[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3773-S3776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Wisconsin Recall Election
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the results of last
night's recall election in the State of Wisconsin. After nearly 2 years
of heated political debate, the people of Wisconsin made it clear last
night that they are not suffering from buyers' remorse. Two years ago,
they elected leaders committed to solving their State's budget crisis.
Last night, they stood by those leaders for making the hard choices
that turned Wisconsin's deficit into a surplus.
Yesterday's election was very important. It was important because of
the example it provides to the Nation and the world of how a democracy
should work, with citizens who disagree vehemently about policy
nonetheless coming together to accept the results of an open and fair
election.
It was important because of the message it sends with respect to
public employee unions. Last night's results serve as yet another
reminder that the
[[Page S3774]]
American people want serious answers to our Nation's fiscal problems,
and they are tired of having labor unions dictate the terms of our
economic recovery.
Scott Walker never hid his agenda. He ran for office on a platform of
reducing State spending, and Governor Walker immediately began
addressing the State's problems after taking office. So what egregious
acts did Governor Walker commit during his first months in office to
trigger this recall? First of all, his budget repair bill actually
required Wisconsin State employees to contribute more to their
pensions. Prior to passage of the Walker budget, many State employees
did not contribute to their retirement benefits.
You heard that right. Facing a massive State deficit, Governor Walker
determined that Wisconsin taxpayers should no longer foot the entire
bill for the generous pensions of public employees. In other words, he
asked State public employees to do what private sector employees have
done for a generation, contribute to their own retirement plan.
Next, he required that State employees pay a larger share of their
health care premiums. The new law requires State employees to pay 12.6
percent of their health care premiums. By contrast, Federal employees
pay at least 25 percent of their health care premiums.
To put these reforms in terms that his liberal detractors might
appreciate, the Governor was just asking for a little shared sacrifice.
Instead of pitching in, however, the State's public employees pitched a
fit. Then, most significantly, Governor Walker reformed a collective
bargaining system for State employees. Above all else, it was this
decision that triggered the meltdown in Wisconsin last year and
ultimately led to the recall.
Facing the possibility that a State might successfully limit union
influence and excesses, national labor groups turned Wisconsin into the
frontlines of labor agitation. I know some have tried to give me a
reputation of being anti-union. That is ridiculous because I was raised
in a union movement. I held a card for basically 10 years as I worked
as a skilled tradesman in the construction industry.
But, in fact, I am not opposed to unionization if that is what
employees truly want. I simply believe workers should be free to choose
whether to unionize and do so in an environment that is free of
coercion or intimidation.
Once unions are formed, I do not believe they should enjoy
disproportionate bargaining power in their negotiations with
management. That said, unions of public sector employees present a
unique set of issues for taxpayers and voters. Public sector unions
have inherent advantages in negotiations that private sector unions do
not. Most notably, public sector unions use their substantial influence
in State politics to elect the very officials with whom they will be
negotiating their union contracts.
As the academic Dan DiSalvo and many others have recognized, when the
Ford Motor Company negotiates with the American Auto Workers, it is an
arm's length negotiation, with both parties having an interest in the
ongoing success of the firm. Yet public employee unions effectively
negotiate with themselves. There is no distance between them and the
public officials they helped to elect and expect payback from.
Franklin Roosevelt understood that because public employee unions
could elect their own boss, ``the process of collective bargaining, as
usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.''
George Meany, the first head of the AFL CIO, knew this relationship
made it ``impossible to bargain collectively with the government.''
These critical points are lost on today's Democratic Party, which
increasingly depends on the foot soldiers and largesse provided by
these unions. As a result, we have an untenable situation, where public
sector unions are, in effect, negotiating against the taxpayers. After
all, their salaries and benefits come at the expense of the taxpayers.
The fiscal impact of these rigged negotiations is most evidence in
States with the biggest budget problems. California faces a budget
deficit of nearly $16 billion this year alone. It has $65 billion in
unfunded liabilities in its teachers' pension system and $136 billion
in unfunded liabilities for its largest city and county employee
pension system.
The Illinois public employee pension system now has $83 billion in
unfunded liabilities. So far, comprehensive efforts to reform these
systems and bring down costs have been stymied for one simple reason:
Politicians in those States do not have the courage of people such as
Gov. Scott Walker.
Our folks here who support the unions ought to be happy this is
happening because they themselves may not be able to accomplish this.
The courageous Governors, such as Governor Walker, can, and in the end
they are better off as Democrats because they have some reasonable
approach toward some of these enormous problems that are affecting our
States.
Instead of reforming their systems, these States have more often
opted to raise taxes to attempt to eliminate the shortfalls. Yet most
of the States with the highest unfunded liabilities already have
higher-than-average tax rates.
Despite their many faults, private sector unions have a stake in the
U.S. economy and the profitability of American businesses. Indeed, they
have a built-in incentive to ensure continued economic growth. True
enough, they do not always act in accordance with that interest, which
is probably the biggest reason why today less than 7 percent of private
sector workers belong to a union. But, nevertheless, they need some
level of continued growth in order to further their existence.
