Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts has completed, then I have completed.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as others have noted, this is a season when we are used to witnessing the departure of some of our colleagues who have chosen to end their careers here in the Senate to pursue other interests. And again, as others have noted, this particular iteration of these departures is notable, not only because of the numbers of our friends who are going on to other pursuits, but more importantly because of the quality of their contributions while they were here, which we now face doing without. Our departing colleagues have distinguished themselves as statesmen and patriots, one and all. But even among giants, there are always those who stand even a little taller. Claiborne Pell has devoted much of his life in service to his Nation--4 years in the Coast Guard in World War II; 23 years in the Coast Guard Reserve; 7 years as a foreign service officer in Europe following World War II; all in addition to his remarkable 36 years of service to Rhode Island and this Nation as a U.S. Senator. In these historic 36 years, which have included some of our Nation's greatest and most contentious challenges, Claiborne Pell has graced these Halls and the debates and legislative struggles therein, with reasoned insight, deft statesmanship, and calming counsel. In this body when even Will Rogers might, from time to time, have discovered the exception, Claiborne Pell served with dignity, garnering the respect and affection of us all. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his example, not only of service to his Nation, but for his dignity and demeanor in the conduct of that service. This body and this Nation will miss him. We wish him and his charming wife, Nuala, the very best.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am sad when thinking of the Senate's impending loss of so many Members, especially of Senator Mark Hatfield. Senator Hatfield and I have been friends since 1958, when we both were young Governors of our respective States. Mark Hatfield is smart, tough, and independent and an unfailing gentleman. Although we do not agree on every issue, I know that when Mark Hatfield votes he votes with his conscience. A man of conviction is a man of quality and as one, Senator Mark Hatfield transcends all partnership. It has been a pleasure and an honor to work with Senator Hatfield. Although we are from opposite sides of the aisle and the country, we have many shared interests, including Coastal Zone Management and NOAA, that agency so essential to the well-being of Oregon, South Carolina, and other coastal States. However, Senator Hatfield's attention extends beyond the general populace to those who are most vulnerable and often lacking a strong voice. Time and again, Mark Hatfield has put himself on the line in the fight for economic and social justice, often at political risk. He is willing to take a stand on the hard issues. One program to benefit under his watch is the Legal Services Corporation, an organization which provides legal counsel to the indigent. Oregon and the Nation is losing a valuable public servant and statesman in Senator Mark Hatfield. He and his lovely wife, Antoinette, will be missed by all. We wish them the very best as they return to the State they love so well.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the South's great men and one of the Nation's great legislators, Senator J. Bennett Johnston. Back in January 1995, when Senator Johnston announced he would not seek a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, I thought then that we were about to lose a master of the legislative process and a true gentleman. Whether working on the Naiton's energy policy or working to address the nagging problem of nuclear waste storage, you could count on Senator Johnston, a master negotiator, to solve all but the most contentious problems before they reached the public eye. You could bet your boots that Bennett Johnston would not take an issue to the floor until he had those problems solved or knew the issue so well that no Senator could challenge him on the facts. As my colleagues know, he knows more than all of us combined about the intricacies and complex details of every energy issue, even the most complex and technical. As chairman or ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Johnston has placed his stamp on Louisiana and the Nation. I remember his dogged determination in passing the National Energy Security Act, a major revamping of the Nation's energy policy. Time and time again, he defeated attempts to kill the legislation and shepherded the bill into law. I also remember his work on an issue which is of great importance to my State--that of nuclear waste disposal. Bennett Johnston has carried this program almost single handedly, and, although we still have a ways to travel before putting this problem to bed, without Senator Johnston's work, we would be light years away from a solution. For all this, the people of Louisiana and the Nation are grateful. I think the thing which the Senate will miss most is Senator Johnston's ability to solve the most contentious problems in a congenial manner. In that sense, he reflects the best of the South-- that of being a gentleman. No matter how heated the debate or controversial the issue, Senator Johnston had a smile on his face and treated his opponent with respect. In today's political climate, it is this attitude which we will miss most. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Johnston amassed a long list of accomplishments during his career in the Senate. A career which began 24 years ago, and, if he had chosen to pursue reelection, could have continued indefinitely. When Senator Johnston announced to the Senate that he was leaving, he quoted the great Senator Russell M. Long of Louisiana who said, ``It is important to retire as a champ, and to leave the stage when the crowd still likes your singing.'' Mr. President, the Senate still likes Senator Johnston's singing, and I hate to see him exit the stage. As Senator Johnston leaves, I congratultate him for all his successes and wish him and his charming wife Mary the best. We will miss them.