[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND RAILWAY LABOR ACT AMENDMENTS


                           Motion to Proceed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 55, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 55, a bill to 
     amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor 
     Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor 
     disputes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, the Senate will now resume 
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 55, the striker 
replacement bill. At 2:30 p.m. today, there will be a vote on a motion 
to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to that bill.
  If cloture is not invoked, that is to say if fewer than 60 Senators 
vote to end the filibuster and permit a vote on the bill, then debate 
will continue on that motion for the remainder of today, and another 
cloture vote will be held at 10 a.m. tomorrow. So the only vote today 
will be at 2:30, on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 55. And 
another such vote will occur at 10 a.m. tomorrow if cloture is not 
invoked this afternoon.
  Following disposition of S. 55, the Senate will resume consideration 
of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under a unanimous-
consent agreement previously reached on that bill, to be in order any 
amendment to the bill must be offered by 6 p.m. on Thursday. It is my 
intention and expectation that we will complete action on that bill on 
Thursday, remaining in session for however long it takes to do so.
  Following consideration of that bill, the Senate will take up other 
appropriations bills, including the agriculture and interior 
appropriations bills.
  During this legislative period, which is now scheduled to be 
completed at the close of business on August 12, we will have a very 
busy schedule. We have to act on as many appropriations bills as 
necessary. As I previously stated, it is my intention to proceed to and 
complete action on the elementary and secondary education 
reauthorization bill, health care reform, several nominations including 
the nomination of Judge Breyer to the Supreme Court, and conference 
reports on several measures including the crime bill, campaign finance 
reform, lobbying reform, procurement reform, and airport and airways 
improvement. Several of these matters I anticipate will be relatively 
noncontroversial and will not take a long period of time. But many of 
them will.
  Last week, indeed a week ago today, I wrote to all Senators, as is my 
practice, setting forth the voting schedule for this legislative 
period. So there can be no misunderstanding, I ask unanimous consent 
that my letter and a nonexclusive list be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MITCHELL. I want to reemphasize what I stated in the letter and 
what I had previously stated publicly on several occasions prior to the 
time the letter was sent. And I quote from the letter:

       During that period, the Senate will be in session 5 days a 
     week--Monday through Friday. There will be no rollcall votes 
     on the first two Mondays of this legislative period--July 11 
     and July 18. On every other day, Senators should be prepared 
     for rollcall votes, including numerous procedural votes, 
     unless an announcement to the contrary is made on the floor.

  Further quoting from the letter:

       During this coming legislative period, the Senate will have 
     to complete action on several important measures prior to 
     breaking for the August recess.

  I then listed several which I have just stated this morning and then 
went on to say in the letter:

       With cooperation, we can complete these measures by August 
     12. But if we fail to do so, then this legislative period 
     will be extended for as long as is necessary. * * * 
       As is the current practice, Senators should be available to 
     arrive on the Senate floor to vote within 20 minutes. An 
     announcement will be made from the floor whenever a decision 
     is made to end rollcall votes for the day.

  Madam President, I thank all Senators for the cooperation we have had 
so far this year. I have attempted to accommodate as many Senators as 
possible in their individual schedules by setting the opening and 
closing of the Senate and the voting schedule in a manner that did 
accommodate the largest number of Senators, but it clearly will not be 
possible to do so during this legislative period.
  So Senators should be prepared for lengthy sessions, 5 days a week, 
votes at any time beginning early Monday morning and continuing through 
late Friday evening. The letter explicitly did not include the closing 
time of 3 p.m. on Friday--unless agreement to the contrary is reached 
and announced from the floor.
  So I thank my colleagues for their past cooperation and for what I 
hope and anticipate will be their cooperation during this legislative 
period. We have a lot to do but there is no reason why we cannot get it 
done if Senators will cooperate, come to the floor to offer their 
amendments, not engage in dilatory tactics, and cooperate in being 
present in the Capitol at any time so that we can proceed to vote as 
the opportunity arises during the consideration of various bills.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                Office of the Majority Leader,

                                     Washington, DC, July 5, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: I am writing to set forth the voting 
     schedule for the legislative period from Monday, July 11 
     through Friday, August 12.
       During that period, the Senate will be in session five days 
     a week--Monday through Friday. There will be no rollcall 
     votes on the first two Mondays of this legislative period--
     July 11 and July 18. On every other day, Senators should be 
     prepared for rollcall votes, including numerous procedural 
     votes, unless an announcement to the contrary is made on the 
     Floor.
       On Monday, July 11, the Senate will convene at 1:00 p.m. On 
     that day there will be debate only on a Motion to Proceed to 
     S. 55, the Striker Replacement bill. A cloture vote on that 
     Motion to Proceed will occur at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 
     12.
       During this coming legislative period, the Senate will have 
     to complete action on several important measures prior to 
     breaking for the August recess. These measures include, but 
     are not limited to, the following: Striker Replacement; the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Health Care Reform; 
     the Crime Bill Conference Report; available appropriations 
     bills, nominations and other conference reports. With 
     cooperation, we can complete these measures by August 12. But 
     if we fail to do so, then this legislative period will be 
     extended for as long as is necessary. If any other changes in 
     this schedule are necessary, I will provide as much notice as 
     is possible under the circumstances.
       As is the current practice, Senators should be available to 
     arrive on the Senate Floor to vote within 20 minutes. An 
     announcement will be made from the Floor whenever a decision 
     is made to end rollcall votes for the day.
       I will contact you by August 12 regarding the voting 
     schedule for the next legislative period.
           Sincerely,
                                               George J. Mitchell.
                                  ____


              Nonexclusive List for Prior to August Recess

       Ten remaining appropriations bills.
       Elementary and secondary education reauthorization, S. 
     1513, (Cal. No. 495).
       Health care reform.
       Export administration improvement bill, S. 2203, (Cal. No. 
     474).
       Federal crop insurance reform bill, S. 2095, (Cal. No. 
     507).
       Child Nutrition and School Lunch Act reauthorization, S. 
     1614 (Cal. No. 506).
       Intelligence reauthorization, S. 2082, (Cal. No. 501).


                           executive calendar

       Judge Breyer's nomination.
       Other nominations.
       Possible treaties.


     conference reports including, but not limited to the following

       Crime bill, H.R. 3355.
       Campaign reform, S. 3.
       Lobbying reform, S. 349.
       Procurement reform, S. 1587.
       Airport and airways improvement, H.R. 2739.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, in the legislative process in which 
we all engage, we too often find ourselves distracted from some of the 
human realities by sloganeering and political posturing. I know how 
difficult it is when I go home and somebody says, ``Where do you stand 
on S. 9996,'' or H.R. blah, blah, blah, whatever the case may be. 
Somehow or another, people come to associate their problems with a 
Senate file number or some name easily pronounceable, probably one or 
two syllables, one or two words, something like that. We tend to lose 
sight of the realities that exist behind the personal needs that are 
expressed by each of these constituents.
  The bill on the floor now is either known as S. 55 or the Workplace 
Fairness Act, or the striker replacement bill. We have been at this 
now, Madam President, for quite a number of years. On the recess, I 
thought I would go home and do a little reality check on S. 55, 
workplace fairness and striker replacement. So I met with a group of 
workers who were going through a real life labor-management crisis. 
They told me this is what S. 55 is all about. What I learned from them 
is just exactly how far the whole S. 55 debate really is from their 
personal concerns.
  The workers I met with in this case were members of the Oil, Chemical 
and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 6-662. These workers were 
permanently replaced in April of this year within days--not weeks or 
months--within days of going on strike against their employer, CF 
Industries in Rosemount, MN.
  CF Industries is a fairly large company originated through a number 
of large agricultural co-ops, and it is largely in the fertilizer 
business. It has operations around America, with 1,500 employees. Only 
28 of those 1,500 employees are union members. They are all in 
Rosemount, MN--or they were all in Rosemount, MN. After more than 30 
years of relatively good labor/management relations, after more than 20 
years of service by some of these employees, they were put on the block 
within days of going on strike. CF Industries had been advertising for 
permanent replacements since January before the strike was even called. 
This, Madam President, is the real face of labor relations today. These 
are people who, to borrow a phrase from President Clinton, worked hard, 
played by the rules.
  What solutions does the system have for them? Over the last year, and 
as recently as last Thursday, I have been meeting with working men and 
women who are members of labor unions. What I am hearing from them is a 
great deal of frustration. Some of the national labor leaders and some 
of the proponents of this bill have had a simple answer for 4 years. 
They say all of this frustration and all of this suffering will go away 
if Senators like me will just shut up and pass S. 55.
  Madam President, would that it were so. I would like nothing more 
than to pass a bill that would accomplish all that the supporters claim 
for their bill, but it just is not so. We have a very broad problem in 
this country for laboring men and women. The frustration of union 
members and nonunion members alike is the very same source of 
frustration of the middle class in general: Loss of job security, 
disorientation caused by business restructuring, loss of benefits, 
failure to keep pace with the cost of living, tougher global 
competition, reductions in defense contracts, inflation that is going 
down across the board except for the vital services that workers need 
for their families, like education and health care.
  This has given America's workers a lot with which to cope and adjust. 
Are we in Congress being genuinely helpful? They do not think so, and 
neither do I. We are talking a lot about the Workplace Fairness Act, 
but we are not talking much about workplace fairness, how we intend to 
cushion the real blows suffered by real people in a real workplace.
  Just take a look at the 28 workers at CF Industries. They brought a 
claim of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. 
In fact, they brought their first one last September, I think. The 
company, within 2 months, conceded, signed an agreement with the 
National Labor Relations Board, posted a la--well, I will not say 
that--posted a recognition of 94 things that they would not do anymore, 
knowing that in 60 days they can take the thing down, and it is 
business as usual, if that is what they want to do.
  In connection with the strike in April of this year, the union 
brought another claim of unfair labor practice, under the NLRA, against 
the company. This week--that is, the second week in July--they get 
their very first hearing. So this week for these people the process 
begins. When will they get justice?
  Well, the General Accounting Office has provided some statistics that 
are not very encouraging. In 1988, 30 percent of the unfair labor 
practice cases decided had been at the Board for more than 2 years; 15 
percent had been at the Board for over 4 years. In 1989, 21 percent of 
the unfair labor practice cases decided had been before the Board for 
more than 2 years and 10 percent had been there for over 10 years--
clearly, moving in the wrong direction.
  I think that anybody who looks at the length of time it takes for 
working men and women to receive justice from our system would 
recognize that the system has to change. The National Labor Relations 
Board has to be more responsive. The alternative is a complete collapse 
of faith in the system on the part of both workers and management.
  That, Madam President, is the problem we are trying to solve. Make 
the system responsive; make the system work. This is a problem that 
must be addressed by changes in America's labor laws, but the changes 
embodied in S. 55 are not the changes we need. In fact, this bill has 
become an impediment to the very changes that will help resolve the 
frustration of organized workers. With all due respect to the authors 
of the bill before us and their supporters and organized labor, by 
bringing the bill up one more time and by failing to work 
constructively on the kind of reform that can pass and ought to pass, 
working Americans have lost another year in their pursuit of real 
fairness in the workplace.
  Let me illustrate for you just how this delay in enacting genuine 
reforms has hurt our workers. Last year, I introduced a bill that is 
known as S. 598. That bill would require the NLRB to expedite review of 
unfair labor practice charges in cases where striking workers have been 
permanently replaced. If that bill had passed last year, the striking 
workers of CFI would have already had their hearing before an 
administrative law judge. They would have been entitled to a ruling by 
the middle of August, a month from now, by the latest, and any appeal 
to the NLRB would be expedited.
  Under S. 598, the entire process would have taken at the most 8 
months and 15 days--at the most--not the 4 years, the 3 years, the 2 
years that GAO tells us is now prevalent. But instead of moving forward 
with this kind of necessary reform, we continue this symbolic struggle 
over S. 55. The result for the 28 people in Rosemount, MN, and others 
around the country? Justice delayed. Justice delayed is justice denied.
  Madam President, O.J. Simpson is getting his day in court before the 
workers at CFI do. And that is current law. Make no mistake, their 
lives are at stake, too. They need their jobs.
  Every labor leader I have spoken with about my bill has said it would 
address the problems in the current system--not all of them, not go as 
far as a lot of them would want, but it would address the heart of the 
problems illustrated by what these workers at CFI are going through.
  When I met with William Gould, President Clinton's nominee to the 
NLRB chairmanship, he said it was a good reform. He said it ought to be 
passed. The chairman of our committee said we ought to have a hearing 
on it. And that was what? A year ago.
  My colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, my colleague from 
Oregon, Senator Packwood, and others have tried to work on reasonable 
solutions to the kinds of problems that are actually being encountered 
by people like those 28 workers at CFI. And yet at the Labor Committee 
we have had no hearings on my bill. We have had no hearings on any 
other alternatives to S. 55. In spite of the expressed willingness of 
other members of the committee and myself to work on real solutions to 
this problem, opponents have made no effort to break the deadlock, so 
here we are again, back to S. 55, the all-or-nothing labor law reform 
that is not going to pass this week, this year, or for years to come.
  I have explained my opposition to S. 55 many times during Senate 
debate on this identical bill, and I will state it once again just for 
the record.
  The problem with current labor law, as shown clearly by the situation 
at CFI in Minnesota, is that management in some cases can take extreme 
positions in labor negotiations even at the point of forcing a strike 
because the ability to hire permanent replacements has taken much of 
the risk for management out of strikes, if that is what they desire to 
do. I oppose S. 55 because it takes this very heavy club, the risk-free 
strike, out of the hands of management and hands it right over to 
labor.
  As angry as I get at management like at CFI for pushing good people 
out of good jobs, I know from experience in Minnesota it can happen on 
the other side, too. It was not that many years ago that local P-9 
called a strike against Hormel at its meatpacking plant in Austin, MN. 
It did not permanently replace workers when the strike was called. They 
took a 6-month strike in a town that is totally dependent on this 
packing house. And then they began to have to reopen the plant just to 
keep the community alive by replacing the workers. In that case, the 
union, under questionable leadership, simply refused to consider 
reasonable attempts to settle.
  The Hormel situation was eventually solved, and today all of the 
striking workers who wanted to come back to the Hormel plant are back. 
Their wages are higher than they ever were before, and this company has 
one of the highest productivity records in the Nation. Without the 
right to permanently replace the workers after all reasonable attempts 
to settle had failed, Hormel could have been driven out of business, 
the community could have been driven out, and the loss to my State and 
communities in and around Austin, MN, could have been enormous.
  Let me talk briefly on another example in an industry I know very 
well, the health care industry. While every industry will be affected 
by this legislation, the impact on the health care industry is of 
particular concern at a time when Congress is seeking solutions to 
skyrocketing health care costs. The Supreme Court's decision in 
American Hospital Association versus the NLRB cleared the way for NLRB 
regulations which most in the health care industry believe will result 
in increased unionization and the potential for strikes against the 
Nation's 4,000 acute care hospitals.
  The regulations provide that in most hospitals unions can organize as 
many as eight different units of employees. As an article in the March 
2, 1992, AFL-CIO News pointed out, the effect of these regulations 
already is being felt. According to the article, one union alone has 
won 20 of 28 elections involving skilled maintenance workers.
  If we were to give the unions in the health care industry the ability 
to call strikes without risk, I fear the result would be severe 
disruption of health care services. Moreover, to avoid catastrophe, 
hospitals would be forced to agree to possibly excessive union demands. 
These in turn would be passed on to the health care consumer.
  The potential effects of S. 55 on the industry were highlighted by a 
1991 strike against Canonsburg General Hospital in Pennsylvania after 
management had offered employees a 9.1 percent wage increase. At first, 
the hospital tried to operate using temporary workers and management 
staff. But the resulting burnout threatened the health of the patients, 
and permanent replacements had to be hired.
  Several months later, the union agreed to submit the dispute to 
arbitration in return for the hospital's reinstating the striking 
workers. Ultimately, the arbitrator adopted the original 9.1 percent 
wage increase that management had offered the employees prior to the 
strike.
  These examples, Madam President, convince me it is shortsighted for 
us to consider S. 55 a solution to the problems that exist in labor-
management relations today. It will only exchange one set of problems 
for another and bring no real fairness to the workplace, and that is 
why I oppose S. 55.
  I understand my friend, the Senator from Ohio, yesterday inveighed 
against what he called the antilabor Republicans. Madam President, I 
will remind my colleague that I was there with labor on the civil 
rights bill. I was there with labor on Hatch Act reform. I was there 
with labor on the minimum wage. I have been there 70 times, as my 
colleague from Texas knows, on Davis-Bacon, and a variety of issues 
like that.
  I will continue to be there with labor as we in Congress grapple with 
the rapidly changing problems of the work force. But I will not vote 
for a bad and a counterproductive bill. I will support the working 
people of Minnesota as they try to make a difference, not labor leaders 
with a letterhead trying to make a point. That is why I think we should 
revisit some of the reforms contained in S. 598. Let us get these 
unfair labor practice charges decided quickly.
  Let us give workers the right to automatic reinstatement if unfair 
labor practices are found. That is real reform.
  Last year I learned that a commission appointed by Labor Secretary 
Reich to conduct the so-called comprehensive review of labor management 
relations would not be studying this issue, but that Congress would 
have to address this broad revision without the benefit of the 
commission's recommendations. I thought at the time that this 
represented a lost opportunity in the history of labor relations.
  So my hope is that when S. 55 again fails because it did not receive 
the required votes, that Congress will look at a solution to the 
permanent replacement issue against the full panoply of labor law 
changes recommended by the commission, and with the benefit of the 
commission's comprehensive recommendations on labor law reform. This 
issue is too important for posturing. The issue is no longer S. 55. The 
issue is; are we serious about a level playing field to protect the 
rights of all in the economy? Madam President, I say back to the 
drawing board.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to simply address a special word of 
thanks to the Minnesota labor people who have challenged me and who 
have helped me understand this issue on a personal level--Bernie 
Brommer of the Minnesota AFL-CIO and members of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, 
who have been as persistent as any that I could imagine. I see my 
colleague from Minnesota smiling. These people do not let up. I think 
the first day I ever heard about S. 55 was from a member of a waiter 
staff in a bar where I happened to be attending for somebody's farewell 
party, or something like that. She said, ``Where do you stand on S. 
55?''
  Our people in Minnesota who represent labor are without parallel 
anywhere in the country. There is Rick Johnson, who is President of the 
OCAW Local 662; Doug Greene, John Paulpick, and some of the other 
members of the unit that was at CF Industries.
  Then, probably the organization in Minnesota that has been the most 
persistent--although they all have on this particular issue--the most 
informative, the most helpful, and I think, Madam President, in the 
long run the organization that will be the most frustrated by the 
inability of the Congress to deal realistically with these problems, 
will be Harold Yates, Wes Lane and a variety of business agents and 
others at the Teamsters in Minnesota.
  So I thank them. I know my conclusion on this bill doesn't agree with 
theirs. But I must say that it is not because they did not try. If they 
were the national labor leaders of this country, they would have found 
a solution by now. We would not be down here on the floor without that 
kind of a resolution.
  So if we can continue to work together on the issues with an open 
mind on all sides, I trust that day will not be far off when American 
workers get the justice they deserve. S. 55 is not it. I intend to vote 
for cloture.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, there are a couple of points that I would like to 
make that I think are important in this debate.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first, let me ask unanimous consent 
that Mark WELLSTONE, who is an intern with me this summer, be allowed 
to be on the floor today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me ask unanimous consent that 
this letter from Arthur Potthoff from the OCAW, Oil, Chemical and 
Atomic Workers, in relation to the CF Industries strike and permanent 
replacement of workers, which Senator Durenberger has spoken about, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers


                                 International Union, AFL-CIO,

                                                     June 6, 1994.
     Senator Paul Wellstone,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing to express my 
     appreciation for your appearance and remarks to the strikers 
     and their families and supporters in Rosemount Sunday June 5, 
     1994.
       The strikers at CF Industries have been through a lot in 
     the last two years. I won't go into the history of the entire 
     situation but the fight these people have taken on is not one 
     motivated by the typical interests in bettering one's lot in 
     life by improving wages and benefits. This conflict was 
     brought about by the employers insistence on removing the 
     Union security clause from their contract. As was told to you 
     by the strikers, they were replaced before they went on 
     strike. The company had advertised for and hired help as much 
     as three weeks prior to the work stoppage commencing. They 
     had brought supervisory personnel in from other locations two 
     to three weeks prior to the strike and had trailers set up to 
     provide housing and dining accommodations. This company knew 
     they had pushed the people as far as they could and were 
     prepared for the inevitable. So much for bargaining in good 
     faith.
       In a time when catch phrases like ``becoming more 
     competitive'' seems to be so popular in American business we 
     find it incredible that a company would choose their most 
     productive facility to start this kind of a fight. Could it 
     be that getting rid of the Union takes precedence over 
     productivity? At CF apparently fear and intimidation take 
     precedence over basic human dignity.
       We want to thank you for taking time out of an already busy 
     schedule to visit with these people. The OCAW is proud of 
     them for their commitment and dedication and we're proud of 
     you for recognizing the seriousness of their struggle and 
     helping to add to the visibility of the situation. It has 
     been frustrating for the strikers to get the message across 
     that what they are fighting the good fight over is the right 
     to bargain. The right to be guaranteed by virtue of contract 
     language that they may have a say in their own destiny. 
     Thanks again.
           In Solidarity,
                                               Arthur G. Potthoff,
                                                 Int'l. Rep. OCAW.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, will my colleague yield for 10 
seconds for a correction?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. In the close of my statement, I indicated that I was 
going to vote for cloture on the particular bill. If you could not tell 
by the tenor of my comments, that was a mistake.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not know if I want to yield to the Senator for 
that.
  [Laughter.]
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I intend to vote against cloture, and I will not 
urge this on my colleague from Minnesota. We have strongly held 
different views on this subject. But I will certainly encourage it on 
the rest of my colleagues and ask for their support in voting against 
cloture on the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to just simply follow up on 
the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota about a level playing field. 
You can probably learn a lot more by just kind of being with people 
than you can in some of the debates we have on the floor, which is not 
a put down on my part about our debates. I think the words are 
important, but you just get a feel for people sometimes when you are 
just there with them.
  I spoke yesterday about this particular strike at CF Industries. I 
could talk about a lot of others as well. But Madam President, I will 
not forget a visit out there Sunday morning about 3 or 4 weeks ago. It 
was about 10 in the morning. I went out there with Bernie Brommer, who 
is the president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO. But I think Bernie Brommer 
will agree. He is not the person supporting this equation, nor am I. It 
is the people. Here you have the workers and their spouses. I think 
that there were 27 of them. Actually what happened, this really fits 
into what this piece of legislation is all about. I quote from this 
letter from Mr. Potthoff.

