[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3720-S3730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to respond for a moment, 
and then defer to my colleagues from Massachusetts and Illinois because 
I had an ample amount of time to speak this mornings. I will not take 
more than 5 minutes.
  I want to make two points. I made them this morning. I would like to 
be as concise as possible.
  The first point is I think the issue is very clear. Senators can vote 
different ways on this question. The President's Executive order says 
that when the U.S. Government has a contract with a company, a 
contractor which in turn permanently replaces its workers during a 
strike, then our Government will 
[[Page S3721]] not be using taxpayer dollars to support future 
contracts with such a company. It is a simple proposition. Which side 
is the Government on?
  What we are saying is that our Government is on the side of workers, 
of middle-class people, of working families. It is very simple. One 
more time it is a shame that our country has not joined many other 
advanced economies with legislation that would prohibit this permanent 
replacement of workers. I think we would have passed that bill if not 
for a filibuster in the last session. That is in fact what happened.
  The second point. I think it is extremely important that--as much as 
I respect the Senator from Kansas, I think she is one of the finest 
Senators--I believe that her amendment is profoundly mistaken because I 
think this Executive order is extremely important.
  The second point is that I do not think that you can separate this 
amendment that we are speaking against from the overall Contract With 
America which has just represented an attack on men and women who are 
trying to work for decent wages, on children, on the whole question of 
higher education being affordable for families, on the question of 
whether or not people are going to be able to afford health care. These 
issues become very interrelated.
  In that sense, this debate and this vote is about more than this 
amendment. To be able to be work at a job that pays a decent wage so 
that you can support your family is very closely tied to whether or not 
you have collective bargaining rights, very closely tied to whether or 
not you have some assurance that if a company forces you out on strike, 
if nobody wants to go out on strike, what will then happen is that you 
will essentially not be permanently replaced and crushed. That is what 
this is all about, protection for many workers, many employees, and 
many of their families. That is what this is all about.
  For the life of me, Mr. President--I conclude on this because I spoke 
this morning--I simply do not understand why some of my colleagues make 
such serious objection to this proposition.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today in opposition to the 
amendment by the Senator from Kansas.
  I would like to point out a couple of things. I mentioned this 
morning that permanent striker replacement is against the law in a 
number of countries, and someone apparently has since questioned 
whether that is true in Japan because I list Japan as one of the 
countries where it is illegal.
  Let me quote article 7, section 1 of the labor union law of Japan.

       The employer shall not engage in the following practices: 
     (1) discharge or show discriminatory treatment towards a 
     worker by reason of his being a member of a labor union or 
     having tried to join or organize a labor union or having 
     performed an appropriate act of a labor union * * *

  Now I would like to quote from the Congressional Research Service.

       The words ``an appropriate act of a labor union'' are 
     construed to include acts arising from collective bargaining 
     with the employer, such as strikes, picketing, and so on. 
     Therefore, under Japanese law it is unlawful for an employer 
     to discharge a striking employee.

