Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would respectfully disagree with the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee; there is a problem. And while there may be only 1 case out of 1,000 perhaps that is a problem, it has, as I have said earlier, a chilling effect. And the example I gave this afternoon was of the Polaroid decision which was in June and was I think an enormous problem and an example of the effect and influence on everyone. Point of inquiry. How much time is remaining for my amendment, or on my side?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Vermont, who has been a stalwart supporter of this legislation, for putting it in a historical perspective that helps us understand why it is important for us today, and relevant, to consider the innovations that would help us establish an environment in the workplace that will lend it great creativity. Another stalwart supporter who has done much to enhance this legislation and work with the business community is the Senator from Missouri. I yield him as much time as he desires from the Kassebaum amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Missouri for a very sincere and eloquent statement on a subject that he knows a great deal about. Senator Ashcroft as both a Governor of Missouri and a Senator from Missouri has spent a great deal of time, as he mentioned, working in different companies around the State. He knows this issue well. He feels very passionately and is dedicated to it. I value greatly his help with this legislation. Amendment No. 4438 (Purpose: To provide for a substitute amendment)

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the senior Senator from Virginia that amount of time plus any leader time he would desire.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Any amount of leader time----

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The Senator from Virginia desires. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a moment about the full bill, the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, which has been called the TEAM Act, and why I think this is an important piece of legislation. It is important because it improves the quality of life for workers on the job as well as the quality and productivity of American firms competing in the global marketplace. We are in a new era, Mr. President, and because of global competition I think we need to look at new and innovative ways in which we can encourage a cooperative spirit in the workplace. This is why I think this legislation is important and why I hope my colleagues will support this with a strong vote. The Senate has already spent a considerable period of time debating the TEAM Act. As I stated earlier in that debate, it responds to a series of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board that cast doubt on the legality of employee involvement programs, particularly in nonunion settings. For instance, just last December, the board invalidated an employee involvement program in my own State of Kansas. A committee of workers and managers at Dillon's stores in Wichita, Newton, and Wellington, KS, met quarterly to discuss workplace issues and minutes of the meetings were then distributed to all employees. Employee representatives served voluntarily on the committee for 1-year terms and were elected by secret ballot. Over the course of 7 years, the committee discussed such issues as whether the company would begin providing day care services for workers; whether Dillon's stores would begin providing a gym for workers to exercise in; whether better lifting equipment could be used for stocking shelves; whether the no-smoking lounge could be better maintained and a total no-smoking policy be implemented; and whether safety goggles could be provided for bakery employees. These commonsense suggestions, Mr. President, are precisely the type of contributions that we need to promote. It is the type of discussions regarding the environment that both employees and employers are involved in that I think just make good sense for us today. There is nothing devious about this. This is not an attempt to try to diminish the unions. These are, however, issues that are of importance to every employee, and they are issues which the employers should care about as well. Supervisors might not be focused on day care or new ways to stock shelves or the need for safety goggles, but these are the issues of concern for workers. Regrettably, the National Labor Relations Board said that discussing these issues in worker management committees violated Federal labor law. Mr. President, I continue to be surprised by the level of opposition that some Members of the Senate express toward employee involvement. Quite simply, the TEAM Act removes the barriers in Federal labor law that prevent workers and supervisors from meeting in committees to discuss workplace issues. I thought I might take a moment just to read the language of the TEAM Act, since I think it is very straightforward. The bill states that it shall not be illegal for an employer: * * * to establish, assist, maintain or participate in any organization or entity of any kind, in which employees participate to address matters of mutual interest (including issues of quality, productivity and efficiency) and which does not have, claim or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements under this Act with the employer or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any labor organization. This language is clear. It says that Federal labor law will not prevent supervisors and workers from discussing matters of mutual interest. I do not think we need to fear these type of discussions in the workplace. If so, we have already created a hostile environment-- one that is full of dissension, potentially, among employees and between employees and employers. Some opponents of the TEAM Act suggest that workers will be exploited if the TEAM Act becomes law. But I fail to see why these discussions about workplace issues exploit workers. The law seems to be clear that employers in nonunion companies unilaterally can address workplace issues. For instance, in the Dillon's stores that I mentioned a few moments ago, the company could decide on its own to provide safety goggles, to begin day care or to expand a no-smoking policy, but the management probably did not know these issues were important for workers. That is not to say employers should not have known that these issues were important, but as we have seen all too often over the years there is a lack of communication that many of us think often takes place between employers and employees. This legislation is simply designed to encourage communication, and to make sure that there is an understanding that they will not be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the TEAM Act, workers retain the right at any time to select a union to represent them, and firms must recognize and bargain with the union once workers choose that representation. The TEAM Act is clear that employee teams may not ``have, claim or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements.'' This legislation is not a camel's nose under the tent. This is not an effort to have a sham type of union. All these have been accusations that have been made that clearly are not true nor were ever the aim of this legislation. In the 1930's, employers did create company