[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14438-S14456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND EDUCATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996


                           Motion to Proceed

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority 
leader and pursuant to the consent agreement, I move to proceed to the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, H.R. 2127.
  Under the unanimous-consent agreement, at 10 a.m. there will be a 15-
minute vote on a motion to proceed. If there are not 60 votes in the 
affirmative on the motion to proceed, there will then be a second vote 
at 11 a.m. on a motion to proceed. If there are not 60 votes on the 
second vote, the Senate will be recessed until later in the day to 
allow the Finance Committee to meet.
  Remaining appropriations would be the State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriations bill and the continuing resolution.
  Therefore, according to the instruction of the distinguished majority 
leader, a late night session is expected with rollcall votes throughout 
the day.
  Now I do move to proceed, on behalf of the majority leader, to the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I spoke at some length yesterday afternoon on the 
import of this bill. It is my hope we would proceed to debate this 
bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, containing in excess 
of $62 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It contains an 
additional $200.9 billion in nondiscretionary expenditures. It is 
within the 602(b) allocations given to the committee according to the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  I, frankly, would have liked to have seen more funds allocated to our 
subcommittee so we could have had more for very vital services under 
this bill. As it was, the allocation to the Senate subcommittee was 
almost $1.6 billion above the House of Representatives, and those 
additional funds were placed significantly in the education account.
  With the cooperation of Senator Harkin, with whom I have worked for 
many years--last year Senator Harkin was chairman, I was ranking; this 
year our roles are reversed--we made the best allocation we could, 
assisted by very able and competent staff, allocating funds in a very, 
very complex bill.
  We have maintained funding for Goals 2000, which is in response to a 
1983 report about the shambles in education, where sufficient actions 
have still not been taken. These goals are voluntary on the States. The 
States can accept the Federal standards and goals or can adopt 
standards and goals on their own as they choose.
  We have made provision for LIHEAP, low-income fuel assistance, which 
goes principally to the elderly who are without sufficient funds to buy 
their fuel. It is really a proposition, as the expression goes, of 
heating or eating that plagues those individuals.
  We have made allocation for funding for violence against women. With 
the House figure being at $32 million on the shelter issue--the full 
authorization was $50 million--in our subcommittee allocations, we have 
found the funding for the full $50 million.
  We have presented a bill which has taken care of key issues of plant 
safety. We have stripped the bill of provisions relating to legislation 
because of our conclusion that legislation ought not to be included on 
an appropriations bill, a policy adopted by the full committee as a 
general matter on all appropriation bills under the leadership of our 
distinguished chairman, Senator Hatfield.
  On biomedical research, Mr. President, we have for the National 
Institutes of Health nearly $11.6 billion, an increase of some $300 
million over the fiscal year 1995 appropriations. These funds will 
boost the biomedical research appropriations to maintain and strengthen 
the tremendous strides which have been made in unlocking medical 
mysteries which lead to new treatments and cures. Gene therapy offers 
great promise for the future. In the 15 years that I have been in the 
Senate, all those years on the appropriations subcommittee dealing with 
health and human services, where cuts have been proposed by Presidents, 
both Democrat and Republican, we have increased funding for medical 
research, which I think it is very important.
  Two years ago, I had a medical problem and was the beneficiary of the 
MRI developed in 1985, after I had come to the Senate, a life-saving 
procedure to detect an intracranial lesion. So I have professional, 
political, and personal experiences to attest to the importance of 
health research funding.
  On Alzheimer's disease, Mr. President, this last year the United 
States spent over $90 billion to care for Alzheimer's patients. This 
devastating disease robs its victims of their minds while depriving 
families of the well-being and security they deserve.
  We have been working to focus more attention and more money into the 
causes and cures of Alzheimer's. To address this problem, the bill 
contains increased funding for research into finding the cause and 
cures for Alzheimer's disease. The bill also includes nearly $5 million 
for a State grant program to 

[[Page S 14439]]
help families caring for Alzheimer's patients at home. The statistics 
are enormously impressive, Mr. President, that if we could delay the 
onset of Alzheimer's disease, we could save billions of dollars.
  On women's health, in 1995, 182,000 women will be diagnosed as having 
breast cancer and some 46,000 women will die from the disease. The 
investment in education and treatment advances led to the announcement 
last year that the breast cancer death rates in American women declined 
by 4.7 percent between 1989 and 1992, the largest such short-term 
decline since 1950.
  And while this was encouraging news, it only highlighted the fact 
that the Federal Government investment is beginning to pay off. While 
it was difficult in a tight budget year to raise fundings levels, the 
subcommittee placed a very high priority on women's health issues. The 
bill before the Senate contains an increase of $25 million for breast 
and cervical cancer screening, increases to expand research on the 
breast cancer gene, to permit the development of a diagnostic test to 
identify women who are at risk, and speed research to develop effective 
methods of prevention, early detection, and treatment.
  Funding for the Office of Women's Health has also been doubled to 
continue the national action plan on breast cancer, and to develop and 
establish a clearinghouse to provide health care professionals with a 
broad range of women's health-related information. This increase has 
been recommended for the Office of Women's Health, because of the very 
effective work that that office has been doing.
  On Healthy Start, Mr. President, children born of low birthweight is 
the leading cause of infant mortality. Infants who have been exposed to 
drugs, alcohol, or tobacco in utero are more likely to be born 
prematurely and of low birthweight. We have in our society, Mr. 
President, thousands of children born each year no bigger than the size 
of my hand, weighing a pound, some even as little as 12 ounces. They 
are human tragedies at birth carrying scars for a lifetime. They are 
enormously expensive, costing more than $200,000 until they are 
released from the hospital.
  Years ago, Dr. Koop outlined the way to deal with this issue by 
prenatal visits. The Healthy Start Program was initiated, and has been 
carried forward, to target resources for prenatal care to high 
incidence communities; it is funded as well as we could under this bill 
with increases as I have noted.
  On AIDS, the bill contains $2.6 billion for research, education, 
prevention, and services to embattle the scourge of AIDS, including 
$379 million for emergency aid to the 42 cities hardest hit by this 
disease.
  When it comes to the subject of violence against women, it is one of 
the epidemic problems in our society. The Department of Justice reports 
that each year women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent 
crimes, including an estimated 500,000 rapes or other sexual assaults.
  But crime statistics do not tell the whole story. I have visited many 
shelters, Mr. President, in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and have seen 
first hand the physical and emotional suffering so many women are 
enduring. In a sad, ironic way the women I saw were the lucky ones 
because they survived violent attacks.
  The Labor-HHS-Education bill contains $96 million for programs 
authorized by the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The bill before the 
Senate contains the full amount authorized for these programs, 
including $50 million for battered-women shelters, $35 million for rape 
prevention programs, $7 million for runaway youth, and $4.9 million for 
community demonstration programs, the operation of the hotline and 
education programs for youth. These funds have been appropriated, Mr. 
President, after very, very careful analysis as to where the 
subcommittee and the full committee felt the money could best be spent.
  On the School-to-Work Program, the committee recommends $245 million 
within the Departments of Labor and Education, which is maintenance of 
the level provided in 1995. We would like to have had more money, but 
that was the best we could do considering the other cuts.
  On nutrition programs for the elderly, for the congregate and Home-
Delivered Meals Program, the bill provides almost $475 million. Within 
this amount is $110.3 million for the Home-Delivered Meals Program, an 
increase of $16.2 million over the 1995 appropriation because there are 
such long waiting lists, so many seniors who really depend upon this 
for basic subsistence.
  On education, we have allocated the full amount of the increase that 
our subcommittee received, some $1.6 billion. The bill does not contain 
all of the funds we would like to have provided, but it is a maximum 
effort on this important subject.
  As to job training, Mr. President, we know all too well that high 
unemployment means a waste of valuable human resources, inevitably 
depresses consumer spending, and weakens our economy. The bill before 
us today includes $3.4 billion for job training programs. And again, 
candidly, I would like to see more, Mr. President, but this is the 
maximum that we could allocate.
  As to workplace safety, the bill contains an increase of $62 million 
over the amount recommended by the House for worker protection 
programs. While progress has been made in this area, there are still 
far too many work-related injuries and illnesses, and these funds will 
provide programs and inspect businesses and industry, weed out 
occupational hazards, and protect worker pensions within reasonable 
bounds.
  LIHEAP is a program which is very important, Mr. President, to much 
of America. It provides low-income heating and fuel assistance; 80 
percent of those who receive LIHEAP assistance earn less than $7,000 a 
year. It is a program which was zeroed out by the House, and we have 
reinstated it in this bill. We have effectively included a total of $1 
billion here, $100 million of which is carryover funds, as we 
understand the current state of affairs, although it is hard to get an 
exact figure, and an additional $900 million.
  As the Congress consolidates and streamlines programs, Federal 
administrative costs must also be downsized. In this bill, with the 
exception of the Social Security Administration, we have cut program 
management an average of 8 percent. Many view administrative costs as 
waste and others suggest that deeper cuts are justified. It is our 
judgment that any further reductions would be counterproductive.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to thank the extraordinary staffs 
who have worked on this program. On the Senate side, Bettilou Taylor 
and Craig Higgins have been extraordinary and professional in taking 
inordinately complicated printouts and working through a careful 
analysis of the priorities.
  We received requests from many of our colleagues. And to the maximum 
extent, we have accommodated those requests. We have received many 
requests from people around the country. We have accommodated as many 
requests for personal meetings as we could, both with the Senators and 
with their staffs. And we think this is a very significant bill.
  There are people on both sides who have objected to provisions of the 
bill. When a motion to proceed is offered, it is my hope that we will 
proceed to take up this bill and that we will pass it. We are aware 
that there has been the threat of a veto from the executive branch, and 
I invite the President or any of his officials to suggest improvements 
if they feel they can do it better.
  There is a commitment in America to a balanced budget and, that is 
something we have to do. We have structured our program to have that 
balanced budget within 7 years by the year 2002. The President talks 
about a balanced budget within 9 years. I suggest that our targeting is 
the preferable target.
  To the extent people have suggestions on better allocations, we are 
prepared to listen, but this is our best judgment. We urge the Senate 
to proceed with this bill.
  At this time I yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I inquire of the Presiding Officer, how 
much time does this side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 27 minutes 46 seconds remaining on 

[[Page S 14440]]
  your side and there are 18 minutes remaining on the side of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague, Senator 
Specter, for his kind and generous remarks on my behalf. I want to 
repay them in kind. Senator Specter is right, we have worked together 
for many years. We have switched places, majority/minority, but that 
has not in any way lessened or in any way changed our relationship. It 
is one of, I think, mutual respect and one in which we have worked 
together to try to fashion the best bill we possibly could, having been 
dealt a bad hand. So I commend Senator Specter and his staff for doing 
the best possible job with the bad hand of cards that was dealt to us.
  I especially want to draw attention to Senator Specter's efforts to 
restore funding for rural health care and the health and safety 
protections for workers, and especially his dogged determination to 
ensure that we have funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program.
  I also credit my colleague, Senator Specter, for stripping the bill 
of its many unnecessary and inappropriate legislative riders, matters 
that ought rightfully to be taken up by the authorizing committees and 
not by the Appropriations Committee.
  Unfortunately, the committee did agree to include in this bill an 
amendment on striker replacement, which has resulted in the situation 
we find ourselves in today. I reluctantly agreed to this procedure 
suggested by Senator Dole because I am strongly opposed to the striker 
amendment and because, on the floor, the bill would have attracted 
scores of additional extremist legislative riders.
  So, for the benefit of Senators, what we face right now is a vote on 
the motion to proceed that will take place at 10 o'clock. That vote, 
really, is a vote on whether or not we will have within this 
appropriations bill a rider that says that President Clinton cannot 
execute his Executive order which bans corporations--and I will get 
into the details of it later--bans companies having business with the 
Federal Government, contracts with the Federal Government, from 
replacing legitimate strikers with permanent replacements.
  We had a vote on this earlier this year and the vote failed, the 
cloture vote failed on that vote. So this is the same issue we have 
before us, whether or not the President can implement his Executive 
order on striker replacement or whether we will have this rider on the 
appropriations bill prohibiting that implementation. So, that is what 
is facing us right now, and that vote will take place at 10 o'clock.
  Before I yield on the issue of striker replacement to my colleague 
from Minnesota and my colleague from Massachusetts, let me just say a 
couple of words about the bill in front of us. As I said, Senator 
Specter did a commendable job with the bad hand we were dealt, but I 
think this chart really points out the problems that we have in dealing 
with education, with health, with workers protection, with summer youth 
employment, with low-income home energy heating assistance--all of the 
things that are in this bill that help advance our country 
educationally, socially, and try to make life a little bit better and 
give more opportunity to more people.
  What we say is, over 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, our allocations and 
budget authority increased by a little over 10 percent--about 15 
percent--over those years. This year, our allocation has dropped back 
to where we were in 1992 in the House, 1993 in the Senate. So, because 
of this, we have a bill which cuts adult training programs by $167 
million; reneges on our commitment to dislocated workers programs; it 
eliminates the summer youth employment program; it cuts by 13 percent 
our efforts to combat waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare; it undermines 
our battle and fight in the war against drugs by cutting money for safe 
and drug-free schools. his bill cuts 48,000 children from the Head 
Start Program. It cuts the Goals 2000 Program well below the level 
proposed by the President. These are just some of the items that we had 
to cut and reduce because of the allocation that we had--all in the 
face of giving the Pentagon, I might add, $7 billion more than they 
even asked for.
  The Pentagon gets $7 billion more than they even asked for, yet in 
programs that are necessary for the health, safety, security, and 
education of the people of this country, we have cut those $8 billion. 
That is what we are confronted with.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I now want to turn to the issue of 
striker replacement, the issue that is really before us on the vote at 
10 o'clock. I know the Senator from Minnesota wanted to speak on this, 
but let me just set the stage for this.
  The President issued an Executive order regarding the permanent 
replacement of striking workers for companies that do business with the 
Federal Government. The President's action is fully lawful and within 
his authority and conforms with the practice of previous Presidents, 
including President Bush, who used this authority twice during his 4 
years, and this Congress did not try to strip him of that power. And 
yet now this Congress wants to strip this President of his lawful right 
to issue this Executive order.

