[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4833-S4837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE LEGISLATION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3960

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the teamwork 
for employees and management. If ever there were a law that makes no 
sense, it is to forbid teamwork between management and employees.
  This is a bill to encourage worker-management cooperation. It is 
sorely needed in this country in industry today. Senator Dole has made 
this part of the repeal of the gas tax and a rise in the minimum wage. 
The TEAM Act will permit employees in nonunion

[[Page S4834]]

settings, which are most of the employees in this country, to work with 
management to address, in a commonsense way, workplace issues that are 
mutual interests and will benefit the workplace scenery and the company 
as a whole.
  Under current law, these discussions are permitted only if employees 
are represented by a union and the discussions go through the union 
bargaining representative. Nothing could be more ludicrous as a way to 
have cooperation than to have to channel your discussion through union 
representatives. It just does not make common sense, or any other kind 
of sense.
  The current law prohibits workers and managers in nonunion settings 
from sitting down to cooperate on a long list of basic workplace 
issues--safety, quality, and productivity. By not allowing employee 
involvement, this antiquated law deprives 90 percent of U.S. workers in 
the private sector of having any voice in their workplace. They simply 
cannot talk to the owners and the management for whom they work, and 
you eliminate cooperation. The lack of employee involvement also makes 
the American industrial sector less competitive. Almost every U.S. 
industry faces strong and aggressive competition from foreign firms 
that are free to draw on and utilize the ideas, thoughts, and abilities 
of their employees. They use this to compete against American companies 
and American workers.
  Now, American business leaders know that including employees in this 
decisionmaking would make them more competitive. They would have an 
ability to draw firsthand on the workers, what would be more efficient, 
more effective, and what would cut costs, which would certainly lead to 
increased competitiveness. The older approach of telling workers, 
``When you punch the time clock, leave your mind at the door,'' and 
dictating to them how to do the job without having any back-and-forth 
discussion with the worker as to the best way to do the job is 
absolutely the worst law, which should be abandoned. Employers know 
that the people who perform the work know better how to do it and the 
most efficient way to do it.

  It concerns me that, under current law, employees cannot be involved 
in workplace decisions, unless they do it through a union steward or a 
union representative. Workers that are knowledgeable about how to do 
the work, how to do it better, should have a say in making the 
decisions and certainly should share their opinions about how it should 
be done. Employers are anxious to listen to them. They are anxious to 
have the input and the advice. They want it. The TEAM Act will give 
employees the voice in the workplace that everyone wants them to have 
and that they want to have.
  Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of Senate bill 295. I believe this 
legislation is essential if we are going to improve our competitive 
position in America as compared to other countries around the world--
especially in manufacturing, where we so sorely need jobs to be 
created.
  If we are really concerned about doing something to help the working 
Americans to improve their lot in life and also the competitiveness of 
the country as a whole, the best we think we can do is to pass the TEAM 
Act.
  Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Pressler, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Bryan pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 1735 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank you. I just have a few words to say 
about the state of affairs on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  I was somewhat appalled with the President's press conference, which 
is clearly as blatantly political a press conference as I believe has 
ever happened in this town, basically saying that the Republicans are 
tying up this legislation in the Senate today.
  How could anybody make that comment when his own side refuses to 
grant cloture on something as simple, as fair, as decent, as 
worthwhile, as bipartisan as the Billy Dale bill? And they do it all 
under the guise that they are not getting what they want on the minimum 
wage, and then they vote against cloture today knowing that Senator 
Dole said they can have a vote on their minimum wage. But if they want 
their vote on minimum wage, we are going to do something about the gas 
tax, and we are going to do something about the TEAM Act.
  I have to say I support Senator Dole in his effort to repeal the 4.3-
cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline that President Clinton and the 
Democrats passed back in 1993. While some critics might try to dismiss 
this bill as an election year gimmick, I believe they are missing the 
main point. This is about far more than just the 4.3-cent gas tax.
  The fact is the 1993 tax bill was the largest tax increase in 
history. We are now paying taxes at the highest rate in history. 
Yesterday was tax freedom day, signifying how long we have to work just 
to pay our State and local taxes, and that does not include all the 
costs of regulatory burdens and other things. As of yesterday, the 
seventh of May, it took the average American all those months, the 
first 4 months and 7 days, just to pay their Federal and State taxes. 
Think about that.
  The fact is that the President has added the largest tax increase in 
history. We are paying at the highest tax rates in history, and we are 
still going into debt phenomenally because the tax increases, like the 
gas tax, have not gone to fill the pot holes in the roads or to help 
our highway system or to help States with their peculiar difficulties 
in highways and roads; those moneys have gone for more social spending, 
more social welfare spending by none other than Democrats throughout 
the country.
  Frankly, they have used the gas tax, which is disproportionately 
unfair to the poor, disproportionately unfair to the West, 
disproportionately unfair to rural States, and plowed it all back into 
their core constituencies right back here, primarily in the East, or in 
other large major urban areas, rather than using those funds to benefit 
everybody through road improvements.

