[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3634-S3636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
legislation before us today, the Serve America Act. I would like to 
thank Senators Kennedy from Massachusetts and Hatch of Utah, as well as 
Wyoming's Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski of Maryland for their hard 
work on this legislation.
  Last week I held a conference call in my office with two very 
impressive young men who are a testament to what the Serve America Act 
is all about. Their names are Mark Rembert and Taylor Stuckert. I met 
them last year in Wilmington, an Ohio city in southwest Ohio that has 
been devastated by the closure of the Wilmington Airport where DHL 
employed about 8,000 people--DHL, Astar, and ABX, three national 
companies.
  Mark and Taylor decided they simply could not sit on the sideline 
while their community struggled to absorb this tremendous economic 
blow. Instead they founded Energize Clinton County, a nonprofit focused 
on economic development and environmental awareness.
  In the midst of an economic disaster in their community, these two 
young men, Mark and Taylor, decided to serve. They are examples of what 
inspired this bill and what service to our country is all about.
  I know something personally about City Year, one of the programs 
within the Serve America Act. City Year is part of AmeriCorps. My 
daughter Elizabeth served in City Year Philadelphia about 4 or 5 years 
ago. She was paid $700 a month, as were the six or seven roommates she 
had in an old house on Baltimore Pike near the VA in Philadelphia. They 
met every Sunday night to talk about how they were going to, after 
paying their rent--about $300 a month each--how they were going to 
figure out how to eat. They pooled their resources and figured out how 
to do that.
  During the day--each day of the week, often 6-day weeks, often more--
Elizabeth and other of her colleagues would go into a middle school in 
Philadelphia and work with local students in some of the poor areas of 
Philadelphia.
  This program mattered to those students she helped. It mattered to my 
daughter who I said was paid $700 a month for this service in City 
Year. It made her more reliable, and it made her more strong. It made 
her more understanding of the community around her, and it taught what 
so many of these programs over the years, so many of these volunteer 
service organizations have taught us. Whether it is the Peace Corps or 
Vista or City Year or Teach America, not just the people who are served 
by these young people but the people who do the serving, it stays with 
them the rest of their lives. It matters so much to them as they 
understand our society even better.
  The passage of this legislation will mean even more Americans will be 
able to answer President Obama's call to service. The Serve America Act 
will provide opportunities for Americans of all ages and from all 
backgrounds to

[[Page S3635]]

serve. It invests in action and it promotes existing voluntarism by 
supporting and expanding existing community service and development 
programs to tackle the problems at the root of the economic crisis. It 
strengthens programs such as AmeriCorps which, contrary to the wholly 
unwarranted and counterproductive partisan attacks some of my 
colleagues have launched against them, have paid for themselves many 
times over.
  Whether your measure is the impact of these programs on their 
participants, enabling individuals to find a productive path and avoid 
a less productive path or whether your measure is the tangible work 
accomplished in communities throughout this Nation; whether your 
measure is the culture of voluntarism cultivated, choose your measure. 
AmeriCorps and like programs are a cost-effective means of 
strengthening our Nation and promoting the old-fashioned values of hard 
work, empathy, and civic responsibility.
  Across the country, the bill would create 175,000 new service 
opportunities. I am sure successful Ohio programs such as City Year 
Columbus, Ohio College Advising Corps in Cleveland, the Wood County 
Corps in Bowling Green would value additional volunteers, and there is 
no doubt that Ohio would benefit from their work.
  Service opportunities will be expanded to incorporate and encourage 
Americans of every age group: programs such as the Summer of Service 
Program for middle and high school students, the Youth Engagement Zone 
Program for young people from low-income areas, and Encore Fellowships 
for retired Americans. This is not only for young people to volunteer 
and to serve.
  The Serve America Act also invests in nonprofit service organizations 
that work. These organizations are on the front lines of this Nation's 
economic crisis. They will play an integral role in our recovery. These 
organizations empower Americans and spur economic growth at the 
community level.
  Those very organizations embody the values that enable our Nation to 
remain unified when widespread hardship hits and become stronger in the 
process of turning that hardship around.
  The Serve America Act is part of the change this country called for. 
It not only creates a catalyst for recovery through a renewed service 
movement, it recognizes the resources and the programs it will take to 
get us there.
  I was proud to cosponsor the Serve America Act. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Employee Free Choice Act

