[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3909-S3918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of H.R. 889, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental
appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the
military readiness of the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Bumpers amendment No. 330, to restrict the obligation or
expenditure of funds on the NASA/Russian Cooperative MIR
Program.
Kassebaum amendment No. 331 (to committee amendment
beginning on page 1, line 3), to limit funding of an
Executive order that would prohibit Federal contractors from
hiring permanent replacements for striking workers.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 1 hour for debate on the
Kassebaum amendment No. 331, to be equally divided between the Senator
from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
The distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. Coverdell].
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Amendment No. 331
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from
Kansas. I rise in support of her amendment.
I had an opportunity to speak to this issue just yesterday to several
assembled journalists. I said one of the striking features about the
issue that is before us is how it reminds us of a rather growing
pattern of this administration to circumvent the legislative branch. If
you think on it, this issue, which is very controversial, has been
argued before this Senate repeatedly and the provision that the
President is trying to put in place has been rejected here. It has not
found acceptance in the people's branch of our Government. So now we
find the President trying to accomplish by Executive fiat what the
people's branch of Government would not do.
It reminds me of Somalia, of Haiti, of Mexico, and now striker
replacement.
Time and time again we see the administration coming for acceptance
to the legislative branch, the people's branch, for the impact and
reflection of what the American people are arguing or are wishing for.
And when that cannot be accomplished, he will just bypass it,
circumvent it. I do not think this is going to set very well with the
American people as they begin to focus on a pattern of moving around
their interests.
I am always taken aback, still. I have been here going into the third
year. I still am perplexed by a city that seems to feel that it and it
alone can establish the relationships in the free marketplace of this
great country. And every time they do it, every time they meddle,
invariably the reaction is disruption in the marketplace and the very
thing the sound bites suggest we are trying to do, to help workers, as
a result is not what happens.
If you destabilize the playing field that has existed between labor
and management for the last 50 years, if management has no recourse in
terms
[[Page S3910]] of hiring a replacement worker if an extended strike
takes place, then invariably you are going to have increased consumer
costs, you are going to have business decisions to avoid this
complexity, you will have businesses that decide this is not the place
to build their business. And every time we add to the burden of
management and how they build businesses, we make it harder and harder
for people to work in their businesses. That is the outcome of this
kind of interference in the workplace: less jobs, not more jobs--less
jobs, not more protected jobs.
It has to be remembered, you cannot replace a striker today if it is
a health-related issue or an environment-related issue. You can if
there is an argument about wages that cannot be resolved. Only 3
percent of the work force in all these strikes have ever been replaced
in this country.
Management does not want a strike. Management does not want to
replace a worker. It is expensive, costly, time consuming,
destabilizing.
I can see my time is about up, Mr. President. I support the amendment
of the Senator from Kansas. I feel we are intervening in the free
marketplace and it will be destabilizing to the work force of our
country.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just so colleagues are
clear before they cast this vote after listening to my colleague from
Georgia--the Executive order does not resemble Somalia. It represents a
lawful exercise of Presidential authority. The Federal Procurement Act,
which was enacted by Congress in 1949, expressly authorizes the
President to proscribe such policies and directives not consistent with
the directives of this act as he shall deem necessary to effectuate the
decisions of such act. And from Roosevelt to Johnson to Nixon to Carter
to President Bush, we have seen such orders issued.
So let us just be clear as to what is at issue. Second of all, Mr.
President, we are, of course, not talking about S. 55, which was on the
floor last session. But again, for the record, for the people in the
country, that piece of legislation which prohibited employers from
permanently replacing striking workers was filibustered. It was
blocked. So it did not pass.
This is an Executive order by the President which applies to
situations where the Federal Government has a contract with an employer
for over $100,000 worth of business and that employer permanently
replaces workers. This does not cover workers who were temporary
replacement workers. We are talking about permanent replacement. That
is all we are focusing on. It is really a very simple proposition that
we are voting on here today.
I say to my colleagues, who take another position on this issue, that
I wish their characterization of labor-management relations had some
relationship to reality because, if it did, I would be taking a
different position in this debate. But the General Accounting Office
reports that since 1985, employers have hired permanent replacements in
one out of every six strikes and threatened to hire replacements in one
out of every three.
Mr. President, I just simply have to tell you that all too often,
what happens is either employers require major and unreasonable
concessions of the union, then force people out to strike, then replace
them with workers unsympathetic to the union, and then move to
decertify the union. That is called union busting. And, in many ways,
that is the issue that is before us because either that happens or,
because the United States happens to be the only country among the
advanced economic countries in the world that enables employers to
carry out this practice, many other wage earners just simply are forced
to live with outrageous concessions that are asked of them with
sometimes very deplorable working conditions in terms of health and
safety, much less wages, because they know, if they do anything about
it, they will be permanently replaced.
Mr. President, the issue here is which side is the Government on? In
the debate last week, while I was on the floor, I happened to remember
Florence Reese, from Appalachia--which is my wife Sheila's home, in
Kentucky--and her famous song, ``Which Side Are You On?''
What the President's Executive order essentially says is, while many
of us feel so strongly about this, if the Government is doing business
with a company where the labor-management dispute causes the permanent
replacement of striking workers, we ought not to use taxpayers' money
to subsidize that kind of management practice.
Which side is the Government on? Are we on the side of union busting?
Are we on the side of depressing wages? Are we on the side of forcing
people out on strike and then permanently replacing them? Are we on the
side of unsafe working conditions? Or are we on the side of working
people, wage earners, and their having some leverage and ability to
bargain for themselves and, yes, if necessary, to go out on strike--
though no one likes to go out on strike--so that they are just not
crushed?
Mr. President, that is the issue. Should the Government use
taxpayers' money to support companies which permanently replace their
workers in the labor-management dispute? It is that simple. That is the
issue before us. That is why so many of us have taken such strong
stands.
Finally, Mr. President, I know my colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy, has been eloquent, powerful on the floor, on this
issue. I think right now, in the 104th Congress, that so much of the
debate and so much of the agenda is too abstract. There are no faces.
There are no people.
