John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I might submit another amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair as to the pending amendment and as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would the Chair please inform me when there are 25 minutes left?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for acknowledging in his remarks that my particular amendment contained offsets. There was some misunderstanding about that. The Senator from Nebraska indicated that we had been inadequately focused on offsets. The truth of the matter is I would not propose reductions in taxes without reductions in spending. I think that is important. I want to make a few remarks about the Gramm amendment because I think it is related to the things that ought to concern us the most. The Gramm amendment talks about relief for individuals who are paying taxes on their Social Security benefits. But what is interesting to me is that the Democratic side of the aisle seems to be so reluctant to grant that relief. There seems to be every reason to say that the relief is appropriate, because when a worker pays his Social Security tax--that is a tax, and the worker, under our current law, has to pay income tax on the money that he uses to pay his Social Security tax. So that is a double tax. Then, if the individual gets that money back from the Government and, because he is working, he has to pay a tax on that money again, that is a triple tax. The old song ``Sixteen Tons'' said it right. ``If the right one doesn't get you, the left one will.'' But it looks to me like in this instance we say, ``If the right one doesn't get you and the left one misses you, we are going to kick you out of the ballpark.'' It is just simply wrong for us to tax the money first, then to ask people to pay the Social Security tax with what is left over, and then when the person is eligible for the Social Security to tax them a third time. I do not know why the Democratic side of the aisle would insist on this triple whammy. It is just unreasonable, inappropriate, and counterproductive. It inhibits growth and stifles the enterprise that we want people to continue to have into their later years in life. Senator Gramm has cogently outlined his proposal. Senator Lott spoke clearly in its behalf. Somehow to let people have money that they have already paid tax on twice seems to be an affront to the folk on the other side of the aisle. We need to understand that when people earn money, it is their money, and taxing it once is enough. Taxing it twice is an outrage. Taxing it three times is just totally unacceptable. The triple tax that exists here is something that we ought to abandon and abandon rapidly. Senators from other side of the aisle have stood to talk about and question the sincerity of people on this side of the aisle as it relates to tax relief. They have said that every time we propose tax relief it increases the deficit. Well, that is kind of an interesting thing that suggests because we lowered tax rates, somehow there was less money coming into the Government, and because there was less money, we had much, much higher deficits. Frankly, that misrepresents, misguides, misleads and promotes misunderstanding in the public. They talk about the so-called siren song of lowered tax rates, and they say it always leads to higher deficits. I do not think so. I quote from an article in the Wall Street Journal. As a matter of fact, these statistics were provided to the Journal by Senator Abraham from the State of Michigan. ``The growth of real tax revenues was 65 percent higher per year in the low tax rate 1980's than in the high tax rate 1990's. From 1982 to 1989, Federal revenues adjusted for inflation expanded by an average of 3.8 percent per year despite a sharp reduction in tax rates.'' So what we had in those years was lower tax rates, but because of the growth in the economy, we had higher revenues for the Government. Now, that was a formula for growth. It was a formula where individuals could find growth in their own lives. It was a way to have a better economy. It was a way to decrease the deficit. When you have more money coming in, the only way to increase the deficit is to have sharply increased spending. Conveniently, those on the Democratic side of the aisle in this Chamber never associate the deficit of the 1980's with the sharply increased spending. They want to talk about a reduction in tax rates. They never want to talk about the fact that the tax revenues went up and that their spending went up much, much higher than the revenues. And I do not blame them for their reticence. But the truth is that every time the other side of the aisle talks about deficit reduction, it means more money out of the American working person's pocket. Every time they talk about debt, Americans should grab their wallets, because the only way they see to reduce the federal debt is to increase taxes. They do not see debt reduction by way of curtailing spending, and they certainly do not see it as a means of growth. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for recognizing that my amendment to stop making people pay income tax on their Social Security tax includes cuts in spending which fully offset any costs. Some speakers on the Democratic side of the aisle literally questioned the sincerity of my proposal. I think that is inappropriate, because I know what it means to operate with fiscal reliability and integrity. During my time as Governor, I learned what it meant to balance a budget. We balanced every one. We did more than that. We established a cash flow operating reserve with hundreds of millions of dollars, making sure that we always could cover our expenditures in a timely way. In addition to a cash flow operating reserve, we established a rainy day fund for the State so that when troublesome times came, we could have money set aside in advance to accommodate unanticipated expenses. That is not the kind of thing that comes from demagoguery or insincerity. It comes from understanding that if you have the right growth rate and you have the right restraint in spending, good things will happen. The folks on the other side of the aisle seem to think that it is alright to tax the so-called rich--that it is easy to do and it will not hurt anybody. I think that is a fallacy that ought to be exposed. Taxing the rich usually hurts everybody. They talk about the fact that 98 percent of the tax increase of 1993 was on people who were so-called rich. Well, you know and I know that their definition of rich is different than that of most people. Not only that, the point is that by having that tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country, they stifled this economy. They put a lid on it. Although wages were up 1 percent