  I would yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I 
would also like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his 
graciousness in letting me speak right now. He was first on the floor, 
and I appreciate him letting me have this opportunity.
  Mr. President, let me follow up on the words of the Senator from 
Iowa. Actually, not just President Bush has used such an Executive 
order but Roosevelt did, Truman did, Johnson did, Nixon did, and Bush 
has. It is unfortunate that this amendment is in this bill, and I rise 
to object to the amendment and I rise to object to our proceeding on 
this bill. We have had this debate before. We had a vote on this 
before, and I fully expect again today that we will have the vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. President, what the Executive order says is the Federal 
Government will no longer purchase goods and services from firms which 
permanently replace their workers in response to a lawful strike.
  That is in the national and public interest because that has a lot to 
do with what kind of contractors produce what kind of quality work for 
this Nation.
  In addition, it is a basic standard of fairness. It has to do with on 
which side is the Federal Government. I cannot understand for the life 
of me why the opposition to this protection for working people in this 
country. The pattern is clear. It is a pattern in Iowa, in Minnesota, 
in Massachusetts, in all across the country, and it is a pattern of 
some companies. Thank goodness, a lot of companies are precisely the 
opposite in their modus operandi. A lot of companies understand that 
you want to have cooperation between employees and employers, that that 
is the way to have high morale; it is the way to have high levels of 
productivity. But in all too many cases, some of the bad apples force 
impossible concessions onto their work force, which means that people 
have wages on which they cannot support their families or they have to 
work under conditions that threaten their very health, their life, and 
their limb, and therefore what happens is the employees have no other 
choice but to go out on strike, which is precisely what the companies 
want them to do because when they go out on strike they permanently 
replace them.
  The right to strike, which is part of the leverage of working people 
in this country, which is part of their right to bargain collectively, 
has become the right to be fired. And so the President of the United 
States of America has said the Federal Government is going to be on the 
side of working people. We are not going to do business with businesses 
that force people out on strike and then permanently replace them. That 
is on the part of the President of the United States a positive and 
powerful message.
  The reason I feel so strongly and am absolutely opposed to our 
proceeding on this bill and hope this amendment will be removed has to 
do with the context of the times that we are living in, and the context 
is simple. The bottom 75 percent of the population feels the economic 
squeeze--low wages, wages that are not living wages, working people 
losing their bargaining power, more and more mergers, banks buying 

[[Page S 14441]]
banks, pharmaceutical companies buying pharmaceutical companies, more 
concentration of power in the telecommunications industry, 
conglomerates dominating the economy.
  Where do regular people fit into this equation? Cutbacks in 
occupational health and safety protection, cuts in Medicare and 
Medicaid and health care, cuts in protection for children. It seems to 
me that somewhere in the equation working families, the majority of 
people of this country who do not own all the wealth and all the 
capital and who are not the big players and do not make all the big 
contributions ought to have some representation in the Senate.
  I believe the President of the United States has through this 
Executive order sent a positive and important message that he stands 
with working families. I think we in the Senate who are opposed to this 
amendment to defund this Executive order are sending the same message, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and to vote 
against the motion to proceed.
  I thank both Senators for yielding me time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for yielding 
the time, and I would yield myself 13 minutes.
  On March 8, 1995, President Clinton took a dramatic and long overdue 
step to put the federal government on the side of fair and efficient 
labor relations. He issued an Executive order which makes it the policy 
of the executive branch to prohibit Federal contracts with employers 
who permanently replace workers who exercise their lawful right to 
strike.
  It was the right thing to do, not just because it will promote better 
labor relations among Federal contractors, but because it tells 
America's workers that the Government will not let itself be used to 
help grind down their wages, break their unions, or punish them for 
asserting their legal rights.
  Today, for the second time this session, we are debating a Republican 
attempt to block implementation of President Clinton's Executive order 
through a rider on an appropriations bill. Last March, we were 
successful in preventing that effort. The attempt to block 
implementation of the Executive order has no place on this or any other 
appropriations bill, and I hope the Senate will vote today to block 
this bill as long as this rider is included.
  If anything, the case for the Executive order is even stronger now 
than it was in March. When we debated this issue 6 months ago on the 
defense appropriations bill, we heard over and over again that we 
needed to act because the President was usurping his authority, acting 
contrary to law, even violating the constitutional separation of 
powers.
  But since that time, those arguments have been heard in court and 
resoundingly rejected. On July 31, Judge Gladys Kessler of the Federal 
district court for the District of Columbia upheld the Executive order 
against a challenge by the Chamber of Commerce and various other 
business groups.
  In her decision, Judge Kessler ruled that President Clinton acted 
within his authority over Federal procurement, that there is a close 
nexus between the Executive order and efficient procurement; and that 
the Executive order does not conflict with the National Labor Relations 
Act. In other words, the court rejected all of the major arguments that 
have been made against the Executive order.
  The President has not abused or exceeded his legal authority. He has 
the power, given him by Congress in the procurement laws, to deny 
Federal contracts to employers who use permanent replacements for 
striking workers. And as the Federal court specifically found, the 
President's action does not change or conflict with the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  There is no merit to the argument that he has done an end run around 
the Congress by trying to accomplish what the striker replacement bill 
had failed to do. The Executive order is much more limited than the 
striker replacement bill. The Order does not make the use of permanent 
replacements illegal. It deals only with how the Government chooses its 
suppliers of goods and services. And that, the court has ruled, is a 
matter within the President's authority over the Government procurement 
process.
  Judge Kessler found clear precedent for the striker replacement 
Executive order in President Nixon's 1970 Executive order requiring 
bidders on federally assisted construction projects to submit an 
affirmative action plan, President Carter's Executive order requiring 
companies seeking Federal contracts to be bound by wage and price 
controls which were voluntary for everyone else, and President Bush's 
Executive order requiring Federal contractors to post notices advising 
employees of their right not to join a union.
  Perhaps the most direct analog, she said, was the Executive order 
issued by President Bush in 1992, which required that contractors, as a 
condition of securing contracts with the Federal Government, refrain 
from entering into perhire agreements with labor unions--even though 
the Supreme Court has held that such agreements are legal and 
permissible under the National Labor Relations Act.
  So let us hear no more that this is an unprecedented action by 
President Clinton and that somehow it exceeds his Executive authority. 
There is ample precedent and ample authority for the President to take 
this action. This is no different than the authority exercised by other 
Presidents before him, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  The requirements imposed on Federal contractors by President Bush--
banning perhire labor agreements and requiring employees to be told 
they didn't have to join a union--were never enacted by Congress. But 
when those orders were issued, were there any protests from my 
Republican colleagues? The answer is no. In fact, many of my colleagues 
took to the floor to applaud those actions. It is clear that the 
objections that are now being raised to President Clinton's action are 
not based on principle, or a consistent view of the President's 
authority with respect to labor relations or Federal procurement. They 
are part of a persistent and unconscionable Republican attack on basic 
protections for working men and women.
  We see it in the relentless efforts by Republicans to repeal the 
Davis-Bacon Act, which helps to assure decent wages for hard-working 
construction workers who make, on average, $27,000 a year. We see it in 
the Republican proposal now making its way through the Congress to roll 
back the earned income tax credit, and raise taxes for 39 million low-
income working Americans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. We see 
it in the attempt to open gaping holes in the pension laws to allow 
companies to raid billions of dollars from workers' pension funds. We 
see it in the refusal of the Republican leadership to even allow a vote 
on increasing the minimum wage, which in real terms is lower now than 
it has been at any time in the past 40 years.
  Seven times since the enactment of the first Federal minimum wage law 
in 1938, bipartisan majorities of the Congress have reaffirmed the 
Nation's commitment to working families by voting in favor of 
increasing the minimum wage. Increases have been proposed and supported 
by Republican as well as Democratic Presidents. Six years ago, 89 
Senators--including all but 8 of the Republican Senators--voted for a 
minimum wage increase of 90 cents, an increase identical to that which 
has been proposed by President Clinton. Yet now we are not allowed to 
even vote on the issue. Republicans are for a minimum wage all right--
the minimum wage possible.
  Republicans are for the right to strike, as well--as long as striking 
workers can be permanently replaced--which means no real right to 
strike at all.
  We are prepared to move forward to consideration of important 
spending issues in this bill, and we should do that. But we are not 
prepared to acquiesce in letting this bill be used as a vehicle for yet 
another attack on working families. And let us be clear--that is what 
this vote is all about.
  The basic principle behind the President's action has strong public 
support. 

[[Page S 14442]]
 In a recent poll, 64 percent of respondents said that once a majority 
of workers have voted to strike, companies should not be allowed to 
hire permanent replacements to take their jobs.
  This is a question of simple justice for workers. If it is unlawful 
for an employer to fire a worker for exercising the right to strike, it 
should be equally unlawful for an employer to deprive a striking worker 
of his job by permanently replacing him.
  Today, more than ever, employees need the right to organize to 
improve their wages and working conditions, and to bargain with their 
employers over those issues. There is no inconsistency between fair 
profits for management and fair treatment for workers.

  But the right to organize and bargain collectively is only a hollow 
promise if management is allowed to use the tactic of permanently 
replacing workers who go on strike.
  No one likes strikes--least of all the strikers, who lose their wages 
during any strike and risk the loss of health coverage and other 
benefits. Both workers and employers have a mutual interest in avoiding 
economic losses. The overwhelming majority of collective bargaining 
disputes are settled without a strike. But the right to strike is a 
cornerstone of our labor laws. It helps to ensure that a fair economic 
bargain is reached between management and labor.
  The opponents of this Executive order plead that if employers do not 
have the right to permanently replace workers who go on strike, their 
only alternative is to go out of business. But hundreds of strikes 
occur and are settled every year without workers being permanently 
replaced, and without businesses being permanently damaged. These 
strikes are settled through precisely the process that our labor laws 
are designed to encourage--serious, meaningful give-and-take between 
the parties, to negotiate a solution that both sides can accept. That 
is the kind of outcome that President Clinton is encouraging through 
this Executive order.
  The recent experience of workers on strike against the Tiffany Office 
Furniture Co. in Conway, AR--a company with major contracts with the 
Federal Government--is a good illustration of the positive benefits of 
the Executive order. Members of the Southern Council of Industrial 
Workers struck the company on June 6 after rejecting a contract that 
among other things, would have cut certain health benefits. 
Negotiations were going nowhere, and the company appeared headed toward 
hiring permanent replacements when an officer of the union learned 
about the President's Executive order.
  On July 7, the union officer sent a letter to the company on 
explaining the Executive order. He told the local newspaper, ``from 
that point forward there was concentrated settlement discussion.'' 
Within 2 weeks the parties had reached agreement on a contract that 
preserved health benefits with a reasonable cost-sharing arrangement 
for coverage of family members and for the first time gave workers a 
retirement program.
  Instead of the pain, economic hardship and emotional suffering for 
workers, their families and their communities that inevitably occurs 
when strikers are permanently replaced, union officials report that 
what has been gained is a mutual respect between the workers and the 
company and a resumption of normal relations with a firm foundation for 
the future.
  That is a perfect illustration of why it is both important and 
appropriate for the President to use his executive authority to ban the 
use of permanent replacements by federal contractors. Hiring permanent 
replacements encourages intransigence by management in negotiations 
with labor. It encourages employers to replace current workers with 
less experienced workers willing to settle for less--and to accept 
smaller paychecks and other benefits. Clearly that practice has a 
negative impact on the efficiency and quality of performance on Federal 
contracts.
  The Executive order helps restore the balance that has been lost in 
recent years.
  It is particularly distressing for us to be spending this time 
debating an ill-conceived extraneous rider on labor law, instead of 
addressing the important challenges on issues that belong in this 
appropriations measure. I want to address two of these issues here--the 
unacceptable cuts in education, and the cuts in job training proposed 
by our Republican colleagues in this bill.
  These are difficult days for children, students, and working 
families. On Tuesday of this week, Republicans slashed college student 
loans by $10 billion over 7 years. Now they propose to cut federal 
education spending by an additional $2.4 billion next year and $40 
billion by the year 2002--all to help pay for a $245 billion tax break 
for the wealthy.
  This is no time to be cutting education. Our schools are filling with 
more students than ever before. Total public school enrollment is 
projected to rise from 45 million in 1995 to 50 million by 2005--an 
increase of 10 percent. In the face of this surge in enrollment, it 
makes no sense to slash funding for education. Increased funding is 
necessary just to maintain the same level of services, let alone 
provide the wise investment we need to improve education and build a 
stronger future for the Nation.
  We should not turn our backs on education just as the nation is 
beginning to reap the benefits of a better educated work force. More 
students are finishing high school, more students are entering college, 
and more students are graduating from college than ever before. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that about 20 percent of income 
growth during the last 20 years can be attributed to students going 
further in school. We can build on this record by investing more in 
education, not less.
  Slashing education in today's economy is like cutting defense in the 
middle of the cold war. To be successful in the years ahead, young men 
and women need communication skills and problem-solving skills. They 
need a grasp of basic scientific and math concepts. They need a 
familiarity with computers, and the ability to work as part of a team.
  As technology changes and economic competition brings the world 
closer together, the demand for better-educated workers is growing, and 
the demand for workers with lower skills is declining. In the last 
decade, jobs for those with low levels of education grew by only 7 
percent, while employment in high-skill occupations increased by an 
impressive 32 percent. These unwise cuts will affect real students in 
real schools in real communities throughout the country.
  As States across the Nation recognize the urgency of school reform, 
it makes no sense to reduce Federal funds designed to encourage such 
reforms. Yet 1,600 of the 9,000 schools participating in the Goals 2000 
program will lose funds under this Republican amendment.
  Drug use by students is on the rise and too many students are victims 
of crime in their schools. Yet Republicans are cutting funds that 
support 97 percent of communities and make it possible for 39 million 
students to learn in safe and drug-free schools.
  Preschool enrollment has doubled, giving children a better chance to 
enter school ready to learn. Yet Republicans are cutting $132 million 
from Head Start.
  The achievement gap between students in poor and wealthy schools is 
narrowing. Yet Republican cuts will deny assistance to 650,000 
disadvantaged students.
  High school graduates are obtaining better job training, finding 
better jobs, and earning more in those jobs. Yet Republicans are 
cutting $83 million from vocational education and $867 million from 
summer jobs to help youths and adults gain job skills and pursue more 
productive careers in a changing economy.
  The issue is priorities. It makes no sense to reduce education 
investments needed to improve the lives of students and working 
families. It makes even less sense to do so in order to pay for tax 
breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society.
  As was pointed out earlier in the course of this debate, over the 
period of the last months there has been a series of attacks on the 
rights of working men and women in this country. First, there was the 
attempt to cancel out the Davis-Bacon Act. That attempt would 
effectively guarantee for construction workers, who work 1,700 hours in 
the course of a year, that their 

