Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this bill marks a milestone for Wisconsin by rescinding funds for Project ELF, a Navy communications system located in Clam Lake, WI, and Republic, MI. This is one cut that the local congressional delegation will not oppose. In fact, I think most of us welcome it. In the last two Congresses. I have introduced legislation to terminate Project ELF. Senator Kohl has joined me in those efforts, as well as in letters to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, and the relevant congressional committees urging ELF's termination. Congressman David Obey has been a consistent opponent of Project ELF throughout his congressional tenure, and indeed is responsible for keeping down the initial size of the program. Representatives from nearby areas have also been helpful in our quest. I am pleased that the Senate will take the first step, the first real action, toward finally terminating this outdated and effective program. The concept of extremely low frequency communications emerged when submarines started going so far beneath the surface ordinary radios could not reach them. In 1968, the Pentagon proposed the first version of ELF communications in Project Sanguine. It was to be 6,200 miles of cable buried underground, along with 100 ELF transmitter towers spread out over 40 percent of northern Wisconsin. It had to be built in Wisconsin because of unique granite bedrock which would not interfere with ELF signals. Project Sanguine was supposed to communicate with Trident submarines, and was designed to survive a nuclear attack. When residents became aware of it, the project was scuttled. In 1975, Project Sanguine came back as Project Seafarer. Seafarer was not supposed to have nuclear survivability, but would have above-ground transmitters with underground cables. As Project Seafarer, though, ELF communications lost their wartime efficacy. In fact, an ad hoc ELF review group of the Secretary of Defense advised that a small ELF system would be of marginal utility and was not credible as an ultimate ELF system. However, it recommended that building a small ELF was better than building no ELF at all because the modified version would provide a basis for future system growth if ELF requirements later increased. This was a typical bureaucratic foot in the door program. Again, due to public concern and budget pressures, President Carter terminated Seafarer in 1978 and directed further studies on how to proceed with ELF. Congressman Obey was successful in fencing off funds in fiscal year 1979 until the President certified that ELF was in the national interest and that it had found a place to be built. There was yet another scaled-down ELF system called Austere ELF that had been proposed in 1977. It would have been a single transmitter located at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base in Michigan. Once it began development, Austere ELF was again in trouble with resident resistance and budget constraints. After a few years of misguided attempts and false starts, the Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, recommended to the Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, that the ELF communication system be shelved. Secretary Lehman was overruled, though, and the Reagan administration ordered the development of a scaled down system called Project ELF in 1981. In its present scaled down version, ELF consists of 28 miles of cable at Clam Lake and 56 miles of cable at Republic. ELF was initially ordered operational in 1985, and was fully functional by 1987. Scaled down Project ELF was supposed to cost $230 million for development and construction. However, in an October 1993 letter to Senator Nunn, the Pentagon said it had invested nearly $600 million in ELF. In a January 1994 report on ELF, the Navy said that ELF costs approximately $15 to $16 million a year in operating costs. If ELF served a strategic purpose, this would not be a significant investment. But Project ELF is ineffective and at best obsolete. For that reason, it is millions of dollars which can find a better use. Throughout its history, ELF has never found a mission fit for its times. The Navy officially states that ELF is simply a communications system receive a message; in effect, ELF is a bell ringer. If this was ever the true purpose, ELF is a faulty mechanism for that. First, the bell ringer is supposed to protect the Tridents from detection by permitting them to surface on the call of a signal that they had a longer message awaiting them. Yet if they have to rise to the surface to receive their message, then they are at risk of detection before executing any order ELF would tell them to retrieve. ELF itself cannot execute an order. Second, ELF has no reliable second strike or counterforce communication capability in any instance. It also cannot be counted on to communicate with a submarine during a crisis since its large size makes it extremely susceptible to conventional or nuclear attack. Thus, it is not dependable retaliatory action. Further, if ELF were to be destroyed during attack, then subs would be required to use their antennae at or near the surface, and receive their messages through LF/VLF. But in the case of a crisis, submarines should be brought closer to the surface anyway, not only for better communications, but also because missiles cannot be launched from such depths as ELF reaches. Finally, ELF is one-way communications system, so submarines cannot send messages back. Thus, Project ELF's utility appears only to be in a pre-war disposition, and only for one purpose: to serve only as a triggering signal for a first-strike launch. This is a capability we are dismantling. So, ELF's mere presence is far more provocative than its utility warrants. I should also mention that ELF's environmental impact may be quite damaging. Though no studies have conclusively found that ELF radiowaves are dangerous to residents in outlying areas, the research that has been done does little to comfort those living near Project ELF. A 1992 Swedish study found that children living near relatively weak magnetic waves such as those emanating from ELF are four times more likely to develop leukemia. I certainly understand any fears Wisconsin residents must have. In fact, in 1984, a U.S. District court, ruling on State of Wisconsin versus Weinberger, order Project ELF to be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to ELF's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. An appeals court, though, threw out the ruling arguing that the national security threat from the Soviets at the time was more important. Clearly, the premise of that ruling is no longer valid given the collapse of the U.S.S.R. For all these reasons, I am pleased that after trying to justify ELF's mission in the post-cold war world, the Navy is finally letting it go. Project ELF never made U.S. submarines invulnerable, and it doesn't make them invulnerable today. ELF is not worth any money because it doesn't have a purpose. If it is a first-strike weapon, then it is destabilizing and threatening, which hardly increases our security. If it is merely a communication system, it is inadequate. A weapon or communications device designed to keep deeply submerged submarines submerged is no longer necessary. ELF was built for war, not peace. It is not guarding against any capable enemy now, but is sucking up money that could be. I am pleased that the committee has recognized this, and recommended its termination in this rescission bill. I hope we will hold the cut in conference, and that, finally, this weapon, which has long been in search of a mission, is terminated. amendment no. 336

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we in Congress continue to define our role in helping promote United States exports in this fiercely competitive international environment, I rise today to introduce two measures dealing with a more surreptitious aspect of foreign trade which is hurting U.S. companies: bribery and corruption by our foreign competitors. This is a subject I became interested in last session when I learned of a rather outrageous practice in the world of offsets which involved a kickback from one U.S. company to another to facilitate the purchase of foreign goods. In that case, a U.S. defense corporation offered an American civilian contractor a sizable amount of money if that company would choose a foreign bidder over an American bidder so that the defense contractor could earn credit against its offset agreement for a weapons sale a few years earlier. After researching the law on this, I learned that cash payments between domestic concerns--or what many called outright bribes--were not outlawed in offset deals. I authored legislation, which was enacted in Public Law 103-236, to close the loophole in the law, and to outlaw kickback payments in the conduct of offsets. My legislation today picks up on the same theme. As we seek to expand and develop markets for U.S. exports; as we work to protect every opportunity for fair competition for our companies; as we try to strengthen our small and medium-sized companies, we must address the rampant, global problem of corruption and bribery--both as a good governance issue in our development strategies, and as a competitive issue with industrialized nations who permit bribery of foreign officials. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I expect to work on this problem as we look at foreign aid reform and our trade export promotion programs. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I want to work with our African partners to begin to clean up corruption, and remove this barrier to sound development. In the State of Wisconsin, I have already raised the issue with a State trade promotion commission, the Lucey Commission, as a barrier to free and fair trade for our companies. The commission released its report in January 1995. Indeed, this is an unfair trading practice that must be addressed as U.S. companies gear up for more fervent international export activity. Bribery and corruption in the international arena are subjects which we have not focused on recently, but they have seriously skewed international markets and destabilized the trading environment throughout the world. It is a multifaceted problem, found at many layers of government, throughout the international corporate hierarchy, and in many components of an international business transaction. It infects and distorts the global business environment by inflating costs which must factor in payoffs, and offers prices which, in reflecting the bribe, are in excess of value. It also undermines structural development in transitioning countries, and when it comes to foreign assistance, it can diminish the amount of actual aid delivered as bribes are siphoned off from aid packages. Bribery allows the dishonest to prosper, while the honest pay the price. What's more, it only feeds on itself because a bribed person never stays bribed; he or she will always sell themself to the highest bidder. Most importantly, though, it is an inappropriate way to do business--not only because it is unethical and morally unacceptable, but also because it is inefficient. This was in large part why Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which, I am proud to say, was sponsored by one of Wisconsin's most respected elected officials, Senator William Proxmire. The FCPA was introduced when policymakers became concerned by discoveries that some American businesses maintained secret slush funds for making questionable or illegal payments to foreign government officials for enhanced business opportunities that would adversely affect U.S. foreign policy, harm the image of American democracy abroad, and undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. businesses. By establishing extensive bookkeeping requirements to ensure transparency, and by criminalizing the bribery of foreign officials to obtain or retain business, the FCPA has succeeded at curbing corporate bribery by U.S. firms. These two very important principles do not simply define an American sense of morality in business. They also strengthen America's trade policy, foster faith in American democracy, and protect our interests in requiring an open environment for U.S. investment. Certainly, these are principles and guidelines in everyone's best interest, and as such, are worth promoting worldwide. Though at the time of passage, there was some criticism of the FCPA, it is generally welcomed by the business community today for exactly those reasons. The biggest objection to it is that in some instances it does disadvantage our businesses. Our trade competitors, the other industrialized countries, are allowed--and are usually willing--to pay bribes, and thus have been able to gain an unfair and harmful edge over U.S. businesses. In some countries, like Germany, a bribe in a foreign country is even eligible for a tax write-off. As the international trade market continues to expand, it is time to get this problem under control. Although some talk of amending or repealing the FCPA to help American business in their competitive race, it makes far better business sense to raise the international standards against bribery, and work for universal acceptance of the principles of the FCPA. This would help level the playing field for U.S. businesses and exports, and it is a sound economic move. One of the most effective ways to do that is to work with other governments to implement the same strict regulations and penalties against bribery in international business by which U.S. entities have to live. The Clinton administration has done a laudable job in advancing this agenda as part of its aggressive export strategy. They have consistently raised this issue with other governments, both in public and private. They have pursued it in places such as the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development, and President Clinton raised it at the Summit of the Americas in Miami last year. I know the Ambassador to India, Ambassador Frank Wisner, has identified it as a major issue, and, as India develops its codes for