  In other words, what President Clinton has done is to give through 
Executive order workers in the United States the same protection that 
workers in Japan, Italy, the Western European nations have, with the 
exception of Great Britain. The only Western industrialized nations 
that do not offer this protection are Great Britain, Hong Kong, 
Singapore, and the United States of America. This morning someone 
pointed out to me that I failed to mention Greece as one of the nations 
that has this particular stipulation.
  When my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, mentioned that the 
action is unprecedented and invalid, the courts would find it invalid. 
Let the courts decide--not the Senate of the United States on an 
emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I notice that the Senator from Oklahoma 
had been talking about the amendment of the Senator from Kansas and 
raising questions about what would happen to the Defense Department 
should they have a contract, for example, on the F-16 or F-18. I take 
pride that most of the engines for the military are manufactured at a 
General Electric plant in Lynn, MA. There are some Pratt & Whitney 
engines by our good neighbors in Connecticut--but for the most part the 
engine parts are manufactured in my State. The company does absolutely 
spectacular work on the new advanced fighters and beyond that.
  The question was raised by the Senator from Oklahoma, what would 
happen to these engines should this major contractor go out and have 
these striker replacements. Well I was watching the sports program last 
night where we saw those replacement players trying out for the major 
leagues. And I think it is every young boy's goal to play in the 
majors.
  But I sure would not want our pilots, our servicemen and women, if 
they had to be called back to the Persian Gulf or elsewhere to have to 
be flying planes manufactured by replacement workers, or those engines 
being made by replacement workers, or those weapons systems, which 
could be the difference between life and death. Does the Senator agree 
with me that one of the principal reasons for this kind of Executive 
order is to make sure that we are going to have thorough, professional, 
competent, highly skilled, highly trained, and highly disciplined 
workers doing a job for America? I am just wondering whether the 
Senator reaches a similar conclusion.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMON. I have the floor, and I would like to respond to his 
question, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator for a 
question. I think the point made by the Senator from Massachusetts is 
absolutely valid. You can be a good, sincere person, but just not be a 
good replacement baseball player or person working in an airplane 
factory. I am going to be leaving the U.S. Senate after 1996. The 
Chicago White Sox are not interested in me. I cannot understand it, but 
that is the reality. Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, but 
he did not do very well on the baseball field.
  I think the point made by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, is extremely important. We find, even where you do not have 
permanent replacements, sometimes factories try to keep going and the 
results have not been quality products. When we are talking about the 
defense industry, we want quality production. I point out also to 
Senator Kennedy that France makes military equipment. They sell planes, 
and they prohibit permanent striker replacement. Germany makes weapons; 
they prohibit permanent striker replacement. Italy manufactures 
military equipment; they prohibit permanent striker replacements. I 
have not heard from anyone that has said that, in any way, inhibited 
them from moving ahead. My colleague from Kansas wishes to ask a 
question.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thought I heard the Senator from Massachusetts 
suggest that permanent replacement workers would not be able to offer 
the same type and quality of work. Would you feel any safer with 
temporary replacement workers, because this Executive order permits 
temporary replacements? So I think, if the question was what type and 
quality of work will be done by the permanent replacements, I suggest 
it could be far more risky with temporary workers.
  Mr. SIMON. I say to my friend from Kansas that if she wants to go 
further and prohibit temporary striker replacement, I will support that 
endeavor. As a matter of fact, Quebec does that right now. Canada, as a 
whole, prohibits permanent striker replacements. In Quebec, you cannot 
even have temporary striker replacement. But whether they are temporary 
or permanent, there is no question that striker replacement results in 
a diminution of quality of the end product. The point made by Senator 
Kennedy is an absolutely valid point.
  Let me make a couple of other points while I have the floor, Mr. 
President. When the Senator from Oklahoma says Congress has clearly 
stated its opinion 
[[Page S3722]] on striker replacement, that is true, only it is not 
quite the way it was implied by my friend, Senator Nickles. The reality 
is that the House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit striker 
replacement, and in the U.S. Senate, 53 Members went on record for 
this, a majority in the U.S. Senate--53-47. But because of our 
filibuster rule, we did not pass a law.
  When the Senator from Oklahoma says Congress has clearly stated its 
opinion, he is correct. But contrary to the situation when in 1991, a 
number of people, including the present Speaker and present majority 
leader of the House, introduced legislation that would have required 
employees to be notified in writing that they could not be required to 
join a union, that did not pass either body. But George Bush issued an 
Executive order requiring that notices be put up in all workplaces 
telling employees that they are not required to join a union.
  To my knowledge, no one tried to reverse that. We recognize the 
authority of the President to issue that kind of a statement.
  Finally, Mr. President, I see my friend from Texas anxiously waiting 
a chance to get the floor. Because we have had a discussion of social 
issues, and the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, said that 
there has been no demonstrable success in our social programs, the 
reality is, as we have pared down the appropriations for our social 
programs, more and more of our children are living in poverty. We, 
today, have 23 percent of the children of the United States living in 
poverty--far more than any other Western industrialized nation. That is 
not, as I have said on the floor of this Senate before, an act of God; 
that is a result of flawed policies. We have to show greater sympathy 
and concern and we need to have programs to help people.
  We are on one of these basic philosophical arguments here: Should 
Government tilt against working men and women, or should it not? I 
think Government should not tilt against working men and women. I think 
that is the fundamental issue here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Texas, and I 
am sure he will agree with every word I have said here.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know it does not have anything to do with 
the debate we are having, but I want to answer two questions that were 
posed by our colleagues.
  Let me go back to the Executive order issued by President Bush, 
because the Executive order issued by President Bush was to enforce a 
Supreme Court decision called the Beck decision. I am not terribly 
proud of the fact that Executive order was delayed for 2 years before 
it was finally issued. The Beck decision came about when a man named 
Beck, who was working in a State that permitted mandatory unionism, 
said that part of his dues were being used for political purposes and 
that he did not support the political aim of organized labor. So Mr. 
Beck, through long court battles that ultimately reached the Supreme 
Court, argued that his constitutional rights were being violated, 
because he was being forced to provide money for political purposes 
that he did not support.
  The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Beck was right and ordered that he 
and every other worker be told how much of their union dues went for 
purposes other than to fund collective bargaining. President Bush and 
the Bush administration, after delaying the implementation of that 
ruling, finally issued an Executive order to implement it.
  So the Beck decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling having to do 
with the constitutional rights of a worker.
  It is hardly worth arguing the point raised by our dear colleague 
from Massachusetts when he asked if our men in combat want spare parts 
produced by replacement workers? Well, if the alternative is no spare 
parts, the answer is clearly, yes.
  None of this, however, has anything to do with this issue. People 
want to cloak this issue in the union-management cloak. And since there 
are more people who work than people who hire workers, it is a good 
cloak in which to try to hide that which is a legitimate issue of 
freedom. But the issue involved here could not be clearer, no matter 
how you define it, when looking at the rights of a free people.
  If I do not want to work for you, I have the right to quit, and no 
one can deny me that right as a free person. But if I do not want to 
work for you, I do not have a right to keep you from hiring somebody 
else.
  What is being proposed here is that the Government step in and say, 
oh, it is all right, if I decide not to work for you, for me to quit; 
but if I decide to quit through a strike--even though it may put you 
out of business, even though it may decimate the city in which your 
company is located--you cannot hire people to take my place. Now, you 
can hire temporary workers, who have to be fired the minute I want to 
come back, which means in reality that the company has almost an 
impossible time finding people to work for it. So what you are doing, 
in essence, is giving one party to a labor contract the right to put 
the other party out of business.
  We have debated this issue. It has been debated many times in 
Congress. It was debated in the last Congress when the Democratic Party 
had a majority in both Houses of Congress. And under the rules that we 
operate under, as a free society and as the greatest deliberative body 
in history, it was rejected. Those who supported taking away the rights 
of an employer to hire another worker when a worker refused to work for 
that employer were defeated in the U.S. Senate.
  Now President Clinton has come in and said that what he could not do 
through the legislative process, he is going to do through Executive 
order; that by Executive order, he is going to say to any company that 
has a contract with the Federal Government of over $100,000, that the 
Secretary of Labor will be empowered to say to those companies that if 
you have a strike and the strikers will not come back to work, you 
cannot hire permanent replacement workers who want to work to keep your 
company in business. And if you do hire permanent replacement workers, 
we have the right to take away and break any Government contract you 
have and bar you from getting any contracts with the Federal 
Government.
  There are a lot of gray areas here, but as I read this, if General 
Dynamics--of course now Lockheed of Fort Worth--had a sand and gravel 
operation, in addition building F-16's, and they had a strike in their 
sand and gravel operation that shut them down as the major employer in 
a small town in North Carolina, and that small town had lots of 
unemployment and many people who were willing to come to work in sand 
and gravel extraction, those people could not come on as permanent 
employees because General Dynamics would have its contracts in Fort 
Worth with the Federal Government abrogated.
  Mr. President, why, in a free society, should we want to do this? 
Why, in a free society, should we say to someone who, after all, has 
put up their capital, saved all their lives to start a business, 
created jobs--which people voluntarily took and voluntarily decide 
leave--that they are prohibited from hiring somebody else who wants to 
do the work? Why should we do that?
  Well, there is no argument for doing that other than greedy special 
interests.
  A President who says that he is some new kind of Democrat, whatever 
that means, a President who says that he was coming to Washington to 
end the cozy special-interest way of doing business, comes to 
Washington, and by Executive order, gives one of the largest and most 
powerful special-interest groups in America the right to intimidate and 
the right to destroy people's businesses. It is not right.
  This ought to be stopped, not because of labor and management rights; 
it ought to be stopped for the very simple reason that it is 
fundamentally and profoundly wrong to do this.
  What the President is doing is using the contract power of the 
Federal Government to deny people their rights. What he is doing is 
denying the rights of the people who have put up their life savings, 
who have started businesses, and who want to provide jobs when there is 
a strike. The people who had the jobs do not want to do the work.
  Under our existing laws, under our legal system, if other people are 
willing to come in--and often subject 
[[Page S3723]] themselves to all kinds of intimidation, both physical 
and verbal--and take a job and work because they want the job, they 
have that right. The Congress voted on this issue and the President was 
unable to prevail. He certainly could not prevail in this Congress, 
because Americans, based on the areas where he did prevail, said no to 
exactly this kind of special-interest deal.
  Now the President is trying to do this by Executive order. What we 
are trying to do is to stop the President. This is within the 
prerogative of Congress to make the law of the land. And I do not think 
anybody here who looks at this will see this as anything more than a 
payoff to special interest.
  I do not know what is going to happen on this amendment. I understand 
there is going to be a motion to table. There may be a point of order. 
I, for one, am going to vote to overrule the Chair on this issue.
  And I want to promise my colleagues this issue is not going to go 
away. I do not know how many times we are going to debate it, but I am 
determined that the President is not going to win on this issue, 
because it is not right. I can assure you that, in good time, when the 
American people finish the job they started in 1994, if this Executive 
order is still standing, it will not be standing much longer after 
1996.
  But this is a very important issue. This is a freedom issue. This 
does not have anything to do with unions. This does not have anything 
to do with employers. It has to do with the right of a free people to 
withhold their labor and the right of the employer to hire somebody 
else who is willing to work.
  To get into all of this jargon about collective bargaining confuses 
the issue and is an attempt to cloak the fact that we are really 
talking about the rights of a free people.
  I am going to do everything I can, as one Member of the Senate, to 
stop the President from limiting the freedom of employers, people who 
put up their capital, to hire replacement workers when the people who 
are currently working refuse to work. And I am going to do it not 
because of labor versus management, or management versus labor, but 
because you either believe in freedom or you do not, and I do. I think 
this is a fundamental issue.
  I congratulate our colleague for bringing this issue up. I want to 
urge her to stand by this issue. I would rather lose on a technicality 
and continue to fight this issue than to pull this down and allow the 
President to do this. He may be successful. But I think people ought to 
know where our party stands and where our Members stand. We are opposed 
to this kind of special-interest power grab and political payoff, 
because it is fundamentally wrong and it is fundamentally rotten, and 
it ought to be stopped.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, whether we vote on 
a motion to table or whether we vote on the germaneness rule--we have 
overruled germaneness on many occasions, and it takes simply a 
majority. I think that we ought to do it in this case. If we cannot do 
it this time, we will have a lot more bills that this President is 
going to want to pass. He will face this issue on each and every one of 
them until finally we prevent this outrage from occurring.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened to the distinguished Senator 
from Texas with great interest. Let me say to begin with that I am not 
a strong apostle of Executive orders. I suppose they number into the 
thousands. There have been Executive orders going back over many, many 
decades.
  Some things that the distinguished senior Senator from Texas said 
have caught me with a strong sense of fascination. He talked about this 
Executive order's being a ``political payoff'' by the President. It 
seems to me that we allow ourselves sometimes to make some very extreme 
statements. I do not know that that statement by the Senator from Texas 
can be documented. I do not know that it can be proved. I think it is a 
rather reckless charge. I would assume that those Members, like myself, 
who oppose this amendment might likewise be charged with political 
payoffs, if that theory is carried to its ultimate conclusion.
  Let me say to the distinguished Senator that he has no monopoly on 
standing up for freedom--freedom of conscience, freedom of the 
individual to work. When God drove Adam and Eve from the garden, he 
issued an edict that has followed man through the course of the dusty 
centuries and will accompany man to the end of his days: ``In the sweat 
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for 
out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
return.''
  The distinguished Senator from Texas speaks of ``intimidation.'' I 
can remember the days when the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency was 
brought into West Virginia.
  The Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency was headquartered in Roanoke, 
Virginia and Bluefield, West Virginia.
  The Roanoke office operated primarily as railroad detectives.
  The Bluefield office, headed by Tom Felts, operated primarily as mine 
guards. They were originally employed by the coal companies to police 
the unincorporated coal company towns. As the union movement began to 
grow, they began to serve more and more as union busters. The miners 
would call them ``thugs.''
  It became their primary job to keep union organizers out of the 
company towns. If the miners went on strike, they evicted the miners 
from the company houses, and used whatever means necessary to break the 
strike, from bullying the miners, to beating, and even murdering.
  The Baldwin-Felts operated throughout southern West Virginia with the 
exception of Logan County. In that county, Sheriff Don Chafin 
maintained a 200-man deputy sheriff force, allegedly in the pay of the 
coal companies in Logan County, and it was their job to keep the union 
organizers out of the county.
  I mentioned that Tom Felts headed the Bluefield office. His brothers, 
Lee and Albert, both Baldwin-Felts mine guards, were two of the eight 
guards who were killed in the Matewan Massacre.
  The coal miners of West Virginia have seen intimidation. I grew up in 
a coal miner's home. I can remember when there was no union. The man 
who raised me, who was kind enough to take me as an orphan--I was 1 
year old--and brought me up in his home, was a coal miner. I can 
remember the days when he worked from daylight until after dark to 
``clean up his place.''
  That meant that a coal miner, if he did not clean up his working 
place, if he did not remove all the slate, the coal, and the rock, that 
had been shot down with dynamite, if he did not clean it up before he 
left that night, was told that there was always someone else who would 
be glad to take his place. There was no union to protect his job.
  The coal miners took what they were given. They had no weapon with 
which to fight back. Many times as a boy I recall going down to the 
company store at Stotesbury, in Raleigh County where I lived, and 
reading on the bulletin board a notice that, come the beginning of the 
next month, the miners would suffer a cut in their wages. The price per 
ton of slate, the price per ton of coal, would be reduced from 50 cents 
to 45 cents, or to 30 cents or to 25 cents.
  In those days coal miners wore their carbide lamps on cloth caps. 
They had no way of demanding that safety be enforced in the workplace. 
They bought their own dynamite, they bought their augur, their pick, 
their ax, their shovel. I have been in the mines, and I have seen where 
my dad worked. I could hear the timbers cracking to the right, the 
timbers cracking to the left.
  I saw the water holes through which those men had to make their way 
on their knees. The roof was not high enough for them to walk upright. 
They had to walk on their knees. They had to shovel that coal, shovel 
the rock and heap those cars with the loads of slack or lump coal or 
slate or rock or whatever it was, while on their knees.
  They had no way of demanding that their pay be increased. They just 
had to take whatever the company decided at a given time to pay them. 
There was no union. I was there when the coal miners union came to West 
Virginia, the coal miners union. I can remember the coal miners having 
to meet, in 
[[Page S3724]] barns, in empty buildings, clandestinely, in order to 
organize a union.
  Many times I have seen my dad overdrafted on payday. He had worked 
the full 2 weeks, and on payday was in debt to the coal company. Then 
when the union came, I saw the faces of those coal miners. The faces 
would light up. At last, the coal miners had a weapon with which they 
could bargain collectively concerning their wages and their working 
conditions. They could strike, if need be, to force the company to 
improve health and safety conditions, and to enforce safety in the 
workplace.
  Many times I walked into the miners' bathhouse at Stotesbury--not 
many times, but several times I walked into the bathhouse at 
Stotesbury--as a boy and as a young man and I saw stretched out on the 
bathhouse floor a dead coal miner who had been electrocuted or run over 
by a mine motor. One of my friends, Walter Lovell, had both legs--both 
legs--cut off one night by a runaway motor. In this day and time, his 
life might have been saved.
 But he died of loss of blood and gangrene. My own dad mashed his 
fingernail. He lost his finger. If it had been 2 or 3 days later before 
going to the hospital, he would have lost a hand. Another week, he may 
have lost his life.

