going to stay here or not and speak for 
them.'' I have welcomed the opportunity to speak for those families.
  I think they have rights and they have interests, and they are 
entitled to someone to speak for them. I welcome the opportunity, and I 
consider it an honor to be able to speak for them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter and a news 
release from Public Citizen detailing the practices of Federal Express 
and their impact on public safety be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  October 2, 1996.
       Dear Senator: Tomorrow you will vote on an amendment to the 
     Federal Aviation bill that will limit the ability of Federal 
     Express workers to organize under the labor laws. This 
     amendment has not been subject to any hearings or legislative 
     debate but is a last minute add-on to the conference report.
       We urge you to vote against cloture for the following 
     reasons:
       (1) If this anti-labor amendment passes, Federal Express 
     workers will have no ability to organize to protect their 
     safety on the highways. This is a particularly critical issue 
     because in 1995 Federal Express (and some other companies) 
     rammed through an amendment to the National Highway System 
     (NHS) legislation that eliminates all federal motor carrier 
     safety requirements for most of the trucks their employees 
     drive--10,001 to 26,000 pound trucks. Among the highway 
     safety standards that were abolished are hours-of-service, 
     driver qualifications, equipment standards, and inspection 
     requirements. This amendment was opposed by the insurance 
     industry, highway safety organizations, the fire fighters and 
     the Administration. Without the ability to organize for their 
     own protection, and with a hole blown through the fabric of 
     federal motor carrier safety requirements, these workers 
     lives literally are on the line.
       Between 1991 and 1994, the fatal injuries and crashes 
     involving trucks in this vehicle class increased by 50% with 
     1,400 people killed in 1994 and thousands injured. In 
     addition to the operators of these trucks, of course, the 
     public at large is also at risk. UPS opposed this amendment 
     on the NHS bill because many of the federal safety 
     requirements are already part of their labor contracts.
       (2) This is not the first time or the second time that 
     Federal Express has used last-minute tactics to gain passage 
     of controversial amendments to law. In the 1990 aviation 
     authorization bill, with no hearings, exemption from local 
     noise requirements for aircraft were pushed through. In the 
     1994 aviation authorization bill, Federal Express was 
     involved in getting preemption of state regulation of truck 
     prices, routes and services through the Congress with no 
     hearings in the Senate where the amendment was added to an 
     unrelated bill and only a last minute hearing in the House 
     during the conference negotiations. State officials were 
     outraged at the way this was maneuvered. In 1995, motor 
     carrier safety standards were eliminated for Federal Express 
     type trucks in the National Highway System legislation. In 
     1996, the anti-labor provision Federal Express seeks to get 
     enacted in the aviation authority conference report is the 
     most recent in a long string of such maneuvers.
       These issues are major public policies that deserve 
     appropriate hearings and evaluation. The public is already 
     angry about the way wealthy business interests dominate the 
     congressional decision-making process. This history of 
     Federal Express sponsored legislation, combined with the 
     millions of dollars it spends each year on lobbying, campaign 
     contributions, and providing air transportation services to 
     key members of Congress, undermines our democratic system. 
     Federal Express has a long history of opposition to 
     government regulations. But when they want to block their 
     employees' efforts to form a union and gain an unfair 
     advantage over their competitors, the sky's the limit on 
     money and political muscle they will use to get their own 
     customized regulatory protection made into law.
       (3) There have been concerns raised on the Senate floor 
     about the need to pass the aviation bill for protection of 
     public safety. But many Americans also will be endangered if 
     Federal Express workers cannot negotiate safety protections 
     (now that federal rules are abolished) as do the UPS workers. 
     And the limits on Federal Express workers will be permanent 
     while the aviation system will

[[Page S12190]]

     merely experience a small delay and it is already fully 
     appropriated. Please remember as many people die on the 
     highway every day as die in one airline crash.
       (4) The labor amendment on the aviation bill which 
     overrules pending litigation should be fully debated in the 
     labor committees of the Congress and subject to the same 
     review and procedural rules that most legislation receives. 
     If this means that the House of Representatives has to return 
     to Washington to repass a clean aviation bill, that is a 
     small price to pay. Hopefully, it would discourage future 
     manipulation of this sort.
       In sum, for the safety of Federal Express drivers and the 
     driving public at large, for fairness and integrity of the 
     legislative process, and for the workers of the Federal 
     Express company, we urge you to vote against the cloture 
     petition and pass a clean, unadulterated federal aviation 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
     Joan Claybrook.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Public Citizen, Oct. 2, 1996]