Public sector unions are an entirely different animal with a
completely different set of interests. Unlike private sector
businesses, State governments are not required to turn a profit. State
officials are accountable to voters, but, unlike stockholders, most
voters do not have the same expectations to see returns on their
investments.
That being the case, public sector unions lack the same incentive to
see their negotiating counterparts succeed. There are no forces
limiting their incentive to simply maximize benefits for their
membership, regardless of what it might cost their employers. In order
to succeed, even the most ambitious and shrewd private sector union
needs to account for its employer's ability to grow and expand.
Public sector unions are not subject to these sorts of limitations.
That is probably why they have been so successful. Today, about 37
percent of government employees belong to a union, which is five times
the unionization rate in the private sector. So it is easy to see why
Big Labor pulled out all the stops to recall Governor Walker. Public
sector unions are the future of the labor movement. Because of the
long, steady decline of private sector unions, Big Labor knows it must
maintain the strength of public sector unions in order to remain
relevant. Yet at the same time, the States that employ them face
incredibly difficult budgetary decisions in the coming years and I
believe without the ability to be able to get them under control
because of the controls of the major parties.
Let's be clear about what it would mean if public employee unions
prevailed in these fights. It means that instead of reducing spending,
States will have to raise taxes. It means that instead of eliminating
government waste, States will have to maintain the status quo, and,
ultimately, it means States will have to make a choice between paying
their bills on the one hand and growing their economies on the other.
Going forward, it is absolutely vital that more States follow
Wisconsin's example. States should not have to choose between educating
their kids and paying the full freight of public employee pensions.
During such difficult economic times, they should not have to raise
taxes in order to keep their employees from having to pay a reasonable
share of their own benefits. In short, States should have the ability
to balance budgetary priorities without being thwarted at every turn by
public employee unions that are only concerned with their own
interests.
Last night and this morning, the pundits were in full gear,
dissecting the results in Wisconsin and prognosticating about the
election's long-term impact. To me, this exercise in democracy
demonstrates two things. First, the failure of the unions and the
national Democratic Party was not a failure of messaging or money. It
was a failure of ideas.
[[Page S3775]]
Richard Weaver once wrote that ideas have consequences. That is
absolutely true. The ideas that Governor Walker proposed were
reasonable ones that addressed a critical fiscal situation without
undermining essential services in his State. Second, it is clear the
Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, a party of blue-collar, private
sector workers, has morphed into a party dominated by white-collar,
public workers.
The American people, beginning with Wisconsin, are rejecting this
Democratic Party and the priorities of its most influential
stakeholders. The silent majority that gets up every day and goes to
work in the private sector is losing its appetite for allowing public
employee unions to dictate the Nation's fiscal policy.
There is one video going around of an opponent of Governor Walker's
near tears and saying that democracy was denied tonight. Au contraire.
Democracy is alive and well in Wisconsin and around the Nation, and the
American people are going to have their say. Last night's results
should serve as a reminder of the need to face our perilous fiscal
situation honestly and squarely.
It should also remind us that the American people will not punish
leaders who stand and do the right thing, even in the face of powerful
and vengeful opposition.
My hope is that the experience in Wisconsin will be replicated around
the country.
To borrow from one of Wisconsin's patron saints, Vince Lombardi,
``Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.''
The unions have now had three bites at the apple since Governor
Walker was first elected. Each time they have come up short. By
prevailing, Governor Walker and Republicans in Wisconsin should stiffen
the spines of conservatives who might have been previously unwilling to
take on these public sector unions--public employee unions, if you
will. By losing, those unions have shown themselves to be increasingly
desperate and out of touch with the sentiments and concerns of everyday
citizens and taxpayers.
Mr. President, I commend Governor Walker and his efforts to secure a
prosperous future for the citizens of Wisconsin. His courage in the
face of significant opposition is a model of statesmanship, and I look
forward to working with him for many years to come.
Look, we all know the public sector unions have been out of control
for a long time. Throughout the country, benefits paid to public
employees have outpaced those in the private sector, and that includes
Federal Government employees where the average pay is $80,000 a year
compared to $50,000 for the private sector. We all know that is
justified in the eyes of some because it is ``so expensive'' to live in
Washington, DC, or nearby. Why is it that expensive? Because we have
built the Federal Government at all costs, and we allow it to spend and
spend rather than find more ways of living within our means.
There is a part of me that wishes we could move a number of these
agencies out of Washington and put them out with the real people
throughout our country who have to live within their means, and who
don't have huge Washington, DC, salaries, which are huge to the average
person, but not always to the people who work in this very expensive
town. There they can mingle with the everyday people in this country
who are paying the freight.
By the way, we all know that according to the Joint Committee on
Taxation, the bottom 51 percent of all households don't pay any income
tax or freight. There is a method in that madness, it seems to me. But
it is the wrong method. Sooner or later we are all going to have to
help pull the wagon and not just sit in the wagon and take advantage of
everybody else. It ought to be done on a reasonable and decent basis.
But, once again, we all know the public sector unions are out of
control. The States where they have the biggest problems are the States
where the public sector unions have dominated their elected politicians
over and over and over again, so the elected politicians are afraid to
take them on, afraid to do the things that would straighten out their
States, as Governor Walker has said.
