Jim Talent

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to ALIVE, Alternatives to Living in Violent Environments, a not-for-profit organization which has served the St. Louis area for the past 14 years. ALIVE's goal is to provide accessible and affordable alternatives to violence for abused women and their children. This organization offers a variety of community services and educational programs designed to empower the abused to take control of their lives and enable them to realize their own strengths and abilities. Thus far in 1995, ALIVE has increased its service to the St. Louis area by 45 percent, having served over 12,000 women and children. As part of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, ALIVE has planned a number of special events throughout October to educate the public and recruit support in the fight against domestic violence. On October 2, the organization is sponsoring a march and rally followed by a dinner, featuring guest speaker Denise Brown of the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation. They are also hosting several luncheons later in the month on October 18 and one on October 27 which will feature guest speaker Sarah Buel. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to pay tribute to this fine organization, and commend them upon their efforts toward the elimination of family violence in this country. I join them in calling upon all citizens to participate in this national awareness campaign.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, there is a mindset on the part of some on the other side of the aisle that in the first place all the employers out there are trying to bust all the unions. There are bad employers and there are also bad unions. That is why we have this law. There are some employers, some unions that would try to act in an unfair manner. that is why we have the National Labor Relations Act. I do not think most employers or most unions are out to do anything except to conduct their business or the unions to try to represent people. There is also a mindset, frankly, that people cannot protect themselves; that employees cannot make choices on their own; that even though the law gives them the right to pick a union if they want to, gives them the right to organize and have formal collective bargaining, and nothing in this act changes that, that that is not adequate enough safeguard; that they are going to be so influenced by an employer and an employee sitting down and talking over these kinds of things, that they cannot freely exercise their right to have a union, if they feel that that is necessary in order to protect their rights in the workplace. Mr. Chairman, it is a kind of patronizing attitude. It was the attitude that dominated in the 1930's. It simply does not describe reality today, and now I would be happy to yield to the gentleman now.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his candor and his attempt to work this out. He has been nonpolarizing from the beginning. He is offering, I think, a realistic substitute. I think the problem with it, he is trying to confine the literally hundreds of thousands of workplace situations into a code of federally prescribed mandate that simply does not comport with the reality in the workplace today. There are a whole lot of situations where people want to talk about terms and conditions that have impact upon them. Maybe safety. Scheduling is a classic thing. Vacations. The gentleman has just said his substitute would make that illegal. Why should we say to those people the only way they can talk this over with management and have them respond and try to work this out is if they decide they want to go out and form a union? Mr. Chairman, I think the problem here, and we have heard it in a couple of the speeches before this interchange that the gentleman and I have had is, [[Page H 9541]] there is a mindset on the part of some on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. TALENT. So under my hypothetical the gentleman's substitute would make that situation illegal.

Mr. TALENT. And under the current law there is no question if that supervisor goes out there and says, OK, Bill and Bob, let us talk about it and sit down and Jane. And, by the way, we better get Mel and Fred, because I know they are upset about this too. That is dominating because the supervisor is involved in choosing which employees are involved in the discussion; is that not right.

