[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3926-S3928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate return to regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am grateful for the attention that our 
colleagues gave to our presentation earlier this morning on the issues 
at stake concerning the amendment before the Senate. Now, we will have 
some additional time during the course of the day to discuss these 
issues before we have another Senate vote on this matter tomorrow.
  During the course of the morning, there was an effort by my 
Republican colleagues to characterize the amendment by the Senator from 
Kansas that is before the Senate as being a rather limited measure that 
simply addresses a serious question about the authority, the power of 
the President to issue the Executive order.
  I mentioned briefly before the vote that I thought what was really at 
stake in this debate before the Senate was really a broader issue than 
just the issue of whether the President has the authority to issue the 
Executive order which the amendment of the Senator from Kansas seeks to 
repeal. As I have stated, it is the President's judgment that 
implementation of this Executive order is in the Nation's interest and 
also in the interest of the American taxpayer, based upon the fact that 
the use of permanent replacements results in many instances in a 
diminution in the quality of work performed and the ability to perform 
on time. The President, based on legislative authority provided by the 
Congress, was acting within his power in issuing that Executive order.
  But the point I was trying to make earlier was that the broader issue 
at stake is really the standard of living for working families, and 
what the impact of Senator Kassebaum's amendment would be on a 
significant segment of working families in this country.
  I was pointing out that if you look at the period from 1979 to 1993, 
what you find, as shown on this chart--which is based upon data from 
the Department of Commerce--what you find is that it is the top tier of 
families that have done exceedingly well during this period of time. 
They are the ones whose incomes have been rising steadily and at 
significant levels.
  I think all of us welcome the fact that those families are doing well 
and that there is increased opportunity for the very top-income 
families in this country, and that those that are just below the very 
top have also seen a significant increase in their income. But this 
chart also reflects the disturbing fact that the majority--60 percent--
of American families outside of this top 40 percent, have actually 
fallen behind in terms of real family income over this same period of 
time.
  It is important to underscore that we are talking about family 
income, because what we saw during the period of the 1980's is not just 
a single member of the family working, supporting the family, but wives 
coming into the work force in record numbers and contributing their 
earnings to the family income. Even with the increased number of family 
members in the work force, we still have 60 percent of the families 
falling further and further behind those in the very top income 
brackets. That is the reality. That is what is happening out there.
  It is relevant to note that at the same time that this decline in the 
incomes of the majority of families has been happening, there has been 
a dramatic and significant increase in the use of permanent striker 
replacements. Employers have used permanent replacements to displace 
well-paid workers and replace them with workers hired at significantly 
reduced wages.
 And even the original wages of those workers who have been permanently 
replaced were in many cases of a very modest nature. As I pointed out 
earlier today, in many instances, workers who have been permanently 
replaced were earning not much more than the minimum wage to start 
with--earning $6 and $7 or $8 an hour. Those are the workers whom we 
are talking about out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate--the workers 
who some of our Republican colleagues suggest are some kind of special 
interest group.

[[Page S3927]]

  The people the President's Executive order seeks to protect from 
exploitation are people that are ready to work, that do work and have 
worked all of their lives. They are prepared to continue to work for $7 
or $8 an hour, and they are being displaced by permanent striker 
replacements who are being paid lower wages. The result is that there 
has been a significant diminution in income for a great number of 
workers.
  Mr. President, if you were to go back and look at what has happened 
to the incomes of working families since 1950, you would find that 
during the period from 1950 through the end of the 1970's, you would 
find that the incomes of families in all of these income groups moved 
up together, and that families at the top in the middle and at the 
bottom all enjoyed about the same level of income growth. The whole 
country was increasing its standard of living. All families were moving 
up together, all participating in the benefits of economic expansion. 
But that is not what has happened since 1980. That is not what is 
taking place in the America of today. That is something that we should 
be very conscious of, as we are considering the President's Executive 
Order, which is responsive, in small part, to this phenomenon.
  This second chart shows what has happened to those workers who are 
trying to provide for themselves and their families and are getting 
paid the minimum wage.
