[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3396-S3397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ALEXIS HERMAN TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again I am deeply disturbed that 
Alexis Herman's confirmation to be Secretary of Labor has been held up. 
Miss Herman is being subjected to a level of scrutiny that is not 
deserving of her nor this institution. Miss Herman is being held 
hostage for political reasons.
  What is the real reason for the delay? Well, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle say it is because of an Executive order that 
would encourage Federal agencies to consider the use of something 
called ``project labor agreements'' on any construction contract sent 
out for bid. How ironic that it is my colleagues that would hold up the 
nomination of the next Secretary of Labor because of an Executive order 
that asks contractors and subcontractors who bid on a Federal project 
to consider paying union wages, provide union-scale benefits, and use 
union hiring halls for labor--projects that are financed with taxpayers 
dollars.

  This order does not require the contractor to sign a collective 
bargaining agreement. It just makes sure that we help our workers 
maintain a decent wage and living standard. My Republican colleagues 
would hold up the nomination of the Secretary of Labor, whose 
responsibility it is to enforce our Nation's labor laws, because we 
want to ensure that contractors working on Federal projects abide by 
Federal laws.
  I want the nomination of Alexis Herman and the debate about her to 
focus on her qualifications and her competency to lead the Department 
of Labor. This should not be a debate on President Clinton's Executive 
order. I call upon the leadership of the other side of the aisle to let 
this nomination go forward, let there be debate on the Senate floor 
about Miss Herman's competency. Is she a coalition builder? Can she 
provide leadership? And does she provide a framework for the future? 
That is what the debate should be all about.
  My constituents are deeply concerned that Miss Herman, who brings so 
many credentials and competency, has been waiting month after month, 
subjected to character assassination, leaks in the press that distort 
her record, and now, just when she thought she was going to come to the 
Senate floor, not have that opportunity because some people are cranky 
about an Executive order issued by President Clinton. Be cranky with 
President Clinton. Do not be cranky with Alexis Herman or hold up her 
nomination.
  We cannot have this held up because of crankpots. I know Alexis 
Herman and I have known her for 20 years, when she worked in the Carter 
administration and I was a Congresswoman. Alexis Herman comes to us 
having graduated from a Catholic college in New Orleans, Xavier 
University. She was a social worker, working at Catholic Charities in 
foster care. Then she wanted to make sure she prevented family 
breakups, and she began working in job training and placement. In 1974, 
she headed up a black woman's employment program that then, because of 
its innovation and her management skill, went to nine other cities.
  Miss Herman brings to us a background where, at age 27, she was 
running a 10-city program to help minority women break into the work 
force. Is that not a Secretary of Labor we want to move people from 
welfare to work? At 29, she was the youngest person ever named to head 
the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor. Following that first 
Government service, she then went on to run her own business and help 
manage the 1992 Democratic convention. She is a coalition builder. 
Throughout her career, she has worked with parties on all sides to find 
good solutions. If you go back and talk with the people who have worked 
for her over the years, advocacy groups believe she will speak up for 
those who are left out and left behind.
  The community that provides the jobs, the business community, feels 
that she is a coalition builder and helps them solve issues from 
regulatory reform to how to do outreach in the minority communities.
  She will bring to the Labor Department a lifelong commitment to 
making sure that we create an opportunity ladder in this century. She 
has said publicly and to me privately that she wants to accept the 
challenge of moving people from welfare to work in a new era of time 
limit on welfare. She wants enhanced health and pension security for 
working people. She wants to ensure a safe and equal opportunity 
workplace, and she wants to work with the President in this on 
extending the lifelong education and training opportunities for our 
citizens.
  Mr. President, we need a Secretary of Labor. We need someone who is a 
leader, who is effective, and who has a vision for the future. I really 
encourage that the nomination of Alexis Herman be brought up after we 
finish our discussion on the chemical weapons treaty.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want just to commend the Senator from 
Maryland for an excellent presentation and one which I hope our friends 
and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would hear and heed. I 
see my good friend from Nevada on the floor, who will address the 
Senate in a few moments as well about the labor nominee.