  I can remember seeing a man in the coal mining company's doctor's 
office at Stotesbury, waiting in great pain because he had mashed his 
finger and gangrene had set in. Within a few days, he was dead.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas used the phrase ``they don't 
want to work,'' ``don't want to work.'' Perhaps they do not want to 
work because they want certain safety conditions improved. It is not 
laziness always. Now, I have not always agreed with the unions, and on 
some occasions, I have not sympathized with strikes. There have been 
some strikes that I thought were not called for. But because miners or 
other workers seek to improve their safety conditions, their working 
conditions, their wages is not a matter of their not wanting to work.
  When I ran for the U.S. Senate, I was initially opposed by John L. 
Lewis, the coal miner's chieftain. He eventually came around to support 
me, but the thing that made my decision to run for the U.S. Senate, may 
I say to the Senator from Texas, the thing that made the decision for 
me to run for the U.S. Senate was the very fact that Mr. John L. Lewis, 
the president of the United Mine Workers, sent word to me in West 
Virginia not to run for the Senate, but instead to run again for the 
House of Representatives.
  I had been elected to the House three times, and I decided I would 
like to get around the State during a break between the sessions and 
determine what kind of support I would have for a Senate race. While I 
was in Wheeling, West Virginia, one night, I got word from a man by the 
name of Bob Howe, representing the United Mine Workers of America--John 
L. Lewis' liaison man working on the House side.
  While I was in West Virginia, Mr. Howe called me on the telephone and 
said, ``I'd like to talk with you. When will you be back in 
Washington?''
  I said, ``I don't know when I'll be back. What do you want to talk 
about?''
  He said, ``Well, `the boss'''--the boss--``wants me to get a message 
to you.''
  I said, ``Well, the closest I will be to Washington for several weeks 
will be when I go to Romney next Thursday night to speak to a Lion's 
Club,'' or whatever it was, a civic organization.
  He said, ``Fine, I will come over there and meet you.''
  So he drove over to Romney, West Virginia. We met. The message was 
from Mr. John L. Lewis, who sent word that he did not want me to run 
for the Senate; Mr. Lewis wanted me to run for reelection to the House.
  He said, ``You have a good labor record. We will be glad to support 
you for the House, but if you run for the Senate, Mr. Lewis will come 
into West Virginia and campaign against you. He will campaign for 
William Marland,'' who was a former Governor of West Virginia. So I 
said to Mr. Howe, ``I'll be in touch with you.''
  That very night, I drove south into Beckley, WV. Those were the days 
when we had nothing better than a two-lane road in West Virginia. We 
did not have four-lane roads in West Virginia. I can remember the days 
when we did not have two-lane roads in West Virginia and when we even 
had to blow the horn on the car when we went around a curve.
  In any event, I drove to southern West Virginia that night, and on 
the way, I stopped at a telephone booth in Petersburg, Grant County, 
which, by the way, is a strong Republican county, about 4-to-1 
Republican, and goes for Robert C. Byrd.
  Snow was up around my ankles when I went into that telephone booth. I 
called my wife and I said, ``Erma, I've reached my decision.''
  She asked, ``Concerning what?''
  I said, ``Running for the Senate.'' I said, ``I've made up my mind.''
  ``What made your mind up?''
  I said, ``John L. Lewis. When he threatened to come into West 
Virginia and campaign against me, that made my decision.''
  She was back here in Arlington in our little five-room house at that 
time, taking care of our young daughters and the dog. We had a dog 
named Billy. That was Billy Byrd I. We now have Billy Byrd II.
  I drove south and got into Beckley in the early morning, called a few 
people in southern West Virginia, called in the press, and I said, 
``I'm going to be a candidate for the Senate. William C. Marland is 
going to be my opponent, and John L. Lewis is going to come into the 
State and support Mr. Marland.''
  Not long thereafter, Senator Matthew M. Neely, a Senator from the 
State of West Virginia, died. Instead of Mr. Marland's running against 
me, he filed for the unexpired seat of Mr. Neely. It was then that Mr. 
Lewis asked me to come downtown and see him at his office. The coal 
miners in West Virginia had been upset at the prospect that Mr. Lewis 
had planned to support Mr. Marland against Robert Byrd.
  So I went downtown to meet with Mr. Lewis at his office. Mr. Lewis 
looked at me with those twinkling blue eyes that seemed to pierce right 
through me, and said, ``Young man, I resented your announcing that I 
would come into West Virginia and support Bill Marland against you. I'm 
in the habit of making my own press announcements.''
  And I said, ``Well, Mr. Lewis, you are a great labor leader. My dad 
was a coal miner. I can remember when there weren't any unions and 
today there are 125,000 coal miners in West Virginia, and they are in 
your union.
 You have been a good labor leader. And the union has been good for the 
coal miners. But when you sent Mr. Howe into West Virginia to tell me 
to run for the House again, not run for the Senate, and that you would 
come into West Virginia and campaign for Marland against me, I resented 
that. And that made up my mind. That made my decision to run for the 
Senate. Mr. Lewis became a strong supporter, and we were friends until 
his death.