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, under the crunch of time, particularly during yesterday, we did not get an opportunity to recognize the comments of the distinguished Presiding Officer. I had the distinct privilege of serving with Wallace Bennett, of Utah. There is certainly no finer gentleman, certainly no finer Senator. We lived in the same neighborhood and exchanged greetings over the weekends, and those kinds of things. I was powerfully interested, because I do remember the FAA bill at that particular time, as the distinguished Senator from Alaska recalls, when we worked on this with Senator Magnuson and others. This is a good bill. I acknowledge the contribution that the now-Senator Bennett of Utah, the Presiding Officer, made to that legislation in its formative days. Hopefully, after tomorrow's vote, we can make gains in continuing to beef up air service, particularly in the area of safety. I also did not get an opportunity to thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. He and I have worked on this over the years. And I particularly am thankful for the leadership of the Senator from Arizona, John McCain. Senator McCain has been like a tiger for a couple of years, trying to bring some changes to the Federal Aviation Administration. I have come all the way around in my own mind to thinking in terms of a separate Federal Aviation Administration, a separate board, outside the department, because I am sure it would receive better attention and I am sure it would receive better performance. The Presiding Officer was talking about John Volpe. I remember when John Volpe came on as the Secretary of Transportation. He and I had both served as Governors together. A lot of people have been working on this for a long time. Let me get right to the point here with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, who gets really far afield talking about blackmail, sticking it to them, power grab and all of that. He asked, why is it important? It is very important to this Senator. None other than Mark Twain said, years ago, that the truth was such an important item, it should be used very sparingly. The truth is that we made a mistake. Why is it important? It is a matter of honor. I am trying my dead level best to correct the mistake. It was on our watch last December. I was the ranking member, and the facts should be stated and the truth given accurately. The Senator from Wisconsin said when it was voted for, the provision was in it--absolutely false. The language ``express company'' was in the Interstate Commerce Act when we voted for the termination act, and thereafter, the staff was writing it up and those kinds of things, they thought the term ``express company'' was not necessary and deleted that phrase. So it was a drafting error made. So, when they say it was dropped out and that this amendment is part of a broader agenda, this Senator says: part of the contract with America? Come on. Everybody back home would break out laughing if they heard. I have been talking against that contract for 4 years now. I did not think much of it as politics. It was all applesauce: Get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, get rid of the Department of Energy, repeal--get rid of public television, get rid of the Park Service--just get rid of it all? Come on. This is not any part of the contract. It is part of my particular watch, and I am going to get it corrected. Do not give me this stuff about procedure now. They said, back in my law school days, if you have the law you argue the law as strongly as you can. If you have the facts with you, you argue the facts. And if you do not have the facts or the law, you beat on the desk, and yell about procedure. And that is what we are listening to. ``It was in the House bill, it was not in the Senate bill''--heavens above, we passed an omnibus appropriations and continuing resolution earlier this week with hardly a dissenting vote. I would think one-third of it was not in there before or had ever been seen or whatever else. I know the new things that were put in, we were glad to get them in. That is the nature of the process. Any of that, ``sneaking around, pulling the rug out, sticking it to them, blackmail''--that is tommyrot and they know it. They are the ones trying to pull the rug out because they continually falsely report the situation. I read again the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts, talking about that Philadelphia case: ``Federal Express challenged the petition, arguing the entire company, including its truck drivers, is covered by the Railway Labor Act and not the Labor Relations Act, and therefore the bargaining unit for its truck drivers must be nationwide. The board has not yet decided the issue.'' Absolutely false. The board decided the issue on November 22 of last year. In Re: Federal Express, 23 NMB, No. 13. And I quote what they decided unanimously: The board is of the opinion that Federal Express Corporation and all its employees sought by the UAW's petition are subject to the Railway Labor Act. But the Senator from Massachusetts says--``a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still''--and I quote yesterday again, ``The Senator from South Carolina still cannot show where Federal Express is an express company under the Railway Labor Act.'' I just did. That is one of the most recent decisions. I laid it in the Record and enumerated some 31 decisions. Maybe we ought to ask it in reverse. Find me a single decision since 1973, when Federal Express went in business, in which it was not held to be an express company under the RLA. It has always been held that it is under the Railway Labor