if I may just restate what this amendment is about. It is an amendment which would bar any Federal funds from being spent to implement the Executive order that was issued by the President last week. That Executive order would effectively prohibit Federal contractors from exercising their legal right to hire permanent replacement workers--a right that has been the law of the land for 60 years. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about this debate being one thing or another--an assault on working families, an assault on children. I believe, Mr. President, and perhaps I am naive in thinking so, that this vote should not be viewed as a test of the President's leadership, nor should it be viewed as a test of Republican clout. I hope that it would not be viewed as a vote for labor or a vote for business. I wish that this amendment would be taken for what it is. No one wants to see workers dismissed gratuitously and replaced by permanent replacement workers. That is not what is at issue either. This is not the beginning of a series of assaults on working class families. This is a debate on an Executive order issued by the President which effectively changes labor law in a significant way. What this debate is all about, in my mind--and I think it is an important point--is the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. It is about whether our national labor policy should be determined by the President rather than by an act of Congress.
Nancy Kassebaum: “if I may just restate what this amendment is about. It is an amendment which would bar any Federal funds from being…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment to bar federal funds for an executive order affecting labor law.
Share
More from Nancy Kassebaum
I rise to discuss, again, legislation that has been before us, which is support for the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, the TEAM Act. During the past couple of days, we have had some lengthy debate on this legislation, as well…
regarding the Dorgan amendment, I would just say that I think we are better off the way things are than to try to develop a rigidity that I think would occur in the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. It requires a…
No. The bill does not require groups to form or join a purchasing cooperative. Nor does the legislation preclude any other type of groups purchasing arrangements from existing.
Without the dedicated efforts of our staff, it would not have been possible. I mention Dean Rosen, Susan Hattan of my staff, and David Nexon and Lauren Ewers of Senator Kennedy's staff, and many others who have spent countless time and…