  I say this just to say to my friend from Texas that some of us who 
oppose this amendment today do not feel that we are paying off any debt 
to any special-interest group.
  I was opposed by Mr. George Titler, the president of the United Mine 
Workers, district 29, when I ran for the West Virginia State Senate in 
1950. Why? He called me into his office after I was elected to the 
House of Delegates in 1946, before the first meeting of the House of 
Delegates in the session of 1947, and told me he wanted me to vote for 
a certain individual for Speaker of the House of Delegates. I said, I 
can't do it. I'm going to vote for his opponent.
  I told him why. I said, ``In the first place, I have assured this man 
I would vote for him. In the second place, I have been told by those 
who serve in the legislature that he is the better man. I am going to 
vote for him as I promised.'' Whereupon Mr. Titler said, ``When you run 
for reelection, we will remember you.'' Consequently, in 1948, when 
Harry Truman ran for reelection, the leadership of the United Mine 
Workers in that district was opposed to my reelection.
  Here I was, a little old Member of the House of Delegates, running 
for reelection to the House of Delegates in a big election. There were 
many other offices at stake. Yet, the headquarters of the UMWA District 
office concentrated on that poor little old coal miner's son's run for 
reelection to the House of 
[[Page S3725]] Delegates. I won the election. Do you know how I did it? 
I went right down into the local union meetings with my campaign.
  George Titler even visited the Stotesbury local union--of which my 
dad was a member--and urged those miners to vote against me. I sat in 
on the meeting, and when Mr. Titler completed his speech, I spoke to 
the coal miners; I spoke their language. And they gave me their 
overwhelming support.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas speaks of those who invest 
capital. We have to have investors of capital. They have helped to make 
this country a great country. But what is the working man's capital? 
The working man's capital, my old coal miner dad's capital, his only 
capital was his hands and the sweat of his face. God had laid that 
penalty upon man: ``In the sweat of Thy face shalt thou eat bread.''
  There is nothing more noble than honest toil. And so it is, that I 
stand today against this amendment. Intimidation works two ways. No 
longer is the coal miner intimidated. No longer is he driven as with a 
lash. ``Clean up your place; if you don't, there is somebody else 
waiting for your job.'' No longer does the coal miner have to buy at 
the company store.
  Something can be said, of course, pro and con, about almost 
everything. I have never been ruled by any union. They know that. I 
have never worn any man's collar but my own--none. The Governor of West 
Virginia once asked me to get off the Democratic ticket. I said no.
  I could tell the Senator from Texas many stories, I think, which 
would perhaps delight him because I stood up against the top leadership 
in the union, but the rank and file coal miner stood with Robert C. 
Byrd. They knew I was their friend. I was their friend then. I will 
always be their friend.
    
