[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8403-8406]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 8404]]




                       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 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.

[[Page 8405]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 8406]]

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 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 Kaczynski, the Kaczynski 
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.

                          ____________________