[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3955-S3961]
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.
  Mrs. BOXER. At this time, I will speak about the business before us. 
I think some very important issues have been raised in this debate. I 
often try to put myself in the position of an average American turning 
on the television set, looking at the U.S. Senate, and seeing a Senator 
speak from either side of the aisle and wondering why is a Senator 
speaking about this issue or that issue, when on the schedule it says 
we are taking up a defense emergency supplemental bill.
  In fact, that is what we are doing. We have been asked by the 
Pentagon to meet their needs because they are engaged in some foreign 
operations for which they did not have a budget, and for which there 
were costs that they need to be reimbursed for. So in the middle of 
this debate that we are having on this very important defense emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, there is an amendment offered which 
has absolutely nothing to do with the bill before us, not even in the 
most remote sense of the word.
  I try to make some type of connection between the amendment that is 
pending and the bill that is pending, too. And unless I am missing 
something, I cannot see a connection, because the bill is about 
reimbursing the Pentagon for items that were needed for this country to 
engage in military or peacekeeping assignments. And the Kassebaum 
amendment before us, which has been before us for days now, deals with 
a worker issue, a workplace fairness issue, an Executive order that has 
to do with replacing legally striking workers. It has nothing to do 
with the military emergency supplemental bill.
  I heard Senator Feingold make this point, and I think it is worth 
repeating. It is interesting that the Republicans are in charge of this 
bill; they brought it out of the committee, and now they are amending 
it with a very controversial amendment which has nothing to do with the 
bill. They are slowing down their own bill.
  One has to ask oneself why this would be. I have looked at that, 
also. I tried to look at the merits of it. They said, well, the 
President signed this Executive order and he now says that the 
Government should not do business with companies that permanently 
replace legally striking workers. The President said that. And so the 
argument is that he has no right to do that; he is trampling on the 
rights of the Congress. Yet, as you go back in history--and I will 
bring this out later--I never heard one Republican come to the Senate 
floor and complain that President Bush was overstepping his bounds when 
he made similar moves. So that is not an issue here.
  So I come down to this: I think it is a way to slap working people, 
to put them in their place, to tell them that they do not have rights. 
And I think that is very sad. I do not see how--and I try 
intellectually to be fair about this--you can look a worker in the eye, 
whether it is a nurse or whether it is a construction worker, whether 
it is someone whose fingernails are dirty or clean, and say to that 
worker: You, my friend, have a right to strike; you, my friend, have a 
right under the laws of the United States of America to withhold your 
labor if you feel you are being treated unfairly. That is your ultimate 
human right. How could you look that worker in the eye, male or female, 
young or old, rich or poor, and say to that worker: You have the right 
to strike; and yet, in the same breath say: However, if you go out on 
strike, your boss can permanently replace you, even if you are out on 
strike legally and you have done everything right and you want to 
negotiate.
  This is a very simple issue. You do not have the right to strike if 
you know the minute you step out the door you do not have a job.
  What really interests me is that during the heyday of the Soviet 
Union, when we were all so excited about the fact that the Wall could 
come down, the Soviet Union would break up, and countries like Poland 
could be free at last, Republicans embraced the union movement in 
Poland called Solidarity.
  I will never forget it. Lech Walesa came here. Republicans and 
Democrats alike said, ``Solidarity. Show your strength. Stand up 
against the Communists. We support you. You are right. The Communists 
are not treating you fairly. They are treating you brutally.''
  Everyone embraced Lech Walesa and everyone invited him to speak. 
Republicans and Democrats here in America, we were united for 
Solidarity.
  But, wait a minute. What happened? What happens in our own country 
when workers asked for that same dignity in this Nation? You get 
amendments like this one, amendments like this one that are so hurtful 
to people who believe they have a right to strike, to people who want 
to work but who want to know that they have that ultimate leverage.
  I wish to compliment the President, because he looked at this issue 
and he knew that for many years we had a majority in this U.S. Senate 
which would have outlawed the permanent replacement of these striking 
workers. We did not have 60 votes, so we fell victim to filibuster.
  He knew he had the ability to do something about this. And the 
Republicans do not like it. But he did it. He signed an Executive 
order. Guess what? 
 [[Page S3956]] We have a President. He has the ability to take some 
steps on his own.
  My goodness, we have Republicans here who want to give him so much 
line-item veto power that it is too much for this U.S. Senator. I do 
not want to give the President too much power. But the President has a 
right to issue an Executive order like this one.
  The Kassebaum amendment would say the President does not have this 
right, this very simple Executive order that says that we cannot 
contract with companies who fire legally striking workers. The 
Kassebaum amendment would wipe out that Executive order.