    
  The Senator may very well remember an occasion when I offered an 
amendment here to help the coal miners and fought hard for it. I went 
to the offices of Republicans and Democrats in the interest of my coal 
miners amendment. The then majority leader, Mr. Mitchell, was against 
me. The then minority leader, Mr. Dole, was against me. The President, 
Mr. Bush, was against me. I had the battle won until right there in the 
well of the Senate, the joint leadership peeled off three votes that 
had looked me in the eye and said they would vote for my amendment.
  Well, that was pretty tough to lose, but I got up off the carpet, 
dusted myself off and, magnanimous in defeat, said, ``I lost. Let's go 
on to the next one.''
  I say to my friend from Texas that I have faced intimidation 
personally, and I have seen the coal miners and other workers of this 
country face intimidation when the only weapon that they had was the 
union--the only weapon they had with which to protect their rights. And 
so I stand against the amendment.
  I do not speak evil of those who support the amendment. We have 
different viewpoints around here. But these are not ``greedy special 
interests,'' not the people I represent. They are not greedy special 
interests, the workers in West Virginia.
  The Senator may wish to comment while I have the floor. I will be 
glad to hear what he has to say.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I am always educated when I 
listen to the great former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
and I think he has given us a great lecture this afternoon.
  I appreciate him yielding because I have to go back for an 
appointment, but I wanted to make a point. Everything that the Senator 
has said today I agree with. There was a time in this country where 
power was vested too greatly in the hands of business, and it created a 
distortion in the marketplace. That needed to change, and we changed 
it. Now, some people did escape it. I am looking at one of those 
people, a great testament to the fact that America works. Robert C. 
Byrd is a great testament to the fact that America is a great country 
and a land of opportunity.
  My point, Mr. President, is that you can go beyond the point of 
having a fair balance. It is one thing to guarantee the rights of 
people to strike, to be a member of a union and give them the ability 
to go to the employer and say these are things we demand or we will 
withhold our labor. But once you reach the point where you can say to 
the employer, not only will we withhold our labor but we will have 
Congress, or in this case the President using Executive power, prevent 
you from hiring anybody else, that puts us in a similar position today 
that we were in during the era of which the Senator speaks--only this 
time it is those who provide the jobs having their rights denied.
  I am concerned that we are going too far in strengthening the rights 
of labor as compared to the rights of people who invest their money.
  I am concerned that we are going to have a rash of strikes, and we 
are going to initiate labor unrest. Since the short period after World 
War II, where we had labor unrest for good reason--we had held wages 
back; prices had risen in the war--we have had relative stability.
  I am concerned that if we take away the rights of the employer to 
hire a replacement worker or replacement workers when the union will 
not come back to work, that we will go to the opposite extreme from 
that the Senator spoke of. And I simply say that you can go too far in 
the direction of management, as the law did in the 1930's, but I think 
you can go too far in the direction of labor, as I believe this 
Executive order does.
  So, with profound respect for everything that the Senator is saying, 
I think the President's Executive order was wrong.
  Obviously this is a free society. This is the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. And one of the reasons it is, is because the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia is a Member. But this is an 
issue where I think the President is wrong and I believe that this is a 
case of promoting the interests of one special interest--and it is a 
special interest. Just as business is a special interest, so is labor. 
I think the President is going too far. I think it hurts the country. 
That is why I am in support of the amendment.
  It is not to say that I would ever go back; and I hope, had I served 
when the Senator served, that on many of those issues we might have 
been on the same side. But today I do not think anybody can argue that 
labor lacks rights. It is a question of what are the legitimate rights 
of the people who invest their own money, who create jobs.
  It is the balance of the two that I seek, and I believe this goes 
beyond that delicate balance.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding. I am not opposing the question, 
and it is very generous of him, as he always is.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the Senator's viewpoint. I respect 
every Senator's viewpoint, here.
  I, too, seek a balancing of the interests. And I think that is what 
we are doing in opposing this amendment. As I understand the amendment, 
it speaks of lawful--lawful strikes. I think the strikes we are talking 
about are those that are lawful strikes. I think we are just going in 
the opposite direction if we support this amendment.
  This amendment prevents any funds appropriated in fiscal year 1995 
from being used to ``implement, administer, or enforce any Executive 
order, or other rule, regulation, or order, that limits, restricts, or 
otherwise affects the ability of any existing or potential Federal 
contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to hire permanent replacements for 
lawfully striking workers.'' Obviously, if it is unlawful that puts a 
different color on it, a different face on it. Mr. President, the 
ultimate tool and the legal right of an American worker under 
collective bargaining, the right to strike, should not become the right 
to be fired. It should not become the right to be fired.
  President Clinton signed an Executive order that allows the Secretary 
of Labor to terminate for convenience any Federal contract with a firm 
that permanently replaces lawfully striking workers. So I emphasize 
again the word ``lawfully.'' President Clinton's order also allows the 
Secretary of Labor to debar contractors that have permanently replaced 
lawfully striking workers, thereby making the contractor ineligible to 
receive Government contracts until the labor dispute that sparked the 
strike is resolved. This order will affect some 28,000 companies that 
receive 90 percent of Federal contract dollars. In signing this order, 
the 
[[Page S3726]] President has thrown his support, and the protection of 
the Federal Government, behind the principle that American workers can 
employ every facet of collective bargaining, including the right to 
strike, in their efforts to resolve labor disputes. The amendment we 
are considering today in my judgment would destroy that protection.
  In recent years, the right to lawfully strike has more and more 
become the reason to be fired, or to be displaced by permanent 
replacement workers. Being replaced by temporary replacement workers is 
one thing. But being replaced by permanent replacement workers is quite 
another.
 The ability of companies to easily hire permanent replacement workers 
for employees lawfully engaged in a strike over proposed changes in the 
terms of their employment undermines the incentive of companies to 
negotiate the speedy resolution of labor-management conflicts. I note 
that, in recent years, changes in the terms of employment are just as 
likely to be decreases in compensation levels or health benefits to 
workers, rather than increases. American workers are being asked to do 
more and more for less and less, or with fewer and fewer workers, than 
ever before. In a hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources in the last Congress, Mr. Jerry Jasinowski, 
president of the National Association of Manufacturers, testified that 
as a result of increased global competition, additional costs must 
often be passed back to workers in the form of ``lower compensation or 
lower employment.'' Strikes may often be the last resort for employee 
groups that have been squeezed hard by this process.

  Proponents of this amendment have suggested in the past that 
legislation that would protect the return to work of American workers 
engaged in a lawful strike would drive jobs out of America and dampen 
economic growth. This is a scare tactic, plain and simple. American 
jobs have already been moving out of the United States. They are 
leaving our shores for a variety of reasons--lower production costs due 
to cheaper labor, greater international use of child labor, lax 
environmental and worker safety standards, Government subsidies, and 
easy or even preferential access to the U.S. market from abroad. In 
some overseas locations, workers have no collective bargaining rights--
none. Just like the situations that were prevalent back in the coal 
fields when I was a boy, when miners could be intimidated or cowed into 
accepting wages and working conditions which would be unthinkable 
today. And those conditions are prevalent overseas in may countries. 
These would be unthinkable today in these United States. Just as those 
conditions back in the hollows and hills of West Virginia today would 
be unthinkable. They were unthinkable then, but who was there to 
champion the rights of the hard-working people who had to go down into 
the bowels of the Earth and labor with their hands and in the sweat of 
their face earn a crust of bread for their children?
  All of these factors reduce costs for companies moving off of U.S. 
shores, and increase their profits. But what is good for profits is not 
always good for the human beings who do the work.
 Millions of men and women in this country have only the capital of 
their bare hands, a strong back, a strong neck. They will not go back 
to the days when that strong back felt the lash of intimidation and the 
threat: ``Clean up your place before you leave. There is someone else 
waiting for your job.''

