[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3781-S3799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 331

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kassebaum 
striker replacement amendment. I strongly support the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Kansas. The Executive order is one 
more example of the President's bypassing the legislative process to 
accomplish his own agenda just as he did with the Mexican bailout which 
has been the subject of a Banking Committee hearing this morning and it 
is proving to be a monetary Vietnam.
  More importantly, this amendment is essential to overturn an 
Executive order which would unilaterally resurrect archaic labor 
policies that undermine our national effort to move our economy 
successfully into the competitive international markets of the 21st 
century.
  The President's action places at risk the integrity of our entire 
system of collective bargaining which is based on a delicate balance of 
the rights of employees to withhold their labor and the right of 
management to continue business operations during a strike. The 
President suggests that the ban on permanent replacement workers by 
businesses engaged in Federal contracts will lead to the more efficient 
performance of such contracts. This is ridiculous and is totally wrong. 
I am convinced that by upsetting the balance between labor and 
management, the entire system of collective bargaining will break down 
resulting in more strikes, business bankruptcies, and fewer jobs.
  While this Executive order is limited to Federal contracts, the 
intent of the President and the opponents of this amendment is clear. 
They seek to return this country to labor policies which history has 
rejected as proven failures over and over. This Executive order 
embodies a labor policy completely at odds with current realities in 
the international marketplace.
  It is contrary to the interests of working Americans striving for 
success in a global economy where free trade is the order of the day. 
It panders to special union interests who seek to protect their own 
privileged position at the expense of other working people. And it is a 
cynical attempt to delay congressional consideration of the priorities 
which voters last November clearly indicated they were most interested 
in.
  The Congress has on many occasions debated the merits of banning 
permanent replacement workers. The most recent occasion was during the 
last Congress when the administration's proposal to overturn a 60-year 
interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act was defeated by a 
Congress controlled by the President's own party.
  Last week, the President actively fought against the balanced budget 
amendment. This week he issues an Executive order on striker 
replacement knowing that it will be used by supporters to halt 
congressional consideration of legislation which the administration 
opposes.
  In November the voters spoke unmistakably about their expectations 
for the 104th Congress. In my opinion during the first 100 days of this 
Congress the electorate does not expect us to devote our time and 
energies to long-settled issues which were recently revisited and 
reaffirmed.
  My colleague from Kansas has offered a reasonable proposal limited to 
this fiscal year. I believe that at some point during this Congress we 
should consider legislation which would permanently nullify the 
President's Executive order. At a later date I will welcome a full 
debate on striker replacement with those who support the President's 
action, but not at this time.
  I encourage opponents of this amendment to allow the Senate to 
continue with our consideration of the defense supplemental 
appropriations and then proceed with other important issues such as the 
line-item veto, welfare reform, product liability reform, tort reform, 
and a regulatory moratorium.
  These are the issues that last November voters expected us to 
consider at this time, I think, and it is time we get on with 
considering them at a rapid rate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon 
to address some of the issues in question that have been raised by the 
Kassebaum amendment and hopefully resolve the questions that have been 
raised so that we will be able to move beyond the Kassebaum amendment 
to address the underlying issue which is the appropriations which are 
necessary for our national defense and national security.
  This particular proposal is not really appropriate on this particular 
measure. But it has been the desire of a number of our Members to 
continue the debate and discussion on the measure rather than consider 
the urgency of the underlying proposal.
  So I welcome the chance to respond to a number of the questions that 
have been raised including the questions that have been raised by my 
friend from North Carolina in his own comments.
  The argument we hear over and over is the President is changing the 
law, that Congress gave employers the rights to use permanent 
replacements and the President is taking away that right. Let us look a 
little closer at this argument.
  In the first place, Congress never gave employers the right to use 
permanent replacements. The National Labor Relations Act never uses the 
term and it was not in the act of 1935, and it is not there today. What 
Congress did say was very different. Section 13 states very plainly:

       Nothing in this act, except as specifically provided 
     herein, shall be construed so as to either interfere with, or 
     impede, or in any way diminish the right to strike, or to 
     affect the limitations or qualifications on that right.

  But nevertheless it is true that employers can use permanent 
replacements. If they did not get that right from Congress, where did 
it come from? The answer, of course, is the Supreme Court's decision in 
the 1938 case of Mackay Radio where the Court interpreted the act to 
allow the use of permanent replacements despite the statute's 
proscription against diminishing the right to strike. But even Mackay 
did not give employers the right to use permanent replacements. It 
merely said the National Labor Relations Act does not prohibit their 
use.
  The Court said that the powers of the National Labor Relations Board 
and the act's legal machinery could not be used to stop employers from 
using permanent replacements. Has President Clinton changed that law or 
attempted to change it? No, he has not. Any Senator who will take the 
time to read the Executive order will see that he has not. It is still 
legal under the National Labor Relations Act to use permanent 
replacements.
  There is no back pay remedy in the Executive order for workers whose 
jobs 
[[Page S3782]] are taken from them. There is no power granted to the 
National Labor Relations Board to go to the court and get an order 
blocking the employer's use of permanent replacements. Those are the 
powers and remedies the Congress debated in the last Congress when we 
considered S. 55, not the President's power to administer Federal 
contracts. President Clinton has not given the National Labor Relations 
Board any of the powers that Congress debated in S. 55 nor has he given 
the Board any new powers at all.
  So to say the Executive order is an end run around the Congress is 
untrue. The Congress never debated whether the President should 
exercise his procurement powers to prevent the kind of lengthy and 
bitter strikes that occur when Federal contractors use permanent 
replacements. We have never debated whether it makes sense, as I 
believe it does, for the President to prevent situations from occurring 
where unusually lengthy strikes led us to long periods where critical 
products such as fighter jet engines or missile guidance systems are 
produced entirely by any untrained workers brought in as permanent 
replacements for 20- or 30-year skilled veterans. I believe it does not 
make sense for the President to do that. It does make sense for the 
President to do what he can to protect the Government's procurement 
process from that sort of situation.
  But no one should doubt that he has the power to do so. This power 
may be inherent in the Executive. But in any case, Congress has given 
the President this authority through the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act.
  (Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Now, Senator Kassebaum might want to take that power 
away, but there is no end run here. Congress gave the power, gave the 
President the authority to oversee contracting by the Federal agencies 
and Executive Order 12954, is an exercise of that authority.
  I hope, Mr. President, that over the period of the weekend our 
Members will have a chance to review the Department of Justice's legal 
memoranda supporting that authority.
  I ask unanimous consent that that memorandum be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
     Memorandum for Janet Reno, Attorney General.
     From: Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General.
     Re: Executive Order No. 12954, entitled ``Ensuring the 
         Economical and Efficient Administration and Completion of 
         Federal Government Contracts''.
       On March 6, 1995, we issued a memorandum approving as to 
     form and legality a proposed executive order entitled, 
     ``Ensuring the Economical and Efficient Administration of 
     Federal Government Contracts.'' On March 8, 1995 the 
     President signed the proposed directive, making it Executive 
     Order No. 12954. This memorandum records the basis for our 
     prior conclusion that the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act vests the President with authority to issue 
     Executive Order No. 12954 in light of his finding that it 
     will promote economy and efficiency in government 
     procurement.


                                   I

       Executive Order No. 12954 establishes a mechanism designed 
     to ensure economy and efficiency in government procurement 
     involving contractors that permanently replace lawfully 
     striking workers. After a preamble that makes and discusses 
     various findings and ultimately concludes that Executive 
     Order No. 12954 will promote economy and efficiency in 
     government procurement, the order declares that ``[i]t is the 
     policy of the Executive branch in procuring goods and 
     services that, to ensure the economical and efficient 
     administration and completion of Federal Government 
     contracts, contracting agencies shall not contract with 
     employers that permanently replace lawfully striking 
     employees.'' Exec. Order No. 12954, Sec. 1. The order makes 
     the Secretary of Labor (``Secretary'') responsible for its 
     enforcement. Id. Sec. 6. Specifically, the Secretary is 
     authorized to investigate and hold hearings to determine 
     whether ``an organizational unit of a federal contractor'' 
     has permanently replaced lawfully striking employees either 
     on the Secretary's own initiative or upon receiving 
     ``complaints by employees'' that allege such permanent 
     replacement. Id. Sec. 2.
       If the Secretary determines that a contractor has 
     permanently replaced lawfully striking employees, the 
     Secretary is directed to exercise either or both of two 
     options. First, the Secretary may make a finding that all 
     contracts between the government and that contractor should 
     be terminated for convenience. Id. Sec. 3. The Secretary's 
     decision whether to issue such a finding is to be exercised 
     to advance the government's economy and efficiency interests 
     as set forth in section 1. Id. Sec. 1 (``All discretion under 
     this Executive order shall be exercised consistent with this 
     policy.'') The Secretary is then to transmit the finding to 
     the heads of all departments and agencies that have contracts 
     with the contractor.\1\ Each such agency head is to terminate 
     any contracts that the Secretary has designated for 
     termination, unless the agency head formally and in writing 
     objects to the Secretary's finding. Id. Sec. 3. An agency 
     head's discretion to object is also limited to promoting the 
     purpose of economy and efficiency as set forth in the policy 
     articulated in section 1.
     \1\Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Secretary's second option is debarment. If the 
     Secretary determines that a contractor has permanently 
     replaced lawfully striking employees, the Secretary is to 
     place the contractor on the debarment list until the labor 
     dispute has been resolved, unless the Secretary determines 
     that debarment would impede economy and efficiency in 
     procurement. The effect of this action is that no agency head 
     may enter into a contract with a contractor on the debarment 
     list unless the agency head finds compelling reasons for 
     doing so. Id. Sec. 4.
       Executive Order No. 12954, taken as a whole, sets forth a 
     mechanism that closely ties its operative procedures--
     termination and debarment--to the pursuit of economy and 
     efficiency. The President has made a finding that, as a 
     general matter, economy and efficiency in procurement are 
     advanced by contracting with employers that do not 
     permanently replace lawfully striking employees. 
     Additionally, the President has provided for a case-by-case 
     determination that his finding is justified on the peculiar 
     facts and circumstances of each specific case before any 
     action to effectuate the President's finding is undertaken.