       I won't go into the history of the entire situation but the 
     fight these people have taken on is not one motivated by the 
     typical interests in bettering one's lot in life by improving 
     wages and benefits. This conflict was brought about by the 
     employers insistence on removing the Union security clause 
     from their contract. As was told to you by the strikers, they 
     were replaced before they went on strike.
  Literally, the day they went on strike they were all replaced. So 
here you have these workers and their family members, spouses and 
children. It is raining, there is kind of a fence outside of the plant, 
and security guards. I felt in some ways like it was the 1930's before 
there were any unions. These are people who want to work and want to 
support their families. But it just got to the point where, from the 
point of view of their own dignity, just in terms of the treatment at 
the workplace, and what this company was offering them, they had no 
other choice. And this is the same old kind of strategy.
  By the way, it has been going on with a vengeance. Essentially what 
you do is require major and unreasonable concessions by a union, and 
then you force people out on strike. You replace them with workers 
unsympathetic to the union, and then you decertify the union. That is 
union busting. It is only turning the clock back a half a century.
  My colleague is not on the floor now. So it is not a question of what 
kind of debate with my colleague, because I would want him to have the 
opportunity to respond in kind.
  But I have to say that these workers would be the first to say it is 
a very bad idea. In fact, it is sort of a compelling proposal to really 
expedite the whole NLRB machinery. Justice delayed is clearly justice 
denied. Too often when it comes to the whole area of labor unfair 
practice, what happens is there is such a backlog, inadequate 
resources, people wait for years, in which case from a bottom line 
point of view, too often for companies it actually makes good sense to 
just basically violate the labor law. Then, by the time it comes to 
compensation, companies are ahead 4 or 5 years later, whatever the case 
might be.
  I think Senator Durenberger's idea about expediting the process and 
his efforts to do so should be applauded. The point is that is not what 
we are debating right now. Actually, when I think about what these 
workers said to me at CF Industries--Senator Durenberger talked about 
that--or what Bernie Brommer and the other union people and nonunion 
people say, it is a little bit different.
  This is the principle: When people go out on strike, they should not 
be permanently replaced. It just does not make any sense for us to be 
saying it is illegal for a company to fire someone because they go out 
on strike, but it is perfectly legal for them to permanently replace 
them. When we talk about a level playing field--just another quick 
Minnesota reference, and then let me broaden the scope of this 
discussion because this piece of legislation is so important in trying 
to in fact bring about some balance.
  Senator Durenberger talked about the strike down at Austin. I was 
there during a good part of that. I saw with my own eyes kind of what 
happened. I do not know that it is true that all of the workers who 
want to come back to work have been able to do so. Nor do I think the 
wages and benefits are high for the people working there.
  Part of what happened is not the question of people who were 
permanently replaced, but of people who really do not have the ability 
any longer to bargain for decent wages and decent working conditions, 
because they know what happens if a company says no and they should go 
out on strike--which is, of course, one of the rights of people, 
economic strikes included--they will be permanently replaced. We have 
seen a whole decade plus of depressed wages and health and safety 
conditions and working conditions. I think that is part of the 
disappearing middle class, Madam President.
  I have to say that what happened in the P-9 Hormel strike in Austin, 
MN, is that the community was indeed torn apart. When people went out 
on strike, they were permanently replaced. And it was and still is very 
painful. It was painful to people in the community and it is painful 
for people in the community. That is why I think, if you look at the 
religious community, there is so much ecumenical support for S. 55. You 
have so many of the clergy, so many in the religious community--
Christian, Moslem, Jewish, you name it--essentially saying, look, this 
is a matter of economic justice. This is a matter of how we build a 
partnership.
  It is certainly pretty difficult to have high levels of morale and 
productivity and employees working with employers and workers with 
management, when people know that all too often--and this has been the 
pattern--what happens is that some of these companies, not all, but 
some of these companies, all too many of these companies, make sure 
that these workers are essentially presented with proposals they cannot 
accept. People are forced out on strike and then permanently replaced.
  By the way, when we talk about people that are permanently replaced, 
we are not talking about people with great amounts of capital and 
wealth. That is why I think such a strong part of the religious 
community has been so supportive of this.
  When we talk about a level playing field--here is a little bit of 
evidence for the Record. Let me talk about the trend. Before 1980, 
employers consciously avoided the use of permanent replacements. 
According to a 1982 study by the Wharton Business School, University of 
Pennsylvania, instead, they valued their workers and looked forward to 
their return after the strike. But since 1980, employers have 
increasingly resorted to hiring permanent replacements. Let me go 
through some kind of evidence that supports the Wharton School's 
position.
  General Accounting Office study. The General Accounting Office issued 
a study of the use of permanent replacements in 1991 covering a 
sampling of strikes between 1985 and 1989. The great majority of 
participants in that study, both union and employer representatives, 
believed that ``Permanent replacements were used far more often''--I am 
quoting--``in the late 1980's than the late 1970's.'' More 
specifically, the GAO found that employers hired permanent 
replacements, or threatened to hire them, in one out of every three 
strikes.
  When I hear my colleagues talk about balance, a level playing field, 
that is what this piece of legislation attempts to do.
  Anderson-Little study. ``A recent survey of 632 permanent replacement 
strikes by Theresa Anderson-Little of Notre Dame confirms the GAO 
conclusions. She found that the average number of reported permanent 
replacement strikes quadrupled from 1974 to 1991.'' Quadrupled. ``She 
also found that where the employer hired permanent replacements, 
strikes lasted seven times longer than the average strike duration for 
that period.''
  Graham study. Not Senator Gramm from Texas, but another Graham study. 
The Economic Policy Institute reported recently on a study conducted in 
1989 by University of Alabama Professor Cynthia Graham. The study 
focused on two samples during the time period 1984 to 1988. One 
involved 35 strikes across the country, and the other included 21 
strikes in New York State. Graham found that employers hired permanent 
replacements in about 16 percent of the U.S. strike samples and about 
24 percent of the New York strike samples. Temporary replacements were 
used less frequently. Significantly, Graham also found that strikes 
lasted substantially longer when permanent replacements were hired--an 
average of 363 days--than when temporary replacements were hired, an 
average of 72 days; or when no replacements were hired, an average of 
64 days.
  So much for the argument that, as a matter of fact, this somehow 
leads to better labor-management relations or less bitter strikes, and 
less costly strikes to the country.
  AFL-CIO study. The AFL-CIO issued a study in 1991 on eight strikes 
during 1990 which involved 1,000 or more workers in which permanent 
replacements were hired. Strike data was compiled based on statistics 
obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of 243,000 workers 
participating in these large strikes in 1990. Approximately 11 percent, 
over 25,000 workers, were permanently replaced. Notably, 69 percent of 
the strikers who were permanently replaced were trying to protect their 
existing health care benefits. That is worth repeating: 69 percent of 
the strikers who were permanently replaced were trying to protect their 
existing health care benefits, but they ended up losing their jobs. 
They ended up losing their jobs.
  Again, when Senator Durenberger talked about the importance of 
streamlining and expediting, and I would assume adding resources to the 
whole NLRB machinery, great. I know Bill Gould, Chair of the Board now, 
is very committed to that. But we are talking about the reality of what 
all too often happens to workers in this particular case, many of whom 
really went out on strike, had no other choice but to try and fight for 
health care benefits for themselves and their families, and then were 
permanently replaced. That is the reality we are dealing with. That is 
the imbalance that we now have. That is the balance that we are trying 
to restore.
  UAW study. In 1991, United Auto Workers surveyed their field offices 
and found 35 cases in which a strike occurred and replacements were 
hired since the mid-1980's. Permanent replacements were hired in 80 
percent of these strikes.
  Well, Madam President, I could go on, but I will conclude. The 
overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrates that the hiring of 
permanent replacements is a pervasive problem in this country, and that 
it is tearing at the fabric of our society. Employers hire, or threaten 
to hire, permanent replacements in roughly one out of every three 
strikes. And where an employer does hire permanent replacements, the 
labor dispute is likely to last substantially longer, and the union is 
likely to suffer a substantial, if not fatal, defeat.
  Unless we pass this piece of legislation, Madam President, the 
Workplace Fairness Act, the right to strike will remain a hollow 
promise. In fact, the right to strike has become the right to be fired. 
That is really what it has become. And the American labor unions will 
be irreparably damaged, the labor unions in this country.
  I do not think that is the issue. The issue, as long as we are 
talking about a balance, is whether or not we are going to have a 
balance between those who have so much of the economic resources, so 
much of the wealth, who make the large contributions and have so much 
of the political power, and average citizens, working people, whether 
they are in unions or not.
  This is all about fair labor practices. But that is another issue. In 
the case of unfair labor practices, at least in theory, nobody should 
be permanently replaced.
  What this piece of legislation is about is decent wages, decent 
working conditions, the right to bargain collectively, and the whole 
question of whether or not average people, working people, will be able 
to get a fair shake. That is what this piece of legislation attempts to 
address.
  Madam President, I just simply have to say one more time that I hope 
we will be able to proceed. I hope that this piece of legislation will 
not be filibustered.
  Obviously, it is going to be a very difficult struggle, and there are 
those who say that the votes are not going to be here. I think it is 
extremely important that the people in the country understand how each 
and every one of us votes and then hold us accountable. I guess each 
one will vote what we honestly believe. I have no quarrel with that.
  I have to say on the basis of what I have seen in my State of 
Minnesota, much less around the country, a lot of people who really 
desperately want to have decent wages and be able to give their 
children and families a decent life. All too often they have been 
forced on strike and permanently replaced.
  I think we have to restore some balance. I think we have to restore 
some fairness. I think we have to make sure that working people, 
average families, have a fair chance. This piece of legislation goes to 
the most important set of issues for families in this country, bread-
and-butter economic issues, bread-and-butter economic issues. That is 
what this piece of legislation is about, how we provide some protection 
to families.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I guess there are a lot of people who 
look at this issue and see it as a labor-management issue. Very few of 
us know all the intricate facets of the labor laws that have been 
passed in the country. Many people are confused by labor rights and 
management rights. Obviously, there have been a thousand and one 
studies on all the issues.
  But today I want to address the fundamental issue that is involved in 
the so-called striker replacement bill.
  Every once in a while you have an issue come along in the Senate 
that, while you can cloak it in very confusing terms, while you can 
debate it in the frame of reference of other issues that are also 
cloudy and confusing, stands on its own, and it appeals to our very 
basic philosophies in determining where we stand on that issue. The 
issue before us is one of those issues. In fact, this is as clear an 
issue as has ever been dealt with in the 9 years I have been in the 
Senate because the issue here is freedom. The issue here is the basic 
right of people to work and the basic right of people to employ.
  Now, if I want to take a job, I have a right to go out and submit my 
resume, to submit an evaluation of my skills, and to apply for that 
job. If the employer believes that I am going to be productive enough, 
I will end up getting that job.
  Once I am working in that job, I have a right to quit. I have a right 
to quit because I do not like the people I work for; I have a right to 
quit because I do not like the working conditions; I have a right to 
quit because I do not like the benefits; I have a right to quit because 
I do not believe that my full talents are being used or that I am being 
treated respectfully; or I have the right to quit because someone down 
the block or across the Nation offers me a better job with better 
working conditions and higher wages.
  Those are the rights I have as a free American. And since there are a 
lot of people who are workers in America, those rights are almost never 
challenged.
  But while I have a right to quit working for you, I do not believe 
that, in a free country, I have the right to prevent you from hiring 
someone else. You either believe in freedom or you do not. And I do. I 
believe freedom extends not just to people who happen to exist in large 
numbers in America, but it extends to people who exist in smaller 
numbers. I believe people who create jobs have rights. I believe the 
people who save their money, who accumulate capital, who take risks, 
who create jobs, who basically build the coop and the pond and put out 
the corn for the goose that lays the golden egg in America have rights.
  So the fundamental issue here is this--no one disputes that if I want 
to quit my job, I have that right. This dispute is about whether, after 
having decided that I am going to withhold my labor and stop working 
for you because of my unhappiness on my job and because of a dispute, I 
have the right to effectively prevent you from hiring someone else.
  I say I do not have that right. I believe that my freedom ends where 
your freedom begins and, while I can quit, while I can withhold my 
labor, while I can negotiate, I should not have, in a free society, the 
right to say to you that if I leave my job, you cannot hire someone 
else to take my place.
  If we adopt this bill, that, in essence, is what we are doing because 
if I am able to come back at any moment and force you to fire whomever 
you hired to take my job, that person has no job security, that person 
has no rights, and as a result, in all probability, the company is not 
going to be able to find anyone to take that job since they know it is 
a temporary one.
  So at issue here is not some complicated issue of labor law. It is 
not even a complicated issue of trying to balance the playing surface 
in competition, though I want to talk a little bit about that. What is 
at issue here is the basic freedom of people in the freest country in 
the history of the world.
  I have a right to quit working for you. I have a right to withhold my 
labor, but I do not have a right to tell you that, after having 
withheld my labor, you cannot go out and hire someone else. I have no 
right to make the person you hire a second-class citizen and say that 
their claim to the right to work for this company is a lesser claim 
than my right to work for this company, when in fact I am the person 
individually or collectively who chose to leave.
  Now, that is the real issue here, and all the other issues are 
unimportant. But I am going to talk about one of them, unimportant 
though it be, relative to freedom, and that is the whole issue of what 
the passage of this bill would really do to the American economy.
  The passage of this bill would basically change the fundamental 
relationship between labor and management in America. It would 
basically give labor a tremendous increase in its powers. That is what 
this whole debate is about. This debate is a power grab by organized 
labor to infringe on the freedom of people to expand their power. And 
the negative side of it economically is that if this bill is passed, if 
organized labor knew that by striking they could prevent a company from 
hiring people to take their place, then the employer stands to lose 
everything and the employee, who at any moment can come back and demand 
the job back, stands to lose relatively little.
  What we would have in America is a raft of labor disputes. We would 
have numerous strikes. We would have a tremendous labor blockage. We 
would have a disruption of the economy. We would have wage growth 
without relation to productivity. The net result would be a declining 
competitiveness for American industry on the world market and declining 
living standards.
  So I think you can make a strong argument against this bill based on 
the economic well-being of the American people. You can make a strong 
argument against it based on the competitiveness of American products 
on the world market. You can make a strong argument against it in terms 
of what it will mean to our living standard.
  For all those reasons it ought to be rejected. But they are 
relatively insignificant as compared to the big issue, and the big 
issue is freedom.
  I believe in freedom. And I, like the Senator from Minnesota, am 
delighted that we are holding this vote today. I am delighted we are 
holding this vote today because as a result, all America will know 
where we stand on this issue. The essence of democracy is 
accountability, and today we take a stand, and the stand is either for 
or against freedom.
  It is for the right of a free people to withhold their labor. It is 
also for the right of a free employer to hire someone to work if the 
person who had the job has chosen voluntarily not to extend that right 
to work. That is a basic freedom. It is a freedom that I believe we in 
this Congress and in this Government are sworn to preserve. As a 
result, I am happy that all the world will know where we stand on this 
issue.
  I yield the floor
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just a couple of quick points. I know 
the Senator from North Carolina wants to speak.
  Listening to the Senator from Texas, it sounds to me, Mr. President, 
that the Senator's view is that if you should--it could be an economic 
issue, it could be an unfair labor practice--that if you leave work, 
somebody is physically forcing you to leave work, that you will never 
have an opportunity to get your job back.
  I would just say to the Senator that could be his position but that 
is at odds with Federal labor policy that we have had in this country 
for 59 years. I mean, if we were to sort of take that definition of 
freedom, you could literally, because of an unfair labor practice, say, 
``I just simply can't accept this,'' and you leave work and we have 
this right to bargain collectively. That has been the very heart of it.
  Under the Senator's standard, if you leave work, if you are on strike 
because of this, there is no way you could even go back to work. That 
is my first point.
  And, I mean, if we want to turn the clock back 60 years, we can do 
so. Maybe that is what is at issue here. I certainly hope not.
  That is why in the 1930's, with the Wagner Act, we moved forward with 
what I think was really something quite important. We talked about the 
right to organize and bargain collectively, so that there was some 
alternative to the terror of unemployment or unsafe working conditions 
or essentially being fired willfully and arbitrarily. That is what we 
tried to do.
  My second point, Mr. President, is that we have some, I guess, 
different definitions of freedom. It is interesting, there was a poll 
conducted last month by Fingerhut-Powers. Respondents were asked 
whether employers should be permitted to hire permanent replacements 
for striking workers. Sixty-four percent responded that an employer 
should not, while 35 percent said they should. At least four previous 
polls produced similar results. In a 1992 Roper Poll, 72 percent of the 
respondents supported a ban on the hiring of permanent replacements. 
Only 14 percent said workers should not have the right to strike 
without fear of losing their jobs.
  So the Senator has his own definition of freedom. But I think the 
vast majority of people in the country understand sort of who has huge 
amounts of capital and the wealth and power versus the position of 
regular working people and understand that there is another kind of 
freedom which is the freedom not to be exploited; freedom from hunger, 
the freedom to have a decent job, decent wages, decent working 
conditions; freedom not to work in unhealthy, unsafe conditions. That 
is what this piece of legislation is all about.
  And, as far as the vote today, and so people in the country will know 
where each of us stands, yes, that is accountability. I agree with the 
Senator on that point. It is the only point I agree with him on.
  But sometimes there is a disconnect between a filibuster effort, the 
60-vote requirement, versus sentiment around the country. It could be, 
as a matter of fact is the case, just looking at the polling data, that 
most people, the vast majority of people think this is an issue of 
fairness. The Senate vote may go a different way. We may not have the 
60 votes, given the filibuster. Thus, we will be accountable.
  But let us not assume that because there is a successful filibuster, 
if that is what happens, that somehow this filibuster represents the 
position that most of the people in the country have about freedom as 
defined so narrowly. That is not the case.
  I yield the floor
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  First of all, I just want to clarify a point. The point I made was 
not that you are guaranteed of losing your job permanently if you deny 
your labor.
  Let me respond to this on the economic plane and then the freedom 
plane.
  The point is that you stand a risk once you have said to your 
employer, ``I will not work.'' You stand the risk that the employer, in 
exercising his freedom, will hire somebody else. And, as a result, we 
have a balance in the relationship between the employee and the 
employer which has made this country the richest, freest and happiest 
country in the history of the world.
  What this bill would do is change that fundamental relationship by 
denying the employer the basic freedom to employ the capital that the 
employer has accumulated, to put that capital to work on his behalf and 
on behalf of the country.
  In terms of freedom, I cannot believe that there would be a single 
Founding Father who would accept the argument, no matter how you couch 
it in labor law and in the rhetoric of the collectivization of the 
rights and opportunity, that if an employee withheld his labor and 
refused to work, that an employer should be denied the right, if that 
employer chose, to hire someone else to take that job and that the 
person who took that job should not have exactly the same rights and 
privileges as the person who refused to work in that job.
  I think, when you state it in those terms, that it is a very, very 
simple and very straightforward principle.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just a quick, quick response and that 
will be it.
  I am glad to hear the slight amendment of the original formulation 
because I thought I heard the Senator originally say that the point 
really was freedom and if you left your job and you went out on strike 
for whatever the reasons were, then there is no particular reason for 
you to believe you will be able to come back. In fact, it is up to the 
employer to decide whether he or she wants you back, period, whether it 
be unfair labor practice or anything else.
  Now, on the second point, which has to do with the whole question of 
the richest, freest, greatest country in the world, I assume that each 
and every one of us loves this country. I do not think we would be in 
the Senate if this were not so. And certainly, given a different 
definition, and I would like to have another definition of freedom for 
a moment. I mean, my father left persecution in Russia and I am a 
first-generation American and I dearly love this country for the 
freedom and all that it is.
  The question is not who loves the country. The question is what has, 
in fact, happened over the last decade and a half. And when we look at 
what has happened is we see increasing disparities of wealth and 
income, declining middle class. We see all too often people forced to 
go out on strike and then permanently replaced. That is really the 
reality. Let us get away from the theories.
  Finally, on the Founding Fathers, I do not know what to say. As a 
former political science teacher, this sort of becomes an endless 
debate as to what were the real intentions of the Founding Fathers. I 
guess there really were not any Founding Mothers, which is a whole 
other issue.
  But I would say, it sort of depends. But I have to believe that, 
given the views of some of the real greats like a Thomas Jefferson, who 
cared so much about yeomen farmers, and cared so much about making sure 
there was some real equality of opportunity, given all the trends that 
are taking place in the United States of America, I would be willing to 
argue we would get a lot of support. But that is sort of a debate that 
goes on and on.
  But let me focus back again. This is all about the right to bargain 
collectively. It is all about workplace fairness. It all about 
restoring some balance. It is all about economic justice. It is all 
about making sure that we have some kind of partnership between 
business and labor. And, frankly, I think it is extremely important 
that we come down voting on behalf of working families. They deserve 
representation in the U.S. Senate. All too often they do not get the 
representation they deserve.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I focus on this from a little bit 
different perspective. We have heard the freedom aspect of it 
discussed.
  Mr. President, I have spent the last 46 years of my life in the 
private sector. I have met a payroll every Friday of every week of 
those years, and will meet one this Friday. It is unfortunate for the 
American people that there are not more people in the Congress who know 
what it means to run a business. If there were, we would not even 
consider union-inspired Government power grabs like the strike bill 
before us.
  Prohibiting employers from replacing striking workers is simply a bad 
idea, and it does not make common sense for American business or the 
working people. I have run businesses and hired people, as well as let 
them go. I know first hand how important it is to have flexibility in 
relations with employees.
  And sometimes that means the flexibility to let someone go, if you 
cannot agree with them, and hire someone else who needs the job and 
with whom you can agree. By prohibiting replacement of striking 
workers, Congress would take away a basic and fundamental element of 
the free market and insert in its place an unnecessary and unwelcome 
third-party negotiator--big labor.
  Mr. President, if we pass this bill, the entire balance of the U.S. 
labor market would be thrown into chaos. The U.S. Government would hand 
the keys to the American economy over to big labor. Union bosses would 
have a choke hold on the U.S. economy--and they will use it. Do not 
ever forget that. Union bosses would call strikes at will and force men 
and women off their jobs and onto the picket lines.
  And make no mistake about it, big labor bosses do not have the 
economic health of the United States or the American worker at heart. 
They have a single goal--forcing more people to join the now dying 
unions in order to enrich their now depleted treasuries. The very same 
treasuries which give millions of dollars to fund the leftwing friends 
of labor who are in the Congress.
  Mr. President, this country has come too far to return now to the 
days of forced unionism and widespread strikes, and widespread they 
would be if this were to become law. The United States is competitive 
and productive internationally today precisely because the drag of big 
labor is not as strong in this country as it is in other nations. While 
countries like Italy suffer endless strikes, our labor disputes are 
generally handled through bargaining and good-faith negotiation. That 
is the way they should be.
  The American worker today is better paid, better trained, and more 
productive than any time in this country's history. All this has been 
achieved while the role of unions over the years has steadily declined. 
The private sector does not need big Government and big labor holding 
the hands of its employees. It is doing just fine without any more help 
from Washington. We have come too far to sacrifice the independence of 
the American worker to greedy union bosses hungry for additional dues, 
and that is what we are talking about doing.
  Mr. President, it is obvious what the goal of this legislation is to 
anyone who has spent time in the private sector. The goal is to 
effectively create a system of compulsory unionism in the United 
States.
  We talk about freedom. No longer would there be freedom. You would be 
forced into a union if you were going to work.
  By giving the awesome power to the unions to totally shutdown 
American business and commerce we automatically give them the leverage 
to blackmail employers into closed-shop contracts. What this means is 
that millions of workers in right-to-work States like North Carolina 
will be forced against their will to join unions and pay union dues. 
They will be compelled against their will to financially support 
distant union hacks and their leftwing political causes, the very same 
men who are right now sitting across the street in their plush offices 
pulling every last string to get this bill passed. They will fail. If 
unions do not get this shot in the arm from big Government, they will 
continue to become even more irrelevant and marginalized in the modern 
economy. The bill is the unions' last dying gasp. Unions are dying--and 
good riddance.
  Mr. President, the single best argument against this bill is the 
commonsense argument. The way things stand now, employees can strike, 
and when it becomes necessary, management can replace workers.
  Management is extremely reluctant to replace workers and labor is 
generally reluctant to strike. That is what we are talking about, a 
balance, and we need to maintain this balance. It works and it makes 
common sense. But common sense is an uncommon thing in Washington, and 
nowhere is that better illustrated than in the debate over striker 
replacement.
  Mr. President, this law would destroy the natural balance of the 
labor market and give all the bargaining power to unions. Every 
business in this country from auto factories to hospitals--no matter 
how big or how small--would immediately be subject to totally 
devastating and unnecessary strikes--all because the U.S. Congress did 
the unions' bidding. All because the Congress put in the fix and named 
the winners and the losers. Industry and commerce of this country will 
be the losers. The winners will be union bosses and labor-financed 
politicians. And as I say, the losers will be American workers and 
American ability to be competitive.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will speak ever so briefly because I 
know our colleague from Colorado is anxious to speak. I do not know if 
the Senator from Kansas may want to respond as well.
  I must say, without responding point by point to what the junior 
Senator from North Carolina had to say, I find his comments very 
revealing, which is to say, ``Good riddance to unions, we'll just end 
the country of the cursed unions.'' I mean, that is the Senator's 
framework, and if it is the Senator's position that we should go back 
about half a century plus and have no unions and have working people 
not have representation and be able to bargain collectively, then so be 
it, that is his position.
  That is where we were once upon a time, Mr. President. And as a 
matter of fact, what happened with unions in the 1930's--I guess it is 
all our own backgrounds.
  Let me try not to use any labels--rightwing, leftwing or all the rest 
of it. Let me simply say, given my own background, what I know from my 
own parents and my own family is that before unions, as during the 
1920's which then gave way to the decade of the 1930's, slave wages, 
unsafe working conditions--we have unsafe working conditions in a lot 
of our plants today, do we not, Mr. President? Unsafe working 
conditions. And what happened was, through unions and through the 
development of the labor movement of the thirties, the minimum wage --
it is a difference of opinion we have--Social Security, the right to 
bargain collectively, the right to join a union, some alternative to 
the terror of being unemployed, some alternative to being summarily 
dismissed, some basic protections for those people who did not own 
these companies and did not have the wealth and the power, that is what 
labor was about. And by the way, it was more bread and more justice for 
people. I think it made the United States of America a better country.

