Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we go into a quorum, if I could just respond to the distinguished majority leader. I guess I begin by saying, here we go again. Once again, the Republicans have put together a package that they know will go nowhere. We have one of two choices here. We can pass legislation, or we can play games. If this package is good, let us get a little bit more elaborate, more inventive. How about adding campaign finance reform? Why not add MFN for China? Let us add the budget. How about a peace treaty? There may be something in there we could deal with as well. Let us put it all in and pass it in one vote. That seems to be the practice around here these days: Load it up, no amendments, no debate and that is it. ``We're telling you, you have to do it this way or there's not going to be anything at all.'' Mr. President, that is unacceptable. They would not have stood for it 2 years ago and we cannot stand for it now. We have suggested a way with which to resolve our outstanding differences here procedurally. We ought to have an up-or-down vote on minimum wage. We are prepared to have a good debate about the TEAM Act, and I want to touch on that in just a minute. We are prepared to have a debate about gas taxes, but we want to make absolutely certain that the benefit goes to the consumer, and if we cannot figure out a way to do that, then maybe we should not do it at all. It seems to me that if we cannot guarantee the consumer is going to benefit--and there is a pretty good possibility that they will not benefit if you read the papers again this morning--then we will not be providing the relief we claim to be providing in this proposal. We can lash out against the press, we can lash out against labor if we want to, but the fact is the arguments ought to be debated and we ought to make some decisions. We ought to have some understanding of whether or not this is going to work before we do it. That is really what the amendment process is all about, to have a good-faith debate and some opportunities to discuss these important matters. The distinguished majority leader noted that he has had to file cloture a few times. Well, I must say, when you load up the tree and deny opportunities for Democrats to have votes on amendments that we care about, I really do not know what option we have. We are not trying to prevent legislation from being considered. In fact, in the last week, there were two examples where we worked through our differences as soon as we were allowed to offer amendments. The immigration bill and the Presidio bill both passed because we wanted to work with the majority to pass them. We did not want to hold up those bills. But we wanted the right to offer amendments. And that is true, again. We have no desire to hold up the gas tax bill. We will have some good debate about it. We want to get this minimum wage issue behind us. We have a whole agenda. We have not talked yet about pensions, and we are going to talk a lot more about pensions in the balance of this year. We have not talked about losing jobs overseas, an amendment the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is talking about. We want to do a little bit of that. And if we are not resolved on this health care bill pretty soon, we are going to be bringing that up in the form of an amendment. So we will have a lot of action agenda items, a lot of issues we care deeply about that we want to offer and have a good debate about. Now, as to the TEAM Act, let me just say, Mr. President, I listened carefully to the majority leader. He said all we want is the right for employers and employees to be able to talk together. If that is all they want, they ought to be satisfied with current law. Ninety-six percent of large companies today have employee involvement programs. Seventy-five percent of all workplaces already have programs where employers and employees work together, and guess what? The only issues on which they cannot make agreements with employees are mandatory bargaining issues such as hours and wages. Furthermore, if they violate what the National Labor Relations Board and the law requires with regard to what is legitimate consultation and what is actual negotiations with labor on issues involving pensions or security issues or work issues or wages, there is no penalty, there is no penalty at all. They must only disband the committee that has violated the law. So workers are encouraged to work through their problems with employees through the arrangements that are set up right now under current law. What the Republicans want to do is roll back 60 years of labor law. They want to be able to allow companies to set up rump organizations to negotiate with themselves. It is like the father asking the son-in-law to negotiate on behalf of the employees and to come up with a plan the employees are supposed to accept as fact in that workplace. That is unacceptable. But we ought to have a debate about it. We ought to decide whether or not we want to roll back 60 years of labor law. This may be one of the most antiworker Congresses we have seen in decades--blocking an increase in the minimum wage, fighting health care, and now rolling back labor law that protects workers. We are not in any way, shape or form opposed to good discussions and good negotiations and good opportunities for employers and employees to work out their differences. That should be a fact. It is a fact in 96 percent of large corporations. But we will not tolerate rump organizations negotiating with companies in the name of labor and calling that some advancement in the workplace. So, Mr. President, we ought to have an opportunity to debate it. We ought to have an opportunity to offer amendments. We ought to have some up-or-down votes. That is what the Senate is made for. That is what we have always done. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. That is all we want to do here. We want to have an opportunity to debate the issue, to offer amendments to provide assurance to the consumer and taxpayer that we are simply not asking the taxpayers to bail out the oil companies with a $4 billion bailout this year. That is what it could mean if we are not careful about how this is handled. Everybody ought to understand that if we do not have the assurance, and it is going to take more than a study to give us that assurance, if we do not have the assurance, what this means. I heard the majority leader talk about power and contributions, I do not know what power and contribution connections there may be with the gas tax, but I will tell you this, that it is a $4 billion bailout this country cannot afford if, indeed, the result of repeal of the gas tax is $4 billion in additional profits for the oil companies. We ought to work through this, and if we can do that, I am sure there is not going to be a problem with regard to providing that assurance to the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. That is how we do things around here. We provide opportunities for Senators to offer to bills amendments that are legitimate questions of public policy. That is all we are suggesting here. That is why we offered the minimum wage in the first place. When we first offered it, we said, ``Look, we prefer to have the independent freestanding vote.'' If we cannot do that, obviously, we will offer it as an amendment. If we start packaging all these disparate issues together, then I think it is fair to ask why not add campaign finance reform and MFN for China and a whole range of other things we might want to debate some time this year. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am so blessed that the Senator from Mississippi asked the question. I was hoping that one of my colleagues would ask it, because obviously it is an issue that has come up before. We made a very calculated decision in the beginning of the last Congress that we were not going to be able to do both health care and the minimum wage. Obviously, if we could have done both and had the agreement of our Republican colleagues to do both, we would very much have wanted to be able to do that. But we decided that at best--at best--we were going to be able to pass a bill that does a lot more than 90 cents for the American worker. So what we decided to do--and people could accuse us of being conservative here and not wanting to do both--but what we decided to do, in a conservative approach to our agenda, was to say, ``Look, we'll take this one step at a time. Let's pass health care. Let's find a way to deal with health care that will affect every one of our workers in a monetary, as well as a personal way.'' That is what we decided to do. Unfortunately, because of the opposition of our colleagues on the other side, we could not even pass benefits for our workers for health care in the last Congress. So we are relegated now to the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill, and we may not even pass that, given the insistence by some on the other side to add unrelated and very devastating provisions to this bill that would deny the American worker some opportunity for benefit. So that is the answer to my colleague and good friend from Mississippi. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. A bill is filed, a bill is proposed; the amendment tree is completely filled; and cloture is filed. It is a pattern now that has been the practice here for the last several weeks.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. Let me just say that there is this perception sometimes created by some of our colleagues on the other side that efforts to protect workers somehow automatically position you against business. We ought to be for business, probusiness, just as this administration has shown itself to be with so many of its policies. Business has never had a better 3-year period than they have had in the last 3 years. We have seen growth in this economy. The stock market has boomed to levels we never dreamed of a couple of years ago. Export sales are up. Everything is going exceedingly well. This economy is as strong as it has been almost in my lifetime. So this administration has been probusiness. There are a lot of things we have proposed that are probusiness, but we ought to say probusiness also ought to mean proworker, making sure that not only corporate executives benefit from this wonderful growth in the economy, but the workers do, too: that the workers have a chance to benefit, whether it is in health care, a good paycheck, or retirement security. Those kinds of things ought to be part of the overall economic agenda here so that we do not see the stratification within our economy that we are seeing right now. Be probusiness and proworker. If we do that, I think we can look forward to a lot stronger economy and a lot more blessings for all the American people than we have had in the last couple of years.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct, that is the effect.