[[Page S 14443]]
average income of $27,000 will diminish, and attacks their livelihood.
  There has been a resistance by our Republican colleagues and friends 
to raise the minimum wage so that men and women who work 40 hours a 
week, 52 weeks a year, are able to provide bread on their table, a roof 
over their house, the mortgage payments, and clothes for their 
children, to make work honorable, respectable, and to make work pay.
  They not only resist increasing the minimum wage, they want to turn 
back on the earned income tax credit. Who is eligible for that? Those 
working families that are prepared to work, are working, and they make 
less than $26,000 a year.
  Attack on the Davis-Bacon Act; attack on the minimum wage; attack on 
the EITC; and an attack on educating the children of those working 
families, as we saw in the Labor Committee this past week, by putting 
an additional tax on the scholarship assistance that the sons and 
daughters of working families receive. The more they need in terms of 
student assistance, the higher the tax is on them and on their schools. 
That is fundamentally wrong.
  We are also seeing an attack on the parents of those working families 
in the Finance Committee by decreasing the coverage of their parents 
under the Medicare system. That will mean more copayments, more premium 
increases, and an increase in the deductibles. That is what is 
happening for working men and women in this country at the hands of 
this Republican Congress.
  President Clinton has stood up for them with this particular 
provision, and now we have the attempt to try to deny these individuals 
who are trying to provide work for their families their right to be 
able to be included in the job market.
  Finally, Mr. President, I think we ought to recognize what has 
happened to the Nation's commitment to education in the underlying 
bill. The job done by Senator Harkin and Senator Specter has been 
superb in trying to take scarce resources and focus them on the areas 
of greatest need in terms of our national investment.
  But there is still a serious cutback on the basic Head Start Program, 
which tries to enhance the opportunities for young children to develop 
the kinds of competence and skills to project them into the early years 
of education;
  Cutbacks on the chapter 1 program that targets needy children for 
special help and assistance that was reshaped last year with strong 
bipartisan support;
  The denial of the 90 percent of the Federal funds that would be 
available to the States at the local community level to help enhance 
the academic achievements at the elementary and secondary education 
level with Goals 2000;
  The reduction in the School-to-Work Program to take three-quarters of 
the kids that do not go on to college, and to give them some additional 
opportunity to get into gainful employment.
  All of these programs have been reduced.
  The absolute abandonment of the commitment for the Summer Jobs 
Program--this is in the wake of the debate on the Welfare Reform 
Program, where we are talking about trying to get people off welfare 
and into employment. Under President Bush, we had 872,000 summer jobs. 
They have been zeroed out under the Republican program, zeroed out.
  How can we, on one day, talk about getting people off welfare, 
building a work ethic, and trying to get them involved in jobs, and on 
the next day effectively wipe that program out? In the wake of what 
this Congress did in the welfare debate and the kind of commitment we 
had to summer jobs under President Bush, how can we zero out this 
program now? It makes no sense whatsoever. That is what has been done 
in the appropriations recommendation.
  So, Mr. President, the issue that is before us is fundamental and 
basic to working families, to their education, to their own income, and 
to the future, I believe, of this country.
  It is difficult to exaggerate the short-sighted Republican priority 
that would short-change education. Education has been the essence of 
the American dream and the core of the American experience from the 
beginning of the Nation.
  Mr. President, there is one wonderful quote that I came across and, 
as a matter of fact, reread yesterday, by the former Senator from 
Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, when he made this extraordinary speech 
in Faneuil Hall to give testimony upon the deaths of John Adams and 
Thomas Jefferson. He made this point--I came across it again yesterday, 
and it was appropriate at a time that our Human Resources Committee was 
denying and making it more difficult for the children of working 
Americans to obtain a higher education. But it is also applicable as we 
consider the appropriations bill now that is before us.
  Over a century and a half ago, Daniel Webster made the point about 
the importance of education in his famous oration on the lives and 
service of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Both of those two great 
Presidents died on the same day, on July 4, 1826. On August 2 of that 
year, Daniel Webster spoke about them in Faneuil Hall in Boston, about 
their leadership and example on education.

       But the cause of knowledge, in a more enlarged sense, the 
     cause of general knowledge and of popular education, had no 
     warmer friends, nor more powerful advocates, than Mr. Adams 
     and Mr. Jefferson. On this foundation they knew the whole 
     republican system rested; and this great and all-important 
     truth they strove to impress, by all the means in their 
     power. In the early publication already referred to, Mr. 
     Adams expresses the strong and just sentiment, that the 
     education of the poor is more important, even to the rich 
     themselves, than all their own riches. On this great truth, 
     indeed, is founded that unrivaled, that invaluable political 
     and moral institution, our own blessing and the glory of our 
     fathers, the New England system of free schools.

  That was true for New England schools in the early years of our 
Nation. It is true for schools all across America today, and no bill 
that contains deep cuts in funds for schools deserves to pass.
  This bill also deserves to be defeated for a further reason. It is an 
unconscionable attack on the dreams and aspirations of millions of 
working families across the country and their hopes for the future. I 
am talking about the fundamental tools, the building blocks, we have 
crafted in a bipartisan manner, in good faith, to provide realistic 
hope of the opportunity that comes with a decent job.
  This bill breaks that faith. For example it proposes drastic cuts in 
the Summer Youth Program. This program has historically received strong 
bipartisan support. It began in 1964, and has been providing jobs for 
low-income youth for over 30 years under both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. In fact, it reached its highest level of assistance to 
young people under President Bush in 1992, when it provided summer jobs 
for 782,000 young men and women.
  Even at this high water mark, we were barely beginning to meet the 
real need that exists. With over 8 million eligible youth across the 
country, deserving participants are far more numerous than we have 
positions for. In recognition of budget constraints, the current 
program is already 25 percent smaller than it was under President Bush. 
In 1995 we are serving 600,000 youth, and we anticipate reaching 
550,000 in 1996 under President Clinton's funding request. That level 
represents jobs for only 6 percent of the eligible population. It is a 
priceless opportunity for the few who get to participate. We ought to 
be doing more, not less. It is unconscionable to do nothing.
  All Senators know in their States that there are communities, towns 
and cities full of youths looking for this ray of hope. The Summer Jobs 
Program reaches out and provides their first experience with a job. 
Many have parents who are not working. Many live in areas where there 
are few opportunities to find employment, even for a short time. These 
summer jobs can make all the differences in their lives.
  In our recent debate over welfare reform, there were many harsh 
comments about welfare dependence and lack of responsibility and the 
need to get these people a job. Everyone agrees that these people, as 
they are callously described, need employable skills so that they can 
get a job and perform effectively. It is ironic that in one of the 
first pieces of legislation we consider after the welfare debate, the 
Republican majority proposes to tear down a 

[[Page S 14444]]
program which can provide the very skills we all agree are needed for 
successful employment. They call their reform tough love--but it would 
more appropriately be called tough hate.
  Some of the most virulent and most ideological critics claim that all 
programs like the Summer Jobs Program are ineffective.
  They think Government has no business spending tax dollars on welfare 
for individuals--the only welfare they support is corporate welfare. 
Look at what the Department of Labor's inspector general said after his 
office analyzed the Summer Jobs Program.

       The work projects are worthwhile. Summer jobs are real, not 
     make-work. Kids were closely supervised, learned new skills 
     they could apply to their school work, and took pride in 
     their employment.

  Westat, Inc., a private research company, reported similar positive 
findings after undertaking a study of the program. A survey of 
supervisors involved with the program indicated no serious problems 
relating to behavior, attendance, or turnover by the youths in the 
program. The bottom line is, this program works and yet it is now 
facing elimination by the Republican majority in Congress.
  In Massachusetts, we will lose over 13,000 summer jobs. Boston youth 
will lose over 1,500 job opportunities, Springfield teenagers will lose 
another 1,200 jobs. Where will they turn? The private sector plays an 
important role in providing summer employment--but they are the first 
to tell us they cannot possibly fill the gap for the hundreds of 
thousands of young men and women looking for work and experience. The 
youth who don't get jobs will more likely turn to the very elements we 
are hoping they can avoid--crime, gangs, drugs, welfare, and 
unemployment.
  Where is the hope for the youths on the street with nothing to do but 
hang out on the corner and watch the drug buys occur? Where is the hope 
for the teenager who is fighting the temptations of the gangs but is 
unemployed? Where is the hope for the young men and women who want to 
graduate from high school and get a job--but have no idea what it takes 
to get a job and keep it?
  So far in this Congress we have seen the Republican majority turn its 
back on the Nation's youth in many ways. Unprecedented cuts in student 
aid, the elimination of funds for the AmeriCorps National Service 
Program, deep cuts in the School-to-Work Program, deep cuts in 
education funds for disadvantaged pupils, the elimination of summer 
jobs. Again and again we ask, where is the hope? Where is the heart?
  This bill should be a creator of hope, not a destroyer of hope. It is 
a deeply flawed bill that doesn't deserve to pass, and I urge the 
Senate to oppose it.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
his eloquent remarks and for his longstanding and strong support for 
the working people of this country.
  There is no one in this Senate and in this Congress who has stood up 
more over a longer period of time and who has spoken more forcefully 
and eloquently for the working people than the Senator from 
Massachusetts. What the Senator just said in his closing remarks 
regarding the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 
education really had to bring it home to us again here today what we 
are doing.
  Mr. President, again, to repeat for Senators, what we are facing 
right now is a vote at 10 o'clock on a motion to proceed. I am opposed 
to that motion to proceed because of the inclusion in the Labor, Health 
and Human Services appropriations bill of a rider, a rider that says 
that President Clinton cannot implement his Executive order regarding 
permanent replacement of striking workers.
  Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment restricting the 
implementation of President Clinton's Executive order regarding 
permanent replacements for striking workers. First of all, the 
President's action is entirely lawful, fully within his authority, and 
conforms with the practice of previous Republican Presidents in labor 
issues. And perhaps more importantly, instead of passing such an 
amendment we should be saluting the leadership of the President in 
providing a good degree of protection for workers that Congress failed 
to enact last year in the striker replacement bill.
  Under the Executive order, American workers in companies doing 
business of over $100,000 with the Federal Government can finally be 
assured that they will not be permanently replaced if they go out on 
strike. While that represents only 10 percent of all contracts, this 
order will affect 90 percent of Federal contract dollars.
  The proponents of the amendment to nullify this claim that they are 
trying to maintain the power of the Congress over this matter. But it 
is clear that Congress has already acted to give the President this 
power, in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. 
We have spoken on this issue and this amendment is just an attempt to 
second-guess the President on an issue that is fully within his 
authority. President Bush used the same statutory authority to issue 
two Executive orders concerning labor. Yet we didn't hear our 
colleagues on the other side of the isle complaining then.
  Furthermore, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
rejected a challenge to the President Clinton's Executive order on 
striker replacement on July 31, 1995. Specifically, the court held:
  First, President Clinton acted within his procurement authority;
  Second, there is a close nexus between the Executive order and 
efficient procurement; and
  Third, Executive Order 12954 does not conflict with the National 
Labor Relations Act.
  In other words, the court rejected all of the major arguments that 
have been made against the Executive order. The President has not 
abused or exceeded his legal authority--he has the power, given him by 
Congress in the procurement laws, to deny Federal contracts to 
employers who use permanent replacements for strikers.
  In addition, there is no merit to the argument that he has done an 
end run around the Congress by trying to accomplish what the striker 
replacement bill had failed to do. President Clinton's Executive order 
is much more limited than S. 55, and deals only with how the Government 
chooses its suppliers of goods and services. The order does not attempt 
to change the National Labor Relations Act or outlaw the use of 
permanent replacements for strikers. It governs their use only with 
respect to the narrow class of Federal contractors.
  Nobody has a right to receive a Federal contract. As one contracting 
party, we can insist on any conditions we choose. The findings of the 
Executive order state that prolonged labor disputes adversely affect 
costs of operations. Employers who want to insist on their right to 
permanently replace striking workers can do so--they just can't get 
Federal contracts.
  The Executive order simply raises the stakes in a company decision, 
and will hopefully convince some companies to rethink their decision to 
hire permanent replacement workers. It is too easy for companies to 
think that they can help their bottom line by taking advantage of their 
workers. This only says that there is a price that must be paid.
  Sometimes I wish the majority would go ahead and propose a law 
banning strikes entirely--it would be more honest than what they are 
trying to do here, again, today. A right to strike is a right to be 
permanently replaced. Every cut-rate, cutthroat employer knows they can 
break a union if they are willing to play hardball and ruin the lives 
of the people who have made their company what it is.
  Workers deserve better. Workers aren't disposable assets that can be 
thrown away when labor disputes arise. When we were considering the 
striker replacement bill last year, the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources heard poignant testimony about the emotional and 
financial hardships that are caused by the hiring of permanent 
replacement workers. We heard of workers losing their homes and going 
without health insurance due to the costs of COBRA coverage, as well as 
the feelings of uselessness that workers often feel when they are 
permanently replaced after years of loyal, and efficient service.
  The right to strike--which we all know is an action taken as a last 
resort, for no worker takes the financial 