  Now, if the agenda in a filibuster of this piece of legislation is--
and I paraphrase the Senator from North Carolina--good riddance, get 
rid of unions, great, let us know what the agenda is. Not great that 
that is the agenda, but I think it is great that people who follow this 
debate know what the agenda is. If that is the Senator's agenda, so be 
it. I do not know that there is much more to say.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would like to respond to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I do not want to move the Nation backward. I wish to 
move it forward. And I spent my life doing that, a major portion of it. 
This is not the thirties; I was here during the thirties. It is not the 
forties; I was here then. We have seen a constant decline in the power 
of the unions in this Nation for the very simple reason that they have 
imposed themselves upon the American worker and they have lost favor 
with the American worker. That is the reason for the decline in 
unionized workers today.
  But the Senator makes a very appealing case, and I have one question, 
if I may ask. Has the Senator himself ever run a business or been 
responsible for a payroll?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No; I have not run a business. I have worked for 
businesses. I have not run a business.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The Senator has never been responsible for a payroll?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just respond by asking the 
Senator whether or not he has ever been a teacher?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No; I have never been a teacher. But I have taught.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, I have never run a small business, but I am very 
interested in small businesses.
  Mr. President, just to finish this, let me give the Senator a 
slightly different interpretation about the decline of unions. No. 1, 
we have as a matter of record good riddance to unions, so we sort of 
know what the agenda is here.
  But second of all, Mr. President, I think that is what this debate is 
all about. First of all, we saw mergers, leveraged buyouts, we saw 
different management, we see the rise of union-busting consultants, and 
all the rest of it.
  The other problem, Mr. President, is that employers, if they want to, 
have an atomic bomb; that is permanent replacement. That is really what 
is going on here. I keep hearing my colleagues talk about balance. If 
an employer cannot fire someone for going out on strike but can 
permanently replace them--I have seen that in Minnesota, over and over 
again--they have an atomic bomb. Thus, it is very difficult for people 
to have the same kind of leverage and say that they had before.
  Yes, people are worried about joining unions, they are worried about 
going out on strike, unions are busted, wages are depressed, working 
conditions are not good, and you have a declining middle class--this is 
not just about unions--but it is not because people have just decided 
that they are not interested in better wages or they do not want to 
work in unsafe workplaces, I would say to the Senator from North 
Carolina. It has something to do with this huge imbalance of power that 
has developed with a vengeance over the last decade plus. One side has 
an atomic bomb: Go out on strike; we permanently replace you. What is 
the incentive for that side to negotiate? Why would you negotiate when 
you know you can just permanently replace the people? Would it not be 
better to have some fairness, some balance? That is what we are trying 
to restore.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise out of concern regarding S. 55, and 
I will try to make my remarks concise.
  Some Members may approach this issue as advocates for unions. Others 
may approach it as advocates for management. Still others may think of 
the issue in terms of how it will affect U.S. competitiveness around 
the world. But I think most Americans think about this issue in terms 
of fairness--what is reasonable, what is fair, what makes sense, what 
kind of rights should workers have versus management.
  We, as Americans, have good common sense in these matters. We have 
not thought of dividing power in this area strictly in terms of helping 
one side or the other. We have often thought about power in terms of 
making sure no one, either management or labor, has too much, just as 
we have thought about governments in those same respects. We Americans 
are suspicious of concentrations of power. It is part of what makes us 
so unique, and I believe it is part of what makes us so successful.
  The dramatic changes in the labor laws in the 1930's were a simple 
effort to reduce and limit the power of management and to divide the 
power evenly. Some would say they went too far. Some would say they did 
not go far enough. But it was out of a sense of fairness and 
evenhandedness, and the conviction of most Americans, that reasonable 
differences in labor disputes can be resolved when both sides have 
significant bargaining power, when no one side has all the strength or 
the power, when both sides have to listen to each other.
  In effect, what Americans tried to do was design the system in a way 
so that each side had input, each side had to be listened to. Most 
Americans have the conviction that we get better answers if both sides 
not only have strength and power, but also have an ability to make 
their point. That is really what this is all about.
  In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act passed, and it did not 
guarantee economic strikers a return to their positions. This was made 
clear in 1938--as all Members are aware--when the Supreme Court held 
that, indeed, employers were prohibited from firing strikers. But they 
also made it clear in strikes that were of a nature that dealt with 
economic issues solely, strikers could be replaced. That is different 
than firing them. But ultimately over a long period of time it may have 
a similar impact.
  I guess one would ask, if the division line of where you are allowed 
to replace a striker is whether it is over economic matters or unfair 
labor practices, what divides the two?
  Well, it is not a clear line. A lot of things that are thought to be 
economic issues end up being unfair labor practices. Basically, what we 
are talking about is a strike can start off dealing with economic 
matters and be turned into one that deals with unfair labor practices. 
In other words, the ability to replace a striker is limited. In the 
first instance, it is limited because it can only apply to economic 
strikes. Second, it is even more limited because even with an economic 
strike, if the employer misbehaves and it is turned into an unfair 
labor practice strike, then that right to replace workers is lost as 
well.
  There is a long list of activities an employer can engage in which 
will change it away from an economic strike to an unfair labor practice 
strike. I will not go into details on all of them, but some of them may 
surprise Members. It is not difficult to change a strike from an 
economic strike to an unfair labor practices strike.
  The bottom line and the point of all of this is simply this: You 
cannot now replace strikers if they are striking over unfair labor 
practices. And if they are striking over economic matters, if the 
employer does not follow the rules clearly and specifically, you may 
well be barred from hiring permanent replacements as well.
  So what we are talking about here is not firing someone. What we are 
talking about here is replacing them. We are not talking about 
replacing them in unfair labor practices strikes. We are only talking 
about them being allowed to be replaced in economic strikes that stay 
economic strikes, where there is no misbehavior.
  The GAO did a study in 1990. The study estimated that permanent 
replacements were hired in only about 17 percent of the strikes for the 
period 1985-89. It is not a lot of years. It is only a couple. But the 
GAO study I think gives us some feel for what the issue is. In the 
strikes that dealt with economic matters, replacements were hired only 
17 percent of the time. However, the GAO estimated that only 4 percent 
of all striking workers were permanently replaced in 1985 and only 3 
percent in 1989. Why the difference? It is because when the union and 
the management got back together again, one of the things they 
negotiated about and talked about was the replacement workers. So the 
scope of the problem out of economic strikes that stay economic strikes 
is roughly 3 percent in 1989 and 4 percent in 1985.
  There is a balancing here. The balancing is between the rights of the 
worker that went on strike and the rights of the worker that went to 
work in that job, that may have worked in that job a year, 2 years, or 
longer, and may have worked under difficult conditions. The way we now 
do it, and have done it since 1938 under the Supreme Court decision, 
was to say that the workers that were hired in the economic strike have 
the ability to keep their job.
  Let me suggest that what we ought to be looking at here is a question 
of fairness and of balance. The Washington Post, not known for taking 
up conservative causes, describes this bill, and I quote from their 
April 27, 1993, editorial describing S. 55 as: ``* * * ill-advised 
legislation whose likely long-term effect would be to hurt the U.S. 
economy far more than it would help.''

  I suspect the reason they take such a stand may be out of concern 
over what would happen in labor disputes if this were part of the law. 
At least my concern is what happens if one side has too much power and 
the other not enough. The Washington Post concludes:

       The ambiguity that has endured in the law for 55 years may 
     be less of a defect than a virtue. * * * [N]either side in a 
     labor dispute can expect to behave with impunity; the truth 
     may be that the more risk both sides face in such disputes, 
     the better.