international investment, he has pledged to help ensure a level playing field for United States companies. The administration has also dedicated itself to promoting anticorruption as a basic principle of ``good governance'' within our assistance programs. We took a good first step when the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development passed a strong resolution in May 1994 recommending that member countries, which includes most of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand, ``take effective measures to deter, prevent, and combat bribery of foreign public officials.'' This was a very helpful measure in that all the OECD countries recognized bribery as a destabilizing factor in international trade, and pledged to cooperate on revisions of domestic laws and creation of international agreements. This recommendation has served as a launching pad for international efforts against bribery, and has inspired some other successes in the first year since it was passed. For example, in Ecuador, where the Government has tendered a contract for a $170 million refinery project, bidders are required to sign a no- bribery pledge, and agreed that all third-party commissions would be disclosed in the final contract. In Ukraine, top officials in the Ministry of International Economic Affairs are going to trial for accepting bribes from foreign and Ukranian corporations in exchange for assistance in export licenses. corruption scandals in recent months that have put the issue of bribery on the front pages in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. NATO is investigating its Secretary General for possibly accepting a kickback payment on a helicopter sale when he was Belgium's Economics Minister. In Taiwan, there is an elaborate investigation into a murder of a military officer who may have known of payoff in an arms deal. Even China recently passed a law to restrict undue influence on judges, prosecutors, and police. Bribery and corruption are finally emerging as a topic for public discussion, and, I believe, that as more sunshine is cast on such practices, governments will be under domestic pressure to pass anti-corruption legislation and reform. I am also confident that these movements will lead to scrutiny of how business is conducted overseas. In the meantime, we need to do all we can to ensure that American companies are playing on a level field. Today many small and medium-sized companies depend upon the assistance of our trade promotion agencies. These agencies offer different kinds of financing, but all serve to promote American products for export, and balance out government subsidized programs offered by our trade competitors for their companies. The legislation I am introducing today would guarantee that U.S. export financing would benefit only those companies which do not have the unfair advantage of bribery by prohibiting the Trade and Development Agency, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export- Import Bank, and the Agency for International Development from providing support for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations which have not adopted and enforced an anti-bribery code. While U.S. subsidiaries are subject to the FCPA, their foreign parent companies are not, which may offer them an unfair advantage over wholly U.S.-owned firms. I do not think that U.S. taxpayer funds should be used to support further a corporation which may have the benefit of bribery--particularly if it hurts a wholly-owned American company. My legislation is also intended to give a further incentive to foreign corporations to adopt, on their own, restrictions against bribery. My bill is intended to support the work of both U.S. exporters and U.S. trade promotion agencies in combating this terrible inequity. I am also introducing a resolution that would express the sense of the Senate that bribery is indeed a morally unacceptable business practice, and has destabilizing consequences for the international trade environment. It commends the Clinton administration for their solid efforts; encourages the administration to work toward universal acceptance of the principles set forth in the FCPA; and says the U.S. Government should enter into negotiations in order to establish regulations for international financial institutions and international organizations that prohibit bribery of foreign public officials and impose sanctions for such bribery. By no means can we resolve this issue in 1 year, or simply with a couple of laws. Rather, we need to promote meaningful change in the business culture worldwide, and we need to do that on a multilateral, if not global, basis. Large companies can afford to wait as the problem begins to improve, but our small and medium-sized businesses--the backbone of the U.S. economy--are, in some cases, being fatally wounded now by competitors' bribery. Bribery is nobody's preferred way to do business, yet it is standard play in many parts of the world. We need to begin to address it seriously as a global problem. As recent events have shown, citizens of many other countries--in both the industrialized and developing worlds--feel the same way. I hope my proposals will contribute to the debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first of all say that I am very glad coming down here I have the opportunity to hear the statements of both the Senator from Maine and the junior Senator from Illinois about the issue of affirmative action. It is again encouraging to see the U.S. Senate acting in a bipartisan manner to ask the questions that have to be asked about certain aspects of the so-called Republican contract that we are going to carefully examine the record of affirmative action and other such issues and make sure that in our haste to address some genuine public frustration that we do not destroy some of the things that have been done in the last 20 or 30 years that actually have helped people and made this country a fairer place. So I appreciate that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would just like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts and say he has truly been an inspiration on this issue and during this debate. Not only has he spent a lot of time out here debating the amendment, trying to defeat it, but he has brought passion to the issue that it deserves. It is an issue that should involve passion. It is an issue that should involve condemnation and that should bring forth the human element, which the Senator from Massachusetts has done so well. I would just like to reiterate, this amendment is slowing down the process in the Senate. It is not helping us get our work done; it is hurting us getting our work done. We have no choice but to fight it because we believe it is off the point and it is fundamentally damaging to the very families that we have based our careers on and trying to fight for. So it can be ended right away if this amendment is taken back. We can get back to the Department of Defense bill, but that is not the choice that the majority has made. I am eager to work with the majority on a number of issues, including even some that are in the Republican contract--some. But when it comes to this kind of conduct suggesting that Federal dollars should be used to break unions and break the families that are part of them, we will fight and we will resist such a harsh verdict for the American people. So, again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his kind comments but, more importantly, for his strong leadership on this issue. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the purpose of the Kassebaum amendment is to overturn the President's Executive order saying in effect that Federal That is what it is really about. I think it is only fair to remind everyone that this amendment obviously has nothing to do with the bill before us. What is this amendment about strikebreakers doing on a Department of Defense bill having to do with peacekeeping? None of us are completely pure in this category of offering amendments that are not completely relevant to the core of a bill. The germaneness rule here essentially does not exist in most instances and stands in stark contrast to the rule that I got used to in the Wisconsin State Senate and for 10 years we really did have a germaneness rule. You can actually prevent this kind of confusion. I want to reiterate. Of course, this has happened before. But on this bill it seems extremely off the mark to try to address the issue of strikebreaking and the strikebreaker issue in the context of this bill which I thought was about readiness. I thought the bill was about whether we are going to provide certain funds for our peacekeeping forces. I thought the bill was supposed to be about the identification of certain cuts within the Defense Department that would help pay for some other things that the Defense Department believes needs to be done both in this country and around the world. That is what I thought the bill was about. So do not let anybody be fooling you here. The effort we are making here is not a filibuster again against the bill. Many of us who are objecting to this amendment think the bill has tremendous merit. There is a lot of merit to it. But it is a rather unique way to finance needed peacekeeping funds by finding other things in the Defense Department that maybe can be eliminated. It has a lot of fiscal sense behind it. But this is not an effort to kill the bill. Everyone in here knows that. But I am afraid some of the people who might be watching this would assume, given the reputation of the Senate for filibusters, that this is an effort to delay the process. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that has slowed us down. Day after day is being wasted on an effort to embarrass the President on this issue that could have been used, either to move this bill through to deal with the some 40 amendments pending on the bill, and maybe we could even be on what I thought was the business at hand according to the majority. According to the majority in this body, we were going to pass that balanced budget amendment so we could get down to the nitty-gritty of identifying where the cuts would come from and make the cuts now. Time and again both sides said, sure, we can pass a balanced budget amendment or not, but that the real work is identifying where the cuts are and not just identifying them but coming out here on the floor of the Senate and voting to cut waste in the Federal Government. Why is not that happening today? It is not happening today because we have this amendment before us that is completely extraneous to the deficit issue and that is intended to embarrass the President and that is intended to further drive a stake into the heart of the working people of this country. I want to talk a little bit today about the merits of the issue. But before I do I hope we do not hear any complaints from the majority or the talk radio people about how the balanced budget amendment took up so much time. It did take time. It was a terribly important issue. It deserved to have that kind of consideration. I think the whole process was better for it. But what is happening here is that day after day we are arguing about a Federal Executive order about strikebreakers that is preventing us from getting on to the real work of identifying what must be eliminated from our Federal budget so we can have not just a balanced budget amendment, Mr. President, but a balanced budget, not necessarily waiting to the year 2002 but so that we can do it now. In fact, it is one of the reasons I voted against the balanced budget amendment because it is an opportunity for people to say I am for balancing the budget but then talk about everything else in the world instead of getting down to the work of finding the cuts and implementing them. This amendment helps that process. Putting us off the track, putting us onto the effort to kick down, kick people who are already hurting in the labor movement, is a great way to stay away from those hard choices that we made in the 103d Congress and that the 104th Congress claims it intends to address. But so far we have seen none of the debate that is involved in reducing the Federal budget. Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans in this body forgot that they won. This is the kind of amendment you bring up when you are in the minority. Say there is a bill coming up, and the bill has to pass--an appropriations bill. We know we have to do it. That is when you bring up these amendments to kind of put them off the track. But what you are doing is delaying your own agenda here. In the House they are moving much faster than you are here. I think generally that is not good. But in the case of this bill, what would be wrong with moving this issue forward and not getting sidetracked? You are slowing yourself down. You are slowing down the Republican contract for one specific aspect of the Republican contract which has to do with not just trying to prevent the use of permanent replacement workers or allow the use of permanent replacement workers but specifically to say it is OK to have Federal dollars flow to companies that use permanent replacement workers. Mr. President, I hope everyone understands exactly what is going on here. It is a completely extraneous amendment that does not have to do with this bill and has even less to do with the main business that this Congress should be addressing which is reducing the Federal deficit. Mr. President, to discuss this amendment we must because it is the business before us. The effort to embarrass the President continues despite the failure of two cloture votes now to cut off debate. Mr. President, last week I spoke at some length on the issue of the use of permanent replacement workers by employers during labor disputes. I had a chance to come to the floor and follow the Senator from Massachusetts in describing the history of the use of permanent replacement workers in my own State of Wisconsin, the border State of the Senator in the chair. As I indicated then, I was the author of legislation in Wisconsin that would have prohibited the use of permanent strikebreakers. And I had the chance years ago when I was still in the State senate to come to Washington and testify before a committee of the other body on behalf of the Federal law that has been proposed over the years because I do think in the end it is better that we have a Federal law banning the use of permanent replacement workers. We have not achieved that yet. That was killed last session by a filibuster. We had enough votes in both the Senate and the House and the President ready to sign the bill. It was killed by a Republican filibuster. So our President, President Clinton, who is a supporter of the antistrikebreaker legislation, at least has done what he could do. The Executive order issued last week by the President is actually just a very modest step which would only say that employers who receive Federal contracts would be prohibited from engaging in this unfair practice. To me that is almost a disappointment. It is just a minimal requirement to impose upon those who want to do business with the Federal Government. But it is what the President can do. And I am very proud of him for having the nerve and the courage to make that Executive order. To me those who would take Government money should be held to certain standards of fundamental fairness. That is why Presidents have in the past issued Executive orders directing Federal contractors to do things like maintain discriminatory-free workplaces and to take affirmative steps to eliminate discriminatory practices. There are a number of important issues raised by the debate around the use of permanent replacement workers. My friends in Wisconsin, who work so hard, describe them as striker breakers. At the core of this however, is really one central question, the question that goes to the heart of the whole debate on this amendment. The question is should workers have the right to use the strike as an economic voice during down? That is the question. I, of course, have answered in the affirmative. They must have that right to collectively bargain, the right to join together in a union to have any meaning at all. Mr. President, let me examine this a little more closely in three areas. First, I want to talk a little bit about what other countries do with regard to the use of permanent replacement workers in the strike context. Secondly, I would like to turn to some of the comments of not political people but religious and community leaders that have strong moral feelings about the appropriateness of the use of permanent replacement workers. Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to illustrate yet a few more examples of the great harm and cruelty that can come from the abusive practice of using permanent replacement workers to resolve labor disputes. First, turning to other countries. We ought to take a look, as some Senators have had us do, at what is done by other countries, what our international competitors do in this area. So often, when it comes to labor law or other laws having to do with health or safety, people say, let us look at this because we do not want to put American businesses at a disadvantage. That sometimes is a reason that people raise, that it is very legitimate for us not to pass legislation to protect our own people, saying it could hurt us competitively. But the senior Senator from Illinois, who has spoken on this issue very eloquently, has pointed out time and again that virtually all countries in the world that are involved in serious industrial and trade activity do not allow the use of permanent replacement workers. I will give you a few examples from a report prepared by the Library of Congress in 1990. With the exception of Great Britain and some of the Canadian Provinces, the law in practice in all of the countries surveyed--Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and Sweden--all prohibit employers from dismissing striking workers. One example is France. French law does not allow the firing of workers during or because of a strike. Indeed, according to the first paragraph of article L.521-1 of the Labor Code, a strike is not a breach of contract. According to the third paragraph of the same article, any dismissal in violation of paragraph 1, which is the right to strike, is null and void. French law, as a consequence of this article, also prohibits the permanent replacement of striking workers. Moreover, article L.122-3 of the Labor Code specifically forbids the use of temporary replacements during a strike. French law regulates this issue to the point that even temporary workers hired before a strike cannot be used as replacements for permanent employees. Indeed, the notion of replacement for strike purposes is simply forbidden by law. So I hope nobody says that our efforts to compete with the French and African trade opportunities is going to be impaired by this Executive order. It will not, because they do not allow it. We do. The same is true of Greece. The right to strike in Greece is guaranteed by the Constitution of 1975, as amended. Article 23 states that the right to strike could be exercised by lawfully established trade unions in order to protect and promote the financial and general labor interests of employees. The fundamental law that governs workers' freedom in general and the right to strike in particular is Law 1264/ 1982 on Democratization of the Syndicalistic Movement and the Establishment of Syndicalistic Freedom of Working People. In article 19 of this law, only trade unions have a right to declare a strike to support economic and labor interests. Article 22 of Law 1264 explicitly prohibits the hiring of replacement workers. Specifically, it states: ``During a legal strike, the hiring of strikebreakers is prohibited. The lockout is also prohibited.'' Consequently, Mr. President, in Greece, a lawful strike does not bring about a breach of an employment contract. As in France, the contract is merely suspended during a strike, and the employer does not have the right to either dismiss the workers or hire replacement workers. That European nation does not permit permanent replacement workers. Let us turn to another country nearby--Italy. Article 40 of the Italian Constitution recognizes the right to strike. In the absence of any legislative regulation expressly called for by the Constitution, the right is recognized in its broadest form and is intended to be used for the improvement of working and economic conditions. As a consequence of this recognition, a strike is considered as a cause of legitimate suspension of the individual employment relationship, with consequent suspension of compensation. The Italian law says a strike does not empower the employer to dismiss the strikers or permanently hire other workers to replace them. Furthermore, in Italy, the right to strike finds strong, indirect protection under the provisions of Decree No. 300 of 1970, known as the ``Workers' Statute.'' Article 28 of this decree punishes employers who carry out any actions aimed at preventing or limiting a worker's free exercise of union activities, as well as his or her right to strike. Article 15 of the decree nullifies any act or pact aimed at dismissing or discriminating against or hurting a worker in any way because of his union membership or because of his participation in a strike. Finally, let me turn to another part of the world of our great competitors in international trade, if not our ultimate competitor-- Japan. The senior Senator from Illinois, not just during this debate but in previous debates, has pointed out time and again that Japanese companies cannot use permanent replacement workers and strikebreakers in Japan. But, apparently, companies owned by the Japanese in this country have gone ahead and done that to break strikes. That is a great irony and unfortunate irony of the current state of our law. Looking at the Japanese law, article 7, paragraph 1, of the Labor Union Law of Japan provides that: The employer shall not engage in the following practices: 1) discharge or show discriminatory treatment towards a worker by reason of his being a member of a labor union or having tried to join or organize a labor union or having performed an appropriate act of a labor union. . .. These last few words in the Japanese law, the words ``an appropriate act of a labor union'' are construed under Japanese law to include acts arising from collective bargaining with the employer, such as strikes, picketing, and so on. Therefore, under Japanese law, as with the other countries I mentioned, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge a striking employee. The validity of the above provisions was upheld by the Supreme Court in that country, which stated that since the prohibitory clause as set forth in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Labor Union Law originated from article 28 of the Constitution and was intended, according to the court, to guarantee the workers' right to organize and to bargain collectively, and therefore any acts on the part of the employer done against the above provision is illegal per se. For that reason, I believe it is fair to say that the use of strikebreakers, permanent replacement workers, would, of course, also be illegal under Japanese law. So I hope we do not hear too much argument that our competitive position is about to suffer if we do not join the rest of the industrialized countries in the world in saying that the use of permanent replacement workers is unfair labor practice, that it is harsh and the unfair to people who have chosen to join together in a labor union. Having mentioned some of the other countries' positions on this, let me turn to a completely different angle on this issue--some of the comments of some religious and community leaders, who are not addressing this issue because they intend to run for office, who are not addressing this issue because they like to always get into the political fray. I assume they address the issue because they have a responsibility to reflect and think and talk about what is fair and moral conduct in this society. What is the way one human being should treat another, I think, would be the perspective of the people I am about to discuss. Mr. President, reviewing support for legislation prohibiting permanent replacement workers, I was struck by the that no company--and certainly not the Federal Government--should engage in conduct that would promote the use of strikebreakers. The Most Reverend Frank Rodimer, bishop of Paterson, NJ, had this to say on behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference in testimony in 1991: The role of unions in promoting the dignity of work and of workers is very important in Catholic teaching. In the words of Pope John Paul II, through labor unions workers can ``not only have more, but be more.'' Rooted in the basic human right to freedom of association, the right to organize unions and to bargain collectively remains essential in order to prevent the exploitation of workers and to defend the human person as more than just a factor in production. For one hundred years the Church has called on governments to respect and defend labor unions in their essential roles in the struggle for justice in the workplace and as building blocks for freedom and democracy. He continues: Mr. Chairman, an essential tool for unions in pursuing the just rights of their members is the possibility of a strike; without the threat of a strike unions would be next to powerless to resist unjust demands by employers. Without the right to strike, workers come to the bargaining table at a serious disadvantage, facing employers who are holding most of the cards. This relative weakness of workers in a market economy is the reason that Catholic teaching supports the legitimacy of the resort to a strike when this is the only available means to obtain justice. The right to strike has not always been used wisely; nor are unions above criticism, but neither the corruption that has plagued some--not all-- unions nor the violence associated with some--not all-- strikes can justify the denial nor the erosion of workers basic rights. The bishop continues: Forty years ago when I become a priest it would have been unthinkable for an employer in my community to respond to a strike by hiring permanent replacements. I am told that because of a Supreme Court decision in 1938 it would have been legal to do so, but in those days employers knew better. Labor unions represented a large proportion of workers, and union values permeated the community. In those days, solidarity was not the name of a union in Poland but a working principle in American communities. He continues: However, economic restructuring and social change have undermined the cohesiveness of our communities, and devotion to the common good is often sacrificed in pursuit of personal gain. The painful recessions of the 70's and the relentless individualism of the 80's have left many without either the financial cushion or the community connections to ride out strikes or prolonged unemployment. In such an atmosphere, some employers feel free to use strikes as an opportunity to get rid of the union and collective bargaining and their union workforce. I know many employers who wouldn't do this, but, unfortunately there are those that have done so and others that are open to it. The results have been predictable and damaging. Not only have unions been weakened in their ability to defend the rights of workers, but communities have experienced savage struggles, with neighborhoods in turmoil, families divided and workers without hope. The promise of permanent employment made to the replacement workers becomes an impediment to settling the strike, and negotiations are stymied. The victims are the original workers and their families who often have no place else to go and even the replacement workers who are later discharged when the business closes because of the damage of a prolonged strike. In some places, whole communities suffer wounds that won't heal for generations. Mr. President, I am reading from the bishop's comments, but I would just say that I, too, in my work have had a chance to see whole communities wounded and damaged