[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5630-S5634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2813. A bill to establish the National Prostate Cancer Council for
improved screening, early detection, assessment, and monitoring of
prostate cancer, and to direct the development and implementation of a
national strategic plan to expedite advancement of diagnostic tools and
the transfer of such tools to patients; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National
Prostate Cancer Council Act with my colleague, Senator Sessions. This
bipartisan legislation addresses the urgent need for a national
strategy for the accelerated creation, advancement, and testing of
diagnostic tools to be used in the fight against prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United
States, and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in men.
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, 233,000 new cases
of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and almost 30,000 men will die
from the disease.
Early detection of prostate cancer saves lives. Unfortunately,
current screening techniques result in numerous false-negatives,
leaving men at risk to wrongly believe they are cancer-free, and false-
positive alarms, which often lead to painful, costly, and unnecessary
procedures. In addition, the prostate is one of the few organs in the
human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer
even when multiple samples are taken.
The National Prostate Cancer Council Act mirrors the commitment the
Federal government has made to fight Alzheimer's disease under the
National Alzheimer's Project Act, which was signed into law in 2011.
Similarly, this bill will bring together federal agencies, medical and
scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and patient survivors to
create a clear national plan for achieving the ultimate goal developing
reliable tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose its
severity.
The National Prostate Cancer Council will evaluate our current
efforts across all Federal agencies, and it will coordinate those
efforts to be more effective. Congress and the Department of Health and
Human Services will receive a report from the Council each year
detailing the progress made toward fulfilling the national plan.
A national strategy and commitment can be the key to diagnosing
prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. It will help us identify
the best use of our resources and focus on the most pressing needs,
ultimately saving lives and reducing unnecessary procedures. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and to cosponsor this
legislation.
[[Page S5631]]
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. 2814. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to reform
the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of the General Counsel,
and the process for appellate review, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the NLRB Reform
Act with Senator McConnell. Our legislation is very simple. It will
change the NLRB from an advocate to an umpire. That is the role the
National Labor Relations Board was always supposed to have. The Board
was created 79 years ago to act as an impartial umpire in labor
disputes that threaten the free flow of commerce. The Board's decisions
affect millions of private sector workers. But over time the Board has
become an advocate for one interest group or the other, changing
positions with each new administration.
There are three significant problems the Board faces today:
No. 1, the biggest problem is partisan advocacy. Today the majority
of the five-member Board is made up of appointees who follow President
Obama's political leanings. President Obama has appointed three labor
union leaders to the Board.
No. 2, the Board also has a freewheeling advocate for its general
counsel. The Board's most recent general counsels have been exceeding
their statutory authority and bringing questionable cases that threaten
American jobs and threaten sending overseas manufacturing jobs that we
need to keep here.
No. 3, the National Labor Relations Board has been slow to resolve
disputes. Last year 109 cases--that is 30 percent of the Board's
caseload--were pending for more than a year.
Occasionally someone will say to me: If Republicans were to win the
Senate, what would Republicans do?
What we would do is try to come up with sensible proposals that lead
us in the right direction, proposals that have so much commonsense that
they attract the support of enough Democrats and the House of
Representatives and the President to become law. This is one such
proposal.
Our bill provides three solutions to the problems I identified:
No. 1, it would end partisan advocacy on the National Labor Relations
Board. The Board would become a six-member board of three Republicans
and three Democrats, and a required majority of four will force both
sides to find a middle ground.
No. 2, it reins in the general counsel. Businesses and unions would
be able to challenge complaints filed by the general counsel by taking
them to the Federal district court, and they will have greater
transparency about the basis and legal reasoning for the charges
brought by the general counsel.
No. 3, our legislation would encourage timely decisions. First,
either party in a case before the Board may appeal to a Federal court
of appeals if the Board fails to reach a decision in 1 year. Second,
funding for the entire NLRB would be reduced by 20 percent if the Board
is not able to decide 90 percent of its cases within 1 year over the
first 2-year period following reform.
Our bill would offer these solutions without taking away one single
right, one single remedy from any employee, business, or union.
With each new administration, the pendulum at the NLRB has swung
further from the middle, further away from being an umpire. The result
is that labor policy whipsaws back and forth, taking employees and
employers for a wild ride. This has happened under most
administrations, but it has been worse under the current
administration. The minority leader mentioned several of those
examples.