[[Page S 14445]]
risk of a strike lightly--is fundamental to preserving workers' right 
to bargain for better wages and better working conditions. And recent 
studies have shown that the stagnation we have seen in middle-class 
standards of living is closely correlated with the decline of unions, 
and the loss of meaningful bargaining power.
  At the same time, workers are losing the benefits that unions were 
able to negotiate. Since 1981, fewer workers have health insurance, 
pensions, paid vacations, paid rest time, paid holidays, and other 
benefits. Without the bargaining power of a union, companies provide 
these benefits only out of the goodness of their hearts. And without 
the right to strike--a right that is theoretically guaranteed by law, 
but that, in fact, is totally undermined by permanent replacements--the 
unions have no bargaining power either. What does it mean to tell 
workers, ``you have the right to strike,'' when exercising that right 
means that you can be summarily fired?
  This is not about whether a company has to close its doors in the 
face of a strike. This only concerns the permanent replacement of 
strikers. Permanent replacements are given special priority in their 
new jobs--placing new hires above people with seniority and experience. 
We aren't suggesting that replacement workers can't compete for jobs--
they just should not get special rights, over and above those of the 
workers who have devoted their lives to the company.

  As a nation we have a choice--continue down the path of lower wages, 
lower productivity, and fewer organized workers or to take the option 
pursued by our major economic competitors, of cooperation, high wages, 
high skills, and high productivity. If we want to pursue that high 
skill path, we must do it with an organized work force. We can't do it 
with the destructive management practices of the past decade such as 
the threat of hiring replacement workers.
  Federal contractors must have stable and productive labor-management 
relations if they are to produce the best quality goods in a timely and 
reliable way. The use of permanent replacement workers destroys 
cooperative and stable labor-management relations. Research has found 
that strikes involving permanent replacements last seven times longer 
than strikes that don't involve permanent replacements.
  Using permanent replacements means trading experienced, skilled 
employees for inexperienced employees who labor at the bottom of the 
learning curve. For Federal contracts, we don't want the industrial 
equivalents of rookies and minor leaguers making tires for our next 
Desert Storm.
  So, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to oppose this amendment. I 
think it is a distraction from this important appropriations bill 
before us. I intend to fight this effort every step of the way, to 
return the right to strike to at least some of America's workers.
  Under this Executive order, American workers and companies doing 
business over $100,000 with the Federal Government can finally be 
assured that they will not be permanently replaced if they go out on 
strike. While that represents only 10 percent of all contracts, this 
order will affect 90 percent of Federal contract dollars.
  Opponents of the amendment can nullify this, claim that they are 
trying to maintain the power of Congress. But Congress already gave the 
President this power in the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949. The Senator from Minnesota said every President 
since President Truman has exercised this authority. President Bush 
used the same authority to issue two Executive orders concerning labor. 
Yet, we did not hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
complaining at that time.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts said, the U.S. district court 
rejected a challenge to President Clinton's Executive order on July 31 
of this summer of 1995. Specifically, the court held, first, that 
President Clinton acted within his procurement authority; second, there 
is a close nexus between the Executive order and efficient procurement; 
and, third, that Executive Order 12994 does not conflict with the 
National Labor Relations Act. In other words, the court rejected all of 
the major arguments that have been made against the Executive order.
  The President has not abused or exceeded his legal authority. He has 
the power, given by Congress, to deny Federal contracts to employers 
who use permanent replacements for strikers.
  In addition, there is no merit to the argument that he has done an 
end run around Congress by trying to accomplish what S. 55, the striker 
replacement bill, tried to do and which did not pass here.
  I might point out again for the record, S. 55 had a majority of votes 
on the Senate floor, enough to pass, to ban the permanent replacement 
of strikers. We just could not get the 60 votes to break the 
filibuster. Again, this order does not attempt to change the RLA or the 
National Labor Relations Act, or outlaw the use of permanent 
replacements for strikers. It is used narrowly affecting only Federal 
contracts.
  Mr. President, no one has a right to receive a Federal contract. As 
one contracting party, the Federal Government can insist on conditions, 
and that is the condition that President Clinton has insisted on, that 
if you do business of over $100,000, if it is a contract over that 
amount, you cannot permanently replace legitimate, legal strikers.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will reserve that minute and a half.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will proceed to 
take up the pending bill. It is obviously difficult procedurally to 
complete this bill before the end of the fiscal year, and it is already 
a matter of public record that arrangements have been made between the 
executive branch and the congressional leaders to have a continuing 
resolution, which is to be considered by the House of Representatives 
today and probably by the Senate today, to cover, on a temporary basis, 
the matters within this appropriations bill. And it is obvious that 
even if we could complete the Senate bill before the end of the fiscal 
year on September 30, we could not finish a conference in time. So the 
continuing resolution is the way that we will have to resolve these 
matters for now.
  Still, as a matter of protocol and as a matter of form, we in the 
Senate ought to take up this bill at some point and debate the measures 
and come to a resolution. With respect to the provision on striker 
replacement, that is a long, complex subject which has been on the 
floor of the Senate on many, many occasions.
  My own view is that there is a question as to the Executive authority 
on striker replacement in the context that the Congress has refused to 
act. But whatever that situation may be, it is my view that it is not 
appropriate to deal with this matter on an appropriations bill. In the 
full committee the striker replacement provision was reinstated in the 
bill to prohibit the use of any Federal funds to implement or enforce 
the President's Executive order. And it is unlikely that there are 
sufficient votes to terminate a filibuster. My own sense is that the 
issue will have to await action on another day. As I say, I think it 
preferable that such legislative matters not be taken up on an 
appropriations bill.
  It is currently 9:44. We have some substantial time remaining for 
argument. I invite my colleagues on the Republican side to come to the 
floor if anyone has any arguments which he or she wishes to make.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 15 minutes 
30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, Senator Harkin has about 
1\1/2\ minutes, and then there is the time on the other side. I 
understand we are going to be voting at 10 in any event. I would like 
to--if there are other speakers, obviously they could speak--but I 
would like to talk, perhaps enter into a dialog with the Senator from 
Iowa just about some of the education provisions of the legislation. 
But I am more than glad to, if there are other Senators that want to 
address it----

[[Page S 14446]]

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy 4 minutes 
of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was just interested in something the Senator from Iowa 
pointed out during our markup in the Human Resources Committee on the 
issue of education. In this legislation we are talking about the 
support of the Federal Government for elementary and secondary 
education. This past week we talked about higher education. And the 
Senator, I thought, made a very interesting point about where we were 
in this country in terms of the deficit versus GNP at the time of the 
end of World War II when we went ahead and provided education grants to 
the sons and daughters of working families under the GI bill. And I 
understood from that discussion and debate that we had that every 
dollar that was actually invested in education returned eight times--
eight times--to the Federal Treasury.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator find in his own analysis of the 
investment in the kind of programs that we are talking about here in 
the education programs in this appropriation bill, that we get not only 
the dollar return for the investment in our young people and raising 
the academic achievement and accomplishment, hopefully, in our schools, 
that it is a sound economic investment as well as an investment in the 
young people of the country?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely right. You know, we keep 
hearing we have this big Federal debt, that we have to take care of it. 
We all want to take care of it and reduce the deficit and get a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. President, the point I made in the committee the other day was 
that, after World War II we had a similar situation. The national debt 
was 110 percent of our gross national product--110 percent. Today, it 
is about 70 percent. Our debt is about 70, 75 percent of our gross 
national product.
  They say we have to reduce our debt. I agree with that. The same 
situation confronted us in World War II. Did we stick our head in the 
sand and say no, we have to hunker down? No. We have to invest and 
invest in education. We have got all the GI's. We did not loan them 
money. We gave them money. We built student housing all over the 
country for them to live in. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, 
they paid this country back to the tune of 8 to 1. And it spurred the 
greatest economic growth this country has ever seen.
  So, you want to get out of debt in this country? We better start 
investing in education. We are now reaping the harvest of the seeds 
that we have failed to plant over the last 30 years. When I first came 
to Congress in the 1970's, the Federal Government's share of elementary 
and secondary education was about 12 percent of the total amount of 
money. At that time there was a proposal that we have a one-third, one-
third, one-third sharing of the cost of education. The Federal 
Government provided one-third, States one-third, and local governments 
one-third for elementary and secondary education.
  The Federal Government, as I said at that time, was about 12 percent 
of total. You know what it is today, Mr. President? Less than 6 
percent. We are going in the wrong direction. It has been going down 
ever since. We wonder why? We wonder why our schools are not producing 
better students? Why we are not becoming more competitive in the world 
markets? Why we are not reducing the deficit? Talk about the dumbing 
down of America. It is because Congress is not fulfilling its 
responsibility to invest in the education of this country. The Senator 
from Massachusetts is absolutely right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator agree with me that money is not 
necessarily the answer to all our education problems, but it is a clear 
indication about where a nation's priorities are? And that every dollar 
that we cut back, whether it is reaching out to a Head Start child in 
trying to help and assist them develop confidence and skills or 
reaching out to helping teachers and parents at the local level, or 
providing the income contingency repayments for college loans, that for 
every dollar we cut from them, that we will be expending more in terms 
of social services to try to deal with the social problems that are 
created?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Iowa that 
the 4 minutes yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I note the arrival of the Senator from New Hampshire on 
the floor. I had yielded time earlier, but we do have a speaker. I now 
yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for yielding time on this issue before 
us which arrives here because of the concern of Members from the other 
the side of the aisle about the issue of the President's order on 
striker replacement. That is why we are having this not necessarily 
unique, but certainly not all that common, exercise of the vote coming 
up on the matter to proceed.
  The amendment in the bill that has generated this activity is an 
amendment that I offered in committee and which was adopted in 
committee that would essentially not allow the President to go forward 
to enforce his order on striker replacement.
  Now, the other side has already discussed at some length this issue. 
But let me make two points which I think need to be made.
  First, the President's order is clearly in violation, in my humble 
opinion and I think a lot of other people's opinion in this body, of 
the separation of powers. It does not lie in the President's 
prerogative to step forward into this arena and unilaterally take 
action which is basically a legislative action which is exactly what 
the President's Executive order has done. Therefore, on that count 
alone, people should be voting in favor of proceeding because, if you 
do not, you are basically voting to transfer power from the legislative 
branch to the executive branch.
  More important, however, is the issue of what is the underlying 
philosophy of this action taken by the President. We have heard a great 
deal of representation on the other side that this action was taken out 
of concern for working Americans, that it is an attempt to put working 
Americans on some sort of level playing field in the area of dealing 
with management.
  Nothing could be less accurate, of course. The fact is, this action 
was a crass political action taken by an administration which had a 
debt to a special interest group. The special interest group happened 
to be organized labor, in this instance, and as one of the first 
paybacks to organized labor which had given it literally hundreds and 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only to the President's campaign, 
but to the campaigns of Members of the other party, they immediately 
took an action which abrogated a law and activity in labor which had 
been in place since 1938.
  I guess it may be it is the other party's position that since 1938 we 
have had laws unfair to labor and they should have been changed for the 
last 50 years or so since they have been in place. The fact is, those 
laws have been in place for the last 50 years. Labor has functioned 
rather effectively in this Nation as a force for its organized 
membership, and management has also been able to function under the 
cloak of the present law as it existed for the last 50-some-odd years. 
Therefore, it seems to me that the playing field was not unlevel but 
had reached a rather good equilibrium between management and labor.
  What the administration is trying to do in this unilateral act is to 
create an unlevel playing field, not for the purposes of protecting 
some beaten down group of individuals, but rather for the purposes of 
protecting its own interest in running for reelection and getting 
contributions and support from what happens to be a very specific 
special interest group in this Nation.
  So this is purely special interest group pork-barrel politics is what 
it amounts to essentially. So if you want to vote against what amounts 
to labor pork or social pork, as it might be defined here, then you 
should not be supporting the administration's position 