  We are talking about $30 billion here that we are going to repeal. 
Our colleagues on the other side really do not want that repeal to 
occur, because that means there is going to be more pressure on them 
because they will not be able to spend more and more buying votes out 
there in social spending programs, which has been the route that they 
have taken to power for most of the last 60 years. It is not right. It 
is not right. It is not fair. It is disproportionately harmful to the 
poor. It is disproportionately harmful to the West. It is 
disproportionately harmful to rural States, and it is time to be fair 
in this process.
  Well, that is what the repeal of the gas tax will do.
  I have to say that this 4.3-cent tax has caused gas prices to go up. 
It is not the only reason it has caused it to go up, but it is one of 
the pivotal reasons. Gas taxes would not be as high as they are had it 
not been for that 4.3 cents added on in 1993.
  We were told time after time by President Clinton in 1993 that the 
tax bill would affect only the very wealthiest in our society. Yet, 
that bill contained at least nine separate new tax hikes on families 
who are not wealthy--at least nine.
  The gas tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon was one of the worst of 
those. I wish we could repeal all the 1993 tax bill, because it has 
caused damaged to our economy.
  Let me get into the 1993 tax increases on the nonrich:
  No. 1, increase in individual marginal tax rates. That affects the 
nonrich in the cases of estates and trusts, small businesses, S 
corporations, and so forth. No question, there has been an increase in 
marginal tax rates, which always hurts the middle class.
  No. 2, increase in the percentage of Social Security benefits that 
are taxable. This happened because of President Clinton. That is not 
just on the 2 percent rich, it is on many many senior citizens.
  No. 3, the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline.

[[Page S4835]]

  No. 4, the reduction in the compensation limit for qualified 
retirement plans. This is important.
  No. 5, reduction in the meals and entertainment expense deduction 
that has cost an awful lot of damage in the restaurant industry and 
other industries as well, which used to be stronger because they had 
that deduction.
  No. 6, the increase in the withholding rate on supplemental 
compensation.
  No. 7, the increase in the recovery period for depreciation of 
nonresidential real property.
  No. 8, limitations in moving expense deductions that have cost the 
middle class.
  No. 9, increased marriage penalties that have always been very, very 
unfair.
  I have to say, the Heritage Foundation, one of our better think tanks 
here in Washington, although conservative in nature, recently released 
a study that shows that President Clinton's 1993 tax and budget plan 
cost the economy $208 billion in lost output from 1993 to 1996. In 1995 
alone, our gross domestic product would have grown by $66 billion more 
than it actually did if these taxes had not been raised. Moreover, 
there would have been 1.2 million more private-sector jobs created 
absent the 1993 bill, and those jobs would have meant more revenue to 
the Treasury, not less.
  The thing that is mind-boggling is what President Clinton said. Why 
would he say this during his campaign, and then immediately revoke it 
by the tax increase? He said: ``I oppose Federal excise gas tax 
increases.''
  Now, why would the President say that if he did not mean it? No 
sooner does he get elected than he does the exact opposite. That is 
what Bill Clinton said when he ran for President in 1992: ``I oppose 
Federal excise gas tax increases.''
  But what he did once he was elected was push through the Democrat-
controlled Congress a permanent 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax hike as 
part of his overall $268 billion tax increase in 1993, the largest tax 
increase in history.

  Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for that tax 
increase. Just think about it. His gas tax increase affects all 
Americans, not just the rich. In fact, President Clinton's gas tax hike 
hits hardest those families least able to afford it.
  Now, as Senator Dole said today, drivers across America are paying 
for the President's mistake. President Clinton raised the gas tax 
hoping to generate $25 billion. That is what the administration 
represented before the Senate Finance Committee, upon which I sit. But 
they thought it would generate $25 billion to help fund the President's 
liberal agenda and social welfare programs, not to fund highway and 
transportation maintenance, as was historically done with general 
excise taxes.
  The President originally wanted to raise the gas taxes even more, 
proposing a sweeping $73 billion Btu energy tax increase in 1993 that 
would have raised the price of gas by 7.5 cents per gallon. Senate 
Republicans, under the leadership of Senator Dole, killed that. I was 
one of those who worked hard to kill that. We killed Clinton's Btu tax. 
It should have been killed. It was not fair. It was not fair to the 
average person, was not fair to society as a whole and, frankly, was 
not fair in light of the excessive taxes that we are paying today.
  I might say, voters should not be surprised by the President's gas 
tax increases. As Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton raised the 
State gas tax by a total of 10 cents per gallon from 1979 to 1991. He 
loves to raise taxes. They do it under the guise that they are reducing 
the deficit, when in fact these taxes have gone for social spending 
programs. There is no question about it.
  Let me just say this. The Heritage study also shows that income tax 
rate increases in the 1993 tax bill delivered only 49 percent of the 
revenues that the President promised we would have or that were 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be received by the 
Treasury. When compared with the jobs that were never created because 
of this bill, this means we sacrificed 17,600 jobs for every $1 billion 
in deficit reduction. This is a very high price to pay for deficit 
reduction that can be achieved in a better way.
  My Democratic colleagues and the President are quick to defend the 
1993 tax bill by pointing out the progress that has been made in the 
deficit over the last few years. Let me be clear about this. Balancing 
the budget should not provide the rationale for raising taxes. It is 
merely an excuse for those who want to continue the tired, old liberal 
policies of taxing and spending.
  For almost half of the last century, the Federal Government has spent 
$1.59 in expenditures for every $1 received through taxes or every new 
$1 in taxes. Government is not taxing the American people to eliminate 
the deficit; it is taxing the people in order to continue spending. I 
do not think anybody really doubts that on either side of the floor.
  We Republicans have demonstrated that we can balance the budget 
without increasing taxes. In fact, we balanced the budget while cutting 
taxes on the American family by providing incentives for new economic 
growth.
  Mr. FORD. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. If I could finish.
  Mr. FORD. I want to ask about Social Security.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield if the Senator wants me to.
  President Clinton chose to veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, just 
as in 1993 he turned his back on the American family and vetoed the 
bill that would have gone a long way toward reversing the tax increases 
he pushed through in 1993. President Clinton's veto of the Balanced 
Budget Act cost a family of four a minimum of $1,217 a year. A minimum. 
For many families, it will cost a lot more than that. That is the 
average family of four. This figure does not even begin to take into 
account possible tax savings from capital gains tax rate reductions, 
the adoption credit, the enhanced IRA provisions or deductions for 
student loan interest.