in Wisconsin, places like De Pere, WI, by the use of permanent replacement workers. Returning to the comments: When employers are allowed to offer permanent jobs to strikebreakers, strikers lose their jobs. It's that simple. If workers lose their jobs, what does it mean to have a right to strike? If there's no effective right to strike, what does it mean to have a right to organize? Human dignity is clearly threatened in our country. The evidence is visible on our streets and in our shelters where a growing number of people are forced to live even though they work every day. In our cities and in our rural areas throughout this country working people are homeless because their wages have fallen so far below the cost of housing. Recent immigrants and single mothers, newcomers to the labor force and those least likely to have union representation, are mired in poverty. Bishop Rodimer concluded: The right to strike without fear of reprisal is fundamental to a democratic society. The continued weakening of worker organizations is a serious threat to our social fabric. I think we have to decide whether we will be a country where workers' rights are totally dependent on the good will of employers or whether we will be a country where the dignity of work and the rights of workers are protected by the law of the land. I think this was an eloquent statement by the bishop that gives us some guidance about how appropriate this amendment before us is today. Very briefly, here is what some other national religious leaders have said. From the United Methodist Church, Council of Bishops and General Board of Church and Society, this statement: Since the early years of the trade union movement, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Protestant and Jewish leaders have supported collective bargaining as a democratic way to settle differences in the workplace. Permanent replacement of strikers upsets the balance of power critical for achieving peaceful, negotiated settlements between labor and management. As a result, both collective bargaining and the democratic values that created this nation are under attack. From the Christian Church--Disciples of Christ--Department of Church and Society, Division of Homeland and Ministries, the following: The record is clear that major religious groups in this country for many years have supported workers' rights against abusive tactics and treatment by employers. We deplore the tactics of ``permanent replacement'' and we urgently call for new federal legislation that will protect workers from such tactics. Mr. President, from Jewish organizations, the National Council of Jewish Women has said: ``The practice of hiring permanent replacement workers has had a chilling effect on collective bargaining. The legislation currently under consideration by Congress''--referring, I am sure, to S. 5 of last session and similar bills--``would help restore the balance between labor and management * * *'' From the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reference and Counsel Committee, a resolution which they passed which ``calls for an end to recriminations against workers who participate in strikes, and calls upon the appropriate churchwide units, synods, congregations, and members to support legislation that would strengthen the viability of negotiated settlements and prevent''--not slow down, but prevent--``the permanent replacement of striking workers.'' Mr. President, not only in other countries but from some of our leading religious leaders and leading religious denominations in this country, not just my own words, but words of condemnation for the cruelty and harshness and immorality of throwing people out of their jobs permanently when they have exercised their legitimate right to strike. Mr. President, I would like to turn now, third, to just add a few moments of real-life situations, concrete examples, of where workers have been forced to pay dearly for asserting their legal right to strike when collective bargaining efforts have failed. Naturally, I begin with one from my own State of Wisconsin, one that I recall to have been very painful for the whole community of Racine, WI, and, of course, especially for the working families of that area. I already talked about similar incidents in De Pere, WI, near Green Bay, and Cudahy, WI, near Milwaukee, and the area near my own home in southern Wisconsin, in towns like Madison, Stoughton, and Janesville. But this is about Racine, WI, where the Ladies' Garment Workers Local 187 had not had a strike for 50 years at Rainfair, Inc., a manufacturer of protective clothing at Racine, WI. That, unfortunately, changed on June 20, 1991, when the workers did walk out over management demands that seemed designed to actually force a strike. It appeared to the workers not just that they needed to go on strike, but that somebody was pushing them, shoving them, trying to get them to go out on strike. The company had demanded the health insurance copayments more than double, and offered the low-wage workers only a 15-cents-an-hour increase over a 3-year period. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly in this new era of permanent replacement workers, soon after the strike began, Rainfair began to hire permanent replacements, and seemed bound and determined to break the union. The workers, most of them women, many of them single mothers, working working single mothers--held out, with virtually no one crossing the picket line. I recall that five strikers joined a protest fast. Two of them went 35 days with no food. The union launched a nationwide boycott of the protective gear sold to many union members, including police officers, firefighters, construction, postal and chemical workers. But the presence of these permanent replacement workers did not help resolve the dispute. It greatly prolonged the dispute. The primary issue soon became whether there would be an opportunity to return to work for all of the strikers. The issue divided the community and embittered once amicable labor-management relations. Finally, the Rainfair Co., under pressure from the boycott and the national attention drawn to it by the fast, finally agreed to a new contract on December 3, 1991. To enable all strikers to return, the workers agreed to work 6-hour days temporarily. But obviously, the situation was made worse by the use of permanent replacement workers, not better. Another example, having to do with the General Dynamics Corp. In the summer of 1987, 3,500 machinists in San Diego were forced to strike in a division of General Dynamics Corp. when the aerospace firm demanded cutbacks in medical benefits and seniority rights. Even before the final strike vote was taken, General Dynamics was threatening the members of IAM Local 1125, issuing handbills that told workers in advance that the intent of the company was to permanently replace them if they struck, and instructing union members on how to withdraw from the union. They were trying to undercut the union in advance. During the second week of the strike, the company carried out its threat and resorted to scare tactics and coercion, cutting off workers' health benefits and pressuring union members to cross picket lines. Those workers who did return to their jobs were directed to call IAM members at home, reminding them of the company's threat that they were going to be permanently replaced. After the strike was finally settled, nearly 700 union members had, in fact, been permanently replaced. They were forced to wait on a recall list for a year or more just for a chance at a job that they were supposed to have in the first place. During that time, IAM members exhausted their savings, lost their homes, cars, and sometimes their families, as they struggled desperately to help each other out. It was also a heartbreaking story of a woman from Indiana having to do with a company called Arvin Industries. One of the statements made was, ``I always felt obligated to do a good job. I thought that honesty and obligation were a good way to live my life, but now I'm not sure. That company robbed me.'' She said of the workers, ``I look at the replacement workers and I wonder how they can feel good about taking our jobs. I try to put aside my feelings, but it's hard.'' That is the status of Marcina Stapleton, for whom being permanently replaced brought bankruptcy and forced her daughter out of college. The single mother of two was permanently replaced when Electrical Workers Local 1331 struck Arvin Industries in Columbus, IN. She had worked 6 years as a press operator. Even though the strike was settled in 7 months she was not called back for 17 months. ``It was hard making it'' through those months, she said. Her only income was a $200 a month in child support and whatever she could earn from odd jobs. She had rent payments of $325 a month, car payments, utilities, college costs for her daughter, and it all proved to be too much. Her daughter had to drop out of school and Stapleton declared bankruptcy. She said, ``I am not proud of it but it was the only way out.'' But the biggest toll was the emotional strain it put on her and her family. She felt the pressure of bills, including $2,300 in back rent, and the relationship with her children suffered from the strain. The children were fighting with each other and her teenage son ended up in counseling. She went back to work in October 1990, making $8.80 an hour and paying $9 a week for health insurance. Before she went on strike she made $11.57 an hour with $2.25 an hour incentive bonus and employer- paid insurance, complete. She said, ``I had to go back into work, I have to keep living.'' But it is not easy to work alongside people who benefited from her pain. ``What I did was the right thing. I would do it again if I had to,'' she said. So, Mr. President, I assure you I could continue to read descriptions of these heartbreaking real life stories. I am tempted to do so. I may be back to do so later. I think at least for now the point has been made that these are real human examples and real human tragedies that are caused by the heartless practice and abuse of the use of striker replacement. This is not, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out time and again, just a dry academic argument about labor law. This is about people who simply want the opportunity to make a decent living and to be paid fairly and not be thrown out of their jobs because on occasion they may have to use their legitimate right to strike. This is not just a debate about a Federal order from the Executive. This is a debate about whether this country cares about American workers. Whether we are prepared to stand by and watch the tremendous gains accomplished to be eroded by this kind of cruel practice aimed at breaking the backs of workers who exercise their right to engage in collective labor efforts and to strike when negotiations fail. Mr. President, I would like to conclude shortly, but in doing so I would like to quote from an article recently written by the new president of our Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Mr. David Newby. David wrote: Let's cut through the rhetoric to the central issue: What is a strike? It is a situation where workers voluntarily leave their jobs--simply walk away--because they can't agree with their employer on a contract covering wages, working conditions, health insurance, or pension? Or is it that workers retain their jobs but temporarily withhold their labor until they and the employer come to an agreement? Which is it? Just walking away or a legitimate part of the collective bargaining agreement, he was asking. Dave Newby says: The distinction is fundamental. The anti-union crowd means that workers have no bargaining power at all. As long as management can find others to work for whatever they offer (not hard to do when decent paying jobs are so scarce), they have no incentive to bargain serious with a union. And without strong unions that can bargain on equal terms with management, we will continue to see workers' wages fall and good paying jobs disappear. In the workplace, a ``right'' means nothing if you can be fired (or permanently replaced) for exercising it. Mr. President, David Newby says that. If the right to strike means anything at all, it has to mean you can't be fired for striking. You lose your paycheck, but you don't lose your job. Win, lose, or draw, workers must have the right to return to their jobs when a strike is over. Mr. Newby says: Workers don't strike for frivolous reasons. A strike is an action of last resort. Workers don't strike in order to bankrupt or close down the companies they have worked for: They realize better than anyone that their companies need to be profitable in order to have jobs at good wages. The issue for workers is simply getting their fair share and having the effective right to strike for their fair share when management won't voluntarily grant it. During the 1950's and 1960's, employers almost never used ``permanent replacements during strikes''--temporaries, yes; permanent replacements, no. Both business and community values held that the permanent replacement of workers and strikers was abhorrent. That is the way people felt, Mr. Newby points out. That changed 15 to 20 years ago. Many employers decided to destroy unions instead of bargaining with them. Indeed, this vicious management practice is becoming even more common. In a recent Congressional General Accounting Office survey, 35 percent of CEO's said they would use permanent replacement strikers during a strike; 17 percent reported actually doing so. Mr. Newby concludes: It's time that American workers had the same rights and protections that workers have in the industrialized countries that are countries such as Germany, Japan, and Canada. We're tired of being second-class citizens in the industrial world of global competition. Mr. President, I don't think any statement could have pulled together these themes better than Mr. Newby's. The theme of competition internationally, the theme of what religious and communities leaders have to say about this practice, and the theme of the actual heartbreaking stories of what happens to the people in these communities when their jobs are ripped away from them simply because they are trying to exercise their right to strike. It is time that American workers have the same rights and protections that workers have in the industrialized countries that are our main international competitors and trading partners. American workers should not be second-class citizens in the industrial world of global competition. The President's Executive order is only a small step in the right direction. We ought to provide these protections against permanent replacement workers for all Americans, but at a minimum, we should uphold President Clinton's action to provide these protections for those employed by Federal contractors.