[[Page S 14447]]
on this, you should be opposing it, because that is what this piece of 
legislation represents. It is a payoff to a special interest group. 
Nothing more, nothing less. And it was done in the crassest political 
way.
  Furthermore, it was done in a way which violates very clearly the 
separation of powers which are so important, I note, to a couple of 
gentlemen who had been pointed out earlier in the discussion--John 
Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom I suspect, were they here 
today, would be rather upset at the idea that the executive branch 
would be issuing an order which clearly is legislative in nature. It 
was, after all, they who, along with James Madison, designed the 
concept of separation of powers in order to have a balance among the 
executive and the legislative and, obviously, the judicial branches, 
which has been totally usurped by this action taken by the President.
  So this is not some cause which has any right on its side, it is a 
cause that has special interest on its side and which affronts the 
separation of powers issue. Therefore, I strongly suggest that we not 
support the action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Hampshire has 
expired. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 4\1/2\ 
minutes, and the other side has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield time to me?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield my 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the provision restricting the President's 
power on issuing his Executive order has no place on this 
appropriations bill. It is legislation on an appropriations bill. The 
proper place is to follow the procedures of the Senate and to legislate 
in the authorizing committee. This is just another effort to 
shortchange and effectively undermine the legitimate interests of 
workers as protected by the Executive order.
  The legitimacy of the Executive order has been upheld in the courts 
and follows very careful precedents, which have been outlined.
  This provision does not deserve to be on this appropriations bill. It 
ought to be stripped off the appropriations bill so that the whole 
issue of the education programs that affect the young people of this 
country can be fully and adequately debated.
  Mr. President, I hope that we will not move toward the consideration 
of this legislation until we strip this unwarranted, unjustified attack 
on workers from the appropriations bill.
  I yield back the remaining seconds of our time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am a little distressed. I understand we 
are not going to be able to take up some amendments that I believe 
should be taken up on this bill. I, at least, want to get into the 
Record, in the hopes some of these things can be addressed in 
conference, my strong feeling about a couple amendments.
  The Exon amendment, Coats amendment, and the Smith amendments address 
the same thing, and that is just a modest and overdue measure to get 
Government out of the business of promoting and subsidizing abortions. 
It is my understanding that under section 512, if not enacted, 
obstetrics and gynecology residents' programs will be required to 
perform abortions including late-term abortions. Residents with moral 
or religious objections who wish to opt out of performing abortions 
should be required to explain why in a way that satisfies stringent and 
explicit criteria. I am very much concerned about that. We have debated 
this issue over and over again. However, I am hoping this is something 
that will be taken up in conference.
  The second thing is the amendment to defund Goals 2000, the Education 
Act. Under this program, Federal intrusiveness reaches a new height. 
The Goals 2000 creates tighter and more definite links between State, 
Federal and local levels and makes it easier for the Department of 
Education to tamper with local schools. The Goals 2000 is the idea that 
the Federal Government should be involved in creating and certifying 
standards for education and determining official knowledge.
  I think if there is anything that has been very evident during the 
elections of November, it was a trend to get Government out of things, 
not in things, to get the Washington influence out of our lives instead 
of in our lives.
  I certainly hope that we will be able to take up some measure at some 
point, perhaps in conference, to do away with the Goals 2000 program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has 
expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just by way of brief comment on the Goals 
2000 program, that is a matter which is going to be subject to very 
substantial debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. With my lead, we 
have funded Goals 2000 because of a view that standards and goals are 
necessary for education.
  Way back in 1983, when Terrel Bell was Secretary of Education, there 
was a report about the crisis of education in America. It may be that 
we can remove further Federal limitations and Federal restraints within 
the Goals 2000 bill, but I strongly believe that we need to have goals.
  The goals which are present are voluntary. The States may put on 
their own goals if they choose to do so. That is entirely within the 
discretion of the State. But education is an enormous problem in 
America. If we really had a generation of educated Americans, it would 
go to the cure of many of our very basic problems: Problems of teenage 
pregnancy, problems of welfare, problems of crime, problems of job 
training. It would all be surmounted if we had adequate education. I 
believe that Goals 2000, first adopted under a Republican President, 
President Bush, carried forward in this administration, is very, very 
important for America. This is not the time to get into extensive 
debate, but I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this at an 
appropriate time with my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). All time has expired.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use a few minutes of 
leader time prior to the vote.
  Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Specter and Harkin for the 
effort they have made to do what they could with this piece of 
legislation. At the same time, I think everyone needs to be put on 
notice that this bill will be vetoed.
  I believe that there is no other alternative but to veto this 
legislation. Frankly, while we have given some thought to trying, in as 
many ways as we could, to improve the legislation, in our view, it is 
beyond improvement. They have done the best they could. But this 
problem started when we passed the budget in the first place. This 
problem started when the allocation to Health and Human Services was 
provided in the budget resolution and by the Appropriations Committee. 
As the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, stated, the 
allocation ``is totally insufficient.'' It cuts $9 billion from the 
President's request. So there is no other word to describe this piece 
of legislation, in my view, than the word ``extreme.''
  Cuts in health, education, job training, and all of the cuts that are 
provided in this piece of legislation will devastate kids, young 
people, and destroy the opportunities for families and workers, all in 
the name of providing a tax cut that we do not need this year. The 
majority has proposed $245 billion in tax cuts. In order to finance 
those tax breaks that benefit our wealthiest citizens, they have 
proposed the extreme measures in this bill. As I stated, over $9 
billion is cut from the President's request in this legislation in 
areas that directly affect the strength, 

[[Page S 14448]]
health, vitality and the future of children and families.
  It deserves a veto.
  In addition to the cuts that are devastating in all the ways that I 
have already described, the bill before us contains a legislative 
provision that has no business in this appropriations bill. We have 
been forced to consider, once more, the striker replacement 
legislation. This legislation was considered in committee and 
considered again earlier on the floor that will, without a doubt, 
provoke extended debate on this bill if it is not removed from the 
bill.
  Overturning the Executive order banning the replacement of striking 
workers by Federal contractors is wrong. I believe the vast majority of 
the Senate knows that it is wrong. It does not deserve to be in this 
bill. It ought to be taken out. And whether or not we ultimately are 
able to come to any conclusion about health and human services 
appropriations legislation directly affecting all of the programs for 
education, drug-free schools, for summer jobs, for the real heart and 
soul of what we try to do each and every year to give strength and 
vitality to young kids, will be hung up, in part, because of a minority 
view that striker replacement deserves to be in this legislation. It is 
wrong, it does not deserve to be there, and it ought to be taken out.
  So, Mr. President, this bill will be vetoed. It will be vetoed 
because 50,000 children are going to be cut from Head Start. It will be 
vetoed because 650,000 disadvantaged kids will be denied educational 
opportunities. It will be vetoed because millions of kids all over this 
country are going to lose the chance to go to safe and drug-free 
schools, and are going to lose the opportunity to be educated about the 
need to avoid drugs. It will be vetoed because we are going to deny 
600,000 kids summer jobs. It will be vetoed because 500,000 dislocated 
workers are going to be abandoned and not given the help they need to 
find new jobs. It will be vetoed because 96 percent of the funding for 
substance abuse prevention is wiped out in this bill.
  Mr. President, this is an extreme bill. We ought to vote against it. 
But if, God forbid, it passes, it will be vetoed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second 
vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2127, originally scheduled to 
occur at 11 a.m., if necessary, now occur at 11:20 a.m., with time 
between the end of the 10 a.m. vote and 11:20 a.m. equally divided in 
the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danica 
Petroshius, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor 
privileges during the debate on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 10 a.m. having arrived, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2127.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 471 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
46. Under the previous order, 60 Senators not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  The Senate will come to order.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts yield me some time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand there is an hour to be 
evenly divided. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 11:20 will be equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 25 minutes for each side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank 
him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I oppose the 
provision added to the fiscal year 1996 Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation 
Bill in committee that would prevent any funds appropriated in fiscal 
year 1996 from being used to ``implement, administer, or enforce any 
executive order, or other rule or order, that prohibits Federal 
contracts with, or requires the debarment of, or imposes other sanction 
on, a contractor on the basis that such contractor or organizational 
unit thereof has permanently replaced lawfully striking workers.'' We 
must not weaken one of the most fundamental rights of organized labor, 
the right to strike, by threatening these workers with the possibility 
of losing their jobs. Mr. President, the right to strike is guaranteed 
to workers under the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor 
Act, and is instrumental in preserving an equitable balance in labor-
management relations.

  On March 8, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12954, which 
prohibits all Federal contractors, with contracts in excess of 
$100,000, from hiring permanent replacement workers in the event of a 
strike. This Executive Order has already been challenged in court; 
however, on July 31, 1995, the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia upheld the Executive Order. An injunction was also 
issued by the court staying all enforcement of the Executive Order so 
that opponents would have an opportunity to appeal before the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The President 
has consistently opposed the use of permanent replacement workers, 
believing that the practice harms the American workforce and its 
productivity. By signing this Executive Order, President Clinton is 
seeking to ensure a stable supply of quality goods and services for the 
government's programs by protecting opportunities for cooperative and 
stable labor-management relations, which, he believes, ``is a central 
feature of efficient, economical, and productive procurement.''
  Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] in 1935, to 
establish collective bargaining as the preferred means of resolving 
labor disputes. The NLRA gives workers the right to join unions, to 
bargain collectively, and to participate in peaceful concerted activity 
to further their bargaining goals--all without fear of employer 
discipline. The economic strike is the ultimate form of such activity. 
Congress expressly protected the worker's principal economic self-help 
weapon--the right to strike--because it recognized that this was an 
important tool of labor in ensuring a level playing field in labor 
negotiations. I should point out, however, that for workers, exercising 
the right to strike means giving up wages and benefits, and exhausting 
any family savings--it is always a last resort. 

[[Page S 14449]]

  The NLRA also established unfair labor practices forbidden by 
the Act. Among other prohibitions, no interference with the formation 
of a labor union was allowed, and employers could not interfere with 
employees engaged in organizing or bargaining collectively. After the 
NLRA was enacted, union membership grew from 3,584,000 in 1935 to 
10,201,000 by 1941.

