T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this has to do with the military oceanographic research survey administered by the Dept. of the Navy. I understand it has been cleared by both of the distinguished managers. I want to tell them how much I appreciate their cooperation in this respect. Mr. President: today I am offering an amendment which will increase funding for the Navy's military oceanographic research survey capabilities. With enhanced survey capabilities, university research fleets will be able to help the Navy in the important work of oceanographic research. This amendment will reduce an approximately 240 ship-year backlog in military oceanographic survey vessels which are operated by the Oceanographer of the Navy. It allows the Navy to use non-military research ships as a supplement to its own fleet. Most of the Navy's surveys are overseas; some are in American waters. Clearly, the Navy Oceanographer's eight ships cannot, by themselves, do all the work for 240 ship-years of backlog. They need help. The University Oceanographic Laboratory System [UNOLS], an umbrella organization of oceanographic research ships, can provide that help. These research ships are owned and operated by a variety of agencies and private organizations, including the University of Washington in Seattle. With the additional funds provided by this amendment, the Navy can enlist the aid of UNOLS in reducing its backlog. This initiative will bring military and civilian oceanographers, together, in a spirit of partnership, for exchanges of ideas and capabilities. I thank the committee for agreeing to this amendment.

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate today, Senators have until the hour of 1 p.m. in order to file first-degree amendments to the defense appropriations bill. I further ask that the Record remain open until 1 p.m. to allow Senators to submit statements.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 590, the nomination of W. Craig Broadwater, of West Virginia, to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of West Virginia; No. 681, Andrew Effron, to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Labor Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1757 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a Senate resolution submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will shortly adjourn over until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 16. There will be no session of the Senate on Monday. When the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII, a live quorum will begin at 10, and upon the establishment of the quorum, a cloture vote will occur on the motion to proceed to S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. All Members can therefore expect a rollcall vote to begin shortly after 10 a.m. on Tuesday in accordance with Senate rules. If cloture is invoked, I hope the Senate would be allowed to proceed to S. 1936 in a timely manner. If cloture is not invoked on that important measure, there will be an immediate cloture vote on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I announce to all of my colleagues that I hope next week we will receive the cooperation of all Members in allowing the Senate to move forward with both of these issues.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 248 received from the House.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to ask a question of the managers of the bill.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the managers of the bill. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I, too, have an amendment that I would like considered in this bill. I have discussed it with the staff and with the principals. Because they do not want to go back to second reading, they did not want to do it at the present time. But in an amendment which Senator Murray and I sponsored with relation to USTF's and medical care, we have a portion of section 722 that the two of us would like deleted. I simply wanted the assurances, which I am sure are there, of the Senators that they will work to do the job right for Seattle and the State of Washington in the course of the conference.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Baucus and Murray, in introducing the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, a bill that will make the tax treatment for foreign investment through a U.S. regulated investment company comparable to the tax treatment for direct foreign investment and investment through a foreign mutual fund. The service industry continues to grow rapidly as a vital form of trade for the United States. While the United States continues to suffer a trade deficit in merchandise, exports of services ran at a surplus of $63 billion in 1995. In my home State of Washington, services such as financial investments and telecommunications are integral to job creation and economic growth. Improving the international competitiveness of the United States is of the utmost importance, and encouraging capital investment in U.S. companies is a critical component of improving our international competitiveness. Increasingly, foreign capital has been drawn into U.S. securities markets. We need to permit that capital to be invested in U.S. companies through U.S. mutual funds. This legislation will help ensure that U.S. mutual funds become a leading export for the United States and the leader in providing worldwide mutual fund services that attract more capital to the United States. Putting U.S. funds on a level playing field with foreign-based funds or foreign investments made directly in U.S. securities, produces a worldwide market for U.S. mutual funds and releases a flow of international capital into U.S. investments. The U.S. mutual fund industry is clearly the most technologically advanced in the world, and thus is the most cost efficient in delivering services to its client. Current law, however, imposes a 30- percent withholding tax on mutual fund distributions, a tax that does not apply in the case of comparable foreign-based funds or to direct investments in the United States. The withholding tax, which effectively imposes an export tax on the U.S. mutual fund industry, makes U.S. funds less attractive from a pricing standpoint and creates an administrative burden for foreign institutional investors. This tax discourages global institutional investors and the managers who invest their funds from using U.S.