  I will tell you what I hope. I hope, if that survives this bill and 
it is attached to this bill, I hope the President vetoes this bill, 
because I think that working people in America today need to know that 
they get some respect, that you do not have to be a striking worker in 
Poland and belong to Solidarity before you get respect from the 
Government of the United States of America.
  The President, as head of the executive branch agencies, is well 
within his right to issue this order.
  I said before, I never heard one Republican complain when George Bush 
issued his Executive order which required all unionized Federal 
contractors to post a notice in their workplace informing all employees 
that they could not be required to join a union. George Bush made sure 
that that kind of language was posted. The order says workers had a 
right to refuse to pay dues for any purpose unrelated to collective 
bargaining. I did not hear any Republican Senator complain that the 
President had overstepped his authority.
  Oh, but now President Clinton stands up for workers and all you hear 
is complaints about it and we are going to stop him.
  Well, I hope we do not succeed in overturning that Executive order, 
because I think working people are getting the shaft.
  And why do I say that? Common sense. I am not a labor lawyer, but I 
have common sense. If somebody says to me, ``You have a right to 
strike, but the minute you walk out the door someone is going to 
permanently replace you and you are out, no health insurance, no 
benefits, no nothing,'' I do not have a right to strike at all. It is 
just a paper right.
  President Clinton understands this and he is showing leadership. The 
Republicans around here do not like it, so they put up the Kassebaum 
amendment. They slow down their own bill to slap working people.
  There is a lot of talk in this country that people are insecure about 
this economy. In California, there is a lot of talk about affirmative 
action. And they are saying, ``Well, this is the reason that people are 
having trouble getting jobs, affirmative action.''
  Well, let me tell you, if you look at the facts, you will find that 
is not so; that what is hurting the working person today is the fact 
that we do not see any policies coming out of this Congress that are 
going to help them.
  Let me tell you, you read the contract for America or with America or 
on America. I think it the Contract With America, the Republican 
Contract With America. You read every line of that contract and you 
show me one place in that contract where there is one thing said about 
jobs, where there is one thing said about the rights of working people, 
where there is one thing said about increasing a minimum wage that is 
at a 40-year low. And there is a modest proposal by this President to 
increase it and no way will this Republican Congress even consider it.
  But if they get a chance to slap the worker, here it is. I say it is 
wrong. It is wrong. These are the people that should be respected, not 
shunned, and this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Kansas should be defeated.
  The threat of using replacement workers is a veiled iron glove 
hovering over workers at the bargaining table. It upsets that delicate 
balance.
  I have known some wonderful people in California who are very good 
bosses, who have very good relations with the working people that they 
hire. And I can tell you, those people would never replace workers who 
go out on strike. They would not do it because they have come to 
respect those workers and the workers' families and the workers' 
children and they know that their success has been brought about 
because of those workers. So this is not aimed at them--the good 
bosses, the management people who bring their workers in.
  But I will tell you, there are those management people--and I have 
seen them, too, in California--who do not really care about the 
workers, who really do not care. Sometimes it is new management that is 
brought in when a company is bought out, some kind of a hostile 
takeover. They come in and they throw everybody out the door.
 They goad workers until they go out on strike, and then they 
permanently replace them.

  We have a lot of companies to choose from when we hire companies to 
work for the Federal Government. President Clinton is right. Do not 
hire those firms that treat their people so badly, who care so little 
about them and their families, who would throw them out at the drop of 
a hat the minute they walk out on strike.
  Let me say when people go out on strike, that is not a happy 
occasion. That is not something they do lightly. People suffer when 
they are out on strike. The family suffers when a person is out on 
strike. It is very hard. No one knows when the strike will end. It is 
very difficult to know that you will be replaced the minute you walk 
out the door. It changes the entire balance between workers and 
management. A stable and productive relationship can be put out of 
kilter if you know the minute you walk out that door you can be 
replaced.
  Now let me say why I think what the President did is not only good 
for workers, it not only honors workers, but why it is good for 
America. It is a very important point. Strikes involving permanent 
replacements last far longer than other strikes. On average, strikes 
involving permanent replacements last seven times longer than other 
strikes. They are bitter. They are disruptive because business targets 
not just wages and benefits but the very right of the worker to strike.
  I will tell Members as I have looked at these strikes in the past, 
the bad feelings linger. The bad feelings linger because permanent 
people have replaced workers, and finally if workers even do get their 
job back, it is after a very long struggle. It is not the right way to 
proceed.
  So I say if we do not deal with companies that do that, that treat 
their people so badly, we will be dealing with better companies. We 
will be contracting with companies that will do a better job for the 
American people. I think that argument is sometimes lost.
