[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3944-S3949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, the pending business before us I assume is the 
Kassebaum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the purpose of the Kassebaum amendment 
is to overturn the President's Executive order saying in effect that 
Federal 
 [[Page S3945]] dollars should not be used to encourage strikebreaking. 
That is what it is really about. I think it is only fair to remind 
everyone that this amendment obviously has nothing to do with the bill 
before us. What is this amendment about strikebreakers doing on a 
Department of Defense bill having to do with peacekeeping? None of us 
are completely pure in this category of offering amendments that are 
not completely relevant to the core of a bill. The germaneness rule 
here essentially does not exist in most instances and stands in stark 
contrast to the rule that I got used to in the Wisconsin State Senate 
and for 10 years we really did have a germaneness rule. You can 
actually prevent this kind of confusion.
  I want to reiterate. Of course, this has happened before. But on this 
bill it seems extremely off the mark to try to address the issue of 
strikebreaking and the strikebreaker issue in the context of this bill 
which I thought was about readiness.
  I thought the bill was about whether we are going to provide certain 
funds for our peacekeeping forces. I thought the bill was supposed to 
be about the identification of certain cuts within the Defense 
Department that would help pay for some other things that the Defense 
Department believes needs to be done both in this country and around 
the world. That is what I thought the bill was about.
  So do not let anybody be fooling you here. The effort we are making 
here is not a filibuster again against the bill. Many of us who are 
objecting to this amendment think the bill has tremendous merit. There 
is a lot of merit to it. But it is a rather unique way to finance 
needed peacekeeping funds by finding other things in the Defense 
Department that maybe can be eliminated. It has a lot of fiscal sense 
behind it. But this is not an effort to kill the bill. Everyone in here 
knows that. But I am afraid some of the people who might be watching 
this would assume, given the reputation of the Senate for filibusters, 
that this is an effort to delay the process. In fact, it is just the 
opposite.
  It is amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that has slowed us 
down. Day after day is being wasted on an effort to embarrass the 
President on this issue that could have been used, either to move this 
bill through to deal with the some 40 amendments pending on the bill, 
and maybe we could even be on what I thought was the business at hand 
according to the majority. According to the majority in this body, we 
were going to pass that balanced budget amendment so we could get down 
to the nitty-gritty of identifying where the cuts would come from and 
make the cuts now. Time and again both sides said, sure, we can pass a 
balanced budget amendment or not, but that the real work is identifying 
where the cuts are and not just identifying them but coming out here on 
the floor of the Senate and voting to cut waste in the Federal 
Government. Why is not that happening today? It is not happening today 
because we have this amendment before us that is completely extraneous 
to the deficit issue and that is intended to embarrass the President 
and that is intended to further drive a stake into the heart of the 
working people of this country.
  I want to talk a little bit today about the merits of the issue. But 
before I do I hope we do not hear any complaints from the majority or 
the talk radio people about how the balanced budget amendment took up 
so much time. It did take time. It was a terribly important issue. It 
deserved to have that kind of consideration. I think the whole process 
was better for it. But what is happening here is that day after day we 
are arguing about a Federal Executive order about strikebreakers that 
is preventing us from getting on to the real work of identifying what 
must be eliminated from our Federal budget so we can have not just a 
balanced budget amendment, Mr. President, but a balanced budget, not 
necessarily waiting to the year 2002 but so that we can do it now.
  In fact, it is one of the reasons I voted against the balanced budget 
amendment because it is an opportunity for people to say I am for 
balancing the budget but then talk about everything else in the world 
instead of getting down to the work of finding the cuts and 
implementing them. This amendment helps that process. Putting us off 
the track, putting us onto the effort to kick down, kick people who are 
already hurting in the labor movement, is a great way to stay away from 
those hard choices that we made in the 103d Congress and that the 104th 
Congress claims it intends to address. But so far we have seen none of 
the debate that is involved in reducing the Federal budget.
  Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans in this body forgot that they 
won. This is the kind of amendment you bring up when you are in the 
minority. Say there is a bill coming up, and the bill has to pass--an 
appropriations bill. We know we have to do it. That is when you bring 
up these amendments to kind of put them off the track. But what you are 
doing is delaying your own agenda here. In the House they are moving 
much faster than you are here. I think generally that is not good. But 
in the case of this bill, what would be wrong with moving this issue 
forward and not getting sidetracked? You are slowing yourself down. You 
are slowing down the Republican contract for one specific aspect of the 
Republican contract which has to do with not just trying to prevent the 
use of permanent replacement workers or allow the use of permanent 
replacement workers but specifically to say it is OK to have Federal 
dollars flow to companies that use permanent replacement workers.
  Mr. President, I hope everyone understands exactly what is going on 
here. It is a completely extraneous amendment that does not have to do 
with this bill and has even less to do with the main business that this 
Congress should be addressing which is reducing the Federal deficit.
  Mr. President, to discuss this amendment we must because it is the 
business before us. The effort to embarrass the President continues 
despite the failure of two cloture votes now to cut off debate.
  Mr. President, last week I spoke at some length on the issue of the 
use of permanent replacement workers by employers during labor 
disputes. I had a chance to come to the floor and follow the Senator 
from Massachusetts in describing the history of the use of permanent 
replacement workers in my own State of Wisconsin, the border State of 
the Senator in the chair. As I indicated then, I was the author of 
legislation in Wisconsin that would have prohibited the use of 
permanent strikebreakers. And I had the chance years ago when I was 
still in the State senate to come to Washington and testify before a 
committee of the other body on behalf of the Federal law that has been 
proposed over the years because I do think in the end it is better that 
we have a Federal law banning the use of permanent replacement workers. 
We have not achieved that yet. That was killed last session by a 
filibuster. We had enough votes in both the Senate and the House and 
the President ready to sign the bill. It was killed by a Republican 
filibuster.
  So our President, President Clinton, who is a supporter of the 
antistrikebreaker legislation, at least has done 
what he could do. The Executive order issued last week by the President 
is actually just a very modest step which would only say that employers 
who receive Federal contracts would be prohibited from engaging in this 
unfair practice. To me that is almost a disappointment. It is just a 
minimal requirement to impose upon those who want to do business with 
the Federal Government. But it is what the President can do. And I am 
very proud of him for having the nerve and the courage to make that 
Executive order.
  To me those who would take Government money should be held to certain 
standards of fundamental fairness. That is why Presidents have in the 
past issued Executive orders directing Federal contractors to do things 
like maintain discriminatory-free workplaces and to take affirmative 
steps to eliminate discriminatory practices. There are a number of 
important issues raised by the debate around the use of permanent 
replacement workers. My friends in Wisconsin, who work so hard, 
describe them as striker breakers. At the core of this however, is 
really one central question, the question that goes to the heart of the 
whole debate on this amendment. The question is should workers have the 
right to use the strike as an economic voice during 
 [[Page S3946]] times when negotiations with their employers break 
down? That is the question. I, of course, have answered in the 
affirmative. They must have that right to collectively bargain, the 
right to join together in a union to have any meaning at all.
  Mr. President, let me examine this a little more closely in three 
areas. First, I want to talk a little bit about what other countries do 
with regard to the use of permanent replacement workers in the strike 
context. Secondly, I would like to turn to some of the comments of not 
political people but religious and community leaders that have strong 
moral feelings about the appropriateness of the use of permanent 
replacement workers. Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to 
illustrate yet a few more examples of the great harm and cruelty that 
can come from the abusive practice of using permanent replacement 
workers to resolve labor disputes.
  First, turning to other countries. We ought to take a look, as some 
Senators have had us do, at what is done by other countries, what our 
international competitors do in this area. So often, when it comes to 