Act. Mr. President, let me move on. Right here they say you are not playing fair, that they are playing by the rules of the game. We are trying a new case here that we have not had a hearing on or anything, they say--it makes me go to the Record. They say the United Parcel Service has so many planes and trucks, Federal Express has so many planes and trucks, United Parcel Service plays by the rules and Federal Express ought to play by the rules. Oh, boy, that has been raised by the best of the best lawyers. There is not any question that the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers both have the best of the best lawyers. In the Board case: United Parcel Service, Timothy J. Gallagher and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Committee intervenor, decision and order of August 25 of last year by Chairman Gould and members Stephens, Browning, Cohen and Truesdale, and I quote: Approximately 92 percent of the packages picked up, processed and delivered by the respondent travel exclusively by ground. Ninety-two percent; 85 percent of Federal Express travels by air, and that case, interestingly, appeared in an argument made by the teamster attorney on May 9, 1996, in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. United Parcel Service petition, National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Muldolf, the lawyer, was answering a question. Mr. Muldolf: Well, the case now pending before the NLRB is a FedEx case which has been referred back. There has not been a decision there, but if you take the NLRB's decision in UPS and you take the NMB's advisory opinion in Federal Express, you see--and I can't tell you what the NLRB is going to do-- these companies are like night and day. Ninety-two percent on the ground, 15 percent on the ground-- That is the language of their own lawyer. But you get the politician lawyers who appear on the floor of the Senate and they want to try a different case. I don't know if they have ever been in the courtroom before. This Senator has made a living at it. We are not going to let them get by with this bum's rush, because exactly what they accuse me of--inserting this language, of pulling the rug and sticking it to them--is exactly what they are trying. They know when they say ``litigation pending'' that there is none. The NLRB has been sitting on the finding of the National Mediation Board since last November. I have searched the record, and in the last 50 years of 100 cases where the National Mediation Board has given its opinion, the NLRB has yet to reverse it. So they know it is a given. If they tried to rule otherwise, it would be appealed and reversed right away. So there is nothing pending. But what they are trying to do is come in after the rules of the game, after November 22, after the full hearing over a 5-year period. It wasn't started until the end of 1990, the first part of 1991. After 5 years and with all the lawyers, they were unanimously ruled against, and they try now to change the rule by saying, ``Oh, they made that error. We can get this organized, and we can get the votes, we can control it.'' They have been blocking correcting this mistake every way they can. Yes, they blocked it in the Appropriations Committee because I wasn't prepared. I thought an honest error would be respected by Senators as gentlemen. I went in, explained exactly what happened. We called the roll, and it was 10 to 10. I hadn't even bothered to get the proxies. However, later on, we did include it in the conference report. It has been debated, affirmed in the House by a rollcall vote. We are ready to vote now, and they are claiming we are filibustering. It reminds me, I say to the Senator, of a young lad who went to the psychiatrist, and she drew a line on the board and said, ``What do you think of?'' The young lad said, ``Sex.'' She drew some crosses. He said, ``Sex.'' She drew circles. He said, ``Sex.'' She said, ``Young man, you're the most oversexed, depraved person I've ever seen.'' ``Doctor, me depraved?'' he said. ``You're the one drawing the dirty pictures.'' Come on. Are we doing the filibustering? We are ready to vote, have been ready to vote. They are the ones who moved to postpone. I haven't heard that motion in the 30 years I have been here; never heard it. But I heard it from the Senator from Massachusetts for the first time. Then they wanted to read the bill. And they say we are the ones filibustering? Why is it important? Because the truth is important. It was not part of the bill when it left the Senate. It was not a part of the bill when it left the House. We know it wasn't in there. Look at what we voted on on Monday. I can give you ad nauseam a list of things that were never in the House, never in the Senate that appeared there. They say this is ``one more blow to the working people.'' It is not any blow to the working people. I am not engaged in that kind of work. I am not forestalling the entire Congress for a broader agenda. I could comment further but in the interest of time let me go down to a couple of other things. The intent. Oh, yes, the Congressional Research Service. The comment was made he was demeaned, the lawyer. If I could get him, I would wring his neck. I couldn't demean him enough. Why? Because he was asked about this provision and said it was put in intentionally, when he knows otherwise. He failed and refused to quote the intent of the Congress. This is in the conference report, Mr. Shuster, of the committee of conference, submitted the following report: The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act. With the deleted language, that is the ambiguity we are trying to clarify. But when you look for intent, and we told them about it, the CRS letter continually disregards the intent with this letter to the Members. I can't get to all the Members and explain this. They have labor reps running all around. They say, ``Stay home, they have to get the 60 votes.'' It is so hard, as Twain says, to