Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I object to White House counsel's continual reference to comments made on television programs which are outside the record before the Senate.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, on Friday, October 10th, I became a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator McCain that would reauthorize the Older Americans Act. This Act, established in 1965, established a series of programs to benefit older Americans. Services provided include nutrition, transportation, nursing home ombudsmanship, and other senior's rights programs. Needless to say, Arkansas, which has over 200,000 senior citizens, has benefitted greatly from the services provided through the Older Americans Act. In addition, the organizations in Arkansas that have received funding through the Act have done an incredible job in reaching out to our seniors. While the Older Americans Act expired in 1995, its programs have widespread support, which has resulted in continued funding. Nonetheless, authorization is critical for the long-term stability of these programs and for the peace of mind of senior citizens. the McCain bill renews the act, without any changes, for a period of 3 years. Let me say that, as with any reauthorization, I strongly believe in the need for congressional hearings to examine the programs contained within the act to ensure that they are working well, efficiently serving the needs of seniors, and that any appropriate adjustments in funding are made. Regrettably, the Senate Labor and Human Resource Committee, on which I serve, has not taken action on any reauthorization legislation this year. Until the committee does so, and as an indication of my very strong support for the programs contained in the Older American Act, I am cosponsoring the McCain bill. The Older American Act has improved the quality of life for so many of our Nation's elderly, and it will continue to provide vital services as the aging population grows. I sincerely hope that the Senate will act on legislation to reauthorize this important act soon. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of the International Religious Freedom Act and hope for the persecuted everywhere. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and House for their dedicated efforts in crafting this legislation. Mr. President, the desire for religious freedom is not uniquely American. But as Americans we are in a unique position to advocate it. As a superpower, we have the resources. As a nation of free people, we have the responsibility. Religious freedom is at the core of our country and enshrined in our Constitution. Our nation's founders fled from religious persecution in search of a land where they could freely exercise their ideal of religious freedom They stood recognizing that the suppression of their faith was tryanny over their hearts and minds. They knew that without the freedom to gather, to worship, to speak about their God, there would be no freedom. So they laid a cornerstone for our democracy, establishing freedom in law. And from that day, the protection of religious freedom has become part of our legacy, part of our identify as a nation. We must exercise this identify or one day realize that we have lost it. For the fruits of democracy, hoarded in the hands of the few, become bitter and rotten. Mr. President this legislation takes concrete steps to promote the basic right to religious freedom. It establishes three entities to cooperatively guarantee that combating religious persecution is a priority in U.S. foreign policy. Within the State Department, an Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Liberty will serve as a high level diplomat, raising issues of religious persecution in bilateral meetings and heading up the Office of International Religious Freedom at the State Department. A Special Advisor on Religious Persecution at the National Security Council will monitor incidents of persecution and act as an advisor and resource for the executive branch. The Commission on International Religious Liberty, a ten member, bipartisan commission, will investigate religious persecution and provide an outside voice for policy recommendations to both Congress and the White House. Under this legislation, the U.S. government collects information on religious persecution, through the compilation of an Annual Report on Religious Persecution, and responds to these violations through a broad range of options, ranging from diplomatic protest to economic sanctions. The apparatus under this legislation is not simply reactive, however. It also provides for active promotion of religious freedom through international broadcasts, Fulbright exchanges, and training for Foreign Service Officers and refugee and asylum personnel on these issues. While the apparatus may seem extensive, it only reflects the magntitude of the problem. I believe that is the least that we can do to lay a concrete foundation for religious freedom. Religious persecution around the world may go unnoticed in the hectic run of our daily lives, but for millions of people it is a horrifying, incessant reality. They live in fear of arrest, imprisonment, torture, and death for simply exercising their faith. In Pakistan, fear reigns under the constitution, which stipulates the death penalty for blaspheny against Mohammed. Ayoob Masih, a Christian, was beaten by a mob for reading his Bible, arrested, imprisoned, fined, and sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. Local police have failed to control angry mobs destroying the homes and churches of Christians in Pakistan. Ahmadis, Hindus, Zakris, and other minority religious groups have also been targets of lynching. In Egypt, Coptic Christians are routinely denied permits to build or repair churches. In Cairo's Tora district, security forces forcibly closed the doors of the Church of St. Bishoi, waxing its windows and preventing any further entry and any freedom to worship there. An eighteen year old girl in Laos was thrown into prison by government forces for teaching Bible classes to neighborhood children. In Iran, a man was shot in the street for not being in the mosque during prayer time. Bahai's have also been subject to a rash of executions. In Sudan, where civil war has ravaged the land and claimed over a million lives, Christians and Animists are subject to abduction, imprisonment, torture, enslavement, forced conversion to Islam, and execution. Christian children are abducted, forced into reeducation camps, given Arab names, and raised as Muslims. A Muslim sheik who Christianity was arrested, charged with apostasy, and faced with execution unless he returned to Islam within two months. Only government-certified clergymen are allowed to talk about religion in Uzbekistan. Private religious instruction is also formally banned under pains of stiff fines and labor camp sentences. This type of insidious government control is also present in China, where Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but religious repression is carefully meted out through an apparatus of government registration, intense scrutiny, unrelenting intimidation, and brutal punishment. Only five religions are permitted and control is exercised over these official churches in matters such as personnel selection, sermon themes, congregation size, and dissemination of religious materials. Unofficial, or illegal, religious gatherings are forcibly broken up, its participants arrested, victims of extortion, torture, and even fatal beatings. Zheng Muzheng, who was active in sharing his faith, was beaten to death in a jail in Hunan Province. His grieving widow has been repeatedly interrogated and held without arrest. Members of unofficial churches fortunate enough not to be imprisoned live under the glare of government surveillance. They are arbitrarily and repeatedly detained without formal charges, threatened with loss of property and employment, subject to heavy fines--all for believing in and worshiping an authority higher than the Communist Party. Under their reign of terror, Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and temples cannot be constructed and are often destroyed. Monks and nuns are restricted in numbers and tortured. Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist monk, testified before the House International Relations Committee about the routine use by the Chinese government of electric shock guns, serrated and hooked knives, handcuffs and thumbcuffs on those who would dare to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. The grim and disturbing reality is that religious persecution is not limited to a particular region or a particular faith. It beats on the backs of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Baha'is. It scourages over half the world's population in over seventy countries. Mr. President, this legislation takes comprehensive action against this alarming trend of oppression. Through its reporting provisions, it sheds light on the dark practices of persecution-- a radiant ray of hope for those languishing in prisons. By requiring the President to use those means deemed necessary to not allow these atrocious acts to persist, this legislation cracks the heavy yoke of persecution. In its active promotion of religious freedom, it sweeps open the gates of suppressed faith, preparing the way for the liberty. Mr. President, I am aware that detractors of this legislation claim that it establishes a false hierarchy of human rights abuses. But I suspect that for those same critics, treating all human rights abuses on an equal basis means voting against all human rights provisions on an equal basis. Others claim that it binds the hands of the President, propelling him on a course of self-defeating foreign policy, forcing him to ultimately ``fudge'' sanctions. This well-crafted legislation has taken this concern into consideration, incorporating the views of its sponsors, the Administration, and the business community. It focuses on specific and particularly egregious instances of religious persecution. While it requires the President to act, it also presents the President with a wide berth of options and requires a review of the potential impact on American security and economic interests and its intended efficacy. Still others claim that we should not be moralizing or imposing our values on other countries. Those suffering in prison for practicing their faith would certainly disagree. Freedom of religion is a universal right and aspiration, recognized and articulated in a number of international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion . . . to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.'' The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that ``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.'' By advocating this freedom, we are not imposing our values on others but reaffirming a universal right. We must not cower under the covers of complacency. We must not be complicit actors, carried away in a current of oppression. We must not, for fear of taking a false step on the path of justice, refuse to walk at all. We must be the voice of those muted by their oppressors, crying out for a land of the free. We must, in the words of Ronald Reagan, ``. . . be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Not at this time. In my office in the Dirksen Building I have a hanging portrait of the 5-&-10-cent store where Sam Walton started the Wal-Mart stores. There is nothing in this amendment that is antientrepreneur. The fact is that Wal-Mart, with their huge advertising budget, as it was alluded to, started as a little 5-&-10- cent store, as a mom-and-pop store in Arkansas. That is an American success story which ought to be applauded, not disparaged. Every American ought to have that opportunity, to have that dream. We ought not with legislation undercut that little Main Street store that cannot be replicated, cannot be replaced. No matter how great the Internet is, no matter how great catalogs are, they cannot replace that store on Main Street giving to the little league and supporting the local efforts and local initiatives. A couple other things. It has been implied that somehow this amendment, this second-degree amendment would mandate that they focus the study, the commission focus their study on interstate sales. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the bill, it says, and I quote, ``may include in the study *under subsection,'' may include a study of. It is, in fact, the Gregg amendment, the McCain- Gregg amendment that excludes even their authorization to study the impact, the obvious impact of remote sales including catalog, including Internet, all of the Internet remote sales, its impact upon small businesses and upon local and State government. It simply says ``may.'' It is simply authorizing, permissive language. It is, in fact, the House bill that mandated that they study this area and its impact, because it is so obvious the impact that it could potentially have, and that any study that should be done, if it is in fact to be a thorough study, must include this area. It is the proponents of the Gregg amendment who would say what the Finance Committee did by a vote of 19 to 1 should be overturned. The Finance Committee, led by Senator Roth, included a study of these issues--and they should be included. They should be studied. The language in the bill says ``thorough study.'' How can you have a thorough study and then delete the area of interstate sales? It puzzles me. How can anyone object to having a broader study that would include all of the various issues involved in a very complex subject? It has been implied that somehow this second-degree amendment, which would say this issue ought to be studied, is protax. My goodness, anybody who has ever looked at Tim Hutchinson's record in the statehouse in Arkansas, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, would have a hard time believing this amendment I am offering is protax or somehow a roadmap to higher taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not prejudging any kind of conclusions or any kind of recommendations that this commission might make. And, I remind my colleagues, it requires a two-thirds vote of the members of the commission to make any recommendation, and that is all they can make, is a recommendation. The final say remains with the Congress. How in the world can you say this somehow is going to lead to higher taxes or somehow thwart the growth of the Internet? And that, may I say, has been another mischaracterization of this amendment--that it is somehow not only protax but anti-Internet. We have applauded, and I applaud, the growth of the Internet. I quoted the statistics, from $8 billion in 1998 to the estimated $300 billion in sales in the year 2002; that is a good thing. But while it is a good thing, we should not be so blind as to think it is not going to have serious consequences, serious impacts, that ought to be examined in advance. I support the bill. I support the timeout. I support the pause. I support the moratorium. But I also believe, if we are going to have a study, it ought to truly be a thorough study. It ought not say look at everything but don't look at the impact upon business, don't look at the impact upon the city government or the State government. It ought to truly be a thorough study. You cannot deal with these issues in a vacuum. They are interrelated, all of these, and they need to be, in fact, thoroughly studied. Let me just conclude by saying I thought Senator Enzi's comments were moving. I, like Senator Dorgan, did not realize that he and his wife operated a little Main Street shoestore for over 20 years in Gillette, WY. I did not know that. I had a great appreciation for Senator Enzi. I have a greater appreciation now. But I think also that, as he paid those sales taxes day in and day out, as he made the struggles that any small business person makes in order to stay in existence, as he contributed to the Little League, as he contributed to the United Way, as he did everything that only a physical entity actually being right there in the community can do--irreplaceable--that we need to consider them, we need to think about them, as we pass this needed legislation. I believe if they will simply look at the language of the second- degree amendment restoring what the Finance Committee did by a 19-to-1 vote and saying this is an area that ought to be examined, ought to be looked at, then I think my colleagues will realize that in fact it does make good sense and they will support it. I ask for their support. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this amendment amends the McCain first-degree underlying amendment to allow the commission to establish by the Internet Tax Freedom Act a study of the effects of taxation on interstate sales, or the lack thereof on retail businesses and State and local governments. I can think of nothing more reasonable and nothing more common sense than saying that the commission that we are creating should conduct a study to look at and examine the implications upon retail businesses and the implications upon local and State governments that this moratorium and this bill would have. The Senate rejected an amendment last week which would have immediately authorized States to require out-of-State sellers to collect sales taxes and remit them to the State in which the purchase was made. My colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, offered that amendment. I think that many of my colleagues who joined me in voting against this amendment would agree that this issue warrants further study. Why not have the commission establish by this bill conduct a study and examine the issue that is so important to State and local governments and which is so important to local businesses that are trying to survive and who are remitting those sales taxes. This issue, which is so critical, ought to be, I believe, examined and studied. For the sake of small mom-and-pop businesses who find themselves in competition with Internet entities and other out-of-State sellers who do not have to collect State sales taxes from out-of-State buyers, we should allow the commission to study the impact that the lack of taxation on these transactions has on small businesses. For the sake of out-of-State sellers who do collect and remit sales taxes while their competitors do not, let's allow the commission to study this issue. This is, in fact, a commission study. It should be noted that Congress and Congress alone can either accept or eject the recommendations that the commission might make. The Supreme Court decided in the case of Quill v. North Dakota that States cannot require out-of-State sellers to collect and remit sales taxes on goods purchased for use in a particular State, unless Congress authorizes them to do so. My amendment does not overturn Quill. I want to emphasize that. This amendment does not overturn the Quill decision. It simply allows the commission to study the implications, to study the ramifications of Quill on small businesses and State and local governments. Electronic commerce is estimated to reach $8 billion in 1998. And by the year 2002, electronic commerce is expected to reach $300 billion. Let me say that the Internet is an incredible tool both for education purposes and business promotion. My amendment in no way is intended to thwart the growth of the Internet. Again, it merely says that in light of the incredible growth in electronic commerce that we have witnessed over the last 5 years and that we anticipate in the next 5 years that this commission that we are about to create should have the right to examine its impact on businesses serving local markets. We will have an argument that my good friend from Arizona has argued--that this Internet Tax Freedom Act should focus solely on the Internet. But I argue that the Internet is a form of interstate commerce just like mail order, just like catalog sales. And when we talk about the impact of such interstate sales on local businesses, there is no distinction between the three. We should not address this issue in a vacuum. So the commission that is created ought to have the right to examine all of the implications of what we are doing and its impact upon that small businessman, that small businesswoman, that city, that county, that State government, and the effect upon their revenue stream. So the amendment I propose is a compromise. It is, I believe, one that is worthy of support. I ask my colleagues to support this second-degree amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I just want to make a few closing observations of my perspective on this second-degree amendment and clarify a few things that I think are not representative at all of what this second-degree amendment does. May I just say also, being the Senator from the State of Arkansas and being from the hometown in which Wal-Mart stores are nationally headquartered, world wide headquartered, and Wal-Mart has been disparagingly mentioned several times----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up second-degree amendment 3760.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator for yielding. In the early part of your remarks, you emphasized and read from the bill that the commission would be authorized to conduct a thorough study. You emphasized the word ``thorough.'' I think you found a couple places where the term is used. It seems you are implying they will look at all issues affected by this legislation and by Internet sales. My question is, why, if in fact it is to be a thorough study looking at all issues and all the implications and ramifications of Internet sales on retailers and on government, why then would the Gregg amendment exclude, in effect, say this is off the table, this is one area of issues you cannot look at? When the Finance Committee, by a vote of 19-1, said this should be included, this should be an area that should be examined, this should be the purview of the commission, why then, if it is to be a thorough study, would this amendment, the Gregg amendment, exclude this particular area from study?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by deleting the word ``local'' on line 6 of page 1 of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi be added as cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my retiring colleague from Arkansas, Senator Dale Bumpers. Arkansas is a State with a small population, and it is a State where politicians of even opposing political parties and philosophies find their lives and careers intersecting and intertwining. As a high school student, I followed Dale Bumpers' meteoric rise from an unknown country lawyer from Charleston, AR, to the Governor of the State and a man who became known in Arkansas politics as the giant killer, defeating such luminaries of Arkansas politics as Win Rockefeller and J.W. Fulbright. I worked for Dale's opponent in 1980, not because I was enamored by his opponent, but because I was upset with some of Dale's votes. That has always been the way with Dale Bumpers; you either agreed with him passionately or you disagreed vehemently. While Dale has always been as smooth as honey, he has never tried to varnish his views or dilute his positions to make them more palatable to the general public, whether it was the Panama Canal or the space station. Mr. President, I mentioned that in Arkansas, political lives and careers intersect frequently. In 1986, my brother Asa, then a U.S. attorney and now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, ran against Senator Bumpers in his second reelection campaign. I worked in Asa's campaign, and I encountered and experienced firsthand the high esteem in which the people of Arkansas hold Dale Bumpers. After Senator Bumpers won that race resoundingly, delivering a good old country thumping to the Hutchinsons, I returned to my service in the Arkansas legislature and Asa became the State GOP chairman. We continued to follow Senator Bumpers' career from afar, occasionally bumping into him at events in the State. In 1990, Asa ran for attorney general of Arkansas. It was a politically tough, mean, even nasty race. It was hard fought and a very close race. I remember one day as I was working in Asa's headquarters in Little Rock, Dale Bumpers walked in off the street unannounced. He came by, he said, to wish us well and to say that he always respected us and thought well of us. I saw a side of Dale Bumpers that those who know him well see all the time. He knows well that there is life beyond the political arena and that politicians are, first and foremost, human beings. I saw this again in 1996 when I was running for the U.S. Senate. It was the closing days of a very close race. Dale and my predecessor, Senator David Pryor, were campaigning for my opponent in a fly-around of the State. I suppose Dale was returning the favor from a decade before when I was campaigning for his opponent. In the closing days, my son Timothy was involved in a tragic and terrible automobile accident. Timothy was seriously injured, and I was in the hospital room, not sure whether he was going to make it or not. The phone rang, and it was Dale Bumpers. He called to assure me of his thoughts and his prayers and to tell me that he and David were suspending campaigning until it was clear that my son was going to be OK. Dale, we will miss you around this place. I won't miss your votes, but I will miss you. I will miss your stories, and I will miss your humor. I will miss your eloquence, and I will miss your passion. I am grateful that our Senate careers overlapped for these 2 years. Thanks for your advice and counsel, and best wishes on this next phase of your life. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of tax relief for the American people and in support of the House-passed legislation that will provide taxpayer relief today. Tax collections, it is estimated, will exceed over $8 trillion in the next 5 years. An $80 billion tax cut--that is what the House of Representatives cut--an $80 billion tax cut amounts to about one penny savings on every dollar paid in to the Federal Government. I don't believe that is too much out of this surplus that we are realizing because of a robust economy and because of restraints on spending, as much waste as therestill is. We have slowed the growth of Federal spending and, as a result of that, for the first time in 29 years, we have a balanced budget, we have a surplus, and it is only right and it is only proper that a portion of that be returned to the American people. I think the only problem with the House-passed tax cut is that it is too little, but we should at least bring it forward, and we should at least have that debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Under the Clinton administration, taxes have risen to the highest level in peacetime history. If Ben Franklin was right, that the only thing that is certain is death and taxes, this administration has made it equally true that nothing is as certain as spending and overtaxation. We have the highest tax rate in peacetime history. Taxes are at a historic high at a level of 21 percent of the gross domestic product. According to data from the OMB, total Federal receipts will amount to 19.9 percent of the GDP in 1998 and 20.1 percent of the GDP in 1999. That tells me one thing. That tells me that even under a Republican- controlled House and Senate, Government continues to grow and Government revenues continue to grow as well. In my home State of Arkansas, this amount of taxation translates into $7,352 in taxes per capita in 1998. That is an onerous burden to put on a low-income State. It is a heavy burden to place upon people anywhere. In Connecticut, the tax burden is $15,525 per capita. The typical American family sees 38 percent of its income going to pay for taxes, as opposed to 28 percent for food, for clothing, for housing and only 3.6 percent going to savings--38 percent for taxes-- Federal, State and local level--28 percent for food, clothing and housing. Mr. President, it is time to stop picking the pockets of American taxpayers, and it is time to put money back in their pockets and untie their hands. The Taxpayer Relief Act does just that by giving the American people a tax cut of $80.1 billion. Couples today who want to be responsibly married, to share their lives together, have a slap in the face immediately from the Federal Government. Twenty-one million couples pay an average of $1,400 extra in taxes for pursuing the right course of marriage. The Taxpayer Relief Act takes away this stinging insult by allowing married couples who file jointly to claim a standard deduction twice the amount of the standard deduction for a single taxpayer. It also increases the basic standard deduction for married taxpayers who file separately to equal the basic standard deduction for singles. Even as they try to raise a family with limited resources and increasing costs, parents strain under this very heavy burden of taxation. The House-passed bill protects important tax credits, including credits for children, the $500-per-child tax credit, new credits for adoption and education, and reduces the alternative minimum tax as well. All of these are important steps. They are, I believe, the right course for this Congress to take. I regret the President's commitment to veto any tax-cut legislation this year. American farmers and ranchers have had to face a terribly hard time with unpredictable and damaging weather trends that have destroyed their harvest and livelihood, only to face income erosion from unpredictable and damaging tax regulations as well. The House-passed bill would provide greater stability amidst this turmoil by income averaging, currently set to expire in the year 2000, and it would make that permanent. Farmers and ranchers would be able to benefit from the 100 percent health insurance deductibility. All of these things would provide relief for the agricultural community. Men and women attempting to manage their money wisely find the Government chipping away at their savings, through taxation on interest and dividends, and the Taxpayer Relief Act will exclude the first $200 in interest and dividends that they receive. We say we want the American people to save and invest, and yet we penalize them with our Tax Code. Some say the $200 exclusion is not very much. That exclusion will eliminate all taxation on interest and dividends for 32 million people in this country. When taxpayers become senior citizens, their Social Security earnings limit will be increased under this legislation, between full retirement age and age 70, from $17,000 in fiscal year 1999 to almost $40,000 in fiscal year 2008. These are important provisions, certainly not the least of which is the accelerated relief that will be provided from the death tax, a heinous provision in our Tax Code that says if you work hard enough, save enough, invest well enough, Uncle Sam is going to reach into your grave, reach into your pocket and take 55 percent of what you own. The American dream is to work hard enough, invest enough, and pass them on to your children and give them a little better start than you had. The death tax is just the opposite. It is one of the most anti- American dream provisions in the Tax Code. The bill passed from the House would accelerate raising that exclusion to 41 million. It would be a small step in providing relief from the death tax. There are those who say we can't cut taxes this year; we have to give it all to Social Security. It is interesting to me that those who argue that have yet to come forward with a save Social Security plan. They have yet to come forward with a Social Security reform plan, but they have advocated billions of dollars in new spending. Mr. President, I wish I had much longer to elaborate on this, but I quote the President when on May 26 of this year, he said: We can use these good times to honor those who've put in a lifetime of work and prepare for the future retirement of the baby boomers by saving the Social Security system for generations to come. Or we can give in to the temptation in this election year to squander our surpluses the moment they start coming in. Do you get the picture? If you take the surplus and spend it on new spending programs, that is good, but if you return it to the American people in the form of tax relief, that is squandering. The very President who made that statement has advocated billions of dollars in additional spending--$5.8 billion already spent--and a request in supplemental funds for $14.148 billion, including almost $2 billion for Bosnia. That is coming out of this sacrosanct untouchable surplus. The Taxpayer Relief Act just says let's return $7 billion of that surplus in the first year, 1999, to the American people. I believe that is what we should do. Instead of enacting $150 billion in new spending programs, we should return one penny on the dollar, which is what the Taxpayer Relief Act does, out of what they are paying into the Government back to them in the form of tax relief. The debate hasn't changed: higher taxes and more Government; lower taxes and less Government. We were given that mandate by the American people, and we should enjoin that debate by passing the Taxpayer Relief Act this year, sending it to the President and letting him decide whether or not he will give the American people the relief they so much deserve. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1999 Strom Thurmond defense authorization conference report. I congratulate the managers of this bill for their exemplary work. In particular, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude and appreciation to Chairman Thurmond for his service to the Senate and for his service to our country. Mr. President, I know that this was one of the most contentious conferences in the past decade, particularly because of the U.S. satellite licensing provisions. However, I am pleased that this conference report contains a provision shifting the jurisdiction for U.S. satellite licensing from the Commerce Department back to the State Department, where I believe the national security of this country can best be protected. This action is a step away from the controversial policy that President Clinton established in 1996 and it is a step toward enhanced national security. I hope the President, in signing this bill, will walk forward with us. In addition, I am very pleased by the addition of several China- related provisions that I spoke in behalf of--sponsored some of those-- that I believe will limit the role of the oppressive Chinese regime and United States complicity in their actions. In particular, this conference report includes a provision requiring the Departments