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have not made a lot of progress in the last several hours, and I am hopeful that at some point today we can reach an agreement. The current situation would require a vote on three separate provisions of the same amendment to a bill that is now pending, the Travel Office reimbursement legislation. We have indicated that that is unacceptable to us. Earlier today, at a press conference, the distinguished majority leader, when asked if he would agree to consideration of three separate bills, answered, ``If we can get an agreement to vote on three separate bills, that's one thing. I've already given that agreement to have three separate bills.'' As I understand it now, that may not be Senator Dole's exact intent. But I must tell you that if it is, indeed, his position to accept consideration of three separate bills, then, indeed, we would be ready this afternoon to agree; we would allow a vote on the gas tax reduction and relevant amendments; a vote on the minimum wage and amendments that are relevant; and a vote on the TEAM Act with relevant amendments. That seems to me to be exactly what we have been proposing now for several days. If we can do that, we could reach an agreement by 4:45 this afternoon. So I am very hopeful that we are getting closer together, that we can find a way to resolve this impasse. Three separate bills, as the majority leader suggested earlier today, would do that, would give us that opportunity, and I am hopeful that we can talk in good faith and find a way to determine the sequencing and ultimately come to some conclusion on this legislation. Three separate bills with relevant amendments, perhaps with a reasonable time limit, is acceptable to us, and we will take it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just say one other thing that I meant to add, the distinguished majority leader this morning said that he took good notes from his predecessor, the majority leader in the 103d Congress, George Mitchell. I know he is a great note taker, and I do not deny that he probably, like all of us, learned from past experience. However, we went back in the 103d Congress just to try to find an example or an instance when the majority filled the parliamentary tree, filled the tree in every way, to preclude the minority from having an opportunity to offer an amendment. We could not find 10, we could not find 5, we could not find 1 instance where the majority so dominated the political tree--it is a political tree in this case--the parliamentary tree so as not to allow the minority the opportunity to offer any amendments. It is not something the majority did in the past. Even in the most troubling circumstances, the minority had an opportunity to offer an amendment. We had to offer second degrees, and we did. We had to come up with counter strategies, and we did. We never filled the tree and filed cloture and precluded the minority from even having the opportunity to offer an amendment. Having looked at the record from at least that perspective, I do not find an example that could be called a precedent for what is happening right now.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will not belabor this. Let me just say that I think both sides have made their position very clear. The majority leader wants to combine the TEAM Act, the minimum wage, and the Travel Office bill all in one package, in addition, of course, to the gas tax reduction. In one package we would combine all of these things. I must say I do not know that we will ever be able to resolve this until we can find a way to allow separate bills to be considered. The problem we have is, we cannot offer amendments. That is the essence of it. We cannot offer amendments to these. We may ultimately have a TEAM Act of our own. We may have a substitute of our own to the gas tax reduction proposal. We may have a lot of amendments that are very relevant to this bill that we are precluded from offering under this arrangement. I have had a very productive and very good relationship with the leader over many months now. I am hopeful that we can find a way through this and see if we cannot resolve it. I do not see a way to resolve it until we can finalize some understanding about the opportunity that we must have to offer amendments to bills that we care deeply about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Go ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. We would offer three separate bills with amendments. We could agree to a time limit, but three separate bills with amendments. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will offer a unanimous-consent agreement to do what I understand the majority leader proposed earlier--later than that particular offer; later on in the morning--that we have three separate bills, and have votes and amendments to those three separate bills. I offer that as a unanimous-consent agreement at this time with amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the distinguished majority leader's remarks in this regard. The bill is a good one. It probably will enjoy broad bipartisan support. We do have amendments that our colleagues on this side of the aisle would like to be able to offer. So given the fact that they need to have that right, I object at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader would yield, I will clarify, it is not our intention to offer the minimum wage on this particular bill.