unions to compete with independent unions that workers chose. The employer would then refuse to bargain with the independent union in favor of the company union. Significantly, this practice would be patently illegal under the TEAM Act. Once the workers seek the union the employer must recognize the union as the employee representative. Employers may not use teams to bypass an independent union. I have an amendment to be offered later that will make crystal clear that the TEAM Act does not apply once workers have selected union representation. I have an additional point that I would like to make regarding employee exploitation. During our hearings in the Labor Committee, we heard from workers who participate in employee teams. I think that all the Senators who heard the Labor and Human Resources Committee hearings were impressed with the workers. They are the ones who enjoy teamwork. They are the ones whose ideas are implemented. They are also the ones whose economic future is at stake. As Ms. Molly Dalman, a team member from Donnelly Corp. in Michigan testified: Our goal is to keep each other informed, to produce a high- quality product in the most efficient manner. This helps us to be competitive in the market * * *. I know my job, what I need to do, and how to do it, better than my team leader or any engineer. Therefore, I need to feel as if I have some control in my work area, and by working in teams, I have that control. This is part of the hearing record. It exemplifies what many workers have said to us regarding their relationship in the workplace and why they believe this legislation would benefit them. She concluded: I cannot imagine how any company could function without the active participation and support of all employees from all areas working together. Teamwork promotes a better working environment [and] a better company. I cannot envision [my company] without the support of its teams. Another team member testified that her team dealt with multiskill work design, quality, training, rotation, and overtime guidelines. Not only was the ``product line much better equipped,'' she said, ``to respond quickly to a fast-paced, very sophisticated market,'' but she personally felt a greater degree of job satisfaction and ``just a sense of ownership.'' I think, Mr. President, that her comments exemplify what I feel. This is an important bill--it is one that should not be in any way viewed as something nefarious, something that we are trying to do to undermine the unions. It is designed to address the workplace as it exists today and give the employees a sense of being involved. These workers are not being exploited. Instead, the TEAM Act gives workers the tools they need today, to do an ever better job. We need to harness our human resources, not to silence them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time be equally divided.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to the Senator from North Dakota, because much of what he said echoes my earlier comments. We are both addressing the importance of cooperation in the workplace, and both of us are acknowledging that there is a problem with the law at this point, and there needs to be a clarification regarding the National Labor Relations Act. For a long time, it has been argued that there is no problem with the law--that teams could continue without running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. I think the Senator from North Dakota acknowledges that there needs to be some clarification. However, I am not sure from what was said--and I have not had a chance to read the language of the amendment that has been introduced because it is different than we had thought it was going to be--about what sort of specific guidance he was laying out in his amendment and what he believes are the problems in the TEAM Act itself that cause the disturbance that he believes it would in the workplace. These are things that I hope, Mr. President, we can explore, as we have a chance to address some questions regarding the amendment that was put down by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may respond for a moment, just to assure the Senator from Illinois that I wish I could support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I think there is still some difficulty with it that we need to consider, however. But I want to assure you that the TEAM Act does nothing to change the ability for collective bargaining on wages and hours. This specifically is stated-- that it in no way wants to reinterpret the National Labor Relations Act, and it is not an infringement on that. It is a clarification where actually the chairman said there needs to be a clarification regarding section 882. On the other hand, I want to make clear that he does not support the TEAM Act. But I would like to so ask some questions.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am happy to yield.

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield 10 minutes or such time as the Senator from Vermont would need.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering conforms the TEAM Act to the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last fall. It just basically has three provisions that clarify the TEAM Act. First, the amendment includes health and safety among those issues that may be discussed by teams. The original TEAM Act states that teams may discuss matters of mutual interest, including quality, productivity and efficiency issues. We always intended for teams to be able to discuss health and safety. Nevertheless, we wanted to make explicit that health and safety could be a topic of discussion. The amendment makes this clarification. Second, the amendment specifically limits the TEAM Act's safe harbor to nonunion settings. Despite a construction clause in section 4 of the bill that should have assured organized labor that firms could not use teams to bypass a union, organized labor somehow apparently still believes that teams will undermine unions. That is not the case. Nevertheless, we make it abundantly clear that we do not intend teams to undermine unions and we state in plain English that the TEAM Act's safe harbor only applies to nonunion settings. Finally, the amendment states that teams have equitable participation by workers and managers. The purpose of this provision is to clarify that workers may raise issues for discussion just as managers may raise issues as well. This is not meant to be a rigid formula for participation in the teams. It is simply meant to promote open dialog in teams. Many unionized workplaces suffer from an ``us-versus-them'' attitude, and we do not want teams to suffer the same problem. This has been my concern with the amendment that was offered earlier by the Senator from North Dakota. There is a specificity and a rigidity written into the amendment that does not allow for the flexibility that I think Senator Ashcroft spoke to with much clarity and eloquence. Those are the main provisions of the substitute amendment that I am introducing. For a point of clarification, Mr. President, I ask how much time is left on the Kassebaum amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. On my side?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I appreciate that. I think that the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak again. I yield to him now however much time he wants out of that remaining time that is left. I yield to Senator Jeffords.