  Public Citizen Supports Effort to Block Sweetheart Deal for Federal 
          Express; Commends Senator Kennedy's Principled Stand

       Washington, DC, October 2.--The consumer advocacy group 
     Public Citizen today applauded Senator Edward M. Kennedy's 
     (D-MA) efforts to block an attempt to add a special ``Federal 
     Express protection'' clause that was slipped into the Federal 
     Aviation Reauthorization bill.
       ``Federal Express has a long history of opposition to 
     government regulations,'' said Joan Claybrook, president of 
     Public Citizen. ``But when they want to block their 
     employees' efforts to form a union and gain an unfair 
     advantage over their competitors, the sky's the limit on 
     money and political muscle they will use to get their own 
     customized regulatory protection made into law.''
       Federal Express is one of the most active lobbying 
     companies in Washington, and this attempt is a text-book 
     example of how Washington works to benefit fat cats at the 
     expense of ordinary citizens. In the first six months of this 
     year alone, Federal Express reported lobbying expenses of 
     $1,149,150 and the use of nine outside lobbying firms. And 
     Federal Express backs up its lobbying with generous campaign 
     contributions. In the 1993-94 election cycle, Federal Express 
     gave over $800,000 to 224 candidates for federal office. And 
     it's given well over half a million dollars to members of 
     Congress so far in the 1995-96 election cycle, with $543,000 
     reported to the Federal Election Commission as of July 1, 
     1996. And just to make sure the major political parties don't 
     forget Federal Express, they've given at least $159,900 in 
     soft money to the Republican National Committee, and at least 
     $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
       To make sure its voice is heard in the Capitol, the FedEx 
     board of directors includes high political profile members 
     such as Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, former 
     Senator Howard Baker and former DNC Chair Charles Manatt. 
     There are also reports of Federal Express making its 
     corporate jets available to members of Congress and other 
     political figures, and accepting the equivalent of commercial 
     air fare as payment. Public Citizen is currently asking 
     Senators and their staff to disclose any use of Federal 
     Express aircraft for their personal, official or campaign 
     travel.
       Federal Express has used its political clout lobbying 
     muscle and its campaign contributions to get numerous special 
     provisions inserted into various legislation. In 1995, 
     Federal Express was able to get exemption from federal motor 
     carrier regulations for its delivery trucks in the National 
     Highway System legislation. This exemption for trucks from 
     10,000 to 26,000 pounds was granted even though the number of 
     fatalities from crashes of trucks in this size range 
     increased by 50% from 1991 to 1994, when 1400 people died.
       The exemption of these delivery trucks from federal motor 
     carrier standards leaves Federal Express drivers and other 
     motorists less protected. If the drivers had union 
     representation, they could address safety concerns in 
     contract negotiations. Federal Express now wants regulatory 
     aid to make that possibility more difficult for employees to 
     achieve.
       In other years Federal Express used language slipped into 
     aviation bills to win exemptions from state noise 
     requirements and exemption from state price, route and 
     service regulations. The stage for the current eleventh-hour 
     battle was set earlier this year when Congress rejected 
     similar amendments.
       ``What we are seeing is simply another flagrant example of 
     a politically active and well-connected corporation trying to 
     use its influence and connections to make an end run around 
     the legislative process,'' concluded Claybrook. ``Federal 
     Express is trying to get it's special interest protection 
     written into law without hearings, discussion or debate. 
     Fortunately, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Simon, Feingold and 