-based mutual funds, thus providing a competitive disadvantage to foreign-based funds. The Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996 addresses this disparate treatment by making the tax treatment of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds comparable to that afforded to foreign investments made directly in U.S. securities or indirectly through foreign based funds. Without this change, U.S. mutual funds would have a strong incentive to establish offshore funds in order to compete with foreign-based funds and satisfy the demand for U.S. securities in world markets. This has the unsatisfactory effect of moving U.S. mutual fund jobs and expertise to offshore facilities. Instead, we should be working to increase the demand for the fund services provided by U.S. fund managers, custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and others based in the United States, rather than locate those jobs offshore. This legislation will benefit our capital markets by exporting U.S. mutual funds, while creating and maintaining mutual fund jobs in the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Baucus and Murray, in introducing the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, a bill that will make the tax treatment for foreign investment through a U.S. regulated investment company comparable to the tax treatment for direct foreign investment and investment through a foreign mutual fund. The service industry continues to grow rapidly as a vital form of trade for the United States. While the United States continues to suffer a trade deficit in merchandise, exports of services ran at a surplus of $63 billion in 1995. In my home State of Washington, services such as financial investments and telecommunications are integral to job creation and economic growth. Improving the international competitiveness of the United States is of the utmost importance, and encouraging capital investment in U.S. companies is a critical component of improving our international competitiveness. Increasingly, foreign capital has been drawn into U.S. securities markets. We need to permit that capital to be invested in U.S. companies through U.S. mutual funds. This legislation will help ensure that U.S. mutual funds become a leading export for the United States and the leader in providing worldwide mutual fund services that attract more capital to the United States. Putting U.S. funds on a level playing field with foreign-based funds or foreign investments made directly in U.S. securities, produces a worldwide market for U.S. mutual funds and releases a flow of international capital into U.S. investments. The U.S. mutual fund industry is clearly the most technologically advanced in the world, and thus is the most cost efficient in delivering services to its client. Current law, however, imposes a 30- percent withholding tax on mutual fund distributions, a tax that does not apply in the case of comparable foreign-based funds or to direct investments in the United States. The withholding tax, which effectively imposes an export tax on the U.S. mutual fund industry, makes U.S. funds less attractive from a pricing standpoint and creates an administrative burden for foreign institutional investors. This tax discourages global institutional investors and the managers who invest their funds from using U.S.-based mutual funds, thus providing a competitive disadvantage to foreign-based funds. The Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996 addresses this disparate treatment by making the tax treatment of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds comparable to that afforded to foreign investments made directly in U.S. securities or indirectly through foreign based funds. Without this change, U.S. mutual funds would have a strong incentive to establish offshore funds in order to compete with foreign-based funds and satisfy the demand for U.S. securities in world markets. This has the unsatisfactory effect of moving U.S. mutual fund jobs and expertise to offshore facilities. Instead, we should be working to increase the demand for the fund services provided by U.S. fund managers, custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and others based in the United States, rather than locate those jobs offshore. This legislation will benefit our capital markets by exporting U.S. mutual funds, while creating and maintaining mutual fund jobs in the United States. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GORTON

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

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum be divided equally with respect to time of each side.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use upon the Dorgan amendment, and if I utilize all of that time, then I will use time from the bill.

Mr. GORTON. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has talked about the large number of proposals before the Senate in one form or another, two of which will actually come to a vote sometime in the next 24 or 48 hours. I will restrict my remarks to those two and will attempt to be relatively brief in connection with each. First and foremost, because we will be voting on TEAM in an ultimately final form and presumably sending it back to the House and I hope to the President of the United States, I wish to make a few remarks on the TEAM Act itself. The Senator from Massachusetts, it seems to me, has two objections to the TEAM Act which are not entirely consistent with one another. The first is that it is a terrible idea to allow labor-management cooperation outside of a formal union-management negotiating session; that we are still, in America, in the position we were in the 1930's in which most people who work and most people who are employers or supervisors regard themselves in polar opposite camps with antagonistic kinds of interests. The second argument made by the Senator from Massachusetts seems, paradoxically, quite different and that argument is that there are so many of these teams and so much cooperation going on at the present time without any harassment being aimed at it, that we do not need this legislation. Mr. President, I think that both arguments are in error, as largely inconsistent as they may be. We live in a very different world than the world faced by our predecessors who passed the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, in a quite different world than the only time in which major changes were made in that act in 1947. By and large across this country, both labor and management realized that management cannot be successful unless it has happy, productive, and committed employees, and that employees recognize they cannot be successful unless their management, unless the company for which they are working, is itself successful. As a consequence, there is a far greater feeling of community of interest today than there was at the time of the passage of this act. So what is it that the Senator from Massachusetts asks us to believe? He asks us to believe that these interests are always antagonistic with one another, that employers lust after the ability to do in their employees in one way or another, largely by subterfuge. He speaks of a world, Mr. President, that simply does not exist today, and he speaks about a bill that is very, very short and quite plain in its meaning. I can read for you the 10 lines of the bill that is before us that include the entire substance of the legislation, and it reads, and I quote. . . . it shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . for an