[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 55, the 
Workplace Fairness Act, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays 
are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--46

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coverdell
       
       
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the vote on the motion to invoke cloture to 
proceed to consider S. 55, the yeas are 53, the nays are 46. The three-
fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, if I could just say a few words, and they 
will be very few, we have had a lot of debate, 3 days, on this issue 
and I want to express a word of appreciation for the leadership of our 
distinguished Labor Committee ranking member, Senator Kassebaum, and 
her staff, Ted Verheggen and Steve Sola.
  Also, there have been citizens, both workers and business people, all 
over America who have taken a sincere interest in this bill. We are not 
talking about big time lobbyists. We are speaking of small business 
people in restaurants, warehousing, convenience stores, manufacturing, 
and every other kind of endeavor, and every kind of employee and 
employer.
  Madam President, the opposition to this legislation was a grassroots 
initiative. It was grassroots propelled.
  Our opposition is always tough, and I wish to congratulate them, 
especially Senators Metzenbaum and Kennedy, for their hard-fought 
battle. Their staffs, while fighting hard, were always cordial and 
professional, and for that I would like to thank Sarah Fox, Beth 
Slavet, and Greg Watchman, three great staff people here on Capitol 
Hill.
  And again, I wish to pay tribute to my distinguished friend from 
Ohio. No one fights harder for his beliefs than Howard Metzenbaum. I 
have been on his side and on the opposite side many times over the last 
18 years. We came to the Senate together. There are very few people I 
respect any more than I do him. I do not agree with him very often, but 
I do respect him and I want him to know that, and I would feel badly if 
he did not.
  Finally, I want to thank Sharon Prost, who, in my opinion, is the 
best labor lawyer in the Senate. She has been of inestimable help to 
this side on this matter, always fair, always decent, and a terrific 
human being. She knows the laws, but she also knows the burdens that 
American workers carry. I appreciate the efforts that she has given. 
And, of course, Kris Iverson as well, my assistant legislative 
director, who always does a good job.
  I wish to thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate their contributions in this particular debate.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, once again, I appreciate the kind 
comments of the Senator from Utah. Indeed, he and I have battled 
together in the Chamber on any number of occasions, and so often he is 
wrong. Too often he wins. But I respect the fact that he does his job 
and does it well. Indeed, he is very much helped by Sharon Prost of his 
staff, and there are other staffers who have been extremely helpful in 
our deliberations: Ted Verheggen of Senator Kassebaum's staff, Steve 
Sola; Sarah Fox and Beth Slavet of Senator Kennedy's staff; Senator 
Wellstone's staff, Colin McGinnis; and last but certainly not least, 
Greg Watchman of my own staff who has given so much of his time and 
effort here on the floor.
  Madam President, let me conclude my remarks by saying the majority of 
the Members of this body want to pass S. 55. They indicated that 
yesterday. They indicated that today. I hope to find an opportunity 
before this session concludes to offer S. 55 as an amendment to a 
pending piece of legislation which those on other side, who have been 
successful in not bringing this matter to a vote, very much want to 
bring to the floor and to pass.
  We have used the procedure in the past. Senate rules are very unusual 
rules. Senate rules make it possible to filibuster a measure in this 
manner so that it could not come to the vote. But the Senate rules also 
offer free and open opportunity to offer amendments to any piece of 
legislation, whether or not it is relevant to that legislation, unless 
there is some specific order precluding that.
  I hope to find such an opportunity and, if so, S. 55 may be alive and 
well before we conclude this session.
  At this time, it is an uphill battle, but we will look for that 
opportunity.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from Ohio for 
his courageous leadership, not just on this bill but his courageous 
leadership on issues affecting the working people of this country.
  As I have said before, the bill that we cannot seem to get up for a 
vote, S. 55, is not a prolabor bill. It is a procompetitive bill. It is 
a pro-American bill. And, yes, it is a pro-working-family bill.
  The Senator from Ohio has tirelessly worked for all of his years in 
the Senate on behalf of working people in this country. There is not a 
better friend that working people, union and nonunion, have in this 
entire country than Howard Metzenbaum.
