[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14739-14744]
[From the U.S. 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-

[[Page 14740]]

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.
                                 ______
                                 
      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

[[Page 14741]]

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 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

[[Page 14742]]

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 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?

[[Page 14743]]

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 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

[[Page 14744]]

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.

                          ____________________