employer to establish, assist, maintain or participate in any organization or entity of any kind, in which employees participate to address matters of mutual interest (including issues of quality, productivity and efficiency) and which does not have, claim or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements under this Act with the employer or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any labor organization. That is it, Mr. President. That is all there is to it. People can get together voluntarily to solve problems without running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. The Senator from Massachusetts has said in his argument you can only have cooperation effectively with effective collective bargaining. But in the private sector, only 12 percent of all of the employees of this country have chosen to engage in formal collective bargaining through a labor-management relationship. The National Labor Relations Act protects the right of employees to join unions and to bargain collectively. It also protects the right of employees to say, ``We do not want to do it in this way.'' And 88 percent of all of our private sector employees have chosen the latter course of action. Yet, at one level, the Senator from Massachusetts says they should not be allowed to do anything at all. Everything that is done is likely to be a subterfuge for a company-dominated union to get around the National Labor Relations Act itself, and at the other level he says, ``Oh, no, we can do it already.'' The problem is that the ability to continue to do what has grown up spontaneously all across this country is threatened by the actions of the National Labor Relations Board and of the courts of the United States. All this proposal does is, in effect, to say you can keep on doing what you have been doing. You can deal with a number of matters of general interest like quality, productivity, and efficiency, and, if we pass the Kassebaum amendment, it will add to that health and safety as specific subjects for such cooperation together with other alliances. That is all it says. The Kassebaum amendment will make it even more clear that this does not undercut those labor-management agreements that exist with respect to 12 percent of private sector employment which is covered by collective bargaining agreements at the present time. My question is: What are they afraid of? This is happening. It is threatened. This bill will remove that threat. No one has to engage in this kind of activity who does not wish to. Any group of employees who wish to join a union and operate under the National Labor Relations Act retains the right to do exactly that. This is 1996, Mr. President. We have a far more cooperative attitude today. We need that more cooperative attitude to compete with the rest of the world. We need it for the increasing prosperity of our society, and this bill, with the Kassebaum amendment, will accomplish exactly that goal. We do not need to repeat the arguments of 1935. They are no longer relevant. It is possible to do a job both for employees and employers outside of the specific strictures of the National Labor Relations Act. That is what the TEAM Act proposes. That is why it ought to be passed. I must say I do find myself in agreement with the Senator from Massachusetts on one of the other subjects that he brought up, and that has to do with the cloture vote on a national right-to-work law, which will also be voted on here. I intend, as he does, to vote against cloture on that proposition because I am, as he said he was--but I think there is a little bit of disingenuousness in it--very much in favor of the present law which says that each State can make its own choice with respect to whether or not it will have a so-called right- to-work law on its books. Twenty-three States have made such a choice. Twenty-six States have rejected such a choice. My own State is one of those 26 which has done so twice by referendum by a vote of the people of those States themselves. I believe that is precisely the correct balance in this highly controversial issue. I do not believe that the people of the State of Washington should govern the decision of the people of Wyoming in that connection, or the people of Wyoming, the choices that are made by the people of the State of Washington. So I like the present law. I was delighted to hear it defended by the Senator from Massachusetts, except for the fact that during almost his entire career he has wanted to repeal the right of States to make that choice. In other words, he may here today be defending States rights, but, in fact, he wants to deprive the States of those rights and to say to a State that has chosen quite freely to pass a right-to-work law that you do not have the privilege, you do not have the right to do so. I think this is a matter of federalism. I think this is a matter which the people of each State should be permitted to choose for themselves. I, therefore, will vote against cloture, but I think as a result of a more profound devotion to federalism that is, in fact, shown on this issue by the Senator from Massachusetts. The really important issue, however, Mr. President, is, in fact, the TEAM Act. It is, in fact, confirming the right of both employees and employers to do what they are already doing in 30,000 workplaces around the country: to encourage others to do the same thing without undercutting the rights of any person who wishes to be a part of a labor union whatsoever. In order to confirm those rights, we need to pass the bill. The bill reflects the real condition of our workplace today. The bill promotes effectiveness and the competitiveness in our workplace, and, perhaps equally significantly, it promotes the kind of cooperation that makes work a more pleasurable as well as a more remunerative way in which the great majority of the working age population of the United States lives so many of its hours at the present time. It is important that we pass it. I think it is significantly important that we pass the Kassebaum amendment. But it is one of the rewards of this long debate over minimum wage that we are not being subjected to a filibuster on the TEAM Act but, in fact, are going to be permitted to express our views on it tomorrow. I look forward to its passage. With that, Mr. President, seeing no one else desiring to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have long supported impact aid. This program appropriately reimburses local school districts for the cost of educating the children of Federal employees who do not contribute to the local tax base because they live or work on Federal property. Moreover 17 million children benefit from impact aid. Now, when I think of impact aid, I typically think of the child whose parent serves in the military, or the child who lives on an Indian reservation, yet there is another group of children who rightly are served by impact aid. These are students whose parents may not live on Federal property, but work on Federal