labor law or other laws having to do with health or safety, people say, 
let us look at this because we do not want to put American businesses 
at a disadvantage. That sometimes is a reason that people raise, that 
it is very legitimate for us not to pass legislation to protect our own 
people, saying it could hurt us competitively. But the senior Senator 
from Illinois, who has spoken on this issue very eloquently, has 
pointed out time and again that virtually all countries in the world 
that are involved in serious industrial and trade activity do not allow 
the use of permanent replacement workers.
  I will give you a few examples from a report prepared by the Library 
of Congress in 1990. With the exception of Great Britain and some of 
the Canadian Provinces, the law in practice in all of the countries 
surveyed--Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, 
and Sweden--all prohibit employers from dismissing striking workers.
  One example is France. French law does not allow the firing of 
workers during or because of a strike. Indeed, according to the first 
paragraph of article L.521-1 of the Labor Code, a strike is not a 
breach of contract. According to the third paragraph of the same 
article, any dismissal in violation of paragraph 1, which is the right 
to strike, is null and void. French law, as a consequence of this 
article, also prohibits the permanent replacement of striking workers. 
Moreover, article L.122-3 of the Labor Code specifically forbids the 
use of temporary replacements during a strike. French law regulates 
this issue to the point that even temporary workers hired before a 
strike cannot be used as replacements for permanent employees. Indeed, 
the notion of replacement for strike purposes is simply forbidden by 
law.
  So I hope nobody says that our efforts to compete with the French and 
African trade opportunities is going to be impaired by this Executive 
order. It will not, because they do not allow it. We do.
  The same is true of Greece. The right to strike in Greece is 
guaranteed by the Constitution of 1975, as amended. Article 23 states 
that the right to strike could be exercised by lawfully established 
trade unions in order to protect and promote the financial and general 
labor interests of employees. The fundamental law that governs workers' 
freedom in general and the right to strike in particular is Law 1264/
1982 on Democratization of the Syndicalistic Movement and the 
Establishment of Syndicalistic Freedom of Working People. In article 19 
of this law, only trade unions have a right to declare a strike to 
support economic and labor interests. Article 22 of Law 1264 explicitly 
prohibits the hiring of replacement workers. Specifically, it states: 
``During a legal strike, the hiring of strikebreakers is prohibited. 
The lockout is also prohibited.''
  Consequently, Mr. President, in Greece, a lawful strike does not 
bring about a breach of an employment contract. As in France, the 
contract is merely suspended during a strike, and the employer does not 
have the right to either dismiss the workers or hire replacement 
workers. That European nation does not permit permanent replacement 
workers.
  Let us turn to another country nearby--Italy. Article 40 of the 
Italian Constitution recognizes the right to strike. In the absence of 
any legislative regulation expressly called for by the Constitution, 
the right is recognized in its broadest form and is intended to be used 
for the improvement of working and economic conditions. As a 
consequence of this recognition, a strike is considered as a cause of 
legitimate suspension of the individual employment relationship, with 
consequent suspension of compensation. The Italian law says a strike 
does not empower the employer to dismiss the strikers or permanently 
hire other workers to replace them.
  Furthermore, in Italy, the right to strike finds strong, indirect 
protection under the provisions of Decree No. 300 of 1970, known as the 
``Workers' Statute.'' Article 28 of this decree punishes employers who 
carry out any actions aimed at preventing or limiting a worker's free 
exercise of union activities, as well as his or her right to strike. 
Article 15 of the decree nullifies any act or pact aimed at dismissing 
or discriminating against or hurting a worker in any way because of his 
union membership or because of his participation in a strike.
  Finally, let me turn to another part of the world of our great 
competitors in international trade, if not our ultimate competitor--
Japan. The senior Senator from Illinois, not just during this debate 
but in previous debates, has pointed out time and again that Japanese 
companies cannot use permanent replacement workers and strikebreakers 
in Japan. But, apparently, companies owned by the Japanese in this 
country have gone ahead and done that to break strikes. That is a great 
irony and unfortunate irony of the current state of our law.
  Looking at the Japanese law, article 7, paragraph 1, of the Labor 
Union Law of Japan provides that:

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

  These last few words in the Japanese law, the words ``an appropriate 
act of a labor union'' are construed under Japanese law to include acts 
arising from collective bargaining with the employer, such as strikes, 
picketing, and so on. Therefore, under Japanese law, as with the other 
countries I mentioned, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge a 
striking employee.
  The validity of the above provisions was upheld by the Supreme Court 
in that country, which stated that since the prohibitory clause as set 
forth in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Labor Union Law originated from 
article 28 of the Constitution and was intended, according to the 
court, to guarantee the workers' right to organize and to bargain 
collectively, and therefore any acts on the part of the employer done 
against the above provision is illegal per se.
  For that reason, I believe it is fair to say that the use of 
strikebreakers, permanent replacement workers, would, of course, also 
be illegal under Japanese law.
  So I hope we do not hear too much argument that our competitive 
position is about to suffer if we do not join the rest of the 
industrialized countries in the world in saying that the use of 
permanent replacement workers is unfair labor practice, that it is 
harsh and the unfair to people who have chosen to join together in a 
labor union.
  Having mentioned some of the other countries' positions on this, let 
me turn to a completely different angle on this issue--some of the 
comments of some religious and community leaders, who are not 
addressing this issue because they intend to run for office, who are 
not addressing this issue because they like to always get into the 
political fray. I assume they address the issue because they have a 
responsibility to reflect and think and talk about what is fair and 
moral conduct in this society. What is the way one human being should 
treat another, I think, would be the perspective of the people I am 
about to discuss.
  Mr. President, reviewing support for legislation prohibiting 
permanent replacement workers, I was struck by the 
 [[Page S3947]] number of religious and community leaders who agreed 
that no company--and certainly not the Federal Government--should 
engage in conduct that would promote the use of strikebreakers. The 
Most Reverend Frank Rodimer, bishop of Paterson, NJ, had this to say on 
behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference in testimony in 1991:

       The role of unions in promoting the dignity of work and of 
     workers is very important in Catholic teaching. In the words 
     of Pope John Paul II, through labor unions workers can ``not 
     only have more, but be more.'' Rooted in the basic human 
     right to freedom of association, the right to organize unions 
     and to bargain collectively remains essential in order to 
     prevent the exploitation of workers and to defend the human 
     person as more than just a factor in production. For one 
     hundred years the Church has called on governments to respect 
     and defend labor unions in their essential roles in the 
     struggle for justice in the workplace and as building blocks 
     for freedom and democracy.

  He continues:

       Mr. Chairman, an essential tool for unions in pursuing the 
     just rights of their members is the possibility of a strike; 
     without the threat of a strike unions would be next to 
     powerless to resist unjust demands by employers. Without the 
     right to strike, workers come to the bargaining table at a 
     serious disadvantage, facing employers who are holding most 
     of the cards. This relative weakness of workers in a market 
     economy is the reason that Catholic teaching supports the 
     legitimacy of the resort to a strike when this is the only 
     available means to obtain justice. The right to strike has 
     not always been used wisely; nor are unions above criticism, 
     but neither the corruption that has plagued some--not all--
     unions nor the violence associated with some--not all--
     strikes can justify the denial nor the erosion of workers 
     basic rights.

  The bishop continues:

       Forty years ago when I become a priest it would have been 
     unthinkable for an employer in my community to respond to a 
     strike by hiring permanent replacements. I am told that 
     because of a Supreme Court decision in 1938 it would have 
     been legal to do so, but in those days employers knew better. 
     Labor unions represented a large proportion of workers, and 
     union values permeated the community. In those days, 
     solidarity was not the name of a union in Poland but a 
     working principle in American communities.