  Before the 1930's--some of the Senators may not be able to remember 
what it was like before the 1930's. Some of them had not yet discovered 
America. But I remember very well.
  Before the 1930's, Federal and State laws favored management, and 
union activity was discouraged. Efforts by the United Mine Workers 
[UMW] to expand their membership in West Virginia during the economic 
surge brought on by World War I resulted in a level of violence seldom 
seen in the annals of American labor history. In an effort to bring the 
benefits of unionism to the southern West Virginia region during the 
postwar years, the UMW mounted a determined effort to organize this 
region. The coal operators mounted an equally determined effort to keep 
the union out. Employers in some instances used force to prevent unions 
from coming into their plants or businesses. In West Virginia, every 
mine operation had its armed guard--in many instances two or more 
guards. Mine guards were an institution all along the creeks in the 
non-union sections of the State. As a rule, they were supplied by the 
Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency of Roanoke, Virginia and Bluefield, West 
Virginia. No class of men on Earth were more cordially hated by the 
miners than were these mine guards. Seemingly hired to keep the peace 
and guard company property, these guards spent much of their time 
harassing UMW officials and evicting thousands of union sympathizers 
from company-owned housing. If a worker became too inquisitive, if he 
showed too much independence, or complained too much about his 
condition, he was likely beaten by one of these mine guards.
  County sheriffs and their deputies were often in the pay of the coal 
operators, and the State government itself was clearly in alliance with 
the employers against the mine strikers. Scores of union men were 
jailed, and Sid Hatfield and Ed Chambers, two union sympathizers, were 
shot dead--dead, dead--by Baldwin-Felts detectives on the courthouse 
steps at Welch, West Virginia, in McDowell County on August 1, 1921. At 
Blair Mountain, in Logan County, a three-day battle was fought. The 
Federal Government moved to end the struggle and President Harding 
issued a proclamation instructing the miners to cease fighting and 
return home. Military aircraft and a force of 2,150 regular Army troops 
were sent to West Virginia. Partly as a result of the military's 
intervention, the UMW's effort to organize that part of the coalfields 
lost most of its momentum. The southern West Virginia coal 
establishment was saved.
  This failure of the UMW underscores the long odds organized labor 
faced at a time when workers' rights to form and join unions had not 
yet been formally recognized. It also underscores the key role 
Government involvement played in the efforts of many employers to keep 
unions out of the workplace prior to the passage of the NLRA in 1935.
  In 1938, the Supreme Court ruled in NLRB versus Mackay Radio and 
Telegraph Co. that employers may ``permanently replace'' striking 
workers. In effect, this provided a legal way to ``fire'' these 
striking workers. Owen Bieber, former President of the United 
Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America 
[UAW] echoes this sentiment as follows: ``The permanent replacement of 
protected strikers is a contradiction in terms. It is pure double talk 
to say that although workers can't be discharged for striking, the 
worker can be permanently replaced. This distinction may have some 
meaning to lawyers, but all the ordinary worker knows is that he or she 
is not going back to work with the struck employer in the foreseeable 
future.''
  The ability of an employer to convert a narrow limited collective 
bargaining dispute into a prolonged and divisive contest about the 
future of union representation and the future of the unionized 
workforce is reminiscent of the bitter disputes that preceded enactment 
of the NLRA and led to passage of the Act. When striking workers are 
permanently replaced, the strike turns into a confrontation about 
retention of jobs and the right to union representation. Strikes should 
be about working conditions and wages, not about the fundamental right 
of union representation.
  Although the hiring of permanent replacement workers was not common 
for many years, the practice has escalated in recent years, and its use 
or threat of use occurs in one out of every three strikes.
  More and more, during labor negotiations, union members are fighting 
for benefits such as health care, pensions, and safety. Wages are not 
necessarily the big issue. Due to the threat of overseas competition 
and downsizing, unions are fighting for their benefits, many of which 
are not provided by companies overseas. It should be noted, however, 
that our major trading partners, and competitors--Canada, France, 
Germany, and Japan--all have laws that prohibit the use of permanent 
replacements. In addition, the newly restored democracies of Eastern 
Europe prohibit this practice as well. The laws in these countries 
reflect the importance of collective bargaining in relation to 
efficient economic performance. Their laws encourage long-term 
bargaining relationships. In these countries, collective bargaining has 
been central in building the stable workforces of skilled long-term 
employees that are critical to success.
  Although the President's Executive Order only applies to Federal 
contracts in excess of $100,000, it is important that the United States 
Senate does not back down by supporting the provision to overturn the 
President's Executive Order. The Federal Government should set an 
example not only for all businesses operating in the United States, but 
for overseas companies as well. We do not want to send a message that 
we believe it is fair to tip the balance of power in favor of business 
in collective bargaining. Both sides should have tools to work with in 
order for bargaining to be effective. An employer would still have the 
ability to continue operation during a strike by using temporary 
replacements, by subcontracting or transferring the struck work, or by 
operating with management personnel.
  This provision, which we are debating here today, would return us to 
the days of widespread practices of unfair and unsafe working 
conditions. More and more is expected of our workers these days, and 
they deserve to work in a safe environment with health and retirement 
benefits and job security. The practice of hiring permanent replacement 
workers has adversely impacted the lives of many people and destroyed 
many communities and lifetime friendships. Many who have invested years 
with a company have lost their jobs due to a legal strike and have been 
permanently replaced. Savings accounts have been depleted, college 
funds have been used up, homes have been lost, health benefits no 
longer existed, and hope for a secure future has been diminished. 
Advancing age makes it difficult for many longtime workers to find new 
jobs.
  Mr. President, we are talking about real lives here--real people who 
want to earn an honest living and provide for their families and their 
futures. These people are the backbone of our great nation, and we 
cannot afford to toss them aside and replace them with inexperienced, 
unskilled employees.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no once again on the 
motion.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I may not have consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to proceed to 
consideration of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education. I do so because I support the 
President's Executive order to ban the use of permanent striker 
replacement workers on Federal contracts. I strongly oppose the 
provision in this bill that prevents enforcement of the Executive 
order.
  Some say that banning of permanent striker replacements will tip the 
balance toward labor unions. The balance 

[[Page S 14450]]
has already been tipped against workers. In 1970, only 1 percent of 
strikes involved permanent replacement workers. By 1992, employers were 
hiring permanent replacements in 25 percent of strikes.
  If Congress repeals this order, we tell workers that they are 
disposable. We are telling working men and women that they can be 
tossed out onto a scrap heap of economic indifference.
  Permanent replacement workers weaken the collective bargaining power 
of unions and that will bring down U.S. wages and living standards.
  Strikes using permanent replacements last seven times longer than 
strikes that do not use permanent replacements. Strikes involving 
permanent replacements are more contentious and bitter, and that means 
that no one wins. Replacing strikers means replacing skilled workers 
with unskilled workers, experienced workers with inexperienced workers.
  Some argue that this expands Presidential authority, I disagree. In 
1992, George Bush issued an order that required all unionized Federal 
contractors to post notices in the workplace informing all employees 
that they did not have to join the union. President Bush did this even 
though legislation to include this notification, cosponsored by 
Congressmen Gingrich, Armey and DeLay, was pending in Congress and was 
not passed.
  Other Presidents have used their Presidential authority to issue 
Executive orders. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive order 
banning racial discrimination by defense contractors. In 1964, Lyndon 
Johnson ordered an end to age discrimination by Federal contractors, 
and in 1969, the Nixon administration expanded this order to require 
affirmative action programs and goals.
  President Clinton's Executive order is limited and reasonable. It 
seeks only to level the playing field for workers in Federal contracts. 
The Executive order applies only to contractors who try to permanently 
replace workers. It seeks only to protect workers who are engaged in a 
legal strike; it does not apply to illegal strikes. In addition, the 
Secretary of Labor must conduct a case-by-case review before any 
contract is terminated, and any order to terminate is subject to the 
review and approval of the contracting agency.
  This action is a modest step by the President. It is not an attempt 
to create new Presidential authority. I support this Executive order to 
protect collective bargaining, unions, and U.S. wages.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is the second time the Senate will vote 
on the President's striker replacement Executive order and, I hope, the 
second time the Senate affirms the Executive order.
  Our Nation's labor laws grant workers the right to strike and ensure 
that they cannot be fired during the course of a strike. To tell a 
worker who may have given many years of dedicated and loyal service 
that he or she has not been fired but permanently replaced is no 
consolation to that worker or their family.
  In my many years as a businessman, I negotiated numerous labor 
contracts. I always understood that the workers were negotiating on 
behalf of themselves and their families. On some occasions, I stood 
firm. On other occasions, I gave way. On all occasions, I believe, both 
sides made concessions. We reached an agreement and went back to 
business. That was the process.
  Mr. President, not once during those strikes did it ever occur to me 
that those workers would lose their jobs for striking. Not once did it 
occur to me that permanently replacing them was an acceptable practice. 
And yet today, you can see advertisements for permanent replacement 
workers even before the expiration of a labor contract.
  The key to collective bargaining, Mr. President, is balance and good-
faith negotiation.
  The President's Executive order does not deny that labor disputes are 
going to occur. But it does acknowledge that such disputes should be 
fairly negotiated.
  The Executive order is not unprecedented and is justified by helping 
to improve the quality and efficiency of Government contracts. It does 
so by encouraging companies that contract with the Federal Government 
to maintain a fair and stable working environment with their employees. 
And stable working conditions lead to increased productivity.
  Contractors that choose to permanently replace lawfully striking 
employees during a workplace dispute not only risk damaging labor-
management relations. They also risk disrupting the quality and 
progress of their Federal contract.
  In simple terms, it is just bad business practice to hold the club of 
permanent replacement over the heads of employees. History shows that 
strikes involving permanent replacements last up to seven times longer 
than strikes that do not involve permanent replacements. It is common 
knowledge that such strikes tend to be much more contentious, often 
changing a limited dispute into a broader, more antagonistic struggle.
  Most importantly, it is common sense that permanently replacing 
strikers means trading experienced, skilled employees for inexperienced 
ones. Inexperienced replacement workers start at the bottom of the 
learning curve, a circumstance that can sometimes have grave 
consequences in productivity and quality. With the President's 
Executive order, we can avoid such grave consequences under federally 
funded Government projects.
  I urge my colleagues to remove the restriction on this legitimate 
Presidential Executive order.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we find ourselves today debating once 
again the use of striker replacements. This morning, we will conduct 
two test votes to determine, ultimately, whether or not we will allow 
the President to enforce Executive Order 12954, which prohibits the 
Federal Government from contracting with firms using permanent 
replacements in cases of legal strikes.
  Although many of us have addressed this issue in the past, I would 
like to briefly outline my position on this important issue.
  We all know that it is illegal to fire a worker engaged in a legal 
strike. We also all know that the Supreme Court Mackay Radio decision 
in 1935 made significant inroads into this protection from dismissal by 
allowing the hiring of permanent replacements for striking workers. In 
the last 15 years or so, the increased use of such workers has been one 
of many factors that have undermined a healthy relationship between 
workers and employers.
  I believe that this country is slowly waking up to the idea that we 
cannot continue down a path where employers look only at short term 
profits, and trade in the prospect of our future for expediency today. 
We are not making the long term investments in capital and human 
resources that cost now, but will have tremendous payoffs in the future 
in terms of both profits and wages. We are also not creating the sort 
of working partnerships between employees and employers that are 
necessary for our long-term success in the world economy. We simply 
cannot be competitive in the world if we continue to trade our future 
for our short term gains.
  Yet, the use of permanent replacements, I believe, is too often one 
more step on that path. Rather than address differences with 
legitimately bargaining representatives, thus developing partnerships, 
employers too often simply replace these workers. For that reason, I 
believe that we must discourage the use of permanent replacements, and 
I support the President's decision to not do business with firms 
employing this practice.
  The President has found that the use of permanent replacements erodes 
labor-management relations, and thus adversely affects the cost, 
quality, and timely availability of goods and services procured by the 
Federal Government. I am confident that the President is taking an 
important step to discourage a practice that could have an adverse 
effect on our Nation's long-term economic prospects.
  For these reasons, I will vote ``no'' on cloture.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the issue before us is not striker 
replacement, but education. I supported the striker replacement 
provision in committee and hope it survives.
  However, I continue to fight to cool the fever to cut education that 
has gripped this Congress. I want to cool that fever and break it. Both 
parties have supported education funding in the past, but now the 
Republicans 

[[Page S 14451]]
think they have a mandate to cut reading and math assistants for kids 
in school. They find a mandate to reduce college student aid while 
tuitions rise faster than inflation. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  Specifically, in May, the Senate debated and passed a budget 
resolution that would cut education by 33 percent over the next 7 years 
while delivering a tax cut before the next election. During the debate, 
I, along with Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and others offered an 
alternative that better fits with what the American people want. We 
proposed to protect the 2 percent of the budget now devoted to 
education by providing a smaller pre-election tax cut.
  Unfortunately, our proposal to protect education was voted down, and 
today we are considering an appropriations bill that takes the first 
step to implement the wrongheaded budget plan that passed. 
Specifically, this bill cuts $2.1 billion in fiscal year 1996 from the 
discretionary education budget. It cuts Head Start, college grants, 
vocational education funds to help high school students move into 
higher-wage jobs, subsidies targeted largely to elementary schools with 
disadvantaged children, and school reform funds. It cuts antidrug 
education in the schools, magnet schools, adult literacy funds, and 
grants to improve the academic programs of 2- and 4-year colleges that 
are strapped for funds and that serve many lower-income students 
seeking to improve their economic independence. In short, it takes a 
$2.1 billion step backward while everyone knows we have to press 
forward in the current economic climate. Because of these cuts, I am 
opposing the motion to proceed to this bill.
  Many of our constituents have felt the sharp edge of economic 
downsizing. In the government sector, we are cutting the Navy Base in 
Charleston, and the private sector has done even more to downsize and 
cut benefits. Traditionally, Americans have relied on a system of 
public education and college assistance to prepare them and their 
children to weather such transitions and gain economic independence. We 
learned after World War II that it pays to help people attend college, 
and we have learned for more than the past century that free public 
schools are essential.
  Congress now seems to have forgotten these lessons of history, 
despite continuing evidence that education spending has been critical 
for economic growth. The Department of Labor estimates that 20 percent 
of U.S. economic growth since 1963 has stemmed from increased education 
in our work force. Where would our country be now, relative to Japan 
and Europe, if its economy were that much smaller? Congress should be 
fighting to ensure this kind of growth in the future, not fighting to 
cut education and give families making over $100,000 per year a tax cut 
before the next election. After rushing to bail out Mexico and refusing 
repeatedly to stop exporting American jobs, we should now work hard to 
invest in the future, not to give away the public store as a political 
goodie.
  On the individual level, too, voters know that education makes a 
difference for the future. A recent study of identical twins found that 
the more educated twin makes 13 percent more on average. Why is this 
Congress implementing plans to cut back on the long-term individual 
achievement of the 44 million children in U.S. public schools and the 
more than 6 million college students receiving student financial aid in 
order to quickly provide tax cuts to a smaller set of people who 
already have made it? No political payoff is worth such a plan that 
will hurt individual achievement and the economic potential of this 
Nation.
  Aside from denying history and current research, this plan flies in 
the face of the basic facts about school enrollments. It is not rocket 
science: The number of children is rising. There will be 5 million more 
children in school in the United States 7 years from now. Thus, public 
school attendance will rise more than 10 percent, but Congress plans to 
cut education funding by 33 percent. At the college level, not only are 
enrollments rising, tuition is going up faster than inflation while we 
debate $10 billion in cuts to student aid on reconciliation.
  I do not know what else I have to say to prove that the education 
part of the current budget plan is perverse. We do not need a pollster 
to tell us that it is not the best effort that this Congress should 
make for the people. The average voter probably would find it hard to 
believe that we are really pursuing it. Far from keeping a Contract 
With America, this bill represents a broken promise to educate our 
children.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the motion to proceed 
to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill until the 
striker replacement provision is struck from the bill. If included, 
this provision will block the implementation of the President's 
Executive Order on striker replacements. This is a matter of 
fundamental fairness for working people in this country.
  During the course of this century, all Americans--regardless of 
income level--benefited from our country's economic growth. We grew 
together, and an expanding economy meant better jobs for everyone. A 
typical family could work hard and experience an increased living 
standard, whether that meant buying a home or putting a child through 
college or taking a simple family vacation.
  But in the past two decades, while our Nation's economy has continued 
to grow, fewer and fewer Americans are sharing in these gains. The vast 
majority of this growth--97 percent of our real income growth since 
1979--has gone to the top fifth of households. In contrast, the fifth 
of Americans at the lowest income levels--Americans who previously had 
been the principal beneficiaries of economic growth--saw there incomes 
decline by a staggering 17 percent between 1979 and 1993. In short, Mr. 
President, the rich have gotten richer and poor have gotten poorer.
  As 80 percent of our population grapples with economic hardships, 
they look to each of us to rectify this problem and build a stronger 
economy that will be shared by all Americans.
  President Clinton has demonstrated his commitment to doing something 
about this problem. He has advocated wage increases and skills training 
to help ordinary Americans compete and succeed. Unfortunately, our 
Republican colleagues have blocked these efforts.
  In fact our Republican colleagues have denied working Americans a 
series of advancement opportunities, including summer jobs for youth, 
student loan, and child care.
  What is the Republican solution? Tax breaks. Fifty-two percent of 
those tax cuts would benefit people earning $100,000 or more per year. 
That is not a solution for the single mother with a minimum wage job 
fighting to keep her children clothed, fed, and safe. That is not a 
solution for a factory worker struggling to make his mortgage payments. 
That is not a solution for the vast majority of working Americans. We 
must do better for them,
  The President has done better. His Executive Order directs Government 
agencies not to contract with firms that permanently replace striking 
workers. In issuing this Executive Order the President recognized that 
workers have few powerful tools at their disposal. The right to strike 
is one of those tools. Permitting employers to permanently replace 
striking employees throws the labor system out of balance. The 
Executive Order redresses that imbalance.
  The striker replacement provision of the Labor and HHS appropriations 
bill seeks to obstruct implementation of this vital order. Therefore, I 
oppose the motion to proceed to the Labor, Health and Human Services 
bill until the striker replacement provision is struck from the bill. 
There are several reasons why this provision should be struck.
  First, product quality will be jeopardized if Government contractors 
are permitted to permanently replace striking workers. Firms which 
permanently replace their workers have, by definition, terrible 
management-labor relations. This in turn creates a poisonous atmosphere 
which can't help but damage product quality.
  Second, quality and workplace safety will also be threatened. 
Replacement workers possess fewer skills and less experience than the 
strikers whose positions they fill. The President has a responsibility 
to ensure that Federal contractors provide a safe working environment 
as well as only the highest quality goods and service. This Executive 
Order will help achieve those goals.