  I had hoped we could get over this filibuster. As Senator Metzenbaum 
said, we have the votes to pass it, no doubt about it. We have the 
votes to pass this bill. The House passed it. The House of 
Representatives passed it by a considerable margin. And the votes are 
here to pass it. I had hoped we would pass this as a fitting tribute to 
his many years of service in the Senate and his service to the working 
people of this country.
  This is a dark day, indeed, Madam President, for the American worker 
and, I believe, for management. I think that what is happening in this 
country today is not just bad for our workers; it is bad for our 
management; it is bad for business in this country, because what is 
happening is we are eroding the middle class in America.
  In the debate on this bill a couple days ago, I quoted from the 
Business Week magazine. Business Week is not a journal of the labor 
unions. In the May 23 issue, 1994, there was an article ``Why America 
Needs Unions.'' Some disturbing facts were brought out in the Business 
Week magazine--I thought I might just repeat them here today--about 
what is happening in this country with the middle class.
  Business Week pointed out: ``But it's clear who prospered in the 
1980's. The rent dividends and interest that owners of capital earned 
jumped 65 percent. Wages and salaries including white collar ones grew 
only 23 percent.'' Working people falling behind. And furthermore, what 
is happening in the labor force? Business Week went on and said: ``For 
instance, employers illegally fired 1 of every 36 union supporters 
during organizing drives in the late 1980's''--1 out of every 36 were 
fired--``versus 1 out of 209 in the 1960's.''
  Unlawful firings occurred in one-third of all representation 
elections in the late eighties versus only 8 percent in the late 
sixties. Even more significantly than the numbers is the perception of 
risk among workers who think they will be fired in an organizing 
campaign, according to a prominent Harvard law professor.
  Again, what is happening, Madam President, is that this so-called 
right to strike in this country is a hollow right. There is no real 
right to strike because, if you strike, you are permanently replaced. 
And, if there is no right to strike, then there is no right to bargain 
collectively. And, if there is no right to bargain collectively, then 
there is no level playing field. There is not a partnership between 
management and labor.
  So what this vote signifies is that we are going to continue down 
that road of more confrontation between labor and management, more 
erosion of wages, and more erosion of the middle class in this country. 
That is really what this bill is about. It was a middle-class bill to 
support the middle class.
  I am just sorry that we could not get over the filibuster to get to 
the merits of the bill itself. I am heartened by what the Senator from 
Ohio said, that he is not giving up. Well, I have never known Howard 
Metzenbaum to give up. He is a true fighter. I am heartened by what he 
said--that he will try to find some other bill to attach this to on 
which we can get a true vote sometime later this year.
  So I take the floor not to extend the debate any further. I have had 
my say on this bill prior to the vote. I know the Senate wants to get 
on to other business. But I take the floor to compliment and to thank 
my good friend, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, for his leadership; to thank 
Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue; and to again say that 
we have not given up. This is not the end of this. I will do whatever I 
can to support Senator Metzenbaum in whatever efforts he may come up 
with later this year to attach this bill.
  I also take the floor at this time, Madam President, to urge the 
President of the United States, this administration, to get more 
forcefully behind this legislation, to do just a little bit of what it 
did to get NAFTA passed--I happened to have voted for NAFTA--to just 
expend a little more energy and a little more effort to get this 
striker replacement bill through, because it is in the best interests 
of this country.
  Lastly, Madam President, I never told this story on the Senate floor 
before. I mentioned it in the caucus the other day. But I just want to 
make it clear why I am not giving up on this issue, and why I will 
never give up on this issue. And it is very personal. Unless you have 
been through one of these strikes where workers have been replaced and 
have seen what it has done to their families, you cannot really 
understand what is happening in America today. You can read about it. 
You can read all the statistics and figures, whether it is in Business 
Week, or whatever. But unless you really have lived through it, you 
cannot really understand it. It happened in my own family.