                                   ii

       The Supreme Court has instructed that ``[t]he President's 
     power, if any, to issue [an] order must stem either from an 
     act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'' Youngstown 
     Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). The 
     President's authority to issue Executive Order No. 12954 is 
     statutory; specifically, the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (``FPASA''). That statute 
     was enacted ``to provide for the Government an economical and 
     efficient system for . . . procurement and supply.'' 40 
     U.S.C. Sec. 471. The FPASA expressly grants the President 
     authority to effectuate this purpose,
      ``The President may prescribe such policies and directives, 
     not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as he 
     shall deem necessary to effectuate the provisions of said 
     Act, which policies and directives shall govern the 
     Administrator [of General Services] and executive agencies 
     in carrying out their respective functions hereunder.'' 
     Id. Sec. 486(a). An executive order issued pursuant to 
     this authorization is valid if (a) ``the President acted 
     `to effectuate the provisions' of the FPASA,'' and (b) the 
     President's ``action was `not inconsistent with' any 
     specific provision of the Act.'' American Fed'n of Gov't 
     Employees v. Carmen, 669 F.2d 815, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1981) 
     (quoting 40 U.S.C. Sec. 486(a)). We are not aware of any 
     specific provision of the FPASA that is inconsistent with 
     Executive Order No. 12954. Therefore, we turn to the 
     question whether the President acted to effectuate the 
     purposes of the FPASA.
       Every court to consider the question has concluded that 
     Sec. 486(a) grants the President a broad scope of authority. 
     In the leading case on the subject, the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en 
     banc, addressed the question of the scope of the President's 
     authority under the FPASA, and Sec. 486(a) in particular. See 
     AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc), cert. 
     denied, 443 U.S. 915 (1979). A plausible argument that the 
     FPASA granted the President only narrowly limited authority 
     was advanced and rejected. See id. at 799-800 (MacKinnon, J., 
     dissenting). After an extensive review of the legislative 
     history of that provision, the court held that the FPASA, 
     through Sec. 486(a), was intended to give the President 
     ``broad-ranging authority'' to issue orders designed to 
     promote ``economy'' and ``efficiency'' in government 
     procurement. Id. at 787-89. The court emphasized that 
     ```[e]conomy' and `efficiency' are not narrow terms; they 
     encompass those factors like price, quality, suitability, and 
     availability of goods or services that are involved in all 
     acquisition decisions.'' Id. at 789; see also Peter E. Quint, 
     The Separation of Powers under Carter, 62 Tex. L. Rev. 786, 
     792-93 (1984) (although Sec. 486(a) ``easily could be read as 
     authorizing the President to do little more than issue 
     relatively modest housekeeping regulations relating to 
     procurement practice * * *. The Kahn court found 
     congressional authorization of sweeping presidential power * 
     * *.''); Peter Raven-Hansen, Making Agencies Follow Orders; 
     Judicial Review of Agency Violations of Executive Order 
     12,291, 1983 Duke L.J. 285, 333, n.266; Jody S. Fink, Notes 
     on Presidential Foreign Policy Powers (Part II), 11 Hofstra 
     L. Rev. 773, 790-91 n.132 (1983) (characterizing Kahn as 
     reading Sec. 486(a) to grant President ``virtually 
     unlimited'' authority).
       The court then concluded that a presidential directive 
     issued pursuant to Sec. 486(a) is authorized as long as there 
     is a ``sufficiently close nexus'' between the order and the 
     criteria of economy and efficiency. Kahn, 618 
     [[Page S3783]] F.2d at 792. Although the opinion does not 
     include a definitive statement of what constitutes such a 
     nexus, the best reading is that a sufficiently close nexus 
     exists when the President's order is ``reasonably related'' 
     to the ends of economy and efficiency. See id. at 793, n.49; 
     Harold H. Bruff, Judicial Review and the President's 
     Statutory Powers, 68 Va. L. Rev. 1, 51 (1982) (``in AFL-CIO 
     v. Kahn, the court stated an appropriate standard for 
     reviewing the basis of a presidential action--that it be 
     `reasonably related' to statutory policies'') (footnote 
     omitted).
       As one commentator has asserted, under Kahn, the President 
     need not demonstrate that an order ``would infallibly promote 
     efficiency, merely that it [is] plausible to suppose this.'' 
     Alan Hyde, Beyond Collective Bargaining: The Politicization 
     of Labor Relations under Government Contract, 1982 Wis. L. 
     Rev. 1, 26. In our view a more exacting standard would invade 
     the ``broad-ranging'' authority that the court held the 
     statute was intended to confer upon the President. See Kahn, 
     618 F.2d at 787-89. In addition, a stricter standard would 
     undermine the great deference that is due presidential 
     factual and policy determinations that Congress has vested in 
     the President. See, e.g., Henry P. Monaghan, Stare Decisis 
     and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 723, 738 
     (1988).\2\
       We have no doubt, for example, that Sec. 486(a) grants the 
     President authority to issue a directive that prohibits 
     executive agencies from entering into contracts with 
     contractors who use a particular machine that the President 
     has deemed less reliable than others that are available. 
     Contractors that use the less reliable machines are less 
     likely to deliver quality goods or to produce their goods in 
     a timely manner. We see no distinction between this 
     hypothetical order in which the President prohibits 
     procurement from contractors that use machines that he deems 
     unreliable and the one the President has actually issued, 
     which would bar procurement with contractors that use labor 
     relations techniques that the President deems to be generally 
     unreliable, especially when the Secretary of Labor and the 
     contracting agency head each confirm the validity of that 
     generalization in each specific case.
       The preamble of Executive Order No. 12954 sets forth the 
     President's findings that the state of labor-management 
     relations affects the cost, quality, and timely availability 
     of goods and services. The order also announces his finding 
     that the government's procurement interests in cost, quality, 
     and timely availability are best secured by contracting with 
     those entities that have ``stable relationships with their 
     employees'' and that ``[a]n important aspect of a stable 
     collective bargaining relationship is the balance between 
     allowing businesses to operate during a strike and preserving 
     worker rights.'' The President has concluded that ``[t]his 
     balance is disrupted when permanent replacement employees are 
     hired.'' In establishing the policy ordinarily\3\ to contract 
     with contractors that do not hire permanent replacement 
     workers, the President has found that he will advance the 
     government's procurement interests in cost, quality, and 
     timely availability of goods and services by contracting with 
     those contractors that satisfy what he has found to be an 
     important condition for stable labor-management relations.
       The order's preamble then proceeds to set forth reasonable 
     relation between the government's procurement interests in 
     economy and efficiency and the order itself. Specifically, 
     the order asserts the President's finding that ``strikes 
     involving permanent replacement workers are longer in 
     duration than other strikes. In addition, the use of 
     permanent replacements can change a limited dispute into a 
     broader, more contentious struggle, thereby exacerbating the 
     problems that initially led to the strike. By permanently 
     replacing its workers, an employer loses the accumulated 
     knowledge, experience, skill, and expertise of its incumbent 
     employees. These circumstances then adversely affect the 
     businesses and entities, such as the Federal Government, 
     which rely on that employer to provide high quality and 
     reliable goods or services.'' We believe that these findings 
     state the necessary reasonable relation between the 
     procedures instituted by the order and achievement of the 
     goal of economy and efficiency.
       It may well be that the order will advance other 
     permissible goals in addition to economy and efficiency. Even 
     if the order were intended to achieve goals other than 
     economy and efficiency, however, the order would still be 
     authorized under the FPASA as long as one of the President's 
     goals is the promotion of economy and efficiency in 
     government procurement. ``We cannot agree that an exercise of 
     section 486(a) authority becomes illegitimate if, in design 
     and operation, the President's prescription, in addition to 
     promoting economy and efficiency, serves other, not 
     impermissible, ends as well.'' Carmen, 669 F.2d at 821; see 
     Rainbow Nav. Inc. v. Dep't of the Navy, 783 F.2d 1072 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1986); Kimberly A. Egerton, Note, Presidential Power 
     over Federal Contracts under the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act: The Close Nexus Test of AFL-CIO 
     v. Kahn, 1980 Duke L.J. 205, 218-20.
       Since the adoption of the FPASA, Presidents have 
     consistently regarded orders such as the one currently under 
     review as being within their authority under that Act. As the 
     court explained in Kahn, Presidents have relied on the FPASA 
     as authority to issue a wide range of orders. 618 F.2d at 
     789-92 (noting the history of such orders since 1941, 
     especially to institute ``buy American'' requirements and to 
     prohibit discrimination in employment by government 
     contractors). Not surprisingly this executive practice has 
     continued since Kahn. For instance, President Bush issued 
     Executive Order No. 12800, which required all government 
     contractors to post notices declaring that their employees 
     could not ``be required to join a union or maintain 
     membership in a union in order to regain their jobs.'' 57 
     Fed. Reg. 12985 (April 13, 1992). The order was supported 
     solely by the statement that it was issued ``in order to * * 
     * promote harmonious relations in the workplace for purposes 
     of ensuring the economic and efficient administration and 
     completion of Government contracts.'' Id.\4\ This long 
     history of executive practice provides additional support for 
     the President's exercise of authority in this case. See Kahn, 
     618 F.2d at 790.\5\ This is especially so where, as here, the 
     President sets forth the close nexus between the order and 
     the statutory goals of economy and efficiency.
       It may be that in individual cases, a contractor that 
     maintains a policy of refusing to permanently replace 
     lawfully striking workers may nevertheless have an unstable 
     labor-management relationship while a particular contractor 
     that has permanently replaced lawfully striking workers may 
     have a more stable relationship. As to such situations, 
     however, the Secretary and the contracting agency heads 
     retain the discretion to continue to procure goods and 
     services from contractors that have permanently replaced 
     lawfully striking workers if that procurement will advance 
     the federal government's economy and efficiency interests as 
     articulated in section 1 of Executive Order No. 12954.\6\ We 
     recognize that, even with these safeguards, it could happen 
     that a specific decision to terminate a contract for 
     convenience or to debar a contractor pursuant to the order 
     might not promote economy or efficiency. The courts have held 
     that it remains well within the President's authority to 
     determine that such occurrences are more than offset by the 
     economy and efficiency gains associated with compliance with 
     an order generally. See Kahn, 618 F.2d at 793.\7\
       Similarly, it would be unavailing to contend that Executive 
     Order No. 12954 will secure no immediate or near-term 
     advancement of the federal government's economy and 
     efficiency procurement interests. Section 486(a) authorizes 
     the President to employ ``a strategy of seeking the greatest 
     advantage to the Government, both short- and long-term,'' and 
     this is ``entirely consistent with the congressional policies 
     behind the FPASA.'' Id.
      emphasis added); cf. Contractors Ass'n v. Secretary of 
     Labor, 442 F.2d 159, 170 (3d Cir.) (deciding on basis of 
     president's constitutional rather than statutory 
     authority), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 854 (1971).
       The FPASA grants the President a direct and active 
     supervisory role in the administration of that Act and endows 
     him with broad discretion over how best ``to achieve a 
     flexible management system capable of making sophisticated 
     judgment in pursuit of economy and efficiency.'' Kahn, 618 
     F.2d at 788-89. As explained above, the President has set 
     forth a sufficiently close nexus between the program to be 
     established by the proposed order and the goals of economy 
     and efficiency in government procurement.\8\
       Finally, we do not understand the action of Congress in 
     relation to legislation on the subject of replacement of 
     lawfully striking workers to bear on the President's 
     authority to issue Executive Order No. 12954. The question is 
     whether the FPASA authorizes the President to issue the 
     order. As set forth above, we believe that it does. Recent 
     Congresses have considered but failed to act on the issue of 
     whether to adopt a national, economy-wide proscription of the 
     practice applying to all employers under the National Labor 
     Relations Act (``NLRA'').\9\ This action may not be given the 
     effect of amending or repealing the President's statutory 
     authority, for the enactment of such legislation requires 
     passage by both houses of Congress and presentment to the 
     President. See Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. 
     Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 
     252 (1991); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). To contend 
     that Congress's inaction on legislation to prohibit all 
     employers from hiring replacement workers deprived the 
     President of authority he had possessed is to contend for the 
     validity of the legislative veto.
       In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, it was considered relevant that 
     Congress had considered and rejected granting the President 
     the specific authority he had exercised. 343 U.S. 586. There, 
     however, the President did not claim to be acting pursuant to 
     any statutory power, but rather to inherent constitutional 
     power. In such a case, the scope of the President's power 
     depends upon congressional action in the field, including an 
     express decision to deny the President any statutory 
     authority. Id. Youngstown Sheet & Tube is inapposite here 
     because the President does not rely upon inherent 
     constitutional authority, but rather upon express statutory 
     authority--Sec. 486(a) of the FPASA. See Kahn, 618 F.2d at 
     787 & n. 13.
       Moreover, we note that Congress's action was far from a 
     repudiation of the specific authority exercised in Executive 
     Order No. 12954. Even if a majority of either house of 
     Congress had voted to reject the blanket proscriptions on 
     hiring permanent replacements for lawfully striking workers, 
     contained in H.R. 5 and S. 55, this would denote no more than 
     a determination that such a broad, inflexible rule applied in 
     every labor dispute subject to the NLRA would not advance 
     the 
     [[Page S3784]] many interests that Congress may consider when 
     assessing legislation. The order, by contrast, does not apply 
     across the economy, but only in the area of government 
     procurement. Nor does the order establish an inflexible 
     application, rather it provides the Secretary of Labor an 
     opportunity to review each case to determine whether 
     debarring or terminating a contract with a particular 
     contractor will promote economy and efficiency in government 
     procurement and further permits any contracting agency head 
     to
      override a decision to debar if he or she believes there are 
     compelling circumstances or to reject a recommendation to 
     terminate a contract if, in his or her independent 
     judgment, it will not promote economy and efficiency. In 
     sum, the congressional action alluded to above simply does 
     not implicate the narrow context of government procurement 
     or speak to the efficacy of a flexible case-by-case regime 
     such as the one set forth in the order.\10\
       The Kahn opinion fully supports this view. There the 
     President promulgated voluntary wage and price guidelines 
     that were applicable to the entire economy. Contractors that 
     failed to certify compliance with the guidelines were 
     debarred from must government contracts. See Exec. Order No. 
     12092, 43 Fed. Reg. 51,375 (1978). The order was issued in 
     1978 against the following legislative backdrop: In 1971 
     Congress passed the Economic Stabilization Act, which 
     authorized the President to enforce economy-wide wage and 
     price controls. In 1974, a few months after the Economic 
     Stabilization Act expired, the Council on Wage and Price 
     Stability Act (``COWPSA'') was enacted. COWPSA expressly 
     provided that ``[n]othing in this Act * * * authorizes the 
     continuation, imposition, or reimposition of any mandatory 
     economic controls with respect to prices rents, wages, 
     salaries, corporate dividends, or any similar transfers.'' 
     Pub. L. No. 93-387, Sec. 3(b), 88 Stat. 750 (1974).
       The court concluded that ``the standards in Executive Order 
     12092, which cover only wages and prices, are not as 
     extensive as the list in Section 3(b). Consequently, we do 
     not think the procurement compliance program falls within the 
     coverage of Section 3(b), but rather is a halfway measure 
     outside the contemplation of Congress in that enactment.'' 
     Kahn, 618 F.2d at 795. Similarly, Executive Order No. 12954 
     is a measure that operates in a manner (case-by-case 
     determination) and a realm (government procurement 
     exclusively) that was outside the contemplation of Congress 
     in its consideration of a broad and inflexible prohibition on 
     the permanent replacement of lawfully striking workers.


                                  iii

       Congress, in the FPASA, established that the President is 
     to play the role of managing and directing government 
     procurement. Congress designed this role to include ``broad-
     ranging authority'' to issue orders intended to achieve an 
     economical and efficient procurement system. Executive Order 
     No. 12954, ``Ensuring the Economical and Efficient 
     Administration and Completion of Federal Government 
     Contracts,'' represents a valid exercise of this authority.
                               footnotes

       \1\We will refer to this class of officials generically as 
     agency head(s).
       \2\We do not mean to indicate a belief that Executive Order 
     No. 12954 could not withstand a stricter level of scrutiny. 
     We simply regard the employment of such a standard to be 
     contrary to the holding of Kahn, as well as the view of the 
     purposes of the FPASA and its legislative history upon which 
     that decision expressly rests.
       \3\Again, the order does not categorically bar procurement 
     from contractors that have permanently replaced lawfully 
     striking workers. The sanctions that the order would 
     authorize would not go into effect if either the Secretary, 
     with respect to either the termination or the debarment 
     option, or the contracting agency head, with respect to the 
     termination option, finds that the option would impede 
     economy and efficiency in procurement.
       \4\This order is also significant insofar as it 
     demonstrates that Executive Order No. 12954 is not the first 
     in which a president has found that more stable workplace 
     relations promote economy and efficiency in government 
     procurement.
       \5\Of course, the President's view of his own authority 
     under a statute is not controlling, but when that view has 
     been acted upon over a substantial period of time without 
     eliciting congressional removal, it is `entitled to great 
     respect.' . . . [t]he `construction of a statute by those 
     charged with its execution should be followed unless there 
     are compelling indications that it is wrong.''' Kahn, 618 
     F.2d at 790 (quoting Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve Sys. v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U.S. 234 (1978), 
     and Miller v. Youakim, 440 U.S. 125, 144 n.25 (1979)).
       \6\The authority of an agency head is diminished somewhat, 
     though not eliminated entirely with respect to procuring from 
     a contractor that the Secretary has debarred. An agency head 
     may procure from a debarred contractor only for compelling 
     reasons. See Exec. Order No. 12954, Sec. 4. Nevertheless, the 
     Secretary has authority to refuse to place a contractor on 
     the debarment list in the first instance if the Secretary 
     believes that debarment would not advance economy and 
     efficiency.
       \7\``[W]e find no basis for rejecting the President's 
     conclusion that any higher costs incurred in those 
     transactions will be more than offset by the advantages 
     gained in negotiated contracts and in those cases where the 
     lowest bidder is in compliance with the voluntary standards 
     and his bid is lower than it would have been in the absence 
     of standards.'' Kahn, 618 F.2d at 793.
       \8\Moreover, we note that under the Supreme Court's recent 
     decision in Dalton v. Specter, 114 S. Ct. 1719 (1994), it is 
     unlikely that the President's judgment may be subject to 
     judicial review. It is clear that Sec. 486(a) gives the 
     President the power to issue orders designed to promote 
     economy and efficiency in Government procurement. See 40 
     U.S.C. Sec. 486(a); Carmen, 669 F.2d at 821; Kahn, 618 F.2d 
     at 788-89, 792-93. The Supreme Court has recently 
     ``distinguished between claims of constitutional violations 
     and claims that an official has acted in excess of his 
     statutory authority.'' Dalton, 114 S. Ct. at 1726. The Court 
     held that where a claim ``concerns not a want of 
     [presidential] power, but a mere excess or abuse of 
     discretion in exerting a power given, it is clear that it 
     involves considerations which are beyond the reach of 
     judicial power. This must be since, as this court has often 
     pointed out, the judicial may not invade the legislative or 
     executive departments so as to correct alleged mistakes or 
     wrongs arising from asserted abuse of discretion.''
       Id. at 1727 (quoting Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South 
     Dakota, ex rel, Pevne, 250 U.S. 163, 184 (1919)); see also 
     Smith v. Reagan, 844 F.2d 195, 198 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
     488 U.S. 954 (1988); Colon v. Carter, 633 F.2d 964, 966 (1st 
     Cir. 1980); cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985); 
     Chicago Southern Air Lines Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 
     U.S. 103 (1948).
       Judicial review is unavailable for claims that the 
     President had erred in his judgment that the program 
     established in the order is unlikely to promote economy and 
     efficiency. The FPASA entrusts this determination to the 
     President's discretion and, under Dalton, courts may not 
     second-guess his conclusion. The Court made it clear that the 
     President does not violate the Constitution simply by acting 
     ultra vires. See Dalton, 114 S. Ct. at 1726-27. Judicial 
     review is available only for contentions that the President's 
     decision not only is outside the scope of the discretion 
     Congress granted the President, but also that the President's 
     action violates some free-standing provision of the 
     Constitution.
       \9\In the 102d Congress, The House of Representatives 
     passed a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to 
     make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to hire a 
     permanent replacement for a lawfully striking employee. See 
     H.R. 5, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991). The House passed this 
     legislation on a vote of 247-182. See Cong. Rec. H5589 (daily 
     ed. July 17, 1991). The Senate considered legislation to the 
     same effect. See S. 55, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992). The 
     legislation was not brought to the floor for a vote because 
     supporters of the measure were only able to muster 57 votes 
     to invoke cloture. See Cong. Rec. S8237-38 (daily ed. June 
     16, 1992).
       Likewise, legislation to categorize the hiring of permanent 
     replacement workers as an unfair labor practice was 
     considered in the 103d Congress. The House of Representatives 
     approved the legislation on a vote of 239-190. See Cong. Rec. 
     H3568 (daily ed. June 15, 1993). Again, the Senate did not 
     bring the bill to a vote, because its supporters were unable 
     to attract the supermajority required to invoke cloture. See 
     Cong. Rec. S8524 (daily ed. July 12, 1994) (fifty-three 
     senators voting to invoke cloture).
       \10\We have found no indication in the legislative history 
     that those opposing the proposed amendments to the NLRA even 
     considered the specialized context of government procurement. 
     See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 110, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. at 33-49 
     (1993) (stating minority views); H.R. Rep. No. 116, 103d 
     Cong. 2d Sess., pt. 1, at 42-62 (1993) (minority views); H.R. 
     Rep. No. 116, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, at 16-17 (1993) 
     (minority views); H.R. Rep. No. 116, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 
     pt. 3, at 11-15 (1993) (minority views). Moreover, we note 
     that at least some of the opposition to the legislation was 
     based in part on concerns regarding the breadth of the 
     legislation, see H.R. Rep. No. 116, pt. 1, at 45 (minority 
     views) (emphasizing absence of ``a truly pressing societal 
     need'' (emphasis added)), as well as its inflexibility, see 
     id. at 62 (views of Rep. Roukema).