  I do not believe that the United States should lower its safety and 
environmental standards, or promulgate Third-World working conditions, 
in order to compete on this kind of a playing field. Historically, 
unions and collective bargaining have served to contain the abuses of 
owners and management. Unions and collective bargaining have also 
worked historically to improve conditions for large numbers of working 
people previously employed in the sweatshops, in the shipyards.
  Try riveting. Try welding. Try the job of being a shipfitter in the 
shipyards in Baltimore when the cold winds whip across the bay and 
freeze the vapor of your breath when it hits your eyelashes. I can hear 
those rivets in my dreams. I know what it is to be a worker, to have to 
work with my hands. There is nothing dishonorable about it. The Bible 
says, ``The laborer is worthy of his hire.''
  Throughout the years, unions have helped to ensure fair and equitable 
treatment for employees, and these standards have carried through to 
nonunion workers as well. They have benefited likewise. Now, unions 
must strive to protect the jobs, the health benefits, the retirement 
packages, and compensation levels of employees from excessive 
devaluation in the name of competitiveness, downsizing, or 
restructuring.
  While I agree that the United States must work to compete more 
effectively in global markets, and that restructuring the economic 
relations among the United States and her trading partners may be 
essential to improving and expanding trade, I do not believe that we 
should enter into any agreement, or support any action, that does not 
benefit both the American industries and American workers.
  I voted against the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I voted 
against the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
in part because these agreements will likely lead, in this Senator's 
judgment, to the displacement of many American workers--workers 
unlikely to have the skills required to easily secure other employment. 
Such displaced workers only add to burdens we already face in terms of 
meeting the challenges of an increasingly competitive international 
economy, and also mean a continued decline in the basic standard of 
living for millions of Americans and their children.
  Undermining whatever support exists for striking workers to return to 
their jobs upon the successful conclusion of negotiations further 
encourages companies to hire permanent replacement workers at the 
lowest wage that the market will bear. Strikes, it is important to 
note, are the absolute last resort of working men and women in some 
situations. A strike is not a desirable consequence for labor or 
management. Striking workers are faced with a considerable loss of 
income for an undetermined period of time.
  I know. I once was a small businessman; a small, small businessman; 
very small; very small. I had a little grocery store in Sophia, WV. 
There was a big coal mining strike in West Virginia in the beginning of 
the 1950's. The strike lasted several months. Some of the coal miners 
could not get food for their children. They could not get credit at the 
company store. So they came to Robert Byrd's little jot'em down store.
  They came to the little jot'em down store, the Robert C. Byrd grocery 
store in Sophia. I let them have food on credit. They were on strike. 
It was a long strike. But I let them have whatever I had in the 
shelves. I did not have a lot. But it saw some of them through--the 
coal miners in Raleigh County.
  In 1952, I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. I attended a 
Democratic rally one night. And the president of the United Mine 
Workers District, headquartered in Charleston, the State capital, was 
speaking at the rally.
  There were three candidates for Governor. And, of course, that meant 
three factions. And I did not want to align myself with any faction. I 
wanted to be liked by everybody. I wanted everybody to be for me. I 
wanted the votes of all.
  UMWA District President Bill Blizzard, one of those fire-eating, 
union leaders in the old days, was speaking when I arrived at the rally 
a bit late. He pointed his finger at me and said, ``Whether they are a 
candidate for constable or for Congress''--he pointed his finger right 
at me. I was a candidate for Congress--``if they do not vote for our 
candidate for Governor, don't you coal miners vote for them.''
  I was not welcome at the rally. The master of ceremonies happened to 
be a young attorney who, after Mr. Blizzard had finished speaking, 
said, ``Now we will have the benediction, and after the benediction go 
over into the other room of the schoolhouse and get yourself some ice 
cream and cakes and refreshments.''
  About that time, an old, grizzled coal miner stood up in the back of 
the room, and said, ``We want to hear Byrd.'' And this enterprising 
young lawyer said, ``You can hear Byrd some other time. We are going to 
have the 
[[Page S3727]] benediction.'' Well, nobody is going to argue with that. 
Let the preacher give the benediction.
  But then I said to a couple of my friends who were there with me that 
night, ``Go out to the car and get my fiddle.'' I started playing a few 
tunes and the whole crowd came back in with their ice cream and cake 
and sat down. They filled the room.
  I said, ``When you were on strike, you coal miners, when you coal 
miners were on strike, who fed your children? Did Bill Blizzard, the 
United Mine Worker President, feed your children? How many groceries 
did he provide when you were in need? I fed your children. Are you 
going to vote against the man who helped the coal miners when they were 
on strike?'' They answered with a loud ``No!'' The miners gave me a big 
vote in that election, and Bill Blizzard became my supporter and 
friend.
  So I have been a worker in the field myself. I know what it is to 
have my brother-in-law's father killed in a slate fall in the coal 
mines. I know what it is to have the brother-in-law die from 
pneumoconiosis--black lung.
  Workers do sometimes strike for better working conditions, for safer 
working conditions.
  They do not strike ``because they don't want to work.''
  A strike often pits brother against brother, neighbor against 
neighbor, and can tear entire communities apart. However, gutting this 
action of last resort by allowing companies to hire permanent 
replacement workers, as this amendment does, removes the incentive for 
companies to seriously negotiate with their work force.
  Research has shown that strikes involving permanent replacement 
workers last an average of seven times longer than strikes that do not 
involve permanent replacement workers. Strikes involving permanent 
replacements also tend to be more contentious, and can disrupt whole 
communities for long periods. In my own State of West Virginia, a labor 
dispute at Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation was unresolved from November 
1990, until June 1992. This dispute resulted in the hiring of 1,000 new 
workers as permanent employees by the company. The striking workers 
were told that if and when the dispute was resolved, they would not get 
their jobs back. Eventually, contract negotiations resumed and an 
agreement was finally reached that returned union workers to their 
jobs. If it had not been possible to promise these replacement workers 
permanent jobs, efforts to find the replacements might have been 
hindered, giving the company greater incentive to negotiate with the 
union and likely resolving this labor conflict much sooner.
  Proponents have argued that the status quo should remain the status 
quo--that no effort should be made to shore up the eroding ability of 
workers to strike for fair and equitable compensation, health benefits, 
and retirement packages. This argument simply does not recognize the 
changing economic and employment conditions brought about by changes in 
the world economy and by the adoption of recent trade agreements that 
have eroded the income power and options of American workers.
  We must not take actions that would denigrate the inherent dignity of 
work or the noble role of the American worker in the life of this 
Nation. All of us enjoy the fruits of their labor. The sweat of their 
collective brows, the calloused hands, the bent backs, the wrinkled 
faces, and their broken health deserve our gratitude and our utmost 
respect. Where would any of us be without their toil?

     Out on the roads they have gathered, a hundred-thousand men,
     To ask for a hold on life as sure as the wolf's hold in his 
           den.
     Their need lies close to the quick of life as rain to the 
           furrow sown:
     It is as meat to the slender rib, as marrow to the bone.
     They ask but the leave to labor, for a taste of life's 
           delight,
     For a little salt to savor their bread, for houses water-
           tight.

     They ask but the right to labor, and to live by the strength 
           of their hands--
     They who have bodies like knotted oaks, and patience like 
           sea-sands.
     And the right of a man to labor and his right to labor in 
           joy--
     Not all your laws can strangle that right, nor the gates of 
           Hell destroy.
     For it came with the making of man and was kneaded into his 
           bones,
     And it will stand at the last of things on the dust of 
           crumbled thrones.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho and then have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding. I will not use the 5 minutes, but I did want to make a few 
comments in relation to the Kassebaum amendment and what I believe to 
be its importance in this issue that we are debating here on the floor.
    
    
  Mr. President, I will also add to my statement a letter from NFIB 
[National Federation of Independent Business], for in that letter are 
several quotes that I think are extremely valuable to this debate. One 
of those quotes which is important, and I will mention it at this 
moment, as it relates to what our President has just done and the 
meaning of that act as it relates to a balance that we have held in 
labor law now for a good long while. It says:

       This balance of labor's right to strike with management's 
     right to stay in business using temporary or permanent 
     replacement workers during economic strikes has not been 
     challenged by any President since 1935.

