[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7877-S7879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FREE CHOICE ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. President, as I indicated, I was going to ask consent that the 
Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 66, H.R. 800, the Free 
Choice Act of 2007, at a time to be determined by the majority leader 
following consultation with the Republican leader, but I am not going 
to do that.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 66, S. 800, and send a cloture 
motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 66, H.R. 800, the Free Choice Act of 
     2007.
         Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, 
           Charles Schumer, Russell D. Feingold, Jack Reed, Barack 
           Obama, Christopher Dodd, B.A. Mikulski, Pat Leahy, John 
           Kerry, Robert Menendez, Claire McCaskill, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Frank R. Lautenberg, Joe Biden, H.R. Clinton.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required 
under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, am I next in the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian shows the Senator from New 
Jersey is to be recognized for up to 10 minutes and then the senior 
Senator from New York for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employee 
Free Choice Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This 
bill will level the playing field for workers seeking a voice at work 
and ensure they have the freedom to choose to join a union without 
coercion. I applaud Senator Kennedy for his passion to move this bill 
forward and his relentless fight to improve and uphold the rights of 
workers.
  Some may ask why this change is needed. They may think that in 2007, 
in this great democratic Nation, the right of an employee to seek 
representation in their workplace is alive and well. It should be. But 
the fact is, under current law, there are loopholes that have

[[Page S7878]]

been exploited, tactics that have been utilized, and actions taken 
against employees that have undermined the basic rights to which 
employees should be entitled.
  We have a chart that shows the number of workers facing roadblocks 
trying to form a union. From start to finish, workers often face 
roadblock after roadblock in trying to seek union representation. 
Active union workers are fired; employers challenge and file appeals 
with the NLRB; and employers can simply stall the process and prevent 
it from moving forward.
  We cannot ignore that there are some concerted and disturbing efforts 
that have tainted what should be a fair process. In that process, 
employees are fired in roughly one quarter of all private-sector 
organizing efforts. One in five workers who openly advocate for a union 
during an election campaign is fired.
  In 2005 alone, some 30,000 workers experienced some form of 
discrimination for their participation in an organizing effort, 
resulting in lost wages or lost jobs. And, in an increasingly common 
trend, a vast majority of private employers are hiring union-busting 
consultants to fight unionization drives.
  Clearly, existing law has not been enough to deter these types of 
tactics. The Employee Free Choice Act would close loopholes that have 
allowed employers to abuse the labor process without repercussion, and 
it would beef up the penalties for violation. Part of the problem is 
that under current law, there is not a strong enough incentive to 
follow the law.
  While employers face stiff penalties for firing an employee based on 
race, gender, or disability, they face minimal penalties for firing an 
employee for union organizing.
  In addition to enacting stronger penalties, this legislation would 
essentially enforce the steps that are supposed to take place, but 
often do not. A key part of this bill is that it will bring people to 
the table. It would ensure that when employees make their voices heard, 
the process moves forward. This is not forcing the hand of employers or 
employees, but it simply ensures that negotiations that are supposed to 
take place will take place.
  Currently, employees can agree to join a union, but then the process 
is dragged out for months or years. This is not the spirit of the law. 
The Employee Free Choice Act will restore that spirit and uphold the 
meaning of the rights employees are supposed to have.
  Improving the rights of workers is not just about fairness--it is 
also about equity. We know that workers who have a voice at work have 
better benefits and are able to provide a higher quality of life for 
their families. When nearly half of all Americans report having just 
``enough to get by,'' it should be obvious that we need to take action 
to improve the economic standing of many of our workers.
  The fact is, union membership means higher wages. According to the 
Department of Labor, union workers earn 30 percent higher weekly 
earnings than non-union workers--that is an average of $191 dollars per 
week, or more than $9,000 per year.
  This is especially true for minorities. Latinos represented by unions 
typically earn median wages that are 46 percent higher than non-
unionized Latinos. Women and African-Americans typically earn more than 
30 percent higher median wages when they are unionized. By opening the 
door for more workers to seek union representation, we are helping 
ensure a pathway to fairness and hopefully, a pathway to a better 
quality of life.
  Hardworking Americans deserve the chance that this bill provides. 
They deserve a strong law that will not allow employers to skirt its 
meaning; a law that will protect their decisions and ensure their 
voices will be heard.
  That is why I support this bill. I believe a majority of voices 
should be upheld and I believe that our workplaces should be the very 
best they can be for our Nation's workers.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act to 
protect and enforce the rights of any worker to freely join a union; 
free from intimidation, free from back-door tactics, free from fear of 
retribution. That is a right. That is a right that no worker in America 
should be denied.
  I hope we will have the support of our colleagues when this comes to 
a vote on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to first speak briefly about the 
Employee Free Choice Act, which is a very important piece of 
legislation. In fact, I introduced the original bill 4 years ago, 
worked hard to persuade many of my colleagues in the labor movement 
that this should be a top priority. I am so glad it is. I wish to 
salute the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, who has taken 
leadership on this issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the 
bill.
  Let me say this: Before the union movement in America, we had a few 
wealthy people and a lot of poor people and not much of a middle class. 
The great thing about the union movement is it created a middle class. 
Through struggles of laboring men and women from about 1870 to 1960, 
America became a country that was about 30 or 35 percent unionized.
  What that meant was that wages rose, benefits rose, health care rose, 
and America was a prosperous country. Without a middle class, America 
would not have prospered. Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many 
employers who wished to prevent unions or beat back unions found new 
ways to basically thwart what was the original thrust of the NLRB, 
which was to freely allow men and women to organize.
  They hired lawyers. There are law firms with hundreds of people whose 
whole job is to prevent unionization. They basically succeeded. So as 
old industries closed, new industries that have as much reason to 
organize did not. Factories closed, office towers came about, but the 
union jobs did not follow from the factories to the office towers, with 
the exception of the public sector.
  So now we are in this situation where fewer than 10 percent of 
American workers are organized. That hurts America. That means that men 
and women are not able to bargain collectively for rights. When you 
talk about declining wages of the middle class, when you talk about 
declining health benefits of the middle class, one--not the only but 
one of the reasons is we do not have unions.
  Fewer and fewer Americans are organized. What the legislation does, 
what the Employee Free Choice Act does, is very simply restore the 
balance so it would be as easy to organize a factory in an office tower 
in 2007 as it was to organize a factory in the 1930s or 1940s or 1950s.
  To show you the law works, Canada has basically the same economic 
structure as America. Canada is over 30 percent organized and America 
is 8 percent organized. One reason, they have a law such as the 
Employee Free Choice Act which allows a majority of employees to sign a 
card and then a union takes effect.
  One of the great problems in the new America is income inequality. 
The top 1 percent of America represents 9 percent of the income in 
1980, 16 percent in 2001, and now it is over 20 percent by the latest 
statistics. One of the many ways to overcome that inequality is to make 
it a little easier for people to organize.
  So I think this legislation is extremely important to the basic 
fabric of America. If we want middle-class people to continue to have 
wage growth and benefit growth, unions are basically essential. So I am 
proud to support this legislation.
  I understand there are employers who fight it tooth and nail. I have 
seen some of the ads. There is one today in one of the papers, 
particularly vicious, with a picture of a union leader and then of two 
dictators. I thought it was the kind of cheap shot we shouldn't see in 
this country.
  The bottom line is simple. This legislation is vital to the health, 
economic health of working men and women and vital to keeping a middle 
class in America and not reverting to the old days, when you had very 
few wealthy people and a large number of struggling people. I support 
the legislation.