of Defense and Justice, FBI, and the CIA to compile a list of known PLA commercial fronts operating in the United States. This provision also authorizes the President to monitor, to restrict, and to seize, if necessary, the assets of, and ban the operation of, such PLA companies within these United States. Furthermore, the Senate adopted and included in the conference report a provision authorizing funding for additional customs agents to enforce the existing ban on slave labor products, an ongoing problem. These products are produced in slave-labor conditions in China and are sold to American consumers, unbeknownst to the consumer. These sections call upon the President to strengthen international agreements to improve monitoring of slave-labor imports. There is yet a further provision that I am heartened the conference has included regarding Radio Free Asia. This provision would fund 24- hour-a-day Radio Free Asia broadcasts throughout China in each of the major dialects. This provision will allow the Voice of Freedom to penetrate through the oppressive veil now muting the Chinese people. I want to make one final observation. Last week, in declaring the success of his country in combating the floods raging throughout China, President Jiang Zemin compared that success to the success of stemming the tide of democracy and praising their crackdown at Tiananmen Square. I think I need say little more, Mr. President, as to the ongoing problems of an oppressive regime in China. I applaud the chairman and the conference for including these very important provisions in the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. I thank the chairman for the outstanding work he has done on this bill. I will support the legislation. I think it is a commitment to our Nation's defense. The Senator from Alaska always does a good job on all the appropriations bills, but particularly this defense appropriations bill. I am glad for several projects that I think are critical to our Nation's defense but are also critical to the State of Arkansas, including the MLRS system, manufactured in Camden, AR, Fort Chaffee in Ft. Smith, AR, the Pine Bluff Arsenal, and C-130s in Jacksonville. I will vote for the bill. I do so with a deep reservation. I am puzzled, discouraged and disheartened by the exclusion of an amendment that passed unanimously in the Senate by a vote of 99-0 --it passed the House of Representatives on separate votes of 415-1 and 366-54--which would have condemned China's policy of forced abortions and religious persecution and would have denied visas to the perpetrators. I am just puzzled, and I am discouraged that an amendment that had such bipartisan support, that has no cost and no controversy, would have been dropped in conference. Yesterday, President Jiang Zemin in China, according to the Washington Post today, issued a strident defense of the Tiananmen massacre in which hundreds--thousands of students were slain. At the very time that the President of China is defending that horrendous action, this body cannot lift even a timid voice in condemnation of it--even a mild rebuke of those abuses. I am appalled and I find it inexplicable that we remain silent and that the conference would have determined to drop this amendment that had such support in both bodies. So while I vote for this conference report, I do so with a deep reservation and with the caveat that this Senator will use his breath, so long as he has the opportunity in the Senate, to continue to raise the issues of human rights abuses in China and to offer these kinds of amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure and in support of the vote to override the President's veto. It is inexplicable to me why that veto occurred, and I think it is unfortunate and tragic. We have an opportunity tomorrow to right that wrong. I join my distinguished colleagues in praising Senator Santorum, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who has so eloquently put forth the case for banning this procedure and appealing to our consciences as Americans, as human beings, and as civilized people to end the condoning of this procedure in this country. I think, as I listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania this afternoon, and as I recall the previous debates on this issue, I was moved, as I know millions of Americans were moved, as we listened to not only the logic but the moral persuasiveness of the need to ban this procedure. I think this evening, as I say those laudatory words about my colleague from Pennsylvania, it is appropriate that we say also that there are many in the other Chamber, the House of Representatives, who have fought this battle over and over to ensure that that veto was overridden in the House of Representatives. I think of my friend from Florida, Charles Canady, who is the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, who has so eloquently and so forcefully argued for this legislation and carried this crusade across this country. I think of the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has come under such unfair and scathing attack in recent days and yet who has been, I think, the most eloquent and passionate voice for the unborn that modern America has seen. I rise in defense of him and in support of Congressman Hyde this evening and appreciation for all that he has done for the cause of the unborn. On more than one occasion, as I served in the House of Representatives, I saw minds change and hearts change under the persuasiveness of his oratory. It is my hope that even as we look at this very important vote in the morning, that, yes, there will be those in this body who will look deep within their soul, who evaluate their own conscience, and examine their own hearts, and that we might even yet see those two or three votes necessary to change in order to see this veto overridden. It is often suggested in this debate that government should stay out of the abortion issue. But if the protection of innocent lives is not government's duty, then I ask, What is government's duty? Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``The care of human life--not its destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government. Legislative efforts to protect the weak and defenseless are right and should be pursued.'' I can think of none who are weaker, I can think of none in the human family more defenseless, than those who are but inches from enjoying life. In fact, in March of last year, my home State of Arkansas joined a number of other States in banning such a procedure when the State legislature passed and the government signed our partial-birth abortion ban in the State of Arkansas. This procedure is a barbaric, uncivilized procedure, shockingly close to infanticide, as has been so frequently observed on the floor of the Senate today. It is so close to infanticide that, in fact, no civilized country, no compassionate people, should allow it. Any woman knows that the first step of partial-birth abortion--breach delivery--is something to avoid, not something to intentionally cause. During the last debate that we had on this subject, I quoted Jean Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at Emory University. It is a quote that I think deserves being said again during this debate. She was testifying against the argument that fetuses who are candidates for partial-birth abortion do not feel pain during the procedure. She testified that the fetus is sensitive to pain, perhaps even more sensitive--more sensitive--than a full-term infant. She added, and this is the part that is especially striking, and I quote her words as she testified: ``This procedure, if it was done on an animal in my institution, would not make it through the institutional review process.'' And then she said, ``The animal would be more protected than this child is.'' How tragic that we allow that situation to exist where, in an institution of higher learning in this country, animals have greater protections than do unborn children. So I am glad this evening very briefly to rise in support of the Senator from Pennsylvania, to rise in support of this override of the President's veto. As has been said, this is not about choice nor compulsion, it is about inhumane disposal of unwanted babies. This legislation does not prevent a woman from receiving medical care or reproductive care. It does not overturn Roe v. Wade. It simply ends an unnatural and unhealthy practice that results in the loss of human life. We must help the helpless, we must defend the defenseless, and we must give voice to the voiceless. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania and my colleague from Ohio, who will speak soon, for giving voice to the voiceless, for standing up and defending the defenseless, and for helping the most helpless and most innocent in our society, the unborn. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill, with Senator Bumpers being recognized to offer an amendment related to mining. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow the weekly party conferences to meet. Following the conferences there will be 10 minutes for closing remarks in relation to the Bumpers amendment. At the expiration of that time, approximately 2:25 p.m., the Senate will proceed to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. Following that vote, the Senate will continue consideration of the Interior bill. Members are encouraged to offer and debate amendments during Tuesday afternoon's session so the Senate can make good progress on the Interior bill. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The NLRB will make the decision, because the employee has the right to file that complaint and go to the NLRB. But the burden of proof will be different. It will be the NLRB attorney who certifies that he was a bona fide employee applicant and not someone who went in for the purpose of destroying that company. I would like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Colorado.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the S. 1981 legislation. This legislation will enable thousands of businesses in Arkansas and across the Nation to avoid the insidious and unscrupulous practice known as salting which is literally crippling thousands of small businesses across this country. The Truth in Employment Act inserts a provision in the National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not required to hire a person seeking employment for the primary purpose of furthering the objectives of an organization other than that of the employer. This measure is not intended to undermine the legitimate rights or protections currently in law for workers in this country enabling them to organize. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive practice of salting. In fact, I will just read the last provision in the bill itself, which guarantees the protections for workers to organize, because the argument will be made, opponents of this legislation will say, that this is somehow trying to undermine the right of workers to organize. So this provision says: Nothing in the bill shall affect the rights and responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was a bona fide employee applicant, including the right to self- organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid protection. So this bill is clearly not designed to harm workers or to undermine their ability to organize. That provision passed the House of Representatives unanimously, incidentally. I believe it has broad support in the Senate as well. But there is a practice that is becoming all too common across this country, that is both immoral and insidious and is not a legitimate organizing tactic, and it needs to be outlawed. The bill does not change the definition of ``employee.'' It does not overturn the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that I think is of common sense and fairness. Would any person intentionally bring wanton destruction upon his or her own home? Would a homeowner spend hard- earned money for a colony of termites and let them loose in his or her house, leaving them free to gnaw away at the equity he or she had spent years building up in a home or property? Certainly no one would commit such an irrational attack of self-destruction. No one would willfully and deliberately bring thousands of dollars of damage on himself. Instead, the homeowner would take every precaution to preserve the structure of his home, keeping out ruinous influences. Yet, today, in a similar situation, small business owners nationwide are prevented from defending their own companies from pernicious attacks known as salting. What is salting? Paid and unpaid union agents infiltrate nonunion businesses under the pretense--the pretense of seeking employment. And then, at that point, employers are caught in a dilemma, facing charges if they refuse union labor and facing charges if they hire these salts. So if they don't hire, unfair labor practices are filed, discrimination claims are filed against the employer. If they do hire them, they then face, in effect, termites in their own business, eating away at the solvency of their own enterprise. Once on the job, these salts set about sabotaging the company through workplace disruptions and a battery of frivolous charges to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, or by creating OSHA violations and then reporting those violations to OSHA. Employers who try to fire them face yet another litany of false charges. Defending against these charges costs money in legal fees, costs time in lost productivity and costs a company's reputation through negative publicity. Yet, to add insult to injury, employers are often forced to pay large damage awards or settlements because they cannot afford the high legal fees needed for justice to be served. Employers have little or no defense against these relentless-- relentless--assaults. Instead, they are forced to invite destruction into their companies and can only stand by, it seems, helplessly as years of hard work and investment are devoured before their eyes. In my home State of Arkansas, George Smith, the president of Little Rock Electrical Contractors, has been the victim of salting campaigns. Let me just tell you his story. It is a family-owned business and a merit shop contractor, hiring both union and nonunion labor. Mr. Smith never expected to face charges of unfair labor practices from people he didn't even hire. At a company site in Louisiana, two men drove up to Little Rock and asked if the company was taking applications. They were told no, and they drove off. Five months later, Mr. Smith was notified that charges of discrimination had been filed against him by the NLRB. He subsequently hired a labor attorney who assured him that he could win, as the charges had no merit whatsoever, that justice would be served. Unfortunately, the cost of the 2-day hearing would be $15,000 in order to have justice served. And since the unions would appeal if Mr. Smith won, additional costs of up to $8,000 could be almost guaranteed. On the other hand, the cost of settlement with these two nonemployees who had filed the claim was $3,000 for each man. So, in the end, Mr. Smith chose the less expensive option. I quote what he said: The reason that we paid was real simple. It was pure mathematics. [If] it cost me $23,000 to win and $6,000 to lose: I can't afford to win. To rub salt into the wounds, so to speak, copies of these settlement checks appeared on one of his worksites in North Carolina with the statement saying that this was the result of employer interference with employee rights. Mr. Smith, a hard-working American trying to run an honest business, lost both money and company stature. But this assault was not unique. In 1 year, Little Rock Electrical has faced 72 such charges to the tune of $80,000 in legal fees. Mr. President, that is wrong. That is not justice, it is an injustice. This problem is not unique to Arkansas companies. It is happening all across America, from Cape Elizabeth, ME, where Cindy and Don Mailman, owners of Bay Electric Company, suffered 14 erroneous, meritless charges, and $100,000 in legal fees over 4 years; to Modesto, CA, where Jim Blayblock of Blayblock Electric faced an intense barrage of salting; to Delano, MN, where Terrance Korthof of Wright Electric has lost $150,000 in legal fees and $200,000 to $300,000 in wasted time for 15 baseless charges; to Austin, TX, where Randy Pomikahl's company, Randall Electric, has been targeted. My point is, from the East Coast to the West Coast, from the Canadian border to Texas in the South we see these salting campaigns. Salts are operating across the country not only in electrical companies, but in steel companies, mechanical companies, building companies, and I predict it is going to be expanded and proliferate. We are going to see it targeting small business in every industry unless we address it legislatively. Mr. President, it is very much a national problem. I have on the floor of the Senate this morning a chart that illustrates how this is a national problem. Here are some examples of salting cases around the country. Carmel, IN, Gaylor Electric faced 96 charges. Ultimately, the courts dismissed all 96. All 96 of these charges were dismissed without merit, but it cost Gaylor Electric $250,000 annually to defend themselves against this salting campaign. Union, MO, 48 