  The principle behind the minimum wage, which was first enacted into 
law in the 1930's, was that work ought to be rewarded, that men and 
women in our country who are willing to work ought to be able to earn 
enough to provide for their children, ought to be able to put a roof 
over the heads of their families and put food on the table and maintain 
some degree of self-respect and dignity. That is a fundamental 
principle that has been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, 
Mr. President.
  Here on this chart reflecting the real value of the minimum wage, 
where we see a bump here in the purchasing power of the minimum wage, 
this was a result of legislation being signed into law by a Republican 
President, George Bush, providing for an increase in the minimum wage 
of 45 cents an hour per year for 2 years, in 1990 and 1991. And now we 
can see on the chart that since that time, inflation has eaten away at 
the real value of the minimum wage, and it is virtually back to where 
it was prior to the time President Bush signed that last increase into 
law.
  What many of us have been arguing is that if we had then a Democratic 
Congress, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican President and we could 
work together in order to enact an increase in the minimum wage, then 
now when we have a Republican House and Senate and a Democratic 
President, we ought to be able to again work together to enact another 
increase.
  This chart, Mr. President, shows the real value of the minimum wage 
in terms of constant dollars. This reflects that the minimum wage is 
currently at $4.25 an hour, in 1995 dollars. That is where it is today. 
And this shows where the minimum was in terms of real dollars at other 
periods of time going back to 1965, then 1975, when the minimum wage 
was worth $5.82 in today's dollars. What we are really seeing is a 
dramatic decline in the value of the minimum wage in terms of its 
purchasing power for families. A full-time worker today working year-
round at the minimum wage would make only $8,500 a year.
  Both of these two charts are important in showing what is really 
happening out there in the work force in the United States of America; 
and that is, that far too many individuals who are working hard trying 
to provide for their families are falling further and further and 
further and further behind.
  That is why I find it so disturbing that first issue directly 
affecting working families that we have considered on the Senate floor 
in this Congress--now that we have finished consideration of the 
unfunded mandate issue and the balanced budget amendment--should be a 
measure whose effect would be to ensure further diminution of workers' 
bargaining power in their dealings with employers.
  We heard earlier--and I respect my friend and colleague, Senator 
Kassebaum--that in her view, her amendment is not really about the 
broader issues of working people. But I must say that it is difficult 
for me to accept that that is not what this amendment is really about. 
If the proponents of this amendment are so concerned about the scope of 
the executive power of the President--whether the President has the 
legal authority to issue such an order, whether he has the power to do 
it--that they felt they had to go ahead and address it on the defense 
appropriations bill, you might hope that they would still say look, OK, 
we have done the unfunded mandates bill and we have had a full debate 
on the issue of the balanced budget amendment, and we feel we must go 
ahead and address this issue of the President's executive authority on 
the defense appropriations bill. But we want you to know that we are 
concerned about what is happening to real workers and therefore we are 
proposing a sense of the Senate resolution to say that we are prepared 
to support an increase in the minimum wage, or we want to do something 
else for working families; we want to do something in terms of 
education for working families, or something for the children of 
working families in terms of their day care coverage. If that is what 
our Republican colleagues were saying, that would be great. But that is 
not the case.
  Instead, we see cutbacks being recommended in day care, even though 
only about 5 to 6 percent of day care needs are being attended to at 
current spending levels. We are seeing cutbacks in the school lunch 
program and cutbacks in the summer jobs program. The Congress was not 
even in session 3 months before it eliminated the jobs programs for 
young people, not only for this summer but next summer as well. We are 
in that much of a hurry. The House of Representatives is voting to 
eliminate that summer jobs program, and they are also in the process 
now in the Labor/HHS appropriations subcommittee of cutting back the 
loan programs for working families. I do not know how it is in other 
Member's States, but in my State close to 70 percent of the young 
people that want to improve themselves and improve their lives and 
their abilities by attending college need some kind of student loan 
assistance. Well, we are raising the cost of that assistance between 25 
and 30 percent under the proposal that is being acted on over in the 
House.