  Mr. President, my concerns come down to this. What is fair and what 
makes sense in getting people to work together in the long run? Let me 
ask some Members a question phrased the other way. What if we had 
before us a law that says it will be illegal for a striking worker to 
get a new job? How would Members feel about that? Would that be fair? 
Would it put pressure on settlement? Yes. Would it help one side? Yes. 
But how would you feel about it if we said working men and women who 
have felt the necessity to go on strike were prohibited from taking 
another job?
  Mr. President, I can tell you how I feel on that. I would vote 
against that law. I think the essence of America and American labor law 
should be to be evenhanded--to create fairness and to leave the working 
men and women of this country with options, just as we ought to leave 
employers with options. To prohibit one side from seeking alternatives 
and not the other is neither evenhanded nor fair. To say that it would 
be illegal for someone to look for a new job when they went on strike, 
but not for an employer to seek new employees would be unfair.
  Likewise, Mr. President, to say that the employee can go seek and 
find and take a new job but the employer may not find new workers would 
be unreasonable and unfair. My guess is long-term changes in the labor 
laws that lead to an imbalance of power and an unfairness in treating 
one side or the other are not going to last. The American people's 
sense of fairness wants working men and women to have the right to 
strike and the right to organize, and the employers' right to continue 
their business.
  I have been a member of management, and I have been a member of a 
union; an active member of a union and an active member of management. 
It is helpful in understanding both sides. We should not come here as 
advocates of one side or the other. We ought to come here with a sense 
of fairness, of evenhandedness, and of willingness to make the rules 
apply to everybody.
  If you are going to make it illegal for employers to hire 
replacements, do you want to apply that same philosophy to the workers? 
I hope not. I hope what we will say is that where the strike does not 
have anything to do with unfair labor practices by management, that 
management ought to have the same rights to seek alternatives as the 
workers do.
  Ultimately, I think that is fairness, Mr. President. Ultimately, I 
think it is balanced. Ultimately, I think it blends the kind of 
framework to labor-management disputes that gives each side an 
incentive to reach a settlement, get back together, and work together 
again. That ought to be our purpose. Our purpose ought to be to make 
sure that they come out with a settlement, with an ability to work 
together again.
  So I am going to vote against this measure. I am going to vote to 
continue the debate. But it is going to be a vote for fairness and for 
commitment to evenhandedness.
  I want to commend the leadership of this body for having scheduled 
this vote, having deliberated on the bill. It is an important bill. It 
passed the House of Representatives. There appear to be a substantial 
number of Senators who favor it. It merits a hearing, and it merits a 
vote.
  Mr. President, it is not good legislation because it is neither fair 
nor is it evenhanded.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. RIEGLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the vote to invoke 
cloture and to move ahead and pass S. 55 because it restores a fair 
balance between labor and management by putting an end to the practice 
of hiring workers through permanent replacement during union strikes.
  It is interesting. We are here talking about strikes. In effect, we 
have today a legislative strike going on here. We have a procedural 
strike. It is called a filibuster, where certain Members have decided 
that this issue should not come to a vote. The reason that they are in 
effect striking and they do not want it to come to a vote is they know 
if it comes to a vote, it will pass the Senate, because there is a 
clear majority of Senators who are prepared to vote for S. 55 and pass 
it as it has already passed the House of Representatives.
  But a determined minority, in order to prevent the majority from 
being able to pass the striker replacement bill, are invoking a tactic 
of using a filibuster which means then that we have to have 60 votes 
out of 100 Senators in order to stop the extended debate, the 
filibuster, and then bring it to a final vote where a majority in fact 
can rule and decide this issue.
  So it is somewhat ironic that we are seeing the use of a filibuster 
as an effort to prevent a decision from being made on this issue. As I 
say, in its own way, it is kind of a procedural strike that is being 
imposed here upon us by some Members who, at the same time, are arguing 
against the right of workers to be able to withhold their work and 
strike in a situation where they feel that the wages or the working 
conditions are not satisfactory in a situation where they are presently 
employed.
  It is ironic when you look around the world at the other advanced 
industrial countries that have already settled this issue. They have 
settled it the way that I am advocating we settle it, with S. 55. In 
the country of Japan today, if a worker goes out on strike, when the 
strike is over, that worker comes back and takes his job. They are not 
permanently replaced by a replacement worker. In Germany today--one of 
our major industrial competitors--their laws do not permit the 
permanent replacement of a worker who goes out on strike to try to get 
a fair shake with working conditions or with wages in that given 
situation. France, as well, is another country that has already solved 
this issue. So the main competitors we are dealing with around the 
world have already addressed and solved this problem for their workers 
in their country. And we ought to do it here.
  In fact, for many years, it was a practice that was not engaged in. 
When a lawful strike would take place and workers would withhold their 
work for a period of time, at the end of that period of time, once the 
agreement was worked out, then those workers went back to work in the 
normal course of events. Of course, today, our practice allows a 
company during a strike to hire temporary replacement workers to come 
in and replace the striking workers in order to keep the operation 
going but with the understanding that at the end of that period of 
time, once the labor issues have been settled with the normal 
established work force of that company, the replacement workers who had 
been hired on a temporary basis would leave, and the permanent workers 
would come back and take their jobs on the basis of the revised 
contract.
  Why is this important? Working people in this country do not have 
very much power. In fact, the most important power they have is the 
power of their ability to work, the talent they bring to the worksite, 
their seniority, their investment in a company, and the investment in 
the work skills they bring to the job assignment they hold. Therefore, 
their ability to have some degree of leverage and bargaining power in 
negotiating for wages and benefits and working conditions relates to 
whether or not they have the right to withhold their work. And it is 
fundamental, I think, in this country to understand that people have a 
right, in fact, to be able to withhold their work in a situation where 
there is a grievance or a bargaining process underway, until a bargain 
is struck between the workers, in a collection of workers, in a union, 
and the employer on the other side. It is a long-established practice 
in this country. It goes on all the time. It is a normal act of 
collective bargaining where this is done.
  But, fundamentally, it comes down to the power of that individual 
worker, and the one final and major power that worker has is the work 
they can do and their ability to withhold that work when the conditions 
in the workplace are not as they should be, or where there is a 
bargaining process underway, where wages and benefits and working 
conditions are going to be decided. In those cases, it is entirely 
proper and within the law for the workers to withhold their work for a 
period of time, to have a strike that might last a few hours, maybe 
days, sometimes longer than that, but not often, until a bargain is 
struck between management on the one side and workers on the other side 
that really constitutes a fair working arrangement.
  Why is that important? It has become more important because we are 
now in a world economy. So we are having to face off against workers 
not just in the other industrialized countries like in the case of 
Japan, Germany, and France, but we are having to deal with now workers 
in the underdeveloped world competing against our workers. In Mexico, I 
think it was a mistake for us to enact NAFTA, to create a common market 
with the Mexican workers with their low working standards and low wage 
levels. I am convinced that we are and will continue to lose jobs from 
here to there. But it plays back into this debate, because what we are 
seeing in Mexico, we are finding when workers down there try to take 
and bargain for better wages and working conditions, to get their wages 
up so there is not the temptation to move jobs down there from the 
United States, unless they are part of the Government-controlled union 
down there, they are fired, and permanent replacements are brought in 
to replace them, to take away that kind of pressure to get the wage 
levels up to a living level in Mexico.
  We do not want that happening here in the United States. No Senator 
wants that for themselves. The problem is that we are so removed from 
the basic realities of so many people in this country that we have 
forgotten, I think, institutionally, what is involved for somebody who 
has to go out and make a living each day in a situation where they have 
to bargain for a wage and for working conditions with an employer.
  In most cases, things work out pretty well. But where there is a 
difference of opinion and a dispute and it has to be worked out, then 
the right of a worker to withhold their work for a period of time and a 
proper and legal strike is an absolute right, as I see it, and a 
necessity for workers to be able to have and to know at the end of the 
day or at the end of the negotiating period, when they have worked out 
their agreement, that they will be able to take their jobs back and not 
have somebody else move in on a permanent replacement basis.
  We have seen that problem in my own State of Michigan. We have seen 
it in the case of the Kroger grocery store situation, where a group of 
permanent replacement workers were brought in in order to break the 
union and sidestep the legitimate demands on the table by the work 
force at that time.
  I think it is time to stop the work stoppage here in the Senate. Let 
us vote on it. Let us not hide behind a filibuster. Let us vote on it. 
Let us have an up-or-down vote. Let us have the workers have a chance 
to win or lose on the basis of a real vote on the real issue, not on 
the basis of a filibuster. Do not come in here and say workers cannot 
do a work stoppage when in fact Senators on the other side of this 
issue are engaging in a work stoppage themselves. A filibuster is a 
work stoppage. You cannot come in here and use that tactic and turn 
around and condemn the workers of the country because they use the work 
stoppage. You cannot do that. It is inconsistent and hypocritical.
  The comparable situation would be if we could bring in a replacement 
Senator and put them in place of the Senators who are voting to 
maintain the filibuster and let the replacement Senator vote for 
cloture so we can get to a final vote on this issue, and after we have 
settled it, say to the Senator that has been replaced, sorry, you are 
out of here for good. We not only just replaced you for a period of 
time so we can settle this issue, but now you are out of a job, and we 
are going to keep the replacement Senator.
  No, there is a double standard here. There is a double standard here, 
and you see it all the time on other issues, as well, when it comes 
down to economic justice and equity issues, where Senators will stand 
up and say it is alright to have a work stoppage in here and a 
filibuster and prevent a final vote, but we are not going to allow 
workers the same rights we want to have for ourselves here. That is not 
fair. That is not fair. We ought not to allow it to happen. We ought to 
vote for cloture.
  I do not know, frankly, why the votes are not there. I realize we 
need 60 votes, and we ought to have 60. When the votes were not there 
on NAFTA, I saw an awful lot of work done to produce the votes, and the 
votes were produced by one means or another: arm twisting, persuasion, 
and a lot of favors were done; contracts were directed to different 
areas around the country, and so forth. Lo and behold, the votes were 
stacked up one by one until there were the votes to pass NAFTA.
  Well, there ought to be the votes to stop a filibuster on striker 
replacement, on S. 55, and bring it to a vote. There ought to be the 
votes here to get that done. We ought to hang in there and force this 
issue until we have a chance for a majority rule. But the opponents of 
this bill are not willing to settle for majority rule. They are not 
willing to settle for majority rule. The reason they are filibustering 
is they know if we settle this on the basis of majority rule, they will 
lose and the workers will win.
  If you talk about what erodes the faith of people in this country, in 
the system, in the Government, it is the question of whether they are 
going to get a fair shake, whether or not on an issue that is 
fundamental which relates to their job and their standard of living and 
their ability to support their family, the very essence of themselves 
in terms of their own work effort, to be told, sorry, even though you 
are in the majority, we are not going to give you the chance for an up-
or-down vote.
  We are not going to give you a chance to win. We are going to have a 
strike here in the Senate called a filibuster. We are going to keep it 
going, and we are going to prevent even a chance for a vote where you 
can win.
  That to me is hypocrisy, to use the very tactic that you are 
condemning, to use the very tactic that you are condemning.
  So let us do away with this filibuster strike here in the Senate. Let 
us have a vote. Let us have an up-or-down vote. Let us see where the 
votes are. Let us have an up-or-down vote.
  I would say that there will be at least 55 votes for this measure to 
put an end to this replacement of striking workers on a permanent 
basis. I think there will be at least 55 votes, maybe more than that. 
That is a majority in this country. It ought to be enough to settle the 
issue. It has already passed the House of Representatives.
  But, no, the opponents on this issue are not willing to let it be 
settled by majority vote because they want to hold out for themselves 
the very tactic they are condemning. They want to be able to take and 
engage in a legislative strike to keep this issue from coming to a 
vote.
  I wish here we could at least have some temporary replacements, which 
the companies in America can do today. A company in America that is 
facing a strike can hire temporary workers to come in and take those 
jobs until the strike is settled. If we could do that here in the 
Senate, we could take some of those Senators that are refusing to let 
this come to a final vote, and we could have a replacement Senator come 
in here long enough to get the work done, long enough to stop the 
filibuster and at least get to a final passage vote. Then we could take 
the replacement Senator out of here and let the elected Senator come in 
and cast the final vote. And they can vote ``yes'' or ``no'' the way 
they want.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Of course, I yield to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think in fairness to those who are 
watching his excellent presentation of his side of the case and 
asserting that this side of the aisle is invoking its right to 
filibuster, the Senator himself on June 29 of this year voted against 
cloture on product liability. Am I not correct on that?
  Mr. RIEGLE. The Senator is partly correct. I might say, there were 
two votes on cloture. The first vote on cloture the Senator voted for 
cloture on that very issue. So the fact is that on one occasion I voted 
for cloture, and then I was prepared to vote for cloture the second 
time based on some changes that I sought in the legislation. I went to 
the managers of the bill. I asked for the changes. They were unwilling 
or unable to make them. So I was not willing to vote for it on the 
second occasion.
  But, in fact, the first vote on cloture which is the one we are going 
to have here today I voted for cloture.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  If I might raise the second question, the concern that I have is that 
the American people show in accurate polling data that a bare 29 
percent of them desire the outcome that would be brought about by the 
bill that we are filibustering, only 29 percent.
  We are using this filibuster to represent under the rules of the U.S. 
Senate the majority, the vast majority of the interest of the American 
people. Why, Mr. President? Because for nearly 60 years this balance 
between labor and management has worked in the interest of this country 
so that we are now today and have been through that period the largest 
industrial Nation in the world.
  I ask the Senator why would he want to change 60 years of practice 
that has enabled us to become the largest industrial Nation in the 
world?
  Mr. RIEGLE. The answer to that question is simply this. The practice 
for many years in this country up until essentially the firing of the 
air traffic controllers was to not engage in the permanent replacement 
of strikers. The general practice throughout the country was well-
established. If a work force went out on strike, and once those issues 
were settled, those workers would come back, be rehired, the temporary 
workers who had taken their jobs in the meantime would then leave. That 
was the established practice.
  It has only been in recent years, really in the last decade or so, 
that we have seen a real outbreak of situations where workers have been 
hired to come in and replace during a strike a striking work force but 
then to be kept on after the strike is over, to keep the replacement 
workers on a permanent basis and not allow the striking workers, even 
if they had 20 or 30 years of seniority in that particular job and 
company, to come back on the job.
  So there really has been a change. What this attempts to do is 
restore what was the common practice just a few years ago in this 
country and what in fact is the common practice throughout the 
industrialized world.
  Let me ask the Senator this question. Is there any serious doubt in 
the Senator's mind that if cloture is invoked and we stop the 
filibuster there are at least a majority of votes in here to pass this 
measure today?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would have to ask the managers of the 
bill to respond to that question. I do recognize that the votes are 
firm on this issue. But I am not prepared at this time to say that 
there is a simple majority here in the U.S. Senate for this 
proposition. But I would suggest the Senator place that question to the 
managers of the bill.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Let me just say to the Senator you have enough Senators 
who declared publicly in support of the bill. You have over 51 Senators 
who have taken public positions that they favor the bill and will vote 
for the bill on final passage. So it is not a mystery.
  The only thing that is a mystery is whether we are going to get to a 
final passage vote because we have to jump this strike here, this 
procedural strike called the filibuster, in the meantime.
  Now, that is not fair. The workers should have a chance for an up-or-
down vote here on the basis of a majority as opposed to having to have 
60 out of 100.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the good friend, and he has been 
here several years longer than I, are there not times certain Senators 
recognizing that cloture cannot be obtained sometimes take the position 
of stating a public position which if faced with it they might have to 
resolve it in different way?
  Mr. RIEGLE. The Senator says that there are some Senators who have 
said publicly they are for this measure and they think they are not 
going to have to vote up or down on it; in fact, when an up-or-down 
vote comes they are going to jump the fence and they will go the other 
way.
  I hate to see there is such a Senator here. If so, we probably ought 
to find out who he or she is, would the Senator from Virginia not say?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let us proceed with what we are doing at 
the present time. I thank my colleague for responding to my questions.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I will finish here. There are other 
speakers on the floor wanting to speak.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. RIEGLE. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's eloquent 
comments and arguments on behalf of this bill and listened to the 
colloquy of my good friend from Virginia who cited poll studies. I 
cannot remember the figures he threw out. But it was indicative that 
perhaps the majority of the American people perhaps did not support 
this bill.
  I rather doubt that the majority out there really understands what is 
involved in this bill, and that is why we ought to debate it and amend 
it so they do understand what is in it.
  But I would point out to the Senator from Virginia that all recent 
polls, the Newsweek poll, the New York Times poll, the ABC poll, and 
the Washington Post poll show over 70 percent of the people of this 
country want universal health care coverage. I am wondering if the 
Senator from Virginia has signed on to that. A majority, over 53 
percent, say that we ought to have employer mandates, including small 
businesses. Yet I wonder if the Senator from Virginia is prepared to 
support that.
  So there is overwhelming support in the country for universal 
coverage and for employer mandates. I am sorry, employer mandates was 
72 percent. I made a mistake on that.
  So again, I think on an issue in which the American people inherently 
understand, that is health care--I do not mean to get off on a tangent 
here; I want to make the point. If someone is going to start arguing 
poll data let us keep it in mind when health care comes on for debate 
on this floor in a couple or 3 weeks, the overwhelming majority support 
universal coverage and they support employer mandates. I think we ought 
to keep that in mind. That was a little aside.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for his eloquent remarks on striker 
replacements. Again, I have more comments I would like to make on it. 
But the Senator from Michigan has been one of the great leaders in this 
Senate for many years on behalf of working people and in the interest 
of working people. What he is fighting for here today I think is a bill 
that is a pro-productivity, pro-competitiveness bill, one that is going 
to make us more competitive in the world markets.
  Mr. RIEGLE. It is a national teamwork bill. You have to have teamwork 
in the workplaces. You cannot take have a legitimate strike over 
difference of opinions and then settle it and not bring the existing 
work force back in. You just cannot throw all those people out on the 
street and bring in a replacement work force.
  There is a public opinion poll that is only a month old on this very 
subject conducted by the Fingerhut/Powers organization, and they asked 
on this very question as to whether a company should be permitted to 
hire permanent replacement for striking workers. And 64 percent of the 
American people in the poll said ``no.''
  The majority of the people clearly understand this issue because if 
you work for a living and you have to go into a work situation and what 
you take in the door each day are your talents, your experience, your 
seniority, your know-how, and you can be fired and have your job taken 
away from you and given to someone else simply on the basis of 
exercising your legal right in certain circumstances to strike over 
benefits or working conditions or unsafe working conditions or wages or 
whatever it happens to be, shipping your work out of the country, 
shipping your work to Mexico, shipping your work to Singapore, shipping 
your work to some other country if you have a strike over that issue 
which is legal and proper under the law and you know that you are going 
to lose your job and somebody else is going to be given your job, you 
are taking away the very essence of what a worker in America has to 
bring to the market place to earn a living to support his family.
  We do not want to take that away from somebody. We ought to respect 
it. We ought to understand it. We should not be so remote from it as to 
understand its central meaning to an individual, a man or a woman 
worker, in their ability to support themselves and support their 
family. You do not come in and rip that away from somebody. You ought 
to be bending over backwards to protect it.
  We talk about saying that we value work and we want to encourage 
work. Well, then you better understand the need to provide the kinds of 
understanding and support for people in the process of work, so that 
they can go in and they can bargain for a fair wage and fair working 
conditions and civilized circumstances, which is now the norm all 
around the world and which had been the norm in this country up until 
about a dozen years ago.
  You have to respect work and you have to respect workers. That is 
what this bill is all about.
  But for the Senate to take a strike here in the form of a filibuster 
and say, ``Well, we are going to strike on this issue and we are not 
going to permit a vote on it; we are not going to let majority rule 
here,'' you are saying something to the workers of this country that I 
think is unfair. It is unfair to them, and I think, frankly, it is 
arrogant, because, in a sense, it says we are going to have a double 
standard. We can strike here in the form of a filibuster, but you 
cannot strike out there. You can lose your job, somebody else can take 
it, but nobody can touch us. That is a double standard. And it is just 
about as clear as you are ever going to see it right now on this issue 
right here, because a filibuster is a legislative strike by the Senate 
and it ought not to be permitted.
  Let us vote cloture and let us vote S. 55.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 
55, the so-called Anti-Striker Replacement Act now pending before the 
Senate.
  The Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act is anything but fair. If 
enacted and signed into law, American employers would be prohibited 
from defending their businesses by offering permanent jobs to 
replacement workers during a strike over economic issues, such as wages 
and health care. Instead, the employers of this great Nation would be 
forced to accede to unreasonable economic demands of unions or plainly 
go out of business.
  According to Websters Dictionary, to be fair is to be ``just to all 
parties in a proper and legal way.'' Tilting the delicate balance of 
labor relations in this country in favor of either management or labor 
is plainly unfair to the American people.
  This delicate balance in labor relations dates back to 1935 when 
Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act. It is my 
understanding that this legislation was passed with two central 
purposes: To assure that all employees have the right to engage in, or 
refrain from engaging in, collective bargaining; and, to reduce 
industrial conflict through a system of voluntary collective bargaining 
where both parties share a balance of gains and risks.
  The right to engage in an economic strike has never been absolute, 
risk-free or guaranteed to succeed. This is only fair since economic 
strikes put both employers and employees at risk of financial ruin. 
Under our current system, this mutual risk enables management and labor 
to come to the bargaining table and work under equal pressure toward an 
agreement.
  The proponents of S. 55 want to unnecessarily tilt the current 
balance in labor-management negotiations by changing a core principle 
of labor relations which has worked for over 50 years. The unions 
simply want the right to a risk-free strike, in effect guaranteeing the 
right to win every strike.
  The question before the Senate today is quite simple. Does our Nation 
need more strikes or more jobs, more picket lines or more assembly 
lines? In the competitive global marketplace in which American 
companies must compete, the last thing we need is more strikes.
  Banning the use of so-called permanent replacement workers would, in 
my view, impede job growth in the United States, facilitate numerous 
work stoppages, impose higher costs on U.S. industry, reduce incentives 
for capital investment, and finally, result in inflationary wages 
throughout our economy. Such legislation has no place on a national 
agenda aimed at improving the economy and creating jobs for all 
Americans.
  To quote a June 13, 1993, editorial of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 
``No State has been more diligent in protecting society from the 
excesses of unionism than Virginia.'' The Commonwealth of Virginia is a 
right-to-work State which guarantees every man and woman the freedom to 
choose whether or not they wish to join a union. Virginians do not have 
to pay union dues as a condition to earn a day's pay for a day's work.
  While passage of S. 55 would not change the Virginia right-to-work 
laws, it would certainly make union organizing much easier in the 
Commonwealth. Nonunion companies in Virginia face the possibility of 
unions organizing their facilities by gathering a simple majority of 
employee signatures to stage a recognition strike. Since employers 
would be barred from hiring permanent replacement workers, the effect 
would be to lower the threshold for organizers, enabling them to 
unionize workers who would never choose to do so themselves under the 
secret ballot procedure now required by Federal law.
  Finally, companies in Virginia want to remain open, to complete in 
the national and international marketplace. Industries from all over 
the Commonwealth have registered their opposition to S. 55: wholesale 
bakers, printers, general contractors, builders, grocers, roofers, 
retailers, manufacturers, florists, ship builders, and thousands more.
  Mr. President, I stand in firm opposition to S. 55, to any compromise 
legislation and to any effort to invoke cloture on this measure.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank you.
  Mr. President, I rise today to just issue some remarks on the issue 
at hand, the striker replacement bill. I have heard both sides of this 
issue ever since I came to the U.S. Senate. I have talked with both 
sides, both here and in the State of Montana.
  I have tried to look at it from the perspective of just exactly what 
the Senator from Michigan alluded to, and that is fairness. But it has 
to be fair not only for my State but the Nation as a whole.
  I would agree that labor has a right to strike or to withhold their 
labor. I would fight for those rights in this body. But an individual 
also has the right to market his talents, and he is prevented from 
doing so under this legislation if he is a member of that particular 
organization.
  This is not a jobs bill, as much as some would like to portray it 
that way. It is an antijobs bill. And I firmly believe that.
  Yes, labor unions have a right to strike. I will not dispute that. I 
am all for protecting those rights. But somebody has to stand up and 
say, ``Wait a minute. The employers have a right, too. It is their 
investment. It is their market share that they lose.''
  Nobody likes to get caught up in a fracas between management and 
labor. It is the most antiproductive thing that we do here in our 
economy.
  I think this bill will not only encourage unions to strike before 
negotiating, but I think that, by not allowing the operations to 
continue, businesses will close.
  I have seen that happen in my State. Jobs are lost forever for 
everybody, not temporarily, but permanently. Companies hit with bitter 
strikes usually lose market share and with it goes that economic 
opportunity, not only with management but also in the labor market.
  This is a bill that is the hammer that will strike the death blow to 
that delicate relationship between labor and management. In the 5\1/2\ 
years I have been here, I have worked to create jobs. And I am proud of 
the opportunities that I have helped to open up for the folks in my 
State. But this bill would threaten jobs, and I just cannot support 
that.
  Think about this. The union leadership claim that they want to create 
a level playing field. I understand that, but I believe you have to be 
on the same field to begin with. Removing yourself from the negotiating 
table is removing yourself from the field of play. Even the AFL-CIO 
leadership recognizes this. In fact, in a report issued by their 
executive council last February, they say the time has come, and I 
quote:

       The time has come for labor and management to surmount past 
     animosities and to forge the kind of partnership which can 
     generate more productive, humane, and democratic systems of 
     work organization.

  Now, you think about this a little bit.
  And even the Secretary of Labor has said this, that the leadership in 
unions needs this legislation to strap their membership to the mats. So 
this piece of legislation takes away some rights of the workers. That 
is the guy who has to pay the bills. He is the man who is providing the 
talent and the labor for American industry. He has a definite talent to 
market, and he is limited to do so in a period of strike by this bill.
  A while ago, my good friend from Colorado alluded to the Washington 
Post editorial of April of 1993. And you would have to say the Post is 
not representing the great bastion of conservatism. The Post said this 
is ill-conceived and this bill should not ever see the light of day. 
And I just would have to agree with that.
  It is an issue of rights. There must be a balance, no matter what 
side you are on. The employer has rights and the employee has rights. 
And in order to keep that balance, to ensure that we must keep people 
working and to ensure that our country keeps growing, we need to be 
fair and encourage both sides to communicate. That is something that is 
overlooked here.
  By prohibiting employers from hiring permanent replacements--which is 
the worst case scenario; nobody likes to do that; nobody likes to 
replace the work force that they are comfortable with, that they like--
you are tilting the table. There no longer exists a level playing 
field.
  So I think the goal of this bill is power. It is not in the best 
interest of the working people of this country, which is the backbone 
of this country. Plain and simple, it is a power play. It is designed 
to make calling a strike and winning it as easy for the union 
leadership as flipping a switch. And if, heaven forbid, one of their 
members decides to go on working during the strike, if one of the 
members who has the talent to market goes on working, that is very bad 
according to this legislation.
  So in the interest of jobs in Montana and this country--and, yes, we 
are the most competitive country in the world; let us face it, if it 
had not been for the labor movement, we would never have had this 
standard of living in America that we enjoy today; but this really 
tilts the table--so in the interest of jobs and economic stability in 
this great Nation, I will oppose the striker replacement bill. We 
simply cannot afford to let this bill become law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the 
Washington Post of Tuesday, April 27, 1993, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 27, 1993]

                      The Striker Replacement Bill

       George Bush made heavy use of the veto threat in his years 
     in office, and not all the results were bad. The striker 
     replacement bill he helped to block in the last Congress is 
     an example. This is ill-advised legislation whose likely 
     long-term effect would be to hurt the U.S. economy far more 
     than it would help. Bill Clinton has promised organized labor 
     to sign the bill if it is sent to him. It's a promise we wish 
     he hadn't made and hope he doesn't get the chance to keep.
       The legislation would take away the right of employers to 
     hire permanent replacements for workers who strike over 
     economic issues (as distinct from those who strike over 
     allegedly unfair labor practices, to whom the law gives 
     greater protection). Proponents say the legislation is 
     necessary to protect the right to strike and recreate a level 
     playing field in labor-management relations that was lost in 
     recent years. Our contrary sense is that in the name of 
     protecting labor's rights the bill would go too far and strip 
     management of a right that it, too, must have if the system 
     is to function fairly.
       The law now is contradictory. The National Labor Relations 
     Act of 1935 said strikers could not be fired. The Supreme 
     Court said nonetheless in 1938 that employers were free to 
     hire permanent replacements, and in subsequent court 
     decisions that interpretation has survived. Mostly, labor and 
     management have dealt with the contradiction by looking the 
     other way. Management hasn't much used the permanent 
     replacement power, and labor hasn't much contested it. But in 
     recent years the power has been used in a number of high-
     visibility cases and has become a political symbol for both 
     sides. The use occurred at a time when, for all kinds of 
     reasons, labor was losing ground anyway, and it is asking the 
     Democratic Congress and now the Clinton administration to 
     help it recoup.
       That isn't the job of either party. It's one thing to try 
     to keep the collective bargaining system functioning fairly, 
     quite another to get into the business of trying to ordain 
     results. If the law is out of kilter in that the power to 
     hire permanent replacements has been abused (as on occasion 
     it has) to bust unions, then Congress should fix the abuse if 
     it can, but not toss out the entire power. Occasions arise--
     one did in this newspaper's dealings with one of its unions 
     in the 1970s--when strikers forfeit the right of return and a 
     company ought to be able to hire permanent replacements.
       The ambiguity that has endured in the law for 55 years may 
     be less a defect than a virtue. It suggests that neither side 
     in a labor dispute can expect to behave with impunity; the 
     truth may be that the more risks both sides face in such 
     disputes, the better. The House passed the bill by a largely 
     party-line vote last year, and is expected to do so again. 
     The Senate is the best hope for deflecting it. Here's an 
     instance where the president really does need Republican 
     help, and we hope he get it.