  I want to just underscore two different items, Mr. President. First, 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee had the opportunity to go 
through the hearings. These were extensive background hearings on the 
qualifications of Ms. Herman. I will have an opportunity, when the 
Senate finally comes to consider the nomination, to review the record 
on her background and experience, but Senator Mikulski has done so this 
afternoon in a very, very thorough way. This is really an extraordinary 
individual.
  In spite of many allegations and charges which have been responded 
to, we are in a situation where the one Cabinet office which is there 
to hold the spokesperson for working families is vacant--vacant--and 
the nomination is being held hostage because of a difference with the 
President of the United States signing an Executive Order regarding 
project labor agreements, or what they call PLA's. Those are 
arrangements and agreements that can be done voluntarily within States, 
that more often than not result in the saving of taxpayers' money and 
the reduction of accidents on the construction site. PLA's also allow 
for the relationships between workers and management to be worked out 
in a very constructive and positive way to make sure we have ontime 
results and achieve high quality outcomes.
  PLA's have been done under Republican Governors and Democratic 
Governors, in New York, New Jersey, and Nevada, among others. Now the 
President of the United States wishes to exercise his power to issue an 
Executive order. That is differed with by Members. But they have the 
right to go into court and challenge that at a later time.
  The point that Senator Mikulski, Senator Reid, others, and I will 
make is that if our Republican friends have a difference with the 
President on the issue of the PLA's, why hold up Alexis Herman, who is 
the spokesperson for working families in this country, from being able 
to assume the responsibilities of that particular position?
  It is a very important position. We have several pieces of 
legislation that are on the calendar which relate to the conditions of 
working families in this country, including the so-called TEAM Act, the 
so-called comptime bill, and others, which we will have an opportunity 
to debate at some time. These are pieces of legislation that will have 
a direct impact on working conditions and wages of working families. 
Still, we do not have a Secretary of Labor in place, who will speak for 
workers, and that is because there is a small group of Senators who are 
effectively holding her hostage.
  We understand today is the Passover holiday, which is a period of 
celebration and a very special time of contemplation and thought and 
prayer by many Americans, and therefore we are not doing the Senate's 
business, and we do not ask the Senate to consider the

[[Page S3397]]

nomination today. We understand tomorrow we are considering the 
chemical weapons treaty. That is extremely important.
  Mr. President, this issue was allegedly agreed to be considered on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate last week. But Members on the other side 
of the aise reneged on that agreement, so that we were unable to come 
to completion on this nomination. Now, Mr. President, we are calling on 
the leadership on the other side to give us an opportunity to have 
Senate consideration of this nominee and to stop this attempt to play 
hostage with the President's nominee. She is someone who was reported 
out favorably by all the members of the committee.
  It is time to end these kinds of games. The American people want us 
to find ways of working together, not to be blocking the consideration 
of a nominee who has the support of Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Mr. President, I hope at the time that we are back into full session, 
that we will be able to set a time in the next very few days, on the 
completion, perhaps, of the chemical weapons convention, or perhaps 
even during the consideration of that there can be time found for a 
short discussion of the merits of this nominee. She is an outstanding 
nominee. She will perform her work well. It is wrong to hold up the 
President's nominee. The President, after all, won the election. When 
you win the election, you have the time-honored privilege of selecting 
your own advisers. There is one standard that is used for the 
President's advisers who come and go at the time the President is 
elected. There is a different set of criteria when we talk about those 
who have more extended terms, such as the Federal Reserve Board and 
some of the other agencies; those continue at the time of a particular 
administration and can lapse on to another administration. We have even 
a higher standard when we are talking about lifetime appointments, like 
Federal district judges and circuit court judges, and the highest 
standard for the Supreme Court. That is something we all understand.

  But we are at the point now where the President, who won the 
election, has indicated that he wants Alexis Herman as his adviser on 
labor for the country's working families. It is wrong to continue to 
hold her hostage, and I hope we move ahead with consideration of her 
nomination.
  Mr. President, the Republican leadership is holding the nomination of 
Alexis Herman hostage to an unrelated policy dispute. Ms. Herman was 
reported out of the Labor Committee unanimously 2 weeks ago. 
Republicans and Democrats alike voted in her favor.