Now, we look at these decisions on the House side. And we are talking
about in Minnesota the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. Let me
tell you that in a cold-weather State like Minnesota--and I imagine
Massachusetts--this is cruel for the elderly poor, for children, to
just cut that out; and going after the Summer Jobs Program. We have had
the debate here on school lunches, school breakfasts, and child
nutrition programs. But are we going to do more for loopholes,
deductions, and more by way of capital gains tax for large corporations
and wealthy people? People--we cut one place. And those people have the
least amount of clout, those most vulnerable citizens, and then we skew
it to the very top of the population.
That is why this debate on the Kassebaum amendment has a
significance. It has to do with the heart and soul of this 104th
Congress. It has to do with where we stand. It has to do with who we
represent or who we do not represent.
I can just say to my colleagues that I have seen all too often--I
said this before on the floor of the Senate--people forced out on
strike. I have seen people permanently replaced. I have seen the
devastation of families. I have seen the devastation in communities. We
had testimony in the Labor and Human Resources Committee from
ministers, from business people, and others who talked about the
divisiveness of all of this.
Mr. President, I come to the floor because I feel a real commitment
to people whom I represent. To me, one that stands out in my mind more
than any other is C.F. Industries, where workers were forced out on
strike who did not want to go out on strike. I do not think they would
mind my saying that they had a real sense of trepidation. They did not
want to go out on strike. They were worried what was going to happen to
them. But the company's offer was something they could not accept. The
concessions that were asked of them went sort of directly to their
sense of dignity about themselves. So there they were, outside on a
Sunday morning. I went out there with the president of the AFL-CIO in
the pouring rain. Their children were there. People who had essentially
been permanently replaced were devastated. I do not think that should
be a part of what the United States of America is about.
This amendment which deals with this Executive order by the President
just deals with an Executive order that is a significant step in the
right direction.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I
[[Page S3911]] think, as much as I respect my colleague from Kansas,
this amendment is profoundly wrong in its impact on working people and
families. I think it is profoundly wrong in terms of the message that
it stands for as to what we are about. I think the Government ought to
be on the side of regular people, ought to be on the side of wage
earners, and ought to be on the side of working families. I think that
is really the large significance of this vote.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Texas [Mr. Gramm].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we should invoke cloture. We should pass
this amendment, and we should stop the President's effort to use
Executive power to do what he could not do in Congress and what, I
believe, is clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch
of Government.
What we are debating today is nothing more than special interest
politics undertaken by the President to reward a special interest
group--organized labor in America. The President is giving them
something that is not in the public interest through Executive order
since he was unable in the last Congress to get a very similar
provision adopted into law.
Let me review very briefly what the issue is. Under current law, if I
do not want to work for you, I have the right to quit. If I feel that
your pay or your working conditions are unfair, I have the right not
only to quit, but to join with other workers to withhold our labor.
That is my fundamental right as a free American. That is a right
that, so far as I know, is supported by every single Member of the U.S.
Senate. But the employer, who has put up capital and who has made an
investment, also has rights. Those rights basically are that if I
refuse to work for you, or if I join other employees in denying my
labor, you have a right to hire someone else.
I, as a worker, understand that I have my rights and you have your
rights. Under the balanced system, which is the law of the land, we
have not had any major labor unrest since the short period immediately
after World War II. That is because every worker knows what his or her
rights are, and every worker understands the employer's rights. With
that balance of relative power in the marketplace, we have had
negotiations, we have had settlements, we have had progress, and we
have had labor stability. As a result, we have experienced economic
growth and prosperity.
What is being proposed now is not really a labor issue, it is a
freedom issue. Basically, what the President has tried to do by
Executive order is that which we had previously rejected; that is, to
tell employers that if an employee quits or, in conjunction with other
employees, withholds his or her labor, you do not have the right to
hire someone else permanently to replace that worker. That is a
violation of the rights of Americans who have put up their capital and
who have made investments.
In my opinion, this is a freedom issue. And if you believe in
freedom, you ought to be for this amendment.
So there are three issues. First, the President has tried, by
Executive order, to do what he could not do through the legislative
process. We ought to stop him because it is a violation of the implicit
principle of separation of powers.
Second, the President is trying fundamentally to change labor law in
a way that is not only unfair but in a way that will clearly result in
more labor unrest. As a result, we will have more strikes than we have
had in the last quarter century.
Finally, we ought to stop the President's special interest power
grab, because this is a freedom issue. If someone proposed on the floor
of the Senate that we stop workers from exercising their legitimate
right to withhold their labor, I believe that every Member of the
Senate would rise to his or her feet and denounce that effort. How can
it be right to denounce that abridgment of freedom and yet not denounce
the abridgment of freedom that results from telling an employer, who
saved and worked and put up his capital, that he cannot hire someone to
take the place of a worker who voluntarily refuses to work? I think
that is the issue.
I hope my colleagues will vote for cloture and vote for this
amendment.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, with regards to the Kassebaum amendment
concerning striker replacement issues and the Executive order to which
it pertains, I oppose the amendment. When this issue has arisen in the
past I have supported substantial modifications to the striker
replacement bill, including mandatory arbitration. These modifications
would have substantially reduced strikes. Given my reservations, I have
spent a good deal of time studying the Executive order. It is important
to note that the provisions established by this order are much narrower
in scope than striker replacement proposals made in the past and very
limited in the number of businesses that would be affected.
From the outset and before I go any further, let me point out that
the Kassebaum amendment violates the rules of the Senate which prohibit
legislating on an appropriations bill. The procedure in the Senate is
to pass legislative authorization or prohibition legislation and to
deal with the matter of appropriations separately. The Kassebaum
amendment clearly violates these rules.
Next, the underlying issue before the Senate is a supplemental
defense appropriations bill. I do not think that bill ought to be
jeopardized by a non-germane issue that can be brought up through the
regular legislative process.
In reference to the Executive order, there are two points that I
think should be made. The first is that the order in question does not
require that Federal contractors who permanently replace workers be
barred from holding contracts with the Federal Government. The order
only gives the Secretary of Labor permission to consider terminating
contracts with companies who permanently fire lawfully striking
employees. Even if the Secretary does decide to terminate the
contractor on this basis, it takes only an objection from the head of
the involved Government agency to have the contract reinstated.