  Can you imagine what it really cost the American family? The least it 
costs them is $1,217 a year. Also, that does not take into account the 
substantial savings that would accrue to American families on mortgage 
interest, auto loans, student loans, other private borrowing, that a 
balanced Federal budget would mean by lowering interest rates by an 
estimated 2 percent. Those are economic realities.
  I am the first to agree this 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax repeal would not 
solve all of our problems. I agree with that. But it is an important 
start in reversing the trend toward taxing Americans to death. Frankly, 
that is what we have seen from this administration in the 4 years that 
it has been in existence.
  I said yesterday was tax freedom day. This is the day that the 
nonpartisan Tax Foundation says that average American workers stop 
working for the Government and start earning money that they can spend 
on their families. That was yesterday. You have the first 5 months of 
this year. Never has tax freedom day occurred so late in the history of 
this country as it has in 1996. Look at the calendar. And 1996 is more 
than a third over.
  Americans work one-third of the entire year just to support the 
Federal, State and local governments. Just think about it. A family of 
four in my home State of Utah, with an estimated median income of about 
$45,000, paid $8,800 in direct and indirect Federal taxes. On top of 
this outrageous amount, they must also pay over $5,700 in State and 
local taxes, bringing the total family tax burden to $14,500. This is 
an effective tax rate for the average family of four of over 32 
percent. Think about it.
  But if we add to this the cost of Federal and State regulations and 
their effect on the prices of goods and services --and, of course, we 
have had filibusters against trying to change the regulatory system so 
we can get some reason into it, so people can live within the system, 
so we can still regulate in a reasonable and decent way, so we do not 
have the overbalances that we have today--even so, if you add the cost 
of Federal and State regulations and the effect they have on the prices 
of goods and services, along with the added interest, the cost the 
families must pay because of our failure to balance the Federal budget, 
the true family tax burden is even much higher than that $14,500, or 32 
percent. In fact, these costs are estimated--just these costs alone, 
these overregulatory costs--at

[[Page S4836]]