[[Page S 14452]]

  Third, the President's order sets a high standard for cooperative 
labor-management relations at a time when the increasingly competitive 
global economy demands it. Management and labor must join in a common 
quest to produce a good product at a competitive price. Hopes for that 
kind of cooperation are dashed when management permanently replaces its 
employees. The President's Executive Order puts the Federal Government 
on record opposing such tactics.
  If our Republican colleagues succeed in blocking the President's 
Executive Order on permanent replacement workers, they will send a 
message to ordinary Americans. And that message will be that after 
years of losing ground on pay and benefits, they could lose their 
jobs--solely for exercising their fundamental right to strike. They 
will send a message that the Federal Government rewards with Federal 
contracts employers who create hostile work environments. Basically, 
they will send a message which tells working Americans, ``tough luck.''
  That is the wrong message to send. The right to strike has been a 
basic tenet of American labor policy for six decades. It is illegal to 
fire an employee for exercising that right. Permanently replacing 
strikers is a loophole in the law. With the striker replacement 
provision, we would permit the Federal Government to take advantage of 
a loophole which allows employers to circumvent the law.
  What is the right message to send? That the Federal Government 
recognizes and respects the law. That we want to help American workers.
  Several labor-related Executive Orders made by Presidents Reagan and 
Bush provide ample precedent for President Clinton's action, and I hope 
my colleagues will support the President and do something positive for 
working Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to the motion to 
proceed to the Labor, Health and Human Services bill until this 
provision is struck from this bill.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. If there is no demand for time on the Republican side, I 
yield myself 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me comment on two aspects. One is the 
intrusion of the striker replacement into this, and then on the dollars 
themselves.
  What we know from studies, and particularly the Harvard study, is 
that union workers by and large are more satisfied, and more satisfied 
workers produce quality work, and that union workers stay at a job 
longer.
  This moves us in the opposite direction. What we need in our society 
is balance.
  I see the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. He has 
seen more of our history and certainly studied it more than I have. But 
over the years, since the 1930's, we have tried to have a reasonably 
good balance. Frankly, when there is a Republican President, the 
National Labor Relations Board tilts a little bit in the direction of 
management, and when there is a Democratic President, it tilts a little 
bit in the direction of labor. But when President Reagan came in--and 
he did many good things--the balance was lost. And while, for example, 
at one point Canada and the United States both had about 33 percent of 
our work force belonging to labor unions, Canada has gone up to 36 
percent, and in the United States, we are down to 16 percent. And if 
you exclude the governmental unions, it is down to 11.8 percent.
  It was very interesting for me to pick up the New York Times and read 
an article by George Shultz, who most recently was Secretary of State 
under a Republican administration but at one point was Secretary of 
Labor, and George Shultz said things are getting out of balance; we 
have an unhealthy small percentage of our work force belonging to labor 
unions.
  Now, part of this balance was self-restraint. Through most of our 
history, no industry just permanently replaced strikers. And then we 
have had a few instances of it. Greyhound did it, and we had 
Bridgestone/Firestone, and that came up on the floor of this body. It 
is very interesting because Bridgestone/Firestone is a Japanese-owned 
corporation today. Permanently replacing workers in Japan is illegal, 
but they did it with their United States entity. The only places where 
it is legal in industrialized democracies are Great Britain, Hong Kong, 
Singapore, and the United States of America. In all the other Western 
European nations and Japan, it is illegal.
  I believe the President's Executive order has brought just a trifle 
amount of balance here. We need more. We need to be doing a lot of 
things to provide some balance. And what we also have to do as we 
provide balance is to try to get labor and management working together. 
I am pleased to say that in the State of Illinois it looks as if 
Caterpillar is moving toward resolving that problem.
  Let me second, Mr. President, talk about the appropriation and where 
we are. We have under this proposal said--this is compared to the 1995 
appropriations, and this is assuming that the Senate bill passes; the 
House bill is even worse--in the State of Illinois, 42,395 fewer people 
will be helped.
  Let us take West Virginia because West Virginia is like my home 
territory of southern Illinois--good, fine people but below average 
education and below average earnings. In West Virginia, 11,413 people. 
Let us take another example, Mr. President, we forget about here 
frequently. The citizens of Puerto Rico are all American citizens. They 
contribute in terms of Armed Forces and bloodshed more than almost all 
of our States. In Puerto Rico, 39,924 fewer people are being helped. 
The average income in Puerto Rico is less than half the average income 
in Mississippi, the bottom of our 50 States. Puerto Rico gets the short 
shrift in legislation after legislation because there is no one in the 
Senate to defend them. We have what we call Commonwealth States. Old 
fashioned colonialism is what it is. One of these days inevitably 
Puerto Rico will either become independent or become a State, and that 
choice I think should be up to the people of Puerto Rico, whatever 
their decision.
  Let us take dollars now. In the State of Illinois, $84,747,000 less 
than the 1995 appropriation under this bill; West Virginia, $21 million 
less. This is money for education, for people who need help, for summer 
jobs for youth. Puerto Rico --I mentioned $84 million for the State of 
Illinois. Puerto Rico, roughly one-fourth of our population, $70 
million less.
  These programs, Mr. President, do good for people. Let me just 
mention one--title I. It used to be called Chapter 1. This is for the 
more impoverished areas. People say money alone is not going to solve 
our problems. There is no question, money alone is not going to solve 
our problems. But without the resources we are not going to do it.
  What has happened to 9-year-old black males since title I has been in 
effect? An 18-percent increase in math scores, a 25-percent increase in 
verbal scores. Those are good kinds of things.
  Head Start. I do not know anyone who believes Head Start does not 
help these young people. I will never forget visiting the Head Start 
Program in an impoverished area in Rock Island, IL. Almost every Head 
Start Program, every one I know of, has a waiting list. We are not 
providing enough help. One group of young people comes in Monday 
morning; Tuesday morning another group; Wednesday morning a third 
group, and so forth. I asked the woman in charge, what would it mean in 
the lives of these young people if they could be in here every day 
instead of 1 day a week? She smiled and she said, ``You could not 
believe the difference it would make in their future.''
  Oh, we save money when we do not provide help to them, like you save 
money when you build a house and you do not put a roof on it. But you 
do not save money in the long run. We have to invest in our people.
  When I was in the fourth or fifth grade, something like that, I read 
in my geography book that the United States was wealthy because of its 
natural resources, our oil and coal and all these other things. And 
then all of a sudden about 15 years ago, I got to thinking about it. 
The countries that were moving ahead relative to how the United States 
was moving ahead, much more rapidly than we were--Sweden, Japan, 
Taiwan, South Korea--why were they moving ahead? They were moving 

[[Page S 14453]]
ahead because they were investing in their people.
  We need to invest in the people of West Virginia. We need to invest 
in the people of the central city of Chicago. We need to invest in the 
people of southern Illinois--good, hard, coal mining people, farmers, 
and others who are struggling on topsoil much of which, as in West 
Virginia, is not great.
  We need to invest in our people. When we do, it pays off. The GI bill 
after World War II--Senator Byrd and I are old enough to remember 
that--we thought of it as a gift to veterans. It was an investment in 
our own prosperity. It was a huge, huge plus for this Nation.
  We have to do that again. I hope one of these days we will have the 
vision and the courage. What we are going through now, because of what 
we have done--and I am for the constitutional amendment; the Senator 
from West Virginia and I differ strongly on that--what we are trying to 
do legislatively is like a New Year's resolution. We are having a New 
Year's resolution where we are going to balance the budget. But you 
know what we want to do with this? It is like a diet, a New Year's 
resolution and a diet. We are going to start off with a great big 
dessert, a $255 billion tax cut. That is what we are doing. It is 
ridiculous. We ought to be using that money to invest in our people.
  I hope this appropriation is rejected, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
remaining on his side; 25 minutes for the other side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the silence on the other side is really 
deafening in response to the points that have been raised in the early 
part of this discussion and debate as well as during this time.
  Mr. President, I yield myself just 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I think the case has been made about the authority of 
the President to make this Executive order. The ink on the Executive 
order was not even dry before it was challenged by our Republican 
friends, in spite of the historic precedents establishing the power and 
the authority and the constitutional right of the President to act in 
this regard.
  The Executive order is well founded and well justified, when we look 
at what is being sought in terms of having an orderly procurement 
program for the Federal Government: to ensure that there will be 
quality products manufactured, that they are going to be purchased on 
time, and recognizing the realities of the striker replacement issue.
  Mr. President, the issue concerning the cuts that are in the 
appropriations bill in terms of education has been debated and 
discussed. I want to just take a few moments here to put into 
perspective this whole issue about undermining the opportunities for 
workers to be able to gain a decent, livable wage in the context of 
other actions that are being forced on the working families of this 
country by the majority Members of this body.
  We saw the first efforts on March 15 of this year when the attempt 
was made to undo what the President has done to protect workers' 
historic and legitimate right to strike and to prevent their 
permanently replacement by Federal contractors.
  We have to look at the mosaic that is being created, not only back in 
March, but during the period of the summer. What we have seen is a 
basic assault on working families. We have seen the assault on the 
Davis-Bacon program. Why do Republicans want to attack the Davis-Bacon 
program? The average income of the Davis-Bacon worker is $26,000 a 
year--$26,000 a year for hard work. Why are we denying those men and 
women who are in the second or third most dangerous occupation, outside 
of mining and perhaps logging, that work on Federal building projects, 
the third most dangerous work, the opportunity to be able to gain a 
decent wage of $26,000?
  Next came their opposition to increasing the minimum wage. 
Republicans and Democrats alike have fought for increases in the past. 
This is not a partisan issue. President Bush signed the last minimum 
wage increase of 90 cents. Nonetheless, we have resistance to help men 
and women prepared to work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year to be able 
to have a livable wage so they are not in poverty. We heard a great 
deal about the importance of work in the welfare debate. Here are men 
and women who want to be off welfare, want to work, being denied the 
opportunity to have a livable wage. That is No. 2.
  No. 3. In the budget, the cutting back of the earned-income tax 
credit. Who does that affect? Needy workers below $26,000, to help and 
assist them when they saw the increase in the cost of Social Security 
and expanded family obligations so that they could be able to provide 
for their children--a worthwhile program. And yet we find our 
Republican friends trying to squeeze that back, effectively squeeze it 
so that working families with less than $26,000 are going to have to 
pay more in taxes. A tax increase on the working poor.
  And what do we have yesterday over in the House? We have the 
Republican proposal to open up all the pensions again, $40 billion of 
retirees' pension money that will be available to corporate America. We 
saw what happened in the 1980's when we had the plundering of the 
pensions. Those pensions belong to workers, not to corporate raiders. 
Those pensions have been paid in and paid in as a result of sacrificing 
increases in wages and health benefits. And now under the Republican 
proposal, we would permit the corporate raiders to reach in there for 
$40 billion to increase their salaries, their bonuses and their stock 
options.
  This is a continuing effort of assault on the working families of 
America. And beyond that, Mr. President, is the slashing of the various 
training programs for workers that have been displaced as a result of 
defense downsizing, of the mergers that have taken place. We saw just 
the other day the merging between the Chemical Bank and the Chase Bank, 
and Wall Street go euphoric in terms of that merger. Twelve thousand 
Americans are laid off. Who is going to speak for them?
  I yield myself the last minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thought I yielded myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy may have 1 minute of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Who is going to speak for those kids? You cannot pick up a newspaper 
today without finding massive layoffs, not just of needy blue collar 
workers, but also the white collar workers and men and women who have 
worked in these companies and corporations for years. We have to speak 
for them.
  Mr. President, this is just one additional part of that puzzle. This 
appropriations bill should be stripped of the provisions that are 
basically an attack and assault on the President's statutory and 
constitutional rights that have been upheld in the Federal courts. And 
then we should get about the debate on the substance of the 
appropriations issue.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 24 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask my Republican colleagues who may be 
listening to come to the floor if they wish to speak in support of the 
motion to proceed.
  The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has asked for 5 minutes. I 
yield him 5 minutes at this time, with the request to my colleagues on 
the Republican side to come to the floor if they wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania very much.
  Mr. President, I voted ``no'' on the motion to proceed to 
consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations.
  A number of problems in this measure have been highlighted in the 
debate, but I would like to focus on one 