There is also the issue of cost to the Government and ultimately to
the taxpayers. We should realize that it is expensive for companies to
hire replacement workers. For a business to change employees quickly
costs a great deal of money. Considering how often we have seen some
companies overcharge the Government in the past, it is completely
reasonable to expect that the costs of hiring these replacement workers
will be passed on to the Government and ultimately the taxpayers.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the fundamental right of American
workers to strike was guaranteed over a half century ago with the
enactment of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Section 13 of
the NLRA states:
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.
As a former Assistant of Labor under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson,
I am disappointed that we find ourselves having to debate this issue at
all. The amendment of the Senator from Kansas would prohibit the use of
appropriated funds for implementation of President Clinton's Executive
Order 12954, which provides simply that the Federal Government will not
do business with contractors that hire permanent replacement workers.
Yet the hiring of permanent replacement workers directly contravenes
the right to strike. A worker does not have any meaningful right to
withhold his or her labor if his or her employer hires a permanent
replacement worker.
The President issued a lawful Executive order on March 8. The legal
authority for this order has been fully documented in a careful
memorandum of law written by Assistant Attorney General Walter
Dellinger. The memorandum has already been discussed on the floor
during this debate, and was made part of the Record by the Senator from
Massachusetts.
We ought not be in the business of gutting this Executive order
through an amendment to an appropriations
[[Page S3912]] bill. It is regrettable that this amendment has not
been withdrawn. Its proponents failed to invoke cloture earlier today,
and it is time we move on.
The opponents of the amendment have no desire to prolong debate on
the DOD supplemental appropriations bill. We would prefer that the
amendment be withdrawn so that the Senate can complete its work on the
underlying legislation.
But it should be remembered that the antistriker replacement
legislation, of which I have been a cosponsor since 1990, was
repeatedly the subject of filibusters by our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. S. 55, the Metzenbaum antistriker replacement bill
in the 103d Congress, got 53 votes for cloture last year. The Senate
would have passed the bill last year had an up or down vote been
permitted.
Fortunately, we still have Members in this Senate who can be counted
on to fight for the rights of the American worker. The ranking member
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, deserves
thanks and congratulations for his outstanding leadership on this
issue. He has been on the floor for many hours, making his argument
eloquently and forcefully--as only the Senator from Massachusetts can.
I join him in opposing the amendment of the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Massachusetts
is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. President, many of us here in the U.S. Senate that are opposed to
the amendment of the Senator from Kansas believe that we ought to be
working on the defense appropriations bill rather than on this
amendment. I think it is important to understand who is really delaying
the U.S. Senate from taking action.
Many of us who are opposed to this amendment feel that the national
interest and national security would be served by moving forward on the
defense appropriations bill. But our Republican colleagues do not
apparently share that view and that is why we are where we are today.
Last week, the President issued an Executive order barring the award
of Federal contracts to companies that permanently replace striking
workers. The ink was not even dry on the Executive order and the effort
was made here in the U.S. Senate to block the Executive order. And that
is why we are where we are today, instead of completing action on the
defense appropriations bill. Those of us on this side of the aisle are
prepared, even though we are required to go through a cloture motion,
to go on to the underlying measure and see that it is acted on and
acted on expeditiously.
I was interested a moment ago when my colleague from Texas said that
what the amendment we are debating is about is the issue of freedom. I
thought we disposed of that argument during the debate last week with
the very profound and eloquent words of our friend and colleague from
West Virginia, who talking about what real life is all about for
working people--not the technicalities of Presidential power to issue
Executive orders, but what real workers were facing at an important
time in history, in terms of the mines of West Virginia.
I can still remember those words he recalled being told to the
miners: ``Clean up your place or you are going to lose your job.''
Sure, you had freedom not to have that job. You also had freedom not to
feed your child; you had freedom not to pay your mortgage; you had
freedom not to live in a home. You had that freedom because if you did
not clean up your place at the end of a hard day's work, you had
somebody else that was prepared to fill in. That is what we are talking
about here. We are talking about the real experiences of working
people.
I want to take a couple of minutes of the time of the Senate to talk
about who we are protecting here today--the people who my colleague
from Texas described as special interests. These are the kind of people
that we on this side of the aisle are interested in protecting and that
I am glad to stand with.
We are protecting Joyce Moore, who is married with three children.
She worked at a laundry and also as a nurse's aide in a nursing home in
Cincinnati, OH, for 13 years and was forced out on strike and
subsequently permanently replaced. She was making $6.77 an hour. As she
said,
It ain't about money; basically, it is about respect. There
is a lack of respect in there. I hate that we are all on
strike because I enjoy getting up every morning and going to
my job. I enjoy being around the residents, taking care of
them. But we want a 3-year contract and a better health plan
and a pension plan. Folks get sick and they need a health
plan. When you have been there as long as I have, you deserve
a pension plan.
But when Joyce Moore went on strike to get that respect, she was
permanently replaced. That special interest was making $6.77 an hour.
We are interested in protecting her from being permanently replaced, so
that she can provide for a family.
Jenette Hillman, 52 years old, worked at the nursing home as a
rehabilitation aide for 25 years, and was making $7.25 an hour before
she was forced out on strike February 22 and permanently replaced 3
weeks later. She raised six sons. Now she is surviving only because one
of those sons has moved back in with the family.
Bernadette Marion, making $5.30 an hour as a nursing assistant,
barely enough to take care of her four daughters, after being out on
strike--she was permanently replaced and is living on a dwindling
savings and a tax refund check.
These are the real people that are being affected the unfair employer
tactic of permanently replacing workers who exercise their legal right
to strike.
Make no mistake about it, this is the opening skirmish in a larger
battle that is now unfolding in the Congress over the rights of working
men and women across the country. What is at stake in this battle is
nothing less than the standard of living for working families.
Our Republican friends aim their opening salvo at a measure that is
about simple justice for American workers. Under our national labor
laws, it is illegal to fire a worker for exercising the right to
strike. But because of a court-created loophole--not a legislatively
created loophole; the loophole was not enacted by the Congress of the
United States; it was a footnote on a court decision--because of the
court-created loophole, workers who strike can be permanently replaced,
which amounts to the same thing.
President Clinton was right to act to close that unfair loophole. And
I am proud to stand with him in defense of that action.