about $8,600 for a family of four in Utah. Thus, the estimated total 
cost of government to a family of four earning $45,000 a year is over 
$23,000, better than half of what that family has coming in.
  This is over half of the typical Utah family's income. So when you 
talk about repealing the gas tax, I say, let us do it. But I call on 
the President to go beyond this repeal and let us pass more of the 
significant tax relief provisions that were included in last year's 
Balanced Budget Act.
  Having said that about the gas tax, let me just say a few words about 
the TEAM bill. Having been in labor, one of the few who really came 
through the trade union movement, I was a card-carrying union member as 
a wood, wire, and metal latherer. I worked in building construction 
trade unions for 10 years. As one who would fight for the right to 
collective bargain and who has fought for free trade unionists all over 
the world, I have to say that to allow what Senator Dole has offered to 
our colleagues on the other side to be stopped--some on the other side 
do not want to allow employees, workers, if you will, to meet with 
management, in the best safety interests of the workers and of the 
companies--is just plain unbelievable.
  There is only one reason why the folks on this other side take this 
position. Their biggest single funder of Democratic Party politics in 
this country happens to be the trade union movement. The trade union 
movement brings in about $6 billion a year. It is well known in this 
town that 70 to 80 percent of every dollar in dues that comes in goes 
to paid political operatives who do nothing but push the liberal agenda 
in this country.
  Even something as simple and as reasonable and as decent as allowing 
workers to meet with their owners and their managers, in the best 
interests of safety on the job, is being fought against by these folks 
over here for no other reason than big labor does not want that TEAM 
Act.
  Now, why do they not want that TEAM Act? I cannot see one good reason 
why, except you have to think like they do. They know that the more the 
employees and the employers get together in meetings and discuss 
things, the more they find common ground, the better the employees 
understand the management concerns, and the better the management 
people understand the employees' concerns, the better they work 
together. Because of that, the union movement believes they will find 
there is no need for a union because management will treat the 
employees fairly, and the employees will treat management fairly. Why 
pay union dues? That is pretty shortsighted.
  There are good reasons to have unions. Frankly, unions should not be 
afraid to compete in a reasonable situation. If they have good programs 
and they have good policies and they have good approaches, the 
employees will join them. If they do not, then they are not going to 
join. That is why the movement dropped from 33 percent of the work 
force down to 13 percent of the work force today. It is because of 
being afraid of even allowing employees and employers to get together. 
Why are they not allowed to get together under current law? You would 
think reasonable, educated, civilized countries would allow employees 
and employers to get together and talk about safety and the best 
interests of both sides. You would think that would be just a given.
  The reason it is not a given, Mr. President, is because the National 
Labor Relations Board has been taken over by Clinton appointees who do 
whatever organized labor within the beltway wants them to do, 
regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the worker. A few 
years back, the National Labor Relations Board threw out the right to 
have teamwork together between management and labor, causing a divide 
and divisiveness that should not exist, for no other reason than 
because their largest supporters, the union leaders in Washington, did 
not like it and were afraid they might lose union members because of a 
reasonable relationship with management.
  That is ridiculous. It is not right. It is not fair. That is what the 
National Labor Relations Board ruled. Now we are stuck with it unless 
we pass a statute that allows these two interested parties, who ought 
to be getting along together, who ought to look for common ground, who 
ought to work together in the best interests of safety, unless we allow 
them to get together. That is all this is. It is such a simple, small 
thing, you would think nobody who looks at it objectively and 
reasonably could disagree.
  Then we have the President at a press conference indicating we are 
slowing things down. Gracious, what will he not say if he can say 
something like that? Is there no argument that he will not make no 
matter how unjustified it might be? We have had almost 70 filibusters 
in a little over a year since the Republicans have taken over. I cannot 
remember ever having anything like that for Republicans when we were in 
the minority.
  Now, I will say this: Senator Mitchell had this common habit of 
coming out here and filing a bill and then filing cloture and accusing 
us of filibuster when nobody on our side intended to filibuster anyway. 
In almost every case where there was a reasonable bill, the bill passed 
or at least was debated.
  Here we have had a slowdown on almost everything, and for the last 
number of days because the other side wanted the minimum wage. Senator 
Dole walks out here and reasonably says, ``We will give it to you and 
let you have a vote up or down on your bill, on your minimum wage, but 
we want these two other things that are reasonable--repeal the tax gas 
in the best interests of our citizens, and we certainly, certainly, 
want to allow employees to meet with their management leaders in order 
to work on the workplace concerns of businesses all over America. 
Employees have every right to talk to their employers and express their 
concerns. I think these are reasonable requests, and I think the 
majority leader is being very reasonable.
  Frankly, I do not understand why we have to continue to put up with 
the stonewalling that we have on the other side. Now, I cannot remember 
referring to stonewalling in several years, and I have not seen the 
word ``stonewalling'' used by the media during the last 2 years, hardly 
at all. I do not recall a time. I am sure there have to be a few times, 
but I do not recall. It was a daily drumbeat when the Democrats were in 
control and the Republicans were fighting for principles they believed 
in.

  Here is Senator Dole willing to give the other side an opportunity on 
the principles that they want to fight for, give them a chance to vote 
up or down, and all he asks is we have a chance to vote up or down on 
some of the principles we want to fight for and let the chips fall 
where they may. That is the right way to do it in this particular case. 
It may be the right way to do it in many cases.
  Mr. President, it bothers me that underlying this whole thing, 
knowing that Senator Dole, our majority leader, is making an effort to 
try to bring people together, to try to get the matters moving ahead, 
to do things that give both sides shots at their particular bills, that 
underlying this whole thing is a deliberate attempt to try to deny 
Billy Dale and his colleagues, former White House staff, who were just 
plain treated miserably, unfortunately, dishonestly, by people who got 
their marching orders from, according to those who testified, the 
highest levels of the White House, from getting just compensation for 
the attorney's fees they were unduly charged because of the 
mistreatment that they suffered at the hands of the White House.
  It is a bill that I think would pass the U.S. Senate 100-zip. It is 
being held up for no good reason at all. Now, the ostensible reason was 
that the Democrats did not have a chance to get a vote on the minimum 
wage they wanted to amend to the bill. Now Senator Dole has provided 
them with that opportunity. Why do they not seize that and let Billy 
Dale get compensated?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to know the Senator's feeling on this. Is it the 
Senator's view that the taxpayers ought to pick up the bills of any 
individual who is indicted by a grand jury, Federal grand jury, and 
then after indicted, is proved innocent, is not proven guilty, does he 
think it would be appropriate for the taxpayer to do what he wants to