  Mr. KENNEDY. I will highlight a couple of essential parts of the 
memorandum.

        On March 6, 1995, we issued a memorandum approving as to 
     form and legality a proposed executive order entitled, 
     ``Ensuring the Economical and Efficient Administration of 
     Federal Government Contracts.'' On March 8, 1995 the 
     President signed the proposed directive, making it Executive 
     Order No. 12954. This memorandum records the basis for our 
     prior conclusion that the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act vests the President with authority to issue 
     Executive Order No. 12954 in light of his finding that it 
     will promote economy and efficiency in Government 
     procurement.

  I will come back to that issue because I think it is basic to both 
the rationale for the Executive order and reaches the heart of the 
whole debate on this issue.

       Executive Order No. 12954 establishes a mechanism designed 
     to ensure economy and efficiency in Government procurement 
     involving contractors that permanently replace lawful 
     striking workers.
       Executive Order No. 12954, taken as a whole, sets forth a 
     mechanism that closely 
     [[Page S3785]] ties its operative procedures--termination and 
     debarment--to the pursuit of economy and efficiency. The 
     President has made a finding that, as a general matter, 
     economy and efficiency in procurement are advanced by 
     contracting with employers that do not permanently replace 
     lawfully striking employees. Additionally, the President has 
     provided for a case-by-case determination that his finding is 
     justified on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each 
     specific case before any action to effectuate the President's 
     finding is undertaken.

  The rest of the memorandum goes on with citations in support for this 
President's authority in a very, I find, persuasive and convincing way.
  What did the President base his Executive order on? He based it, 
effectively, on the pursuit of economy and efficiency. Procurements are 
advanced by contracting with employers that do not permanently replace 
lawfully striking employees.
  So it seems to be appropriate that we give some consideration to what 
has been happening over the period of recent years with regard to 
various disputes involving the permanent replacement of striking 
workers per year.
  This chart shows some, I think, very powerful and persuasive evidence 
justifying the Executive order. What we see in this chart is the rather 
dramatic increase in the numbers of strikes in which permanent 
replacements have been used over the period from 1935 all the way to 
1991. What you do see, particularly, is that in the last 2 or 3 years 
the numbers have been going up dramatically.
  Since we find out that they have been going up dramatically, we can 
ask ourselves, what has been the result? This chart reflects the 
average number of strikes involving permanent replacements per year by 
decade. So it is the concern of the President in connection with 
Government purchasing to take notice of the number of strikes that have 
been taking place in which permanent replacement strikers have been 
used. This is interesting in reflecting the increased numbers of 
replacement workers.
  We have to ask ourselves, why is that important? Why should we take 
notice of this dramatic increase in permanent replacement strikes? 
Well, it is interesting for this reason, Mr. President. With the 
dramatic increase, we take note that strikes involving permanent 
replacement workers are substantially longer in duration than other 
strikes. One study done at the University of Notre Dame indicates that 
strikes involving permanent replacements last seven times longer than 
strikes that do not involve permanent replacements.
  Other evidence suggests that the mere threat to use permanent 
replacement workers is associated with the longer strikes. So we have 
this phenomenon, increasing numbers of strikes, which are utilizing the 
permanent replacements, increasing powerful evidence that the strikes 
themselves last dramatically longer than other labor disputes.
  Clearly, the President has an important responsibility, primarily in 
the area of our national defense, to make sure that we are going to be 
able to have our weapons systems and procurement be done in a way that 
is going to meet his responsibilities, to make sure that we are going 
to get good product, good quality, good performance, top-skilled people 
that are going to be working on the various systems which are so 
important to our fighting men.
  Well, not only are the strikes longer involving permanent strikes, 
but there is another phenomenon, and that is what has happened to 
productivity in the areas of where the permanent replacements have 
taken place. We now know that the number of strikes in which permanent 
strikers are used has been increasing dramatically, and the strikes 
themselves last longer. But we can also ask ourselves what has been 
happening in terms of the productivity in those companies, where they 
have made the judgment to select permanent replacements.
  Mr. President, I will just quote part of the findings from research 
by Prof. Julius Getman, professor of law at the University of Texas Law 
School to be included in a forthcoming book,
       The data that I have collected in my study of the Paper 
     Workers strike in Jay, Maine from 1987 to 1988 is strongly 
     supportive of the conclusion that hiring permanent 
     replacement workers is harmful to productivity. This is true 
     not only because the replacement workers are almost certain 
     to lack the experience and know-how of the workers they 
     replace, but because permanent replacement is totally 
     inconsistent with the goal of the labor-management 
     cooperation necessary for improving quality and productivity.
       * * * In any large enterprise, because of the Laidlaw 
     doctrine, in the period after the strike terminates, 
     significant numbers of former strikers will return.
       * * * The anger among the groups will inevitably effect 
     productivity. It will make employees suspicious of 
     cooperation and unwilling to take part in new approaches to 
     productivity.
       * * * Managers, who are aware they will be required to 
     rehire a former striker whenever a replacement worker either 
     quits or is fired, will be loath to impose discipline on the 
     replacement workers or crossovers. If they treat the strikers 
     differently, they commit an unfair labor practice. At the 
     Androscoggin mill all sides agree that the lack of discipline 
     was harmful to productivity.

  Then it continues in the study of the Androscoggin mill, pointing out 
the difference in atmosphere, the difference in productivity that 
existed prior to the time of the striker replacements. And drawing the 
conclusion that, on the issue of productivity, there had been a very 
significant diminution in the productivity of those companies that use 
the striker replacements.
  So, Mr. President, I make the point which is the obvious one that the 
President has noted, that there are an increasing number of strikes, 
increasing number of permanent replacement workers, that productivity 
in those areas deteriorates. And, obviously, the President does have 
the authority and the power to issue such an Executive order as has 
been summarized in the Attornrey General's memorandum.
  Mr. President, we have been asked earlier about the precedents. Is 
this Executive order unprecedented? I have an interesting memorandum 
here, Mr. President, that I have developed that reviews the recent 
Executive orders that have been done under the Republican Presidents 
and also this one to put it in some proportion. I think in any fair 
evaluation you would find that there is far more excessive use of 
executive authority, particularly by President Bush in his Executive 
order basically on the prehire issue, which is basically in conflict 
with the law itself prohibiting the prehiring agreements, even though 
the National Labor Relations Act itself specifically permits the 
prehiring agreements.
  Several Senators from the other side of the aisle took to the Senate 
floor yesterday to suggest that President Clinton's Executive order 
prohibiting Federal contractors from permanently replacing lawfully 
striking workers is completely unprecedented. They stated on this 
floor, as though it were an undeniable fact, that there has never 
before been an Executive order that has prohibited Federal contractors 
from undertaking an otherwise legal act.
  Mr. President, these Senators are simply and plainly wrong. And Mr. 
President, we do not have to go back very far in our history to prove 
that they are wrong.
  In late October 1992 President Bush issued Executive Order No. 12818 
prohibiting Federal contractors from entering into pre-hire agreements. 
The agreements are also sometimes called project agreements. Project 
agreements are collective-bargaining agreements commonly used in the 
construction industry. They establish labor standards, the terms and 
conditions of employment for workers on construction sites before any 
of the workers are hired. President Bush's Executive order prohibited 
any Federal contractor working on a construction project from entering 
into a project agreement with a union.
  President Bush justified this Executive order in many ways. He argued 
that he wanted to open up the bidding process. He wanted to reduce 
costs. Some of us took note that he made his announcement just a few 
days before the Presidential election in 1992 and the fact that 
immediately after he issued the Executive order he was endorsed by the 
Associated Builders & Contractors, a well-known lobbying group for 
nonunion and antiunion construction contractors.
  Regardless of his reasons, President Bush and his allies in this body 
never tried to suggest that it was unlawful for construction employers 
and unions to enter into project agreements.
  [[Page S3786]] There is good reason for that, Mr. President. The 
National Labor Relations Act specifically and expressly permits 
construction employer and construction unions to enter into project 
agreements or pre-hire agreements. Permit me to read the relevant 
section of the National Labor Relations Act, section 8(f).

       (f) [Agreements covering employees in the building and 
     construction industry] It shall not be an unfair labor 
     practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an 
     employer engaged primarily in the building and construction 
     industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or 
     who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building 
     and construction industry with a labor organization of which 
     building and construction employees are members (not 
     established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in 
     section 8(a) of this Act [subsection (a) of this section] as 
     an unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of 
     such labor organization has not been established under the 
     provisions of section 9 of this Act [section 159 of this 
     title] prior to the making of such agreement, or (2) such 
     agreement requires as a condition of employment, membership 
     in such labor organization after the seventh day following 
     the beginning of such employment or the effective date of the 
     agreement, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires 
     the employer to notify such labor organization of 
     opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives 
     such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified 
     applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement 
     specifies minimum training or experience qualifications for 
     employment or provides for priority in opportunities for 
     employment based upon length of service with such employer in 
     the industry or in the particular geographical area: 
     Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall set aside the 
     final proviso to section 8(a)(3) of this Act [subsection 
     (a)(3) of this section]: Provided further, That any agreement 
     which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this 
     subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant 
     to section 9(c) or 9(e) [section 159(c) or 159(e) of this 
     title].

  In sum, President Bush's Executive Order No. 12818 not only 
prohibited an otherwise legal practice. It prohibited a practice 
specifically and expressly protected by the National Labor Relations 
Act.
  Let us contrast that decision by President Bush with this decision by 
President Clinton. This Executive order would prohibit Federal 
contractors from permanently replacing lawfully striking employees. 
Nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act is there any express 
language that gives employers a right to permanently replace lawful 
strikers.
  Further, Congress has never spoken on this issue. My distinguished 
colleague from Texas stated on the floor of this Body yesterday that 
the Senate had rejected legislation that would have prohibited the use 
of permanent replacements. Once again, the Senator is simply and 
plainly wrong.
  This body never got the chance to vote on the striker replacement 
legislation. A majority of Senators were ready to enact a bill that 
prohibited all employers from using permanent replacements. But a 
handful of Senators from the other side of the aisle filibustered that 
legislation. They never permitted it to come to a vote. Mr. President, 
that happened not once, but twice.
  So, Mr. President, the fact is that there is a precedent for this 
Executive order. The fact is that this Executive order is well within 
the President's authority--an authority that Congress has specifically 
delegated to the President in our procurement laws. The fact is that 
this amendment interferes with the President's ability to serve as our 
Federal Government's Chief Executive Officer and in that role to assure 
that the taxpayers get the quality goods and services they deserve in a 
timely way from reliable Federal contractors.
  So here we had an action by a former President trying to effectively 
override the existing statute with an Executive order and we did not 
hear really the complaint at that time about the use of the executive 
powers compared to issuing of the Executive order at the present time 
which takes into consideration the very substantial and I find 
overwhelming evidence as to what is happening in contracting in our 
country with the use of the permanent striker replacements and the real 
danger that that presents to the administration or to the taxpayers in 
terms of both the quality and the on-time delivery and the efficiency 
of the various products.
  I think, when you examine that, you will see the justification, the 
legal justification and I think the commonsense justification, for the 
issuing of that particular proposal.
  Mr. President, we heard during the course of the debate yesterday 
another point that was made, those points being made about why are we 
doing this; why are we taking this action? Are we really not looking 
out after some special interests when the President issues this 
particular order?
  I took the time to review some of the stories where the permanent 
striker replacements have been actually used and put in place to try 
and get some context for the issuing of this order and what it really 
is all about in human terms.
  What I have just put in the Record is the memorandum from the Justice 
Department that details the legality of this action, looking at 
statutes and legal precedents. I have also included memoranda and 
studies that have been done in analyzing what has happened at a number 
of companies that have used permanent striker replacements and I have 
referred to other studies.
  But I think it is appropriate, Mr. President, to really take a look 
at who these people are that are being affected, whose lives are being 
affected and families are being affected by the permanent striker 
replacements.
  I would like to just take a moment or two to discuss different 
situations where permanent striker replacements have been used and 
quote from some letters from some of those individuals so we get some 
idea as to what we are talking about here this afternoon, who is really 
being benefited, whose lives will be affected and whose will not by 
this action.
  Mr. President, there has been a bitter strike going on in California 
that illustrates many of the points that we have been making about the 
effects of an employer's decision to permanently replace its strikers. 
The strike at Diamond Walnut pitted a small group of determined women, 
many working at or near the minimum wage, struggling for dignity 
against an employer that sought to cut their wages and eliminate their 
jobs.
  When these workers went out on strike, the company permanently 
replaced them. The workers' lives were ruined in many cases, and their 
families suffered without money, without health insurance, without the 
certainty of knowing when they would next have a steady, reliable 
source of income.
  If this Executive order had been in effect, Mr. President, Diamond 
Walnut would not have been able to make this ruthless decision to 
discard workers--many of whom had worked for the company for 10 or 20 
years--without itself suffering the threat of losing millions of 
dollars in contracts with the Federal Government.
  The Federal Government had contracts with this company in terms of 
helping and assisting in the export of millions and millions of dollars 
of its products overseas.
  Here we have the American taxpayers' funds being used to help and 
assist this company that has been exploiting its workers.
  And that is really the issue. It is whether the Federal Government 
will halt the additional kinds of benefits that it is going to give to 
various companies that are committed toward the hiring of the permanent 
striker replacements. If they are not--even the majority of the other 
companies, they are not going to be affected or impacted--but we have 
to ask ourselves if they are going to do that, whether we ought to be 
benefiting them through various kinds of Federal contracts.
  Permit me to tell some of the stories of the workers and their 
families that have been devastated by Diamond Walnut's decision to 
permanently replace these strikers. These are the people President 
Clinton promised to stand up for.
  Benny Pacheko was with Diamond for 5 years as a mechanic. Since the 
strike, he has been going financially backward. He is terribly afraid 
of losing everything, having to sell all of his assets because he 
cannot afford insurance premiums.
  He writes, ``The mental stress is horrendous. I feel I can't maintain 
what I have. All I have worked and saved for is going down the drain.''
  [[Page S3787]] Benny is on disability due to an industrial accident 
while working for Diamond. He cannot get a job because of the effects 
of the accident.
  ``Thanks,'' he writes, ``from the bottom of my heart for being 
considerate and understanding of the situation.''
  And he talks about how difficult it is to face life every single day.
  Dorothy Granger was a lift driver for 13 years. This is not a 
traditional job for women. It is not easy finding work when you are 
over 30 and the work you do is usually done by men. Companies would 
rather hire a man for the job. It is what they are used to. Of course, 
they will not tell you that.

       The strike is really affecting me financially. Bills are 
     piling up and there's no money to pay them. I need my job. My 
     husband and I are without medical insurance and I pray that 
     nothing goes wrong.

  Here is Gladys White, 47 years old. She started at Diamond in 1973 as 
a production worker. After 7 years, she begged to be moved to another 
area. The solvents Diamond used had burned her lungs and had given her 
headaches constantly. She got her transfer, although she was upbraided 
for having an active imagination. The chemicals could not possibly have 
caused her to fall ill, or so her supervisors and company nurses said.
  But her health continued to deteriorate and in 1989 she was diagnosed 
with sarcodosis, fibrosis, and tuberculosis. She went out on 
disability.
  The strike caused her to lose her health benefits. She has to be on 
medication which costs $100 per month. She has been denied Social 
Security disability.

       My children try to help me, but it is a hardship for them. 
     I am living with them as I cannot afford to live alone.

  And she wants to thank those that are interested in her case.
  This is another worker named Rachael.

       I was a production worker with Diamond Walnut for 13 years. 
     I have always worked hard and am self-supporting. I have 
     tried looking for another job, but my age is holding me back. 
     People don't want to hire those of us over 40.
       Being on strike is so stressful. It takes a terrible toll 
     on a person, both mentally and physically. I do not know what 
     will happen from day to day. Without medical insurance I am 
     frightened all the time that I will get sick and have no way 
     to pay for medical treatment and end up losing everything to 
     the State.