Working families, Mr. President, are hurting. They have suffered a
20-year decline in real wages. Hourly pay is falling compared to other
countries. The gap between the top 10 percent of wage earners and
bottom 10 percent is wider in our country than in any other industrial
nation. Yet, the new Republican majority, through this amendment and
numerous other measures that are working their way through Congress,
are advancing an agenda that is, in effect, an assault on working
families. This attempt to block the Executive order on striker
replacement is just one example of how this assault is being carried
out, but it is an important one. So I want to take a few moments to
talk about that this morning.
It is not just accidental, Mr. President, that what we have seen over
the period of the past weeks--and it was illustrated in the excellent
article in the Washington Post today by Mr. Obey--is an attack on the
legitimate interests and rights of working men and women to be able to
protect their wages and to try and advance the interests of themselves
and their families.
We have the actions which are being taken by the House of
Representatives to basically undermine the School Lunch Program where
working families' children go to school, to undermine the college
assistance programs and loan programs by which working families are
able to have their children go to the fine colleges and universities
that exist in all of our States. Sixty-seven percent of the young
people in my State of Massachusetts need some kind of help and
assistance to go on to college. But what is the Republican leadership
in the House of Representatives saying? We are to cut student aid
programs and make hard-working families spend more to finance the cost
of a college education.
[[Page S3913]] It is an assault on the children who are going to the
high schools, it is an assault on the teenagers who are trying to go to
college, and it is a continued assault----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 3 more minutes.
It is a continued assault by those who refuse to give a living wage
to people who are trying to work.
That is what this is about. You can talk about the scope of
Presidential power to issue this Executive order-- and we have put into
the Record the Justice Department's justification for it, which is well
supported--and you can talk about whether the President is really right
to do this as a matter of social policy.
But I will tell you, those arguments would have a lot more
credibility if those on the other side were prepared to say we are
willing to support an increase in the minimum wage for workers in this
country who are prepared to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. But,
no, they say, we are opposed to that too. Come on. Come on, Mr.
President. What is this battle all about? Come on. You have to be
honest when you are talking to the American people. You have to be
straightforward about what this is about.
My Republican colleagues say you are wrong Senator, this is just an
issue about whether the President had the proper legal authority to
issue this Executive order. But at the same time they are saying,
No, Senator, we are not for enacting an increase in the
minimum wage. No, no. You are quite right, we are for cutting
back on school lunch programs for kids that are going to high
school. Yes, we want to raise the cost of sending your
children to the college and university. But we are not really
assaulting working families. On, no, we are really for
working families. Why do you get so excited out here on the
floor of the U.S. Senate?
And only yesterday, in the Ways and Means Committee, they give tax
breaks to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the country by
voting to lower the capital gains tax and effectively eliminating the
minimum tax on corporations.
``No,'' they say, ``it is just a coincidence that we are providing
all these breaks and benefits to the rich at the same time we are
making all these cuts in programs for working families.''
Come on, Mr. President. This is the first major issue we have dealt
with on the floor in the U.S. Senate this year that directly affects
the working families of this country, and we are not going to be rolled
over and stampeded on it. We are not going to be rolled over and
stampeded on it.
The President is right to do this. He is right to issue this
Executive order, not just from a fairness point of view and a social
compact point of view, he is right to do it in terms of his
responsibility as the Chief Executive to ensure that we are going to
get good quality products for the Defense Department, that we are going
to make sure that those plane engines that are going into the F-15's,
F-16's, and F-18's are good engines, made in my own State at General
Electric by workers who have worked there for 25 and 30 years. We are
not going to have to take the chance of having some replacement workers
in there trying to fulfill a contract and not being able to produce a
good, quality product. We are going to make sure that those runways
that are being built are going to be good runways for those planes. We
are going to ensure that the housing that is going to house our
personnel in the military is going to be of good quality.
I do not know what is the reason for this assault on all these people
making barely above the minimum wage. If that isn't bad enough, the
Republicans are saying ``We have other good news for you, Senator, in
terms of those construction workers. We are going to take away the
Davis-Bacon Act, that guarantees prevailing wages on federally funded
construction projects.'' We are talking about men and women in the
construction industry making an average of $27,000 a year--$27,000 a
year. One of the first priorities of the Contract With America is to
undermine their ability to make prevailing wages in one of the most
dangerous occupations in this country, and that is construction work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that his time
has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
And we are going to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and diminish their
ability to provide for their families.
What is it about working families that Republicans have it in for
them? Why is it that our Republican leadership in the House of
Representatives and here today on the floor of the U.S. Senate,
virtually in lockstep, wants to deprive them of some legitimate rights?
What is it about these working families? What is it about their
children? What is it about their children that we want to cut back in
terms of Medicaid? What in the world have they done, except be the
backbone of this country?
Make no mistake about it, this is the first battle, Mr. President,
and we are not going to let this stampede that may have gone over in
the House of Representatives run roughshod here in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. Lott].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from
Kansas for yielding me this time.
I think it is time, maybe, we calmed down a little bit, stopped
shouting, and talk about what is really involved here.
This is not about----
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will not yield. I have been sitting here listening to the
Senator, and I have a chance here now to correct the Record a little
bit.
This is not about the Contract With America. This is not about Davis-
Bacon. This is not about all the other extraneous matters we are
talking about.
What we are talking about here is an opportunity for the Senators to
vote to stop the filibuster so that we can talk about the substance of
the amendment of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum. So I urge
the Senators to vote to invoke cloture.
Last Thursday, 57 Senators voted to stop President Clinton from
unlawfully usurping congressional authority to regulate labor-
management relations. The week before that, the President issued an
Executive order which sought to overturn congressional and judicial
policies that have stood for nearly 60 years. In so doing, the
President claimed authority to defy Congress and the Constitution by
rewriting Federal labor laws. The vast majority of the Senate has
rejected this unlawful exercise of power, and has affirmed that the
Executive order is bad policy and bad law.
Despite Thursday's vote, a handful of Senators from the other side of
the aisle is filibustering this bill in an attempt to protect President
Clinton's Executive order. The other side of the aisle has even
objected to temporarily setting aside the Kassebaum amendment, so the
Senate might proceed on other amendments to the defense supplemental
appropriations bill.
I point out that the defense supplemental appropriations bill,
requested by the administration, has now been on the floor of the
Senate for 5 days. And so the routine continues, Mr. President. We
spent weeks on the balanced budget amendment. We spent weeks on the
uncontroversial unfunded mandates bill. We spent several days on
congressional coverage. Everything is to be dragged out in the Senate;
everything is to be slowed down. Sooner or later, the Senate is going
to have to face up to taking action on the legislation that is pending
before it.