  So it is not only that this Executive order by the President is good 
for workers and honors workers, it is good for America because we will 
be contracting with companies that have a better labor track record 
and, therefore, are more reliable.
  Now, I said before, we have had many incidents in California, and I 
want to talk about one that I talked about before. It is a situation 
where more than 400 nurses at the California Nurses Association went 
out on strike at the City of Hope Medical Center, in Duarte, CA. They 
were protesting contract demands that cut their vacations in half, and 
reassigned large portions of their duties to lower paid and in some 
cases unlicensed personnel.
  I do not have to say how committed nurses are. They are committed to 
their work. They are proud of their work. They do not walk out on 
strike easily. They love their jobs. But they knew they had no choice. 
The minute they walked out the hospital management began to hire 
replacement workers. Let me tell Members, it was a bitter, bitter pill 
for those nurses to swallow.
  Carol Beecher-Hoban, a pediatric nurse, found out on her sixth 
anniversary at the hospital that she would be permanently replaced. The 
day she went out on strike--a legal strike--a single mom with two kids, 
without her job, she was without health insurance for her and her 
family. Believe me, a registered nurse knows what it means to be 
without health insurance.
  She had to take two jobs and sell her house to make ends meet, all 
because she exercised her right under laws passed by this Congress and 
supported, presumably, by everyone--the right to strike. That is 
supported by everybody. This is an amendment, my friends, to 
 [[Page S3957]] end the right to strike. If ending the right to strike 
was the amendment before the Senate, it would be more direct. But this 
deals with permanent replacement of strikers, which I say, is 
equivalent to ending the right to strike.
  So here is a nurse who walks out to protest the working conditions of 
her job--and she's been there for 6 years--and she loses her job. Right 
away, a single mother, two kids, no medical insurance. She has to take 
two jobs, sells her house, because her employer chose to permanently 
replace her.
  Let me underline the word ``permanent.'' We are not talking about 
temporary replacements. Employers can do that if they want to. We are 
talking about permanent replacements. People go out on strike because 
they believe they have the right to strike. It is guaranteed to them 
here in the laws of our land, and then they are permanently replaced.
  How about this other woman: Betty Razor, a specialist in a certain 
type of therapy which is very difficult to deal with. She deals with 
patients who have colostomies or other kinds of artificial diversions 
in place for bodily functions. It is a very tough and stressful job.
  This woman, Betty Razor, was nurse of the year and employee of the 
year at that hospital, in Duarte, CA. She went out on strike. She was 
nurse of the year and voted employee of the year by the management. 
What do they do with Betty Razor? They permanently replace her. In a 
snap. In a snap. That is what they thought of her.
  I say that is wrong. That is wrong. If a company wants to temporarily 
bring in a replacement because they have a need to fill, that would be 
something that could be understood. But to permanently replace the 
employee of the year, the nurse of the year, with no feeling at all 
about this person, is wrong. Yet this amendment would say, ``It's fine. 
Go ahead. We love it. Congress says it's great. Permanently replace 
your people.''
  Not me. I say it is wrong.
  What is she doing now? She is working in home care. She called my 
office when this debate was raging a few months back. She said when 
they told her they were replacing her she said, ``You must be kidding. 
I didn't seem to think that they could do that.'' She said, ``I thought 
when they told me I was being permanently replaced that it was a ploy 
to make us knuckle under.'' She said, ``I didn't think they could just 
pick anyone to replace us. They let go the cream of the crop. Everyone 
who has professional influence with other nurses was replaced.'' So 
they got rid of the cream of the crop.
  Five nurses of the year were replaced permanently. What did they do? 
Were they bad? Did they treat their patients badly? No, they were the 
nurses of the year. Their patients loved them. But they exercised their 
right to strike. Their human right to withhold their labor to protest. 
They thought once the strike was over, they would be working again, 
because they loved their work and they wanted to work, but they were 
permanently replaced.
  This amendment will send a signal all over this country. Go ahead, 
everyone, fire people if they dare go out on strike, and permanently 
replace them. That is wrong.
  She said to me, ``I always felt you strike because of the issues, and 
when you settle the issues, you go back to work. You don't win every 
issue,'' she says, ``You compromise.''
  She said, ``That's how we do it in America. I never thought you would 
permanently replace the workers. Why would anyone strike then?''
  I think the American people are fair, and I do not think the American 
people think it is unfair to tell someone ``You have a human right to 
withhold your labor, to strike; now, remember, when you do it, you 
won't get a paycheck, it's going to be hard, you may have to stand out 
with a picket sign, you're going to have problems, people may not like 
you, it may be tough. But you have a right to strike while you bargain 
collectively until all the issues are resolved; you have a right to 
strike.'' I think the American people believe that is right.