use the truth. It's so hard to develop it around this particular issue. There has been an onslaught, Mr. President, against the company. I saw a part of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts' press conference on TV. By the time I saw it, it was cut, but it was partially on C-SPAN that ``it was a horrible company; they hadn't given a pay raise in 7 years,'' the FedEx employee was saying. I called, and we will get it in the Record. They have had, I was told, over the last 8 years, each year an average of 6.5 percent, for a total of a 50 percent wage increase. I said that very carefully because that is exactly what I was told, and I am going to get a copy of it. Mr. President, we have in this book: ``The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America'' with special recognition in the following categories: One of the best 10 overall companies; one of the 10 best for job security; one of the 10 best for women; one of the 10 best for minorities; one of the 12 best with significant employee ownership; one of the 10 best training programs. We have the Minority Business Council; the Hispanic Council; the Good Housekeeping magazine's 69 top companies for working mothers, and on and on and on. This book--we wouldn't want to put the book in the Record --is ``The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America,'' by Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz. But when you get an outstanding company, and they are playing by the rules, and you get the bum's rush as a result of a drafting error, after the conference, that we have been trying to correct, and then they give you all this procedure and everything else like we are doing the sneaking--we have done nothing here in this particular provision in the FAA Reauthorization Act but put the parties back exactly where they were, which was the intent. None of the rights or responsibilities were either contracted or expanded for employees or employers. We have not had hearings. When they talk about hearings, there was not any hearing when this was deleted, there was not any statement made. I cannot find--I said, ``Where is the Senator, where is the Congressman who said, `I wanted this. I put it in. I discussed it. I talked about it.'?'' They cannot find one of 535; yet we get accused of blackmail. I never heard of such outrageous fraud going on here trying to change the entire picture of what really is the case with respect to this particular matter. Mr. President, one more time I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts of the National Mediation Board's opinion in re Federal Express case No. 4-RC-17698.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This goes into every detail that was raised. Because when you finally corner them one place, they squirt out like quicksilver in the palm of your hand, talking about integrally related tests and so forth. All of that was considered in this particular decision. Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, a letter to the majority leader and the Speaker, where we had to hear from certain Members on yesterday's debate, signed by Bud Shuster, chairman; Susan Molinari; chairman of the Railroad Subcommittee. And it is not you, Hollings, saying it was a mistake. Anybody intimately connected will not say otherwise, and has not said otherwise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there are some other things to be touched upon as we move through this. I think one of the important things is the particular charge that they come bringing about something being unfair and not according to the rules, or whatever else. I reiterate as positively, as affirmatively as I can, ever since 1973, when the Federal Express Co. was organized, it has been under the Railway Labor Act, the Railway Labor Act. All of its matters, I am finding out as a lawyer, are automatically referred by the NLRB to the National Mediation Board. The matter that is now being discussed, what is being ``fair'' and ``unfair'' and those kinds of things, and ``Why can't we change that?'' it could be if we had some hearings, if we had it brought before the Congress. But the best of the best has just served on what we call the Dunlop Commission. When President Clinton came to town, he got the former Secretary of Labor under Gerald Ford, President Ford, and said, study and see what needs to be done under labor, the labor statutes. None other than Doug Fraser, the former president of the United Auto Workers, served on that commission. And that commission determined that the Railway Labor Act should not be modified. We can be ready to argue that and go in length on it. But I think when you find the UAW lawyer, and they know about this decision of the Mediation Board that I already put in the record, when you find a Teamster lawyer, in his arguments before the circuit court, when you find the Dunlop Commission--if we had just started this thing, we would have weighted support by all the particular studies and lawyers who have been in the particular field. But like the sheep dog that had tasted blood, when they saw this particular mistake, they went to gobble up the entire flock. They said, ``We can do it. All we need to do is have everyone anxious to go home, and we'll just show them, and we'll move to postpone. We'll say, `Read the conference report. Read it.''' And then after reading it for 2 days--the distinguished Senator said he did not know why we were here for 2 days. The 2 days is so the union crowd can work around the clock. I cannot do any work when I am on the floor trying to defend the truth. Yet we are getting blamed for blackmail and that kind of thing. I think it is totally out of character with the service here in this particular body. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I just got through speaking.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Our time on this side.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like in on this discussion.

