[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17027-17028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SENATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
respond to some remarks made by the distinguished majority leader 
earlier today. The majority leader listed accomplishments he believes 
the new majority has accomplished during the 6 months that new majority 
has been in power. He talked about homeland security funding, the SCHIP 
program, appropriations, the budget, Iraq, Attorney General Gonzales, 
and the Energy bill.
  One of the things I admire about the majority leader is that he is a 
very good advocate. He knows how to put a good face on the facts. But I 
wish to suggest to my colleagues here that in reality, the current 
state of affairs in the Senate is not nearly as rosy as the majority 
leader would have us believe.
  We spent nearly 2 weeks trying to craft an energy bill that would 
relieve some of the pressure on American consumers when they fill up 
their tanks or go to pay their electric bills. Unfortunately, the bill 
that was offered will not provide a single watt of new energy or a 
single drop of new oil. Instead, we saw amendments that would have 
improved the bill in this area defeated time and time again. Moreover, 
it will actually raise prices for consumers.
  This bill, in fact, that was passed last night is bad energy policy 
because it will raise energy prices for consumers. It will enact, if 
finally signed into law, price controls, returning us to the failed 
energy policies of the 1970s and the 1980s, which produced shortages, 
gas lines, and other severe economic dislocation. This energy bill 
passed by the Senate last night will increase costs for American energy 
companies. It will force them to do more of their investment outside of 
the continental United States, and it will increase--not decrease but 
increase--our dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, primarily 
from dangerous parts of the world and enemies of our country. It will 
enact unattainable Federal mandates. It will reduce the Nation's 
ability to compete in the global market against much larger state-owned 
energy companies for reserves around the globe. Finally, it will 
continue the prohibition on expanding the domestic production of oil 
and natural gas.
  Instead of trying to work through these problems in a bipartisan way 
to try to actually bring results and solutions that make sense, the 
majority leader chose instead to file cloture on the bill, which means, 
of course, to close off debate and to force a vote so we could speed 
through it without resolving the predicament Americans will continue to 
find themselves in, with high prices at the pump and when they pay 
their utility bills each month. Last night, I am sorry to report, this 
body approved this ineffective--and perhaps even harmful--legislation.
  Why, I might ask, were we so quick to pass this bill before we could 
turn it into something that might actually help the American consumer? 
Well, as it turns out, the reason we were in such a big hurry to close 
off debate and to stop our work before we could actually provide some 
relief to the American consumer when they pay their utility bills or 
when they fill up their gas tanks is because we have to turn to a bill 
that big labor regards as their single most important legislative 
agenda, and that is to eliminate the right of prospective union members 
to the secret ballot. That is right. The bill we are moving to next 
because we didn't have enough time to finish the energy bill to 
actually provide some meaningful relief for American consumers is 
designed to help labor unions intimidate workers into the decision of 
whether to unionize.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are demanding that the 
U.S. Government strip workers of the right to a secret ballot when it 
comes to the decision of whether to join a labor union. As a matter of 
fact, they have deceptively named this bill the ``Employee Free Choice 
Act.'' This is anything but a matter of employee free choice because it 
would deny workers the freedom of choice, exposing them to intimidation 
and manipulation that comes from anything other than a secret ballot. 
This bill ought to be called the ``Employee NO Choice Act.'' It 
provides opportunities to bully workers into joining labor unions, 
stripping them of the valuable right to a secret ballot.
  Why in the world would we move from one of the most pressing problems 
confronting our country today--literally a national security problem 
relating to our dependence on foreign oil--and failing to address the 
most pressing concerns that most Americans feel each day because of 
high gas prices and high electricity prices? Well, apparently, the 
answer is to turn to a partisan matter such as avoiding the secret 
ballot for union members.
  Some of those who have given support to those across the aisle have 
attempted to provide the rationale. One explanation given last fall was 
that ``the Democrats are beholden to labor and must pass the Employee 
Free Choice Act.''
  Unfortunately, this has the simple feel of political payback for 
efforts made by labor to provide Democrats control of Congress last 
November. I cannot see any other logical explanation for the timing and 
interruption of one of the most important pieces of legislation 
Congress will consider this year. In fact, just last week, the majority 
leader's spokesman explained that ``we need to make clear to the 
American people that we are following through on the promises we made 
in November.''
  Madam President, I am not alone in my hesitation about this bill 
stripping American workers of a fundamental right. Just a few short 
years ago, Democratic Members of Congress, including the author of the 
House version of this bill, wrote to officials in Pueblo, Mexico, to 
urge use of secret ballot in union elections. In that letter, those 
Democrats set forth the reasons secret ballots are essential. They 
said:

       We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in 
     order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting 
     for a union they might not otherwise choose. . . .
       We feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in 
     union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to 
     the Mexican workplace.

  I agree with the letter, but I disagree with this bill, which would 
strip workers of this valuable and fundamental right. Why would our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give big labor the 
power to intimidate, potentially, American workers? Why urge free 
choice and democracy in the international workplace, while offering no 
choice to American workers?
  I am afraid the answer is clear. Union memberships have declined. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership is down 
from 20 percent of the workforce in 1980 to just 12 percent now. Less 
than 8 percent of private sector workers belong to a union today.
  As a recent Washington Times editorial explains:

       Card-check unionization has quickly become the only way big 
     labor seems to increase membership these days.