  Here is another fellow.
  Raul, a single father who was with Diamond Walnut for 11 years. He 
was counting on accrued time to turn into a nice retirement in another 
8 to 10 years.
  ``I'm starting over,'' he says, ``and I'm too old to start over. I'm 
an electrician and there are lots of openings for electricians out 
there. But when they come up it is only for one or two positions, and 
there are hundreds of applications. My age hasn't seemed to be a 
problem, but then that isn't something they'd tell me to my face.''
  Meanwhile, he has cashed in his life insurance and his savings bonds. 
His son was working but has been laid off. His daughter, still in high 
school, is working as many hours as possible. Her dreams of going to 
college are on the shelf now.

       That is what hurts the most. I wanted so much to be able to 
     help her through school. Now, even if she goes to State-
     funded community college, I can't afford to buy her books. 
     But we're doing okay. We take each day as it comes. We have 
     each other.

  Ray Barbaza, a lift driver, worked his way up to that position over a 
period of 12 years. Sole supporter of his family.

       The loss of benefits hit us hard. One time this last year 
     we were all sick. I had to apply for MedCal. That was 
     embarrassing enough, but my son requires special medication 
     and I had to go through every department they could find and 
     get their ``seal of approval.'' They made me feel like trash. 
     Now I know how the homeless feel, having to throw dignity 
     away and picking up the food basket. People should be 
     productive and have pride in their ability, and take care of 
     their own, but when you need help you swallow your 
     humiliation and do what you have to do.

  The stories go on, Mr. President. This was a plant where these 
workers took reduction of their pay when the company was facing a 
difficult circumstance. Profits then went up dramatically. They tried 
to get some recovery in terms of their wages and were permanently 
replaced. The Federal Government comes and helps to assist the 
companies. They are making dramatic profits. What has happened 
effectively is most of the workers have been replaced, and those that 
had been working over a lifetime for those companies are now facing a 
very grim future indeed.
  Mr. President, I have some letters here that have been sent to our 
Secretary of Labor, who has been so involved in this issue, as well as 
in the minimum wage issues and other issues affecting working men and 
women in this country. He will go down in history, I think, as one of 
the really extraordinary Secretaries of Labor.
  He has received a number of letters from men and women, because they 
understand how committed he is to their well-being. Secretary Reich has 
been kind enough to share three letters that tell the stories of three 
families that have suffered because a Federal contractor has used the 
taxpayers' money to permanently replace its striking workers.
  This is on the Bridgestone/Firestone issue. Here is a letter to Mr. 
Reich, from Steve Barber.

       I wrote you a letter a few months ago when my URW local 713 
     went out on strike after negotiations with Bridgestone/
     Firestone failed. Since then I have been permanently replaced 
     by replacement workers. I have a wife and four children; two 
     children are still at home, we support a daughter in her 
     first year away at college, and our oldest son is serving his 
     country in the U.S. Army.
       At age 45, after almost 23 years at Bridgestone/Firestone, 
     everything I've worked for is gone. As I walked picket this 
     cold Superbowl night, I saw many young people leaving the 
     plant. They now have my job. My advice to them: Do not start 
     a family, do not get a 30-year mortgage on a home, do not 
     count on retirement or a long-range future with that company. 
     For someday, possibly sooner than in my case, for one reason 
     or another, you, too, will be used and discarded like a paper 
     plate, your youth spent entirely for nothing.
       I was discarded because I believed I had a legal right to 
     strike in this land of the free and the home of the brave. I 
     was discarded because I belong to a labor union and don't 
     believe in giving up my hard won rights, and I won't cross 
     over into what is now a nonunion plant.
       The past 7 months I have hoped and prayed this dispute 
     would be fairly resolved. I appreciate the support you, 
     President Clinton and the many other Senators and 
     Congresspeople have given us in trying to find a just 
     solution to this situation. All I ask in closing is that you 
     and President Clinton use any and all the powers at your 
     disposal to end this senseless disruption that has changed 
     and ruined the lives of my family, my fellow workers and my 
     community.

  And here is a second letter:

       Dear Mr. Reich: I am writing to you regarding the 
     Bridgestone/Firestone strike that has been ongoing for the 
     past 6 months. My father is employed by the company, and he 
     is a good father who has always been there for his children. 
     However, he is a very proud man who would find it difficult 
     to ask for help. I, on the other hand, am more than willing 
     to do so.
       The recent development of Bridgestone/Firestone threatening 
     to fire all of the striking employees and permanently replace 
     them has hit our entire family extremely hard. Although I and 
     my brother and sister are grown and on our own, my father is 
     nearing retirement and greatly needs to know that he will be 
     financially secure in his golden years.
       We are of the working class and do not have the luxury of 
     worrying about such things as capital gains tax cuts or 
     upper-class frills.

  Needless to say how appropriate this letter is to read, today, after 
what we saw the House Ways and Means Committee do yesterday in terms of 
proposing the special consideration for capital gains, the benefits for 
which will go to the wealthiest individuals in this country. It is 
interesting we are debating this issue here that involves men and women 
who are workers trying to make a go of it to bring up their children, 
to pay their taxes, and to work, and here we are on the other side of 
the building where we meet this afternoon, just 24 hours ago, seeing 
proposed very substantial, effectively giveaways, to some of the more 
fortunate wealthiest individuals in our country.
  Now, I get back to the letter.

       Needless to say, we will not receive tax credits for laptop 
     computers. My mother, my siblings, and myself are all 
     teachers with a strong work ethic.

  This is what this whole issue is about. This is about teachers. It is 
about workers, workers' families, about their children. It is about 
people that want to be a part of the whole American system.

       However, I now fear all that my father has worked for 
     during the largest portion of his life will be ripped away 
     from him.
       [[Page S3788]] I know you are aware of this problem as I 
     heard you explain on television that the Government cannot 
     force Bridgestone/Firestone to settle with the union; 
     however, I do feel there is much that can be done. The 
     Government does not have to take a strictly hands off policy 
     as they did not do this with either the Chrysler or savings 
     and loan bailouts. In this case, economic pressures would 
     certainly be a good motivator. Neither our Government nor its 
     citizens should do business with a company who would 
     permanently replace its legally striking work force, nor 
     should they be legally allowed to do so.

  There it is, Mr. President. This company wanted to go out and get the 
permanent striker replacements, so be it. All that the Executive order 
is saying is that they are not going to get additional business. We are 
not going to use additional kinds of taxpayers' funds to help assist 
this company. It has made that judgment. That is what this issue is all 
about, in order that we will protect the outcomes of the products that 
are being purchased by the Federal Government, and make sure that they 
will be top of the line, good products, made by a well-trained and 
well-disciplined work force.
  The letter continues:

       I am pleading with you to assist us in our fight which may 
     now seem hopeless in the wake of the November elections. On 
     the other hand, my father always says, ``You can't gain 
     anything worthwhile without a struggle--this country was born 
     in a struggle!'' I urge you to aid us in our struggle until a 
     resolution to this strike is reached and until a law is 
     passed that will protect all striking workers in the future 
     from being replaced.
      After all, union members should not be persecuted for 
     standing up for what they believe in and going out on a 
     legal strike. Striking is one of the few acts of leverage 
     that union members have to be heard.

  That is from Marilana Hurst.
  Here is just one other item to the Secretary, a short letter:

       The American factory worker desperately needs help.
       I need your help.
       After 26-plus years, I have been permanently replaced by 
     Bridgestone/Firestone at the Decatur, Illinois facility, for 
     no apparent reason.
       I have a factory-related permanent injury but it in no way 
     affected my position as mold change/cleaner setup person.
       Since Bridgestone bought our plant we have given scores of 
     concessions, including * * *.

  And he mentions some of the health plan givebacks.

       Our total efforts as union members at 3 of the Bridgestone/
     Firestone plants have made them some of Bridgestone's most 
     profitable plants, with Decatur, Illinois, Firestone Tire the 
     most profitable tire plant Bridgestone had in the world in 
     1993 according to their own books.

  These are companies that have had enormous success, incredible 
profits. This is what we are talking about, the extraordinary 
phenomenon that has taken place in this country over the period of 
these last several years where we have had record profits from so many 
of the companies, for the companies and for individuals. Yet, the 
people who have not participated in that kind of enhancement of our 
economy are the men and women who are out there working on the 
frontline.
  They are the ones who, in many instances, have given their lives to 
companies and plants and factories and then are being discarded. There 
are two kind of employers, as we all understand. There are those who 
believe that the workers are an asset, that they should be trained, 
respected, and be a part of an enterprise with the idea that they are 
going to commit themselves to that enterprise and that enterprise is 
going to grow and expand.
  This morning at a forum we held on increasing the minimum wage, we 
heard the extraordinary story of Mr. Curry, who owns three hardware 
stores on the south shore of Massachusetts, and is able to compete with 
the biggest operations in the country. He starts his people off at $10 
an hour for a minimum wage with decent benefits. He does not have the 
turnover; he does not have to expend the money to train more people. He 
has good workers. He does not have absenteeism. He does not have the 
sick days that other companies have, and he provides a savings 
incentive also.
  A number of those people who have worked there 5 and 6 years now have 
savings of $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, which they never imagined in the 
past. They are good workers. He has virtually no turnover, and had a 
38-percent increase in sales last year, is able to do a job, and 
respects every one of the workers. He is not discarding them, throwing 
them out after a lifetime of dedication and commitment and work.
  All we are saying is, if you are going to do that, Mr. Corporation, 
if you are going to do that, Mr. Executive, if you are going to treat 
your people like that, we do not want to support that with American 
taxpayers' money. We do not want to do it, not just because we do not 
want to, but because what we see when we do is more disruption, poor 
quality, poor productivity, and poor turnout on many of these items. 
That is what is unacceptable.
  I welcome the fact that the President is looking out after the issues 
of quality and productivity and output, particularly with regard to the 
areas of greatest need, and that is in the area of national security 
and defense.
  As I mentioned yesterday, we produce in my own State of Massachusetts 
at General Electric the engines for the F-15's, F-16's, F-18's, the 
advance fighter, and many of the best helicopter engines, as well. We 
want to make sure that the servicemen and women who are flying those 
planes are going to have the best in terms of the skills of workers who 
know how to build those engines, not permanent replacements for a few 
bucks cheaper an hour. I want to make sure that those men and women who 
are going to be flying in those planes and using weapons to defend 
their lives are going to have the very best. I am not prepared to take 
chances on it. That is what this is all about.
  The letter I read was from Glen Buckner of Decatur, IL.
  Mr. President, I will have other letters as well, but the point, I 
think, has been made, and that is that what we are basically talking 
about are the interests of working families. We hear so easily bantered 
around, ``Well, this is special-interest legislation for special-
interest groups.'' You have heard who these people are. They are the 
men and women who are on Main Street, USA, who are the backbone of this 
country, and have built this Nation and made it the industrial power 
that it is. They are the ones committed and dedicated and loyal to 
their companies and to their corporations and who are trying, after 
they have tightened their belts and worked with company officials in 
order that the companies survive, to be able to participate in the 
expansion of the market--oh, no; oh, no; that is not possible.
  That has been the record across this country. That has been the 
record across this country over the period of the last 12 or 15 years. 
That is something that has been a new phenomenon, and that is why it is 
important as well that we have this particular action.
  Finally, Mr. President, having addressed both the legality of the 
President's position and the rationale for the issuance of this 
Executive order, I reviewed briefly today, along with my colleagues, 
Senator Simon, Senator Harkin yesterday, Senator Moseley-Braun, and 
many others who have talked, the citizens who are really affected by 
it. We now hopefully know who are the ones being impacted, and they are 
the families across this country, hard-working men and women. These are 
workers. They are the ones who are prepared to work the 40 hours a 
week, the 52 weeks of the year. These are the ones who are trying to 
educate their kids, trying to make sure their parents are going to live 
in some peace, some respect, and some dignity, and are facing the 
various pressures from all sides, particularly in these past weeks, I 
might add, that are threatening their lives or their families' lives.
  That is why I think it is really extraordinary, as I mentioned 
yesterday, why it is that after we in this Congress spent a number of 
weeks debating the unfunded mandates issue, which we should and we did, 
and reached a conclusion on that, and then debated for a series of 
weeks the whole issue on the balanced budget and the changes in the 
Constitution and we have debated that and we reached some judgment and 
decisions, extremely important measures that we have been focusing on 
and addressing. There may be Members who agree and differ, but 
nonetheless the level and the nature of that debate and discussion was 
clearly motivated by individuals who were pursuing a national interest.
  The next measure--the next measure--that we are debating on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate is not how we are going to enhance the quality of 
life of 
[[Page S3789]] working families in this country; not what we are going 
to do about the children in this Nation, the increased numbers living 
in poverty; not what we are going to do about those young teenagers, 
not about how we are going to enhance their possibilities in schools 
and education; not about the children of working families trying to 
work their way through college; we are not even talking this afternoon 
about the security in the communities of these working families; we are 
not talking about the air they breathe; we are not talking about the 
water they drink; we are not talking about the quality of life of their 
parents. No, what we are talking about this afternoon is how we are 
going to diminish their economic power in being able to fight for a 
decent wage to provide for their families.
  That is what we are debating here. We debated it yesterday, and we 
are debating it today. We are going to be debating it on Monday. We are 
going to have a cloture vote on that to see how we can jam, how we can 
squeeze, how we can pressure down the economic rights of working men 
and women. That is what we are debating here.
  As I mentioned the other day, at the end of the debate today, who 
among us is going to go on back to their house and say, ``Look, I did 
something in the U.S. Senate today that is going to give a little more 
hope to children, to a mother in terms of a day-care program.
 We are not going to be able to do all the things we want, but we are 
going to do a little something. It is going to be better tomorrow or 
the next day.'' Or, ``I am going to do something to strengthen the 
quality of education.'' Who is going to leave here tonight believing 
that? Or, ``I am going to do something that is going to mean greater 
economic good for the workers of the country.'' Who is going to do it? 
No one is going to do it.