Under the partisan advocacy of today's National Labor Relations
Board, workers are losing their right to privacy. The Board is
embarking on a regulatory effort to expand requirements that employers
give employees' names and addresses to union organizers. The Board
wants more personal information about these employees to be given to
the organizing union, including telephone numbers, email addresses, the
employee's work location, the employee's shift, the job
classifications. They propose doing everything but attaching a GPS to
the lapel of each employee.
In my State of Tennessee, for example, we have had an ongoing
organizing effort in the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga. In a secret
ballot election last February, employees at the Volkswagen plant said:
We don't want a union; we don't need a union. So 712 to 626 they
rejected the United Auto Workers' bid to unionize the plant. Imagine if
you were one of those 712 employees who voted against unionizing. Now
organizers can get your private email address and all of this other
personal information.
Here is another example. Factions of employees within single stores
now have a path to forming their own unions. In 2011 the Board suddenly
adopted a new way to define what makes a local union bargaining unit.
The Board changed the law so that any group of employees with an
overwhelming community of interest could become a bargaining unit and
therefore a union. At the same time, the Board is moving a regulation
to limit the employer's ability to question which employees should be
in a bargaining unit. This allows a union to cherry-pick employees who
will be most likely to support forming a union.
How has this worked in the real world? Here is an example. The Board
just approved a bargaining unit for cosmetic and fragrance employees in
a Macy's department store--not the shoe salespeople, not the lady's
fashion employees, not the junior's department, just cosmetic and
fragrance. Imagine if every department of Macy's decided to form a
union. The employer would have dozens of different groups to negotiate
with, and the different unions would be fighting each other over who
got the better raises and break rooms in terms of employment.
During this administration the NLRB has ruled that common employment
policies are unfair labor practices, such as--and Senator Scott brought
this up at a hearing the other day--the NLRB has said that an employer
may not have a policy that requires employees to be courteous to
customers and fellow employees, or prohibiting employees from making
negative comments about the business that employs them on social media
or selecting arbitration for employment disputes.
Our solution: Senator McConnell and I would solve this by requiring a
six-member board of three Republicans and three Democrats. Like the
Federal Election Commission, a majority of four will require both sides
to find a middle ground.
Here is the second problem. The Board's general counsel is acting
like a freewheeling advocate, stretching labor law to its limits and
sometimes beyond its limits. For example, in 2011 the general counsel
moved to stop Boeing from building new airplanes at a nonunion plant in
South Carolina. The general counsel to the NLRB jeopardized a $1
billion factory and hundreds of jobs with this move, but even worse, he
tried to make the case that a unionized American company can't expand
its operations into one of the 24 States, such as Tennessee, with
right-to-work laws which protect a worker's right to join or not to
join a union. The general counsel eventually withdrew this outrageous
complaint against Boeing, but if it had set a precedent, jobs would
have fled overseas as manufacturers look to find a competitive
environment in which to make and sell cars around the world.
We want to make sure manufacturers such as Boeing, Nissan, and
General Motors can have a competitive environment in the United States
in which they can make airplanes and cars and other goods and sell them
around the world. We do not want them making them in Mexico or Japan or
Europe or somewhere else because we have undermined right-to-work laws.
Our solution would allow employers and unions to challenge complaints
filed against them by the general counsel in Federal court and give
employers and unions new rights to learn the basis and legal reasoning
of charges filed against them by the general counsel.
Finally, the NLRB is taking too long to resolve cases. For example,
one case has been pending at the Board for more than 7 years. The case
involves the question of whether an employer has to allow labor union
organizers access to private property.
Our solution--Senator McConnell and I encourage a timely resolution
of
[[Page S5632]]
cases, first, by allowing either party to appeal to a Federal court of
appeals for a de novo, or fresh, review if the Board fails to reach a
decision on the case within 1 year. To further incentivize timely
resolution, we include the threat of a 20-percent budget cut with the
Board if 90 percent of the cases are not decided within a year.
In conclusion, while the increasing partisanship of the Board has
appeared in Republican administrations as well as Democratic
administrations, it has reached a climax in this administration. Three
of this President's recent nominees came from major labor unions'
leadership. One law professor at a major university said she can't use
the most recent labor law textbook. The decisions changing the law are
coming out so rapidly and the NLRB is venturing into new territory with
these efforts at rulemaking. This is no way to maintain a national
labor law policy.