last quarter--listen to this--this is the first time in 5 years that wages have inched ahead of increases in the cost of living. One quarter out of 5 years we finally had wages get up by 1 percent over the cost-of-living increase, and the Democrats are claiming that their tax increase did not have a negative impact on the economy. I would call that a pretty negative impact. No wonder the people across America feel a wage squeeze. We have a situation where economic stagnation is hurting folks. The truth of the matter is that workers saw no growth in their income in the first 3 years of the Clinton administration compared to robust annual growth during the Reagan years. I believe that we ought to be growing our economy. We ought to be growing it aggressively. Here is what the Heritage Foundation said about the 1993 Clinton tax increases. They said, ``The Clinton tax increases robbed every household of $2,100 and cut personal savings by $138 billion.'' When you put a lid on the economy, even with a tax increase which you say threatens only the wealthy, you indeed hurt all of the people. I would ask that the Chair allot me an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, the centrality of resource to government, the power to tax, the impact and effect of taxation upon our economy is something which is well known and understood across our culture. The development of a budget for this country is perhaps one of our most important responsibilities. It has to do with the fundamental ways in which we view ourselves. It helps us focus on who we are and what we can be when we have the right balance between spending and the rest of the economy--the private sector of the economy; when we have the right balance between taxes that are spent by government and resources that are spent by individuals in the culture. When I think about America, I think about it as a place of hope, a place of opportunity, a place that can solve problems that might not have been susceptible to solution anywhere else. I think about the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus' poem, which is so aggressive. It is so hopeful. It says: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shores, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. America so brash, America so capable, America so resilient, so oriented to growth and opportunity that it says to the rest of the world, ``Send me your most troublesome problems. Send me the most difficult of your cases, we lift a lamp of opportunity here. Give me your tired, your poor. We will take care of it here because we are growing, we are on the move.'' What troubles me perhaps more than anything else is that of late instead of saying, ``Give me your tired, your poor,'' we seem to be reciting that we are the tired, we are the poor. It has been said that America is the ``city on the hill,'' a special example to the rest of world, a place to look to, a city of hope and opportunity. Well, perhaps it might be said that if we are a city, we are in need of renewal. We sure would not want the kind of urban renewal that has been inflicted on American cities, but the sense that we need to again restart the engine, regenerate the opportunities of this culture. Perhaps we ought to look carefully at what is it that has moved us from a culture that could say, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.'' What it is that has moved us from saying that to being doubtful about the future, to be insecure, having this sense of social discomfort, of social disease, social insecurity, if you will, which we find in America today? I have to say to you that I think it has been the flatness in growth which we have normally expected in this culture but which we are not seeing in the American culture. Economic growth has always driven the idea that America could be a special place of opportunity. It was that sense of endless opportunity in this country that drove us to say, ``Give me your tired, your poor.'' It was this understanding that we could always grow our way through circumstances and difficulties. Growth has been a marvelous key toward providing some new hope for individuals at all times in our history. Yet, what has happened to growth? What has happened to our culture? We have seen a tremendous flatness in recent years. Take-home pay is stagnant at best. The average household income is 6.3 percent below its 1989 level--6.3 percent down; 6.3 percent is $1 out of every $18. So where you used to get $18 you now only have $17. That is just in the last 6 or 7 years. Zero growth in worker income for the first 3 years of the Clinton administration. Working families are being taxed. They are being stressed. We find they get up early; they work late; they sacrifice time with each other and with their children, and they have less and less for it. They are squeezed. What is the reason? Why is it that we as a culture find ourselves laboring under this weight rather than soaring toward the opportunity of a lifted lamp that can greet any challenge boldly and say, ``Give me your best shot?'' We cannot only roll with the punch; we can succeed. I think it is simple. I think it is because the Government has begun to take so much of the wage of working Americans that Americans no longer have the resource to spend for themselves. Tax liberation day is a day that is calculated each year which says that since the Government has the first claim on your wages, how long do you have to work into the year in order to pay all the Government's claim? Tax liberation day was just a little over a week ago. The truth of the matter is it is awfully substantial in our culture, the burden that taxes place on each of us. As a matter of fact, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, that is, the output of this economy, we have higher rates of taxation at this moment in history than we have ever had in the history of this Republic, higher than the rate of taxation that it took to throw the British out of this country, higher than it took to win the Civil War, higher rates of taxation than it took to make the world safe for democracy in World War I, higher rates of taxation than it took for us to spend our way out of the Depression of the 1930's, and more taxes in terms of gross domestic product than it took for us to win World War II. The American people are being taxed at the highest rate in history when measured by gross domestic product. That is a shame. It is a substantial burden on the American people. And as their incomes are being eroded, repressed, held back, they are wondering what happened to their income. I think it is pretty easy for us to say what has happened to their income because the growth of Government spending has soared. We have gone to an income tax which was 2 to 3 percent of income in the 