  Big labor helped elect Democrats in the 110th Congress. In fact, 
union PAC contributions to Federal candidates increased 11 percent from 
2004 and are higher than any other industry grouping.
  The Center for Responsive Politics found recently that since 1989-
1990, labor unions have comprised 6 of the top 10 political donors to 
Federal candidates and political parties, ranging from the AFSCME, to 
Teamsters, to the Service Employees Union.
  This has all the earmarks of political payback, plain and simple. 
This should not be the reason we have taken up valuable time on the 
floor of the Senate--to deal with political payback. Now is not the 
time to repay political favors, when the Senate has a seemingly endless 
list of more pressing and urgent matters to solve. True free choice in 
any election only comes with the secret ballot. I think we all 
intuitively understand that. Union elections are no exception.

[[Page 17028]]

  American democracy must preserve an employee's right to a secret 
ballot when deciding union representation. We should not even be 
considering this bill, but if forced to, we should oppose it.
  I also want to point out on this front, in case you don't believe 
this matter is motivated by pure politics, that the majority leader 
scheduled a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the immigration 
bill immediately following the procedural vote on the secret ballot 
bill on Tuesday. So no matter what happens on the vote to proceed to 
the union payback bill, we will not actually be considering that 
legislation--even if we were to vote to go to it. How can this exercise 
be categorized as anything other than a waste of the Senate's time?
  I wish I could report that this is the first time our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, who control the Senate calendar, have held 
votes that waste time and divert attention from issues that are much 
more important. As America struggles with record prices at the gas 
pump, and our broken immigration system is in desperate need of reform, 
the new leadership of this majority believes the Senate should spend 
more time and energy on a nonbinding and purely political resolution on 
the Attorney General. I think that is unfortunate. Unfortunately, it is 
also indicative of the priorities we have seen.
  Since taking control of the Congress 6 months ago, our colleagues 
have refused to address needed reforms of entitlement programs. The 
Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, that the 
majority leader said would greatly expand and provide benefits to 
individuals--unfortunately, we have not taken that matter up. In fact, 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have transformed this 
program designed to help children in need of having health insurance to 
one that would cover adults and children who are part of families 
making double the income the program started with. Instead of children 
of modest economic means, it has been expanded now as a new Government 
entitlement, leading the way more and more to a single-payer, 
Government-run system out of Washington, DC.
  The majority leader also pointed out successes relating to the 
budget, while highlighting that the 109th Congress didn't even pass a 
budget. What the majority leader didn't say is, this budget 
contemplates the single largest tax increase in American history.
  If the majority leader believes passing a tax-and-spend budget that 
includes the largest tax increase in history, does nothing to control 
entitlement spending, and explodes the debt is an accomplishment, well, 
it may be an accomplishment for tax-and-spenders, but it certainly was 
not an accomplishment for the American people. This budget was not an 
accomplishment for middle-class families and American entrepreneurs who 
will get socked with the highest tax increase in our Nation's history.
  This budget was not an accomplishment for our children and 
grandchildren, who will have to deal with the consequences of this 
body's refusal to reform entitlement spending--a fiscal tsunami that we 
all know is coming. If we do nothing about entitlement spending, we 
soon will not have a dime to pay for anything else except four things: 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and part of the interest on the 
debt.
  This budget was certainly not something to be proud of. It includes 
more money than what the President asked for and doesn't eliminate a 
single wasteful Government program. It adds to our Nation's debt, and 
it raises taxes on middle-class families.
  To date, this Congress, under the new majority, has failed to send 
any meaningful legislation to the President's desk for signature. 
Instead, the majority leader pulled the immigration bill from the 
floor, delayed consideration of an energy bill, ultimately passing a 
bill that will fix none of the current problems, and pursued political 
resolutions aimed at weakening the President, at the expense of 
strengthening our Nation.
  Only one of the ``six for '06'' initiatives that our Democrat 
colleagues heralded when they got elected to the majority have become 
law, due in part to their lack of bipartisanship and cooperation.
  Their agenda so far has included passing a budget with the largest 
tax increase in American history; increasing spending on wasteful 
programs; they have sought to micromanage the war rather than to give 
our commanders and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground 
the opportunity to actually succeed; they forced our troops to shoulder 
pork barrel projects and made them wait 117 days to get a bill to the 
President that he would sign--an emergency spending bill that would get 
necessary relief to our troops in a time of war; they sought to raise 
the minimum wage without protections for small businesses; they have 
hampered the 9/11 Commission recommendations with paybacks to unions; 
they forced taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research under 
circumstances that many Americans would find crosses a moral line, by 
taking life in order to conduct scientific research; they have 
undermined a successful Medicare prescription drug plan in favor of a 
Government-run health care plan, and opposed market-based solutions.
  My friends across the aisle have had a rough go of it during their 
first 6 months in the majority. They would have you believe, and the 
majority leader would have you believe, from his comments earlier 
today, that they have not been able to accomplish anything because of 
their narrow majority here.
  In truth, however, the blame lies with the incredibly partisan way in 
which the majority has conducted themselves. They have refused to 
cooperate with this side of the aisle to accomplish many good things 
for the American people, instead filing a record number of cloture 
motions and bringing this body to a halt--40 times so far this 
Congress, compared with 13 during the same period of time in the 109th 
Congress, 9 in the 108th, and only 2 in the 107th Congress.
  I am here to urge our colleagues in the majority to discard the 
approach they have attempted so far, which is to ram legislation 
through a closely divided body without compromise. This has not worked 
for them so far, and it will not work for them in the future. Even more 
important, it will not work to solve the problems of the American 
people.
  In order to do the job the American people sent us here to do, we 
have to work together. As my Democrat colleagues have pointed out many 
times in the past, we are not the House. We must continue to look at 
all issues that are vital to the American people. We must compromise on 
those issues in good faith to do our very best, and we must put an end 
to the time we are wasting on such divisive, partisan issues, such as 
frivolous votes of no confidence against the current administration and 
payback to big labor for November favors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be given enough time to 
make this speech, as long as I finish before 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________