Our plan, the NLRB Reform Act, will, first, end partisan advocacy;
second, rein in the general counsel; third, it will encourage timely
decisions. Our bill would offer these solutions without taking away one
right or one remedy from one employee, one business, or one union. I
hope my colleagues will carefully review this proposal and consider
cosponsoring the NLRB Reform Act.
______
By Mrs. FISCHER:
S. 2817. A bill to assign the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
Analysis of the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility of
bringing institutional focus to the important function of approving new
technologies and improving regulatory certainty at the Commission; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I introduced the Helping
Innovation and Revitalizing Innovation Act. It is a Federal
Communications Commission, FCC, process reform idea called the HIRE
Act. This measure seeks to make the FCC more efficient and accountable
in processing new technology applications.
Section 7 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to review new
technologies and determine whether or not approval is in the public
interest within one year of application--a deadline Congress imposed on
the FCC in 1982. Part of Section 7 reads, ``The Commission shall
determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition
or application is in the public interest within one year after such
petition or application is filed.''
The HIRE Act would complement Section 7. Specifically, it would:
require the FCC Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis to
help facilitate attention and response to pending technology
applications and licenses and it would require the FCC to report to
Congress any time it fails to comply with the 1-year deadline for
review of such applications.
Right now when the FCC misses its 1 year deadline nothing happens.
The notification clause in this bill would provide a backstop for the
FCC to enhance regulatory certainty for innovators and consumers alike.
Specifically, the HIRE Act would bring institutional focus to the
important function of approving new technologies. FCC delays stall new
opportunities for investment and job creation that are critical at this
time in our Nation's history. FCC delays also deprive consumers from
the benefits of accessing new technologies at lower prices.
The senior Republican Commissioner at the FCC, Ajit Pai, has
identified assisting new technology applications as a high priority. In
a July 18, 2012, speech at Carnegie Mellon University, he said,
``Bureaucratic inertia should not be a barrier to the deployment of new
services or capital investment. Rather, the Commission should
facilitate economic growth and job creation by making decisions in a
timely manner . . . Entrepreneurs need an advocate at the FCC--one that
will hold us accountable if we delay, rather than decide.''
Additionally, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
IEEE, has encouraged the FCC improve its decision-making process for
spectrum management.
The HIRE Act is about improving the FCC's decision-making process and
supporting job creation. It is a small, common-sense reform that
increases government efficiency without increasing spending. I look
forward to working with consumers, businesses, and those in the Federal
Government who want to make our government more effective, efficient,
and responsive. The HIRE Act is one proposal that would do that, and I
welcome a conversation with others about this important issue.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 2820. A bill to provide for the withdrawal of certain Federal land
in Garden Valley, Nevada; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2820
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Garden Valley Withdrawl
Act''.
SEC. 2. GARDEN VALLEY, NEVADA, WITHDRAWAL.
Subject to valid existing rights in existence on the date
of enactment of this Act, the approximately 805,100 acres of
Federal land generally depicted on the map entitled ``Garden
Valley Withdrawal Area'' and dated July 11, 2014, is
withdrawn from--
(1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public
land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
______
By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr.
Manchin):
S. 2823. A bill to require approval for the construction, connection,
operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or electric
transmission facilities at the national boundary of the United States
for the import or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity to or from
Canada or Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to present the North American
Energy Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that
I think is very important to helping our country build the
infrastructure we need to truly become energy independent or energy
self-sufficient--energy secure, if you will.
This is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that has already
passed the House. It was sponsored in the House by Representative Fred
Upton, who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was
cosponsored on the Democratic side by Gene Green, a Congressman from
Texas. I have bipartisan sponsors for this legislation in the Senate as
well--on the Republican side, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the
ranking member on the energy committee; and then I have two other
members of the energy committee who are Democrats cosponsoring this
legislation as well, Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana and Senator Joe
Manchin from West Virginia. Certainly Senator Manchin is recognized as
one of the leaders in the Senate on important energy issues. I am very
appreciative of having him join me on this legislation as well. I am
introducing this legislation now.