1950's to more than 10 times that much now. And we have levels of taxation which are just incredible. Of the family budget, in 1955, 27.7 percent was total taxes--in 1955. It is 38.2 percent in 1995. That is more than a third increase in what the American family is being asked to pay in taxes. Just looking at the data from this decade, it is not a happy picture because in 1990 we had a substantial tax increase, and in 1993 the Clinton administration and the Democrats in the Congress imposed upon the American people without a single Republican vote the largest tax increase in the history of America. And so when the American worker looks around to say, what happened to my wage increase, it is pretty easy to say what has happened to your wage increase, what has happened to the growth in this economy, what has happened to the dynamic potential of hope that America represents and ought to be. It has been stolen by Government. What the people cannot spend is what Government has taken. And when Government takes well over 38 percent of your income, you cannot spend it, and if Government did not take it, you could spend it. Government is out of control. It is taxing at incredibly high rates and families are suffering. Senator Coverdell of Georgia is eloquent in describing how taxes have gone up regularly since the 1950's and 1960's. You can trace and correlate the number of families where people feel it is necessary for both parents to be out of the home working. Taxes have not only stolen the resource of money from our families but they have stolen the resource of parenting in many respects by forcing people who would otherwise want to stay in the home to be parents to leave the home in order to go into the marketplace to try and make enough. So that the workers are not getting increases. The record of the recent past is the workers are not getting increases, but the record is that the Government is getting increases, and so we not only have the diversion of the important financial resource from family, we have had a diversion of other resources. And people are not able to make their own decisions about whether they want to go into the marketplace or to stay in the home or spend time with their family or devote themselves to the development of family concerns; you have a situation where they are simply compelled to be there. This is a situation of Government that is out of control. This chart here just gives us a little indication of where the money goes. House and household, in the average family, 15 percent pays for its home and its household. That is 2.5 times less, or this is 2.5 times more total taxes; food, 6 percent of the normal family's income; taxes, over 600 percent more than that; transportation, 6 percent; over 600 percent more than we spend on transportation; to put clothes on the backs of Americans costs 4 percent of family income; it costs almost 10 percent that much to pay taxes. This is the largest total tax figure. This represents more of the gross domestic product than at any time in the history of this country, and it is no wonder that we find ourselves in a period of stagnation, of retrogression, of reduction rather than in development and growth, and it is time again to unleash the engine of opportunity, the driving force of growth in our culture and society. Government has stolen the wage increases of American workers by regressing growth in the American culture. It is the reason, if we are the city on the Hill, we need renewal. It is the reason we no longer say give me your tired, your poor. We have people complaining that they are tired and they are poor, and it is time for us to grant to the American people the kind of relief which will make a difference to them. I think we need to find a way to relieve the American public of its tax burden, but we need to make sure that this goes to the people who need it most. We need to find a way to make sure that the American public, the working public, the middle class, the forgotten middle class in everything but campaign years, is remembered. Let me just say that I think I have a way to get that done. I think I have an effective way to deliver tax relief to the middle class, and let me describe it to you. Almost all of us--well, all of us who do work--pay what is called payroll taxes. These are taxes that go to support Social Security. And I would not touch those taxes in any way. We need to pay those in order to make sure that the Social Security trust fund is maintained. But these Social Security taxes are a tax. We pay those to the Government. They go to make sure that our ability to pay individuals who are on Social Security their benefits is maintained. We do not want to impair in any way the ability of this culture to pay those citizens who are on Social Security what they deserve and what they have earned by paying their Social Security taxes in the past. But it is a tax. And when you pay the 6 point something or other percent of your wages as a Social Security tax, it is a tax. There is no two ways about it. It is a tax. It is not an investment program for you. They do not take your money and invest it and put it away so that you will have something when you retire. It is simply a tax that is levied on you so they can meet the current demands of the Social Security system. What is interesting about that tax is that you have to pay that tax after you have already had your income tax calculated. So that you have paid a tax on that money, and then you pay a tax again. This is a classic setting where we have asked the American people to be subject to a tax on a tax. That is unfair. Double taxation for the American people in this setting is grossly unfair. It is something that we have rejected in virtually every other category of our existence, but we are asking American workers, working families, to pay a tax on a tax. As you know, the Social Security tax is only levied on the first $62,000 of your income, $63,000; $62,700 is the real number. So if you are paying a tax on that amount and it is also being taxed for income tax purposes, you have a double tax. I think we ought to make that deductible. You still have to pay the Social Security tax, but you no longer have to pay the income tax on things that are never income to you, because this money never reaches an employee. The working families of America never see it. It is deducted. It is called the payroll deduction tax. It is a tax that goes straight from your employer right into the Federal Government. You do not even get a sniff at this resource, and yet you are taxed on this tax. Strangely enough, interestingly enough, this is not a tax which hits American business in the same way, because the business community has a right to deduct from its taxes the payments that it makes that match the