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to state my 
position on the bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, also known 
as card check. My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons.
  First, on the merits, it is a close call and has been the most 
heavily lobbied issue I can recall. Second, it is a very emotional 
issue with labor looking to this legislation to reverse the steep 
decline in union membership and business expressing great concern about 
added costs which would drive more companies out of business or 
overseas.
  Perhaps, most of all, it is very hard to disappoint many friends who 
have supported me over the years, on either side, who are urging me to 
vote their way. In voting for cloture--that is to cut off debate--in 
June of 2007, I emphasized in my floor statement and in a Law Review 
article that I was not supporting the bill on the merits but only to 
take up the issue of labor law reform.
  Hearings had shown that the NLRB was dysfunctional and badly 
politicized. When Republicans controlled the board, the decisions were 
for business. With Democrats in control, the decisions were for labor. 
Some cases took as long as 11 years to decide. The remedies were 
ineffective.
  Regrettably, there has been widespread intimidation on both sides. 
Testimony shows union officials visit workers' homes with strong-arm 
tactics and refuse to leave until cards are signed. Similarly, 
employees have complained about being captives in employers' meetings 
with threats of being fired and other strong-arm tactics.
  On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for 
me is the elimination of the secret ballot, which is the cornerstone of 
how contests are decided in a democratic society. The bill's 
requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached 
within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot 
live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the 
Wagner Act for collective bargaining, which makes the employer liable 
only for a deal to which he or she agrees. The arbitration provision 
could be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure, which 
would limit the arbitrator's discretion and prompt the parties to move 
to more reasonable positions.
  In seeking more union membership and negotiating leverage, labor has 
a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs 
to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits. 
President Obama has pressed labor's argument that the middle class 
needs to be strengthened through more power to unions in their 
negotiations with business.
  The better way to expand labor's clout in collective bargaining is 
through amendments to the NLRA rather than eliminating the secret 
ballot and mandatory arbitration. Some of the possible provisions for 
such remedial legislation are set forth in the appendix to this 
statement.
  In June 2007, the Employee Free Choice Act was virtually monolithic: 
50 Senators, Democrats, voted for cloture; and 48 Republicans against. 
I was the only Republican to vote for cloture. The prospects for the 
next cloture vote are virtually the same.
  No Democratic Senator has spoken out against cloture. Republican 
Senators are outspoken in favor of a filibuster. With the prospects of 
a Democratic win in Minnesota yet uncertain, it appears the 59 
Democrats will vote to proceed, with 40 Republicans in opposition. If 
so, the decisive vote would be mine.
  In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive votes are left to a small 
group who are willing to listen, reject ideological dogmatism, disagree 
with the party line, and make an independent judgment. It is an 
anguishing position, but we play the cards we are dealt.
  The emphasis on bipartisanship is misplaced. There is no special 
virtue in having some Republicans and some Democrats take similar 
positions. The desired value, really, is independent thought and an 
objective judgment. It obviously cannot be that all Democrats come to 
one conclusion and all Republicans come to the opposite conclusion by 
expressing their individual objective judgments.
  Senators' sentiments expressed in the cloakroom frequently differ 
dramatically from their votes in the well of the Senate. The Nation 
would be better served, in my opinion, with public policy determined by 
independent, objective legislative judgments.
  The problems of the recession would make this a particularly bad time 
to enact the Employee Free Choice Act. Employers understandably 
complain that adding such a burden would result in further job losses. 
If efforts to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments 
to the NLRA are unsuccessful, then I would be willing to reconsider the 
Employee Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.
  I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very 
large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my 
mind. Knowing that I will not support cloture on this bill, Senators 
may choose to move on and amend the NLRA as I have suggested or 
otherwise. This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made 
some deal for my political advantage. I have not traded my vote in the 
past and would not do so now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Record, as 
well as an appendix with suggested revisions to the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3636]]

