Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Chair for his important remarks on the details of the legislation that came out of the Senate Finance Committee today. That legislation takes a big step forward and basically eliminates the marriage penalty that exists in our tax law today. Chairman Roth has been a champion of improving our Tax Code. I am pleased to see that he has moved this legislation. It is something I know the Chair and I have advocated for a long time, as have many others in this body. We need to look at our policy in America and see if it is actually affirming the values we hold dear: Particularly, are we setting governmental policy in this country that damages families? Is that one of the reasons for the breakup of families in this country? I think it needs to be considered. I believe it is a matter of importance. Good public policy is what we are about. We need to spend more time asking ourselves what is going to happen when we pass certain legislation. All of us agree that when you tax an item, a process, or an act, you get less of it. If you subsidize another act or process, you get more of it. That is just fundamental economics on which almost everybody would agree. What we have in the marriage penalty is an amazing event. In this Government, we have created, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a tax burden of nearly $1,400 per married couple. If they are living separately, they will pay $1,400 on average less than if they are married. That is an amazing event. I happen to know someone who got divorced recently. When they divorced, they said their tax bill went down $1,600. Had they divorced in December instead of January, they would have had an extra $1,600 from that year's return. We have the incredible, amazing event in which Federal tax policy encourages family breakup. It provides a bonus--$1,600 a year--as long as they remain single, for example. That is the kind of policy that we have created here. Likewise, people who marry are penalized. I know a young person that married recently. He and his wife both work. They believe it will cost them over $1,000 a year to get married. This is $100 a month we are talking about. We are talking about people being taxed an additional $100 a month for following through on an institution that this Nation traditionally--before we got into this matter--venerated, and that is marriage and family. So I think this is a big deal. It is a very big deal. It is bad public policy. It is wrong. It is unfair. We should not continue this policy and we need to end it now. I believe we are on the road to achieving that. I am excited about it. Some time ago, we realized that we were not increasing the deductions for families who had children and that young families were struggling to raise children. This tax bill doesn't deal with children, just marriage. We had a long struggle, but we finally passed a $500 per child tax credit for young families trying to raise kids. For two kids, that is $1,000 a year, and nearly $85 a month. Parents can buy shoes and clothes, take the kids to the movies, buy something after ball practice at McDonald's. That is real money to real American citizens. Now we are talking here about another $100 a month, on average, or $110, $120 a month that married people are having to pay for the privilege of getting married. That should not be. It is a punishing and unfair tax. Furthermore, it should not, in my view, be based on income. Just because you make a little more money than somebody else, why should you be penalized for getting married? That doesn't make sense to me. This is not, in my view, a tax reduction issue so much as it is a fairness issue. Let's eliminate this unfairness. I am excited about what is happening here. Families will be able to buy that new dress, buy tires for their car, or fix the muffler, or get a new set of shocks, things they may need on a monthly basis--things that families do on a regular basis. Also, I want to point out that this penalty is particularly noticeable now that we have more married women working. The penalty is even worse when a married woman's income comes close to the amount of income of the husband. So the husband and wife marry and there is this unexpected tax. You get whacked, and you wonder whether it is worth both people working. It oftentimes hurts the woman more than the man. In this country we would like to see equal opportunity in salaries, that there not be a glass ceiling for women, and that they ought to be able to have the same salary opportunities. But the more likely, on a statistical basis, that the woman receives the same salary as a man, the more this penalty will fall on her. So I think it is clearly unfair to both men and women. Mr. President, I want to say again that we are making a big step toward ending a penalty, a tax, a detriment, a burden on an institution that is critical to the salvation and strength of this country, which is marriage. We are taxing that, penalizing that, and we are discouraging marriage. We are subsidizing singleness and divorce, actually. That is not good public policy. I believe we can do better. Of course, it will have no impact on a single person. No burden will fall on them because of passing this bill. It will simply be leveling the playing field and making it a more fair system. I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I thank Senator Roth and the others who have worked on this legislation. We are moving forward. It is time to pass this bill, to give some relief and eliminate this unfair tax on marriage. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I recently reviewed a video tape of some of the violence that occurred during the labor dispute between Overnite Trucking and the Teamsters. I am shocked and disturbed by the violent attacks that have been carried out against Overnite drivers simply because they have decided to work and provide for their families. Under a legal loophole created in federal law, union officials, who organize and coordinate campaigns of violence to ``obtain so called legitimate union objectives,'' are exempt from federal prosecution under the Hobbs Act. An update of a 1983 union violence study, released by the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School Industrial Research Unit entitled: ``Union Violence: The Record and the Response of the Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB,'' revealed some disturbing news. While the overall number of strikes has been on the decline, union violence has increased. The study also showed the violence is now more likely to be targeted toward individuals. Mr. President, violence is violence and extortion is extortion regardless of whether or not you are a card carrying member of a union. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 764, the Freedom from Union Violence Act. This legislation would plug the loopholes in the Hobbs Act and make all individuals accountable for their actions. I believe that people should be reprimanded for using violence to obstruct the law. We should not give special treatment to union violence cases or union bosses. Senator Thurmond has set out to clarify that union-related violence can be prosecuted. I commend Senator Thurmond for introducing this much-needed legislation. During the 105th Congress, the Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing on the Freedom from Union Violence Act. After listening to and reviewing the wrenching testimony of victims of union violence at this hearing, I am now more certain of the need to eliminate these loopholes. For these reasons I respectfully urge my colleague Senator Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to schedule hearings and a markup of S. 764, the Freedom from Union Violence Act, as soon as possible. I also urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. It is time to end federally endorsed violence. Conducting hearings on this issue would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement on two arbitration bills that are currently pending in the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Committee on the Judiciary. These bills are S. 1020 and S. 121, both of which would create exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act. In general, arbitration is fair, efficient, and cost-effective means of alternative dispute resolution compared to long and costly court proceedings. The two bills before the subcommittee today raise concerns about the fairness of allowing some parties to opt out of arbitration and the wisdom of exposing certain parties to the cost and uncertainty of trial proceedings. S. 1020, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act would allow automobile dealers and manufacturers to opt out of binding arbitration clauses contained in their franchise contracts and pursue remedies in court. This is troubling because both parties are generally financially sophisticated and represented by attorneys when they enter into a franchise contract. S. 1020's enactment would allow these wealthy parties to opt out of arbitration, but would not allow customers of the dealers to opt out of arbitration. This position is difficult to justify. Indeed, in jurisdictions such as Alabama the allure of large jury verdicts serves as a powerful incentive for trial lawyers to use S. 1020 to argue against all arbitration. Jere Beasley, one of the Nation's most well-known trial lawyers, is making this exact argument in his firm's newsletter. While abandoning arbitration for dealers and manufacturers might increase attorneys fees, I have serious concerns as to whether such a selective abandonment for sophisticated dealers and manufacturers would increase the fairness of dispute resolution between these parties or would be fair to customers and employees of the dealers. S. 121, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, would prevent the enforcement of binding arbitration agreements in employment discrimination suits. However, when employment discrimination law suits cost between $20,000 and $50,000 to file, many employees cannot afford to litigate their claim in court. Arbitration provides a much more cost-effective means of dispute resolution for employees. Indeed, several studies have shown that in nonunion employment arbitration employees prevail between 63 percent and 74 percent of their claims in arbitration, compared to 15 percent to 17 percent in court. Further, an American Bar Association study showed that consumers in general prevail in 80 percent of their claims in arbitration compared to 71 percent in court. Of course, if both employees and employers could avoid arbitration under S. 121. This would give employers the financial incentive to use the $20,000 to $50,000 cost of a trial as a barrier to employees suits. This does not appear to be good policy. I note that the Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the National Arbitration Forum support arbitration and have raised concerns concerning the bills pending before the subcommittee. Their concerns must be explored more fully. In sum, I believe that the arbitration process must be fair. When it is fairly applied, it can be an efficient, timely, and cost-effective means of dispute resolution. S. 1020 and S. 121 would create exceptions to arbitration that could expose businesses to large jury verdicts and effectively bar employees with small claims from any dispute resolution. We must examine these bills and the policies behind them more thoroughly before acting upon any legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Are there 2 hours equally divided on the Hollings amendment?

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. If we can finish in 1 hour.

Mr. SESSIONS. In the next hour.

Mr. SESSIONS. Whenever.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am prepared to yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina and ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have 30 minutes on this subject.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe we are now about to move to the Hollings amendment. Is that the next agenda item?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is the leader's hope the final vote will occur tomorrow. However, if this cloture vote is necessary, I now ask consent it occur at 10 a.m. on Wednesday and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 324, S. 1730.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 325, S. 1731.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 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. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 329, S. 1744.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 444, S. Res. 263.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 442, S. Res. 87.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 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 any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1658, reported today by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will resume consideration of the pending flag desecration resolution. Under the order, there will be 2 hours remaining for debate relating to the Hollings amendment, to be followed by an additional hour for general debate. At 2:15 on Tuesday, following the party luncheons, the Senate will proceed to two consecutive votes on the pending amendments to the flag desecration resolution. It is hoped that following those votes, the Senate will be able to reach a consent agreement regarding the passage vote of S. J. Res. 14. As a reminder, if an agreement is not reached for a vote on passage, then under the provisions of rule XXII, a cloture vote will occur on Wednesday of this week. I thank all the Members for their attention.