[[Page S4837]]

do in this particular case for all of those who were indicted by a 
Federal grand jury?
  Mr. HATCH. Of course not. The fact of the matter is this is a case 
that everybody agrees is an egregious example of excessive use of 
power, and greedy power at that, of the White House, and this is a case 
where the President himself said we should reimburse them with legal 
fees.
  Mrs. BOXER. The reason I ask the question, I want to make the point 
that when we set precedence around here----
  Mr. HATCH. I ask, Who has the floor?
  Let me say to my distinguished friend and colleague, let me finish 
making my explanation, and then I will be glad to yield for another 
question.
  The fact of the matter is we have an injustice here, a gross 
injustice, which the Democrats and the Republicans admit is a gross 
injustice, caused by White House personnel and outside people who were 
greedy. The President wants this to be done and says he will sign the 
bill. It is not comparable to everybody who is indicted.
  Second, I said yesterday that if people are indicted who are unjustly 
treated like this because of the same circumstances, I would be the 
first to come to the floor and try to help them. But not everyone who 
is indicted fits that category. In fact, very few do. I do not know of 
many White Houses that have shabbily treated former White House staff 
like this one has.
  Now, when we find something similar to that, I am happy to fight for 
it, regardless of their politics or regardless of who they are, 
regardless of whether I like them or do not. I am willing to go beyond 
that. I would like to right all injustices and wrongs, but the mere 
fact that somebody is indicted does not say we should spend taxpayer 
dollars to help them. We have to look at them as individual cases. As 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I can say that this is what we 
have done in the past, what we will do in the future. As I view my job 
as chairman, it is to right wrongs and to solve injustices.
  Now, we have the distinguished Senator from Arkansas here yesterday 
saying we should reimburse all of the people who have appeared before 
the Whitewater committee. Well, we are not giving Billy Dale 
reimbursement for attorney's fees in appearing before Congress. 
Frankly, I do not think you do that until you find out what is the end 
result of Whitewater, and then maybe we can look at it and see if there 
are some injustices. I think you will be hard pressed to say there is 
some injustice that comes even close to what has happened to Billy Dale 
and his companions. And if we put it to a test and have a vote on it, I 
think you would find that 100 percent of the people here will vote for 
it. I think that will be the test.

  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield for a final question and 
observation, the reason I raise the question is, I think it is 
important when we do take action around here, that we let the taxpayers 
know what they are paying for. Actually, when this first came up, I say 
to my friend, it did not come into my mind until it was raised by 
another Senator, who said that there are many people who are indicted 
by a Federal grand jury and then the guilt is not proven.
  We have to be careful what we are doing here. I think the fact that 
my friend responded in the way he did, that he is open to looking at 
this in a larger context, is important because I think whatever we do 
here will have ramifications. That was the purpose of my question, and 
I thank my friend for answering.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. She makes the very good point that 
we should not just be an open pocket for people who get indicted.
  In this particular case, I think almost everybody admits we have to 
right this wrong. It is the appropriate thing to do. There may be 
others that we will have to treat similarly. I will be at the forefront 
in trying to do so.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is 
recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me recognize and thank my friend, 
Senator Harkin, who was kind enough to allow me to proceed out of order 
to accommodate my schedule. I ask unanimous consent that he may be 
recognized next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________