  My brother, Frank, was a union man. He worked for 23 years for a 
company in Des Moines, IA; 23 years of the best years of his life. The 
first 10 years he worked there, he did not miss 1 day of work, and he 
was not late once. In 23 years, he only missed 5 days of work because 
of blizzards in Iowa. He could not make it to work. He got all kinds of 
awards for productivity.
  In those 23 years, that plant never had one strike and never had one 
work stoppage. They would sit down and negotiate the contract. This was 
the United Auto Workers. They would sign it. They would move on. They 
had a well-motivated, well-trained work force. The company made money.
  Finally, the owner of the company decided to sell the company and 
retire. He sold the company to a group of investors. They took over 
this company, and one of the new owners openly bragged that, ``If you 
want to see how to get rid of a union, come to Delavan, and we will 
show you how.''
  The contract time came up. Of course, what did management do? They 
had a legal right. They put forward conditions under which labor could 
not agree. They held to that position, which is their legal right to 
do. So the contract was not signed, and the union went out on strike 
for the first time in over 23 years; the first time ever, as a matter 
of fact, that this plant had ever been struck since it was organized 
back in the 1940's. They went out on strike.
  The management immediately brought in the replacement workers, and 
kept them there for a year. It was a long, bitter strike. After 1 year, 
under labor law, they had a decertification vote. Who votes to 
decertify the union? The workers who are there, the replacement 
workers. They voted to decertify the union because they did not want to 
lose their jobs. The union was decertified.
  My brother, after 23 years, was out; 54 years old, and out, after 
working for this company for 23 years. As I said, in 23 years, he only 
missed 5 days of work. He gave them the best years of his life. And he 
was not alone. There were a lot of workers like that in this plant. A 
lot of people there worked 20 to 25 years. He was one of the more 
senior at the time. But obviously, the new owners knew that they could 
get rid of these people and hire younger people, and pay them less; 
and, thus, as Business Week pointed out, increase their profits and 
dividends to their shareholders. I understand that. But it was at the 
expense of all these families.
  As I mentioned, this was a manufacturing facility of machine tools. 
Out in back of the Delavan building is where they had their trash 
piles, their tailings, and things like that.
  I will never forget what my brother said to me. He said, ``You know, 
I feel like I am just a piece of machinery. They used me up. They 
depreciated me down, and they threw me out the back door on that trash 
pile.''
  I did not mention one other thing. My brother is disabled. Where does 
a 54-year-old deaf man find a job? It is pretty tough. After giving the 
best years of his life, they just threw him out. As I said, he was not 
alone. I knew a lot of the other families in the same situation, trying 
to start over a new life again in their midfifties.
  Not only did it destroy them--and I do not think my brother today has 
gotten over it, and neither have a lot of the other workers and their 
families. Not only did it destroy them, but it sent shock waves 
throughout the entire community. It put a damper on any kind of union 
organizing activity. It sent a strong signal that you cannot stick up 
for your rights. You cannot bargain collectively because, if you go out 
on strike, you are done.
  So it demoralized the work force, and I believe that this huge 
increase that we have had in replacement workers in this country is 
demoralizing our work force. It is cutting down on productivity. It is 
destroying worker motivation. I saw it firsthand.
  When I stand here after this vote and say that I am not giving up, I 
just want my fellow Senators to understand why I am not giving up on 
this issue. I will fight for this until the day I die, because I 
believe it is that important to this country. They do not hire 
permanent replacement strikers in Canada; they do not do it in Japan; 
and they do not do it in Europe. Only in this country.
  So I think it is time that again we rededicate ourselves to this. I 
am not giving up. I know the Senator from Ohio is not giving up, and I 
will be by his side in this battle and do everything I can to support 
him. We have to find any vehicle we can to attach this to this year. It 
is too important to sweep under the rug. It is too important for the 
working families of America.
  So, Madam President, I just wanted to take these few minutes after 
this vote, I guess, maybe to vent my frustration a little bit, but to 
also let Senators know why this Senator is not giving up the battle for 
justice for the working people of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the submission of a 
resolution are located in today's Record under ``Submission of 
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed as in morning business for about 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________