  He continues:

       However, economic restructuring and social change have 
     undermined the cohesiveness of our communities, and devotion 
     to the common good is often sacrificed in pursuit of personal 
     gain. The painful recessions of the 70's and the relentless 
     individualism of the 80's have left many without either the 
     financial cushion or the community connections to ride out 
     strikes or prolonged unemployment. In such an atmosphere, 
     some employers feel free to use strikes as an opportunity to 
     get rid of the union and collective bargaining and their 
     union workforce. I know many employers who wouldn't do this, 
     but, unfortunately there are those that have done so and 
     others that are open to it.
       The results have been predictable and damaging. Not only 
     have unions been weakened in their ability to defend the 
     rights of workers, but communities have experienced savage 
     struggles, with neighborhoods in turmoil, families divided 
     and workers without hope. The promise of permanent employment 
     made to the replacement workers becomes an impediment to 
     settling the strike, and negotiations are stymied. The 
     victims are the original workers and their families who often 
     have no place else to go and even the replacement workers who 
     are later discharged when the business closes because of the 
     damage of a prolonged strike. In some places, whole 
     communities suffer wounds that won't heal for generations.

  Mr. President, I am reading from the bishop's comments, but I would 
just say that I, too, in my work have had a chance to see whole 
communities wounded and damaged in Wisconsin, places like De Pere, WI, 
by the use of permanent replacement workers.
  Returning to the comments:

       When employers are allowed to offer permanent jobs to 
     strikebreakers, strikers lose their jobs. It's that simple. 
     If workers lose their jobs, what does it mean to have a right 
     to strike? If there's no effective right to strike, what does 
     it mean to have a right to organize?
       Human dignity is clearly threatened in our country. The 
     evidence is visible on our streets and in our shelters where 
     a growing number of people are forced to live even though 
     they work every day. In our cities and in our rural areas 
     throughout this country working people are homeless because 
     their wages have fallen so far below the cost of housing. 
     Recent immigrants and single mothers, newcomers to the labor 
     force and those least likely to have union representation, 
     are mired in poverty.

  Bishop Rodimer concluded:

       The right to strike without fear of reprisal is fundamental 
     to a democratic society. The continued weakening of worker 
     organizations is a serious threat to our social fabric. I 
     think we have to decide whether we will be a country where 
     workers' rights are totally dependent on the good will of 
     employers or whether we will be a country where the dignity 
     of work and the rights of workers are protected by the law of 
     the land.

  I think this was an eloquent statement by the bishop that gives us 
some guidance about how appropriate this amendment before us is today.
  Very briefly, here is what some other national religious leaders have 
said.
  From the United Methodist Church, Council of Bishops and General 
Board of Church and Society, this statement:

       Since the early years of the trade union movement, 
     Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Protestant and Jewish leaders 
     have supported collective bargaining as a democratic way to 
     settle differences in the workplace. Permanent replacement of 
     strikers upsets the balance of power critical for achieving 
     peaceful, negotiated settlements between labor and 
     management. As a result, both collective bargaining and the 
     democratic values that created this nation are under attack.

  From the Christian Church--Disciples of Christ--Department of Church 
and Society, Division of Homeland and Ministries, the following:

       The record is clear that major religious groups in this 
     country for many years have supported workers' rights against 
     abusive tactics and treatment by employers.
       We deplore the tactics of ``permanent replacement'' and we 
     urgently call for new federal legislation that will protect 
     workers from such tactics.