          Amendments Nos. 1604, 1605, 1606, and 1656 to H.R. 6

  Second, I would like to speak about amendments 1604, 1605, 1606, and 
1656, amendments I will be offering to H.R. 6. I am not going to offer 
them tonight because none of my colleagues from

[[Page S7879]]

the opposing side are here. But they are important.
  This is an energy bill that is vital to the country. We all want to 
curb the emission of CO2, we want to curb our dependence on 
foreign oil, and we want to bring down the prices of gasoline, 
electricity, and all the other commodities that are petroleum 
dependent. There has been a great deal of talk and focus on alternative 
fuels. That is very good. But alternative fuels are the ``sizzle'' and 
conservation is the ``steak'' when it comes to reducing our dependence 
on oil and particularly foreign oil
  It costs about a quarter as much to conserve as it does to create an 
alternative. So these amendments are very simple. I wish to thank the 
Finance Committee, first, for drafting a provision that will take 
billions of dollars in tax breaks and other benefits from the oil 
industry to create new, improved incentives to promote solar power and 
wind power and cellulosic ethanol.
  But we also have to do energy efficiency. You do not have to be 
Thomas Edison to know that better energy efficiency is a win-win for 
American families. The Federal Government, thus far, has failed to take 
the lead in promoting commercializing or deploying energy efficiency 
technologies despite their cost-effectiveness and reliability.
  Unlike the development of cutting new alternative and renewable fuel 
sources, we do not have to wait for new technologies to reap the 
benefits of energy efficiency in our homes. An excellent example is our 
largest State in population, California. Over the past 30 years, it has 
demonstrated significant efficiency gains that can be achieved through 
various energy efficiency measures, especially by increasing the 
efficiency of utilities, buildings, and appliances.
  With these measures, California has generated more than 20 percent of 
energy savings since 1975. California's energy use, per capita, is 
similar to many countries in Europe because they did this 30 years ago. 
So if California can do it, so can America.
  The four amendments I have mentioned, one on buildings, two on 
appliances, and one on electric generation, take the California 
legislation and basically apply it to America. I am going to discuss 
each.
  The first amendment will create a national energy efficiency resource 
standard that would require utilities to achieve a small percentage of 
energy savings every year based on their annual sales.