  Now, when it comes to certain public employees, we know that is 
another problem, that is another issue, and we are not talking about 
that here. We are talking about private contractors. So to tell someone 
you have the right to strike, we support your right to strike, and yet 
then say to them, ``But the minute you walk out the door, you're 
history; you'll be thrown off health insurance, you can't get your job 
back,'' I think the American people would say that is not fair.
  So Nurse Razor learned it the hard way.
  Mr. President, there are other instances in California of the sheer 
inhumanity of hiring replacement workers. Last year, Senator Metzenbaum 
talked about an issue in California, the Diamond Walnut workers. It is 
a very, very, very tough issue. Four hundred members of a union 
exercised their right to strike more than 2 years ago. In 1985, they 
had given huge wage concessions to the employer because they were 
wanting to help the company avoid bankruptcy, and they said, ``Look, we 
are part of the team here. We are not going to insist on higher wages 
if you are having trouble in the company.''
  They said, ``We will give concessions. We will take lower wages,'' 
and they gave huge wage concessions.
  The company turned around. It did amazingly well. But the concessions 
were not restored, despite renewed profitability and what they thought 
was an implied promise that things would change for them if the 
company's fortune reversed.
  More than half of the striking workers happened to be women in that 
case. In a special report to Secretary of Labor Reich, Karen Nussbaum, 
Director of the Department's Women's Bureau, said, ``The workers' sole 
precondition is to return to work while retaining union 
representation.'' That is all they wanted. They want to go back and 
still stay in their union. They cannot do that right now. They were 
punished, and they cannot go back to work, punished for exercising an 
American right, a right that is so American that we said to the workers 
in Poland when they were under the Soviet Union, ``We back you.'' 
Solidarity was the union. ``We back you,'' Republicans and Democrats on 
their feet, greeting the President of Poland, Lech Walesa. ``We love 
you,'' we said. Solidarity. The workers overthrew communism, and yet 
right here, the workers in America are getting the shaft. The President 
says that is wrong and about 42 of us said that is wrong, and whether 
or not we hold ranks, I do not know. But I hope we hold our ranks. I 
hope we stick together for these working people.
  I think the message that we send out from this Chamber is very 
important to the workers of America to know that someone is on their 
side. Maybe it is not so popular to be on the worker's side anymore, 
but it is popular with me, because I believe in America and the 
American dream and hard work, like the nurse of the year, who worked 
with patients who were sick, and they loved her and the bosses loved 
her, and the minute she said, ``Wait a minute, you're not treating me 
fairly in these negotiations,'' and she walked outside the door, the 
door slammed shut on her.
  What kind of a message is that to send to the hard-working people of 
America? We have a lot of contracts with companies. We can choose and 
pick the best. Let us choose and pick the best, and that means those 
that are the best to their workers. Does it mean that workers are 
always right? Of course not.
  When I was a member of the board of supervisors, the union struck 
against me. I did not like that. I did not think they were right. I 
felt terrible about that. They struck me. They held signs against the 
board of supervisors. They said we were wrong, and I said to them that 
I thought they were asking for too much compensation, and we sat at the 
table. They went out on strike, and we had to work hard.
  We had management people doing their jobs. It was not easy, but we 
negotiated in good faith, and when the strike ended, those employees 
came back to work and they said to me, I remember at that time, 
``Supervisor Boxer, we didn't agree with you, but let's put it behind 
us.'' That is what America is all about. We should not lord our power 
over working people and fire them the minute they have the temerity to 
walk out the door. This is America. That is wrong. We should not punish 
people for exercising their rights. We should argue with each other 
when we do not agree. I argued 
 [[Page S3958]] with those employees. I said, ``You're asking for too 
much. You're making a mistake. You're going to get burned because you 
are not going to get everything you want. Don't go out on strike. It's 
wrong.'' But I never said to them, ``If you walk out that door, you're 
history.''
  Why would I not say that? Because they are good people; they cared 
about the county. They worked in public works; they worked in all kinds 
of important parts of the county in Marin. They were good, hard-
working, decent human beings who very rarely went out on strike, and 
when they did it, I said, ``You're wrong.'' When it was over, we shook 
hands.
  That is what America is about, not saying, ``We're changing the lock 
on the door and you can never come back because you legally exercised 
your rights.'' That is wrong. That is what this Kassebaum amendment is 
about. It is slapping working people. It is a message that they do not 
have the right to withhold their labor and to have in any way a level 
playing field.
  So I hope we are going to stand up for those who work for a living, 
whether they are cracking walnuts in Stockton or providing specialized 
nursing care in Duarte, CA, or any other economic pursuit you can name.
