Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the Fair Labor Organizing Act, to strengthen the basic rights of workers freely to associate, organize and to join a union. The bill would address significant shortcomings in the National Labor Relations Act. These shortcomings amount to impediments to one of the most fundamental ways that working people can seek to improve their own and their families' standard of living and quality of life, which is to join, belong to and participate in a union. Mr. President, in the past few years, working men and women across the country have been fighting and organizing with a new energy. They are fighting for better health care, pensions, a living wage, better education policy and fairer trade policy. They also are fighting and organizing to ensure that they have the opportunity to be represented by a union through which they can collectively bargain with their employers. Much of this organizing is taking place among sectors of the workforce, and among portions of our working population, that have not previously been organized. I think these new efforts are part of what really is a new civil rights and human rights struggle in our country. It is an important and positive historical development. There is probably no clearer indication that the impact of this development is being felt, and that many of these efforts are succeeding, than some of the attacks in the current Congress on unions representing the country's working people. Why have we seen so many bills with Orwellian titles such as the TEAM Act, which has little to do with employer-employee teamwork and a lot more to do with company-dominated labor organizations? Such as the ``Family Friendly Workplace Act,'' which really isn't family friendly, but would reduce working families' pay and undercut the 40-hour workweek? Such as the so-called SAFE Act, which doesn't promote safety but actually would roll back well-established and necessary OSHA protections? Why does the majority in Congress seem so desperate to single out unions to suppress their political activities at the same time they maneuver to kill genuine political campaign finance reform? It is because unions are succeeding. That is a good thing because in my view, when organized labor fights for job security, for dignity, justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized workers on basic bread and butter issues are key to the economic security of all working families. How can it be that as many as 10,000 Americans lose their jobs each year for supporting union organizing when the National Labor Relations Act already supposedly prohibits the firing of an employee to deny his or her right to freely organize or join a union? If more than four in 10 workers who are not currently in a union say they would join one if they had the opportunity, why aren't there more opportunities? Since we know that union workers earn up to one-third more than non-union workers and are more likely to have pensions and health benefits, why aren't more workers unionized when the new labor movement is correctly focused on organizing? The answer to these basic questions is this: we need labor law reform. We need to improve the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Fair Labor Organizing Act would achieve three basic goals. First, it would help employees make fully informed, free decisions about union representation. Second, it would expand the remedies available to wrongfully discharged employees. Third, it would require mediation and arbitration when employers and employees fail to reach a collective bargaining agreement on their own. It is late in the current Congress. My bill may not receive full consideration or be enacted into law this year. But I believe it is important to set a standard and place a marker. Workers across America are fighting for their rights, and many are finding that the playing field is tilted against them. The NLRA does not fully allow them fair opportunity to speak freely, to associate, organize and join a union, even though that is its intended purpose. I have walked some picket lines during the past two years. I have joined in solidarity with workers seeking to organize. I have called on employers to bargain in good faith with their employees during disputes. I intend to continue doing so, and I urge colleagues to do the same. At the same time, it is clear to nearly any organizer and to many workers who have sought to join a union that the rules in crucial ways are stacked against them. My bill seeks to address that fact. First, it is a central tenet of U.S. labor policy that employees should be free to make informed and free decisions about union representation. Yet, union organizers have limited access to employees while employers have unfettered access. Employers have daily contact with employees. They may distribute written materials about unions. They may require employees to attend meetings where they present their views on union representation. They may talk to employees one-on-one about how they view union representation. On the other hand, union organizers are restricted from worksites and even public areas. If we want people to make independent, informed decisions about whether they should be represented by a union, then we have to give them equal access to both sides of the story. This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal time to labor organizations to provide information about union representation. Equal time. That means that an employer would trigger the equal time provision that this bill would insert into the NLRA by expressing opinions on union representation during work hours or at the worksite. The provision would give a union equal time to use the same media used by the employer to distribute information, and would allow the union access to the worksite to communicate with employees. The second reform in the bill would toughen penalties for wrongful discharge violations. It would require the National Labor Relations Board to award back pay equal to 3 times the employee's wages when the Board finds that an employee is discharged as a result of an unfair labor practice. It also would allow employees to file civil actions to recover punitive damages when they have been discharged as a result of an unfair labor practice. Third, the bill would put in place mediation and arbitration procedures to help employers and employees reach mutually agreeable first-contract collective bargaining agreements. It would require mediation if the parties cannot reach agreement on their own after 60 days. Should the parties not reach agreement 30 days after a mediator is selected, then either party could call in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration. I believe that this proposal represents a balanced solution--one that would help both parties reach agreements they can live with. It gives both parties incentive to reach genuine agreement without allowing either side to indefinitely hold the other hostage to unrealistic proposals. Mr. President, this bill would be a step toward fairness for working families in America. The proposals are not new. I hope my colleagues will support the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I heard on the other side of the aisle a chorus of ``I object.'' I am not quite sure why. I was on a show this morning, WCCO Radio, in Minnesota. It is hard to explain to farmers why we can't take the action right now on the indemnity payment, the $500 million. We passed it. The correction would be made later on, but we can get assistance to farmers right now. Why can't we send this over to the House? I say to my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew Tourville, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor while we debate and vote on this bill today.