Mr. TALENT. The gentleman's substitute prohibits those kinds of discussions about terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I too want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] on his fine work on this bill, which is a bill that frankly should be passing more easily than it is evidently going to pass. Let me give a concrete example of why we need this bill. Maybe we need to bring it down to concrete examples. Suppose there is a workshop today, fairly small size, does not matter, 30 or 40 people. They have been doing a lot of overtime work. They have been busy, which is a good thing. The supervisor goes to the plant manager and says, some of the people are complaining about the scheduling. We are doing all this overtime. It is interfering with people's ability to pick up their kids. Maybe when the day care at the end of the day care day or some people want to go on a couple day hunting trips they have been planning because deer season is starting and some of the people want to get together and talk about it. What are their options under current law? One of them the employers could form a union. They had that option under current law. They would have that option untouched, unchanged under this legislation. The other is for the manager to decide what he is going to do and just do it. And if he did that, by the way, there is no problem with the National Labor Relations Act. He can be as dictatorial as he wants. There is no problem. But if the manager says what we hope people would want to say in those circumstances, which is, sit down with a couple of your line supervisors, sit down with these folks and talk it over, come up with a couple of proposals, then come to see me about it and let us see what we can do, he is quite probably violating the National Labor Relations Act and we ought to change that. That is going on in tens of thousands of work places around the country and is quite probably illegal by virtue of several decisions, recent decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. That is why we need this bill. The argument on the other side seems to be several-fold. I talked about a few of them earlier. One of them is, there is really no problem, we do not need to do anything. Here is what Chairman Gould, the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, appointed by President Clinton 2 years ago said. Let me read this real slowly, specifically addressing this issue. He says: ``The difficulty here is that Federal labor law because, it is still rooted in the Great Depression reaction to company unions through which employers controlled labor organizations, prohibits financial assistance by employers to any labor organization that might affect employment conditions and additionally''--here is what he said the additional problem was--``the term `labor organization' has been provided with a definition so broad as to include, potentially, employee quality work circles, other employee groups, `teams,' and the like. Amendments to the NLRA that allow for cooperative relationships between employees and the employer are desirable.'' That is what we are trying to do with this legislation. People say there is not any problem, take it up with the Chairman of National Labor Relations Board. He says there is a problem and so do the employees and the employers and the consultants who came and testified at these hearings. The other objection to this was pretty well highlighted by my friend, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. He said basically: Look, the employers of this country are big corporations, and they are going after the people, and we cannot trust them. I think there is a mind-set on the part of some of my distinguished colleagues in this body that really we cannot ever have cooperation, that it is a sham, that employees cannot protect their own interests, that the alternative of a union is not good enough for them and that we have to keep people from cooperating like this because really it is not a good thing and it will only result in bad things. I understand that mind-set and the sincerity of it. It does not reflect modern America. It does not reflect what people want to do. Let us let people do something that has increased employee satisfaction, that has made our economy more competitive with economies abroad and competitors abroad. Let us just allow people to do this without a fear that a 60-year-old statute may come in and stop them from doing [[Page H 9530]] something that they like and that is good for America.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will agree that scheduling is a term and condition of employment; is it not?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman and I disagree on what ought to be done, and he thinks the bill does some things it should not do. I want to get into that and ask him a question. I have read the gentleman's substitute. I gave an example before of what is really going on out there in the workplace. So let us suppose, and I will give the gentleman a hypothetical just to explore the differences between the gentleman's substitute and the bill we are working on. A supervisor goes to the plant manager and says people are upset because they are working a lot of overtime. The schedules, they say, are not right. They want some changes so they can get to the day care centers, a couple of guys have hunting vacations planned. What shall we do? The manager says, well, I would like you to sit down and work with them and then come to me with a proposal. Why do we not want them to be able to do that?

Mr. TALENT. So the gentleman agrees with Chairman Gould who says amendments to the NLRA that allow for cooperative relationships between employees and the employers are desirable. There is a need to do something. I hope in the interest of not polarizing this we can establish a consensus that there is a need to do something.

Mr. TALENT. So those and other colleagues on the other side of the aisle who spend a lot of time in general debate saying we do not need to do anything, the gentleman would disagree with that?