workers' tax. So the business community, the giant corporate citizens of America--and we need them and they are good and appropriate--they get fair treatment by being able to deduct this as an expense. But the citizen, the worker, pays on the first $62,700 of our income, we pay Social Security taxes out of money that we have already paid taxes on. We have a tax on the tax, and it is time that we stopped that. It is time that we elevate the American worker at least to the tax standing and tax position of American corporations. It is time that we gave that tax break to the American worker. It is important that this tax break, by providing for deductibility of the Social Security tax before the income tax is paid, go to the American worker. It is important to note that it is only on the first $62,000 of income. So, as a matter of fact, for the millionaires, they only get the break on $62,000 of their income, just like the average working family would only get the break on that first segment of income. So for those who are fond of saying every time there is a tax break, that this is a tax break for the rich, well, you need not apply here, because this is limited automatically to providing the deduction for a tax you are paying to Social Security, and since nobody pays it above $62,700, it is not a deduction for the rich. It is a deduction in terms of proportional deductions of your wages that favors, dramatically favors, the middle class. What an important thing that is, because middle-class families are the families that desperately need help. What would happen to the middle-class family? How would the middle- class family be affected? For middle-class families, the Social Security tax is the single largest tax that is paid. No other tax that we pay takes a bigger chunk out of the average family's income than Social Security taxes. So to give a deduction on that would be substantial. It would really mean they would have about a 1-percent decrease in their income tax rate for these families, the average two- income family. That means that you would pay about $1,770 less in taxes for the year than you would if we did not have this deduction. What happens to the economy of the United States of America if you let working people who have earned the money just pay tax once by sending it to the Social Security trust fund but not being taxed on that money twice, therefore, having the extra $1,770 in income? What will happen in the United States? Growth, that is what will happen. It is universal. No one projects anything but substantial growth. The middle number is about 500,000 new jobs, about 10,000 jobs per State. I had the privilege of being Governor of my State for about 8 years before I became a U.S. Senator, and it is a great privilege. If someone came to your State saying they had 10,000 jobs for you, I mean, stopping the Governor from doing cartwheels would be a major endeavor. We care about growth; we care about opportunity. That is the equivalent of two large car assembly plants. States have fallen all over themselves. I remember the competition for the Saturn plant, eventually won by Tennessee, I sadly say. Good for Tennessee, bad for Missouri. We would like to have had it. But several of those in every State in the United States of America? It is estimated that the gross domestic product would raise by one-half of 1 percent as a result of letting the people spend the money instead of having the Government spend the money. I think we need to remind ourselves on a regular and consistent basis that when we tax people, it is a question of not whether money will be spent, it is whether we are going to spend the money in the Government and whether we can decide best for people how to serve their needs or whether they can decide best by having the money at their own disposal and by having the money for themselves to spend. I believe that the families in America know best, and the economists indicate that, if we will stop spending this money and just let it be spent in the private sector by the families, it will mean about 500,000--500,000--new jobs in America, about 10,000 jobs per State. The gross domestic product will go up by .5 percent. That would mean that 77 million--77 million--working Americans would have more resources to devote to themselves, to their families, do more for themselves, do more for their families, and do more of the good things that American families want to do. So often we say that Government is required because families will not do what they ought to do, but I believe we have come to a place where Government has made it impossible for families to do what they ought and want to do. They want to share, they want to be involved in their communities, they want to be involved in their churches and synagogues and mosques and temples. They want to be involved in reaching out to other people. But when Government takes such a big share, when you have to work 3 hours every day to get the Government's share out of the way and you struggle through the rest of the day to meet your own needs, it does not leave much opportunity for sharing. So we have a situation where we really need to provide relief to America's working families. They are struggling. We talk about the problems of the family. It is time for us to do something about the problems of our families. We talk about Government as if it all was involved in something that was fundamental, essential, and necessary--and frequently is--but families are fundamental, essential, and necessary. One hundred years ago, Williams Jennings Bryan said, if you tore down your cities and left your farms, the cities would grow back up. But if you destroyed the agriculture and the producing capacity of this country, grass would grow in the streets of the cities. I think if you tore down government, it could spring back up if you left the families in place, but if you were to tear down the families of America, I can guarantee you that grass would grow over this Capitol, and it may if we do not provide relief in some way to the families of this country that are hard pressed by this weight. It is not inconsequential that the governmental share is in red here, because much of this is the resource of the next generation as well. We are not only on a binge of taxation, we are on a binge of spending, and that binge of spending threatens the well-being of young Americans and those who are yet to be born. This is a program and proposal that basically comes down to the question of, do you want more taxes or less taxes? Do you want to grow Government, or do you want to grow people? What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is related to growth, but it is not related to the growth of Government; it is related to the growth of people. It is our responsibility to