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the pending business is this amendment, correct, the second-degree amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. We have two different views. Might I ask what regular order is? Is regular order the Abraham amendment that I have now second-degreed? Or not? I was under the impression that it was. Amendment No. 3353

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I believe I do.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That means a great deal to me. I don't know whether my colleague from Wisconsin is on the floor right now, Senator Kohl, but I believe that I can count on his support. Is the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, on the floor? Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am delighted that the amendment is accepted. We can vote on it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Knowing of the commitment of the Senator from Colorado and just sort of knowing the way things work here, I wonder whether I could ask my colleague something. I am sort of tempted to have a vote because I would like to show a lot of support for this. I ask my colleague whether or not he would be willing to fight hard to keep this in conference committee? I know my friend from Colorado being an honorable Senator--I am delighted that it will be taken--I am wondering whether my colleague would give me some sense of whether or not he supports this, whether I can count on his support in the conference committee so this doesn't get taken out.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will say to my colleagues, if I don't get order, I will talk for a long time about this, because I don't think there is anything inappropriate about having a focus on the state of children in America. So I hope that we can have order in the Chamber and I will be able to go on. I will take as long as necessary. Mr. President, every day in America, one mother dies in child birth. Every day in America, three people under the age of 25 die from HIV infection. Every day in America, six children or young people commit suicide. Every day in America, 13 children and youths are murdered. Every day in America, 16 children and youths are killed by firearms. Every day in America, 36 children and youths die from accidents. Every day in America, 81 babies die. Every day in America, 144 babies are born at very low birth weight. Every day in America, 311 children are arrested for alcohol offenses. Ever day in America, 316 children are arrested for violent crime. Every day in America, 403 children are arrested for drug offenses. Every day in America, 443 babies are born to mothers who receive late or no prenatal care. Every day in America, 781 babies are born at low birth weight. Every day in America, 1,403 babies are born to mothers younger than 20. Every day in America, 2,377 babies are born to mothers who are not high school graduates. Every day in America, 2,556 children--babies--are born into poverty. Every day in America, 3,356 young people drop out of high school. Colleagues, when I cite these figures from the Children's Defense Fund Report of this summer--this last report was July 17, 1998. When I cite the statistics that every day in America 3,356 high school students drop out, there is a higher correlation between high school dropouts and winding up in prison than between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Surely, we ought to be looking at the state of children in America. Mr. President, one quarter of all the homeless people in America are children under the age of 18, and 100,000 of these kids live on the streets right now. Mr. President, 5.5 million children go hungry in the United States of America today. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his emphasis on families. I commend my colleague for wanting to say that we want to do everything we can to enable parents to do well by their children. I want to commend my colleague for making the point that we want to make sure that parents are really able to exercise their responsibilities as parents with their children. But I also want to say something else to my colleagues, which is that this second-degree amendment adds a lot of strength to what is on the floor. I don't think there should be any vote against this, because what the second-degree amendment says is, let's also apply this to the Congress. We simply say that whatever we vote out of committee, we also, in report language, have a very careful child impact statement. I see my colleague from Connecticut on the floor--probably the leading Senator for years when it comes to focusing on children. I say to my colleague, I think this is really an excellent idea. I think it is important for us to be looking at the impact. Mr. President, I have one question that I can't let go of in my own mind, which I pose for every single colleague here: How can it be that right now in the United States of America, at our peak economic performance, we have one out of every four children under the age of 3 growing up poor in our country, and one out of every two children of color growing up poor in our country today? This is the most affluent country in the world, the most powerful country in the world, with record low unemployment, record economic performance, low inflation, a celebrated GDP, and we have a set of social arrangements that allow children to be the poorest group of Americans in our country. That is a national disgrace. Now, Mr. President, I just want to go on and make one other point. In some of the debate that we have had over the years, colleagues have said, look, all right, Senator Wellstone, you disagree about proposed cuts in affordable housing, or Head Start; you disagree with proposed cuts in the Food Stamp Program, which is the major safety net food and nutrition program for children in