And now a minority of Democratic Senators is so committed to giving
away congressional authority to the President that they are willing to
halt Senate action on an emergency bill the administration has
requested the Senate to pass immediately.
And what is this filibuster being used to do? Is it being used to
defend the ability of Congress to regulate labor-
[[Page S3914]] management relations? No, that is not happening. Is it
being used to implement a Supreme Court ruling? No, Mr. President, this
filibuster is being undertaken to protect an Executive action that
contravenes the will of both Congress and the Courts.
President Clinton's Executive order would bar Federal contractors
from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. Under the
order, the Secretary of Labor will determine whether ``an
organizational unit of a Federal contractor'' has ``permanently
replaced lawfully striking workers.'' He may then instruct Federal
agencies to cancel existing contracts. The contractor can also be
debarred from future contracts for the duration of the labor dispute.
This Executive order, effective immediately, applies to companies with
Federal contracts in excess of $100,000.
This Executive order is seriously flawed on both policy and legal
grounds, and it is a direct challenge to congressional authority.
Several times, Congress has tried to act in this area without
success. And so now, they have gone to the Executive order to get done
what the Congress would not approve and get action in an area where the
Supreme Court does not even agree with their action.
This Executive order seeks to assert that as a matter of law, the
hiring of permanent replacements adversely affects the Federal
Government. Specifically, it states that the use of replacements
lengthens strikes, broadens disputes, and shifts the balance in the
collective bargaining relationship. As the lengthy debates in the House
and Senate have shown, quite the contrary is true:
The Executive order will result in more strikes, inflationary wage
settlements and a shift in the balance of power in favor of unions.
This was the conclusion of the Carter administration in 1977, when it
rejected a limited ban on permanent replacements as part of labor law
reform. Indeed, the Canadian Province of Quebec has experienced more
strikes and longer strikes since it outlawed the use of any striker
replacements--temporary or permanent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. The President has delegated to the Secretary of Labor the
decision of how far this order really goes. That is one of the things
that really worries me.
This employer right is essential to maintaining balance in labor
relations.
The right has always been recognized as the necessary counterweight
to the unrestrained right to strike guaranteed by this Nation's labor
laws. Because the risks are high if either side engages in economic
warfare against the other, neither side exercises its rights and powers
except over major issues. The Executive order abolishes this
congressionally and judicially crafted balance.
legal considerations
The fact that many, many days have been devoted to the issue in
recent years should leave no doubt that this is a legislative issue.
Any Executive order that touches on this same issue is an infringement
on the separation of powers. This order goes far beyond mere
procurement policy and regulates private labor relations and restricts
private rights guaranteed under the laws crafted by Congress.
It is argued that other Presidents have regulated labor relations
through Executive orders. None of those orders, however, amount to the
usurpation of congressional authority as does this action of President
Clinton. President Reagan's order firing the striking air traffic
controllers was based upon his constitutional duty to enforce the law.
President Bush's order requiring their Beck rights simply required that
workers be informed of their rights under the law. Finally, the Bush
Executive order barring union-only agreements on Federal construction
projects was consistent with the procurement authority of the
Government as consistent with the procurement authority of the
Government as declared in the Supreme Court's Boston Harbor decision.
It should be noted, however, that this Executive order was never
challenged in court.
Not merely the authority of the President is at issue. The Executive
order raises numerous practical issues which would embroil the
executive branch in legal quagmires for years. Consider the following:
The President has delegated to the Secretary of Labor the decision of
how far this order really goes.
Robert Reich and his successors would decide whether ``an
organizational unit of a Federal contractor'' has used permanent
replacements. He is empowered in section 11 to define this term in
regulations. At this point, we do not know whether the ban applies to
employees working exclusively on Government projects, plants, or site-
wide, to all operations whether a division or subsidiary. This
vagueness should render the order void on its face.
The Department of Labor is unqualified to make determinations as to
the legality of actions under the Federal labor statutes.
That expertise is housed in the National Labor Relations Board and
the National Mediation Board. Using the procurement power of the
President, the Secretary is empowered to address such legal issues as
what is a lawful strike and who are unit employees. The Labor
Department has had absolutely no involvement until now in interpreting
these laws.
The order applies to all lawful work stoppages, whether or not a
union is involved.
Two or more nonunion workers are free to walk off the job, giving
little or no reason except to say that they are protesting terms or
conditions of employment. Under current law, nonunion protests of this
nature are relatively infrequent because of the countervailing employer
right to hire permanent replacements. Federal contractors which
exercise their legal right to use replacements in the face of such
extortionist tactics do so at their peril.
conclusion
So, Mr. President, it is clear that President Clinton's Executive
order is bad policy and bad law which usurps congressional power and
contravenes our Nation's courts.
In conclusion, I think that what we are really talking about here,
Mr. President, is jobs, and what will happen if these strikes go on
indefinitely and the companies do not have an opportunity to get
replacement workers. What option will the company have if they cannot
reach a negotiated agreement? What will happen is, they will wind up
going out of business and the people will lose their jobs, and other
people who would like to have those jobs would not have them either. We
clearly should vote to invoke cloture and allow a full debate to occur
on the Kassebaum amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just over 11 minutes on your side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from
Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I find the argument just made by the minority whip most
intriguing. He is talking about a filibuster.
Mr. President, something is wrong here. It was the Republican side,
for the last two Congresses, that filibustered the striker replacement
bill. What is going on here? Surely, the Senator from Mississippi
understands that it was their side that filibustered in the last two
Congresses the striker replacement bill. That legislation passed the
House, came to the Senate, and it was the Republicans who filibustered
the bill, not the Democrats. We are not filibustering this bill.
We will have a vote on the underlying bill. For the last two
Congresses, the Republicans would not permit the striker replacement
bill to come up for a vote, and in both of those Congresses we had the
majority votes to pass it. One Congress we had 57 votes; last year we
had 53 votes. It was the Republicans who filibustered, not the
Democrats. I want to set that record straight. The Senator from
Mississippi is playing loose with the history of this bill. I see him
smiling over there, and he knows exactly what I am talking about.