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan, Mr. Levin, accused us of polarizing this debate, just after our friend from Vermont spent 4 or 5 minutes talking about sustained assaults on the rights of the working men and corporations busting unions, and yet we are polarizing the debate. Let me in the interests of trying to maybe nonpolarize this debate ask my friend, the sponsor of the amendment, to enter into a colloquy with me. I have a couple questions about the amendment.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and in closing, I want to say the gentleman has with great candor admitted, first, we have to do something or these teams around the country are in danger under current law. So all the argument we heard before that we do not have to do anything, we have now established a kind of consensus on both sides of the aisle that, yes, indeed, we do need to do something. And, also, the hypothetical I gave before, where people want to talk about scheduling would be illegal under the gentleman's substitute.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman would answer a question. I can explain the problem I have got with his amendment. I see what the gentleman is driving at, but I want to explore why the gentleman thinks it is necessary, if I could. Again, we are talking about real life problems that arise in the workplace. If the workplace is organized, if there is a union representing the employees, this bill does not apply. So we are talking about unorganized workplaces. So there is no union present. Now, where there is no union present, without this bill, there is no question that management can decide these issues on its own without talking to anybody, can just say, we are going to change the scheduling and we are not going to change it. We do not care what people think. They just decide it on their own and do it. And that is perfectly legal. So the question I have to ask the gentleman is, if a manager who decided on his own wants to say, well, look to the supervisor Joe, Joe, you and Fred go talk to Jane. So now there is two supervisors and Jane. What is wrong with allowing management to sample some employee opinion? Why do we have to require that they have some kind of equality when all that may result is management making the decision dictatorially.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me describe why this amendment is not going to work and why it reflects the mentality that simply does not reflect what is going on in the workplace today. Let us take again a real-life example; not something that is going on in the Congress. People in the workshop are upset. They have been working a lot of overtime and maybe they do not like that. They have been complaining to the supervisor. No union is present and no organizing. The supervisor goes to the plant manager. What can the plant manager do? The other side has admitted that there is a problem. That the plant manager cannot just form some kind of a team under current law to examine it; that it would be illegal under current law. So what can the plant manager do? Mr. Chairman, he can just say, ``Forget it. I am going to make the decision myself. We are going to continue working the way we are.'' What we want to say is let him do what people are already trying to do in thousands of places around the country. Say, ``Okay. You talk to the people involved in it. Make sure you talk to Bill and Fred. Get them together and come up with a solution.'' Mr. Chairman, what the amendment would say, before he can do that he has got to have an election with a secret ballot. What unit are you going to use? Just the craft unit in the plant? Are you going to use the whole unit? What day are you going to have the election? How many weeks are they going to have beforehand? What is the nominating process? How are they going to conduct the secret ballot? Mr. Chairman, it is going to take months to resolve something that people in the real world outside of Government need to get resolved quickly. The effect of this amendment, or the defeat of this bill, would be to say, in effect, management must act dictatorially unless the employees choose the union. Mr. Chairman, why do we want to force that in the workplaces on the employees and the employees in the United States? If people have a representative who will go in and collectively bargain and want a secret ballot and they want the months and months of campaigning, there is a method to get that. Under current law, it is called a union. If that is what they want, they can have it. Mr. Chairman, we should not foreclose this expeditious means of getting people involved in decisions that are going to have to be made dictatorially by management. There is a problem. We have established consensus. This is a narrowly tailored bill to achieve it. The amendment, although offered in good faith, and I respect the work of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], is unworkable. Defeat the amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, I am not aware of every statute that says some kind of an equal participatory requirement. I mean, there is right now, what the statute provides is either management doing it entirely on its own without the participation of employees at all or a union being certified which is exclusively employees. So it seems to me the gentleman is trying to introduce a new concept. I do not know that it makes that much practical difference, but I think it is based on a misconception of what is going on out there again and what the act is designed to do. So I thank the gentleman for offering it. I know it is in good faith, but I do not know that it is workable.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I will agree with one thing my colleague just said, that we ought not to believe the rhetoric that people are saying about this bill. Let me describe what the bill does and why we need it. One of the really important developments, Mr. Speaker, of the last 10 to 15 years in particular has been the development of something called employee involvement or employee teams. There are millions of Americans familiar with it because they are participating in them. These are a very flexible, diverse kind of way to get employees involved in making decisions which otherwise would have to be made entirely by management. It can cover everything from scheduling decisions to safety to productivity. It can be as formal as a regular safety committee, or as informal as people getting together for a few days to talk about scheduling or talk about how we deal with this problem on the production line. It increases employee satisfaction, it increases productivity, it has made American industry more competitive internationally. It is a good thing, and we have dozens and dozens and dozens of people come and testify and tell us that. And these were employees. I have been out in shops and touring places in my district, and they all wanted to be able to do this. And the problem is that that form of employee involvement is quite probably illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, because 60 years ago, Congress quite properly outlawed company unions, and the National Labor Relations Board has interpreted these things as to be in effect company unions. Now we need to be able to provide relief to these millions of Americans who are doing something they want to do and helping the economy at the same time. Now, the arguments against this that we have heard made and are going to be made by the other side is this will hurt union shops, it will circumvent workplaces that are collectively bargained and the proper role of the collective bargaining agent. The answer to that, the bill exempts workshops that are organized by unions. It does not apply there. We will hear argued that the bill permits company unions. The truth is the bill explicitly prohibits company unions because it says if one of these employee entities has or claims the right to bargain collectively, and that is the essence of a union, an entity that claims the right to bargain collectively, is not covered by the bill. It is not protected by the proviso. We will hear it is not needed; that, in fact, there is nothing