This is the sixth anniversary of the application by TransCanada for a
permit to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. They applied for approval
of a pipeline project--the Keystone XL Pipeline project--6 years ago as
of Friday of this week. Can you imagine that? Americans fought and won
World War II in less time than this application has been pending before
the President of the United States, yet still no decision from this
administration after 6 years.
This is vital infrastructure we need to truly make this country
energy secure. Working with Canada, we can truly produce more energy
than we consume and make our country energy secure, but we cannot do it
without the necessary infrastructure--the roads, the pipelines, the
rail, the transmission lines--the energy infrastructure we need to get
energy from where it is produced, places such as my State of North
Dakota, which is now the second largest producer of oil in this
country, second only to Texas. We produce more than 1 million barrels a
day of oil, but we have to get it to market. It is getting loaded and
overloaded on rail. We have tremendous congestion on rail. Our farmers
cannot get their ag products to market anymore because we
[[Page S5633]]
have so much congestion on the rail. Yet here we have an application
that has been held for 6 years by the President of the United States
without a decision. That is after last year when he came to the
Republican caucus and told us point blank that he would have a decision
before the end of 2013. No decision. Here we are in 2014, the sixth
anniversary.
Well, look, we cannot continue to have that problem.
We have to find a way to build this infrastructure. Even though we
are working on Keystone on a separate track--and I believe we will have
the votes next year to pass it. We will have the 60 votes in the Senate
we need to pass it. We are at 57 right now. We are very close. I think
by next year we will have those 60 votes to pass Keystone, and we will
work to do that and attach it to legislation the President will not
veto. So we will continue to work on Keystone on that track, but at the
same time we have to avoid this problem in the future with oil
pipelines, with gas pipelines, and with transmission lines.
We have to be able to build that infrastructure not only in this
country, but we have to be able to cross the border with Canada. Canada
is a huge producer of energy. So working together, we have this
incredible opportunity if we can build the infrastructure to do it. It
is not just for fossil fuels. It is not just for oil. It is not just
for gas. It is for renewables as well. Canada produces an incredible
amount of hydro, which, of course, is electricity. We need transmission
lines to bring that renewable hydro across the border.
So this is about all forms of energy, and this is about working with
our closest friend and ally to truly address that energy issue. It is a
job-creation issue. It is a national security issue.
What does this legislation do, the North American Energy
Infrastructure Act? What it does is it expedites, streamlines the
approval process for cross-border construction of oil pipelines, gas
pipelines, and electric transmission lines.
How does it work? First, oil pipelines. Right now, a Presidential
national interest determination is needed for approval or authority to
build an oil pipeline across the Canadian border. Of course, that is
the problem we see with Keystone. That has been held up now for 6
years. So this changes that process for future projects. As I said, it
has already passed the House overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly. I think it
had pretty much all of the Republican votes and I think more than 50
votes on the Democratic side. They had very strong bipartisan support
in the House.
What it does is it changes that approval process for crossing the
border with an oil pipeline, moving it to the State Department. So the
State Department will make that determination approving a cross-border
transfer. It will still be subject to the NEPA process. You will still
have to do an environmental impact statement. But the focus of that
EIS--environmental impact statement--or the NEPA process, will be on
the border section, not on the entire length of the project throughout
all the States that pipeline may cross. It will focus on the border
section. And the State Department has to come up with reasonable rules
to determine what that distance is that constitutes crossing the border
with Canada.
Then the rest of the NEPA process will continue just as it does today
for any other project that does not come across the border. Right now
States have their jurisdiction in some cases and the Federal Government
has its jurisdiction in some cases, depending on whether it is private
land or it is public land or Federal land. Maybe it is a body of water.
Whatever. So the NEPA process continues as before, driven by the States
or the Federal Government depending on what particular part of the
country or the type of land or the body of water you are crossing.
I think that is why it garnered such strong bipartisan support. We
continue that process and those protections, but we do not allow the
determination on the cross-border process or the cross-border piece to
be held up by all of the NEPA process and all of the sitings that may
be covered in all the respective States that pipeline crosses. Those
processes are already in place. Do not use crossing the border as an
excuse to tie up all these other processes and basically usurp the
authority of the States that are affected by that project.