     others who support working families are making sure the 
     public knows exactly what is going on, and we commend them 
     for it.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on tomorrow we have, as I understand it, 
an hour of time before the vote, which will be evenly divided. I would 
like to ask the Chair now, who controls, just so I will know what 
steps, if any, to be taken this evening to be given assurance that at 
least those who are opposed to this amendment will have an equal time 
with those who are in favor of the amendment. What is the understanding 
of the Chair at the present time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the conference report will occur at 10 a.m. on Thursday. There will be 
1 hour of debate to be equally divided between the majority leader and 
the minority leader prior to the cloture vote, with the mandatory 
quorum call under rule XXII waived.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, I am satisfied that both the 
majority and minority leader will work out an arrangement to ensure 
that the time divided will be fairly divided between those who support 
and those who oppose.
  So I have no further requests. I thank the Members for the 
opportunity to make these presentations here this afternoon, and I look 
forward to tomorrow and hope that we can, by assuring that we are not 
going to gain the cloture--I hope that right after that we, if we are 
successful, will move to a clean bill and pass it overwhelmingly. I 
have every expectation that by noontime the House will be willing to 
accept it, as they have at other times actions which we have taken on 
this measure, and that we will have done justice to many workers who 
have been playing by the rules of the game.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to reserve the remainder 
of his time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will reserve it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Under my allotted time I want to make certain that I 
relinquish at least 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, who has 
been waiting to speak on an entirely different subject. So if the Chair 
will counsel me. But I do not think I am going to take but about 10 to 
15 minutes here.
  Specifically, Mr. President, when the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts ends up on this important thing with pay for tax cuts, 
help Republican special interests, and all those other things--they are 
removing the charts now--talking about mental health, Pell grants, 
anything and everything to make it a partisan issue, I have learned in 
the early days, like my black friends, how to interpret.
  I will never forget the story they had in the earliest days in 
politics when we used to have the literacy tests given. The poor black 
presented himself at the polls to vote. The poll watcher says, ``Here. 
Here. Read this,'' and showed him a Chinese newspaper. He took that 
newspaper, and he turned it up there, and he then turned it around, and 
then he turned it on the side, and everything else. He said, ``I just 
read it.'' He said, ``What does it say?'' He said, ``No poor black is 
going to vote in this State today.''
  I read the Senator from Massachusetts. He knows that truth and the 
facts and the conscience is on the side of the Senator from South 
Carolina. What he is saying--translated--is, this is horrendous 
Republican conduct concurrent with the contract, like they said to the 
black male, and doesn't take care of mental health, Davis-Bacon, 
minimum wage, Pell grants, all these other things, so that the 
substantial Democrat vote needed for the cloture vote in the morning 
will stay home.
  I know substantial Democrat votes who listened and have told me that 
they will support this opportunity to correct the mistake.
  Let me emphasize, that it was a mistake. They try, in the opinion of 
the CRS, to say it was intentional or in the opinion of the Office of 
Management and Budget to say that it was intentional. But we read time 
and time again--every time I have to continue to turn to it--I said, 
here is the intent, if you really want the intent. Because we all 
agreed the enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither 
expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway 
Labor Act.