[[Page S 14454]]
particular provision, the attempt to override the President's Executive 
order banning the use of permanent replacements for striking workers 
employed by Federal contractors.
  We had a long debate about this a few months ago, and I had a chance 
the speak at length. So I will be brief today. But this is an issue 
that I feel very strongly about, and I fully support President 
Clinton's efforts in this area to halt the erosion of workers' rights.
  I had a chance to work on this issue for many years when I was in the 
Wisconsin State Senate and tried to pass a Wisconsin law on this issue. 
But throughout the process it was very clear that what had happened in 
the early 1980's with the PATCO strike led to an avalanche, really, of 
the use of permanent replacement workers across this country in a way 
that had never happened before. It has had serious consequences for 
working people throughout Wisconsin and across the country.
  Mr. President, earlier this month, just a few weeks ago, I had the 
painful experience of meeting with workers who had just gone on strike 
against a large employer in a rural Wisconsin community. These workers 
came to one of the listening sessions or town meetings that I hold 
every year in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties.
  I would like to read, to highlight this issue, from a statement of 
James Newell, the principal officer for the Teamsters Union, on this 
issue. I can think of no more eloquent testimonial than the words of 
Mr. Newell that day, in a small townhall in Wisconsin, just a couple of 
weeks ago.
  He said:

       Sir, you have entered into a community today that has been 
     infected with a disease that has become much too prevalent in 
     American society over the past few years. Just a few blocks 
     from here, there are more than 100 hard-working men and women 
     engaged in a struggle with this community's largest 
     industrial employer. The flashpoint of this firestorm was not 
     the traditional economic issues of higher wages and 
     benefits--although Lord knows they are desperately needed 
     here and will be at issue before this battle is over.

  He continued to say:

       This controversy was ignited by issues which transcend 
     price tags; the issues of fairness, safety, job security, and 
     basic human rights to self-respect and dignity on the 
     workshop floor.

  Mr. President, Mr. Newell continued by describing what is happening 
all too often across this country in the use of strike breakers.

       Three (3) years ago, this community faced a major loss of 
     employment at this facility brought on by its intended 
     closure by a national conglomerate which owned and operated 
     it at that time.

      The work force gave tremendous concessions, both in 
     economics as well as job security provisions, to allow 
     present ownership to acquire and build the business and to 
     preserve those jobs in the Owen community. Now, after we 
     have done our part and contributed to the new company's 
     success, we are told that some of our basic requests for a 
     return of rights previously given up is somehow un-
     American in light of global competition and the employer's 
     interest in maximizing profits.

  Mr. Newell described in his statement about the events that followed. 
He testified that since the confrontation began,

       We have not been greeted by any desire from this employer 
     to return to the bargaining table and work out these 
     disputes, but rather by the employer's unilateral 
     cancellation of two (2) scheduled bargaining sessions this 
     past week and the veiled threat of canceling a third (3rd) 
     session scheduled for the coming weeks. We have seen our lost 
     wages being utilized to pay for an unnecessary insulting 
     security guard force. We have witnessed safety shortcuts 
     being implemented at the potential peril of those few who are 
     still working in the plant. And, perhaps most outrageous of 
     all, we have witnessed this employer stoop to the level of 
     enticing high school students--

  High school students--

     to cross the picket line and perform the work. We wonder what 
     kind of society we have evolved into when schoolchildren can 
     become pawns to break labor disputes.

  Mr. President, Mr. Newell concluded with an observation about what is 
happening across America today. He said:

       What is happening in this community today is a microcosm of 
     what has been slowly eating away at the American fabric for 
     years . . . Progress and efficiency cannot be had at the 
     expense of basic human dignity.

  Over the past few days, the workers became aware that plans were 
being made by the company to bring on permanent replacement workers. 
Those hired during the strike are going to be considered permanent. The 
strike ended. There is little doubt that the threat of hiring permanent 
replacement workers shifts the balance at the bargaining table. That is 
an unfair leverage that was imposed upon this community. That is not 
what bargaining is supposed to be about. When one party is given a tool 
like this, there is little realistic hope that a fair result will 
ensue.
  It may mean higher profits today, but in the long run, it is a bad 
result for a community, for America's work force and for our entire 
country. America's workers, Mr. President, should not be treated like 
disposable goods.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes 
39 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. NICKLES. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote to proceed to this 
appropriations bill. I cannot recall--and it may be that we have done 
it--somebody objecting to a motion to proceed to an appropriations 
bill. Maybe a couple years ago in dealing with an Interior bill, which 
I was actually a manager of, that had on it an issue on grazing, and 
there was some legislation on that bill. Maybe that happened and we 
wrestled with it for a couple of days. But I do not recall anyone 
objecting to proceeding to the bill, though.
  I have heard a couple colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
saying they had problems with one of the provisions in the bill 
relating to prohibiting President Clinton's Executive order dealing 
with striker replacements. If they do not like that language, if we 
proceed to the bill, they have the opportunity to amend it and strike 
that language if they have the votes. That is fine.
  That is the way we usually handle appropriations bills. There are 
some things in this appropriations bill I do not agree with and on 
which I plan on having an amendment. Not everything done in committee I 
agree with. So I understand that some people on that side of the aisle 
are not happy with the bill or want to see some changes, some 
amendments. Other people on this side, would like to see some changes. 
Maybe we can come to an agreement on the number of amendments and 
hopefully pass this bill. We happen to be running out of time. We are 
supposed to have all appropriations bills done by the end of this 
month. We lack two. This is one of them.
  Let us find out where the votes are concerning this one provision 
dealing with the President's Executive order. The House put in language 
that denies funding to implement the President's Executive order, which 
prohibits companies from hiring permanent replacement workers during 
strikes. The Senate kept that language in. I happen to agree with that 
language. Somebody might say, why is that language necessary? Well, the 
President, by Executive order, is trying to pass legislation. I really 
disagree with that. I disagree with the substance of the legislation, 
and I also disagree with Executive orders that try to legislate.
  In this case, there was legislation introduced that was very high on 
President Clinton's priority list. The Democrats controlled Congress 
for the first 2 years of his administration. They introduced 
legislation that would state basically that companies could not hire 
permanent replacement workers during a strike. They did not have the 
votes. They were not able to pass that legislation.
  So after the change in the control of Congress, President Clinton 
said, well, I will bypass Congress and do it by Executive order. 
Basically, it states that if any company or any branch of any company 
does any contracting with the Federal Government, therefore, they will 
be denied access to Government contracts if they hire permanent 
replacement workers during a strike. That is clearly legislation.
  Again, I hope that our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
will 

[[Page S 14455]]
take exception to the executive branch if they are legislating. The 
Constitution, in article I, says Congress shall pass ``all'' laws. It 
does not say ``some'' laws; it says ``all'' laws. It does not say that 
if the President cannot get his legislative program through Congress, 
he can do it by Executive order. That is exactly what this President is 
trying to do.
  He is trying to legislate. I hope and think that people from the 
legislative branch would take exception to that--even if they agree or 
disagree with the substance of his Executive order or his legislation 
that he is trying to enact through Executive order.
  So, again, I understand and respect that we have differences of views 
on this legislation. That is fine. I might say it is not totally 
partisan on this one issue, but we should vote on it. We should 
legislate on it. If colleagues wanted to pass a prohibition, they 
should introduce legislation and let Congress work its will. We have 
the right to pass this prohibition. For Members to say we are not going 
to take up the Labor-HHS appropriations bill because it has an 
amendment that we do not like--this bill has total funding, I think, of 
$263 billion in budget authority for the Department of Labor, Health 
and Human Services. That is a big bill. To say we want to totally deny 
taking up this bill because we disagree with one funding prohibition, I 
think, is not very mature. I hope that we would not do it.
  Again, I cannot remember Congress doing it. In my opinion, also, it 
is not a responsible way to legislate. Congress should legislate and we 
should enact our will. I should have a chance to offer my amendments on 
some things that I disagree with and find out where the votes are. 
Maybe I will win, and maybe I will lose. I doubt, when you have a bill 
this large, that everybody is going agree with everything. So we should 
work our will. We should have a chance to amend this bill, and we 
should finish this and all appropriations bills by the end of this 
month. I think we are being somewhat irresponsible if we do not.
  I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side, all of whom voted 
against the motion to proceed, to allow us to proceed to this bill and 
have Congress work its will and hopefully pass this and the Commerce, 
State, Justice bill before we adjourn this month.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my hope that we would proceed 
to consider this bill. It is, obviously, a party line matter at this 
point.
  As I had said earlier, when the bill came out of the subcommittee, we 
struck all of the legislative provisions, because in my view, and the 
view of the members of the subcommittee, we ought not to take up 
legislation on the appropriations bill. That was the policy of the 
Appropriations Committee as a general rule on all matters endorsed by 
our distinguished chairman, Senator Hatfield. But it is my hope that we 
will take up the bill.
  As a practical matter, it is difficult to proceed to finish this bill 
before the end of the fiscal year. Certainly, we could not have a 
conference even if we could finish it on the Senate floor, if this 
subject is going to be comprehended within a continuing resolution.
  I invite my colleagues on the Republican side, who wish to come to 
the floor to speak in favor of the motion, to do so.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I have a minute?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield a minute to my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the membership understands what 
is at stake. As the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, there was a 
stripping away of all the other add-ons onto the appropriations, with 
the exception of one. There was a refusal to strip that aside. That 
particular amendment was targeted on the constitutional authority of 
the President of the United States. And that issue had been resolved in 
the courts of this country in support of the President of the United 
States.
  So it does seem to me that that issue should be stripped off before 
we get back into the debate on the other priorities. I thank the 
Senator for yielding. I join with others in saying that I think Senator 
Specter and Senator Harkin did as well as could possibly been hoped for 
in terms of trying to take scarce resources and focus them on 
education. But I do think that it would be appropriate to have a 
reexamination of where we are as a nation in the course of the 
consideration of the appropriations to underscore the fact that this 
provides billions of dollars less in terms of investing in young people 
in this country at a time when their needs are as great as they are.
  I thank the Senator for the opportunity. I hope that the motion to 
proceed will not be accepted and that the ``no'' vote will carry.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest one correction to what the 
Senator from Massachusetts said, and that is, that all of the 
legislative proposals were stripped by the subcommittee. When they got 
to full committee there was a vote 14-12 to reinsert this with respect 
to the striker replacement.
  It was my hope we would bring the bill to the floor solely in the 
context of an appropriations bill.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his statements about doing 
the best we could. It is my hope this bill will yet come up. There are 
many issues that need to be debated and voted on, a lot of differing 
views in this body.
  There are some who plan to offer amendments to try to increase 
funding for job training--or for education--which I certainly would 
like to see, if there is any way we could do it.
  At some point these matters will come to the floor, if not on this 
motion to proceed. It is my hope we will support the motion to proceed 
and go ahead with this very important bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the balance of the time to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to clarify one thing that my 
colleague from Massachusetts just mentioned; he said the courts have 
upheld the President in this matter.
  I might mention that the district court upheld the ruling but it is 
pending still before the court of appeals, and recognizing this case 
was unprecedented, the district court judge suspended implementation of 
the Executive order until the court of appeals acts. The courts have 
not made a final decision.
  Many think this is clearly legislation by Executive order, and the 
President exceeded that. The President has taken several actions by 
Executive order. This is one. It is not the only one that is really 
legislation that many feel very strongly about.
  We should vote and we cannot vote unless we move to proceed to the 
Labor-HHS bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:20 
having arrived, the Senate will now vote on a motion to proceed on H.R. 
2127.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 472 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg 

[[Page S 14456]]

     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, and the nays 
are 46. Pursuant to the previous order, 60 Senators not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________