  If people want to fight about the right to strike, let us have it out 
on that issue. That is what is so interesting to me about the 
Republican Contract With America, because I look at it as a war on 
children, on families, on consumers, on the environment. But if you 
look at the contract, it says ``The Commonsense Legal Reform Act.'' 
That is how they talk about their legal reforms.
  You tell me what is reform about saying there are no punitive damages 
that can be leveled against a corporation that goes ahead with a 
product that has FDA approval--let us say something like the Dalkon 
shield--and you say, ``Well, you got FDA approval. Therefore, if it 
makes women sterile or it hurts them or it kills them or it gives them 
cancer, no punitive damages.''
  That is the commonsense legal reform act. I say it is a war against 
consumers, just as this amendment is a war against working people. But 
they never put it in those terms. There are other parts of the 
contract--regulatory reform--that deal with issues that can really hurt 
the health and safety of the people of this Nation.
  What is a reform about stopping a regulation that is going to stop E. 
coli from getting into the hamburgers that people eat all through this 
country? I have constituents who have died because they ate a hamburger 
that had E. coli.
  Regulatory reform, my friends, is going to do a lot for those people 
because it is going to stop that regulation from going into effect that 
will protect the meat supply. But they call that regulatory reform.
  How about this one? A bacteria called cryptosporidium showed up in 
the Milwaukee water supply. We are finally getting around to regulating 
standards for the water supply. Oh, the Republican contract: Moratorium 
on all regulations. So they call it regulatory reform. I call it a war 
on consumers, a war on the environment. And this amendment, stopping a 
President from issuing an Executive order that he has every right to 
do, to me is a war on the working people of this Nation.
  In a way, I am discouraged about having to fight these battles, but 
in a way it energizes me because I think the American people have to 
engage in what is going on here in Washington. A hundred days to change 
America, 100 days to turn back the clock on progress we have made in 
providing this country the toughest consumer law, the best in 
environmental protection, the best protections for water, for air. All 
that, we turn it back in 100 days because that is what the politicians 
said the last election meant.
  Let me tell you, I think the last election meant change. People want 
change. People are tired of politics as usual. There is no question 
about it. People do not want waste. They want an end to fraud. They do 
not want useless regulation. But the election was not about leaving 
this country unprotected, unprotected from pollution and bacteria that 
gets in our meat supply, from drugs that have not been adequately 
tested.
  What I find very interesting about the contract is it does a couple 
of different things. First, it says if a company issues a product that 
has Federal Drug Administration approval, you can never sue that 
company for punitive damages if you die or get cancer or something like 
that. At the same time, they want to go after the FDA and make it 
really an agency that cannot function. They attack the FDA. As a matter 
of fact, the Speaker of the House said, ``Let's privatize the FDA. 
Let's not even have an FDA.''
  Well, imagine that combination: an FDA that is neutered and at the 
same time, you give them the power to protect companies from ever being 
sued if their product received FDA approval. That is a lethal 
combination, and that is in the Republican contract which, by the way, 
is moving very quickly.
  But earlier in my remarks I said that when the Founders founded this 
Nation, they said that we would act in the Senate here as the saucer 
and in the House as the cup, and when these ideas spill over, they will 
cool down here because people are getting to see what they are.
  I was very pleased that the majority leader gave us 2 extra days on 
the balanced budget amendment because my people in California now 
understand if Social Security wasn't exempted from that amendment, it 
would be raided and looted and gone. So where the balanced budget 
amendment was so popular, when people realized that Social Security was 
going to be looted, the polls totally switched and 70 percent opposed 
it.
  I am glad that we have the time here to look at some of these issues, 
so I could tell you about some of these nurses, so I could tell you 
about the strikers at the Diamond Walnut plant. All they want now is to 
get their jobs back and stay in their union. They cannot do that.
  I have to say that if you look at this contract, nowhere in it will 
you see anything that even mentions the word environment. Nowhere in it 
will you really see anything that mentions the words ``consumer 
protection.'' And I hope that we will slow it down, just as we are 
slowing this debate down.
  I do not know if we are going to win this debate on striker 
replacement. I do not know if we are going to win this debate. There 
may be some who say, look, we have had this discussion long enough. Let 
us get on with the bill. But I can tell you now, if the Republicans 
withdrew the amendment, if the good Senator from Kansas withdrew the 
amendment, we would be in good shape. We could move this bill forward. 
But if we insist on keeping this amendment alive, I think the Senator 
from Massachusetts is willing to talk about it for a long time. I am 
willing to talk about it for a long time. Frankly, if we do not have 
the votes to stop it, President Clinton may veto this bill. He may veto 
this bill, just as I think President Bush would have vetoed a bill that 
in fact reversed his Executive order.