  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in support of S. 
55. This bill simply tries to restore a measure of equality to Federal 
labor law. It just guarantees workers the right to strike without the 
fear of being permanently replaced.
  I think a vote on the merits on this measure is long overdue. Even 
now that this legislation has at least been brought to the Senate floor 
for debate, the opposition is using parliamentary tools to prevent a 
vote on S. 55. They know and recognize that this bill would pass the 
Senate and be signed into law by President Clinton without the use of 
these filibuster tactics. I believe it does a great disservice to the 
working men and women of America to not allow cloture in this instance.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, the abusive use of replacement workers 
by employers during strikes has a troubling history, and it is an issue 
with which I have been concerned for several years. In fact, I had the 
opportunity to be the author of Wisconsin's striker replacement bill 
and testified a few years ago before the House of Representatives on 
this issue. I am proud now to continue my support of that effort to 
pass a national striker protection law.
  Of course, as the speakers today have indicated, the use of permanent 
replacement workers is a many-faceted issue. At the core, however, is 
this question: Should workers have the right to use the strike as an 
economic voice during times when negotiations with their employers 
break down?
  The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 clearly guarantees the right 
of workers to organize and engage in concerted activities, and included 
in this is the essential right of the right to strike. If this is 
eliminated either directly or indirectly through the use of the tactic 
of using permanent replacement workers, the right to strike becomes 
essentially meaningless.
  When I was growing up in Janesville, WI, a very proud town with a 
history going way back with the United Auto Workers, this country was 
enjoying a long period of prosperity. There seemed to be a balance then 
between labor and management. However, the economic declines of the 
1970's and increased competition from abroad laid the groundwork for a 
dramatic shift from a rather cooperative environment to a somewhat 
hostile era of management-labor relations.
  Back in 1938, the Supreme Court, in the Mackay decision, did allow 
the hiring of permanent replacement workers. That is true from a 
technical point of view under the law. However, the use of permanent 
replacement workers was never put into widespread practice until the 
1980's when President Ronald Reagan led by example in firing 12,000 
striking air traffic controllers. Until that time, workers and 
management had shared relatively equally in the risk and hardships of a 
strike. Workers lost income. Their families, and often whole 
communities, did face economic insecurity and, of course, the threat of 
losing their homes and their savings. At the same time, there was an 
incentive for management to come to agreement, as they struggled to 
maintain production, productivity, and market share with a limited work 
force.
  So in those days, strikes were to be avoided by both sides, if 
possible, and that was the force that drove collective bargaining and 
peaceful negotiation for many, many years. For many years, even during 
strikes, labor and management were able to cooperate and come to an 
agreement. Now it should be no surprise that in the merger and 
acquisition frenzy of the 1980's, management found it had a new tool 
and, unfortunately, they used it quite frequently. Today, management 
now often advertises for permanent replacements the moment a strike 
begins, and the threat of permanently lost jobs casts a pall over that 
entire bargaining process which used to work pretty well.
  So I have to take strong issue with the language on the floor 
suggesting, as did the junior Senator from North Carolina, that somehow 
what we are going to change here is some kind of a natural balance. 
What exists today is no natural balance. That is a myth. In fact, in my 
view, it is a serious distortion of the facts.
  It is also not the case, as the senior Senator from Virginia 
suggested, that we are upsetting 60 years of labor-management 
tradition. It is just the opposite. For most of those years, employers 
usually did not use this unfortunate tactic, even though they 
technically could under the law.
  So the truth is we had a better period of labor peace. I would say 
the central falsehood of the entire opposition to this bill is this 
myth that this has always been done, this is the way it has always been 
and we are somehow upsetting a natural balance. This is a very recent 
occurrence, a tragic occurrence that has caused many, many working 
families in this country to face economic destruction, or worse.
  The power behind the use of permanent replacements is quite clear. 
Whether used as they were in Wisconsin prior to the passage of the 
National Labor Relations Act during the Northern Paper Co. strike of 
1921, or more recently during the tragic International Paper Co. strike 
of 1987, permanent replacements produced the same result, and it was an 
intended result. And that result is the overwhelming defeat of 
organized labor. If that was the goal, in many cases that has been 
achieved.
  As the power of the strike becomes more and more tenuous, the voice 
of the laborer in negotiations over his or her employment weakens 
considerably. Knowing that workers are unlikely to strike, Mr. 
President, employers are free to make greater, sometimes excessive 
demands.
  I return to my hometown of Janesville, for a moment. Some of my first 
experiences in politics were at something called the Walter Reuther 
Hall in Janesville. There used to be some pretty happy events there--
political events, back slapping and all that--in the sixties and 
seventies. But when I returned to Walter Reuther Hall in the late 
1980's for what I thought would be a similar event, to campaign, I 
found what I can really only describe as a wake, a lot of sad, 
desperate faces who had what they thought was their part of the 
American dream being ripped away from them by the use of this new, 
excessive practice.
  If the use of permanent replacements is allowed to continue, it is 
very possible that the voice of the working sector of this country will 
be silenced forever. My efforts and those of other States to pass 
legislation to correct this enormous flaw in Federal labor law has been 
thwarted by court interpretations such as the ruling on the Illinois 
Strike Breakers Act. The Federal court held that the general subject of 
conditions for replacement strikers or locked-out employees in an 
industry affecting interstate commerce is a matter which has been 
delegated to the National Labor Relations Board by Federal law.
  So many State laws that have tried to deal with this have been struck 
down or vetoed due to this interpretation, making Federal action, the 
action we can take in this Chamber, far more critical.
  During disputes between employer and employee, Government should act 
to ensure that both sides are playing on a level playing field. At such 
times, those actions have taken the form of police protection for 
strikers and nonstrikers, and other times they have taken the form of 
court proceedings. Today, Mr. President, the time has come for that 
action to take yet another form, and that form is an amendment to the 
National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the use of permanent 
replacements.
  I might add that even if we pass S. 55, employers still have many 
options overcoming or surviving a strike. They can hire temporary 
employees, stockpile inventory in advance of a potential strike, or 
assign supervisors to take over some aspects of production. These 
options have always been available to employers, and they are in no way 
limited or taken away by this bill.
  Finally, I would like to make an additional comment. Many times 
employers or individuals who dislike S. 55 use the term ``organized 
labor'' a little disparagingly in describing the moving force behind 
this legislation. But organized labor is merely the organized voice for 
middle-class families, single moms, individuals struggling to pay rent 
and young couples who hope to buy that first home. These are truly the 
people who seek protection under S. 55.
  I would like to conclude, Mr. President, by just citing briefly from 
a recent article in the Washington Post entitled ``Women and the Right 
to Strike,'' which pointed out that as a class, women and minorities 
are the ones most in need of S. 55's protection. They are 
overrepresented in low-skill, low-wage jobs where it is easy to find 
and train replacements, while they are also the most in need of those 
jobs simply to meet basic necessities.
  The article told the story of the Jersey Shore Medical Center in 
Neptune, NJ, where they entered into the final phase of negotiations 
for their 680 registered nurses last November. They made an offer they 
could refuse, and they wanted to refuse it.
  The hospital wanted to replace a wage system that included 
guaranteed, across-the-board step increases based on experience and 
seniority with a system of merit pay to be determined by the nurses' 
direct supervisor. There was no guarantee of the merit increases. The 
people in the union felt this would be harmful. The nurses felt it 
would create a competitive type of atmosphere in an institution where 
competition does not belong, and in a health care system where the 
President said you need a team.

       Our fear was also if someone made a mistake they might not 
     reveal their mistake for fear it would impact their 
     evaluation. We felt this type of system promotes a cutthroat 
     type of relationship among nurses.

  So what was the response of the hospital? The hospital promptly began 
hiring temporary and permanent replacements, offering plum shifts as 
incentives to about 125 new nurses.
  The strike did not end until March 11. A compromise was finally 
reached, but the hospital was able to replace the striking workers 
because of the reactivation of that 1938 decision during the Reagan 
years.
  The article concluded by saying the following:

       The issue is one of power, and in the next couple of weeks, 
     we are going to see labor and business exercise all the power 
     they have to win this fight.
       At stake is a woman's ability to strike over economic 
     issues without putting her job at risk. It is labor's 
     ultimate weapon, and it is not used lightly. Workers never 
     recover the lost wages from a long strike. There are plenty 
     of built-in incentives to keep both management and unions at 
     the bargaining table. But we have seen enough situations in 
     recent years to know that the playing field in labor 
     negotiations isn't level these days. Ask the flight 
     attendants. Ask the Diamond Walnut workers. Ask the 75 nurses 
     still waiting to be called back to work at Jersey Shore. 
     Chances are you'll be talking to a woman who is trying to 
     support her family, and who needs more leverage in labor 
     disputes than she has now.

  Mr. President, I know there are others who wish to speak, but I feel 
very strongly on this particular issue, having followed it for several 
years and knowing that many people in Wisconsin and across the country, 
people in Leipsig, De Pere, Milwaukee, Madison, Eau Claire, and La 
Crosse have suffered a great deal by this recent practice, not the 
national law, not the natural order of things, but something that 
really only started to be used a great deal about 14 years ago.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in Texas there is a saying that has become so accepted 
it is almost a cliche now: ``If it is not broke, don't fix it.''
  The wisdom behind that remark should dispose of this controversy 
immediately. What is astounding to me is that a good number of my 
colleagues want to change the tenet of labor law that has not only 
served us well for the past half century, but it is working even better 
today than it ever has. We are truly trying to fix something in this 
bill that is not the least bit broken.
  For well over 50 years, U.S. labor law has permitted employers to 
hire replacement workers during an economic strike on the same terms as 
last offered to the strikers, including permanent employment. The U.S. 
Supreme Court has recognized the right to replace economic strikers for 
more than half a century. The National Labor Relations Board and the 
Supreme Court have together created a stabilizing balance of power in 
which both sides in a labor dispute have a great deal at risk. They 
both incur significant incentives to settle labor disputes. A strike 
does not just occur. There are many negotiations that must occur before 
you get to the strike.
  The replacement rule has worked well over its lifetime, and it is 
working today. Incidents of labor dispute are at a historic low. The 
number of strikes is down. Inflation is relatively under control. That 
benefits all segments of our society, especially the poor who are 
trying to make ends meet, especially those on fixed incomes, and 
especially those members of labor unions who have good jobs. In short, 
nothing is broken.
  The historic balance between labor and management has never been 
better.
  Mr. President, this strike bill would upset that balance by giving 
labor the unfettered power to shut down operations of any employer who 
failed to meet their terms. It would directly lead to several adverse 
consequences--more strikes, more labor disputes, greater inflation, 
costlier goods and services, and a reduction in the ability of American 
workers to compete in the world economy. It would cost American jobs 
and it would reduce our overall standard of living. In short, it would 
do exactly the opposite of what its proponents say it will do.
  Mr. President, the strike bill would not only give unions 
unprecedented power over business, but it would overturn these 50 years 
of precedent--well settled law governing labor disputes.
  One aspect of this unfair labor practice is to change existing law 
and require employers to allow striking employees to bump less senior, 
nonstriking employees at the end of a strike.
  Mr. President, this bill requires employers in many instances to give 
favoritism against the very people that stayed and worked and helped 
make sure the business did not go under. This striker replacement bill 
is a radical departure from the clearly defined congressional intent 
and the consistently applied judicial precedent. In fact, through the 
years until now, every single President, every Republican and every 
Democrat, has supported the right of employers to offer jobs to 
replacement workers. Until now, the employer's right to defend against 
strikes and other concerted actions through hiring of permanent 
replacements has not been seriously challenged.
  The Senator from Montana mentioned that the labor movement really has 
in the past provided for a higher standard of living in this country. I 
appreciate that. I think our labor unions in recent years have been 
very responsible. We have had some bad economic times in this country. 
And our labor unions have, by and large, stepped up to the line and 
worked with management. That is why relations are good right now. And 
that is good for all American workers. If you are for the working 
people of this country, you are against this bill because it is going 
to cause the loss of good jobs. It is going to cost more to do business 
in America. There will be companies shut down, and they can move to 
other countries to provide these jobs, to get labor more cheaply.
  We do not want that. We do not want our jobs to move overseas. We 
want our good jobs, with our good benefits, to stay right here. But if 
we enact this bill today, we are going to take away that balance, which 
is going to cost more strikes. It is going to cause our businesses to 
have to leave this country. They will not be as competitive in the 
international marketplace. The bottom line is we are going to lose 
jobs, those good jobs that are quality jobs, that provide people the 
chance to do better for their children than they were able perhaps to 
have done in the past.
  So this special interest legislation proposes a wholesale shift in 
the economic balance of power in labor disputes in our country. This 
will lead to more strikes, weaker businesses, diminished 
competitiveness, and loss of jobs. It will stifle the rights of current 
workers and stifle the ability to have freedom of choice by both 
employer and employee.
  Mr. President, this bill is not good for America. It should be 
defeated. I hope my colleagues will do the responsible thing today and 
defeat this piece of legislation so that we will get this economy back 
on track, with labor and management working together in the spirit that 
has made this country strong.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
cloture motion on which we will be voting shortly. I think it is 
important that the Senate be able to proceed to the substantive 
consideration of S. 55, the Workplace Fairness Act. This is a very 
important piece of legislation which ought to be considered by this 
Chamber on its merits. It would amend the National Labor Relations Act 
and the Railway Labor Act to prevent employers from hiring permanent 
striker replacements.
  I am very frank to tell you that unless we can move toward enacting 
this legislation, I believe the whole principle of collective 
bargaining in this country will continue to be eroded and workers 
exercising their lawful right to strike will be confronted with 
permanently losing their jobs.
  Mr. President, the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935, 
expressly prohibits actions by employers that would undermine a 
worker's right to strike. It is true that in 1938, the Supreme Court 
decision in Mackay Radio authorized employers in some situations to 
hire permanent replacements for striking workers.
  That ruling created an anomaly in our labor law that prohibits 
striking workers from being fired but allows them to be permanently 
replaced.
  If one stops and thinks about that for a moment, there is obviously a 
basic contradiction, an inconsistency with respect to that dual 
approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that under the previous 
order, we are supposed to recess at 12:30.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
be allowed to continue for another 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for more than 40 years subsequent to the 
Mackay doctrine this contradiction in our labor law had little 
practical effect because most employers recognized the value of a 
stable and experienced work force and sought to avoid the heightened 
confrontation resulting from the hiring of permanent replacements. 
Therefore, while the Court made this ruling in 1938 about permanent 
replacements, no one seized upon it or sought to utilize it in an 
aggressive fashion in order to erode or undermine the principle of 
collective bargaining. However, in the 1980's many employers adopted a 
much more aggressive and hostile strategy toward employees 
participating in a lawful strike.
  Furthermore, the Court in the Trans World Airlines decision in 1989 
extended Mackay to employees under the Railway Labor Act and also 
allowed employers to give seniority and additional benefits to junior 
employees who crossed picket lines. Together, this more aggressive 
approach by employers and the expansion of the Mackay decision has 
resulted in a significant increase in the hiring of permanent 
replacements over the last decade with tens of thousands of striking 
workers permanently replaced and hundreds of thousands of others faced 
with this possibility.
  So what has changed is the practical workings of our labor relations 
system because of the willingness now of many employers to aggressively 
use replacement workers. In effect, for some employers breaking the 
union has replaced negotiation as the primary strategy. This has dealt 
a severe blow to collective bargaining which over the years has been 
the driving force behind the improvements in working conditions, wages, 
and benefits for American workers.
  It is interesting to note that the United States is one of the few 
industrialized nations that permits the permanent replacement of 
striking workers. In fact, I want to quote from a letter from the 
Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to Chairmen 
Kennedy and Metzenbaum dated May 27, 1994.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record at the 
end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. SARBANES. Director Wells states:

       I might add that we are one of the few industrialized 
     nations which still permits permanent striker replacements 
     without any limitations. I am often hard put to explain to 
     our foreign labor, management, and government visitors that 
     while unionized employees have the right to strike, if they 
     do so, and the strike is economic, they can be permanently 
     replaced by their employer.