I think it is a very reasonable process, and it is one that I think
we should be able to come together on in a bipartisan way to say: It is
open. It is fair. That is why we have bipartisan support in the
sponsorship--Senator Donnelly, Senator Manchin, Senator Murkowski,
myself, all people who work on energy--because we have struck that
balance. It is about creating a good business climate that will
encourage that investment to create the infrastructure we need to move
the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed in the
safest way possible--in the safest way possible--in the most economic
way possible.
That is what it is about, the best environmental stewardship. Isn't
that what we all want? Obviously it is. But if we don't do this, where
are we? Well, right now we are waiting 6 years for a determination on
the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Here is another example I will give, the Bakken North pipeline, a
pipeline that goes from North Dakota to Cushing, and they have been
waiting for 1\1/2\ years on an ownership name change from the
Department of State, 1\1/2\ years to change the name. Really? Does that
make sense to anybody? If it takes that long for something that simple,
what do we do when we actually need to build this infrastructure that
is so important to the energy future of our country?
What about gas pipelines? Gas pipelines will be covered by FERC, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. What we say is: Look, they will
go through the NEPA process too. Just as we describe with the
Department of State on an oil pipeline, they will take that cross-
border piece and do the same thing, do a NEPA process so you have an
environmental impact statement and cover all the bases. But then 30
days after, they have to make a decision. They can't just sit on it,
and the rest of the NEPA process continues as we described on an oil
pipeline. Again, very simple, very straightforward, and it comports
with the free trade agreements we have with Canada and with Mexico.
On the third piece, electric transmission lines, that process will be
overseen by the Department of Energy. We simply streamline the process.
Right now there are two permits required, one that is driven by the
administration, one that is congressionally driven. We combine those
and make it one process; again, cover all the bases, as I have
described, with an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline, but we make it one
process instead of a duplicative process.
When we look at what is going on in the world today, we see why this
legislation is so important. Look at ISIL. Look at ISIL in the Middle
East and what is happening there. We are right now confronting how we
need to address this very significant challenge, how we need to work
with allies in the region to take out ISIL. Do we really want to
continue to be dependent on oil from the Middle East? I think we could
ask every single American that question and the answer would be a
resounding no. There is no way we want to have to get oil from the
Middle East. But we still are today. Yet we can produce more oil and
gas in this country, particularly with Canada, than we can consume.
Why would we continue to want to be dependent on the Middle East or
Venezuela or any other place that is antagonistic or hostile toward our
interests? We don't. This is a national security issue. It is an energy
issue. It is a job creation issue. It is an economic growth issue. And
it is for darned sure a national security issue. Which is why every
time we ask the public about it, more than two-thirds say: Yes, build
that infrastructure. Build that Keystone Pipeline. Let's work with
Canada, our closest friend and ally in the world, to get our energy.
Look what is going on in Europe. Look what is going on with Russia
and Ukraine. Look at the situation a country such as Ukraine or the
European Union is in because of Russian aggression. Where do they get
their energy? Where does Ukraine get its energy? Where does the
European Union get their energy? They get a third or more--from?
Russia. Russia, the same
[[Page S5634]]
country that is invading Ukraine, the same country occupying Crimea and
the eastern part of Ukraine.
Then when we try to get the European Union to join with us to push
back, what do they say? Geez, I don't know. We can't, because Russia is
going to cut off the gas and it is fall and it is getting colder.
Does that make sense to anybody? Is that the situation we want to be
in? I think it is pretty compelling. Do we want to be in a situation
where we have to try to get oil out of the Middle East with ISIL over
there operating the way they are? I don't think so.
These issues are all interrelated, and they are not short-term
issues. We can't start building that infrastructure today and have it
done tomorrow. These are billion-dollar investments. They don't cost
the government a single penny, but they are billion-dollar investments
that private enterprise is willing to make and put people to work,
provide that energy more safely, more securely, with better
environmental stewardship, and address our national security
challenges. That type of energy plan is a long-term plan for this
country, and it is one we need to start now.
For six years we have been waiting for a decision from the President
on a multibillion dollar pipeline project that will not only bring oil
from Canada to the United States but will move 100,000 barrels a day of
oil from my home State to refineries in this country, that by the State
Department's own admission will create more than 40,000 jobs, that will
create hundreds of millions in tax revenue, that will help us create
energy security for our country, that will allow us to work with our
closest friend and ally, Canada, rather than telling them: No, we are
not going to work with you. Send that oil to China. It is something the
American people overwhelmingly want by about 70 percent in most of the
polls that I guess is being held up by special interest groups.