  The Republican leadership had scheduled a floor vote on her 
confirmation last week, but in an abrupt about-face they reneged on 
that commitment. The reason was the leadership's disagreement with a 
proposed Executive order under consideration within the administration.
  That order would direct Federal agencies to consider--not mandate--
the use of so-called project labor agreements on Federal construction 
projects.
  Such agreements have been used on large-scale construction projects, 
in the public and private sectors, for decades. Examples of Federal 
projects built under PLA's include the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1930's; 
atomic energy plants in the 1940's; Cape Kennedy in the 1960's; and 
today, on the Boston Harbor cleanup. Such agreements are also being 
used in the present decommissioning and decontamination of nuclear 
facilities at Oak Ridge, TN; Savannah River, SC; Fernald, OH; Hanford, 
WA; Idaho National Engineering Labs, ID; and Lawrence Livermore, CA, 
among others.
  In the private sector, too, PLA's have been used on many projects 
across the Nation, including the construction of Disney World in 
Florida, the Toyota plant in Georgetown, KY, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System in Alaska, and the Saturn auto plan in Tennessee.
  State governments use PLA's as well. Governor Pataki of New York 
issued an Executive order strikingly similar to the Clinton proposal in 
January 1997. The Nevada and New Jersey Governors recently issued 
similar orders. State projects constructed under PLA's include the 
Boston Harbor cleanup; modifications to the Tappan Zee Bridge in New 
York; the Southern Nevada Water System improvements project outside Las 
Vegas; and many others.
  What PLA's do is require contractors to comply with the terms of 
labor agreements for the duration of the project. The advantages of 
such PLA's are many. Projects are more often completed on time, because 
a skilled labor supply is always available. There are fewer cost 
overruns, because workplace disputes are resolved through grievance-
arbitration procedures, instead of by strikes or lockouts, which cost 
valuable work time for employers and employees alike. Projects built 
under PLA's have lower accident rates, because contractors can hire 
highly skilled and trained employees. Productivity increases as well, 
because of the higher skill level of workers.
  Opponents of PLA's claim that such agreement unfairly deny contracts 
and jobs to nonunion firms and individuals. This is simply not true.
  Nonunion contractors can and do bid on jobs where PLA's are in 
effect. For example, in the Boston Harbor project, fully 40 percent of 
the subcontractors--over 100 firms--are nonunion. Similarly, on the 
Idaho National Engineering Labs PLA with the Department of Energy, 30 
percent of the subcontractors were nonunion.
  Similarly, nonunion workers can and do work on sites where PLAs are 
in place. Unions are required by law to refer nonmembers to jobs on the 
same basis as union members. The NLRB vigorously enforces this 
provision of the labor laws, and unions know how to and do comply. 
Furthermore, in the 21 so-called ``right-to-work'' States, no worker 
can ever be required to give financial support to a union. In the other 
29 States, if the particular contract provides it, workers can be 
required to pay a fee to the union while workers are employed on the 
job site. However, no employee can ever be forced to join the union, or 
to pay for union activities that are not related to collective 
bargaining.
  PLA's thus are beneficial to project owners and workers alike. 
Further, it's clear that the President has the authority to issue an 
Executive order dealing with Federal procurement practices. President 
Bush did just that, when, in October 1992, he issued an Executive order 
forbidding Federal agencies to require PLA's on Federal construction 
projects. Republican attacks on President Clinton's power to issue an 
order directing the consideration of such agreements thus are 
disingenuous at best.
  It's particularly unconscionable to hold up Alexis Herman's 
nomination on this basis. The country's working families deserve a 
representative, and the Republicans know it. It's time for the 
political extortion to stop, and for the Republicans to give up their 
hostage. Free Alexis Herman, and free her now.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG. Without yielding the floor, I will yield.
  Mr. REID. I understand that. I ask the Parliamentarian this. I 
thought from 12 until 1 o'clock was under the control of the Democratic 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business, is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The period is for morning business until the 
hour of 2 o'clock, with the hour from 12 to 1 reserved for the 
Democratic leader and the hour from 1 to 2 reserved for the Senator 
from Georgia.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business and to the extent that 
it affects the time of the Democratic leader, that that time be added 
to his time at the end of the hour, as originally scheduled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________