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, the pending business before us I assume is the Kassebaum amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just want to briefly suggest that this editorial points out that there is still a problem with both parties going after this tax cut idea. The article says: Bill Archer, the new Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, strode to the microphone in a basement hearing room after being introduced by a young couple from Virginia holding their year-old daughter. It was just the common touch the Texas Congressman was seeking to announce the committee's plan to cut taxes by nearly $200 billion over the next 5 years, or about $140 billion more than President Clinton has proposed in his plan. The trouble is [the Milwaukee Sentinel says] both plans [both Republican and Democratic plan] butt up against growing popular discontent over the Federal deficit, which still will grow by $1 trillion over 5 years under Clinton's irresponsible budget plan. There also is no indication that Republicans have discovered the magic bullet that will slay the deficit dragon. The editorial goes on to say, ``The reality is that hardly anyone accepts the current political nostrum that Congress and/or Clinton can cure what ails the Nation by advocating spending and tax cuts all at the same time.'' So, Mr. President, what the public knew in December has apparently not completely reached the Halls of Congress. Day after day I see evidence, whether at a Wisconsin town meeting, or reading the major national newspapers, that in general the American people and the opinion makers outside of Washington do not want to do this, and thinks it is a foolish way to handle our budgetary problems. This last night I had a chance to see a few minutes of a C-SPAN program on which two of our colleagues were appearing in front of the National League of Cities, and what they pointed out was that they had different views exactly on what should happen in the Federal budget. I was intrigued by the different responses on what they said about the tax cut issue. The junior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, indicated to the audience he was interested in a $500 billion deficit reduction package, to be passed by the 104th Congress. I was struck by that figure, because that is exactly what we have already accomplished in the 103d Congress under President Clinton and the Democratic leadership. I am glad to hear that kind of figure is being thrown around. What the Senator from New Hampshire then said was perhaps as a part of the $500 billion--he would not go with the overall Republican contract idea of a $200 billion tax cut, I believe I am correctly characterizing his statement that that was too much--but he said, ``Maybe we would look at the President's $63 billion level, and perhaps have that included in the $500 billion.'' That got applause. People seemed to feel that was more sensible that a $200 billion tax cut. But then the Senator from Nebraska, the junior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, took the microphone and said to Senator Gregg, ``Now, how much will it take to balance the budget by the year 2002? What is the total figure?'' And the indication was that it was well over $1 trillion. So Senator Kerrey indicated that even if we do the $500 billion, we are less than half the way there. Senator Kerrey said to this audience of people involved in city government that he was against tax cuts in any form. I would think people would maybe nod or maybe even disagree. Instead it got a rousing applause. Everyone in the audience gave him a similar strong applause in saying he would fight any of the tax cuts, because they are not consistent with the notion of dealing with the deficit and caring about our children and our grandchildren. So the common sense is out there. The common sense view that frankly helped fuel the debate on the balanced budget amendment and had a lot to do with that month-long debate. That common sense is out there. If this institution is willing to listen, the first thing we will do is say we cannot afford either the Clinton tax cut or the Republican contract tax cut. Of course, I believe the American public would like to have a tax cut if they possibly could. But what they are saying clearly is, we cannot afford it until we get our house in order. Mr. President, it is not easy to slay the tax cut dragon. I have noticed the allure of a tax cut to politicians, just as the allure of the balanced budget amendment has been very strong. I would have to say, compared to the first time I had a chance to oppose this in December, things look a lot better, especially here in the Senate. Between November 8 and now I have gone from being the lone voice, according to the Los Angeles Times, against this to being one of many people who are criticizing the tax cut. In fact, I would call it now sort of a healthy competition between a lot of the leading Senators who are saying that they will oppose this. I even think there is a good strong competition going on to see who can be very healthy. We do not get anything done around here by being 1 out of 535. I am extremely happy that so many of the leading Senators, especially on the Finance Committee, have openly stated their opposition to either all or part of the tax cuts. Mr. President, as Senators recall, we did have our test vote on this issue during the balanced budget amendment. The proposition, that we ought to put the tax cut below deficit reduction, got 32 votes, including some of the leading Republicans in the Senate. That was amazing, because it was 32 Senators saying up front they are not for a tax cut. A couple months ago, people would have said nobody would take that position. It was also very striking because a number of Senators told me they wanted to vote for the amendment, but they were not going to support any amendments to the balanced budget amendment. My guess is we are a lot closer to 50 or even higher than anyone would have imagined at this point. For example, Mr. President, if we take a look at the reaction, we see in the Washington Post even today an editorial called ``Greasing the Tax Cut Rules,'' and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the point of that editorial is that although there is this opposition growing in the Senate, there is an effort going on to change the budget rules in such a way that would allow these tax cuts in a way that would immunize, in effect, both entitlements and the defense budget, causing any cuts that might be made to pay for the tax cuts to come, essentially, out of the appropriations areas, out of discretionary funding. The Washington Post does a good job of criticizing this move, pointing out that it does not bode well for the future of deficit reduction. They commented on what it would mean, given the need for further cuts in discretionary spending, on top of the fair amount we did in the 103d Congress. And they noted that not all of those cuts are going to be applied to reducing the Federal deficit, but instead would be used to promote this tax cut that I am having a hard time finding anyone favoring other than those in Washington. So, Mr. President, despite the growing criticism of the tax cut around the country and in this body, the skids are being greased for a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach, when it comes to balancing the budget and fixing the tax cut problem. Mr. President, I turn again to a cartoon that I think describes the problem we have here in Washington. This cartoon refers to a new illness called deficit attention disorder. We talk about the balanced budget amendment, run around the country saying that a balanced budget is the top priority, and we come out here every day and say bringing the deficit under control is our top priority. But this cartoon shows the contrast of those words with the possible actions here. It shows folks running in and out of offices saying, ``$50 billion tax cut, $60 billion tax cut, $75 billion tax cut, $100 billion tax cut, $120 billion tax cut.'' The cartoon suggests a serious illness in this place. That is, the deficit attention disorder from which institution suffers. Mr. President, I think the worst example of this deficit attention disorder is the very document that the Republican Party says they campaigned and won on--the Republican contract, which calls for increased defense spending, balancing the budget, and tax cuts that dwarf what this cartoon suggests. Notice all the little people in the cartoon talking about tax cuts from $50 billion to $120 billion. What the Republican contract calls for over the next 10 years is a $700 billion tax cut. What Congressman Archer proposed last week would cost $200 billion over the next 5 years. This includes the $500 tax credit for families making up to $200,000 per year, including changes in IRA's and a variety of other provisions. Mr. President, this is a very serious example of how, even today, despite all the criticism and all the concern in the other House, the other body especially is continuing to move forward as if not only we do not have a deficit problem, but that we have a giant surplus that can be used for all these cuts. Mr. President, on March 10, the Washington Post commented on these proposals in an editorial entitled ``The Tax Cuts and the Deficit,'' and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that article commented on the Contract With America, and specifically the Archer proposal, by saying the following: The tax cuts from the House Republican ``Contract With America'' have been reduced to legislative form. The process hasn't improved them a bit. They remain a bad idea, the revenue loss from which would be more than the sponsors have acknowledged, and more than a government running a deficit of a fifth of a trillion dollars a year can afford it give up. The cuts would make it harder to reduce the deficit even if the Republicans do come up with a way to pay for them, which despite their pledges, they haven't yet. The stated purpose of several of them is to increase savings and investment, but by leaving the deficit larger than otherwise, they would reduce the national savings rate. The editorial also goes into a bit of a history: The last time the Republicans cut taxes, in 1981, they failed to make the spending cuts to match, and the deficit soared. This time they've said the spending cuts will come first; they're still saying that. But the only specific spending cuts of any size that they've advanced thus far have been in welfare and other programs for the poor; that's not the way to finance tax cuts. It is said they next proposed some generalized entitlement and appropriations cuts, lump sums they will commit themselves to saving over time without spelling out how. That's not how to do it either, the more so because they've promised that in cutting they won't touch defense or Social Security and can't touch interest on the debt. They've left themselves less than half the budget in which to work. Nor is it just their tax cuts that they have to finance. They've said they'll balance the budget as well. But the more spending cuts they dedicate to the first purpose, the fewer they'll have left for the second. That's the problem. Again, it is the harsh reality that the numbers cannot possibly add up, it cannot possibly be true that we can do all of these things laid out in the Archer proposal and then come up with a balanced budget, even in the long term, let alone doing it in the short term. So, Mr. President, not only do we have a deficit attention disorder with regard to the Archer plan and the Republican contract, but time and again, whether it be the President's plan, the plan of the minority leader in the House, the plan of the senior Senator from Texas, in each case we have a plan for tax cuts that is not paid for. I realize that there will be many opportunities to speak on this issue on the floor. I will not take the time today to outline all the opposition from different places in the country, whether it be editorials or polls or statements of economists. All I can say is that, although the news is troubling to me, although the tax cut keeps coming back and coming back, I see reason for optimism in the U.S. Senate. It appears that it is going to be up to the U.S. Senate to stop this fiscal irresponsibility. I was very heartened to see the article in the Washington Post of last week on March 9 entitled ``Tax Cutters Lose Steam in Senate.'' I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly thank the senior Senator from Illinois for noticing the cartoon and for being one of the first people in this body to come to me and say that we do need to prevent this tax cut frenzy if we are going to be serious about balancing the Federal budget. I think, Mr. President, now is the time to put the tax cut proposals out of their misery. Let us do it early on so the American people know that there is something real to all this rhetoric in It seems to me, ever since the tax cut frenzy started with the November 8 election, that I have had a hard time finding anyone who is really for it other than a few folks here in Washington. I have chosen this cartoon from December at Christmastime to illustrate how early the people of America were ahead of the politicians on this issue. It is a very simple cartoon. It shows a couple of parents holding a nice present, ``The tax cuts.'' But their baby holds ``The bill.'' The parents are enjoying this nice present, but passing its cost along to the next generation. So even before the 104th Congress convened, I feel that the American people were way ahead on this and felt that this just did not make sense and that it did not add up. I sort of felt as if maybe this issue would die pretty quickly, but I was wrong. In a way, this frenzy for a tax cut, which nobody supports, is the inevitable result of the November 8 election. In the Milwaukee Sentinel just yesterday, there was an editorial entitled ``Tax Cut Plans--Questions About Both Party Plans.