  So according to intent, nothing was changed. But now they come and 
say it was. So I said, ``Well, like me, why don't you try to find a 
Senator who suggested it? Why don't you try to find a House Member who 
even discussed it? Why don't you find anybody in that conference or 
before or after who suggested it? Then some staffer may say,

[[Page S12191]]

``Oh, I remember my Senator or my Congressman wanted to make sure.'' 
Not to be found whatsoever.
  The truth is that the counsel at the ICC, which does not certify 
express carriers like Federal Express air carrier, where 85 percent of 
their packages are carried by air, intimated since the Railway Express 
Agency had gone bankrupt and their rights had been transferred, there 
was no need for the language.
  But they all now agree, 2 months later in 1996, when we learned about 
it, it was an inadvertence, because it was a hotly contested thing over 
a 5-year period in the Philadelphia case used by the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says that here the poor 
workers are right in the middle of trying to get their rights and are 
being cut off at the pass by the Senator from South Carolina. Not at 
all. Their rights are the same as under that 5-year case on November 
22, 1995, under this particular amendment.
  What we are trying to do is make sure that all rights of all parties, 
as expressed in the ICC Termination Act, are unchanged, neither 
expanded nor contracted.
  So we are not pulling the rug out. On the contrary, we are preventing 
the rug from being pulled out. We are not changing the rules of the 
game. On the contrary, we are trying to prevent the rules from being 
changed after the game. For what it was is, on November 22, by a 
unanimous opinion of the National Mediation Board, Federal Express was 
an express carrier under the Railway Labor Act. It was not until 
December 15 that we marked up that conference report on the termination 
of the ICC. That is wherein they dropped the two words, ``express 
company.'' That is wherein the ambiguity is, in spite of the expressed 
intent. That is the ambiguity that the Hollings amendment intends be 
corrected.
  I am proud, because we have used that device ad infinitum here this 
particular week in the adoption of six appropriations bills. And 
matters included in those bills were never in the House, never in the 
Senate, included for the first time, and we voted overwhelmingly for 
them. So do not come with procedure and technicality.
  Not a special interest in the sense of giving a corporation something 
they never had. A special interest in the light of the truth. The truth 
is a special interest of the Senator from South Carolina. It is a 
matter of honor and conscience. When we found this mistake was made on 
our watch, we wanted to make every reasonable effort to make sure it 
was corrected.
  Don't give me about hearings. The mistake was made without any 
hearings, without any discussion, without any knowledge. So we need not 
have any hearings or knowledge now. However, we did have knowledge. We 
did argue it in the conference. We voted 8 to 2 on a 4-to-1 vote to 
include it. It passed the House, and has been ready to pass the Senate 
since the beginning of the week, except for the motion to postpone, the 
requirement of the reading of the bill, for all of these machinations 
where they say they are not for filibuster and are engaging in a 
filibuster.
  That is not the matter of an issue never litigated. The Teamster case 
in 1993 which I referred to in the Record stated that it had nothing to 
do with Federal Express, but in a unanimous opinion by the National 
Labor Relations Board, an opinion by the chairman stating that the 
United Parcel Service has 92 percent of their packages delivered on the 
ground, did not qualify, in contrast, as Federal Express has since its 
initiation or beginning in 1973.
  On the contrary, it is entirely different, quoting the Teamster 
lawyer, ``As night and day.'' But they come with the oozing argument, 
trying to get the foot in that door--what is the matter; United Parcel 
Service operates under the rules, why cannot Federal Express? Federal 
Express is operating under the rules. It has operated under the rules. 
There is no court decision other then holding it should operate under 
the rules of the Railway Labor Act.
  Yet, my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts continues to say 
again and again and again there is no court decision finding that 
Federal Express is an express company to operate under the Railway 
Labor Act. He could not show me one decision when I asked. I asked for 
the grounds. Where is the decision that he finds otherwise? It is not 
an issue unstudied.
  We formed the Dunlop Commission here at the beginning of the year 
under the former Secretary of Labor under President Carter, and that 
commission found that the provisions of the Railway Labor Act should 
not be changed. I emphasize the fact that Mr. Doug Fraser, former 
president of the United Auto Workers, was a member of that commission.
  Now, Mr. President, there is no reason to waste the time of the 
Senate here about Federal Express being antilabor. We know Howard 
Baker, the former majority leader, is not antilabor. We know George 
Mitchell, former majority leader on this side of the aisle, is not 
antilabor. They are both on the board. I put in more good Government 
awards for recognition for Federal Express than you could possibly 
imagine--continuous--over the years.
  In ``the 100 Best Companies To Work for in America,'' they rated at 
the top in every respect for workers' rights, good housekeeping, for 
working men. Who is the best company for working women? They won that. 
For minorities, for Hispanics, in any particular regard, you find 
Federal Express is diligent, working, growing, and paying.
  I finally have to put in, when we heard we had not had a pay raise; 
to the contrary, for the past 8 years, all Federal Express workers, 
including 30,000 couriers--not including their board members, but 
including 30,000 couriers--all have received an average of 6.5 percent 
over the past 8 years or over a 50-percent increase in their wages. 
That is the fact. No use to come out here and slam and paste antiworker 
signs with a big old Federal Express truck on them and begin a diatribe 
against the Republican Party. That is the worst performance I have ever 
seen.
  I yield 5 or 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. First of all, I want to thank very much the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina for letting me proceed.
  I ask that I might proceed for 8 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________