  There is a town in California called Hawthorne, and a firm there that 
makes hardware. There was a strike over a health care issue. When the 
workers went on strike, they were told that replacement workers would 
be brought in but they would not be permanent. They would only be 
temporary replacements.
  On November 29, the members voted to call off the strike and accept 
the company's last offer. But--but--at that point, the company withdrew 
the proposal and declared the replacements permanent, leaving these 
union members without jobs.
  Now, that to me is an extraordinary story, because I grew up to 
believe that when someone gives you their word, that is golden. That is 
golden. So the employer said: We are just going to replace you 
temporarily, but in the end the employer did not mean it. And I have to 
say that the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, still has not 
come down with a decision, and that has gone on for a long time. In the 
meantime, those workers are without health care, and they are close to 
exhausting their unemployment benefits.
  Only 10 percent of those workers got other jobs. But those other jobs 
that they got, they are nothing like the ones they had before. 
Basically they are minimum wage jobs with no benefits. It is a very 
unhappy story, a very unhappy story.
   [[Page S3959]] Then there is a story, again out of San Bernardino, 
CA, of 150 workers at a bakery. They had very low wages. Many of them 
felt they were being passed up for promotions. After 5 months of 
negotiating, the workers went on strike. The union said let us bring in 
mediation, but the company refused to bargain. They hired 125 
replacement workers, built a new facility somewhere else, and 
eventually closed the San Bernardino facility. Only 60 of those workers 
out of the 125 ever got back to work.
  It goes on and on. I think that this amendment on this defense bill 
is totally uncalled for. This is not an amendment that deals with the 
defense supplemental bill. This is an amendment that I think is a 
gratuitous slap at people who work for a living. It is not necessary.
  Why not have a hearing, I would say to my friend from Kansas, and 
bring in the administration? Let them explain why they feel this is 
important to the dignity of working people and, by the way, for the 
taxpayers who will benefit when companies with good labor records are 
hired by the Federal Government because they will not be dislocated. 
They will fulfill their obligations to be good contractors for the 
American people.
  There is one element of disaster reform that I am prepared to 
introduce today. This component would repeal the current 10-percent 
income threshold for casualty loss deductions arising from a 
presidentially declared natural disasters. It is identical to 
legislation I offered 1 year ago to help the victims of last year's 
tragic Northridge earthquake.
  We have all seen the devastating images of flooded farms and homes on 
television. But it is important to remember that many Californians 
affected by the flooding suffered serious, but moderate, damage. Their 
basements are filled with mud and their carpets and furniture need to 
be replaced, but their homes still stand. These people have $5,000 in 
damage, or maybe $10,000. These are the taxpayers who may not get the 
relief they need.
  Suppose a middle-class family with adjusted gross income of $50,000 
sustains $4,000 in flood damage. Under current law, only losses in 
excess of $5,100 can be deducted. But under my bill, that family could 
deduct all losses over $100, or $3,900. And where would their tax 
savings go? It would go back into the economy as a direct stimulus. It 
would create jobs for contractors and those who produce the raw 
materials they use. The economic benefits would ripple throughout the 
community.
  This bill would allow nearly full tax deductibility of all casualty 
losses attributable to disasters declared on or after January 14, 1994. 
Victims of the Northridge earthquake could take advantage of this tax 
deduction as could victims of the current flooding. And most 
importantly, future disaster victims would gain a valuable tool to help 
themselves recover from these disasters.
  Offering this amendment on this bill is not necessary. I hope my 
friend from Massachusetts will continue to lead this fight.
  I ask him at this point if he has remarks planned or if he wishes me 
to continue a few remarks for a short period of time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all I thank my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from California, for her comments. These have 
been comments, not just this afternoon, but I know and I can tell the 
Senate that she has been there every hour, every minute of this battle. 
She has worked with our minority leader and others who have been 
working on this issue for the past several days. She has spoken on this 
and has been ready to continue the battle for working people.
  I want to thank her for her immense contribution to this debate. It 
has been enormously interesting. As she has pointed out, the time that 
was taken both in the balanced budget amendment and also particularly 
on this issue, I think, has been enormously informative to our Members. 
I find that has been the case.
  We had, initially, the question about the Executive order, whether 
the President had the power to take this action. We went through that 
history. We went through the past Executive orders by past Presidents. 
There was some confusion. But we went through it.
  We went through exactly the types of people who were going to be 
affected and impacted, and we were able to demonstrate these were, by 
and large, workers who were making $6, $7, $8 an hour at the tops--the 
ones who were being permanently replaced. So it was hard-working men 
and women who were trying to provide for their families who were going 
to be impacted by the amendment.