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from the Milwaukee Sentinel be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we move into the period where we actually take up issues such as the line-item veto and then the budget resolution and then the reconciliation package, there will be the opportunities to actually make this happen, to actually Senate to not waste the funds that could be used for deficit reduction. I suggest that as we move into the budget resolution, either at the committee level or at the level of the entire Senate, if necessary, that an amendment be offered to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution to change the revenue assumption to exclude or reject a major tax cut and instead to explicitly allocate the spending cuts that would offset such a tax cut to deficit reduction, to make sure that every dollar that was identified for spending cuts be immediately transferred into an account to reduce the Federal deficit. I think that is the only way we avoid the kind of losses and deficit reduction that are the inevitable result of the President's plan and especially the result of the Republican contract and the Archer plan. So I hope we can return to the wisdom that was indicated by the American people ever since the proposals were made, and I return to what is my favorite cartoon on the issue, which is the somewhat bizarre but rather effective portrayal of a giant deficit monster that is constantly calling out for more and more, in this case more fruit cake in the form of ``Tax Cuts R Us.'' The American people are onto the foolishness of this. They are onto it in the form of cartoons that ridicule a Congress that stands up and talks about fiscal responsibility but cannot resist the temptation to get some quick political gain by handing out a tax cut that will both hurt the economy and severely damage, if not permanently ruin, the possibility of ever having a balanced budget, whether it be in the next few years or by the year 2002. Mr. President, we will be coming back to this, but I notice in this institution, if you do not keep bringing something up like this, it has a way of getting resolved in the middle of the night and, all of a sudden, you have an up-or-down vote on the whole package. Somehow, whether it be $10 billion or $100 billion or $700 billion, it could be lost instead of actually being used to almost eliminate the Federal deficit. I think that is the opportunity we have. Instead of feeding this monster, reject the tax cuts and take the next big step to eliminate the Federal deficit. So, Mr. President, as I yield the floor, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which Senator Bumpers, of Arkansas, and I have offered to specifically go on record as a body saying the tax cuts have to take second place to this historic opportunity to eliminate the Federal deficit. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to amend the Equal Access to Justice Act. This legislation makes some needed improvements to the act to speed up the process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in certain suits against the United States. Mr. President, there has been considerable attention paid in the past few weeks to legislation such as regulatory reform, tort reform, and various pieces of the Republican contract which claim to address the concerns of many Americans that substantial change needs to take place in many areas. My bill deals with some aspects of these concerns by assisting ordinary citizens who face legal conflicts with their Federal Government and prevail. The basic premise of EAJA is about giving individuals and small businesses the ability to confront the Government on a more equal footing. It is another step toward getting Government off the backs of the average citizen and small business owner. I am convinced the improvements I have proposed will make the Equal Access to Justice Act work better and reduce the overall costs to taxpayers. Mr. President, this is an area in which I have worked for several years before coming to this body. My interest in this issue arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a member of the Wisconsin Senate. When I was in private practice, I was aware of how attorneys' fees and the other costs associated with litigation could be a burden to a plaintiff with limited resources, even if the claim was just. Once I entered the State senate, I authored legislation modeled on the Federal law. The State law, found in section 814.246 of the Wisconsin statutes, was enacted in 1985. It seemed to me then, and does now, that we should do what we can to remove this burden to plaintiffs who need their claims reviewed and decided by an impartial decisionmaker. When I joined the U.S. Senate, I began looking at how these two Federal statutes operate and whether change was needed. I was particularly interested in how we could make the system work better. I am convinced change is necessary and that we can bring the system up to date to reflect 14 years worth of experience. Mr. President, the Equal Access to Justice Act was enacted in 1980 and made permanent in 1985. The original intent of the act was to make the task of suing the Federal Government less daunting for small business owners. It was perceived that these owners suffered onerous Government regulation and other indignities rather than sue for relief because of the prohibitive costs of litigation. Much of the work of this original Federal legislation was done by then-Representative Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, who represented my home town of Middleton with distinction and served on the House Judiciary Committee for many years. By giving prevailing parties in certain kinds of cases the right to seek attorney's fees and other costs from the United States, the act sought to prevent business owners from having to risk their companies in order to seek justice. It was, in effect, a way to give David another rock for his sling. And it is the Davids, not the Goliaths, who benefit from this act. Although I have reservations about the general concept of loser-pays rules, when a citizen faces the overpowering resources of the Federal Government, it is only fair that, when that citizen wins in court, the Government ought to reimburse the costs. An individual with a net worth greater than $2 million may not request fees under EAJA, nor may a business or other organization with a net worth greater than $7 million and which employs more than 500 people, unless it qualifies either as a nonprofit under certain Federal tax laws or as an agricultural cooperative. Collaterally, the act sought to provide a deterrence to excessive Government regulation, a subject in which we all share an interest. Some would certainly argue that latter goal has not been achieved. But the Equal Access to Justice Act has been successful in other areas, although perhaps not quite as planned, Mr. President. For one thing, the cost has been much smaller than originally anticipated. The Equal Access to Justice Act was originally estimated to cost at least $68 million per year, but according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, annual EAJA awards from 1988 to 1992 generally hovered around $5 to $7 million. This is despite the fact that litigants are winning more cases than anticipated. A study conducted by Prof. Susan Gluck Mezey of Loyola University at Chicago and Prof. Susan M. Olson of the University of Utah found that plaintiffs have been more successful than original estimates believed. Professors Mezey and Olson examined 629 Federal district and appellate court decisions involving EAJA claims during the 1980's. The Mezey-Olson study, published in the July-August 1993 edition of Judicature magazine, pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office originally assumed plaintiffs would receive fees under the act in about 25 percent of the claims filed against the Government. However, the professors found in their sample that about 36 percent of litigants other than those suing the Department of Health and Human Services have won fees. Plaintiffs suing HHS, many of them seeking Social Security disability benefits, have a success rate most lawyers would envy, about 69 percent. The Mezey-Olson study shows that most successful plaintiffs who seek fees have been these Social Security disability benefits applicants. Another study, prepared in 1993 by Prof. Harold Krent of the University of Chicago law school for the Administrative Conference of the United States, found that, while the original intent of the Equal Access to Justice Act was supposed to make things a little easier on the applicants for fees, as currently written, it ``probably creates a perverse incentive to litigate'' on the part of Government attorneys. This is because the act gives the government a chance to avoid paying fees, even when it loses its case, to the small business owner or individual who would otherwise see their costs paid. The Government can do this by showing it had substantial justification for its actions, despite the fact that those actions proved onerous to that small business owner or individual. Professor Krent argues that the issues of whether fees should be awarded or whether the Government had substantial justification to act as it did can be nearly as exhaustive to litigate as the original complaint. This despite the fact that the substantial justification argument is successful in a relatively small number of cases. We can fix that. We can bring the administrative costs of the Equal Access to Justice Act down. My bill amends the act in several ways, and it is intended to make use of the act's provisions more acceptable to its original beneficiaries, the small business owners. First, my bill raises the current $75-per-hour fee award cap to $125 per hour. It keeps the cost-of-living increase as a possible factor in setting the award, but it eliminates language which permits further increasing the award due to some special factor, defined by example in the existing statute as ``the limited availability of qualified attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved.'' This brings the fee cap more closely into line with current hourly rates charged by attorneys. It also makes these suits more attractive to attorneys, which in turn means prospective plaintiffs will have a larger pool of attorneys from which to choose. This, I think, obviates the need for the special factor language. I also believe eliminating that provision simplifies the process. Second, my bill makes more specific the method of computing cost-of- living increases to fee awards. Under existing determinations without adequate statutory guidance. Professor Krent notes in his study that ``courts have split as to when the cost-of- living increase is applicable--for instance, whether it should be calculated as of the date of the work performed, or as of some later date.'' My bill states that a cost-of-living adjustment should be calculated from the date of final disposition. In other words, if the work was performed in 1988 but the final disposition occurred in 1994, we should base the fee calculation on 1994. Third, my bill eliminates language in the act that allows the Government to escape paying attorney's fees even if it loses a suit if it can show substantial justification for its actions. I believe that if an individual or small business owner go up against the Federal Government and win, they win. If you are successful in your suit against the Government or in your defense against Government enforcement, and the law provides for Government payment of your fees, the government should pay the fees. Further, Professor Krent's study indicates that fee awards were denied in only a small percentage of EAJA cases because of the substantial justification defense. It may sound as though we're actually increasing the cost of this act, but these steps may well have the opposite effect. Even though fee awards may go up somewhat, the time and cost of litigation to the government will be reduced, and we should have a more cost-effective system. Let me refer again to Professor Krent's study for guidance as to possible increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Professor Krent noted that it is probably impossible to make an exact determination of the expense of litigating the substantial justification issue. It is his opinion, based on a study of cases between June 1989 and June 1990, that the substantial justification defense may save some money in awards, but not enough to justify the cost of litigating the issue. In short, this has not proven cost effective, except in a few Social Security cases involving large awards, unless you count some deterrent effect, which Professor Krent believes is impossible to quantify. Fourth, the bill would set up a process to encourage settlement of the fee issue without litigation. The legislation will provide the government the opportunity, similar to the process described in rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to make an offer of settlement up to 10 days prior to a hearing on the fee claim. If that offer is rejected and the party applying for reimbursement later wins a smaller award, that party shall not be entitled to receive attorney's fees or other expenses incurred after the date of the offer. This, I think, will speed up the process, thereby reducing the time and expense of litigation. Finally, Mr. President, my bill also requires review of the act and looks ahead to possible future expansion. Expanding