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the efforts of Senator Jeffords over a long period of time. He has been valuable in committee as well as making a case on the floor. I thank him. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] desires to speak. Until he is here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may just do some housecleaning for the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the stacked votes beginning at 12 noon on Wednesday, there be a period for the transaction of morning business not to exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes of the time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Thomas.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I further ask that at 9 a.m. on Thursday there be a period for the transaction of morning business not to exceed 1 hour, 40 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle or his designee, and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Coverdell.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the chairman of the Finance Committee yielding to me for just a moment to comment on one aspect of the bill. I think the package that has been put together by the Finance Committee under the distinguished leadership of both the chairman and ranking member is an important package. I am particularly pleased that, for example, there has been provision for educational assistance and the orphan drug tax credit. These were expiring credits that have been extended that I think are very important. I am also pleased that the extension of the airway and airport trust fund has been acknowledged, and I would like to speak to the clarification of the application of ERISA to insurance company general accounts. This has also been included in the managers' package, and I am not sure that it is clearly understood. I am very appreciative of it being included, and I think it was important to do so. If I may, Mr. President, just for a moment speak to what this is about. The Department of Labor has been working closely with all parties for nearly 3 years to address the complex issue raised by the Harris Trust decision of the Supreme Court in December 1993. They ruled then in John Hancock versus Harris Trust that this longstanding practice of including pension assets as part of a general account could violate ERISA. The Court recognized it was overturning the Department's ruling and that its decision created the possibility of serious disruptions in the pension marketplace. It indicated, however, that any problems could be addressed legislatively or administratively. So that is what this is about, and that is why this bill has the full support of this administration. The administration believed that it had to be addressed legislatively and that was the only way that we could fully acknowledge the difficulties that were apparent by the Supreme Court's decision. In its January 17, 1996 letter of support, Secretary Reich writes that the legislation: Will provide the guidance necessary to avert disruption in the insurance industry, thereby improving the security of American workers' pension plan assets. Let me make clear the ERISA Clarification Act, as this is called, does not overturn Harris Trust. Rather, it requires the Labor Department to issue guidance by March of next year as to how insurance companies are to deal with pension plans in the future. To protect the rights of plan participants and beneficiaries, consistent with the Harris Trust decision, any guidance issued by the Department must contain strict standards that companies must meet in order to qualify for the relief. Failure to comply with these rules will subject any company to all the sanctions imposed by ERISA on those who violate the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction rules. The legislation also prevents the Harris Trust decision from being applied retroactively. This is appropriate because the life insurance industry has relied for almost 20 years on Government's interpretation as to how it was to act under the statute and because exposing the industry to retroactive liability could severely threaten the security of pension assets. In response to some initial concerns raised by the administration and others, the legislation before us contains several modifications. Most important: No. 1, the legislation contains new, stricter standards to ensure that any guidance issued by the Labor Department must fully protect the rights and interests of plan participants and beneficiaries; and, No. 2, the legislation would not grant relief from proceedings based on fraudulent or criminal activities by insurers. I would also like to point out the bill does not affect any ongoing civil actions. I think this is very important that this be included in the management package at this time. This is in addition to the State insurance regulations that already provide important protections to contract holders, so I am confident that there is the protection there that is necessary, and it is important that this be enacted at this time in order to ensure the security of pension assets for millions of American workers and retirees who hold assets in insurance company general accounts. So I am very pleased and express my appreciation, again, to both the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for including this important legislation in their managers' amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If I may respond briefly to my good friend and colleague and member of the Labor Committee as well, some clarification on the Harris Trust. I have spoken earlier to it and I will not reiterate. I certainly agree, ERISA is complicated. It is something all of us struggle to understand. In this particular situation, as I pointed out, the administration is strongly for this. This particular language in the managers' amendment does not overturn the Harris Trust. What it does is require the Labor Department to issue guidance by March of next year as to how insurance companies are to deal with pension plans in the future. Because the Supreme Court decision created some concerns about how these would be handled as plan assets, there needs to be a clarification. Until that clarification is given, much is in doubt, and many workers will be seriously hampered by uncertainty regarding their pension plans and how it would be counted as a plan asset. I just suggest to the Senator from Illinois, we made two changes which we hoped would address some of the concerns that had been raised by the Senator from Illinois. One was the legislation would not grant relief from proceedings based on fraudulent or criminal activities by insurers. I know that had been a concern. That language is now clearly stated. Second, that the legislation gives the Secretary of Labor authority to ensure that insurers do not engage in prohibited transactions prior to the issuance of final guidelines. I had hoped that might take care of some of the concern of the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to respond, we have considered this in the last Congress as well. We have not had a full-blown hearing but it is something Senator Metzenbaum, as part of the Labor Committee in the last Congress, raised. It has been under consideration for some time as all parties were trying to find common ground. It was hoped this was the common ground that would succeed.