[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10574-S10575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 3117. A bill to extend the cooling off period in the labor dispute 
between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International 
Longshore and Warehouse Union; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, last year our Nation's economy was briefly 
held hostage by an attack on American soil. We have overcome that 
challenge and are now charging ahead in the right direction.
  It is this kind of American resolve that has built this Nation into 
the thriving world power it is today.
  However, recent developments on the West Coast have created a 
different kind of crisis but no less damaging to America's economy.
  On Sunday, September 29, the Pacific Maritime Association, PMA, 
locked out workers in twenty-nine West Coast ports for more than a week 
in response to a reported work-slow down by members of the 
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, ILWU.
  Last week, President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act that ended the 
lock out allowing workers to go back to work and negotiators to work 
through these problems over the course of an 80-day cooling-off period.
  I applaud the President's action. However, I am concerned about 
conflicting messages being sent by the ILWU and the PMA. More 
importantly, I am concerned about the lack of interest either party, 
management or labor, has regarding the economic fate of America's 
workers and America's agricultural economy.
  The economic impact of this labor dispute has temporarily crippled 
our Nation's economy. This dispute has threatened America's national 
health and safety. In many economic sectors, jobs were lost, workers 
were sent home and Americans will temporarily pay higher prices for 
consumer goods.
  However, once the President made his intention known to invoke Taft-
Hartley, the AFL-CIO issued an Oct. 7 press release charging the 
President's action: ``preempts the collective bargaining process and 
undermines the rights of workers with union representation to negotiate 
on equal footing with their employers''.
  Neither side in a collective bargaining negotiating process should be 
able to leverage the nation's economy in an attempt to control the 
debate. Doing so is a very selfish act. And criticizing the President 
for his action is a very shortsighted approach to these negotiations.
  The ILWU claims they want to go back to work. Due to the only 
recourse available on behalf of the American economy, they are, today, 
back at work.
  I question the AFL-CIO's interest in the American economy. Does the 
AFL-CIO not recognize the impact this labor disruption has on the 
nation's economy? At stake are thousands of jobs and millions of 
dollars in commerce. Let me clarify that impact and put a Montana stamp 
on it.
  Exports are critical to the American economy. American exporters ship 
their products overseas, including agricultural exports such as wheat, 
corn, soybeans, and pork products, and manufactured goods of all shapes 
and sizes.
  West Coast ports are crucial to U.S. trade, handling over $300 
billion in trade each year. These ports handle more than half of 
all containerized imports and exports.

  West Coast ports handle 25 percent of all U.S. grain exports, 40 
percent of all wheat, 14 percent of all corn, and seven percent of all 
soybeans exports.
  Sixty-five percent of all U.S. containerized food trade moved through 
these ports in 2001. During the lockout, the dispute was estimated to 
have cost the America's economy $2 billion a day.
  Trade with Asia is particularly affected. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong 
Kong, China, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, India, and Malaysia 
are the top 10 destinations for containerized U.S. agriculture 
products. Together, these nations receive 85 percent of all 
agricultural shipments from the West Coast.
  If these countries cannot count on U.S. exports, they will turn to 
our competitors. Our farmers and ranchers spend precious resources on 
market development activities. It's very frustrating to lose shares of 
those markets solely because a small group of labor and management 
representatives cannot agree on a resolution.
  Again, I applaud President Bush's decision last week. I encouraged 
his action and stand by him now. Invoking Taft-Hartley was the only 
short-term remedy for the dispute that temporarily closed the West 
Coast ports.
  Furthermore, during the cooling off period, I urge the President to 
use his powers to judicially enforce productivity is not purposely 
restricted.
  I do not stand here today in support of the PMA's position, nor do I 
stand here today in support of the ILWU's position. Rather, I stand 
here today in support of the Nation's economy, the American worker, the 
Montana farmer, the retailer, the food distributor, the truck and rail 
operators, the consumer, and every other American that is being harmed 
by this action.
  I believe collective bargaining can and has worked more often than 
not. However, it is arrogant for any management or labor group to 
paralyze commerce in our nation.
  Reopening the ports, even if only for 80 days, will benefit the 
economy. The parties will be given time to settle the dispute. 
Manufacturers and retailers will be given additional time to adjust and 
prepare.
  Invoking Taft-Hartley was the right thing to do. It was the 
appropriate action to take to protect our economy, to protect American 
workers, to ensure we have a healthy and happy holiday season.
  The 80-day cooling-off period will allow both parties to re-evaluate 
their respective positions. Furthermore, it will give the ports an 
opportunity to clear up a mounting backlog that has

[[Page S10575]]

paralyzed much of our West Coast export and import commerce. And 
finally, it will allow the ILWU workers to go back to work earning a 
living for their families.
  Today, I would like to introduce a bill that would extend the 
cooling-off period thirty days until the end of January. At present the 
80 day cooling off period will end between Christmas Day and New Years 
Day.
  This is a move that will not impact the negotiations between the two 
parties. However, it will allow the cooling-off period to end at the 
end of January rather than the end of December and between Christmas 
and New Years.
  Extending the deadline beyond the Holiday season will help to unsnarl 
the mess created by this dispute; give the ports another thirty days to 
clear up the backlog. Finally, it will give Congress and the American 
people an ability to approach the end of this cooling-off period fully 
aware of the importance of this negotiation and uninterrupted by the 
holiday season.
  If negotiators are able to work out a resolution, we have lost 
nothing. However, if in the case, there is no resolution by the end of 
the cooling-off period, this extension could save thousands of American 
jobs and millions of dollars in economic losses.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.
                                 ______