Mr. President, another Senator from the other side, the Senator from
Texas [Mr. Gramm] spoke on this issue. He equated workers exercising
their legal right to strike to quitting. He says this issue is about
people having a right to
[[Page S3915]] quit and employers having a right to hire people to
replace them.
The Senator from Texas apparently believes good labor-management
relations consist of workers taking what they are given, and not
complaining. If the workers' salary and benefits and paid holidays are
cut, because that means investors could make a nickel more dividend,
and if they then go out on strike, that company can consider those
workers as having quit, and permanently replace them.
But in reality, Mr. President, good labor-management relations means
both sides are willing to talk. When we have a company like
Bridgestone/Firestone, a wholly owned Japanese company operating in
this country that refuses to sit down and negotiate in good faith with
the workers, leaving them no other option but to go out on strike, then
it cannot be the workers' fault. They are willing to negotiate.
This issue shows some fundamental differences between Senators on
each side of the aisle. First, to listen to the Senator from Texas [Mr.
Gramm] and perhaps the Senator from Mississippi, they would just as
soon see no unions. I think they would be happy to abolish unions if
they could.
Second, they really believe that if a person works for someone they
have to take what they get, no questions asked. If you produce more,
and you then ask for higher wages, an employer can dismiss you an any
time--you can work 20 years, and if they want, they get rid of you and
throw you out the door.
I think that Senator Kennedy is right. What this is about is whether
or not we will have decent management-worker relationships in this
country, or whether we will take the path the Republicans want to take,
and tell workers they do not count for anything, that a worker in this
country is like a piece of machinery. Use them up, depreciate them
down, and they throw them out the back door when they can get another
worker cheaper.
Mr. President, sometimes I wish that the Republican side would just
quit messing around, and just go out and propose a law to ban strikes
entirely? Better than that, they could ban negotiations, ban collective
bargaining, because we really do not have collective bargaining any
longer. The only thing that a worker can bring to the table in
collective bargaining is his or her labor. And if they have no right to
withhold that labor then the cards are stacked against them. Then only
the employers have the power.
So I wish the Republicans would just go ahead and offer a law, an
amendment to ban strikes and to ban collective bargaining. It would be
honest, anyway, on their part. It would not be this sham that we are
operating under now: A right to strike today is only a right to be
permanently replaced. A right to be permanently replaced means you have
no power in collective bargaining, and thus collective bargaining in
this country is indeed a sham.
Every cutrate cutthroat employer knows they can break a union if they
are willing to play hardball and ruin the lives of people who have made
their company what it is. Unfortunately, the small minority of union
busters drag down the rest of their industries in order to compete.
Even responsible companies have to follow suit in the race to cut costs
and salaries and cut workers' dignities.
I mentioned Bridgestone/Firestone. Other tire companies in this
country--Goodyear, Dunlop, and Uniroyal--reached agreements. They had
negotiations. Some of them went out on strike, but then they
negotiated. They reached an agreement. But this one company,
Bridgestone/Firestone, refused to negotiate even after the workers had
increased their productivity to all-time record highs, even after the
workers agreed in the 1980's to take over $7 an hour in wage and
benefit cuts, and yet when it came time for collective bargaining to
renew the contract, the company said, ``Nope, you take what we offer or
that is the end of it.''
So, the workers went out on strike. Now, Bridgestone can win this, if
they can bust the union and they hire permanent replacements. They have
actually said it in letters, ``You are permanently replaced.''
If they can do that, then that will drag down Goodyear because the
board of directors will say, ``How can we let them undercut us? We have
to compete.'' And so will Dunlop, and so will Uniroyal, and it drags
down the whole industry.
So what the Republicans are proposing to do with this amendment
offered----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute.
Mr. HARKIN. What they are proposing to do on the Republican side is
to reward the worst companies: Those companies that will not negotiate
in good faith and bargain with their workers; those companies that will
drag down the other companies. That is the effect of their amendment.
This amendment is counterproductive. We need more organized labor,
not less, to compete in international markets. We are the most
productive country in the world, and it is because we have had good
labor-management relations working together, to increase productivity
on the world market. Unions boosted productivity from 17 to 22 percent
in construction, and a study of 20 manufacturing industries showed that
unionized workers were from one-fifth to nearly one-quarter more
productive than their nonunion counterparts.
When I hear the statements coming from the other side of the aisle--
and what I hear is, ``Let's break down this labor-management relations
we have had, let's break down collective bargaining''--the next thing I
expect to hear is, ``Let's reintroduce child labor, if you want to
compete with other countries that employ child labor.'' Well, why not?
Workers have no more rights in this country. Workers have no rights
to stick up for their dignity, to demand better wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. I hope that the Senate will speak loudly and
clearly. The President has acted correctly, and he acted within the
confines of the law, in issuing that Executive order. We ought to
uphold it for the good of America.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment the Senator
from Kansas for her amendment. I hope that my colleagues will vote with
her on this amendment. I think it is important.
I note at the conclusion of the statement of my friend from Iowa that
the President acted within the confines of law. Let me just state the
facts. President Clinton issued an Executive order because he could not
pass a law. President Clinton introduces a bill, that has been
introduced a couple of times--I guess both years since he has been
President--trying to get it passed, but he has not been successful. He
has tried but he did not get a bill to become law. And so the President
is trying to do by Executive order what he could not do legislatively.
Even in spite of the fact that he had a Democrat-controlled House and
Senate, he was not successful because Congress did not agree.
I think Congress is right in not agreeing. Now I am looking at the
Executive order, and very clearly, if one reads this Executive order--
and I know it has been put into the Record; if it has not, I will ask
unanimous consent to put it in the Record--but one needs to read this
to find out this is law. This is an Executive order where the President
is trying to legislate.
I read in the Constitution--it is interesting, we have had a lot of
discussion on the Constitution lately--but very clearly in article I,
section 1, it says:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.
We did not elect the President to be issuing Executive orders in
defiance of Congress. Congress did not pass this bill. Congress did not
pass it because we did not think it was right. I happen to agree within
Congress' decision. I think this is a mistake.