  Are the working conditions and are the labor conditions of America 
today so different, have they changed so dramatically since we placed 
quality labor laws on the books of our country since 1935 that our 
President would act as he has acted? I simply do not believe that is 
true.
  What our President has said by this act is, ``Give in or go out of 
business.'' No President has said it that way, nor should they. It is 
unilateral disarmament of employers at the bargaining table. And that 
has never been public policy and it should never be public policy.
  What was then was then; what is now is now. The world has changed 
significantly. And it is important that the laws that still work be 
allowed to work.
  Certainly, the action that was taken by this President is to disallow 
fundamental labor law in this country and the unique balance that has 
been created and held for so many years.
  The amendment to prohibit funds from being used to implement any 
Executive order that bars hiring Federal contractors who hire permanent 
worker replacements is an amendment that should be passed by this 
Congress, and I support it strongly.
  If there had been a pressing need for such an order, why did this 
President not issue it more than 2 years ago? What has changed over the 
course of this President's administration that would cause for this 
destabilizing act to occur when no President has taken this stand for 
35 years? Nothing has happened. That is the answer. So why would he do 
it?
  If the President actually had a clear legal authority to issue such 
an Executive order, why did he not do it earlier?
  Well, he does not have, in our opinion, that legal authority.
  Why, instead, did he put all of his eggs in one basket of striker 
replacement legislation during the last Congress?
  One has to wonder if the answer does not lie more in politics than in 
policy.
  I concur with the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] that the 
President has exceeded his constitutional and legal authority.
  The Executive order flies in the face of 57 years of settled 
employment law as written by Congress, as consistently applied by the 
courts, and as consistently enforced by 10 Presidents and their 
administrations.
  No President has ever launched such a full frontal attack on settled 
Federal laws governing employer-employee relations; on fair and 
flexible bargaining in the work place; on the rights of employers and 
employees to determine their own negotiating behavior on a level 
playing field; and on the Federal Government's role as impartial 
referee, rather than coach and cheerleader for one side.
  This Executive order will be costly to taxpayers, as strikes are 
encouraged and prolonged against contractors 
[[Page S3728]] working on Federal jobs; and to the general public and 
the economy, as the ripple effect of these strikes cause bottlenecks 
elsewhere in the economy, affecting suppliers, subcontractors, 
carriers, and others.
  Like so many other clever schemes that erupt within the Capital 
Beltway, this one will not help workers, it will hurt them; will not 
create jobs, it will destroy them; was designed to court a few elite 
lobbyists, not rank and file workers and their families; will shut the 
door to Federal contracting on many small businesses who will find this 
condition economically impossible to meet.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the NFIB be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            National Federation of


                                          Independent Business

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
     Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kassebaum:  On behalf of the more than 600,000 
     members of National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) 
     I urge your colleagues to support your amendment to H.R. 889, 
     the Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill. The amendment 
     would effectively void the President's Executive Order 
     barring federal contractors from the use of permanent 
     replacement workers.
       Such an Executive Order could increase the taxpayers' cost 
     of federal contracts and would destroy the equality of 
     economic bargaining power between labor and management which 
     has been preserved for 55 years. This balance of labor's 
     right to strike with management's right to stay in business 
     using temporary or permanent replacement workers during 
     economic strikes has not been challenged by any President 
     since 1935.
       In a recent poll, 81% of NFIB members oppose striker 
     replacement legislation. Small business owners view any 
     change in the delicate balance between labor and business as 
     a threat to the livelihood of their business. They believe 
     upsetting this balance will result in the following:
       Increased work disruptions affecting both union and non-
     union businesses;
       A confrontational workplace setting, which will lead to 
     more strikes, diminished competitiveness, and lost 
     productivity;
       Increased strike activity in large companies, which 
     adversely affects small businesses that are located near or 
     contract with the struck company;
       The creation of an unfair union organizing tool; and
       An unbalancing of over 55 years of labor law.
       Small business owners urge your colleagues to support your 
     amendment to H.R. 889. Your vote on passage of the Kassebaum 
     amendment will be considered a Key Small Business Vote for 
     the 104th Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                                   Vice President,
                                   Federal Governmental Relations.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the announcement of an Executive order 
banning the use of replacement workers by Federal contractors disturbs 
me because it appears to circumvent congressional authority to amend 
this Nation's labor laws. Because of this concern, I support the effort 
to prevent the implementation and enforcement of this order. 
Nevertheless, I remain a supporter of legislative attempts that would 
amend the National Labor Relations Act and overturn Supreme Court 
decisions which have weakened what I believe to be the original intent 
of the law--to explicitly protect a worker's economic self-help 
activities through the right to strike.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, all of us here, on both sides of this 
issue, agree that the right to strike is essential to preserving the 
balance of power between labor and management in this country. But that 
right is hollow if, by exercising it, a worker faces the loss of his or 
her job.
  President Clinton has taken the important step of clarifying that in 
this country, as in the rest of the industrial democracies with less 
than a handful of exceptions, workers cannot be fired for exercising 
their legal rights.
  Unfortunately, our attempts to clarify that right through 
legislation, led for years by Senator Metzenbaum, were blocked by 
filibusters, despite clear majorities that favored a ban on striker 
replacements.
  President Clinton's Executive order is needed because Congress has 
been frustrated in its attempts to clear up the current untenable 
situation.
  His action follows established precedent, such as actions by 
President Bush, who, in 1992, issued an Executive order to require 
unionized contractors to post notices in their workplaces informing all 
employees that they could not be required to join a union.
  President Bush also used executive authority to ban unions from using 
for political purposes fees collected that had been collected from 
union members who disagreed with union policy positions.
  As a Republican Congressman said at the time, this was an ``effort by 
the President to do something through Executive order that he cannot 
get Congress to do.''
  So let's not be distracted by procedural arguments. President Clinton 
was well within his authority and established precedent when he issued 
his Executive order. Let's stick to the substance of this issue, an 
issue that goes to the fundamental rights of workers, and to the very 
foundations of labor-management relations in this country.
  Mr. President, before the New Deal, striking workers had no legal 
protection against being fired. To provide legal protection for the 
right to strike, Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the 
National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Without it, hostile, 
confrontational, and often violent labor-management relations would 
have persisted.
  But in 1938, a Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the right to 
strike offered an unsolicited comment that established a legal basis 
for hiring
 permanent replacements for striking workers.