  We went through the course of the history of the results of contracts 
that were being performed by permanent replacements. There were serious 
questions in terms of on-time delivery and also the quality of the 
work. And we went on in the broader context about how this issue that 
has affected the legitimate rights of working families, how this fits 
in with other actions or nonactions of the Congress during the past 3 
months.
  I think it has been enormously informative for our Members and also, 
I think, for those who have been watching and listening and following 
the debate. I am enormously grateful to her for her contribution.
  I see the Senator from Kansas is prepared to perhaps make a comment. 
So I am prepared to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I regret that we have been unable to 
have a final vote on my amendment. There are those who do not wish to 
see it come to a resolution with an up-or-down vote, and that is their 
right. I respect that.
  The Executive order that we have been talking about--whereby striking 
workers now cannot be permanently replaced, as has been the law for 
some 60 years and which will now be overturned by this Executive 
order--is very important and very troubling.
  The implications of the Executive order go far beyond just saying 
there will only be a few companies affected and it really will not make 
a lot of difference. It is very important for us to understand what, 
indeed, the ramifications of the order will be. I would argue that 
using Executive orders in this way can affect labor as well as 
management. And it will further destabilize the relationships in the 
work force.
  So I just want to say, Mr. President, I will be back. This is an 
issue of vital importance and I intend to bring it up again and again 
because I think it is so very important.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that it has been a good debate. 
There have been, I think, some well-stated views on both sides. I 
suggest that this issue is one that will not be laid to rest until, I 
hope, we can reach some resolution on what basically is at stake here--
and that is the separation of powers between the executive and 
legislative branches.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, earlier today, due to inescapable 
circumstances I was absent from a cloture motion vote on the Kassebaum 
amendment No. 331. On my journey to the Senate Chamber I was trapped in 
an elevator in the Senate Dirksen Building for 40 minutes. I extend my 
most sincere thanks to the Senate superintendent's office for its 
assistance in my rescue. I must say that crawling out of the elevator 
was certainly a new and exciting experience, but not one I hope to 
repeat anytime soon. As I have said in prior statements I support 
Senator Kassebaum's amendment and would have voted in favor of cloture 
had I been able.


                      the defense industrial base

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, H.R. 889, the defense supplemental 
appropriations bill, has provided us an early rehearsal for a larger 
debate that will no doubt last throughout this session of Congress and 
beyond.
  This debate takes place at two levels: First, we will be deciding how 
best to provide for our Nation's defense--for now, and for the long 
term. At another level, we will be setting priorities for the 
monumental task of restoring balance to the Federal budget.
  This bill is before us today because we must fund unanticipated 
Defense Department expenses--for our operations in Haiti, Somalia, 
Bosnia, Cuba--out of funds that were originally intended to support 
normal, peacetime functions.
  [[Page S3960]] Eventually, the cost of those unforeseen operations 
took their toll on the ability of our armed services to pay for some of 
those training functions. I believe that it is now clear that we need a 
better way--a contingency fund, for example--to deal with the 
inevitable, but unpredictable tasks that our Armed Forces will be asked 
to undertake.
  Unfortunately for colleagues in the House took a very short-sighted 
approach in their search for the funds needed to meet this year's 
needs.
  They decided to cut funds from two programs that are essential to our 
country's economic and military security.
  They eliminated the technology reinvestment program, cutting $502 
million from this year's and next year's budgets. And they cut 25 
percent, $107 million from the advanced technology program.
  These programs are part of an established, bipartisan decision to 
maintain the technological advantage that we displayed so convincingly 
in the Gulf War and will continue to need to meet the threats the world 
now presents.
  These programs are at the heart of an emerging base on domestic, 
American high-technology manufacturing capacity, the base we need to 
assure that we will continue to foster the discovery and development of 
the new ideas and products that the world's most sophisticated military 
demands.
  To establish and maintain that base, these programs take advantage of 
our country's historical strength--our private economy. By making our 
Nation's high-technology industries partners in the development of the 
kinds of technologies and processes that future defense systems will 
require, we are building the essential foundation for our national 
security.
  These programs are critical investments, in areas where there is the 
potential for both commercial and military applications. The potential 
spillover from these programs in both kinds of applications means that 
without the incentives they provide, we would engage in wasteful 
duplication of commercial and military research, on the one hand, or 
miss the opportunity for important breakthroughs, on the other.
  Mr. President, recent history and economic logic tell us that 
individual firms will not find it cost-effective to undertake the 
research and development that these programs support, because the 
payoffs are often unpredictable and many years in the making.
  In addition to promoting the private sector's involvement in this 
kind of long-term undertaking to preserve our Nation's competitive edge 
in the world economy--our Government has the responsibility to provide 
for the common defense.