  Under my amendment, utilities can generate energy savings through a 
variety of ways, including helping their customers save energy through 
energy-efficient programs, improving energy efficiency in their own 
distribution systems or credit trading.
  Energy savings requirements are phased in in small increments each 
year, which will give the utilities enough time to boost their energy 
savings program.
  This is not a new idea. Many States already successfully have 
implemented EERS standards--not only California but Colorado, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, 
Virginia, and Washington.
  Several States, including my State of New York, as well as New 
Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, are actively 
working to implement the standard. Since the States are moving forward 
on this standard, it makes sense for Congress to create a national 
standard so all Americans can reap the benefit of increased energy 
savings.
  According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, by 
2020 a national EERS will reduce peak electric demand by 130,000 
megawatts, saving enough to power 40 million households and reduce 
CO2 emissions by more than 300 million metric tons. That is 
equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. Is that not 
incredible? By simply requiring our utilities to be efficient, it is 
equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. I hope we are going 
to do it. It would save U.S. consumers $26 billion from their utility 
bills. So this is a huge amendment that can do a great deal.
  Now, my second amendment deals with buildings. Buildings account for 
37 percent of the total energy used in the United States and two-thirds 
of the electricity. We all focus on cars. We are going to have a fight 
on CAFE standards. But buildings are as important as cars in producing 
efficiency. There is much less controversy and we can get it done more 
easily.
  California has demonstrated that significant energy gains can be 
achieved through State building codes that are well designed and 
implemented. But despite the great savings made by California, many 
States have inadequate State building codes or none at all.
  Again, the Federal Government has lagged behind the States in setting 
aggressive energy saving building codes. Under my amendment, commercial 
and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy 
use targets. Both must be 30 percent more efficient by 2015 and 50 
percent more efficient by 2022.
  States will be deemed compliant once they adopt an acceptable code 
and as long as 90 percent of all new buildings comply with the States's 
code. Even if a State is not in compliance, each city that meets the 
criteria will be in compliance.
  I wish to salute the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, for taking 
the lead in imposing such standards on the city of New York.
  Finally, my amendment will authorize funding for technical 
assistance, training, and to help States ensure they are in compliance 
with these energy-efficient targets. Again, according to the Alliance 
to Save Energy, this amendment--listen to this--could save our country 
5 percent of its total energy use. That simple amendment, done now in 
California, could be done here--5 percent of our total energy use. It 
would save consumers $50 billion a year and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions by an equivalent of taking another 70 million cars off the 
road. So it is obvious we should do these things.
  Finally, the amendments on appliances. Again, California took the 
lead in improving energy efficiency standards for appliances. However, 
Federal law has restricted the ability of States in favor of lower 
Federal standards that, in many cases, have languished at DOE. For 
example, earlier this year, the GAO found that DOE had missed 34 out 
of--guess how many--34--34 out of 34--Congressionally set deadlines for 
reviewing and updating appliance and equipment standards.
  GAO found that delays on four of the overdue standards will cost 
consumers $28 billion in energy savings by 2030. In addition, even when 
DOE finally gets around to setting the new standards, these standards 
fail to meet the very real energy needs of our country.
  My amendment also fixes these problems in the bill. First, they will 
strengthen the process through which the States can apply to DOE to set 
higher standards for appliances that are currently regulated by the 
Federal Government; second, to restore authority for efficiency 
standards--that is the second amendment--to the States when DOE misses 
legal deadlines for setting or revising standards.
  My amendment states that if DOE misses legal deadlines for setting up 
updated efficiency standards, States may create higher standards that 
allow them to address their energy needs more effectively.
  By cutting our energy use through these energy efficiency measures, 
while also increasing the use of clean, renewable alternative fuels, we 
can make a huge difference and begin to address our energy 
problems, from ending our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil 
to helping consumers lower their rising energy bills. I urge adoption 
of these four commonsense efficiency measures and look forward to 
working with the managers of the bill as we go forward.

                          ____________________