  Obviously, one would have a difficult time explaining this policy 
because it runs directly contrary to the protection of the right to 
strike which is provided for in the National Labor Relations Act.
  It is obvious that the political and business leadership in these 
other countries understands that cooperative labor-management relations 
contribute greatly to both productivity and competitiveness.
  This was borne out in a study by the MIT Commission on Industrial 
Productivity which found that competitiveness may hinge less on costs 
than on the speed at which a company is able to adapt to new technology 
and changing market conditions. Many analysts view this flexibility as 
the product of a labor-management relationship which encourages 
employee decisionmaking at the lines of production. What our 
competitors abroad have understood, and what American business 
understood in earlier decades, is that the use or threat of permanent 
replacements destroys the cooperation and trust that form the very 
basis for the effective working relationship between management and 
labor necessary to address important productivity and competitiveness 
issues.
  Director Wells in this letter pointed out:
       Hiring permanent replacements, or threats to do so, clearly 
     makes bargaining far more difficult and contentious, 
     significantly increasing the hostility between the parties. 
     Resolution of the fundamental issues between them become even 
     more problematic.
       As I have mentioned, the threat of permanent replacements 
     can also severely damage the parties' relationship. Such 
     threats occur more often, of course, than do actual 
     replacements of strikers. These threats serve to destroy 
     bargaining parity and create antagonisms for years to come.

  Mr. President, finally, let me just make this observation. I think it 
is important to recognize that what is at issue here with a cloture 
vote is the necessity of producing 60 out of 100 Members in order to 
consider the legislation on its merits. I am prepared to predict here 
today that this constant use of the filibuster to frustrate the Senate 
from conducting its business will increasingly bring the Senate into 
disrepute because it effectively prevents the Senate from coming to 
grips with very important matters. A 60-40 vote is an incredible 
margin. You do not get those kinds of margins on any issue that has any 
degree of controversy to it.
  I would remind Members that a contested election, if won 60-40, is 
considered as an overwhelming outcome. Yet now we have escalated the 
stakes to that level here in the Senate. In order to even consider 
important legislation, there is a constant engaging in a filibuster and 
the requirement to produce that kind of majority.
  The recent exploitation of workers which has been going on in the 
recent decade under the anomaly provided for in the Mackay decision, is 
a possibility that was not exploited in the 40 years subsequent to the 
decision. I want to underscore this. What has changed in the labor-
management relationship is this aggressive exploitation of the possible 
use of replacement workers, something that had not been done through 
the forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies. That is what changed the 
balance in labor-management negotiations. That is what is undermining 
collective bargaining. That is what I think threatens the ability to 
develop peaceful and cooperative labor-management relationships in this 
country.
  I very much hope the body will vote to invoke cloture so we may get 
to S. 55 and consider this very important and desirable legislation on 
its merits.
  I yield the floor.

                               exhibit 1

                                             Federal Mediation and


                                         Conciliation Service,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 1994.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
     Hon. Howard M. Metzenbaum,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kennedy and Metzenbaum: This is in response 
     to your letter of May 9, 1994, requesting my views on the 
     impact of S.55, the Workplace Fairness Act. In particular, 
     you posed three questions: (1) what is my assessment of the 
     impact of the practice of hiring permanent striker 
     replacements on the collective bargaining process; (2) with 
     what frequency have employers engaged in this practice; and 
     (3) what are my views regarding the likely impact of this 
     legislation on strike occurrence?
       Last year, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 
     (FMCS) assigned for possible mediation about 30,000 contract 
     disputes and our mediators were actively involved in 
     mediating nearly 7,000. Based upon this experience of 
     involvement in thousands of collective bargaining disputes, I 
     feel that we are in a position to form and present an 
     informed opinion on the questions you have posed.
       First, it is our experience that the use of striker 
     replacements is destructive to the collective bargaining 
     process. It chills meaningful bargaining. The threat to use 
     striker replacements is likewise destructive. This is because 
     the right to replace strikers really emasculates the right to 
     strike expressly granted by section 13 of the National Labor 
     Relations Act.
       Simple common sense dictates that the right to replace 
     workers exercising their lawful right to strike over economic 
     issues of wages, hours, and working conditions destroys any 
     semblance of equality in bargaining power. Since a principle 
     goal of bargaining is for employers and employees to jointly 
     address and resolve problems, the threat or actual 
     replacement of striking employees is clearly counter-
     productive. Further, it often serves to prolong strikes and 
     reduce the probability of settlement. Even when the parties 
     reach agreement on wages and benefits, the issue of permanent 
     replacements often remains on the table. It is very difficult 
     to resolve because the employer risks civil law suits from 
     replacement employees if he brings back all the strikers. It 
     is equally difficult to get rank and file members to ratify 
     an agreement if they do not have assurances of returning to 
     work.
       Hiring permanent replacements, or threats to do so, clearly 
     makes bargaining far more difficult and contentious, 
     significantly increasing the hostility between the parties. 
     Resolution of the fundamental issues between them become even 
     more problematic. A recent example is the long standing 
     dispute between Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. and the 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In this case, in 
     which I have been personally involved, replacements were 
     hired in 1991. The company is committed to keeping its 
     replacements, the union is committed to returning its members 
     to work, and the impact of what has happened and the 
     bitterness generated remains with both sides as well as the 
     local community.
       As I have mentioned, the threat of permanent replacements 
     can also severely damage the parties' relationships. Such 
     threats occur more often, of course, than do actual 
     replacements of strikers. These threats serve to destroy 
     bargaining parity and create antagonisms for years to come.
       Second, concerning the frequency of use of striker 
     replacements, while FMCS does not maintain data on this 
     point, I understand that other sources of information are 
     available from the General Accounting Office as well as a 
     recent study of Professor Michael H. LeRoy of the University 
     of Illinois. Using National Labor Relations Board cases 
     reporting hiring of striker replacements, Professor LeRoy 
     provided an analysis of 165 strikes from 1935 to 1990. He 
     noted that strikes since 1981 most closely resembled strikes 
     occurring during the contentious 1938-47 period: they lasted 
     longer, involved more strikers and more replacements than 
     strikes in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. These data would 
     suggest an increased use of replacements since 1981 along 
     with longer lasting strikes than in the previous three 
     decades.
       Third, while there is no way to comment with certainty 
     about any future event, it is our professional judgment that 
     S. 55, if enacted, would not trigger a flood of strikes. The 
     strike, as a tool, is not as effective as it once was. There 
     is nothing to prevent an employer from assigning supervisors 
     to perform the work, hiring temporary employees or 
     volunteers, or stockpiling inventory so a strike has little 
     or no effect. In addition, there is a significant trend in 
     our nation toward labor-management cooperation and 
     partnerships and increased use of collaborative processes, as 
     demonstrated by such unions and employers as the 
     Communications Workers of America and AT&T the United Auto 
     Workers and Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler; the 
     Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Xerox, to 
     name only a few. This trend toward union-management 
     partnerships is growing and should continue to do so.
       I might add that we are one of the few industrialized 
     nations which still permits permanent striker replacements 
     without any limitations. I am often hard put to explain to 
     our foreign labor, management and government visitors that 
     while unionized employees have the right to strike, if they 
     do so, and the strike is economic, they can be permanently 
     replaced by their employer.
       Finally, I believe it is very significant to cite for the 
     record that my predecessor, Bernard E. DeLury, a Republican 
     appointed by President Bush and holding the position of 
     Director of FMCS from 1990 to 1993, expressed a public 
     opinion very similar to mine. He was quoted in a Daily Labor 
     Report interview (October 21, 1991) as saying that the use of 
     permanent replacements ``exacerbates the collective 
     bargaining process'' by making it more ``difficult'' for the 
     parties in collective bargaining to settle their differences 
     over a new contract. Nor did he believe that a ban on 
     permanent replacement of strikers would open the floodgates 
     to more strikes in this country, adding that the relationship 
     between management and labor has reached a more ``mature'' 
     level.
           Sincerely,
                                               John Calhoun Wells,
                                                         Director.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since there are three Members that are 
waiting to speak, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended for 
one-half hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request to extend the time an additional 30 minutes?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California reserves the right 
to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time will the Senator from Iowa 
use?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I assume I will use about 12 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would, ask if I might, through the Chair, how much time 
the Senator from Pennsylvania will use?
  Mr. WOFFORD. Five, maximum six minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have 
10 minutes at the conclusion of the remarks of the two Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the argument 
that was just made by our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator 
from Maryland, in regards to our current situation on cloture. Cloture 
is a very important legislative tool used to ensure that minority views 
are upheld and adequate attention is given to those views. Every 
Senator exercises cloture. The distinguished Senator from Maryland had 
an opportunity to exercise that right the last time we had a cloture 
vote on the issue of product liability.
  So I think that cloture is something that we all legitimately use 
and, within the traditions of the Senate.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will.
  Mr. SARBANES. I simply say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for 
the gander. Obviously, Members use the cloture rule. My own view on the 
underlying proposition is that the cloture rule is being abused in this 
body, that it needs to be limited and restrained from its current 
position. Otherwise, the Senate is not going to be able to function as 
a responsible and responsive body dealing with issues that are of 
importance to the American people. I think we ought to be able to get 
at those issues and address them without requiring this supermajority 
of 60 people, which is actually frustrating the Senate--and, I think, 
the American public--from doing its business. Like the Senator, I have 
used it on occasion, too, but if I step back from it and take an 
objective look at it, I do not think it is good for the institution or 
for the country. I think we need to bring it under some restraint and 
control.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his rebuttal. I 
suppose it is illustrative of how we do business in this body.
  Regarding S. 55, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Once 
again, we are challenging labor laws that have been very effective for 
well over a half century. These laws have created a harmonious balance 
between the rights of management and the rights of labor.
  During the last 50 years, basic labor law has been challenged and 
changed on only two occasions. The first time was in 1947 with the 
Taft-Hartley Act. The second time was in 1959 with the Landrum-Griffin 
Act.
  The infrequency of major, very substantial changes in labor law 
reflects the general agreement with and respect for our laws regarding 
labor-management relations. It also speaks well about the ability of 
the people writing these laws in the 1930's to write laws that have 
been effective for decades. So why make a change now? Has the climate 
changed so drastically to warrant a major amendment to the national 
labor relations act?
  I do not know of any data that confirms that the balance has tipped 
in favor of management as opposed to labor. But here we are again 
debating a bill that I believe strikes at the heart of fair labor 
negotiations. This bill would ultimately tilt the balance in favor of 
labor.
  This kind of change could destroy the economic balance in collective 
bargaining, cripple the economy, and hurt our international 
competitiveness. It would also negatively impact struggling businesses 
and their workers, both union and nonunion workers alike.
  Today, I speak from a unique perspective, as a former union member, 
as well as now a Member of Congress. From 1962 until 1971, I was a 
member of the International Association of Machinists. I am proud of 
this membership and the years I spent on the assembly line. Despite my 
past affiliation, I cannot support the legislation we are debating 
today. It would strike a blow at fairness.
  During my union membership, I had the opportunity of serving on the 
shop safety committee at our plant, and at one time I voted to go on 
strike, a strike that lasted about 5 weeks. I attended the meeting 
where our shop voted to go on strike. That vote was unanimous.
  I felt then, as I feel now, that the ability to strike is a necessary 
tool. It is a tool that can be effectively used by our work force to 
reach an agreement that is satisfactory to an overwhelming majority of 
the people.
  I also served at a time when our shop experienced a conflict between 
my union, the International Association of Machinists and the Sheet 
Metal Workers of America. My plant was called the Waterloo Register Co. 
We manufactured furnace registers, and we were one of the few plants of 
the Dynamics Corp. that was represented by the Machinists Union. Most 
of the other workers were represented by the Sheet Metal Workers Union. 
Consequently, a battle over representation developed.
  In order to end the strife, our company wanted us to accept the 
representation of the Sheet Metal Workers Union. A hotly contested race 
ensued between the International Association of Machinists and the 
Sheet Metal Workers Union.
  At that time, I was also a member of the Iowa legislature. I took a 
leave of absence from my job on the assembly line while the legislature 
was in session.
  I recall driving the 110 miles from Des Moines, IA, our State 
capital, to Cedar Falls, where our plant was located, to cast my vote 
in that jurisdictional election.
  It was a secret ballot, but I voted to maintain the representation of 
the Machinists Union. The machinists won, but by only a handful of 
votes.
  The dispute, however, did not end. The battle between the two unions 
continued and, ultimately, the Waterloo Register factory closed down. 
We were all laid off. The plant has not existed since June 1971 because 
they could not operate under the strife caused by this battle.
  I know what it is like to appear at union halls and debate whether or 
not to go on strike.
  I remember the uncertainty I felt toward the future as I wondered 
about the families--not only mine, but the families of all of the 
workers and our responsibility to them.
  I have seen the positive results that can come from labor-management 
relations even when the torment of a strike has been endured.
  But I have also seen where union leadership does not represent the 
will of its members. I know this because I have seen how a dispute at 
the national level between two unions--the Machinists and Sheet Metal 
Workers--resulted in a loss of about 180 jobs and one entire plant at 
the Waterloo Register Co. in Cedar Falls. To the national union 
leaders, 180 jobs did not amount to a hill of beans, but those 180 jobs 
meant a lot to all of us who were working, trying to be productive and 
trying to ignore a national debate between the two unions fighting a 
jurisdictional battle.
  The National Labor Relations Act has been the principal source of 
labor law in this country for more than 50 years. At the heart of this 
law is a worker's right to engage in concerted activity, including the 
right to strike. But the act also promotes collective bargaining as the 
preferred method of resolving those disputes.
  As early as late 1930's, the issue that is at the center of this bill 
was raised: Whether or not business had the right to protect its 
operation by hiring replacement workers in the event of a strike.
  In 1938, the Mackay case came before the Supreme Court, challenging 
this notion. The Supreme Court subsequently determined that a business 
may hire replacement workers during a strike in order to continue 
operating.
  The Court recognized that labor has a very potent offensive weapon in 
its arsenal--its right to strike. But the Court also recognized that 
weapon must be balanced against a business' right to exercise its own 
defensive weapon--the right to continue operating. This effective 
balance has governed labor law for the last 50 years.
  Many ask what the difference is between hiring replacement workers 
and firing striking workers. This issue was brought up on the floor 
yesterday. Some of my colleagues have even stated that the only right a 
worker has today is to ``quit his job.'' I wholeheartedly disagree. The 
Mackay decision makes a clear distinction between the two forms of 
strike activity: Economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes. 
Economic strikes occur over demands such as higher wages and better 
benefits. Unfair labor practice strikes result from allegations of 
unfair practices by the employer, such as bargaining in bad faith.
  The Mackay decision clearly states that if a strike results from an 
unfair labor practice, the law protects those striking workers' jobs. 
The law requires employers to immediately reinstate the strikers to 
their former position, often with back pay. It is unlawful, then, for 
an employer to fire workers who have engaged in a lawful strike 
activity.
  If, on the other hand, the strike is over economic terms, the law 
permits a employer to defend himself or herself by continuing to 
operate with replacement workers. If the employer simply resisted a 
union's demand over wages and benefits and a strike results, the law 
does not require employers to fire replacement workers at the end of 
that strike.
  In the event striking workers would like to return to work, they are 
guaranteed preferential hiring rights and full reinstatement as 
vacancies occur.
  But this bill would eliminate the critical distinction between an 
economic strike and an unfair labor dispute.
  Obviously, labor and management have much at stake in the success or 
failure of their relationship. The risk of a failed relationship forces 
them to cooperate to the best of their ability to maintain that 
delicate balance. If this bill is enacted, this delicate, balanced 
relationship would be destroyed. Unions would be given complete control 
over the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of business' 
ability to comply with these demands. If a business could not comply 
with these demands, the union could call a strike and the business 
could cease to operate. Management would be stripped of their defensive 
weapons, and risk-free strikes would be guaranteed.
  Proponents argue that this legislation is necessary because the 
practice of hiring replacement workers has become accepted and widely 
used--thus, they argue, tipping the balance in favor of management as 
opposed to labor. However, the data does not support this position.
  In a 1991 GAO report, the GAO could not provide any comparison 
between the use of replacements in the 1970's and 1980's. The report 
did find, though, that in 1985, only 4 percent of all striking workers 
were replaced. This same statistic decreased to 3 percent in 1989. An 
extremely small portion of labor disputes actually result in a strike. 
A vast majority are able to resolve the dispute.
  For example, from 1990 to 1991, only three-tenths of 1 percent of the 
cases that went before the Federal Mediation Board resulted in a 
strike. Data just do not demonstrate that hiring replacement workers 
has become a common management practice nor a trend.
  Although there have been a few highly publicized strikes where 
replacement workers have been hired, the reality is that permanent 
replacement of striking workers is rarely used in practice. Full-scale 
replacement simply does not exist.
  As I have mentioned, by confiscating a business' right to operate 
during a strike, businesses will be forced to accept bargaining 
agreements even if they are found to be unacceptable or financially 
impossible to sustain.
  These businesses would be left with two choices: acquiesce to the 
demands, even if it would ultimately destroy their competitive edge, or 
resist the demands and be forced to shut down. Either choice would 
damage the health of large and small businesses alike.
  Some say that businesses can sustain their operations during a strike 
by stockpiling, or by hiring temporary workers, or relying on 
management. That may be true in some cases. Maybe in some large, highly 
profitable, companies that would be absolutely a way of staying in 
business, but not indefinitely.
  We have to realize many small rural and certainly struggling 
businesses could not sustain their operations following these 
suggestions. Unlike large firms, these firms could not afford to 
stockpile, or hire temporary workers. Rural areas have a limited pool 
of skilled workers.
  As a farmer, I am keenly aware of the impact this bill could have on 
the agricultural community. Too many farmers are often paid once a 
year, and that is when they move their crops to market. If a crop could 
not be moved to market because of a transportation strike, or if the 
crop could not be processed because of a work stoppage at processing 
plants, the farmers would see their prices drop precipitously.
  From the farmer's point of view, such labor relations disputes would 
often become another factor impacting market prices, over which he has 
little control or no control. Farmers would effectively join the list 
of people who would be harmed during a protracted labor dispute.
  The enactment of this bill could ultimately injure nonstriking 
workers and their families, whose livelihoods depend on a functioning, 
economically viable employer. Likewise, consumers, suppliers, and 
customers would suffer the burdens of increased strike activity and the 
harmful economic impact that would be generated by the bill.
  As the economy struggles to recover--and it has been since the 1991 
recession--and as the economic market grows more global and obviously 
more competitive, we simply cannot afford to implement policies that 
will retard growth and work against competition. What may appear to be 
a victory would ultimately be a failure for all.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and, therefore, to 
vote against cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wofford].
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, a few years ago, Studs Terkel wrote a 
book called ``Working.'' In it, he said that work ``is more than a 
struggle for daily bread. It's a search for daily meaning.''
  American workers have always understood what he meant. Two weeks ago, 
I held a state wide teleconference with workers in Pittsburgh, 
Johnstown, Erie, and Pittston. They know what a good job means.
  It is more than a paycheck. It is a source of dignity and pride. It 
is what holds our families and communities together. That is why we 
must do everything in our power to keep good jobs in this country and 
create new ones.
  We are finally seeing signs of good life in our national economy. But 
there is no economic recovery for workers who are still losing their 
jobs and for those fighting to keep theirs. For them these are still 
hard times.
  But there are some steps we can take to help them keep good jobs. One 
of the most important steps is protecting the hard-won right of working 
men and women to strike as a last resort.
  That right is in jeopardy across the country as in Pennsylvania. More 
and more, employers are using permanent replacement workers to disrupt 
the collective bargaining process.
  I have seen this happen in strikes in Pennsylvania. Hospital workers 
in Canonsburg, nursing home workers in Johnstown and Mount Carmel, and 
in 1984, industrial workers in Coraopolis and in Indianola have all 
lost their jobs to permanent replacement workers.
  As Pennsylvania's Secretary of Labor and Industry for 4\1/2\ years, I 
saw the human hardships imposed on workers, their families, whole 
communities and on companies and unions alike, by the permanent 
replacement of workers who exercised their right to strike.
  As the organizer of the Governor's office of labor-management 
cooperating with a mission to promote good labor-management partnership 
in Pennsylvania, I found that nothing set back the prospect of labor-
management cooperation more than the use of permanent replacement 
workers.
  That is why, on arriving in this body, one of the steps I took was to 
become a cosponsor of the Workplace Fairness Act and why I have been 
fighting for it since I came to the Senate and why I want us now to 
take it up and pass it on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, if the right to strike means only the right to lose 
your job, that is no right at all.
  The Workplace Fairness Act says simply that workers who exercise 
their right to strike cannot be replaced permanently. It also would 
prevent companies, once a strike has been settled, from giving 
preferential treatment to workers who crossed the picket line.
  The Workplace Fairness Act does not make strikes risk free. There is 
a great price workers pay in any strike. But what this bill will do is 
restore the rights of workers to exercise their collective bargaining 
rights without fear of reprisal.
  It will make it possible for labor and management to come together on 
a level playing field, to resolve disputes fairly, and then to work 
together to make our companies stronger, more productive, and more 
competitive in the world.
  This is a matter of basic fairness. To quote a recent Pittsburgh 
Post-Gazette editorial supporting this legislation: ``Loyalty and 
progressive management cannot be legislated. Fairness and justice can 
be.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial of 
May 31, 1994, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 31, 1994]