  Mr. President, from Jewish organizations, the National Council of 
Jewish Women has said: ``The practice of hiring permanent replacement 
workers has had a chilling effect on collective bargaining. The 
legislation currently under consideration by Congress''--referring, I 
am sure, to S. 5 of last session and similar bills--``would help 
restore the balance between labor and management * * *''
  From the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reference and 
Counsel Committee, a resolution which they passed which ``calls for an 
end to recriminations against workers who participate in strikes, and 
calls upon the appropriate churchwide units, synods, congregations, and 
members to support legislation that would strengthen the viability of 
negotiated settlements and prevent''--not slow down, but prevent--``the 
permanent replacement of striking workers.''
  Mr. President, not only in other countries but from some of our 
leading religious leaders and leading religious denominations in this 
country, not just my own words, but words of condemnation for the 
cruelty and harshness and immorality of throwing people out of their 
jobs permanently when they have exercised their legitimate right to 
strike.
  Mr. President, I would like to turn now, third, to just add a few 
moments of real-life situations, concrete examples, of where workers 
have been forced to pay dearly for asserting their legal right to 
strike when collective bargaining efforts have failed.
  Naturally, I begin with one from my own State of Wisconsin, one that 
I recall to have been very painful for the whole community of Racine, 
WI, and, of course, especially for the working families of that area.
  I already talked about similar incidents in De Pere, WI, near Green 
Bay, and Cudahy, WI, near Milwaukee, and the area near my own home in 
southern Wisconsin, in towns like Madison, Stoughton, and Janesville.
  But this is about Racine, WI, where the Ladies' Garment Workers Local 
187 had not had a strike for 50 years at Rainfair, Inc., a manufacturer 
of protective clothing at Racine, WI. That, unfortunately, changed on 
June 20, 1991, when the workers did walk out over management demands 
that seemed designed to actually force a strike.
  It appeared to the workers not just that they needed to go on strike, 
but that somebody was pushing them, shoving them, trying to get them to 
go out on strike.
  The company had demanded the health insurance copayments more than 
double, and offered the low-wage workers only a 15-cents-an-hour 
increase over a 3-year period.
  Unfortunately, and not surprisingly in this new era of permanent 
replacement workers, soon after the strike began, Rainfair began to 
hire permanent replacements, and seemed bound and determined to break 
the union.
  The workers, most of them women, many of them single mothers, 
working 
 [[Page S3948]] single mothers--not single mothers on welfare, but 
working single mothers--held out, with virtually no one crossing the 
picket line.
  I recall that five strikers joined a protest fast. Two of them went 
35 days with no food.
  The union launched a nationwide boycott of the protective gear sold 
to many union members, including police officers, firefighters, 
construction, postal and chemical workers.
  But the presence of these permanent replacement workers did not help 
resolve the dispute. It greatly prolonged the dispute.
  The primary issue soon became whether there would be an opportunity 
to return to work for all of the strikers. The issue divided the 
community and embittered once amicable labor-management relations.
  Finally, the Rainfair Co., under pressure from the boycott and the 
national attention drawn to it by the fast, finally agreed to a new 
contract on December 3, 1991. To enable all strikers to return, the 
workers agreed to work 6-hour days temporarily.
  But obviously, the situation was made worse by the use of permanent 
replacement workers, not better.
  Another example, having to do with the General Dynamics Corp. In the 
summer of 1987, 3,500 machinists in San Diego were forced to strike in 
a division of General Dynamics Corp. when the aerospace firm demanded 
cutbacks in medical benefits and seniority rights.
  Even before the final strike vote was taken, General Dynamics was 
threatening the members of IAM Local 1125, issuing handbills that told 
workers in advance that the intent of the company was to permanently 
replace them if they struck, and instructing union members on how to 
withdraw from the union. They were trying to undercut the union in 
advance.
  During the second week of the strike, the company carried out its 
threat and resorted to scare tactics and coercion, cutting off workers' 
health benefits and pressuring union members to cross picket lines.
  Those workers who did return to their jobs were directed to call IAM 
members at home, reminding them of the company's threat that they were 
going to be permanently replaced.
  After the strike was finally settled, nearly 700 union members had, 
in fact, been permanently replaced. They were forced to wait on a 
recall list for a year or more just for a chance at a job that they 
were supposed to have in the first place. During that time, IAM members 
exhausted their savings, lost their homes, cars, and sometimes their 
families, as they struggled desperately to help each other out.
  It was also a heartbreaking story of a woman from Indiana having to 
do with a company called Arvin Industries. One of the statements made 
was, ``I always felt obligated to do a good job. I thought that honesty 
and obligation were a good way to live my life, but now I'm not sure. 
That company robbed me.''
  She said of the workers, ``I look at the replacement workers and I 
wonder how they can feel good about taking our jobs. I try to put aside 
my feelings, but it's hard.''
  That is the status of Marcina Stapleton, for whom being permanently 
replaced brought bankruptcy and forced her daughter out of college.
  The single mother of two was permanently replaced when Electrical 
Workers Local 1331 struck Arvin Industries in Columbus, IN. She had 
worked 6 years as a press operator. Even though the strike was settled 
in 7 months she was not called back for 17 months.
  ``It was hard making it'' through those months, she said. Her only 
income was a $200 a month in child support and whatever she could earn 
from odd jobs. She had rent payments of $325 a month, car payments, 
utilities, college costs for her daughter, and it all proved to be too 
much.
  Her daughter had to drop out of school and Stapleton declared 
bankruptcy. She said, ``I am not proud of it but it was the only way 
out.''
  But the biggest toll was the emotional strain it put on her and her 
family. She felt the pressure of bills, including $2,300 in back rent, 
and the relationship with her children suffered from the strain. The 
children were fighting with each other and her teenage son ended up in 
counseling.
  She went back to work in October 1990, making $8.80 an hour and 
paying $9 a week for health insurance. Before she went on strike she 
made $11.57 an hour with $2.25 an hour incentive bonus and employer-
paid insurance, complete.
  She said, ``I had to go back into work, I have to keep living.'' But 
it is not easy to work alongside people who benefited from her pain. 
``What I did was the right thing. I would do it again if I had to,'' 
she said.
  So, Mr. President, I assure you I could continue to read descriptions 
of these heartbreaking real life stories. I am tempted to do so. I may 
be back to do so later. I think at least for now the point has been 
made that these are real human examples and real human tragedies that 
are caused by the heartless practice and abuse of the use of striker 
replacement.
  This is not, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out time 
and again, just a dry academic argument about labor law. This is about 
people who simply want the opportunity to make a decent living and to 
be paid fairly and not be thrown out of their jobs because on occasion 
they may have to use their legitimate right to strike.
  This is not just a debate about a Federal order from the Executive. 
This is a debate about whether this country cares about American 
workers. Whether we are prepared to stand by and watch the tremendous 
gains accomplished to be eroded by this kind of cruel practice aimed at 
breaking the backs of workers who exercise their right to engage in 
collective labor efforts and to strike when negotiations fail.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude shortly, but in doing so I 
would like to quote from an article recently written by the new 
president of our Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Mr. David Newby. David wrote:

       Let's cut through the rhetoric to the central issue: What 
     is a strike? It is a situation where workers voluntarily 
     leave their jobs--simply walk away--because they can't agree 
     with their employer on a contract covering wages, working 
     conditions, health insurance, or pension? Or is it that 
     workers retain their jobs but temporarily withhold their 
     labor until they and the employer come to an agreement?

  Which is it? Just walking away or a legitimate part of the collective 
bargaining agreement, he was asking. Dave Newby says:

       The distinction is fundamental.
       The anti-union crowd means that workers have no bargaining 
     power at all. As long as management can find others to work 
     for whatever they offer (not hard to do when decent paying 
     jobs are so scarce), they have no incentive to bargain 
     serious with a union. And without strong unions that can 
     bargain on equal terms with management, we will continue to 
     see workers' wages fall and good paying jobs disappear.
       In the workplace, a ``right'' means nothing if you can be 
     fired (or permanently replaced) for exercising it.

  Mr. President, David Newby says that.

       If the right to strike means anything at all, it has to 
     mean you can't be fired for striking. You lose your paycheck, 
     but you don't lose your job. Win, lose, or draw, workers must 
     have the right to return to their jobs when a strike is over.

  Mr. Newby says:

       Workers don't strike for frivolous reasons. A strike is an 
     action of last resort. Workers don't strike in order to 
     bankrupt or close down the companies they have worked for: 
     They realize better than anyone that their companies need to 
     be profitable in order to have jobs at good wages.
       The issue for workers is simply getting their fair share 
     and having the effective right to strike for their fair share 
     when management won't voluntarily grant it.
       During the 1950's and 1960's, employers almost never used 
     ``permanent replacements during strikes''--temporaries, yes; 
     permanent replacements, no. Both business and community 
     values held that the permanent replacement of workers and 
     strikers was abhorrent.