I look at the power that he has vested in the Secretary of Labor: The
Secretary of Labor shall determine everything. The Secretary of Labor
gets to determine the bargaining, he can object to a termination of a
contract, he may debar the contractor. We are giving the Secretary of
Labor the right to debar a contractor. Take, for example,
[[Page S3916]] the Senator from Georgia, or the Senator from Virginia,
if you take a big contractor--maybe it is Newport News --building
aircraft carriers, and maybe there is a small strike with a little
union that is upset with one particular division which may affect less
than 1 percent of their employees. But if there is a strike, is Newport
News and their owner, I guess Tenneco, debarred from all Federal
contracts? I asked that question before, and really that is to be
determined by the Secretary of Labor.
This Executive order is written with a blank check: ``The meaning of
the term organizational unit of the Federal contractors shall be
defined in regulations that shall be issued by the Secretary of
Labor.'' My point being, this is terrible legislation, and the
President does not have a right to legislate. He does not have the
right. He is exceeding his powers. I am confident that if we do not
succeed on the Kassebaum----
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. No. Let me finish my statement. I have limited time.
The President exceeded his power. I will state I am very confident
that, if we are not successful with this amendment, it will be tested
in court and this Executive order will be thrown out on constitutional
grounds. I am very confident of that fact. But we should stop it now.
The President is playing politics. He is trying to appease a special
interest group. I think it is unfortunate.
What about the substance of it? I heard my colleague make the
statement, ``Well, the people who are pushing this amendment are just
against organized labor.'' That is not true. I think the people should
have the right to organize. If people want to strike, if they do not
want to work, they should have that right as well.
Likewise, employers have to have the right to hire replacement
workers. If they cannot do that, they cannot keep the doors open. In
many cases, you might be a critical subassembly of a particular part
that has to happen to make this entire unit come together on time and
on budget, and if an employer cannot hire replacement workers to make
that happen, then they could be in violation of the original terms of
that contract. They could lose the whole contract. The entire country,
if you are talking about a Government contract, could end up paying an
enormous amount for not being on time and complying with the terms of
the contract.
This is enormous power the President is trying to delegate to the
Secretary of Labor. It is a mistake. Congress has refused to do this.
Congress has refused to pass it, I believe correctly so. The President
in trying to circumvent Congress, I think, greatly exceeds his
authority, his power, and I hope my colleagues will agree with Senator
Kassebaum and vote for cloture.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just take leader time and not take
any time reserved for the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
Let me make four very important, but simple, points.
First of all, the President has every right to issue this Executive
order. The precedent set by virtually every one of his predecessors
makes that point loudly and clearly. President Bush, President Carter,
President Nixon, President Johnson, President Truman, President
Roosevelt--they all issued Executive orders having to do with important
national priorities, and they did so without anyone challenging their
right to make those choices. Obviously, they may have been in
significant disagreement, but the fact is they made those Executive
orders with the clear understanding that it was within their
constitutional right to do so.
That is what this President is doing as well. The President is simply
saying, ``Look, if you want to do business with the Federal Government,
you simply cannot replace striking workers who are conducting a
legitimate strike with replacement workers.'' That is all he is saying.
I do not think that is too much to ask. Obviously, given the
extraordinary difficulty working families are having today, the need to
assure balance in the workplace is all this issue is about. Giving
workers the right to strike, the right to maintain balance in a working
relationship with their employers, has been something guaranteed under
the National Labor Relations Act for 60 years.
The second point is that this is simply an issue of fairness. The
right to strike--the right to ensure that your grievances can be heard
in a meaningful way--is a longstanding right of workers, and one which
must be protected. They must continue to have the right to strike, and
this Executive order simply says that we are going to have that
guarantee in writing, at least as far as Government contracts are
concerned. The President has made it very clear that working families
are a priority in this country.
My third point, Mr. President, is this: as the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts has said, this is the first in what will be a series
of very critical votes this Congress that directly affect working
families. What happens on this vote will send a clear message about
what the Congress is going to do and the position it will take with
regard to a number of these issues in the future.
If they lose the longstanding balance that has existed between labor
and management, if they lose a fundamental right guaranteed all
workers, I do not know that it bodes very well for other issues that
will be pending. There are those who suggest we eliminate the minimum
wage. There are those who suggest we eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act.
They have suggested a number of attacks on the rights of working
families, and certainly this is the first opportunity we have to defend
those rights. I hope that everyone understands the critical nature of
this vote. It goes beyond simply a question of filibusters. It goes
beyond a question of procedure on the Senate floor. It goes to the very
heart of why we are here defending the rights of workers at times as
important as this.
The fourth point, Mr. President, is one that I hope everyone can
appreciate. As we go through the final moments of this debate, we must
remember that the question of whether or not the rights that have been
reaffirmed in this Executive order are respected is of fundamental
importance to our relationship with the President.
The President must make decisions with regard to executive branch
policy. He has made a very important decision to respect the rights of
working families. I think it is imperative that we respect his
authority to do so. That is all we are saying here, that this
President, as other Presidents have done, has made a decision with
regard to working families that, in our view, ought to be upheld and
ought to be respected.
So, Mr. President, in a couple of minutes, we are going to be casting
a vote that goes beyond procedure, a vote that goes beyond simply a
motion to invoke cloture. It goes to the very heart of whether working
families are going to have the right to maintain the balance in the
workplace that we all recognize is important to them and to this
country.
So I hope we can sustain the necessary votes to defeat cloture this
morning and send a clear message to working families that the Senate is
on the side of families, on the side of working people, on the side of
maintaining the balance between labor and management that we have
recognized for the last 60 years.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just over 9 minutes on the Senator's side.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would like to yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may just restate what this
amendment is about. It is an amendment which would bar any Federal
funds from being spent to implement the Executive order that was issued
by the President last week.
That Executive order would effectively prohibit Federal contractors
from exercising their legal right to hire permanent replacement
workers--a right that has been the law of the land for 60 years.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot about this debate being one thing
or
[[Page S3917]] another--an assault on working families, an assault on
children. I believe, Mr. President, and perhaps I am naive in thinking
so, that this vote should not be viewed as a test of the President's
leadership, nor should it be viewed as a test of Republican clout. I
hope that it would not be viewed as a vote for labor or a vote for
business.
I wish that this amendment would be taken for what it is. No one
wants to see workers dismissed gratuitously and replaced by permanent
replacement workers. That is not what is at issue either. This is not
the beginning of a series of assaults on working class families. This
is a debate on an Executive order issued by the President which
effectively changes labor law in a significant way.