  Striking a Balance--Workers Who Strike Should Not Risk Losing Their 
                                  Jobs

       When Diamond Walnut went through rocky economic times in 
     the mid-1980s, its long-time, relatively well-paid, 
     predominantly female workforce took pay cuts as high as 35 
     percent.
       So when the company returned to health, earning $66 million 
     in net profits over the last five years, the workers thought 
     they should share more significantly in the bounty. Diamond 
     Walnut disagreed. And when the workers went on strike in 1991 
     as the company prepared for its biggest harvest ever, 
     permanent replacement workers were brought in.
       The proponents of a bill that would outlaw the use of 
     permanent replacements could hardly ask for a better poster 
     child than the still-striking, permanently replaced Diamond 
     Walnut workers. The women, many of them grandmothers who had 
     put in 20 and 30 years with the company, had been earning 
     some $30,000 before the pay cuts in the '80s. Now they are 
     out of work--perhaps for the rest of their lives--and 
     surviving for the time being on $200-a-week Teamster strike 
     benefits.
       They are victims in an era when organized labor has 
     diminishing clout, a time in which the 56-year-old Supreme 
     Court doctrine allowing the permanent replacement of striking 
     workers finally came into its own. Although few strikers 
     actually lose their jobs as the women at Diamond Walnut did, 
     the threat of job loss has been made with increasing 
     frequency since 1980 and its very existence upsets the 
     delicate balance that should exist between labor and 
     management.
       The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill 
     banning permanent replacement of strikers, and President 
     Clinton has said he would sign such a measure. More than 
     enough senators support the proposal to gain passage, but 60 
     are needed to break a promised filibuster that would prevent 
     the measure from coming to a vote. Action is expected early 
     next month. Pennsylvania's Sen. Harris Wofford strongly 
     supports the bill and Sen. Arlen Specter has not taken a 
     position on it or on how he would vote in case of a 
     filibuster.
       Simple fairness dictates that the decision to strike should 
     not cost you your job. Striking can cause serious economic 
     hardship and even emotional distress. It obviously wreaks 
     havoc for the employer. It is not a tactic that should be 
     used lightly. But it is, ultimately, the only leverage that 
     workers bring with them to the negotiating table. 
     Management's right to replace a striker permanently can 
     render that tool useless.
       The Diamond Walnut strikers in California had the company 
     over a barrel at harvest time. But the managers could have 
     brought in temporary workers to see them through, while 
     negotiating seriously with their permanent employees. Instead 
     they chose to cut their long-time employees loose, citing 
     loyalty to the new young, mostly male, staff who brought them 
     through a crisis. Apparently that loyalty outweighed the 
     company's commitment to the women with decades of experience 
     and sacrifice.
       Loyalty and progressive management cannot be legislated. 
     Fairness and justice can be. At a time when politicians wring 
     their hands about the loss of decent, high-paying jobs, 
     nothing could be more fair or just than to give workers a 
     little more power in negotiating the terms of their own 
     employment so that existing jobs can become (or remain) 
     decent and well-paying.

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, the best way to prevent the use of 
striker replacements of course is to prevent strikes.
  From my experience as the Labor and Industry Secretary in 
Pennsylvania I assure you that the No. 1 cause of most strikes today is 
not wages but health benefits and who pays for them, and the efforts of 
companies to cut them back--or cut them out.
  The skyrocketing cost of health care is eating away at the wages 
workers need to take care of their families. It's eating away at the 
bottom line of the companies in our States.
  It has been nearly 50 years since Harry Truman first called for 
guaranteed private health insurance for all Americans. It is about time 
for the buck to stop. Right now. This summer. It is time for Congress 
to end the gridlock and guarantee every American the kind of guaranteed 
health benefits at work and choice of private health plans that Members 
of Congress have arranged for themselves.
  If we do that, we will not have to fight so hard to protect the right 
to strike. That is a fight that we need to win in this Congress this 
year. But for today the battle to win is to take up and to pass this 
Workplace Fairness Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarbanes). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I certainly hope that when we vote in 
short order we will vote to proceed to the Workplace Fairness Act, 
because frankly without it the workers of our country and the workers 
of my home State of California essentially have no right to strike, 
despite the fact that this right is expressly granted to them under 
section 13 of the National Labor Relations Act. If an employer has the 
right to hire a permanent replacement worker, you have no right to 
strike. It really is a paper right. It is a phony right.
  If someone came over to you and said, ``I have a great gift for you; 
here are two sleeves for your vest,'' that might sound like a very nice 
gift, but frankly those sleeves are worthless.
  It is kind of like what has happened to the right to strike in this 
country. It is worthless. It sounds eloquent.
  And, Mr. President, many Members of this Senate, who I know talked 
about the rights of workers when they rose up against communism in 
Poland and said, ``We in America give our workers the right to strike, 
we in America respect the right to withhold one's labor,'' some of 
those very same people will not be voting to proceed on this bill. I 
think, if I might say, it does not make very much sense at all.
  Mr. President, if I tell you you have the right to cross the street 
any time you want to cross the street, but I fail to tell you that that 
street is actually a freeway and if you attempt to cross the street you 
are going to be killed, you do not really have the right to cross the 
street, do you?
  If I tell you, Mr. President, that you have the right to health care, 
but then I tell you it is going to cost you $2,000 a month and you earn 
about $25,000 a year, that is not any right. It is a phony right. It is 
a paper right. And that is what we have talking about here as we look 
at this very important legislation which really deserves to be heard 
and to be passed.
  More than 400 nurses of the California Nurses Association found out 
about their right to strike on June 15, 1993, when they went on strike 
at the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, CA. The striking nurses 
were protesting contract demands that cut their vacations in half and 
reassigned large portions of their duties to lower paid and, in some 
cases, unlicensed personnel. The hospital management immediately that 
very day began to hire replacement workers.
  Let us hear from a real person.
  Carol Beecher-Hoban, a pediatric nurse, found out on her sixth 
anniversary of employment at the hospital that she would be permanently 
replaced. A single mom with two kids, without her job she was without 
health insurance for herself and her family. And, believe me, a 
registered nurse knows what it means to be without health insurance. 
She had to take two jobs, Mr. President, and sell her house to make 
ends meet, because she exercised her right under laws passed by this 
Congress. But yet, for doing so, exercising her right to withhold her 
labor, she was permanently replaced.
  Then there is Betty Razor. She was a specialist in enterostomal 
therapy--that is, dealing with patients who have procedures like 
colostomies. It is very, very tough and stressful work. She was Nurse 
of the Year and Employee of the Year at the hospital. She went out on 
strike and the hospital replaced her in a snap.
  Ms. Razor called my office this week to tell me how she felt. And I 
am quoting her:

       At first I said ``oh, you're kidding.'' It did not seem 
     like they could do that. I thought it was a ploy to make us 
     knuckle under, and it was. They didn't just pick anyone to 
     replace; they picked the cream of the crop. Everyone who had 
     professional influence with other nurses were replaced. Five 
     ``Nurses of the Year'' were replaced.
       I always felt that you strike because of the issues, and 
     when you settle the issues, you go back to work. You do not 
     win every issue. You compromise. That's how we do it in 
     America. I never thought you would replace the workers. Why 
     would you strike then?

  Mr. President, that is what we are talking about here. Where is the 
right to strike? It is obviously there on paper, but it is not there in 
reality.
  There are other instances in California which show the sheer 
inhumanity of hiring replacement workers.
  I see the Senator from Ohio, who eloquently talked about the case of 
the Diamond Walnut workers in my State. About 400 members of the 
Teamsters Local 601 exercised their right to strike more than 2 years 
ago. They had grown frustrated after they had agreed to huge wage 
concessions in 1985 to help the company avoid bankruptcy. They felt 
betrayed when these concessions were not restored despite the company's 
renewed profitability.
  We all want our companies to be profitable, Mr. President, but we 
want them to respect the workers who do the work, who sweat to do the 
work.
  More than half of these striking workers were women. I have had the 
honor to meet many of them. We know that all these workers wanted was 
to be able to return to work and stay in their union.
  Karen Nussbaum, director of the Labor Department's Women's Bureau, 
said:

       It seems punitive that they are being prevented from doing 
     so. If a Workplace Fairness Act prohibiting permanent striker 
     replacements were in place, these workers would be back on 
     the job today.

  That is what Ms. Nussbaum said in her report.
  Mr. President, I only have another minute's worth of comments.
  Punishment is what this is all about--punishment for exercising an 
American right. That is the real issue. The right to strike, to 
withhold one's labor is a very serious step to take. It is rough to go 
out on strike. It is not a party. You worry. You worry about your job. 
You worry about paying the bills. You worry about the future. It is a 
big step to take.
  Today, we have a chance to stand up for the American worker, whether 
they are cracking walnuts in Stockton, or providing specialized nursing 
care in Duarte.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from Shawn Hart, of Teamsters Local 542 in Chula Vista, CA.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          Teamsters Local 542,

                                    Chula Vista, CA, May 18, 1994.
       Dear Senator: This letter is to ask for your support of S. 
     55, the Striker Replacement Bill.
       I am a Teamster Local 542 Shop Steward at the San Diego 
     Union Tribune newspaper which is one of the largest daily 
     newspapers in the United States. It is owned by Helen Copley. 
     There are four unions at the paper which represent over 1,200 
     workers.
       My union, which represents eighty employees, has been 
     without a contract for almost one year. The Union Tribune's 
     final offer is less than our expired contract. We are being 
     asked to accept a contract that would cut wages for new 
     employees by $5 to $8 per hour and impose a three year wage 
     freeze for existing employees. In addition, the proposed 
     contract calls for the elimination of our union medical and 
     pension plans which would be replaced by inferior company 
     plans. At the negotiating table we've been told that the 
     company is profitable and there offer isn't about money but 
     about control.
       The Communications Workers of America Local 9400, which 
     represents over 200 employees, has been without a contract 
     for a year and a half. The Union Tribune has taken the 
     position in negotiations that all employees should be reduced 
     from full-time to part time. This past October, 100 full time 
     employees were reduced to part time and subsequently lost 
     their medical benefits.
       The Graphic Communication International Union, which 
     represents 120 employees, has been without a contract for 
     almost two years. The Union Tribune is proposing a contract 
     with a wage freeze and is trying to remove seniority language 
     as well as participation in there union pension plan.
       The San Diego Newspaper Guild, which represents about 800 
     employees, contract expires in January 1995.
       A group of 52 employees has chosen to decertify their 
     union. These employees were given raises, 401K matching 
     contributions, and lower co-payments for medical benefits. 
     None of these monetary gains have been offered to any of the 
     unions that are in negotiations with the Union Tribune. (See 
     enclosed letter regarding decertification.) It is clear to 
     everyone that the intention of the Union Tribune is to 
     negotiate the unions into a position of impasse and try to 
     decertify all of us.
       The right to strike doesn't exist for us. The law firm of 
     King and Ballow is representing the Union Tribune in 
     negotiations. This firm specializes in negotiating newspaper 
     contracts. Many of the negotiations they've been involved 
     with have resulted in strikes or decertification of unions. 
     (See enclosed article.) Management has told us that if we 
     strike we'll be permanently replaced. When we threatened to 
     strike, management placed ads in the newspaper for our jobs 
     and mailed out letters telling everyone they would hire 
     replacements. (See enclosed letter.) Management hired 
     replacements at $15 per hour to sit and wait. They were ready 
     to take our jobs. The union Tribune published an editorial in 
     the newspaper explaining why this legislation shouldn't be 
     passed but omitting how they're using the labor law to break 
     every union here. (See enclosed editorial.)
       A group of 24 independent contractors formed the San Diego 
     Newspaper Dealers Association. These men sold newspapers to 
     grocery stores, 7-11's, and liquor stores who then resold 
     them. The Union Tribune's proposed contracts to this 
     Association amounted to reductions from their existing 
     contracts. The Association refused to sign the proposed 
     contracts. On the date the Association contracts expired, 
     security guards and policemen denied entry into the Union 
     Tribune and members of the Association were told they had 
     been replaced. They've filed a lawsuit against the Union 
     Tribune which is pending.
       The 1,200 men and women at the Union Tribune await the 
     debate in the Senate on the Striker Replacement bill. This 
     legislation is of the utmost importance. Those of us who 
     support this legislation are the people President Nixon 
     referred to as the ``silent majority.''
           Sincerely,
                                                    Shawn M. Hart.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that letter poignantly shows what is 
happening to some of these workers.
  So let us make sure that the right to strike is not a meaningless, 
phony, and false promise. The Congress established the right to strike. 
The Congress must protect that right to strike. I hope that we will do 
that this afternoon.
  I yield the floor
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
proceed as if in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before I do, I would like to 
congratulate the junior Senator from California for a very thoughtful 
and concise statement. She has my vote.

                          ____________________