  What we are going to do, some of us, is go back and say that we tried 
to work for working men and women against an overwhelming onslaught 
that somehow believes we are out of skew in terms of the power of the 
working people.
  I am on the Human Resources Committee. What have we been facing over 
the period of the last week? Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Let us go 
ahead and repeal that act. Who benefits from the Davis-Bacon Act? The 
average income for working families is $27,000 a year for some of the 
toughest work in this country, working in construction--$27,000 a year.
  What in the world have we got against working families that are 
making $27,000 a year? Is that what is ringing across this country, we 
have to undermine their ability to make that amount of money? Is that 
what people are crying about? Not in my State of Massachusetts.
  We are trying to diminish their ability by the changing of just the 
prevailing wages. Maybe there are suggestions and ideas of how to make 
it more efficient. Maybe it has to be adjusted to eliminate paperwork. 
That is fine. We have had hours of hearings on that.
  We have had hours of hearings about what they call the 8(a)(2) 
provisions of Taft-Hartley. What effectively that means is let us 
eliminate the real essence of the Taft-Hartley Act so we can eliminate 
company unions. Why? Because of the power, the power that is out there 
in the trade union movement?
  I have difficulty, in reading my mail, seeing that that is something 
of a burning, passionate interest to the people of our State. What they 
want is decent jobs with good benefits and a good future and doing 
something about violence in the community and strengthening education.
  But, oh, no, here we are trying to do something to undermine workers 
under Davis-Bacon. We are trying to do something about changing Taft-
Hartley laws, about the power, the power of workers, trying to 
represent economic interests of working people.
  What are we saying? It is all out there. That is part of the things 
we have been doing in January and February. And then in the meantime 
what are we doing about the children of these working families? Well, I 
will tell you what we are doing. We are cutting back on giving any kind 
of day care support to families. We are cutting right back on that. The 
families that are trying to make it, both parents trying to work, 
needing a little day care, we are cutting back on that program.
  And then we have a son or daughter that we would like to be able to 
help, because we live in a major city, to make sure that kid over the 
course of the summer, for those parents who are working hard to keep 
them in school, make sure you try to keep them out of trouble. Oh, no, 
we are cutting all the summer jobs programs, not only for this summer 
but the summer beyond that. We cannot wait to do that. Cut that out, 
too. Cut that out, too.
  So now we have done that. And just by the way, if you happen to have 
a child, because you are out there working, who happens to get into a 
good community college or State college, you have, as in my State, the 
highest public college tuition in the country under my Governor. We had 
an excellent university system. In those budget cuts, we are sticking 
it in Massachusetts to college students with higher fees and higher 
tuition. So we are No. 3 in the country in terms of the costs going up.
  But we are not satisfied at what has happened up there. We are going 
to say that anyone who borrows the money is going to have to also pay 
the interest for that borrowing while they are in school. And in the 
meantime, you might have the idea you want to work while you are in 
school in a work-study program. Who qualifies for work-study programs? 
Middle-income working families. We are going to eliminate that as well. 
You are going to have to pay more, and we are going to deny you the 
opportunity to work while you are going to school.
  Mr. President, you have to ask yourself what has happened out there, 
what has happened across our society, that we are declaring war? That 
is what this is. We will have seen battlegrounds in countries that have 
been at war that will be not as adversely impacted as what we are doing 
to working families, to their children, the very small.
  I have not even mentioned cutting back on the WIC programs. I have 
not even mentioned cutting back on the school lunch programs, cutting 
back in terms of special education for economically disadvantaged, 
cutting back on their teachers. We have not even talked about that out 
here.
  So not only are we diminishing the power of those who are attempting 
to work and want to work--two members of that family--we are after 
their children, the very small, the most vulnerable, those in their 
early teens who may need that opportunity to begin working when they 
are 13, 14, and 15 in programs that bring together the public and 
private sectors in extraordinarily cooperative ways as they have done 
in Boston, MA, the great, great cooperation in the public and private 
sector, as they have in education with the Boston compact that 
basically says to any kid that is able to gain entrance into college, 
they are prepared to raise the funds to augment and supplement that 
program so that kid can go on into school and college, the public and 
private sector working together. We are drawing that right on back. We 
are unraveling it, pulling the threads on those kinds of agreements and 
contracts.
  On a Friday afternoon, with the American public as concerned as they 
are about the state of our economy, with more hopeful news today as we 
have seen unemployment go down across our Nation with some 350,000 new 
jobs which have been created, we are out here now talking about how we 
are going to undermine the working families.
  Mr. President, I have not even mentioned the suggestions that have 
been made, as I look over and see my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia, who has been such an advocate on the health care issue, I 
have not even mentioned the kind of concern that must be out there for 
all of our senior citizens when they read the articles in the newspaper 
by our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts that 
they are going to pursue in the period of this Congress that are going 
to impact our senior citizens.
  And the other side of that, Mr. President, is to do what with them? 
Give tax advantages to the wealthiest companies and corporations and 
individuals. Now, that is the view that many working men and women must 
look at in 
[[Page S3790]] terms of where we are in the Congress. It is not a 
hopeful picture.
  Mr. President, I am sure they are asking why, what did they ever do, 
trying to provide for their families, what did they ever do to deserve 
that kind of a threat? It is difficult enough, difficult enough, if you 
are looking at the real incomes of working families, the working poor, 
the lower--the four-fifths effectively, most dramatically in the three-
fifths of our various tax filings, but almost four-fifths that have 
been constantly going down, constantly falling further behind.
  Here we are out on the floor of the Senate with a proposal which says 
that if the company is going to have permanent strike replacements, we 
are not going to give them additional kinds of Federal largesse. And we 
have those who are so antiworker they are prepared to hold up the 
defense appropriations bill and to have us spending days here, which I 
welcome the opportunity to do, to speak for the working families. But 
we take up the time of the Senate to do it.
  Mr. President, it just is unwise to attempt to tamper with the 
justification, legality, or public policy purpose for the President's 
Executive order. I will look forward to having more to say about it 
later in the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I just listened, as I always do, very 
closely to my friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and not 
only identify myself with what he says but the compassion with which he 
says it, and the persistence. He never quits. There is no Senator in 
this body or in the recent history of this body who ever fought so hard 
for so many things so constantly, whatever the hour, the day or the 
night, than the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  He has been talking a lot because not enough of us have come down to 
the floor to help him. You can hear the hoarseness in his voice. I have 
heard cracks in his voice, and they have been when he has spoken at the 
funerals of, most recently, his mother, and to mourn the death of his 
two brothers, Robert and John. I heard cracks in his voice then. He did 
his best to prevent that, and then, at the end, could not quite avoid 
it. And I think we all sort of wanted that to happen so we could share 
in his grief.
  But if you hear cracks in his voice now it is because he is fighting 
just for what they would fight for. But he is tired. His voice is 
tired, but his spirit is not. I respect him.
  There is a fellow sitting next to him by the name of Nick Littlefield 
who ought to be a Senator in this body from somewhere. He is Senator 
Kennedy's chief of staff and he is everywhere where he needs to be. His 
optimism and his fighting spirit is matched, obviously, by the man with 
whom he works. But there is not any good cause or battle that Nick 
Littlefield will stay away from. So with the two of them on this floor 
all by themselves except for the junior Senator from West Virginia, I 
am proud to be down here this afternoon.
  That is not to say I do not have a great deal of respect for the 
Presiding Officer who, I expect if he wanted to mix it up, would do 
pretty well, too. Although I suspect we might be on different sides on 
this particular issue.
  Mr. President, everything he said is true, I might say to the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts. I hope that come next Sunday he will see 
1,000 children bused in from all over this country, being fed by 
Members of the Congress--dinner, lunch--and then joining hands with 
Members of Congress, literally surrounding the Capitol. Literally hands 
around the Capitol--little children and children not so young--but all 
children who are about to have their hot lunches taken away or their 
breakfasts taken away or something else taken away from them by the 
zeal that exists around here to cut back on what is necessary for some 
people in our country to survive and to live while finding ways to 
increase the wealth of some of us who, frankly, do not need a whole lot 
more.
  It is all very perplexing to me. I grew up in one party, the 
Republican Party. I became a Democrat at the time that President John 
F. Kennedy was President because I worked in the Peace Corps. Then I 
worked for the State Department, then VISTA. But over these past couple 
of months, this period of time alone has made me understand--not that I 
had to--why I did what I did and became a Democrat.
  Because we are talking about lives at stake in the matter of this 
Kassebaum amendment. We are talking about situations where I myself 
have seen families torn apart.
  Probably one of the most famous examples of strikers being replaced--
at least in the recent years, and maybe not the most famous, but the 
most famous to me--took place in West Virginia, at a place called 
Ravenswood Aluminum. It lasted a year and a half. It was terribly 
bitter. It was terribly dangerous. It was so dangerous that people 
wanted to stay away from the area.
  The Ravenswood story is about people of West Virginia who are not 
necessarily born with a silver spoon when they are born. They have to 
work. So when Ravenswood locked out its own workers, and replaced them 
with something called permanent replacements, we literally saw 
situations in families with a striker-replacer brother and a striking 
brother; or brother/sister, in the same household. Husband/wife; 
brother/sister; uncle/nephew. Those scars still exist, and the anger 
and what it did to that community have not yet fully healed.
  I gave a speech there not long ago. That community has not yet 
recovered. That is what they still talk about and the crisis was 
several years ago.
  So I associate myself with what my friend from Massachusetts has 
said. I also want to note the irony, which I think he perhaps raised 
before but I did not hear it, and that is the irony that the Kassebaum 
amendment is holding up a package before us to reduce the deficit and 
supplement the Defense Department.
  Let me start by emphasizing that this question posed by Senator 
Kassebaum's amendment is clearly stalling the passage of a bill which 
has enormously broad support for very obvious reasons. The Kassebaum 
amendment has slowed down a bill that would cut the Federal deficit by 
$1.5 billion as soon as it is signed into law. I do not know how long 
it takes to print up a bill and send it over to the White House, but I 
expect it could be by Monday or Tuesday. The President would sign it 
and the deficit would go down $1.5 billion as a result.
  We have been here for the last several weeks and month or more 
debating deficit reduction. How to do it, by an amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution? Or by human endeavor?
  The Kassebaum amendment has slowed down a bill that will make our 
military forces more capable of dealing with national security 
emergencies or dangers, which is something not only folks on this side 
of the aisle talk about, but almost to a person the folks on that side 
talk about constantly. This will not happen for as long as this 
amendment prevents it from happening.
  So let us be very sure that the American people understand what is in 
fact going on, on this floor. A week and 1 day ago, 28 Senators put 
together this bill, to both replenish critical parts of the budget for 
the Defense Department and cut Government spending in order to reduce 
the deficit. We could have passed that bill yesterday. Everybody was 
here. It is hard to do that today because very few people are here. We 
could have appointed Senate negotiators to work out the final details 
with the House. They could have met over the weekend. I expect they 
would have met over the weekend. They would have been meeting today. 
They probably could have reached an agreement today--and seen the 
Federal deficit come down as a result, after the President's pen struck 
the bill and signed his name.
  But instead we have an effort to strengthen our military forces and 
to cut Government spending being held up by this amendment that has 
absolutely nothing to do with either of these critical objectives.
  I find that ironic, I have to say. I just find that ironic. It is 
incredible to me to see this impasse over a deficit reduction bill 
after every single Senator on the other side of the aisle, except for 
one lone voice, who some want to drive from his party, spent more than 
a 
[[Page S3791]] month demanding the passage of a constitutional 
amendment because they felt so clearly that there could be no other way 
to reduce the deficit.
  The fervor on the other side of the aisle over the balanced budget 
debate was remarkable. There was an awesome display of unity and 
singlemindedness. Once again, we are seeing proof that the balanced 
budget amendment is a very different matter than actually cutting 
Government waste. It is one thing to talk about it. It is another thing 
to do it--it's another thing to actually take tangible, real steps to 
cut that budget deficit. We are ready to do it. So if my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are so determined to really deal with the 
deficit, then why are they throwing up roadblocks to this amendment, 
which is an Executive order of substantial simplicity, which I will get 
into in a moment?
  The Senate, although I suspect we could convince very few Americans 
of it, particularly when we do things like this, is not a political 
convention. It is supposed to be the place where we use our powers, our 
brains, our judgment, our convictions to get important work done.
  I thought we had agreed on the need for this bill before us. In fact, 
28 Senators last week, by a unanimous vote in the Appropriations 
Committee, did agree on that. That is where I understand 28 Senators to 
be--Republicans and Democrats--unanimous in their support for this 
bill. All the Senators who voted for this bill agreed that military 
readiness and deficit reduction should take priority over everything 
else that could take place during the course of this week. Nothing 
transcended that in importance, a proper judgment by both political 
parties.
  But I guess that is not the case with some of our colleagues. I guess 
I am wrong. Instead, we have to burn up time talking about an amendment 
that tries to stop the President from doing something that is quite 
simple, that deserves support from both business and working families.
  The President's Executive order, which this amendment attacks and 
seeks to defeat, is an effort to impose a basic condition on Federal 
contracts that by definition are financed by American taxpayers. We are 
not even talking about totally private arrangements. The condition in 
the Executive order says that businesses that want Federal contracts--
and there is no law saying that a business has to seek Federal 
contracts--should not be ones that deal with valid, legal labor 
disputes by hiring workers to permanently replace their own employees.
  The President's Executive order does not take away a business' 
ability to hire temporary replacements when dealing with a dispute. I 
repeat: If there is a labor dispute or a strike, a business can hire 
temporary workers for the duration of the dispute or the strike. And, 
therefore, this order does not expect a business to stop production. 
This order does not expect to close one iota of anybody's operations 
down or do anything to lose one dime of business. It simply upholds the 
principle that when the law--that is, the Federal law--gives workers a 
right to collectively bargain, or the right to protest conditions or 
practices, then employers do not have the right to punish those workers 
by eliminating their jobs for good.
  That is not very complicated. I do not think that is particularly 
difficult to swallow. In fact, it was something that was fairly broadly 
accepted in the business community until all of a sudden it suddenly 
became an issue because some people wanted to make it one, and it has 
been one ever since.
  So we have these votes more or less on an annual basis. We have a 
Federal law that gives workers the right to collectively bargain. That 
is established fact in this country. Some people like that. Some people 
do not like that. But that is the law. And it is available to anyone 
who collectively bargains.
  They have the right to protest conditions. Well, I work in a State, 
and so do the rest of us, where conditions are not what they ought to 
be in a few places. Since all of us here in the collective body politic 
tend to get around our States a great deal, visiting plants and 
facilities, we see situations like this unless we close our eyes. We 
see situations like this. It is not very often, but we do see them and 
we do know that in our hearts. We know that.
  So if workers lawfully and legitimately protest unsafe conditions or 
practices, then employers do not have the right to punish those workers 
by permanently eliminating their jobs. Replace the workers while the 
dispute is going on, that is permissible. Operations do not cease. 
Profits do not cease.
  If you come to West Virginia and you have 100 job offers--at a Rite-
Aid Drugstore or somewhere else--you will get 1,000 to 1,500 
applicants, Mr. President. I suspect in some parts of the State of the 
Presiding Officer, that is true, too. It is uplifting in one way. It is 
just incredibly sad in another. People are so hungry to work that 1,500 
people turn out for 50 jobs, jobs that often do not offer any health 
benefits. But they are jobs and they are better than not having jobs, 
and people want to work in both the State of Pennsylvania and the State 
of West Virginia. So people turn up.
  This Executive order does not and cannot prohibit permanent 
replacements in all labor disputes. It simply says to businesses that, 
if you want to benefit from Federal contracts paid for by the 
taxpayers, you need to uphold certain standards, standards long 
established, long followed, long not disputed, accepted until all of a 
sudden they became an issue. The American people are constantly telling 
us they want Congress to get their money's worth when taxes are spent 
on Government programs and contracts and benefits.
  Mr. President, I would argue that the Executive order is designed to 
do exactly that. Look at the research. It is a fact. Strikes involving 
permanent replacements last seven times longer than strikes that do not 
involve permanent replacements. So that is seven times more grief and 
economic and personal and family and community agony that need not be. 
Those are the facts.
  If there are permanent replacements, the strikes, the worker 
disputes, the worker-management disputes will go on seven times longer. 
Strikes involving permanent replacement workers tend to be much more 
hostile, much more painful for both sides, and often turn what could be 
a fairly brief period of disagreement and negotiation into a much 
longer and often, I am sorry to say, violent impasse: gunshots, attacks 
on the roads, baseball bats, intimidation from both sides.
  Permanently replacing striking employees can mean trading in 
experienced, skilled workers for inexperienced men and women. It does 
not have to mean that. It does not always mean that. But it can mean 
that. That is not to the advantage of anyone either, particularly if 
the business wants to continue to make a profit, to do well, and to 
compete on an international basis.
  Mr. President, asking businesses that want Federal contracts to 
resist dealing with labor-management disputes in ways that are more 
costly, in ways that are more contentious and contrary to the principle 
of collective bargaining and cooperation, is not something that should 
be holding up a deficit reduction and military readiness bill, in this 
Senator's opinion.
  I suggest to all of my colleagues that it is not in anybody's 
interest to struggle over the issue of replacement workers with so much 
blustering conflict amongst ourselves. Congress should be encouraging 
cooperation and doing everything we can. That is what all of the study 
groups on competitiveness tell us to do. We should encourage 
cooperation between both management and labor and between business and 
workers. We should treat the idea of collective bargaining as a 
friendly and, frankly, a very American concept.
  There is nothing wrong, Mr. President, with collective bargaining. It 
is the way that people improve their conditions. It has a stark 
pattern. I remember going to South Korea 10 years ago. They did not 
really have any labor unions in South Korea 10 years ago. As of about 2 
or 3 years ago, they had over 3,000. What has happened? Yes, there have 
been some incidents, some strikes, and that is natural as a labor union 
and a company try to come to terms with each other. Wages have started 
to increase, conditions have started to improve. The national wealth of 
South Korea is now growing enormously. Japan went through this. I spent 
3 years as a university student in Japan, at a time when labor was not 
[[Page S3792]] strong, and then it became strong and now Japan has a 
higher industrial wage than the United States. The average worker makes 
more money there than they do here. And Japan is not particularly known 
as a country that is hard to do business with, if you get along with 
the Japanese. If you are an American company it could be harder, but 
amongst themselves, they do well.
  So we should not treat the idea of collective bargaining as some kind 
of bizarre concept. It is inherent to the roots of this country and, 
quite frankly, I do not know where we would be without it. If half of 
this body really wants to encourage employers to resist problem solving 
and dispute resolution by hiring permanent replacements, then that is 
encouraging more conflict in the workplace and in our communities. 
Again, strikes are seven times longer where permanent replacements 
become the issue.
  As I indicated before, I have great, painful knowledge about what 
happens in these situations. If you go to the community of Ravenswood, 
WV, a beautiful community in Jackson County, right by the Ohio river, 
employers were deciding whether to lock out their own workers, 1,700 of 
them--that is an enormous work force in that part of West Virginia--
with permanent replacements. They made that decision. Everybody in West 
Virginia, including this Senator, watched the hurt that this labor 
dispute caused; it was genuine hurt--this is not a political speech. It 
was a genuine hurt within families. Families were just torn apart 
because, on the one hand, the need to work, and on the other hand, the 
need to play fair. This tore families asunder, and it was real. 
Families still do not speak to each other because of this issue. We 
watched this for over a year and a half in West Virginia, a State that 
can ill afford to have 1,700 people not working because an employer had 
the ability to punish its workers this way, and this employer tried 
very hard to punish his workers that way. It was violent and it was 
scary, and it hurt the image of West Virginia badly. We will never know 
how many families might have been saved from financial ruin, if the 
employer would have simply dealt with the labor dispute and gotten it 
resolved quickly.
  Mr. President, I truly do not believe Republicans in the Senate need 
to take up the cause of businesses that want the power to punish 
workers with something called permanent replacements. We are talking 
about a relatively few number of businesses--the relatively few who, in 
a strike, will decide to punish in this extreme manner. Sometimes an 
employer will take this action during the course of the dispute and 
sometimes that will be the purpose of the dispute from the very 
beginning--to break the union, or something else. But it is the few. It 
is not many. But when it happens, it is awful. So we are not talking 
about a typical situation; we are talking about a very untypical 
situation. That excessive power simply is not necessary. The Executive 
order under attack by the Kassebaum amendment would still retain any 
business' lawful ability to bring in temporary workers, while a labor 
dispute or strike is getting resolved. But the point is that we should 
encourage cooperation, we should encourage resolutions to conflicts.
  The Presiding Officer and I both come from States where there is a 
lot of coal mining. I can remember the days when, in my State, there 
were constant things called ``temporary restraining orders'' going 
before judges. Every time there was a dispute at the face of a mine 
between a worker and management over some little issue, or some big 
issue, the first thing they did--and the parallel is in the tort reform 
bill, where I expect the Presiding Officer and I will be on the same 
side--the first thing they did was call a lawyer and go to court. Then, 
of course, everybody got hostile and anxious, and the dispute went on 
forever, and no coal got mined and people did not make money and people 
could not put food on the table. The temporary restraining order--
whatever happened in court--would be appealed.
  Finally, management and workers decided in the coal industry in our 
State to simply say this is ridiculous, we are both losing. They sat 
down and worked out a way of working out their disagreements, which was 
to say that when a dispute occurred over a working condition or some 
rule or something at the face of a mine, which is underground where the 
wall of coal is, that the worker and the foreman at that area simply 
talked and worked it out right there. They agreed, workers and 
management, that this would be the system. I may have to fault my 
memory on this, but I think for 8 or 10 years, we had no temporary 
restraining orders whatsoever. Mining employers and workers simply 
decided that they were going to improve labor-management relations and 
they wanted it to work better. They wanted to be able to export coal 
which meant Japan, South Korea, and Canada had to depend upon the coal 
coming. Therefore, there had to be dependability and consistency that 
was in the interest of both workers and management. So they settled 
their disputes. I am talking about nothing different here.
  But even if there is a situation where there is a labor dispute, 
still a company can bring in replacement workers until the dispute is 
resolved. The point is, we should encourage the cooperation and 
resolutions to conflicts. We should try to prevent painful, costly, 
divisive situations that break out--in Ravenswood and the other 
communities that have been discussed on the floor over the past day or 
so.
  Again, I cannot understand why the President of the United States 
should not be allowed to condition Federal contracts on practices that 
would make us more sure that taxpayers' money would be spent 
efficiently. The logic of that, again, is where you do not have 
permanent replacements you have much shorter labor disputes by a factor 
of 7 and, therefore, money is saved for the taxpayers.
  There is a lot of talk on this floor about playing by the rules. This 
Senator does some of it and a lot of Senators do some of it. Should not 
the President of the United States be able to suggest that businesses 
that want Federal contracts play by the rules as well? I mean, is that 
not reasonable? It is very obvious from statistics that workers and 
their families do not want to resort to strikes. When has there been a 
strike that has not been destructive of workers' interests, and 
especially in the short term?
  People, generally, in this country want to work hard and make a good 
income and support their families. People have no choice but to work 
hard. But when the rare dispute breaks out, they should not have to 
fear the elimination of their jobs just because of a disagreement over 
wages or health benefits or safety standards. And I believe that 
deeply.
  The Kassebaum amendment should be defeated on many grounds. It is a 
disruption to the first time this year that this body has finally been 
able to do something real about the Federal deficit and Government 
spending. The amendment is an effort to take the President's ability 
away to set some practical standards on how Federal contracts are given 
out. And this amendment will only encourage more labor-management 
conflict and strife, and everybody here knows that. If this amendment 
prevails there will be more of it which is not in anyone's interest.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside the divisive tactics over issues 
that have to do with workplace and with relations between business and 
workers. Ask the families in Ravenswood, WV, what happened when an 
employer is allowed to respond to a labor dispute with permanent 
replacements. The answer is pain. The answer is suffering. And it is 
all totally unnecessary.
  Everyone in the Senate should take a fresh, objective look at this 
issue, which is very hard for people to do. The lines are so set on it. 
Too many people here stopped actually thinking about this issue long 
ago and took positions. And in this case, I think that those who oppose 
this would do well to take a fresh look and not think about who is on 
the side of business and who is on the side of organized labor and what 
kind of points can we build up. That is irrelevant. All 100 of us 
should be on the side of cooperation. All 100 of us should be working 
to uphold the law that grants workers the right to collectively 
bargain. All 100 of us should insist that we get on with the job that 
the bill before us is about, which is called reducing the Federal 
deficit and increasing our national security.
  I feel a special sense of obligation, I say to the Presiding Officer, 
because I 
[[Page S3793]] voted against the balanced budget amendment. I feel a 
special sense of obligation to get about the business of deficit 
reduction. I mean, there will be some areas where I will disagree with 
the majority, but there will be many areas where I will agree. I feel 
an obligation. Reducing the deficit helps the people of my State, too, 
in terms of future generations. Just as I think it was wise not to 
include, hopefully not to include, Social Security in any budget 
balancing effort, because people have a right to retire with dignity 
and confidence.
  So I hope this amendment will be defeated. I think that is important. 
This issue comes up every year and I know it is treated sort of 
automatically by both sides. But it is not an automatic issue. It is an 
extremely real and personal one. It has to do with the fundamental 
rights of people. It is not something which happens that often. We 
create more havoc in taking up this fight every year than if we let the 
President simply go out and do what Presidents ought to be able to do 
in the interest of business and working people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Kassebaum amendment.
  I must admit, Mr. President, that in listening to some of the debate 
today, I have felt like I am in a time warp. Congress has had this 
debate last year, the year before last. We have been here before. And, 
in earlier debates on legislation that would have prevented employers 
from using permanent replacements during an economic strike, that 
legislation did not pass.
  Notwithstanding Congress' failure to pass this legislation, it's 
back. The President has gone ahead on his own and by Executive order 
unilaterally imposed a major overhaul of labor law on Federal 
contractors.
  I know there has been discussion on the floor on Executive orders 
issued by Republican administrations, but there cannot be any doubt 
that the current effort is unprecedented: This Executive order does not 
uphold existing law--it voids it.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of labor issues to think 
twice about the type of precedent that this creates. This Executive 
order relies on the fact that use of replacements purportedly lengthens 
labor disputes. Does that mean that our next President can come along 
and by Executive order outlaw the right to strike by employees of 
Federal contractors?
  The Executive order issued this week does not uphold rights 
guaranteed under law; it abrogates them. And the President's striker 
replacement policy is not merely an exercise of procurement 
prerogative, it regulates private labor relations and restricts private 
rights guaranteed under law.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support Senator Kassebaum's amendment 
to withhold funds for this Executive order's implementation and 
enforcement.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The practice of permanently replacing workers who are 
exercising their right to strike, as guaranteed by longstanding Federal 
labor law, is wrong. It is wrong to punish striking workers for 
exercising their rights, and it is wrong to use replacement workers to 
disrupt the collective bargaining process.
  Since 1935, the National Labor Relations Act has expressly protected 
the right of workers to strike over economic conditions. Moreover, the 
act promises workers that they cannot be discharged by their employer 
for exercising this right.
  Under current interpretations of the law, employers are not violating 
the National Labor Relations Act when they hire replacement workers 
during a strike and promise to make those positions permanent. Rather, 
these employers are taking advantage of a true anomaly in Federal labor 
law, one which sets out a dubious distinction between firing a striking 
worker and permanently replacing that worker.
  To the worker, however, it is of little comfort to know that he or 
she has been permanently replaced rather than fired. The result in both 
cases is the same, and the right to strike becomes a right to lose your 
job.
  I believe strongly that the Congress must pass legislation to get rid 
of this anomaly in Federal labor law. Unfortunately, a minority of the 
Senate was able to block passage of such a bill last year.
  Having said that, however, I must emphasize that the President is not 
attempting to do by Executive order what Congress was prevented from 
doing last year.
  There can be no disagreement that our Founding Fathers entrusted 
Congress with the power to adopt the laws of the land. To the executive 
branch, they assigned the duty of implementing those laws.
  If the Executive order issued by President Clinton upset this balance 
of power, I would strongly oppose it. But it does not.
  Rather than usurping the policymaking role of the Congress, this 
Executive order sets out the terms under which the executive branch 
will fulfill its own constitutional role.
  Implementing the laws passed by Congress involves the procurement of 
goods and services by the Federal Government. To do this, the Federal 
Government enters into contracts with suppliers, as any business would 
do.
  In these dealings, the Government wants the same things that 
businesses want: a quality product, a reasonable price, dependable 
service. And like any business, the Federal Government selects the 
suppliers it believes are best able to meet these objectives.
  Indeed, with precious taxpayer dollars at stake, I'm sure most 
Americans want the Government to do business with only the most stable 
and reliable companies.
  Are companies that replace their workers during a lawful labor 
dispute the most stable and reliable suppliers for the executive 
branch? The President--the CEO of the executive branch--has determined 
that they are not.
  The use or threatened use of permanent replacement workers makes 
strained labor-management relations even more contentious. In fact, 
disputes involving replacement workers last seven times longer than 
disputes that do not.
  A company that replaces its workers during an ongoing dispute is 
trading in its experienced employees for inexperienced ones. This 
necessarily raises questions about the timeliness of delivery and 
quality of product these replacement workers will produce.
  Should the Federal Government take a gamble on products that might 
not be up to snuff? The President has determined that it should not.
  let's not forget that NASA and the Defense Department spend a large 
percentage of the Federal Government's total procurement dollars. When 
it comes to space and defense programs, it is critical that these 
dollars go to contractors of the highest caliber.
  On the other hand, it must be noted that this Executive order will 
not prevent the Defense Department or any other Federal agency from 
contracting with the supplier that best fits its needs.
  In fact, the order specifically guarantees the flexibility of an 
agency to enter into contracts with companies that have been debarred 
by the Secretary of Labor if a compelling reason can be shown.
  My Republican colleagues are suggesting that President Clinton has 
taken an extraordinary step by issuing this Executive order. On the 
contrary, Executive orders have been used throughout the years by 
Democratic and Republican Presidents alike to set forth important 
policies of the Federal Government.
  And addressing the issue of labor-management relations in an 
Executive order is not new, either. President Reagan did it in 1981 
when he permanently banned the striking PATCO members from returning to 
their jobs as air traffic controllers.
  And President Bush did it twice in 1992 when he issued Executive 
orders to prohibit the use of prehire agreements on Federal 
construction contracts and to require Federal contractors to post 
notices with regard to union membership.
  What it comes down to, then, is this: President Clinton has revised 
the executive branch's procurement policy--nothing more. And he has 
done it in a way that will help ensure that the Federal Government 
obtains the best goods and services it possibly can from its suppliers.
  [[Page S3794]] If the chairwoman of the Senate Labor Committee 
disagrees with this policy, she should introduce legislation to 
overturn it.
  That bill should be the subject of hearings by her committee and 
considered through the normal legislative process, not tacked on to a 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The chairwoman is attempting her own end run around the legislative 
process. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort and to get down to 
business with what is a very important measure to our national defense.
              impact of rescission on doe cleanup program