wrong out there; that people are doing this now and are not under threat. Mr. Speaker, there are dozens of cases pending before the National Labor Relations Board in which these arguments are being challenged now, and I do not think the board is wrong in doing that, because under the bipolar world of the National Labor Relations Act as it was passed in 1935, employee relations had to be necessarily adversarial. Either management and labor eyed each other across the bargaining table in an adversarial fashion or the only other model was employers ramming it down the throat of employees. They did not anticipate what would happen 45 or 50 years later [[Page H 9520]] when people would work together and cooperate. These things are foreign to the scheme of the NLRA as it was passed 60 years ago. That is why we need to update it. Do we really think there is no problem? Well, here is what this Congress said last year when it was controlled by the other side in a committee report on an OSHA bill. ``Substantial uncertainty exists over the impact of the Electromation and DuPont decisions'', and those are the decisions we are talking about, ``on joint safety and health committees''. In other words, Mr. Speaker, these committees may be illegal under the law. Mr. William Gould, who is the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, said exactly what I said a minute ago. He said, ``The difficulty here is that Federal labor law, because it is still rooted in the Great Depression reaction to company unions through which employers controlled labor organizations, prohibits financial assistance by employers to any labor organization''. That is his quote, and he meant including any kind of employee involvement. He suggested amendments to the NLRA that allowed for cooperative relationships. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to have win-win kinds of legislation. It is possible to have legislation which empowers people to do good things. That is what we are trying to do here. I urge the House to consider this dispassionately, to discount the rhetoric against this kind of thing. This is something that people really want. Let us do something people really want rather than allowing them to be bound by the concepts and the laws on those concepts of 60 years ago when the world was a very, very different place than it is now.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, there has been an outstanding practice going on in American workplaces and it is picking up speed. It has been going on for the last 10 or 15 years. It is called employee involvement or TEAMS. People know this kind of practice as quality circles or safety committees. They can be relatively formal or informal. Here's an example: Employees have a problem with scheduling, and the employer, instead of deciding these things unilaterally says to his supervisors, ``Get together with some of the employees and figure out what you are going to do.'' This TEAM concept has increased employee satisfaction and American productivity and competitiveness around the world. But unfortunately it is probably illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, because the NLRB thinks of TEAMS as company unions, according to a 60-year-old statute. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a chance to do something about that today with the TEAM Act. That is an act that will legalize the kind of employee involvement that is already going on in tens of thousands of workplaces around the country today. It is something that employees want. It will empower them and improve employee satisfaction and American competitiveness. The bill specifically says company unions are still illegal. It does not apply in organized workplaces. The House ought to pass it today.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Fort Zumwalt North Middle School seventh and eighth grade concert choirs from O'Fallon, MO. Over the past two years, under the skilled guidance of their director, Mr. Gregory S. LeSan, the North Middle School choirs have been honored with 20 trophies and plaques in national-level competitions. They have also been distinguished with three community proclamations, a state proclamation from Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan, and a coveted invitation to perform for the 1995 Missouri Music Educators Association State Convention. The choirs have also been invited to compete July 9th through the 14th, 1996, in the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod in Llangollen, Wales. This is the first time in the 50 year history of this world-renowned competition that a public middle school from the United States of America has ever been accepted to sing in this audition-selected international event. This is a rare opportunity to represent their community, the State of Missouri, and the United States of America in a competition that represents over 50 countries. Mr. Speaker, these young people are to be commended for their continued hard work and dedication to excellence, which has brought not only their school nationwide recognition, but is also a source of great pride to the residents of O'Fallon, MO. It is with great pride that I congratulate these students and recognize the contributions they have made while at Fort Zumwalt North Middle School.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot about what my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle are upset about with this bill. Now, I am not on the Committee on Appropriations, I do not deal on a day-to-day basis with millions of dollars for this program or to this person, so I have a little bit different perspective. I thought maybe I would discuss a little bit about what I am upset about and what this title is designed to address. I have a 3 year old little girl, she is going to be 3 in 2 weeks. She is going to owe $100,000 in taxes during her working lifetime just to pay the debt service that the last generation of congressional leadership ran up on the Federal debt in the last 20 years, and I am kind of upset about that. This country, if we continue on the current course of spending, will be bankrupt inside of 10 years. It will take the entire Federal revenue to pay for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the debt service. I am a little bit upset about that. My parents believed what you did was you paid off the mortgage and left your children the farm. The last generation of congressional leadership sold the farm and is leaving the rest of us the mortgage, and I am kind of upset about that. Now what does this bill do about it in this title? It does not cut spending in this bill; it slows the growth rate of Federal spending. What are my honorable and distinguished colleagues on the other side doing about this? Well, they voted against the balanced budget amendment by and large. They have opposed our seven year plan to balance the budget, they are offering no plan of their own, and they savage their own president when he even talks about developing a consistent plan to balance the budget, and I am pretty upset about all of that. Mr. Chairman, and I am going to speak here to the people who are listening also, what you are hearing here is a desperate attempt to preserve a status quo that has failed and that is indefensible. We are trying to turn this budget around, it is like a big ocean liner. We are taking some initial steps to turn it around now. This is a good bill and it should be passed.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the en bloc amendment adopted yesterday includes an additional $1.3 million for the TLP Program. It is also my understanding that this funding will be used for nine agencies who provide services to homeless and runaway youth. This funding will provide a 1-year extension to those nine TLP grantees whose grants are expiring in September 1995. The nine grantees could then competitively compete in the spring or summer of 1996 for fiscal year 1997 grants without having to dismantle or eliminate their programs in October 1995.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] on bringing an excellent bill to the floor today. I would like to discuss with him the Transitional Living Program.