property--property that is not generating tax support for the local schools. These children are provided for by the civilian b portion of the program. Prior to an amendment being added to the Improving America's Schools Act 2 years ago, a district received a civilian b payment as long as it met basic eligibility requirements. This amendment required that a district enroll a minimum of 2,000 civilian b children and that this enrollment must equal 15 percent of the district's total student population. This effectively eliminated many small school districts with less than 2,000 students in their entire district, that nonetheless serve a large percentage of Federal employees' children. The inequity of this formula adversely impacted a number of small school districts in Washington State. For example, according to statistics provided by the Department of Education, the Grand Coulee Dam School District's total student population is 796 students, 328 of whom, are children of civilian Federal employees. In spite of the fact that 40 percent of this districts student population is made up of Federal employees children, under the current formula, this school district is not eligible for civilian b funding. The Bremerton School District isn't as small as Grand Coulee Dam School District, but it has a similar problem. In Bremerton, WA, a number of civilians are employed to support the naval base operations. While these civilians do not work for an employer that contributes to the local tax base in the same manner other local businesses do, the Bremerton district's schools serve these children who make up 20 percent of the total student enrollment in the school district. Although Bremerton meets the 20-percent criteria, the district falls short of the 2,000 student requirement. Thus, under the current formula Bremerton School District is not eligible for civilian b funds. Is this school district less worthy of funding--merely because it does not fit into the criteria--I would argue not. I am certainly not opposed to establishing criteria for eligibility for Federal programs; in fact, I think it is imperative we do so. But that determination should be made fairly. School districts who are significantly impacted by the Federal Government's presence should be reimbursed for the local tax contributions they would otherwise receive. For this reason, I support Senator Ford's efforts to restore equity to the eligibility requirements for this program.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senators Coats, Hatch, Faircloth, Warner, Gregg, Frist, Cochran, Lott, Kassebaum, Kyl, Mack, Pressler, and Nickles to introduce an important piece of legislation designed to alleviate an unfair practice affecting thousands of businesses in my home State of Washington and across the country. It is the Truth in Employment Act of 1996, which will curb the abuses of the union organizing tactic known as salting. Salting, Mr. President, occurs when unions send paid, professional organizers and union members into nonunion workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. The unions' avowed purpose in these salting programs is to harass the company, its employees, and to disrupt the jobsite until the company is either financially devastated or joins the union, whichever comes first. The key problem is that unions have trained their agents to use and abuse the procedures of the National Labor Relations Board as an offensive weapon against nonunion employers, largely by filing frivolous unfair labor practice charges. This fall, in Town & Country, the Supreme Court ruled that paid, professional union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the broad interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act, provisions prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of other union interests or activities. This places employers, most of them small, mom-and-pop businesses, in a disastrous Catch-22: if they hire the union salts, they are subjected to outrageous internal harassment, but if they do not hire them, the salts cry discrimination and file frivolous charges. Employers are forced to make decisions about hiring, which may threaten the very existence of their businesses. Naturally, these businesses are concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling gives the unions carte blanche to use organizing techniques such as salting. I continue to hear from small businesses from across my home State on this issue. In Snohomish county, a mid-sized mechanical subcontractor has employed over 70 union members over the years to work side-by-side with nonunion employees pursuant to project agreements. Despite this, the operating engineer's union carries out a classic salting campaign involving 14 union applicants, one of whom is a business agent. When none of the applicants are hired, the union files unfair labor practice charges. Despite the employer's history of employing union members pursuant to project agreements, the NLRB's regional office finds sufficient merit to issue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. After spending $21,000 in attorneys fees, they settled for $10,500. Mr. President, this is just one example of the devastating economic effect salting has had on small businesses in my State. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs to millions of people. Understandably, this has become a serious issue for thousands of businesses across the country. Trying to defend themselves against frivolous discrimination charges, employers must incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, delays, and lost hours--time and resources, which could be better spent expanding businesses and creating economic opportunity in local communities. The Truth in Employment Act will amend the National Labor Relations Act by adding a provision that establishes that an employer is not required to hire a person seeking employment whose primary purpose is to represent a union in an organizational struggle. Under this bill employees will continue to be afforded their right to organize and engage in the activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act. It is in no way the intent of this bill to infringe upon those rights or protections. Employers will continue to be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of union membership or activism. The bill, however, curb the abuses of salting. Abuses that have caused one constituent in my State to declare bankruptcy, one to agree to sign a union agreement because he ``was too old to go through the harassment again,'' one who is afraid to hire more employees, one who has in excess of $100,000 in legal fees and another who just ``got off easy'' with $40,000 in legal fees. These are not large firms, Mr. President, they are family-run businesses. That is the issue, Mr. President, and that is why I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. I encourage my colleagues to help me pass this bill and restore fairness to our small businesses.