  This language has remained a logical and legal anomaly ever since. In 
law schools across the country, law professors have struggled in vain 
to distinguish between firing and permanently replacing striking 
workers.
  For many years, this problem was, in fact, academic; it had little 
application in the real world.
  But for the last decade and more, the issue has become all too real 
for thousands of workers who have lost their jobs by exercising what 
the vast majority of Americans believe should be their right under the 
law.
  The permanent replacement of striking workers has become an all too 
common tactic in labor-management disputes. In a survey last year, 25 
percent of employers said that they would hire or consider hiring 
permanent replacements, in response to a strike. A recent GAO report 
found that employers hire or threaten to hire permanent replacements in 
one of every three strikes.
  Today, the threat of permanent replacement calls into question the 
fundamental right to strike, upsets the balance of power between 
workers and management, and introduces an unnecessary source of 
friction and hostility into labor relations.
  We have evidence that strikes in which permanent replacement workers 
are hired are longer, and more heated, than those in which that tactic 
is not used.
  Mr. President, I know that there is much emotion on both sides of 
this issue, and I would like my colleagues who disagree with me to 
understand that I do not take their concerns lightly. Let me address a 
few of those concerns now.
  We have heard in recent debate that President Clinton's Executive 
order will upset the balance of power between labor and management and 
make strikes more likely as a result. This argument is not only 
inaccurate, Mr. President, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of 
the costs of a strike to workers and their families.
  First, it is the increasing use of striker replacements that has 
upset the traditional balance of power between workers and employers. 
The President has acted to remove this source of much of the hostility 
and divisiveness that now attends labor-management relations.
  Second, Mr. President, under no circumstance is a strike an easy 
option for workers who will suffer the loss of wages, health benefits, 
savings, and even major assets such as cars and homes to undertake a 
strike with no knowledge of what the outcome will be.
  We have also heard, Mr. President, that without the threat of hiring 
permanent replacements, employers will be powerless in the face of 
union demands. The fact of the matter is that employers did quite well 
for over four decades, by stockpiling inventories, 
[[Page S3729]] hiring temporary replacements, transferring work, and by 
other tactics, without recourse to permanent replacement workers.
  As we seek new ways to encourage labor-management cooperation, to 
recognize the shared goals of American workers and employers in a 
changing global economy, a first step ought to be to eliminate the 
unnecessary, inflammatory practice of permanently replacing strikers.
  Mr. President, simple fairness demands it. And simple fairness 
demands that we defeat this attempt to cut out the funding for 
President Clinton's Executive order. I urge my colleagues to vote with 
me to put this relic of another era of labor-management relations 
behind us.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment by the 
Senator from Kansas. Her amendment, if adopted, would prevent the 
expenditure of funds by the Labor Department to carry out the Executive 
order President Clinton signed yesterday.
  The Executive order is entitled ``Ensuring the Economical and 
Efficient Administration and Completion of Federal Government 
Contracts.'' Simply put, this order would prevent Federal agencies from 
contracting with companies that permanently replace striking workers.
  Current law protects workers who strike for unfair labor practices, 
but allows those who strike for economic reasons to be permanently 
replaced--a curious synonym for being fired.
  Congress has attempted to legislatively rectify this inequity. Time 
after time, however, a minority of our colleagues has frustrated the 
will of the majority, often even preventing the Senate from debating 
the matter. In the last 3 years, the Senate has been forced to vote to 
invoke cloture on the bill four different times. Each time, despite 
garnering a majority necessary to pass the bill, a minority has ruled 
the day and frustrated the will of that majority: June 11, 1992, 
cloture failed 41 to 55; June 16, 1992, cloture failed 42 to 57; July 
12, 1994, cloture failed 47 to 53; and July 13, 1994, cloture failed 46 
to 53. Now, Mr. President, the opponents complain that the President is 
thwarting the will of Congress.
  Whenever striker replacement legislation has come before us in the 
past, I have heard from Rhode Islanders with views on both sides of the 
issue. Many business people have told me of their fear of a tilt in the 
balance of power in labor-management relations. They have discussed 
their concern with being faced with one of two choices: agree to union 
economic demands or be forced out of business. One gentleman even 
remarked that he considered employee demands for increased wages to be 
blackmail.
  I view striker replacement legislation and this Executive order 
differently. The legislation would restore a proper balance of power 
between employees and employers. Employees would have the right to 
strike for increased wages and management would have the right to hire 
replacement workers on a temporary basis. This Executive order tells 
businesses that if they want to do business with the Federal 
Government, they must respect the legal rights of working men and women 
or look elsewhere for business.
  I look forward to a full debate on this matter and urge my colleagues 
to reject this amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
Senator Kassebaum's amendment that effectively vetoes President 
Clinton's Executive order that prevents striker replacement from being 
used by Federal contractors.
  I am a blue collar Senator. I support the right to strike. I can't 
support Solidarity's right to strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and not 
support the rights of American unions to strike here at home.
  The President's Executive order protects the right of Americans to 
strike by prohibiting Government contractors who make their profit off 
the Federal funds from permanently replacing striking employees. The 
Executive order will also force these managers to deal with the issues 
raised in the strike, not just replace workers who protest as a last 
resort. It will restore basic fairness to the bargaining process.
  Strikers can mean economic ruin for both the workers and the company 
they rely on for work. There must also be equal pressure on both the 
workers and the company to compromise if a strike does occur.
  I believe that allowing management the threat of replacing workers 
gives them an unfair advantage at the bargaining table. If strikers can 
be permanently replaced, there is considerable less pressure on 
businesses to address the underlying problem and settle with their 
workers. However, if businesses can hire only temporary replacements 
and workers have to face the social economic disruption of a strike, 
the pressure remains on both sides to work out their differences.
  It's a matter of basic fairness to American workers. It ensures 
fairness in resolving labor disputes. My roots are in blue collar 
neighborhoods--this goes to my basic values.
  That is why I strongly oppose Senator Kassebaum's amendment. This 
amendment vetoes my values. I urge my colleagues to join me opposing 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I know this is a very contentious issue, 
and I do not question anybody's motivations on either side.
  I have a deep-rooted feeling and philosophy--and I have voted on this 
many times--that people have a fundamental right to withhold their 
labor--that is, to strike--if they feel it is the only way they can 
make their point. I do not know what other alternatives labor has in 
certain cases when the process breaks down.
  I support the right to strike. It is fundamental. I believe that all 
of my colleagues feel that way. Therefore, if one says that it is an 
inherent, innate right for the citizens of our country, then I have to 
ask the question: is it a myth, that, on the one hand we say you have 
the right to strike, but, on the other hand we say if you exercise that 
right, you will lose your job permanently? That appears to me to be an 
inconsistency.
  I can understand if we were to set up conditions. I can understand if 
we said that there would be a period of time in certain industries, and 
if there was a certain strike in an industry that in terms of the 
health and welfare of the people that this simply could not be 
tolerated. I understand there are laws in various States--in my State--
that say if you are a municipal employee and strike, you can lose your 
job, benefits and procedures. But that is not what we are talking 
about. What we are talking about is taking people and just saying, ``If 
you strike, we will replace you permanently.'' I believe that flies in 
the face of what we are about as a nation.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to, with great reluctance, make 
a motion to table the amendment that is before the Senate and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, had I asked for the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table 
amendment No. 331.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     [[Page S3730]] Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Simpson
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 331) was 
rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the question is on what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I have stated earlier, many of us want 
to get about the business of the appropriations bill. But it has been 
the decision of the Senator from Kansas to offer an amendment that 
affects the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of workers in this 
country.
  As I stated earlier in the day, it is amazing to me that this 
institution has debated mainly two issues. One has been unfunded 
mandates, and the second is the balanced budget amendment. And now the 
first issue that comes before us affecting working people is to limit 
their rights and liberties in the workplace. If this amendment were to 
be passed tonight, millions of workers would be affected by it. Their 
working conditions would not be enhanced. Their wages would not be 
increased.
  The well being of the children of those workers will not be enhanced. 
Their parents will not have a greater assurance of where we are going 
and where the Contract With America is going.
  So it is an extraordinary fact that the first measure before us 
affecting working families is to diminish their rights and interests.
  I am quite prepared to go forward, as we did earlier, with debate 
about the Executive order and its importance to working families. We 
have no interest in prolonging consideration of the underlying bill. 
But we do believe that this is a matter of considerable importance, and 
there are Senators who want to be heard.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak on a matter separate and apart from the existing bill for a 
period of about 7 or 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________