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concerns 
about the impact this rescission will have on DOE's nuclear weapons 
cleanup effort. The bill we have on the floor today reduces current 
year money for the cleanup program by $100 million. Other amendments 
being discussed may add to this cut. And we see where the House energy 
and water appropriations bill will reduce this year's funds for the 
program by an additional $45 million.
  Quite simply, if this trend continues one outcome can be guaranteed. 
The cost to the taxpayer to complete the DOE cleanup--over the life of 
the program--will increase dramatically. By dragging our heels and 
refusing to adequately fund this program, we stretch out the time it 
will take and will increase the overall cost--not to mention the 
increased risks to workers and the public who may be exposed to 
radiation as a result of these delays.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to discuss up front what the 
DOE cleanup budget is and is not. The majority of DOE's cleanup budget 
is dedicated to simply maintaining millions of tons of radioactive 
waste and scrap and thousands of contaminated facilities in a 
temporarily safe and secure condition while we try to figure out what 
to do with this material over the long haul.
  Let me repeat that. The majority of the DOE cleanup budget doesn't 
actually pay for anything to be cleaned up. The majority of DOE's 
cleanup budget pays for things like waste management and nuclear 
materials and facilities stabilization. While there are most certainly 
ways to reduce these so-called landlord costs--and DOE, under Secretary 
O'Leary and Assistant Secretary Grumbly are actively seeking ways to do 
just that--these costs simply cannot be wished away, nor reduced 
entirely. Only about one-quarter of the cleanup budget pays for 
environmental restoration, or actual cleanup.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues may be interested in learning 
what the fastest growing part of DOE's environmental budget actually 
is. I can tell them what it is not. It is not environmental 
restoration. In fact the fastest growing portion of DOE's cleanup 
budget is the category of nuclear materials and facilities 
stabilization. This category represents costs to maintain closed 
nuclear weapons production facilities in a stable mode until their 
final decontamination. These costs are often referred to as landlord 
costs. They represent administrative costs, utility costs, and unique 
safety related costs that are absolutely necessary to maintain whether 
the facility is
 operating or shutdown. These costs only go off the books when the 
facility is finally decommissioned.