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his time and for his attention to this matter.

Mr. TALENT

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment highlights the philosophical differences between the parties. We believe in Americans and what they have built on their own. We think workers and employers, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, are pretty capable of creating jobs and economic growth and not helpless and unable to protect their own safety. The other side believes that we are going to have massive problems, unless these people are minutely watched by an agency whose record is largely unblemished by success, and I refer to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk specifically about the fall protection standard, which is in this bill and on which there were hearings in my subcommittee. The fall protection standard OSHA recently applied to all work above 6 feet in height, it was at 16 feet, they applied it to all work above 16 feet, which means it applies to all residential remodeling, all residential roofing, and, Mr. Chairman, everybody in this business, management, labor, everybody hates it because the workers have to tie on these harnesses and these lanyards and move anchors. It is tremendously inefficient, and it is unnecessary, and they resent the Federal Government telling them, experts in this, what they have to do in order to protect themselves. OSHA says if we get full compliance with this fall protection standard at 6 feet, and every roofing job and every remodeling job in America, and I guess they are going to have cars in every subdivision to watch people, if we get full compliance, it will save 20 lives every year. I asked the head of OSHA, ``How much does this increase the costs of these jobs?'' Because the evidence we have, again pretty much undisputed, was that it would increase the cost of labor on the jobs about 10 percent, because the workers have to move so much slower. What happens when you increase the cost of this work? What do homeowners do? They turn to fly-by-night contractors, to handymen, to people who do not know and understand safety on roof tops, or maybe they do the jobs themselves. What happens if you get a bunch of people working on roof tops who do not know what they are doing?