What this debate is all about, in my mind--and I think it is an
important point--is the separation of powers between Congress and the
executive branch. It is about whether our national labor policy should
be determined by the President rather than by an act of Congress.
The question at stake is whether we are prepared to allow the
President to overturn 60 years of established labor law with the stroke
of a pen.
We can debate this issue at another time. We have debated it before,
and I am sure we will again. There are those who suggest we may be able
to find some compromises that can bring all sides together. But what
the current law has done in over 60 years is to provide the balance to
which the Democratic leader spoke. It has provided a balance between
labor and management, and that should be preserved.
It has been mentioned that there were other Executive orders which
were undertaken, and we have debated this before. Just to reiterate,
however, no previous Executive order by President Bush or President
Reagan went this far in contradicting both the law and the will of
Congress.
President Reagan's order banned illegally striking air traffic
controllers from Federal employment. This was well within his rights
and was not contrary to existing law. President Bush's order on Beck
was merely enforcing existing law. President Bush's order on prehire
contracts was not preceded by extensive debate and defeat by Congress,
as has been the case with striker replacement legislation. He may well
have exceeded his authority on that Executive order on prehire
contracts, but it was never an order that was challenged by the courts
or challenged in Congress.
I think we are seeing here that under this Executive order Federal
contractors will effectively be barred from exercising a longstanding
legal right--just as labor has the right to strike--that all other
companies are permitted to do under existing labor law.
Regardless of which side we might take on the issue of striker
replacements, we should all be concerned, Mr. President, about the
precedent this Executive order would set for future Presidents.
What if a new administration decided to debar any contractor whose
workers decided to go on strike? Would we feel the same way about an
Executive order that infringed on the equally longstanding right to
strike?
It has also been argued that this Executive order will have only a
limited impact, that perhaps only a dozen companies would be affected.
Mr. President, the Federal Government contracts for close to 180
billion dollars' worth of goods and services. Many defense contractors
would be affected, and that is why it is fitting this is added as a
debate to the defense supplemental bill. This order will potentially
affect tens of thousands of companies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The Defense Department alone has contracts of value greater than
$100,000 with over 20,000 different companies. This Executive order
would cover Federal construction projects, potentially colleges and
universities with Federal research contracts, hospitals and health care
providers that contract with the Federal Government. It is very unclear
as to what exactly this Executive order might apply. As was pointed out
by the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Oklahoma, the
Secretary of Labor has a great deal of discretion under this Executive
order to decide when it may or may not apply.
Over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned President Truman's
attempt to seize control of the steel mills by Executive order. I
believe Justice Black's opinion in the Youngstown case is relevant
here. He said:
In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power
to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea
that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his
functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of
laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.
I believe the President has exceeded his authority here by attempting
to make the law, dictating the terms of our national labor policy, by
means of the Executive order in direct contravention of current law.
Congress makes the law, not the President, and we should not
relinquish our role in setting national labor policy by allowing this
Executive order to stand. I urge my colleagues to support cloture in
order to reassert the authority of the Congress and to bring this
debate to a close.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just over 4 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 3 minutes and then whatever time I will
yield back, to let the majority leader have the final word.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for both her
explanation and the justification for her amendment. Over the period of
the last several days, we have tried to go through the circumstances of
the Youngstown case and distinguish the executive authority that
President Truman attempted to assert in that case and the executive
authority that President Clinton is exercising with regard to this
order, and I think we have made that case in a very compelling way. I
think anyone who reads through the Record would find the analysis
persuasive. I respect the fact that Senator Kassebaum does not believe
this is really about broader public policy issues. But I must take
issue with her in that conclusion.
We are not debating on the floor of the Senate the issue of what we
are going to do about increasing the minimum wage.
My Republican colleague have not proposed even a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution to say, for instance, that working families are falling
further and further behind; that we think work ought to be adequately
compensated; that we think work ought to be recognized; that we think
any American who works 40 hours a week 52 a weeks a year ought to
receive a decent wage. Not even a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to say
perhaps we are not going to address this on this particular bill, but
we are prepared to work to protect the future of working families; we
are prepared to work to protect their interests in terms of their
children who might need a summer job or their small children who might
need a school lunch; we are prepared to speak up about the needs of
working families. Nothing to say we differ with you on this Executive
order, but we are for working families. And that is what this debate is
really about.
What we are voting on takes place against the background of what has
happened to family incomes since 1980, and the fact that the only real
growth in family incomes that has taken place is among the families at
the top--the wealthiest individuals in this country.
That is the background of what has happened to the income of working
families over the past 20 years, and now we are debating against this
background a measure that is going to further attack the legitimate
rights of working people who are hard-working, who are trying to make
it, but whose incomes have been held down over the last two decades.
Those are the people who are going to be affected by the President's
Executive order which my Republican colleagues are trying to block.
[[Page S3918]] We have illustrated in the course of this debate the
kinds of people who will be adversely impacted if the Senator's
amendment is adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator his 3 minutes
have expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, therefore, it is my hope that the motion
to invoke cloture would not pass, that the amendment itself would be
withdrawn and that we would go back to further consideration of the
very important underlying defense appropriations bill.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just over 2 minutes.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just lay it out cold. This is all
about politics. It has nothing to do with workers or anybody else.
Last week, President Clinton kicked off his 1996 reelection campaign
by signing an Executive order that would prohibit Federal contractors
from hiring permanent replacement workers during economic strikes.
Despite all the talk about fostering fairness in the Federal
workplace, the Executive order is a transparent effort on the
President's part to shore up a political base that he believes is vital
to his own reelection chances.
During the past several years, Congress has considered, and
repeatedly rejected, the so-called striker-replacement bill. That is
why the President is setting a dangerous precedent if he believes he
can revive this defeated legislation simply by issuing an executive
order.
It is the responsibility of Congress, not the administration, to
write the laws governing labor-management relations in this country.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to
invoke cloture. The amendment offered by my friend and colleague from
Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, will help restore the careful balance--that
is what we want--a careful balance between labor and management that
has been the hallmark of our system of collective bargaining for more
than 60 years.
The President's misguided directive is a politically inspired attempt
to do an end run around the legislative process. I do not believe it
should go unchallenged.
I yield the floor.
____________________