  Over the last several years, as policy decisions have been made to 
shut down these production facilities, these landlord costs have been 
transferred to the Environmental Management Program from the Defense 
Program within DOE. DOE's fiscal year 1996 budget request illustrates 
this process issue vividly. The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the 
Environmental Management program includes $843 million to manage former 
defense facilities at Savannah River, Mound, and Pinellas which no 
longer have a production mission. Prior to this year's budget, these 
costs were born by DOE's Defense programs office. Budget cutters should 
keep this fact in mind when examining the Environmental Management 
budget. The scope of work--the number of facilities, people, and 
inventory which must be managed--within the EM program has expanded 
dramatically over the past several years.
  Mr. President, as many of my colleague may know, my legislative and 
oversight work in environment, safety and health issues grew out of my 
concern about the condition of our country's nuclear weapon production 
complex. Ohio happens to be the location of 3 of the 17 major 
facilities in the United States which, over the past 45 years, produced 
the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. These 17 facilities are the ones we 
usually hear about when we talk about the DOE cleanup program--places 
like Fernald, Hanford, Savannah River, Rocky Flats, Los Alamos. 
However, many of my colleagues will be interested to find out that 
there are literally scores of sites around the country that fall under 
DOE's cleanup program. Most of these are associated in some way with 
the nuclear weapons program; however, some are associated with the 
nuclear navy program and others with energy research activities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the Department 
of Energy's cleanup sites--some 137 sites located in 34 states--be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  DOE EM SITES                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ST #                           Location                        Installation/Site                *   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK-1........................  Amchitka Island..................  Amchitka Island Test Site............  ........
AK-2........................  Cape Thompson....................  Project Chariot......................         C
AZ-1........................  Tuba City........................  Tuba City............................       U/C
AZ-2........................  Monument Valley..................  Monument Valley......................         U
CA-1........................  Berkeley.........................  Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.........  ........
CA-2........................  Berkeley.........................  University of California.............       F/C
CA-3........................  Livermore........................  Lawrence Livermore National            ........
                                                                  Laboratory.                                   
CA-3........................  Livermore........................  Sandia National Laboratories--         ........
                                                                  Livermore.                                    
CA-5........................  Vallecitos.......................  G E Vallecitos Nuclear Center........  ........
CA-6........................  Canoga Park (L.A.)...............  Atomics International................  ........
CA-7........................  San Diego........................  General Atomics......................  ........
CA-8........................  Palo Alto........................  Stanford Linear Accelerator Center...  ........
CA-9........................  Oxnard...........................  Oxnard...............................  ........
CA-9........................  Santa Susana.....................  Santa Susana Field Laboratory........  ........
CA-9........................  Santa Susana.....................  Energy Technology Engineering Center.  ........
CA-10.......................  Davis............................  Laboratory for Energy-Related Health   ........
                                                                  Research at U.C. Davis.                       
CA-11.......................  Imperial County..................  Salton Sea Test Base.................  ........
CO-1........................  Grand Valley.....................  Project Rulison Site.................  ........
CO-1........................  Rifle............................  Old Rifle............................         U
CO-1........................  Rifle............................  New Rifle............................         U
CO-1........................  Rifle............................  Project Rio Blanco Site..............  ........
CO-2........................  Gunnison.........................  Gunnison.............................         U
CO-3........................  Jefferson County.................  Rocky Flats..........................  ........
CO-4........................  Durango..........................  Durango..............................       U/C
CO-5........................  Grand Junction...................  Grand Junction Projects Office Site..  ........
CO-5........................  Grand Junction...................  Climax Mill Site.....................       U/C
CO-6........................  Maybell..........................  Maybell..............................         U
CO-7........................  Naturita.........................  Naturita.............................         U
CO-8........................  Slick Rock.......................  Union Carbide........................         U
CO-8........................  Slick Rock.......................  Old North Continent..................         U
CT-1........................  Seymour..........................  Seymour Specialty Wire...............       F/C
CT-2........................  Windsor..........................  Combustion Engineering Site..........         F
FL-1........................  St. Petersburg...................  Pinellas Plant.......................  ........
FL-1........................  St. Petersburg...................  4.5 Acre Site........................  ........
FL-1........................  Largo............................  Peak Oil Petroleum Refining Plant....  ........
HI-1........................  Kauai............................  Kauai Test Facility..................  ........
IA-1........................  Ames.............................  Ames Laboratory......................  ........
ID-1........................  Lowman...........................  Lowman...............................       U/C


                                                                                                                
[[Page S3795]]
                                             DOE EM SITES--Continued                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ST #                           Location                        Installation/Site                *   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID-2........................  Idaho Falls......................  Idaho National Engineering Laboratory  ........
ID-2........................  Idaho Falls......................  Argonne National Laboratory--West....  ........
IL-1........................  Chicago..........................  University of Chicago................       F/C
IL-1........................  Chicago..........................  National Guard Armory................       F/C
IL-2........................  Cook County......................  Site A/Plot M, Palos Forest Preserve.  ........
IL-2........................  Batavia..........................  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  ........
IL-2........................  Lemont...........................  Argonne National Laboratory--East....  ........
IL-3........................  Granite City.....................  Granite City Steel...................       F/C
IL-4........................  Madison..........................  Madison..............................         F
KY-1........................  Hillsboro........................  Maxey Flats Disposal Site............  ........
KY-2........................  Paducah..........................  Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant......  ........
MA-1........................  Norton...........................  Shpack Landfill......................         F
MA-2........................  Beverly..........................  Ventron..............................         F
MA-3........................  Indian Orchard...................  Chapman Valve........................         F
MD-1........................  Curtis Bay.......................  W.R. Grace & Co......................         F
MI-1........................  Adrian...........................  General Motors.......................         F
MO-1........................  Kansas City......................  Kansas City Plant....................  ........
MO-2........................  Hazelwood........................  Latty Avenue Properties..............         F
MO-2........................  St. Charles County...............  Weldon Spring Site...................  ........
MO-2........................  St. Louis County.................  St. Louis Airport Vicinity Properties         F
MO-2........................  St. Louis County.................  St. Louis Airport Storage Site.......         F
MO-2........................  St. Louis........................  St. Louis Downtown Site..............         F
MS-1........................  Hattiesburg......................  Salmon Test Site.....................  ........
MT-1........................  Butte............................  Western Environmental Technology       ........
                                                                  Office (WETO).                                
ND-1........................  Bowman...........................  Bowman...............................         U
ND-2........................  Belfield.........................  Belfield.............................         U
NE-1........................  Lincoln..........................  Hallam Nuclear Power Facility........         C
NJ-1........................  Jersey City......................  Kellex/Pierpont......................       F/C
NJ-2........................  Maywood..........................  Maywood Chemical Works...............         F
NJ-3........................  Princeton........................  Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory..  ........
NJ-4........................  Middlesex........................  Middlesex Municipal Landfill.........       F/C
NJ-5........................  Middlesex........................  Middlesex Sampling Plant.............         F
NJ-5........................  New Brunswick....................  New Brunswick Laboratory.............         F
NJ-6........................  Wayne............................  Wayne................................         F
NJ-7........................  Deepwater........................  Du Pont & Company....................         F
NM-1........................  Albuquerque......................  South Valley Site....................  ........
NM-1........................  Albuquerque......................  Sandia National Laboratories--         ........
                                                                  Albuquerque.                                  
NM-1........................  Albuquerque......................  Inhalation Toxicology Research         ........
                                                                  Institute.                                    
NM-1........................  Albuquerque......................  Holloman Air Force Base..............  ........
NM-1........................  Los Lunas........................  Pagano Salvage Yard..................  ........
NM-2........................  White Sands MR...................  Chupadera Mesa.......................       F/C
NM-3........................  Carlsbad.........................  Project Gnome-Coach Site.............  ........
NM-3........................  Carlsbad.........................  Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..........  ........
NM-4........................  Ambrosia Lake....................  Ambrosia Lake........................         U
NM-5........................  Farmington.......................  Project Gasbuggy Site................  ........
NM-6........................  Shiprock.........................  Shiprock.............................       U/C
NM-7........................  Los Alamos.......................  Los Alamos National Laboratory.......  ........
NM-8........................  Los Alamos.......................  Bayo Canyon..........................       F/C
NM-8........................  Los Alamos.......................  Acid/Pueblo Canyon...................       F/C
NV-1........................  Fallon...........................  Project Shoal Site...................  ........
NV-2........................  Tonopah..........................  Central Nevada Test Area.............  ........
NV-2........................  Nellis AFB.......................  Tonopah Test Range...................  ........
NV-2........................  Mercury..........................  Nevada Test Site.....................  ........
NY-1........................  Buffalo..........................  B&L Steel............................         F
NY-2........................  West Valley......................  West Valley Demonstration Project....  ........
NY-3........................  Tonawanda........................  Seaway Industrial Park...............         F
NY-3........................  Tonawanda........................  Ashland Oil #1.......................         F
NY-3........................  Tonawanda........................  Ashland Oil #2.......................         F
NY-3........................  Tonawanda........................  Linde Air Products...................         F
NY-4........................  Lewiston.........................  Niagara Falls Storage Site Vicinity         F/C
                                                                  Property.                                     
NY-5........................  Niagara Falls....................  Niagara Falls Storage Site...........       F/C
NY-6........................  Colonie..........................  Colonie..............................         F
NY-6........................  Schenectady......................  Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.......  ........
NY-7........................  Manhattan........................  Baker & Williams Warehouse...........       F/C
NY-8........................  Upton, LI........................  Brookhaven National Laboratory.......  ........
OH-1........................  Columbus.........................  Battelle Columbus Laboratories.......  ........
OH-1........................  Columbus.........................  B&T Metals...........................         F
OH-2........................  Fernald..........................  Fernald Environmental Management       ........
                                                                  Project.                                      
OH-3........................  Ashtabula........................  Reactive Metals Inc./Fields Brook      ........
                                                                  Site.                                         
OH-4........................  Oxford...........................  Alba Craft...........................         F
OH-4........................  Fairfield........................  Associated Aircraft Tool &                    F
                                                                  Manufacturing.                                
OH-4........................  Hamilton.........................  HHM Safe Site........................         F
OH-5........................  Painesville......................  Painesville..........................         F
OH-6........................  Piqua............................  Piqua Nuclear Power Facility.........         C
OH-7........................  Miamisburg.......................  Mound Plant..........................  ........
OH-8........................  Portsmouth.......................  Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant...  ........
OH-9........................  Luckey...........................  Luckey...............................         F
OH-9........................  Toledo...........................  Baker Brothers.......................         F
OR-1........................  Lakeview.........................  Lakeview.............................       U/C
OR-2........................  Albany...........................  Albany Metallurgical Research Center.       F/C
PA-1........................  Aliquippa........................  Aliquippa Forge......................       F/C
PA-2........................  Canonsburg.......................  Canonsburg...........................       U/C
PA-3........................  Shippingport.....................  Shippingport Atomic Power Station....         C
PA-4........................  Springdale.......................  C.H. Schnoor.........................       F/C
PA-4........................  West Mifflin.....................  Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory.......  ........
PR-1........................  Mayaguez.........................  Center for Energy & Environmental      ........
                                                                  Research.                                     
SC-1........................  Aiken............................  Savannah River Site..................  ........
SD-1........................  Edgemont.........................  Edgemont Vicinity Properties.........         C
TN-1........................  Oak Ridge........................  Elza Gate............................       F/C
TN-2........................  Oak Ridge........................  Y-12 Plant...........................  ........
TN-2........................  Oak Ridge........................  Oak Ridge K-25 Site..................  ........
TN-2........................  Oak Ridge........................  Oak Ridge National Laboratory........  ........
TX-1........................  Falls City.......................  Falls City...........................       U/C
TX-2........................  Amarillo.........................  Pantex Plant.........................  ........
UT-1........................  Green River......................  Green River..........................       U/C
UT-2........................  Salt Lake City...................  Salt Lake City.......................       U/C
UT-3........................  Mexican Hat......................  Mexican Hat..........................         U
UT-3........................  Monticello.......................  Monticello Millsite and Vicinity       ........
                                                                  Properties.                                   
WA-1........................  Richland.........................  Hanford Site.........................  ........
WY-1........................  Spook............................  Spook................................       U/C
WY-2........................  Riverton.........................  Riverton.............................       U/C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*U=UMTRA; F=FUSRAP; C=COMPLETED                                                                                 


Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in the early 1980's I chaired hearings 
which revealed serious worker safety and health problems at DOE's 
uranium Enrichment facility in Portsmouth, OH, as well at the Fernald 
uranium foundry outside of Cincinnati. These hearings were among the 
first public examinations of the nuclear weapon complex. Due in part to 
decades of secrecy and 
[[Page S3796]] the cold war urgency to produce nuclear weapons at any 
cost, little attention was historically given to worker safety or the 
environment. After becoming chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
in 1986, I significantly increased the number of oversight hearings of 
this heretofore neglected program.
  As problems were uncovered at Ohio's facilities, I began asking 
whether similar problems existed at DOE's other sites around the 
country, including Savannah River, Hanford, Rocky Flats, and our 
national labs. Often utilizing the auditors and investigators of the 
General Accounting Office, the answer which all-too-often came back 
was, ``Yes, in spades.'' One example shows how massive the nuclear 
weapons cleanup has become. In 1985, I asked GAO to estimate the cost 
of cleaning up DOE's facilities. Their answer was $8-12 billion, a 
significant sum. By 1988, that figure had risen to $100 billion. Now, 
in 1995 GAO's best guess is over $300 billion, with the caveat that 
much of the technology does not yet exist to do the job. Over the past 
several years, the fastest growing program within DOE has been the 
cleanup program. We are currently spending over $6 billion every year 
to address the very real environmental problems at these sites.
  However like any other government program which grows exponentially 
in a short time, the growth of DOE's cleanup program has resulted in 
waste and inefficiency. My investigations into the DOE weapon complex 
have focused on exposing the serious environment safety and health 
problems which exist there, but also on the Department's ability to 
address and manage these problems efficiently. One particular problem 
has been DOE's contract management practices, which were all-too-often 
inadequate and failed to properly account for or track literally 
billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigations into DOE's contracting practices have resulted in 
taxpayer savings in a variety of ways, from reducing the cost of 
drilling wells at
 Hanford, to controlling affiliate contracting relationships at 
Savannah River to implementing improved planning and management tools 
for estimating and tracking program costs at all sites.

  I am pleased to say that the Department, under Secretary O'Leary's 
leadership has made a number of very real efforts to get waste and 
mismanagement problems under control. First and foremost Secretary 
O'Leary has agreed to reduce the DOE budget by $10.6 billion over the 
next 5 years. Within this reduction, the cleanup program has agreed to 
reduce its spending by $4.4 billion over the same timeframe. The DOE 
contract reform initiative and reorganization efforts also will 
strengthen the Department's ability to do more with less.
  As the magnitude of the nuclear weapon cleanup becomes clearer, many 
people are beginning to suggest that we back away from our obligation 
to remediate these sites, saying that it is simply too expensive. 
``After all,'' these critics say, ``these sites are remote and few 
people live there. Aren't there more cost-effective ways we can spend 
taxpayer dollars?'' I simply do not agree with the premise that we can 
back off of this cleanup effort. While it is true that many of the most 
contaminated sites--like Hanford and Savannah River--are remote, they 
are unfortunately situated near major drinking water supplies. If 
little is done now, it is likely that our children or grandchildren--
even those living far from these sites--will have to contend with 
severely contaminated water. And for every site that is remotely 
located, the Department has sites like Rocky Flats, outside of Denver, 
or Fernald, outside of Cincinnati, which are located near major 
population centers.
  I am convinced that the answer to cleaning up these facilities will 
not be found by putting off to future generations the responsibility of 
dealing with these problems. I intend to continue to exercise broad and 
vigorous oversight in this area during the 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say about this program as we 
proceed through this year's budgeting process. I would close by 
encouraging my colleagues to review information which describes the 
Department's fiscal year 1996 cleanup budget in greater detail. I ask 
unanimous consent that this material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

What Have We Done?--Environmental Management Accomplishments, 1989-1994

       Cleanup of 16 former nuclear weapons and industrial sites 
     (FUSRAP).
       Cleanup of 14 Uranium Mills Tailings Remedial Action 
     (UMTRA) sites.
       Remediation of 5,000 public and private properties 
     contaminated with uranium tailings.
       Completed 119 Remedial Actions.
       100 Facilities have been decommissioned.
       9 Site-Specific Advisory Boards have been established.
       30.4 million square meters of soil and uranium tailings 
     removed.
       16 million pounds of scrap metal recycled.
       2.4 billion gallons of ground water and 1.8 billion gallons 
     of surface water treated.
       500 tanks removed or replaced.
       55,000 pounds of shrapnel and ordnance removed.
       2,200 acres of land stabilized.
       488,000 drum equivalent of stored waste shipped offsite.
       Disposed of 50,000 m\3\ of low-level waste.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM                    
             [Fiscal year 1996 Congressional Budget Request]            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year--                
                                     ------------------------   Change  
                                         1995        1996               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management....................    2,916.1     2,707.7      -208.4 
Environmental Restorations..........    1,768.5     1,993.7      +225.2 
Nuclear Mat. & Facilities                                               
 Stabilization......................      838.9     1,679.7      +840.8 
Technology Development..............      417.4       390.5       -26.9 
Uranium Enrichment D&D..............      301.3       288.8       -12.5 
Analysis, Education & Risk Mgt......       84.9       157.0       +72.1 
Corrective Activities...............       27.2         8.8       -18.4 
Transportation Management...........       20.7        16.2        -4.5 
Compliance & Program Coord..........        0.0        81.3       +81.3 
                                     -----------------------------------
    Subtotls........................    6,374.0     7,323.7      +948.7 
Use of Prior Year Balances..........     (257.5)     (300.0)     (+42.5)
SR Pension Funds....................       (0.0)      (37.0)     (+37.0)
D&D Fund Deposit Offsets............     (133.7)     (350.0)    (+216.3)
D&D Fund Foreign Fee................       (0.0)      (45.0)     (+45.0)
                                     -----------------------------------
    Totals..........................    5,983.8     6,591.7        +608 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Over 2,400 facilities will be transferred to EM from other 
     DOE programs in 1995, adding an additional $843 million in 
     site management responsibilities to the FY 1996 EM budget.
       In December 1995 the Savannah River Site will begin 
     removing High-Level Waste from storage tanks and 
     ``vitrifying'' it into a safer glass form at the Defense 
     Waste Processing Facility.
       A minimum of 24 new or improved technologies will be made 
     available for transfer to private industry for implementation 
     and 50 technologies will be pilot-, bench-, or full-scale 
     demonstrated in FY 1996.
       Remedial action has been completed on 17 of 45 Formerly 
     Utilized Sites Remedial Action Project (FUSRAP) and on 13 of 
     24 Uranium Mills Tailing Remedial Action sites.
       16 Remedial Actions, 78 Assessments and 12 Decontamination 
     and Decommissioning projects will be completed in FY 1995.