the coverage of the Equal Access to Justice Act to additional areas of litigation is not directly addressed, but it is an issue on which I hope there can be future discussion. My bill requires the Justice Department to submit a report to Congress within 180 days that provides an analysis of the variations in the frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal districts under EAJA and include recommendations for extending the application of the act to other Federal judicial proceedings. According to the Administrative Conference of the United States, it remains unclear ``whether EAJA covers all litigation against the United States in article I courts, even though such proceedings are often directly analogous to those covered by the act in article III courts.'' Congress has taken some steps. In 1985, for example, EAJA was amended to cover the U.S. Claims Court. The Court of Veterans Appeals, which had decided in 1992 it was not covered by EAJA, is now covered by legislation. Likewise, my bill requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to submit a report to Congress within 180 days that provides an analysis of the variations in the frequency of fee awards paid by applicable Federal agencies under EAJA and include recommendations for extending the application of the act to other Federal agencies and administrative proceedings. The United States Supreme Court, in a 1991 decision, Ardestani versus INS, held that EAJA fees are available only in cases where hearings are required by law to conform to the procedural provisions of section 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act. However, Congress had already created a statutory exception. In 1986, Congress extended EAJA's coverage to include the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act. It is reasonable, I believe, to investigate whether certain agency proceedings, such as deportation cases, that are nearly identical to proceedings covered by section 554 should be likewise covered by EAJA. It may be appropriate to expand EAJA to cover certain cases subject to proceedings which are substantially the same as, but not specifically covered by, the Administrative Procedure Act. The study provision is also meant to be responsive to recommendations made by members of a business advisory group with whom I meet on a regular basis. It was suggested that there was a need to examine why some agencies have had fee judgments awarded against them at a higher rate than others. Let me here acknowledge the work of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which has been very helpful by conducting research into this issue, making recommendations that helped form the basis of this bill and providing valuable assistance to me in preparing this legislation. We all know the small business owner has a rough row to hoe and that unnecessary or overburdening Government regulation is sometimes an obstacle to doing business. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived to help overcome that obstacle, and my amending bill is submitted to make the act work better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I defer to the Senator from Minnesota on that particular aspect, except to say when the Senator from Minnesota asked me how many firms do I think this would apply to, my saying I did not think it would apply to many firms was to the fact that I hope and believe most firms would not do this. If this, in fact, does apply to the current situation you refer to, it would not trouble me. I am not going to represent what exactly that language does. I am happy to take a look at it. My view is that use of permanent replacement workers in any context where Federal dollars are involved should not be permitted. That is what I would want it to be, but I did not, of course, draft the Executive order, and I would have to defer to the Senator from Minnesota if he knows the specific answer.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his question. Mr. President, in response to the question, have we seen this happen in Wisconsin, the answer I am sorry to say is yes. Increasingly, through the 1980's and early 1990's, there were systematic efforts in certain places to use permanent replacement workers. Among the ones that stick out is what happened to people in De Pere, WI, when International Paper chose to use permanent replacement workers. I held a hearing as a State senator, at the time, and heard some of the most compelling and troubling testimony I have ever heard as an elected representative from families that were broken by the loss of that job security that the Senator has described. In fact, I am quite sure that some of those folks were forced from being workers to being on welfare, as a result. I saw the same thing near Milwaukee, in Cudahy, WI, another very tense, and difficult, public hearing when the story of that situation was laid out. Closer to my own home in Madison, WI, a lot of pain, a lot of hurt, and a lot of destruction of family--another value that the new majority likes to talk about. In the context of the Stoughton Trailer strike involving UAW workers, I always like to say my very first political encounter as a kid was when my father took me down to the UAW plants in Janesville to the Walter Reuther Hall. I remember that the gatherings there, there were a lot of Democrats there, there were Republicans there, too, in those days. It was not necessarily a partisan issue. It was pretty good spirit there in the 1960's. But when I returned in 1988, to that same hall, it was not an upbeat spirit. It reminded me of a wake, because people felt absolutely dejected and abandoned because of the use of permanent replacement workers. We have had it all over the place. I want to reiterate to my friend from Minnesota, Mr. President, it is a small percentage of the employers, but, unfortunately, sometimes it is some of the biggest employers. Sometimes it is some of the best jobs. And it cuts at the heart of the feeling that we want to be able to give people that if they do a good job for a company and come to work on time and produce a good product, they should be able to keep that job, generally speaking. That is something that has to be as much a part of the American dream as home ownership or little league baseball.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In response to the question of the Senator from Minnesota, it almost has to become a broader debate. I do not believe it was the intent of the Senator from Kansas to have it be. I do not know how you can talk about just the narrow issue of particular companies, and I think the Senator from Minnesota is right that there maybe is not going to be Federal money to do this. But it does bring up the whole issue of what kind of consistency is there between this sort of amendment and the agenda that we have been talking about in this Congress and will talk about having to do with getting people to work.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas that would prohibit the U.S. Labor Department from expending funds to enforce the President's recent Executive order barring Federal contracts with contractors that use permanent replacements. Mr. President, I am very pleased to follow the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts, who were extremely eloquent in pointing out how terribly unfair this practice of the use of permanent replacements really is. The President has issued the Executive order, in my view, simply to restore a measure of equality to Federal labor law by guaranteeing the workers the right to strike without the fear of being permanently replaced. In this case, it relates particularly to those whose wages are being paid with Federal resources, being paid by Federal taxpayers' dollars. I do not think Federal resources should be used to put people out of work. These are people who are exercising their rights under the Federal labor law. Unfortunately, the measure of the Senator from Kansas would block the President's ability to protect these workers and companies that are Federal contractors. Mr. President, this would be the second time in less than a year that the supporters of striker replacements have used what I consider to be subterfuge to undermine striking workers. In the 103d Congress, the opposition used parliamentary tools to prevent a vote on S. 5. The Senator who is occupying the chair right now spoke a few moments ago and said he thought we had put this permanent replacement issue to bed. Well, in my view, we have not done that. We have not even given it a nap. We did not give it a chance. In fact, the American people, although some people did not like the outcome, elected a President in 1992--he did get a majority of the electoral votes--who was openly and clearly committed to passing and signing a ban on the use of permanent replacement workers. So, no, this issue has not been put to bed. This issue has not been given a fair vote on the floor of the Senate and this issue has not gone away, regardless of the hopes of the folks who did prevail on November 8. I believe that this particular amendment does a great disservice to the working men and women of America. In my State of Wisconsin, the abusive use of permanent replacement workers by a few--not most, but by a few--employers during labor disputes has a pretty long history. And it is an issue that I have been pretty deeply concerned about for many years. In fact, when I was serving in the Wisconsin State senate, I was the author of the Wisconsin striker replacement bill and had the opportunity to testify before a committee of the other body here when I was still serving in the State Senate, asking that there be a Federal law banning the use of permanent replacement workers. But the issue has not even come close to resolution. These folks, trying to exercise their right, their legitimate, lawful right to strike, have still been harmed and undermined by the use of permanent replacement workers. Mr. President, I know that the use of permanent replacements is a many faceted issue. But to me at its core, this is the question that it raises: should workers have the right to use the strike as an economic device during times when negotiations with their employers break down? That is really the question. Because that is the issue when permanent replacement workers are used. It effectively destroys the lawful right to strike. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 clearly guarantees the right of workers to organize and engage in concerted activities, and included in that series of rights is the right to strike. Workers and management have always shared relatively equally in the risks and hardships of a strike. It is no picnic for either side. Workers lose income and their families, and often whole communities, face economic insecurity and the threat of losing their homes and their savings. At the same time, a clear incentive has existed for management to come to an agreement, as they struggle to maintain production and productivity in their market share with a more limited work force. That is the relative balance that has existed in the past, prior to the early 1980's. Because of that balance, as a general rule, strikes were to be avoided by both sides, if possible, and that was the driving force behind the success of For many years, even during strikes, labor and management were able to cooperate and come to an agreement. That is what I observed growing up in a very strong General Motors-UAW hometown, Janesville, WI. Management now often advertises--instead of negotiating, they advertise for permanent replacements, the moment a strike begins, sometimes even in advance. I have seen advertisements preparing to hire a nonunion force in anticipation and, in fact, in the effort to precipitate the strike. The threat of permanently lost jobs casts a pall over the entire bargaining process and breaks down that mutual incentive to come to a peaceful collective agreement. Mr. President, as the power of the strike becomes more and more tenuous, the voice of the labor negotiators over his or her employment weakens considerably. I do not believe, at a bare minimum, that Federal resources, Federal tax dollars, should be used to do more of this, to erode the power of working people. If the use of permanent replacements is allowed in federally financed work, we then become directly involved in further weakening the voice of the working sector of this country, or even maybe worse, maybe we are in the process here of silencing the voice of working people for good. It reminds me, Mr. President, of an act of kicking someone when they are down. I am not saying that is the intention of the Senator from Kansas. In fact, she is the last person in this whole body that I would accuse of trying to kick someone when they are down. I am afraid that the effect of this, the unwillingness to say the Federal tax dollars should not be used in order to assist the use of permanent replacement workers is, in fact, kicking working people when they are down, when they have seen many rough years, many years of unfair advantage to employers in management relations, many years of jobs being lost overseas, sometimes in the name of free trade, but often to the detriment of the people that have helped build this country. During disputes between employers and employees, Government should at the very least act to ensure that both sides are playing on a level playing field. The Federal Government should not act to give an advantage to one side or the other. At times, such actions in the past have given that advantage in the form of police protection for strikers and nonstrikers. At other times, in the form of court proceedings. I might add that employers still have many options in overcoming or surviving a strike. There are many things they can do, apart from this very harsh act of using permanent replacement workers. They can hire temporary employees, they can stockpile inventory in advance of a potential strike, or assign supervisors to take over some aspects of production. I know this is not a first choice. But of course neither is striking ever a first choice of the working people who feel compelled to go on strike. These options exist for the employers. They have always been available to employers, and they are if no way limited by the President's Executive order. Mr. President, last year the Washington Post ran an excellent editorial called ``Women and the Right to Strike'' which pointed out that as a class, women and minorities are the most in need of protection against the use of permanent replacements. They are overrepresented in low-skill low-wage jobs where it is easy to find and train replacements, while they are also in need of those jobs simply to meet the most basic necessities. Mr. President, I find this attempt to prevent the Executive order in this case to be very surprising in light of the emphasis on welfare reform that has come through as a very important part of the so-called Republican contract. The notion of welfare reform, which I agree with, is that if somebody can work they should work. If we are going to pass some important legislation this year to make that much more likely, what is the message of this amendment to those who are being encouraged to go to work? The message is, you will lose your welfare benefits, you will leave your children and go to work, you will not necessarily be guaranteed health care. As we know, we do not have universal coverage. We have universal coverage for the people on welfare, but not necessarily for those who work. So this is the message that the new majority wants to give to people on welfare who want to go to work. Go to work, for maybe the same amount, maybe a little more, and you may have your jobs torn away from you in a very short period of time by the use of permanent replacement workers. No job security. No meaningful right to strike. It is the worst message we can possibly send to those people who are genuinely striving to leave welfare.