America; you disagree with some of our other priorities, but we want to tell you that in no way, shape, or form are we not committed to children in America. I accept that in good faith. But what I want to say tonight is that, if so, we ought to at least be willing to look at our actions. We ought to be willing to look at our legislation, and we ought to be willing to analyze the impact on children in America. Mr. President, I have traveled not just in Minnesota, but in our country, and the one thing that troubles me the most is, I just think we have to do a lot better for kids, a lot better for kids in our country. We talk about low SAT scores; that is there. We talk about high rates of high school dropouts; that is there. We talk about children being arrested for substance abuse; that is happening. We talk about too many children taking their own lives; that is happening. We talk about too many children that are murdered; that is happening. We talk about too much violence in our schools; that is happening. We talk about too many hungry children in America; that is happening. We talk about too many children that are 3 and 4 years old and are home alone because the single parent is working and because there is no child care; that is happening. Second graders and first graders come home alone with no parent there, sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods; that is happening. We talk about the poverty in our country and the number of children that are homeless children. I say to the Chair, because of his commitment to veterans, that one of the most disgraceful things going on in our country is that about one-third of all the homeless are veterans--many Vietnam veterans. That is a scandal; that is simply unconscionable. But the fact of the matter is that all of us say that we are for the children. All of us say that they are 100 percent of our future. All of us say that we care about children. All of us want to have our pictures taken next to children. All of us say that we are parents and grandparents and that this is our commitment. Well, I am saying that Senator Abraham has brought a good piece of legislation on the floor. He wants to talk about the importance of parental responsibility. He wants to talk about the importance of families. And what I believe is that this second-degree amendment expands on his work, and I certainly hope that this amendment will be accepted by my colleagues. Mr. President, I know there is a lot that we are trying to do tonight, and I have a lot more to say. In deference to colleagues--the majority leader has been gracious enough to come over here and say that this amendment will be accepted. I just say to colleagues that, if so, I am delighted, I say to the Senator from Colorado. Might I ask my colleague one thing?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me explain this amendment and speak on it for a short period of time. I don't know that there will be a vote within the next 2 or 3 minutes, I say to colleagues. Mr. President, my amendment, which is a second-degree amendment to the Abraham amendment, expands on what Senator Abraham is trying to do. It applies to the Congress and not just to the administration. Furthermore, what my amendment says is that when the Congress prepares its report on family well-being --which I think is a real important concept; I think it is something that we should be about--the Congress also reports on the impact of our legislation on children. The amendment doesn't strike the Abraham amendment. It expands on the amendment. I believe that my colleagues, if I am given a little bit of time, will want to support this. Mr. President, I think the reason when we pass legislation out of committee, that in our report language we need to talk about the impact of children, is because of the reality of the lives of children in America. Part of our definition of family well-being, surely, has to do with parents, and we ought to make sure that parents are able to do their very best by their children, because when parents do their very best by their children, they do their very best by our country. It is also true if we are going to talk about parents, we have to talk about the impact of our legislation on children. Mr. President, one out of every four children in our country under the age of 3 is growing up poor. One in three children will be poor at some point in their childhood. One in five children today under the age of 6 is poor today in America. One in three is a year or more behind in school. One in four children is born to a mother who did not graduate from high school. One out of every four children lives with only one parent. One out of every five children lives in a family receiving food stamps. One out of every five children is born to a mother who received no prenatal care in the first 3 months of her pregnancy. One out of every seven children have no health insurance. One out of every eight children are born to teenage children. One out of every 12 children has a disability. One out of every 13 children is born at low birthweight. One out of every 25 children lives with neither parent. One out of every 132 children in America dies by the age of 1. And 1 in 680 children is killed by gunfire before the age of 20. Let me do it a different way as to why I believe when we pass legislation we ought to talk about the impact of this legislation on children, and we ought to make it clear.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask my colleague, I know Senator Graham wants 10 seconds to dispose of an amendment, but I ask unanimous consent as soon as he does this that I then have the floor and go for a vote on my amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the pending business? Amendment No. 3373 to Amendment No. 3362

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Twenty minutes equally, if it is not accepted--maybe it will be acceptable--20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Objection on two parts. First of all, with regard to the Gene McCarthy Post Office, if we are going to debate this, I would like to have that 20 minutes equally divided. And second of all, I did not agree--I thought we might reach an agreement--I did not agree to withdraw my other amendment. There is another amendment that should be added to the list that will deal with mental health or substance abuse as it affects Federal employees. I would like to have 20 minutes equally divided on that. Mr. President, let me just add, I have been here in the afternoon ready to go with amendments, so I am not trying to delay anything.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am trying to discern whether or not the post office in St. Paul named after Eugene McCarthy will be in the managers' amendment? Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, there is.