This is about how we run this country. This is about who we work for.
This is about having a long-term plan to build the kind of energy
future for America that I believe the American people very much want.
Let's go to work and pass this bipartisan legislation.
______
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2832. A bill to provide for youth jobs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if you talk to the people in Vermont, and
I suspect in any other State in America, they will say the most serious
crisis facing this country is the lack of decent-paying jobs,
particularly when it comes to young Americans. This is an issue we do
not talk enough about, and this is an issue on which we have to focus.
Yes, we are better off today than we were 6 years ago when we were
hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month and the Nation's financial system was
on the verge of collapse, but the truth is that the economy for working
families and lower income families today remains in very difficult
straits. The middle class of this country--the backbone of this
country--continues to disappear and more and more people are living in
poverty. In fact, we have almost more people living in poverty today
than at any time in the history of this country, and all the while we
are seeing more wealth and income inequality, such that 95 percent of
all new income generated in America since the Wall Street crash is
going to the top 1 percent.
The fact is that real unemployment in this country is not the
``official'' 6.1 percent we see on the front pages of newspapers. The
truth is that if you count those people who have given up looking for
work because they live in high-unemployment areas or the people--and
there are many of these--who are working part time when they want to
work full time, real unemployment is 12 percent. That is a crisis
situation.
As bad as that is, the unemployment rate is far worse for young
Americans. Today the youth unemployment rate is 20 percent--20 percent.
We all paid a lot of attention to the tragedy in Ferguson, MO, a few
weeks ago, but what was not discussed is that African-American youth
unemployment is 33 percent, and in many areas of the country it is even
higher than that. Today over 5.5 million young people have either
dropped out of high school or have graduated high school. And do you
know what they are doing? Nothing. They have no jobs. Many of them in
Vermont and throughout this country are hanging out on street corners
and many of them are getting into trouble. Maybe they are doing drugs,
maybe they are involved in crime, but this I will tell you, and the
statistics are very clear on this: If you leave school--either you drop
out or you graduate high school--and you don't get a job in your first
year, you don't get a job in your second year, you don't get a job in
your third year, there is a strong likelihood you will never get a job,
never get a career, never make it to the middle class, never be part of
mainstream America.
Youth unemployment at 20 percent is clearly one of the reasons why in
the United States of America we have more people in jail today than any
other country on Earth. A lot of people don't know that. China's a
great big country, a Communist authoritarian country. Doesn't China
have more people in jail than we do? No. We have more people in jail
than China.
I think the time is long overdue for us to start investing in our
young people, helping them get the jobs they need, helping them get the
education they need, helping them get the job training they need so
they can be part of our economy, part of the middle class, and not end
up in jail or dead from overdoses of drugs. The situation is so dire
that there are studies out there that tell us now that one out of every
three African-American males born today, if we do not change this, will
go to prison in his lifetime--one out of three. This is a crisis
situation, and it is one that cannot be ignored.
The legislation I have introduced today, along with Congressman John
Conyers of Michigan, is called the Employ Young Americans Now Act. This
legislation will provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to States
and localities throughout the country to employ 1 million young
Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 and provide job training to
hundreds of thousands of other young Americans. Under our bill the U.S.
Department of Labor would provide $4 billion in grants to States and
local governments to provide summer jobs and year-round employment
opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth, with direct links
to academic and occupational learning. There is another $1.5 billion in
there to provide such services as transportation or childcare, which
would be necessary to enable young Americans to participate in job
opportunities.
I am very grateful this legislation has already been endorsed by the
AFL-CIO, which is the largest labor union in the country, representing
some 13 million workers; the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees; the United Auto Workers; the United Steel Workers
of America; the Campaign for America's Future; and the National
Employment Law Project.
I thank Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan for her support on this
legislation as well.
We cannot continue to ignore the crisis of youth unemployment in
America. We are talking about the future of an entire generation. We
are talking about the future of the United States of America. Let's
start focusing on this issue. Let's give millions of young people the
opportunity to earn a paycheck and to make it into the middle class.
____________________