maintain an environment in which people grow, in which their enterprises grow, in which citizens grow and in which their corporations grow. It is a place where individuals grow and institutions grow, but if we make it so that government is the only thing that can grow because it sucks up so much of the resource of this culture, we will have destroyed the genius of America, we will have destroyed the opportunity of it, we will have destroyed the character of it. It is time for us to get out of the destruction business and to get into the restoration business. That is why the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act is what we ought to be focused on. This is a way, without impairing Social Security in any respect, to place into the hands of the American people the capacity to do for themselves and for their families and for others what they ought and want to do and to do so by balancing a taking by government of an inordinate amount of their resources. Remember, it is time to curtail this tax on tax. The American family has been treated unfairly. It has been taxed where corporations have been given a deduction. We are taxed at the highest levels in history. Not even to prosecute the most disastrous of all wars have we taxed our people as much as we have. It is time for us to provide the relief to the American family which will allow the American family to flourish, and allows us to again have the kind of bold, brash, and aggressive behavior of hope that said: Give us your best shot. Give us your tired, your poor. We can make something of anything in the United States because we are growing. It is time for us to be the city on the hill again and not the city in need of urban renewal, but a city of hope and opportunity. It is time for us to give the American worker a chance to do what needs to be done and to provide a basis upon which the American worker and the American economy can again grow. Amendment No. 4008, as Modified

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. It is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``til death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. I rise today to honor Mr. Kenneth and Mrs. Barbara Richardson who on June 9, 1996, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Richardsons' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized. I wish them and their family all the best as they celebrate this substantial marker on their journey together.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to honor the heroic service of our Nation's law enforcement officers, especially those who have paid the ultimate price in the line of duty. Facing increasingly organized and violent criminals, these brave men and women constitute the first line of defense against those who threaten society. We should be thankful that they do not shrink from this challenge. In the quest for law and order, 161 of our Nation's finest citizens made the supreme sacrifice in 1995, laying down their lives so that the rest of us may enjoy peace and prosperity. It is to honor their memory that today is proclaimed National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I wish to honor in particular a brave, young Missourian. Cass County Deputy Sheriff Kevin M. Mayse died on June 13, 1995, from injuries sustained while preserving and enhancing the quality of life enjoyed by his fellow Missourians in Cass County. Deputy Mayse left behind a widow, Scottie Sue, and four children, including his youngest daughter whom he never had the joy to meet since she was born a month after Kevin's death. As we honor those who have fallen while protecting others, we should also honor those such as Scottie Sue and her children who have paid a very high price for our protection as well. In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin wrote: ``The most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.'' The Bible says that there is no greater love than ``when one lays down his life for his friends.'' I can think of no greater service to his fellow man than that given by Deputy Sheriff Mayse. Three Missouri peace officers who died before 1995 have also been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Officers George M. McCready of Richmond Heights, Max W. Smith of Moniteau County, and George Adams of St. Louis County also gave their lives in defense of their fellow citizens. As we honor those lawmen slain in the line of duty, let us not forget those who carry on as guardians of our peace. We must protect them in turn by providing them with the tools and the laws necessary to wage the war against the ever-changing face of crime. Today, violent juvenile crime is growing at a phenomenal rate, yet our juvenile justice system is ill-prepared to cope with its dramatic rise or its brutality. Major reconstruction of the Federal and State juvenile justice systems is needed to ensure that violent and hardcore criminals, old and young, are identified, punished, and deterred. We also need to ensure that our fallen heroes, such as Deputy Sheriff Kevin Mayse, are not forgotten.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this bill has endorsements of a wide variety of groups and individuals. Jack Kemp, who was the chairman of the Tax Reform Commission, appointed by our leader, has endorsed this. It was a part of the Commission report. Carroll Campbell, of the Tax Reform Commission; Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; David Keating, National Taxpayers Union; David Keene and Bill Pascoe, American Conservative Union; Steve Moore, Cato Institute; Jack Faris, NFIB; Steve Entin, of IRET; Aldona Robbins, Fiscal Associates; Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste; Jim Carter, of the RNC; Greg Conko, of Competitive Enterprise Institute; Paul Huard, National Association of Manufacturers; Paul Beckner, Nancy Mitchell, and Decy Gray, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Beau Boulter, of the United Seniors Association, has endorsed this; Karen Kerrigan, of the Small Business Survival Committee; J. D. Foster, of the Tax Foundation; David L. Thompson, the Business Leadership Council--all have endorsed this matter, and we are grateful for their endorsements. This matter is cosponsored in the Senate by Senators Lott, DeWine, Mack, Hatch, Smith, Craig, and Shelby and sponsored in the House by Congressman Nethercutt, cosponsored by Congressmen Crane, Hostettler and Congresswoman Dunn. I thank all of these people, along with Gordon Jones, of the Seniors Coalition, for their participation in promoting this important idea. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, during this year when so much discussion is being focused on the future of America, I think it is important for us to inventory what it is that has made America a place of opportunity and a land which has welcomed individuals with initiative and industry from around the world. I think one of the key components of the American culture which has allowed that to happen has been the component of growth. We have understood that the purpose of government is to provide a framework for growth, that growth should be the characteristic which identifies America as the land of opportunity. As a matter of fact, that citizens and corporations, individuals, and institutions should enjoy conditions of growth--that is the reason to have government. It is the reason to have public safety, so people can grow and develop. It is the reason to have national defense, so the Nation can grow. Not that we would have big government, but that we would have a largeness in terms of opportunity and citizenship; so that we could, indeed, meet the needs of the next generation. It has been the kind of thing that has allowed us, as a country, to welcome all comers. It is the kind of thing that inspired Emma Lazarus to write the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. That is only available--we can only have that kind of optimism about the future--if we have growth, if we promote growth; growth not for the government but growth for the community, growth for the citizen, growth for the individual. That is the purpose of government. Yet, during the 1990's we find ourselves with a sense of discomfort, a sense of dis-ease, if you will, not disease, but dis-ease. We find that workers' wages are stagnant, some of them slipping. And we do not have that sense of growth. We do not find ourselves with that large reservoir of confidence that is rightfully American. What should we do? Where are we? People feel that we are adrift. We have a forgotten middle class. It has been detected in the Presidential campaigns. It has been understood by people who have been out among the voters. You and I have detected it when we have talked to folks. They feel like there is a flatness, there is a staleness. You feel like there has not been any growth. Then you begin to look for a reason. All of a sudden it becomes apparent. The Commerce Department of the U.S. Government last week told us about growth. It told us about the growth in the amount of taxes that government has been taking from individuals. It told us that we have reached an all- time high in terms of the taxes that individuals are paying. We tax people more now in America than we have taxed them at any time in history. We tax people more than we taxed them to fight the war in Vietnam, to win the Second World War. We tax people more now than we taxed them to spend our way out of the Great Depression. We made the world safe for democracy in World War I taxing people a lot less than we tax people now. It is beginning to dawn on America, on citizens, that we have had growth in taxes but we have not had growth in wages. People are beginning to understand that what you choose to spend by government you cannot choose to spend as individuals. The Government has stolen the increase in wages from people, the working people of the United States, for the last several years. The tax increases of this decade, including the 1993 tax increase of President Clinton, the largest tax increase in the history of America, has literally siphoned off the pay increase, the take-home pay addition that people would have had in the United States. It is time for us to understand that high taxes have hurt the ability of people to have more take-home pay. I would like to correct this. I think we ought to correct this. I think it is time for us to give people back the taxes which we took from them. It is time for us to restore to the American people the wage increases which have been stolen by Government. So it is my privilege today to introduce a measure, which I think is important to millions and millions of working Americans. I want to introduce the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act. This measure is a measure which is designed to increase the take-home pay of well over 77 million working Americans. It is a measure which would say that individuals, when they pay their Social Security taxes, have a right to deduct that tax payment from their income taxes. The payroll taxes, the Social Security taxes, would continue to be paid. There is nothing in this measure which would impair the Social Security trust fund. But right now American workers are being taxed on a tax. They pay their Social Security taxes but they also have to pay income tax on the money they use to pay their Social Security tax. A tax on a tax is something America has never long tolerated. It is time for us to say that we will not double tax American workers in this way. It is especially egregious, it is especially aggravating, it is a special affront to the American people to say to them that you have to pay this tax on a tax. Half the tax is paid by people, the other half is paid by corporations. And, guess what, corporations do not pay a tax on a tax. Corporations can deduct from their income tax the amount of Social Security tax they pay as a part of the payroll tax. So it is time for us to provide equity to the American people. For most Americans, the payroll tax is the most substantial of all taxes. So my proposal, which I send to the desk, is a proposal to eliminate the tax on this tax. Mr. President, I submit a bill for filing today at this time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise again to support the concept that workers are America's most valuable asset. If we are to succeed in the next century, if we are to survive in a world of universal competition, we cannot go into the competition forbidding workers and employers from talking to each other. If the 1960's and 1970's taught us anything at all, it was a lesson taught when foreign competition, especially in automotives and electronics--competition that gained from taking suggestions from the production floor and incorporating them in the process of the operation--almost drove some American businesses under. Suddenly, American manufacturers began to replicate this awareness of the great resource that employees can bring to business. I watched that happen when I was Governor of the State of Missouri. I observed as companies started to develop a sensitivity and how they would increase their productivity in the process. On numerous occasions I have come here to support the TEAM Act, which provides specific authority for employers to talk to employees, even in the absence of a labor union--specifically in the absence of a labor union--in order to gain the benefit of those employees, their views and their opinions. A series of cases with the National Labor Relations Board has found illegal the contacts between employers and employees on