charges were filed, 47 were dismissed, one was settled for $200. But in legal fees, $150,000 to defend their company against these frivolous charges. In Clearfield, PA, the R.D. Goss Company had 15 to 20 charges. All but one of those charges were dismissed, but it cost that company $75,000 in legal fees plus lost time, and they ultimately were forced out of business, an example of many businesses that have been forced to close their doors because of their inability to pay for the legal help to defend themselves against these kinds of campaigns. This small businessman in Clearfield, PA, had operated for 38 years until finally having to close their doors because of the salting campaign against them. These travesties of justice are not simply random acts by a small subversive group. Instead, they are calculated attacks on nonunion companies often, unfortunately, with NLRB complicity. In its most innocuous form, salting consists of gaining employment, not to work, but solely for the purpose of organizing labor. A person has a right, the courts have said and legitimately so, to apply for a job even though they want to go in and help organize for union activity. They don't have a right, I believe, legitimately, morally, or ethically, though it is still illegal, to go in, apply for a job, never intending to work, but simply for the purpose of filing these kinds of frivolous claims. That is in its most innocuous form. The common and prescribed practice is to strike economic pressure points in a company, leaving that company virtually paralyzed. In their own words, from the IEBW organizing manual, this is what they say: [The goal of salting is to] threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business activities, leave the union's jurisdiction, and go out of business. That is not where the effort is to go in and organize. That is where the effort is to go in, hit the economic pressure points and destroy the company. The international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Tom McNutt, has been quoted as saying: If we can't organize them, the best thing to do is to erode their business as much as possible. The goal is not to organize. ``If we can't organize, let's destroy the company.'' I have another chart that I think will illustrate this very point, and that is that the procedures for salting are not left to chance, that unions very carefully instruct members how they ought to go about salting. This is a sample checklist for salts put out by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 in Anchorage, AK. If you will notice, and we will read some of these points, this is their initial contact, when they make contact with a selected target; in other words, the business that is the target of the campaign: If the target doesn't have reason to know that you are a union member you do not want to reflect that on your application. You can change the status of your prior employment to reflect past non-union employment * * * Then they actually counsel their salts to lie on their employment application. * * * reduce the rate of [your former] pay [your hourly wage] to $12.00 or $13.00 with no benefits [because] if you show a high rate of pay and benefits * * * the target will * * * become suspicious. So all through the various points that they make, all through their recommendations, they are urging deception when these salts go in. List jobs other than heavy industrial sites such as TVA jobs, government jobs, or jobs known to be union in union areas. Deceive the potential employer. In listing your electrical education we recommend that you do not list JATC or IBEW. Just do not tell them of any kind of--on and on you find this effort to simply deceive in order to get in and perform the insidious and pernicious activity, not of organizing, but of destroying the economic viability of the company. There are more union tactics that are described by local 1547: Fabricating employment history and so forth. These tactics are not overt methods of organizing, but rather they are covert methods of deceiving and sabotaging the targeted company. Unfortunately, the NLRB and other Government entities have unwittingly become an accomplice in these salting campaigns, because the charges are brought before them, and Government lawyers defend the salts. So we talk about the price tag. It is not just the price tag of legal fees for these companies. It is not just the price tag of lost time and productivity. It is not just the price tag of losing a company's reputation. It is also the price tag that is imposed upon the American taxpayer, because we pay for the lawyers that are defending these salts when it goes before the NLRB. So by extension, the American taxpayers have been made a participant in these guerrilla warfare operations, since who but the American taxpayer pays the salaries of these Government lawyers. Mr. President, I think that it is absurd. And in return for their money, the American taxpayers get a return on their investment; and that return is in higher consumer prices for products and services, the costs of which have been driven up by higher operating expenses due to none other than these kinds of salting campaigns and those abuses. Not the legitimate right to organize, but it is these abuses that we have an opportunity to bring a halt to. Under current law, employers are fully exposed to the corrosive effects of salting. Mr. President, I emphasize again, I am not opposed to labor organizing. It is, in fact, one of the rights of workers under the law. But I am against the abuse of the system, the abuse of small business owners and the abuse of the American taxpayers. The Truth in Employment Act preserves the rights of employees and employers. The provisions are very simple. The Truth in Employment Act amends the National Labor Relations Act so that an employer is not required to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, meaning that this person wants to be employed with the primary purpose of furthering another employment or agency status. In other words, when they are coming in to apply, they are not coming in primarily because they want a job and they want a paycheck and they want to perform productive labor. They are coming in primarily for the purpose of furthering the goals and objectives of another organization, whether they are paid or unpaid. I think that that is what we must guard against--no destructive salting. The bill also specifically protects the rights of bona fide employees to self-organization, labor organization membership, and collective bargaining. It does not change the definition of the employee, and it does not overturn the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Truth in Employment Act begins, a little bit, to put some balance back into management-labor relations. And it begins to level the playing field of labor relations, protecting the rights of employers and employees while promoting the honest and harmonious hiring of employees. I think, Mr. President, the House took a very positive step for the benefit of all Americans by passing their version of this bill on March 26, 1998. This evening we will have a chance to do the same. And the language in the Truth in Employment Act that we will be voting on today is precisely the language passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The question arises, though--I am sure we are going to hear this during the course of debate today--if salts enter into jobs surreptitiously, how can this legislation work? How can salts be detected? Under the Truth in Employment Act, the act of seeking employment in the furtherance of another employment or agency status no longer is a ``protected activity.'' Salting will not be a protected action. In the case against the employer, the general counsel of the NLRB will have to show that the employee is, in fact, bona fide, that the employee did not seek employment for the purpose of salting. In this demonstration, the general counsel will prove that the employee would have sought employment even in the absence of his desire to conduct a salting campaign. The employers will have the opportunity to present contrary evidence. Employers will no longer be squeezed in the vices of the law. They will no longer be forced to hire salts or fear dismissing salts for their disruptive actions. Employers will be able to hire job applicants who are actually interested in working and contributing do the company for the salary they receive. I know that some of my colleagues do not support this legislation and will try to frame this legislation as being antilabor. It is not. As I mentioned, the Truth in Employment Act specifically protects the rights of bona fide employees to self-organization, labor organization membership, and collective bargaining. It does not in any way undermine that right. But it will stop the proliferation of salting campaigns that have precipitated the need for the legislation. This, frankly, has become the new tactic of choice. Others may suggest these unions would not undertake these tactics unless there were something seriously wrong with the system and that salting is like the last gasp of breath from the sea of desperation. But I think if you look at the economy, you find the real answer. Apart from the recent ups and downs and antics of the stock market, our economy has been doing very well. Over 13 million new jobs have been created in the last 5 years. Unemployment is at a 24-year low--4.5 percent. The economy is growing. And while the economy is growing, union membership is declining; in fact, it is even plummeting. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that unions lost 159,000 members in 1997 alone. So as a result of strong employment conditions and job satisfaction, labor unions are finding it increasingly difficult to identify workplaces that need and want labor representation. So in that circumstance, in that economic environment, it is regrettable that some labor unions have resorted to disingenuous techniques to cope with their situation. Mr. President, in this country we often speak of rights--the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But with each right that we enjoy in this great country, we also face some responsibilities. People who assemble for a cause have the responsibility not to be violent or to be destructive. Journalists have a responsibility to print what is true and newsworthy. When a parent grants a child the freedom to use the phone or to use the car, he expects the child not to make lengthy long distance calls to far out-of-the-way places, or to drive the car at high speeds or under the influence of alcohol. It is this responsibility that we exercise with each freedom, with each right that allows us to have these very same freedoms. Mr. President, the right of laborers to organize must not be abused. Salting is a costly--costly--abuse of legal technicalities. It rarely ever results in actual organization. Instead, it costs small business owners time, money and oftentimes its reputation that has been built and earned through a whole lifetime. It costs American taxpayers money in legal costs and higher consumer prices. It is dishonest. It is unjust, and it penalizes the innocent. Mr. President, the Truth in Employment Act calls for just that--truth in employment. It calls for common sense and honesty in labor relations. It calls for job applicants to be honest about their intentions and to apply only if they actually want to work for the company. It stops only dishonesty. It stops only injustice. It stops only destructive and unethical practices. It calls for a simple change in the law so that small business owners do not have to shoot themselves in the foot. It calls for fairness. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation when we have the opportunity to vote on it later today. Mr. President, 32 different trade associations have endorsed the Truth in Employment Act. I will not read them all, but some of the major trade associations supporting this legislation include the American Trucking Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, International Mass Retail Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Manufacturers support this, as well as the NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business, the National Grocers Association, the National Mining Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--32 different associations have said, ``We realize this is an insidious, unscrupulous practice that will proliferate unless we stop it legislatively now.'' While it may now be electrical contractors, small builders and small businesses facing this, unless the insidious practice is stopped, we will see it used in a calculating way against targeted industries and targeted businesses across the economic spectrum. This is a great opportunity for us, as we seek to invoke cloture on this, this evening. We need 60 votes. I ask all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to carefully consider the simple change that this will make in the law, but the profound change it would have in restoring fairness in the workplace. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent, as I request a quorum call, that the quorum call time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a letter from Manno Electric, Inc., from the president of that company to his Congressman, regarding forced unionism, or salting. I will read only one paragraph: My company, Manno Electric, Inc., became a target for salting in July 1992. We are a small firm, founded in 1972, and based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Our business has been family-owned and operated for the past 24 years and now has annual sales of approximately $1 million and an average work force of 25 employees. In July 1992, I hired five union members during a peak work time and laid them off when their jobs were completed in mid- August 1992. Immediately, the union filed a ULP charge claiming they were laid off because of their union affiliation. I will not read it all, but it concludes: To date, I have paid my attorney over $75,000 for my defense and have been ruled guilty on all charges by an administrative law judge who proudly professed he formerly represented the auto union and touted the high percentage of success in union litigation. Once again, he is continuing to appeal. But these are the kinds of situations that these small companies are facing. That is from the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Manno Electric, Inc., be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, while I continue to have the floor, I just want to point to this chart, which is an editorial that I think very well frames the issue that confronts the Senate today in this cloture motion. It is entitled ``Harassing Job Providers.'' It appeared recently in the Detroit News. I think, once again, it frames this issue quite well. I will read part of it. One form of the tactic is called ``salting'' in which union agents take a job at a nonunion firm and attempt to organize workers. They also file endless and often frivolous claims of labor law violations against the companies. Another tactic is simply to file the claims on behalf of other workers, whether or not the workers are actually aggrieved. These tactics, as well as ``salting,'' are known as corporate campaigns and are designed to give unions more leverage when they are at a low ebb. Only 10 percent of private sector workers are in unions. One prounion handbook quoted by Investors Business Daily observes that ``Every law or regulation is a potential net in which management can be snared and entangled. I think they rightly conclude that: Regulations ought to be about protecting people, not ``ensnaring and entangling'' anyone. Part of the problem is addressed by legislation introduced by Republicans Harris Fawell of Illinois in the House and * * *.'' And it goes on and speaks about that legislation. But here is the point I would make; I think the editorial made it well: Regulations, labor laws, and labor regulations implemented by the NLRB exist not to ensnare and entangle small business men and women who are trying to survive, trying to provide jobs and trying to make a living. They exist to protect both employer and employee and have always been intended to provide and to maintain balance. The fact is that when the National Labor Relations Act was passed no one could have envisioned that these kinds of tactics would become so commonplace. So when the opponents of this legislation stand, as they surely will, and say, ``This is just an effort to undermine and to hurt organizing efforts, this is antiworker and antilabor,'' I once again remind those Senators that the only thing this legislation targets are the abuses of existing law. The only thing this legislation targets are the insidious and absolutely indefensible tactics of going in with the explicit purpose of destroying a business, destroying a businesswoman, of ruining their financial viability with a truly scorched earth policy, a term that has been used frequently of recent. This is truly scorched earth. If you can't organize and destroy them, that is what ``salting'' is all about. That is why it is incumbent upon us to restore balance and to restrain these kinds of unethical tactics that are being more and more widely used. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call be equally divided.