                             FISCAL YEAR 1996 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET--OUTYEAR PROFILES                            
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996      1997      1998      1999      2000      Total  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
(5) Budget authority                                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Base...............................................   $6,592    $6,973     7,042    $7,115    $7,181    $34,903 
Savings............................................  ........     (700)   (1,510)   (1,597)   (1,665)    (5,472)
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Budget authority...............................    6,592     6,273     5,532     5,518     5,516     29,431 
                                                    ============================================================
                                                                                                                
(5) Outlays                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                
Base...............................................   $6,144    $6,686    $6,966    $7,070    $7,145    $34,011 
Savings............................................  ........     (350)   (1,000)   (1,432)   (1,618)    (4,400)
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Outlays........................................    6,144     6,336     5,966     5,638     5,527     29,611 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   [[Page S3797]] Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Smith and Mr. Chafee pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 534 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we had a good debate and discussion on 
the Kassebaum amendment earlier with a number of our colleagues. I 
would just like to make some concluding comments about where I think we 
are in this debate and discussion.
  Earlier in the course of the afternoon, I talked in some detail about 
the legitimacy of the Executive order. I included in the Record the 
legal justification for the order and then summarized the policy 
considerations for the Executive order and responded to some of the 
questions that have been raised over the period of the last couple of 
days about whether the President exceeded his authority and 
responsibility in terms of issuing it.
  Hopefully, for those Members who are interested, they will at least 
have an opportunity to read through the Attorney General's memorandum 
and some of the other material which I think spell out very clearly the 
responsibility that the President had for undertaking the Executive 
order, the legal justification for that order.
  Just a few moments ago, I tried to put this proposal in the context 
of the discussions that we are having in the Senate of the United 
States and in the House of Representatives under the general rubric of 
the Contract With America. I think, quite frankly, Mr. President, it is 
appropriate to make these comments at this time because the amendment 
of the Senator from Kansas, in trying to undermine the President's 
authority and power, particularly the policy reasons for it, I think 
really helps put into sharper relief exactly what some of the public 
policy matters are that have been raised during the period of these 
past weeks and what I think the American people, particularly working 
families, should be very much aware of and I should think very much 
concerned about. I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's 
time this afternoon to address that broader issue.
  The pending Republican amendment on permanent striker replacements is 
a skirmish in a much larger battle that is now unfolding in Congress in 
full view of the American people. Each day's developments under the new 
Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives raises 
increasing concern. The Republican's so-called Contract With America is 
being unmasked for what it is. It is not a Contract With America at all 
but a declaration of war on working families throughout America.
  There is a fundamental hypocrisy behind many Republican positions in 
the current national debate. They do not mind Government stepping in 
with a generous helping hand for business; they think tax cuts for the 
rich and corporate welfare in the form of lavish Government subsidies 
for businesses are fine, but our Republican friends get upset when 
Government steps in to offer a helping hand to working families, to the 
elderly, to children and to those in need.
  Democrats are proud to be the defenders of Social Security and 
Medicare for senior citizens, a fair minimum wage for workers, aid for 
college education, hot lunches for children in their schools. Democrats 
are proud to be on the side of all these individuals and families 
across America struggling to make ends meet, and we are proud to oppose 
any Contract With America that endangers all of these worthwhile 
programs.
  President Clinton had it right when he said the Nation wants 
Government to be lean not mean. But wherever we turn in Congress today, 
we see mean-spirited assaults on programs that help people, and I would 
like to discuss a few of these basic priorities today issue by issue.
  We know that education is a key building block of the American dream. 
While college costs rise to over $8,000 a year at many State 
universities and over $20,000 a year at many private colleges, a 
college education is too often an impossible dream for working 
families. We know that students and their families are struggling hard 
to find the finances needed to pursue the education and the training 
they need.
  Yet, Republicans are proposing the largest cuts in student aid in the 
Nation's history. The proposals in the Contract With America would 
slash $20 billion from student aid over the next 5 years; an additional 
$20 billion that students and working families would have to come up 
with from their own pockets.
  The contract proposes to eliminate the interest on student loans the 
Government now pays while students are in school. Under current law, 
interest does not build up on student loans until students graduate and 
can start paying back their loans. Slashing this interest subsidy will 
save the Federal Government $12 billion over 5 years, but at what 
price? By deeper indebtedness for students, as much as 20 to 50 percent 
deeper.
  For a student who borrows the maximum amount to pay for 4 years in 
college, the Republicans' cut would add $3,000 in extra interest 
payments. Instead of $17,000 in loans to pay off college, the student 
would owe $20,000. And that is not all. Republicans are also calling 
for the elimination of the campus-based grant and loan programs that 
help students pay their way through college. That is another $7 billion 
in cuts that will hurt the Nation's students.
  Republicans extol the virtue of work, yet they propose to eliminate 
the highly successful work-study program that enables students to work 
at jobs on campus and in their communities to earn part of their 
financial aid. And the only ones that are eligible for those are, 
again, working families, the sons and daughters of working families. 
There is a sliding scale and it gets up to maybe $62,000, $64,000 for 
three members of a family in school.
  You are talking about a program that is targeted, again, to provide 
working families' students to be able to gain additional resources as a 
result of working at jobs on campuses and in the communities as part of 
a financial aid package.
  It is not as if the States will pick up the slack. In Massachusetts, 
State financial aid for students has been cut by almost a third since 
1988. Tuitions and fees charged to students at the State university 
have doubled. If the Republican cuts go through, Massachusetts students 
will lose $70 million in Federal student aid a year, more than the 
total amount the State spends on student aid.
  Republicans claim they want to balance the budget so as not to bury 
the next generation in debt, but they are more than willing to bury the 
Nation's students in debt. In fact, Republicans are proposing at the 
same time to add to the deficit in order to protect the banks at the 
expense of students. And I want the attention of the Members on this 
particular issue affecting students in their own States.
  Last Friday, Senator Kassebaum introduced a bill to cap the new 
Federal direct lending program for college students. That program began 
in 1993 under the leadership of President Clinton and Democrats in 
Congress but also with the support of Senator Durenberger, Senator 
Jeffords, and other Republicans. That particular program has cut 
college student loan fees in half and lowered interest rates on their 
loans. It has eliminated the huge and confusing bureaucracy that makes 
it difficult for students to receive their loans on time and even 
harder for them to pay back their loans.
  Under the direct lending and current law, students will save $2.2 
billion over 5 years and taxpayers will save $4.3 billion. But banks do 
not like the new program because it reduces the profits they were 
making at students' expense. The Republicans want to stop the direct 
lending in its tracks, even though stopping it will add to the deficit 
in the long run.
  The Republican priorities are clear. The Democrats put students and 
education first; Republicans put the banks first, even ahead of 
reducing the deficit.
  The economy, the Treasury and the families across America will suffer 
if the next generation of students have to start their working lives 
under a 
[[Page S3798]] mountain of debt and cannot afford the education and 
training they need to be productive workers. Slamming the door of 
college in the face of the Nation's students is not a Contract With 
America, it is an insult to America.
  The next issue is health care. Few things are more important to the 
security of working families than affordable quality health care. Few 
things are more important to senior citizens than Medicare. But for the 
new Republican majority, the tax cuts for the wealthy and the 
protection of corporate profits are more important than the health care 
of American workers and their families and Medicare for our senior 
citizens.
  Today, no working family is guaranteed affordable health care. Thirty 
million members of working families have no health insurance at all. 
The breadwinners in these families work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks 
a year. But all their hard work does not free them from concern about 
their health security. They cannot afford to buy health insurance on 
their own and their employers will not contribute to the cost.
  Even families that have health insurance are not secure. No family 
can be sure that the insurance that protects them today will be there 
for them tomorrow when serious illness strikes. Lose your job and you 
can lose your coverage. Change jobs and you can lose your coverage. 
Your employer can decide your coverage is too expensive and drop it 
altogether. And your insurance company can decide you are a bad risk 
and cancel your current policy. More than 2 million Americans lose 
their health insurance every month.
  The skyrocketing cost of health care is depriving workers of the wage 
increases they deserve. It is keeping real income stagnant, even as the 
economy grows and strengthens.
  Last year, the Republicans drew a line in the sand against the simple 
and sensible idea that every employer should be expected to contribute 
to the costs of health insurance for their employees, even though most 
employers do so voluntarily today.
  Last year, as their alternative the Republicans proposed reforms in 
the insurance market, to try to make health insurance more available. 
They offered subsidies to workers whose employers did not provide 
health insurance. But this year, this year the Republicans have backed 
away from even this minimalist approach. Health care is not even in the 
Republican contract. It is not in the agenda for the first 100 days. 
And the two Republican bills introduced to date provide not a single 
dollar to help working families afford health insurance.
  The problem has not gone away. Despite the economic recovery, the 
number of uninsured rose by more than a million last year. Workers who 
still have their insurance are less secure than they were a year ago. 
Health care costs continue to rise at twice the rate of general 
inflation. But for the Republicans, now that there is no threat of new 
responsibilities on business, they feel no responsibility to address 
the needs of workers.
  Families need a reliable system of health security for their 
retirement years as well. Older Americans are the most vulnerable to 
costly illnesses. The cost of health care in retirement threatens not 
only the security of retired workers but the security of their children 
and grandchildren as well, who will contribute everything they have to 
keep their parents from destitution.
  For three decades, Medicare has provided health security for senior 
citizens. But today, the security of Medicare is in danger, and the 
Republican program threatens to destroy it. The Republican Speaker of 
the House of Representatives has said that Medicare should be rethought 
from top to bottom and that every decision on it must be made in the 
light of a balanced budget. The Republican chairman of the Finance 
Committee has projected $300 billion in Medicare cuts over the next 7 
years. Independent estimates of the cost of the Republican contract 
project cuts in Medicare of an almost unthinkable 31 percent of 
projected program costs.
  Because of current program gaps and out-of-control health care costs, 
the protection that Medicare provides is already inadequate. Last year, 
senior citizens spent an average of $2,800 out of their pockets for 
health care--four times what nonelderly Americans spent.
  Just 8 years ago, in 1987, senior citizens spent 15 percent of their 
income for medical care--and that was too much. Today, that number has 
soared to 23 percent--almost $1 in every $4 taken from limited incomes 
that are already stretched to pay for food, housing, heat, clothing, 
and other essential expenses of daily living. If the medical costs of 
senior citizens in nursing homes and other institutions are included, 
the percentages would be even higher. I say senior citizens should be 
paying less for medical care, not more.
  The damage done by reductions of scale contemplated in the Republican 
contract go beyond the increase of out-of-pocket costs. They would turn 
senior citizens into second-class citizens in health care. They would 
significantly boost the already excessive insurance premiums paid by 
working families. They would damage key health care institutions. They 
would be achieved by forcing senior citizens into managed care programs 
and denying them the opportunity to go to the doctor and the hospital 
they choose.
  President Clinton has taken a strong stance on this issue--no 
Medicare cuts unless they are part of overall health care reform that 
protects senior citizens, working families, and health care 
institutions.
  Democrats support these principles, but our Republican friends take a 
different view. Billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, paid 
for by billions of dollars in Medicare cuts for senior citizens.
  Other important aspects of health security are protection from unsafe 
and ineffective prescription drugs, reasonable access to the physicians 
and other health professionals, especially for those who live in rural 
and underserved urban areas, and safe workplaces and a safe 
environment.
  What is the Republican program? Hamstring the FDA so that drug 
companies can have higher profits, even though the American people will 
have worse protection. Cut the National Health Service Corps, so that 
people who live in rural communities and inner cities will have to go 
without care when they need to see a doctor. Roll back the rules that 
require businesses to provide a safe workplace for employees. Undermine 
the environmental protections that bring clean air and clean water.
  In each of these areas, the Republican prescription for health care 
is a healthier bottom line for special interests and the wealthy, and 
greater risk of illness for American families. That is the kind of 
cost-benefit analysis we are getting these days. It is the wrong 
analysis, because it looks at the wrong costs and the wrong benefits.
  Yesterday, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee outlined a 5-year tax cut proposal as part of the Republican 
contract. It is a lavish tax break for the rich, that will inevitably 
be paid for out of the pockets of working families. It is an 
antifamily, antiwork, antichildren tax cut, and it does not deserve to 
pass.
  It will cost the Treasury $700 billion over the next decade. It will 
drive up the deficit to levels unheard of even during the Reagan and 
Bush administrations.
  Is it just coincidence that the total amount of the nutrition cuts 
recently proposed by the House Republicans--in WIC, school breakfasts, 
school lunches--will provide just enough to pay for the capital gains 
tax cut for families earning over $100,000? This is an affront to 
working American families, because it takes the most from those who 
have the least.
  The current capital gains tax cut will be cut in half; 75 percent of 
the tax benefit from this cut will go to those making more than 
$100,000 a year--the top 9 percent of income; 50 percent of the benefit 
will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.
  The tax cut proposal also calls for accelerated depreciation 
deductions for business. A similar tax break was included in the Reagan 
tax cut in 1981. It was rightfully curtailed in the 1986 Tax Reform Act 
and it should not be expanded now.
  The poor and the middle class have no resources for these types of 
investments. They would get no benefit from this provision. But it 
would provide $90 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations 
in America.
  [[Page S3799]] The Republican tax cut would also repeal the 
alternative minimum tax which now keeps major corporations from 
avoiding taxes altogether. If it is repealed, it will put $60 billion 
into the pockets of wealthy corporations and let many of them go 
entirely tax free.
  In the unkindest cut of all, the Republican proposal would deny any 
tax relief to the lowest income families.
  The original Contract With America made the $500 tax credit for 
children refundable, which means the tax relief would have been 
available to all families including those at the lowest income levels 
who need help the most. By deleting the refundable features of this tax 
cut the Republican plan will deny $13 billion in tax relief for these 
families.
  Millionaires will get their tax cut in full, but to save money our 
Republican friends now offer no relief at all to the millions of 
families at the other end of the income scale. The plan makes a mockery 
of any sense of tax fairness and tax justice, and it must not be 
permitted to stand.
  I can cite many other ways in which the so-called Contract With 
America declares war on working families and average citizens across 
the country. In the weeks to come we will have an opportunity in the 
Senate to debate all of these issues in full and I am confident that 
when we do, a fairer contract will be written. The real casualties of 
this war will be the worst provisions of the contract, not the people 
of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________