fundamental issues like safety, like working conditions, like working hours, like flexible work time, something that would help resolve this tension that exists between the demand that we seem to have for both parents being in the workplace and the fact that we need to raise children in our homes. I believe it is good to say to our companies, ``Talk to your workers, get their suggestions, become more competitive, become more productive and, as a consequence, help us be survivors in the next century; be swimmers, not sinkers, in the competition which we're going to be encountering all across the world as those tremendous nations of the Far East come on line, nations like China, like Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, tremendous populations which will be very competitive.'' So I believe the TEAM Act is one of those fundamental things that America should stand for, and that is working together. This already can happen in union settings. But only one out of nine workers is a union worker in the United States--outside of government-- and we do not want to tie the hands of eight out of nine of our competitors by not allowing them the advantage of working together with management to improve situations. One of the great examples that has been talked about in this entire debate has been a company named EFCO. It is a company in the State of Missouri that makes architectural glass, window wall systems. If you build a skyscraper that is going to be made out of glass, you order glass from someone like EFCO. In the process of their conferring with their workers, they went from about 70 percent on-time deliveries to well over 90 percent on-time deliveries. They improved their performance so substantially that the company exploded the jobs and literally had lots of new jobs, and that is the kind of thing we want to have happen. One of the Senators came to the floor to criticize the EFCO company, and in listening to him, I cannot really tell you that it is much of a criticism. But in attempting to criticize the company, he said the committees met on company property. I think that is nice for the company to say to employees and their committees that they are interested in helping the employees by allowing them to use company property. They met during working hours. I think that is good. It did not require these folks to come back away from their families. He said they had high management officials who attended these meetings. I think it is good when management and workers talk together. He said the committee members were paid for the time spent on committee work and that EFCO provided any necessary materials or supplies. I suppose that might be an indictment, but it does not sound like an indictment to me. But also represented was that somehow these committees were established in response to union activity. But the conclusion of the administrative law judge, who reviewed the evidence in this case, indicated that simply was not so. These committees were started in 1992, and the administrative law judge indicated, in his opinion, that there was no ``noticeable union organization'' activity until July 1993. The first committee was established in April 1992 which was 15 months before any noticeable union activity. Besides, the case law states the employer's motivation would be irrelevant in any event. The Senator who came to the floor to criticize the EFCO decision said that EFCO was found to have dominated these discussion groups; it sort of had a dark and nefarious tone about it. Let us find out what this domination really amounted to. The company set up the committee and said, ``We want to talk.'' I do not find that to be particularly onerous. I think that is really nice. So many companies do not bother to listen to their employees. As a matter of fact, that EFCO set up the committees is a commendation for EFCO. No. 2, that Senator said it was pretty bad that EFCO initially selected the members of these committees. What a terrible thing that is. To get them started they did. What was not said is they wanted to have broad membership and, second, that the employees soon established a policy whereby they chose their own members.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. It sounded pretty bad that the company chose the members until we found out that was just a way to get it started, and then it sounded very generous that the company allowed the employees to select the members after that. That is more generous than most labor unions that unilaterally select employees. Then it was charged that management participated in most of the meetings. It turns out they participated, but they did not vote on matters before these committees. They wanted to participate for purposes of discussion and learning. In addition, they attended the first committee's meeting, but then after that, they only attended by invitation of the workers. Of course, it was then charged that management in some instances suggested issues. I happen to believe that such employee groups would want to hear from management and management would want to hear from the employees. All these things that were said to have been so disastrous seem to me like good, constructive things to do, and that is really why we need to pass the TEAM Act. This company was hauled into court for asking for the opinion of employees, for letting them express their opinions on company time, for providing a place where they could meet, for providing supplies, papers and pencils upon which notes could be taken. That is a throwback to a bygone era that we can no longer afford to tolerate. Because this company has provided that it would share not only decisionmaking with its employees but share ownership. Twenty-five percent of the company has now been transferred to a special account for employee ownership. I think that is the kind of company we want to have, and it is a shame that this company owner, Chris Fuldner has had to spend $64,000 defending himself from having conducted himself so nobly. We ought to pass the TEAM Act. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of S. 1741 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this bill has endorsements of a wide variety of groups and individuals. Jack Kemp, who was the chairman of the Tax Reform Commission, appointed by our leader, has endorsed this. It was a part of the Commission report. Carroll Campbell, of the Tax Reform Commission; Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform; David Keating, National Taxpayers Union; David Keene and Bill Pascoe, American Conservative Union; Steve Moore, Cato Institute; Jack Faris, NFIB; Steve Entin, of IRET; Aldona Robbins, Fiscal Associates; Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste; Jim Carter, of the RNC; Greg Conko, of Competitive Enterprise Institute; Paul Huard, National Association of Manufacturers; Paul Beckner, Nancy Mitchell, and Decy Gray, Citizens for a Sound Economy; Beau Boulter, of the United Seniors Association, has endorsed this; Karen Kerrigan, of the Small Business Survival Committee; J. D. Foster, of the Tax Foundation; David L. Thompson, the Business Leadership Council--all have endorsed this matter, and we are grateful for their endorsements. This matter is cosponsored in the Senate by Senators Lott, DeWine, Mack, Hatch, Smith, Craig, and Shelby and sponsored in the House by Congressman Nethercutt, cosponsored by Congressmen Crane, Hostettler and Congresswoman Dunn. I thank all of these people, along with Gordon Jones, of the Seniors Coalition, for their participation in promoting this important idea. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, during this year when so much discussion is being focused on the future of America, I think it is important for us to inventory what it is that has made America a place of opportunity and a land which has welcomed individuals with initiative and industry from around the world. I think one of the key components of the American culture which has allowed that to happen has been the component of growth. We have understood that the purpose of government is to provide a framework for growth, that growth should be the characteristic which identifies America as the land of opportunity. As a matter of fact, that citizens and corporations, individuals, and institutions should enjoy conditions of growth--that is the reason to have government. It is the reason to have public safety, so people can grow and develop. It is the reason to have national defense, so the Nation can grow. Not that we would have big government, but that we would have a largeness in terms of opportunity and citizenship; so that we could, indeed, meet the needs of the next generation. It has been the kind of thing that has allowed us, as a country, to welcome all comers. It is the kind of thing that inspired Emma Lazarus to write the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. That is only available--we can only have that kind of optimism about the future--if we have growth, if we promote growth; growth not for the government but growth for the community, growth for the citizen, growth for the individual. That is the purpose of government. Yet, during the 1990's we find ourselves with a sense of discomfort, a sense of dis-ease, if you will, not disease, but dis-ease. We find that workers' wages are stagnant, some of them slipping. And we do not have that sense of growth. We do not find ourselves with that large reservoir of confidence that is rightfully American. What should we do? Where are we? People feel that we are adrift. We have a forgotten middle class. It has been detected in the Presidential campaigns. It has been understood by people who have been out among the voters. You and I have detected it when we have talked to folks. They feel like there is a flatness, there is a staleness. You feel like there has not been any growth. Then you begin to look for a reason. All of a sudden it becomes apparent. The Commerce Department of the U.S. Government last week told us about growth. It told us about the growth in the amount of taxes that government has been taking from individuals. It told us that we have reached an all- time high in terms of the taxes that individuals are paying. We tax people more now in America than we have taxed them at any time in history. We tax people more than we taxed them to fight the war in Vietnam, to win the Second World War. We tax people more now than we taxed them to spend our way out of the Great Depression. We made the world safe for democracy in World War I taxing people a lot less than we tax people now. It is beginning to dawn on America, on citizens, that we have had growth in taxes but we have not had growth in wages. People are beginning to understand that what you choose to spend by government you cannot choose to spend as individuals. The Government has stolen the increase in wages from people, the working people of the United States, for the last several years. The tax increases of this decade, including the 1993 tax increase of President Clinton, the largest tax increase in the history of America, has literally siphoned off the pay increase, the take-home pay addition that people would have had in the United States. It is time for us to understand that high taxes have hurt the ability of people to have more take-home pay. I would like to correct this. I think we ought to correct this. I think it is time for us to give people back the taxes which we took from them. It is time for us to restore to the American people the wage increases which have been stolen by Government. So it is my privilege today to introduce a measure, which I think is important to millions and millions of working Americans. I want to introduce the Working Americans Wage Restoration Act. This measure is a measure which is designed to increase the take-home pay of well over 77 million working Americans. It is a measure which would say that individuals, when they pay their Social Security taxes, have a right to deduct that tax payment from their income taxes. The payroll taxes, the Social Security taxes, would continue to be paid. There is nothing in this measure which would impair the Social Security trust fund. But right now American workers are being taxed on a tax. They pay their Social Security taxes but they also have to pay income tax on the money they use to pay their Social Security tax. A tax on a tax is something America has never long tolerated. It is time for us to say that we will not double tax American workers in this way. It is especially egregious, it is especially aggravating, it is a special affront to the American people to say to them that you have to pay this tax on a tax. Half the tax is paid by people, the other half is paid by corporations. And, guess what, corporations do not pay a tax on a tax. Corporations can deduct from their income tax the amount of Social Security tax they pay as a part of the payroll tax. So it is time for us to provide equity to the American people. For most Americans, the payroll tax is the most substantial of all taxes. So my proposal, which I send to the desk, is a proposal to eliminate the tax on this tax. Mr. President, I submit a bill for filing today at this time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe there are differences. That is more of a side versus side rather than a team here. It is this Senator's understanding that we ought to operate as a team, not one side versus another. We ought to try to work together.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Sure.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me.