  That is the way people felt, Mr. Newby points out.

       That changed 15 to 20 years ago. Many employers decided to 
     destroy unions instead of bargaining with them. Indeed, this 
     vicious management practice is becoming even more common. In 
     a recent Congressional General Accounting Office survey, 35 
     percent of CEO's said they would use permanent replacement 
     strikers during a strike; 17 percent reported actually doing 
     so.

  Mr. Newby concludes:

       It's time that American workers had the same rights and 
     protections that workers have in the industrialized countries 
     that are 
      [[Page S3949]] our main competitors and trading partners-- 
     countries such as Germany, Japan, and Canada. We're tired of 
     being second-class citizens in the industrial world of global 
     competition.

  Mr. President, I don't think any statement could have pulled together 
these themes better than Mr. Newby's. The theme of competition 
internationally, the theme of what religious and communities leaders 
have to say about this practice, and the theme of the actual 
heartbreaking stories of what happens to the people in these 
communities when their jobs are ripped away from them simply because 
they are trying to exercise their right to strike.
  It is time that American workers have the same rights and protections 
that workers have in the industrialized countries that are our main 
international competitors and trading partners. American workers should 
not be second-class citizens in the industrial world of global 
competition.
  The President's Executive order is only a small step in the right 
direction. We ought to provide these protections against permanent 
replacement workers for all Americans, but at a minimum, we should 
uphold President Clinton's action to provide these protections for 
those employed by Federal contractors.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend and colleague 
from Wisconsin for an excellent presentation. This presentation was, I 
thought, one of the most thoughtful and comprehensive reviews of the 
significance of the Kassebaum amendment and what its implications would 
be in the real world.
  We have heard a great deal of speeches about Executive orders, the 
power of the President, whether this Executive order was issued to 
benefit a special interest. But I think the Senator has in a very 
comprehensive and thoughtful way provided an insight about what is 
really before the Senate in terms of the people of his State. I just 
want to commend him and thank him for his thoughtfulness and for his 
insight in analyzing this issue and for sharing with the Senate a 
superb presentation on what is a very, very important issue.
  When this amendment was initially proposed, it was really what I 
would call a seat-of-the-pants amendment. The President signed an 
Executive order, and the ink was not even dry when there was an 
amendment to try to undermine what the President was attempting to do.
  I hope the American people have gained an insight into the human 
dimension of this debate. If they have, it is because of the 
presentation of the Senator from Wisconsin. I am very grateful to him 
for his presentation and, most importantly, I think our colleagues will 
be if they take the time to read and study this superb speech. I thank 
the Senator.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would just like to thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts and say he has truly been an inspiration on this 
issue and during this debate. Not only has he spent a lot of time out 
here debating the amendment, trying to defeat it, but he has brought 
passion to the issue that it deserves.
  It is an issue that should involve passion. It is an issue that 
should involve condemnation and that should bring forth the human 
element, which the Senator from Massachusetts has done so well.
  I would just like to reiterate, this amendment is slowing down the 
process in the Senate. It is not helping us get our work done; it is 
hurting us getting our work done. We have no choice but to fight it 
because we believe it is off the point and it is fundamentally damaging 
to the very families that we have based our careers on and trying to 
fight for.
  So it can be ended right away if this amendment is taken back. We can 
get back to the Department of Defense bill, but that is not the choice 
that the majority has made.
  I am eager to work with the majority on a number of issues, including 
even some that are in the Republican contract--some. But when it comes 
to this kind of conduct suggesting that Federal dollars should be used 
to break unions and break the families that are part of them, we will 
fight and we will resist such a harsh verdict for the American people.
  So, again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his kind 
comments but, more importantly, for his strong leadership on this 
issue.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________