Instead of finding a lot of fault with Governor Walker, if I were a
Democrat, I would be saying: Thank God, somebody stood up. The fact is
he has stood up, and he should be given credit for that not
condemnation.
Frankly, I am very proud of the people of Wisconsin for standing up
the way they did. I think other States are going to have to do that,
too, or there are going to be problems like we have never seen before.
We can name the States that have the problems. In almost every case
they are blue States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it has become sort of a personal
tradition of mine to come to the floor each week to report on the
status of the dangers to our Earth and climate from the relentless
carbon pollution that we have to face, and this is a bellwether week.
This is our first week back in session in the Senate since our break
last week, and during that time we have had a first. There were reports
from the atmospheric measuring station that the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere broke 400 parts per million.
The Christian Science Monitor has reported on this, stating
monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more
than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise because it has been
rising at an accelerating pace.
Years ago, it passed the 350 parts-per-million mark that many
scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now
stands globally at 395.
The story continues, saying it has been at least 800,000 years--
probably more--since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s,
according to the climate scientists involved. They point out that the
Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon
dioxide in the air and in its effects.
Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist, says this is the first time the
entire Arctic has been that high. He calls a 400 number ``depressing.''
The Christian Science Monitor also reported that global carbon
dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion
tons released in 2011.
Another report from the Sustainable Business News said readings are
coming in at 400 parts per million and higher all over the Arctic. They
have been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland, and even
Mongolia; and 400 parts per million is beyond what scientists consider
``safe'' in terms of human society.
It goes on saying in reporting of a 2009 paper in the journal
Science, researchers concluded ``the only time in the last 20 million
years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the
[then] modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years
ago, when the planet was dramatically different.''
It also says:
How different? It says that ``Global temperatures were 5 to
10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. The sea
level was 75 to 120 feet higher than it is today, there was
no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on
Antarctica and Greenland.''
According to NASA's leading climate scientist, James
Hanson, ``that level of heat-trapping gases would assure that
the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of
control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities.
Global temperatures would become intolerable, and 20 to 50
percent of the planet species would be driven to extinction.
Civilization would be at risk.
So this was a somber benchmark to have passed. As I have said before,
we have had the experiences--humankind--of living within a bandwidth
between 190 and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide for about
800,000 years, which is going back into the very early days of our
species--even before then.
I think the famous Lucy, the prehistoric human, was 150,000, 160,000
years ago. So this goes way back before then. We started agriculture
about 10,000 years ago. Before then, we were picking things off of
trees and hunting small animals. We weren't even farming yet.
When we go back 800,000 years, that is basically for as long as we
can imagine on this planet, without going back into previous geologic
eras. That has been the bandwidth--800,000 years, 190 to 300 parts per
million. We rocketed
[[Page S3776]]
out of that and blew through 350 several years ago, and now we have
gone through 400, at least in the Arctic, and that is where we will go
global-wide if this continues. There is no reason it will not continue
because we keep increasing the amount of carbon pollution we emit into
the atmosphere.
I regret I have to come here every week and continue to bring grim
news, but that is the fact, and the day will come when we are going to
have to deal with it. I hope it is not too late for us when we finally
get around to it. There is the prospect that it is too late because
once the carbon is up in the atmosphere, it continues to do its work.
The campaign that has been deployed to try to diminish the science of
climate change, to try to confuse the public, and try to create a
disabling measure of doubt has been reprehensible. It is based on
falsehood. It is steeped in impropriety and special influence. It is
inhibiting the ability of the Congress to do its job for the American
people--not because there is any real doubt about the science but
because the special interests that benefit from the status quo have
entirely inappropriate levels of influence in this body, and they are
insisting either directly or through phony front organizations, such as
the Heartland Institute, which has recently put itself in jeopardy by
comparing people who think climate change is actually happening to the
Unabomber--now, there is a responsible public debate. That blew up in
their faces because they had gone too far. The lying, the phony
science, taking money from the polluters, and the phony operation they
ran didn't go too far. The comparison to Ted Kazinski, the Kazinski
billboard was that one step too far.
There is some pushback on that, but that doesn't lift the burden on
the polluting industries that are manipulating and maneuvering in
Washington to prevent us from doing what needs to be done and doing so
through false and phony organizations. Even if the Heartland Institute
is gone, there are plenty of others, and the process continues.
I think it is going to be a very harsh judgment that history brings
to bear on this generation of Representatives and Senators that, as a
body, we were willing to step away from our duty when the signal was
clear. We were willing to listen to the siren song of special
interests. We put their money in our pockets. We put our consciences on
hold. We put the blinders on about the facts, and we marched forward
foolishly when we should have been preparing.
I am going to continue to do this. I hope the point comes soon when
we can begin to realize that putting a price on carbon pollution,
developing American clean energy that creates American clean energy
jobs and begin to take care of this world as it increasingly sends us
warnings about the damage that we are doing is the right and wise and
proper thing to do.
With that, I yield the floor.
____________________