  In this day and age, and certainly into the future, that 
constitutional responsibility will require the maintenance of an 
advanced manufacturing
 capability, along with the scientific knowledge, engineering skills, 
and information management that support it.

  Consider, Mr. President, the kinds of projects that these program 
make possible. TRP is supporting the development of advanced composite 
materials for advanced aircraft propulsion systems. Advanced engine 
designs now being considered for future production could increase 
performance and fuel efficiency for both commercial and military 
aircraft.
  This potential can only be realized if much of the metal engine 
structure in conventional designs is replaced with polymer composites 
that can be produced at reasonable cost.
  Another TRP Program supports private industry in the development of 
low- and high-power high-temperature superconductor microwave 
components for commercial and defense satellites. These new components 
could radically reduce the size and the power consumption of critical 
satellite components, creating longer-lasting communications and 
weather satellites.
  The ATP is supporting the development of manufacturing processes that 
can reduce by at least one third the cost of producing advanced 
composite components for use in thousands of different applications.
  These advanced manufacturing processes are the key to reducing the 
overall cost of employing new materials, such as the aircraft engine 
parts in the TRP Program I mentioned.
  And to illustrate the important public investment component in these 
projects, Mr. President, a recently awarded ATP grant supports the 
development of very large scale component parts that can be used on 
civilian as well as military infrastructure projects, such as auto and 
rail bridges.
  As we look for ways to rehabilitate our neglected public facilities, 
at all levels of our Federal system, these new materials offer ways of 
repairing conventional structures as well as constructing new ones, 
with longer lasting, low-maintenance components.
  Mr. President, only by supporting these innovative ATP and TRP 
Programs can we maintain the cutting-edge commercial manufacturing 
capacity that is essential to meeting the rapidly evolving demands on 
our military capabilities.
  At the same time, they provide the additional security of knowing 
that we are doing all we prudently can to assure that our domestic 
economy remains at the leading edge of commercial applications of new 
technologies.
  We can no longer afford--if we ever could--wasteful duplication of 
military and commercial development of the same technologies.
  And we certainly cannot afford to miss the next breakthrough in 
materials, information management, or communications, that could leave 
the men and women of our Armed Forces needlessly exposed to danger.
  The greater their exposure--if we allow our technological edge to 
grow dull with false economies--the more reluctant we will be to face 
threats to our security. For want of the next generation of nails, Mr. 
President, the next century's battles may be lost.
  These are difficult times--we must invest for long-term economic 
growth here at home and confront the confusing variety of new threats 
to our security abroad.
  The Technology Reinvestment Program and the Advanced Technology 
Program are prudent, cost-effective means of dealing with both of those 
problems.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished managers of this 
legislation, the members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senators Bingaman and Lieberman, and the other members who have spoken 
up for these programs, for showing the foresight to restore these 
important programs to more adequate levels of funding.
  I am sure we will find ourselves revisiting these issues in the 
coming months and years. I will continue to support efforts that 
protect the technological foundations of our economic and military 
security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could inquire of the Chair, what is 
the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Kassebaum 
amendment to H.R. 889. That is the pending question.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would say these comments represent 
my point of view on this issue at this point. The majority leader is in 
discussions now. I think he will announce the outcome of those 
discussions in a few minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
and colleague, the Senator from Kansas. I want to say, every person in 
this body knows the seriousness with which the Senator from Kansas 
takes her responsibilities as the chair of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee and as someone who delves deeply and is concerned, 
interested, and attentive to the range of public policy issues that 
come before that committee. In particular, the Senator spends a great 
deal of time and gives a great deal of thought to issues involving the 
relationship between workers and employers. This has been a matter of 
very great seriousness, I know, to her.
  I understand that and respect it. She has indicated she will be back 
at another time to address these issues. We regret we have not been 
overwhelmingly persuasive to her and to others as to the legitimacy of 
our position.
  But we welcome the opportunity to continue the dialog not just here 
on the floor but otherwise to see if we can find areas of common ground 
in this area as we have found common ground 
 [[Page S3961]] with her and our other members of that committee in a 
great number of areas. We have been appreciative of the way that this 
debate and discussion has taken place.
  We await the announcements of the majority leader as to the Senate 
business.
  Again, I am grateful to both the Senator and her supporters as well 
as all of those who have spoken on this measure over the period of the 
past days, and for the courtesies and the attentiveness which they have 
given to this issue. I am also grateful to the leadership Senator 
Daschle and many of my other colleagues have personally demonstrated on 
this measure.
  I thank all the Members. I yield the floor with the expectation that 
we will be on other matters after the majority leader speaks.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________