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may conclude, I know the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak. The senior Senator from Massachusetts referred to the people who would be affected by the use of permanent replacement workers as the backbone of our country. That is exactly what they are. They are not the people who so many people like to rail against who are not willing to work who can work; these are people who work, who have worked hard, who report to work every day, many of whom have to have both parents working to make ends meet. They are trying awfully hard to make it. All they want is to know that this country, whether it be a Democrat majority or a Republican majority, is committed to helping them get to work and have a job and make an honest living. I thought that is what this whole welfare debate is about; that everybody is better off if they are working and that if they are not working, they are taking advantage of the rest of us. That is what I thought it was about. I thought that is why so many working people are frustrated and irritated by our current welfare system. What kind of a mixed message is it to kick people who are working and not guarantee them the right to strike at the same time you tell them get back to work and help us out in this society by working and paying your taxes and make our economy go? It does not add up. This Republican agenda is contradictory. Are we for deficit reduction, or are we for tax cuts? Are we for getting people back to work, or are we for driving people out of work by the use of permanent replacement workers? Which one is it? Where is the sense of community? Where is the sense of helping somebody when they are down? Where is the sense of making sure that if somebody is really trying to work, that we will do whatever we can to make sure that that job has some stability, has decent wages, some rights, some health insurance. Which is it? I believe that every Member of this body is committed to those principles in their heart, but when you look at the agenda and the way that it works at cross-purposes with an amendment like this, it is very, very troubling; and it is hard for me to tell the hardworking people in Wisconsin, those who are part of organized labor, in particular, that you really mean it, that you really mean it when you say you want people to work. If you want them to work, give them a fair chance to have a balance to keep those jobs when the management is being unfair. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Kassebaum amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I encourage my colleagues to vote against it. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is my understanding. It is not as extensive as the kind of law I would like to see passed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the chairman's amendment on Cuba is a very serious one. Cuba is a country of significance to the United States and our policy toward it should be very carefully considered, measured, and open to a wide range of dynamics which necessarily come up between virtual neighbors. I have been one, like the chairman, who has supported an aggressive policy toward Cuba which will promote democracy and respect human rights. Like the chairman, I believe that was, in large part, why we fought the cold war. It was part of the effort. But I advocate a different approach. To my mind, further isolating Cuba is just not an effective approach. In a world where we are trying to establish multifaceted, global post- cold-war relationships, it makes little sense to ignore that your neighbor exists, or to try to build regional coalitions around Caribbean. We cannot do much to push democracy and respect for human rights if we will not even talk to the Cubans. Indeed, we only hurt ourselves if we pretend that a country--particularly if it is objectionable or threatening--does not exist. That is what I am afraid is the direction of this amendment. I also think that pushing our friends and allies to also impose embargoes on Cuba is a waste of diplomatic chits. It is a waste of time. We have much higher priorities with countries like Canada and Great Britain, and most of Latin America than to try to ask them as a high priority to further isolate Fidel Castro. It would be far more constructive to work with our regional partners to develop a post- Castro policy--a policy which will help rebuild Cuba economically, establish democratic institutions, and strengthen regional relationships, including trade and investment opportunities when the time is appropriate. Finally, I am a little amused that anyone could even advocate increased funding for TV Marti. This program is a proven failure both technically and substantively. Among its programming highlights have been baseball--a popular sport in Cuba--and sitcoms such as ``Kate and Allie,'' ``Fame,'' and ``Que Pasa, USA?,'' a show about a Cuban-American family adapting to Miami. I am told technically, it is almost inoperable. I have had occasion to refer to it as a ``balloondoggle.'' Its signal is jammed by the regime--that is, when the signal reaches Cuba. Transmission is faulty at best most of the time. The programs are produced each day in Maryland. They are then uplinked--beamed up--from Washington and relayed to an aerostat balloon--a blimp known as ``Fat Albert''--which hangs on a tether 10,000 feet above Cudjoe Key. From there it is projected to Havana. However, because of inclement weather, the blimp can only be flown sometimes. Often volatile weather conditions knock Fat Albert off its tethered cable. In 1991, the blimp was found in the Florida Everglades, after a $35,000 search, where it laid damaged for months. TV Marti is even more useless when you think that we have an effective program in Radio Marti. Radio Marti is not jammed, and I am told, unlike TV Marti, it enjoys a large Cuban audience. To recommend more funding for TV Marti--to single it out for increases in a year when we are slashing so many other worthwhile accounts--is just ludicrous. It's hardly the way to balance the budget. It is just the opposite. These are just some of the varying views on Cuba. Some of my other colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Pell, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Dodd, favor lifting the U.S. trade embargo. I may want to link such a proposal to human rights reforms in Cuba, which apparently are quite needed. Therefore, instead of conducting an ad hoc, seat-of-the-pants debate here today, I would respectfully request that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold hearings in the committee on this topic. I know that the ranking members of both the full committee and the subcommittee would work closely with you to make that happen. A full examination of all the options, proposals, and ramifications is long overdue, but quite necessary. There are serious implications to what we do: The refugee flow we witnessed this summer is but one example. That shows this has great implications, not just for Cuba but for us. It would be to the credit of the committee to hold such hearings and shape the public debate on United States-Cuba relations in a deliberative and constructive way. I am sure we all agree that United States policy toward Cuba is too important and too complicated to offer statements today with full confidence that we are doing the right thing. I will very much appreciate it if the chairman will consider that possibility.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the past few months, political violence between Hutu rebels and the Tutsi-dominated military has intensified in the small Central African nation of Burundi. Extremist Tutsi gangs, seeking to destabilize the Hutu government, have been carrying out dead city operations, where residents are ordered to remain at home or shut down business, or risk violent attacks. Grenades are exploding in crowded city centers, including one which recently blew up a bus, and another which killed many civilians in a schoolyard. Scores of civilians have been murdered, and a Hutu provincial Governor, Fidele Muhezi, was assassinated on January 26. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees says that over 60,000 people have fled to Tanzania, including 30,000 last week alone. These are tragedies in any context. In Burundi, they bear eerie resemblances to what happened in neighboring Rwanda in April of last year, which of course exploded in the bloodiest genocide ever recorded, in real time, on television. Given the close ties between the tribes in both countries, events in Rwanda influence happenings in Burundi. Like Rwanda, Burundi's population is roughly 85-percent Hutu and 15- percent Tutsi. Like Rwanda, there is a long history of Hutu-Tutsi violence. Like Rwanda, the parties in Burundi have been pursuing peace through a power-sharing arrangement and democratic means. In Burundi, the agreement brought elections in which a Hutu was chosen President, but the Tutsis continued to dominate the military. Already violence has erupted once since the peace process began when, in October 1993, President Melchoir Ndadaye was assassinated by Tutsis, and in retribution by both sides, up to 50,000 people were slaughtered. Almost 10,000 more people have died in ethnic violence since then. The current cycle of violence further threatens the peace plan. For example, the Tutsi opposition party has called for the coup d'etat of the Government. This recent spate of violence is a result of extremist Tutsis, with little or no popular support, trying to seize power from Hutus, which they cannot get through democratic means. For months, observers have been warning that Burundi will go the route of Rwanda if order and justice are not restored. Pierre Buyoya, the former Tutsi military ruler who initiated the democratization programs in Burundi, in fact, states in the Washington Post on February 6 that ``Things are worse in Burundi than they were in Rwanda in April.'' Scholars have documented that historically, violence in Rwanda has foreshadowed violence in Burundi, and vice-versa. A major reason this violence is so frightening is that many of the individuals responsible for the assassination of President Ndadaye and the subsequent killings have never been prosecuted. This impunity only reinforces the use of violence as a legitimate political tool, and could effectively help extremists achieve their goals. In an effort to help contain this mounting chaos and to build democracy in Burundi, the United States should request the U.N. Security Council to establish a judicial commission of experts. This commission would assist the Burundi Government to investigate President Ndadaye's assassination and the mass murders in 1993. Legal officers, investigators, and judges from countries with legal systems similar to Burundi's, such as Mali, could work in this commission. A strengthened Burundi judicial system would demonstrate that there is no impunity for such heinous political crimes. International assistance is needed to do it. I want to applaud the administration for its high-level attention to this problem. I commend President Clinton's personal plea on the Voice of America to the people of Burundi, urging them to ``say no to violence and extremism'' and work toward peace. I am also pleased that National Security Adviser Tony Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher have publicly expressed their concerns about Burundi and called for diplomatic intervention. These are calls which carry significant weight in Burundi, and if successful, will have contributed to prevention of a potentially horrible conflict. I want to make sure that they will get public credit for their efforts. past, the United States and the international community should be responsive to calls for help when another Central African nation is on the brink of disaster. We have offered rhetoric that early preventive action can save millions of lives and billions of dollars later. Conflict resolution and preventive diplomacy is a new mantra in international relations. And it should be. Here is an opportunity to listen to the warning signs and respond in some way. If we do, Burundi may be able to stem the recent spate of violence and continue its move toward democracy. If we do not, then Burundi risks becoming another Rwanda.