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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Ten minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

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.

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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague from Alaska. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Just a minute.

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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

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, ``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. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have already spoken and put in the Record various praiseworthy notes of my association over the years with these outstanding Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who are leaving us. None have been closer to me, on the one hand, over on this side than Howell Heflin of Alabama. We have been in each other's States several times. I have gotten to know him and his distinguished wife, Mike--Elizabeth, I think, is her full name, if I am not mistaken. He is what someone would call a Senator's Senator. He had to serve in the role as chairman of our Ethics Committee. You can see the sensitivity of a Senator's Senator in the regard in any kind of local matter. I see they all have picked up the same thing I thought, or I picked up what they thought, relative to being the peanut Senator. The agricultural community in Alabama is going to be missing in representation, to a degree, because no one really can replace Howell Heflin. We in the law field otherwise are going to be penalized because he, as a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, has had profound judicial knowledge and also judicial feel for the particular statutes and the issues before this particular body. So I just cap it off by saying that this Senator is going to miss his humor. He has always had a good way of taking these complex human problems and issues and bringing them right down to the ground with some humorous story about someone he remembered back down in Alabama. Senator Nancy Kassebaum We are fortunate in South Carolina to have the grandchildren of Nancy Kassebaum. I have always admired her for what the Senator from Rhode Island just said. She is a woman of steel, who makes up her own mind and takes the very difficult stands for her politically, because sometimes her very colleagues and others around may be voting otherwise. But you can bet your boots Senator Kassebaum of Kansas has studied, from all angles, a particular problem and made her own judgment as to what is fair and right in the interest of the people. With respect to our friend, Bill Cohen, he is the one literate Senator that we have. I envy him, because in the evenings when we would be attending the various parties and receptions for the different groups visiting from your home State, and otherwise, we would always miss Bill. You would find out Bill is writing another book, reading some important document, or something else. We have read and not only heard his poetry and his books, but his sum-up talk here. Just this past week, I am getting a copy of that one for the good of the Senate and getting it printed, because I think it more or less sums up what has been occurring here in Government and politics, particularly in the U.S. Senate, good and bad, over the past 20-some years. We are going to miss him most of all, in my opinion. Senator Sam Nunn Mr. President, My neighbor is Sam Nunn. No one knows the defense budget better. No one is more conscientious about the Nation's security. No one has studied, in depth, the disarmament problem, and no one has worked to solve these particular problems, and no one has a greater respect for integrity amongst his colleagues than Sam Nunn of Georgia. Senator David Pryor Mr. President, I now want to mention my friend, David Pryor. I hope we can get him back here by morning. As we all know, his wonderful son has been under surgery down in Texas. And, of course, that is his first obligation, and we all understand that. We need every vote we can possibly get, but the most popular, obviously--and everybody will agree--was David Pryor's, because Pryor always had a good word for everyone, and he centered on those things, such as the taxpayers' relief from the IRS, and something about the drug companies, or whatever it was. He went into it and stuck with it and then listened to the other Senators with respect to their particular interests. That is the value of service in the U.S. Senate--education. We are supposed to learn. And that is why I have always stayed in politics, because I learn something new every day. I have also learned when to hush when the hour is past 6 o'clock and staff is looking at me like an aberration. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.