  The people getting hurt are the sons and daughters of families in 
this group in here on this chart; not so much the families up here in 
the upper income brackets because they can afford the universities, 
they can pay the tuition on their own. It is these families in this 
area on the chart, the ones that are falling further behind that say, I 
know I have not been able to make it, but, by God, my daughter or my 
son has worked hard, has done well in school, has been a good student, 
and wants to go on to college or to the university. And with these cuts 
we are saying: No, your son or daughter can not go to college unless 
you are going to pay out of your pocket another $3,500 to $4,500 over 
what it now costs in terms of interest on their student loan. That is 
effectively what the impact of these cuts is going to be on working 
families.
  So, Mr. President, the idea that somehow these matters are unrelated 
in terms of our priorities misses me.
  I did not even mention, when I was talking about the increase in the 
interest costs on student loans for working families the fact that even 
if they were going to pay that extra average $3,500 and have that 
indebtedness and they were able to get to the school or college, our 
Republican colleagues want to eliminate the work-study program. That 
affects 70,000 young people in my own State. I do not know how it is in 
other States.
  And who are these students? By definition you do not qualify for 
work-study unless you are in this area shown on this chart--unless your 
family is in this income bracket. So we are not only going to raise the 
cost of the education, we are going to make it even more complicated 
and difficult for you to participate in a work-study program to help 
you get some additional income as a result of working.
  This is about working. We hear a great deal from our Republican 
colleagues about people that are not working. This debate is about 
Americans who are working, playing by the rules and working, and their 
futures. 
 [[Page S3928]] And that is why it is so important and why it is 
appropriate that the Senate really understand exactly where we are and 
what we are about.
  We have had a long discussion about the steel mill seizure, about the 
scope of Presidential powers. We went through last week the various 
executive powers that exist inherently and those which do not. We went 
through the particular legislation which grants the President specific 
powers with respect to Federal procurement and the references that have 
been made to that in the excellent memoranda that was provided by 
Attorney General Reno. We have gone into considerable detail about 
exactly who was affected and impacted by the practice of permanently 
replacing striking workers.
  And then we had a review for the Senate of the public policy issues 
in question, about why this Executive order makes eminently good sense 
in terms of the President's responsibility to oversee procurement by 
Federal agencies.
  We heard a great deal around here some years ago, and I think many of 
us joined in the sense of outrage when we heard about the costs of 
ashtrays being $200 to $300, toilet seats at $1,500, $1,800, the abuses 
in terms of procurement policy, primarily in the Defense Department, 
but in other agencies as well. We have heard those stories and all of 
us are appalled by them.
  Now we have a President that is trying to do something about making 
sure that the taxpayer is going to get a dollar's value for a dollar 
invested by making sure that the contracts are going to be delivered 
and delivered on time and that there is going to be good quality in 
terms of the purchases that are made primarily in the areas of defense 
and weapons and weapons systems and those contracts that are related to 
national security, but in other areas as well.
  We have taken some time, although I intend to take a little more time 
later on this afternoon, to give examples of how productivity and 
quality have been adversely affected when permanent striker 
replacements were hired-- what happens when because of the replacement 
workers' lack of skills and experience, of the conflict that exists in 
the plant and factory, the quality and efficiency of work is impaired.
  The President has taken notice of that and we will share those 
experiences with the Senate. He understands it and says: ``Look, on 
this issue, I'm going to side with the taxpayers to make sure that we 
are going to get a good product on time with good quality from skilled 
craftsmen and women in this country. I am not going to take a chance in 
the areas of national security to get an inferior product, either for 
our defense or in the other areas of procurement. And, also, I am going 
to make it very clear that we are not going to give companies like 
Diamond Walnut Company, for example, that have hired permanent 
replacements, additional financial incentives for sales overseas that 
result in millions of dollars of profit for them at taxpayers' expense. 
We are not going to reward companies that treat their workers this 
harshly.''
  So, Mr. President, these are some of the points that we will have a 
chance to develop further during the course of the discussion and 
debate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________