                       Statement by Arlen Specter

       My vote on the Employees Choice Bill, also known as Card 
     Check, is very difficult for many reasons. First, on the 
     merits, it is a close call and has been the most heavily 
     lobbied issue I can recall. Second, it is a very emotional 
     issue with Labor looking to this legislation to reverse the 
     steep decline in union membership and business expressing 
     great concern about added costs which would drive more 
     companies out of business or overseas. Perhaps, most of all, 
     it is very hard to disappoint many friends who have supported 
     me over the years, on either side, who are urging me to vote 
     their way.
       In voting for cloture (to cut off debate) in June 2007, I 
     emphasized in my floor statement and in a law review article 
     that I was not supporting the bill on the merits, but only to 
     take up the issue of labor law reform. Hearings had shown 
     that the NLRB was dysfunctional and badly politicized. When 
     Republicans controlled the Board, the decisions were for 
     business. With Democrats in control, the decisions were for 
     labor. Some cases took as long as eleven years to decide. The 
     remedies were ineffective.
       Regrettably, there has been widespread intimidation on both 
     sides. Testimony shows union officials visit workers' homes, 
     use strong-arm tactics, and refuse to leave until cards are 
     signed. Similarly, employees have complained about being 
     captives in employers' meetings with threats of being fired 
     and other strong-arm tactics.
       On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of 
     the list is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the 
     cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic 
     society. The bill's requirement for compulsory arbitration if 
     an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the 
     employer to a deal he/she cannot live with. Such arbitration 
     runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for 
     collective bargaining which makes the employer liable only 
     for a deal he/she agrees to. The arbitration provision could 
     be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure 
     which would limit the arbitrator's discretion and prompt the 
     parties to more reasonable positions.
       In seeking more union membership and negotiating leverage, 
     Labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from 
     outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in 
     pension and health benefits. President Obama has pressed 
     Labor's argument that the middle class needs to be 
     strengthened through more power to unions in their 
     negotiations with business. The better way to expand labor's 
     clout in collective bargaining is through amendments to the 
     NLRA rather than on eliminating the secret ballot and 
     mandatory arbitration. Some of the possible provisions for 
     such remedial legislation are set forth in an appendix.
       The June 2007 vote on Employees' Choice was virtually 
     monolithic: 50 Democrats for cloture to 48 Republicans 
     against. I was the only Republican to vote for cloture. The 
     prospects for the next cloture vote are virtually the same. 
     No Democratic Senator has spoken out against cloture. 
     Republican Senators are outspoken in favor of a filibuster. 
     With the prospects of a Democratic win in Minnesota, yet 
     uncertain, it appears that 59 Democrats will vote to proceed 
     with 40 Republicans in opposition. If so, the decisive vote 
     would be mine. In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive 
     votes are left to a small group who are willing to listen, 
     reject ideological dogmatism, disagree with the party line 
     and make an independent judgment. It is an anguishing 
     position, but we play the cards we are dealt.
       The emphasis on bipartisanship is misplaced. There is no 
     special virtue in having some Republicans and some Democrats 
     take similar positions. The desired value is independent 
     thought and an objective judgment. It obviously can't be that 
     all Democrats come to one conclusion and all Republicans come 
     to the opposite conclusion by expressing their individual 
     objective judgments. Senators' sentiments expressed in the 
     cloakroom frequently differ dramatically from their votes in 
     the well of the Senate. The nation would be better served 
     with public policy determined by independent, objective 
     legislators' judgments.
       The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad 
     time to enact Employees Choice legislation. Employers 
     understandably complain that adding such a burden would 
     result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to 
     give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to 
     the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees' 
     Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.
       I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted 
     with a very large number of interested parties on both sides 
     and I have made up my mind. Knowing that I will not support 
     cloture on this bill, Senators may choose to move on and 
     amend the NLRA as I have suggested or otherwise. This 
     announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some 
     deal for my political advantage. I have not traded my vote in 
     the past and would not do so now.
                                  ____


                                Appendix


      some suggested revisions to the national labor relations act

       (1) Establishing a timetable:
       (a) Require that an election must be held within 10 days of 
     a filing of a joint petition from the employer and the union.
       (b) In the absence of a joint petition, require the NLRB to 
     resolve issues on the bargaining unit and eligibility to vote 
     within 14 days from the filing of the petition and the 
     election 7 days thereafter. The Board may extend the time for 
     the election to 14 additional days if the Board sets forth 
     specifics on factual or legal issues of exceptional 
     complexity justifying the extension.
       (c) Challenges to the voting would have to be filed within 
     5 days with the Board having 15 days to resolve any disputes 
     with an additional 10 days if they find issues of exceptional 
     complexity.
       (2) Adding unfair labor practices:
       (a) an employer or union official visits to an employee at 
     his/her home without prior consent for any purpose related to 
     a representation campaign.
       (b) an employer holds employees in a ``captive audience'' 
     speech unless the union has equal time under identical 
     circumstances.
       (c) an employer or union engages in campaign related 
     activities aimed at employees within 24 hours prior to an 
     election.
       (3) Authorizing the NLRB to impose treble back pay without 
     reduction for mitigation when an employee is unlawfully 
     fired.
       (4) Authorizing civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation 
     on an NLRB finding of willful and repeated violations of 
     employees' statutory rights by an employer or union during an 
     election campaign.
       (5) Require the parties to begin negotiations within 21 
     days after a union is certified. If there is no agreement 
     after 120 days from the first meeting, either party may call 
     for mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service.
       (6) On a finding that a party is not negotiating in good 
     faith, an order may be issued establishing a schedule for 
     negotiation and imposing costs and attorney fees.
       (7) Broaden the provisions for injunctive relief with 
     reasonable attorneys' fees on a finding that either party is 
     not acting in good faith.
       (8) Require a dissent by a member of the Board to be 
     completed 45 days after the majority opinion is filed.
       (9) Establish a certiorari-type process where the Board 
     would exercise discretion on reviewing challenges from 
     decisions by an administrative law judge or regional 
     director.
       (10) If the Board does not grant review or fails to issue a 
     decision within 180 days after receiving the record, the 
     decision of the administrative judge or regional director 
     would be final.
       (11) Authorizing the award of reasonable attorneys' fees on 
     a finding of harassment, causing unnecessary delay or bad 
     faith.
       (12) Modify the NLRA to give the court broader discretion 
     to impose a Gissel order on a finding that the environment 
     has deteriorated to the extent that a fair election is not 
     possible.

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________