Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the other side have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 4, 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I don't know where all of these figures come from, how many pages of regulations per page on the bill, and all that kind of stuff. I have in front of me the Federal Register of Thursday, June 17, 2010. What we are dealing with today are grandfathered plans, right? The resolution offered by the Senator from Wyoming has to do with what is a grandfathered plan and the regulation of the grandfathered plan. Well, I looked at the rules in the Register. It is one page and not even a half, about a page and one-third--well, not actually even a page and a third, a little over a page, a page and a third. I have it right here. Page 34,568 and page 34,569: Maintenance of Grandfather Status. That is what it is, and that takes into account all of the things to which the Senator from Wyoming referred. It is a page and a quarter, right there. There is a bunch of other stuff in this regulation that comes through there, including accounting tables and all kinds of things, but the actually rule, regulation, is a page and a third. I don't know what all this other stuff is in here. It is probably make work for somebody, I don't know. But it is a page and a third. But getting to the crux of it, we provided in the health reform bill, which is now law, that if you had a plan you liked, you could keep it. If that plan was in effect prior to April of this year, you can keep it. It is called grandfathering. Many of the things we provided for new plans don't apply to those grandfathered plans, things such as preventive services. As my colleagues know, all new plans now must cover certain preventive services without any copays or deductibles, that type of thing. All new plans have a right to an external appeal to a third party, if you want. There are restrictions on annual limits and coverage in the individual market. There is direct access to OB/GYNs without a referral. You can't charge a higher cost sharing for out-of- service emergency services. You don't need a prior authorization requirement for emergency care. Those are just some of the elements that apply to new plans that will not apply to a grandfathered plan. So then you have to ask, well, what is a grandfathered plan? A grandfathered plan is a plan that was in existence prior to April of this year on which the insurer and the insured agreed, like a contract. What if that grandfathered plan--what if that insurer then says: Well, we agreed on a certain coinsurance charge. It was 20 percent. But now we are going to raise it to 40 percent. Well, that is not what you agreed to. That is not what you signed up for. Let's say they want to raise deductibles. Let's say your deductible was $1,000, and they say now they are going to raise your deductible to $2,500. That is not what you agreed to. That is not the plan you liked or you signed up for. Or let's say the plan wants to significantly increase your premiums or they want to tighten down on your annual limits. That is not what you signed up for. So the rules and regulations say: Look, there are certain limits. You can raise your copayment, but not more than $5 or 15 percentage points above medical inflation. So there are certain restrictions put on what an insurer can do and still claim to have a grandfathered plan. That seems to me to make infinitely good sense because they leave the consumer with nothing. They are at the whims of the insurance company. That is what it was like before we passed the health care reform bill. That is what my friends on this side of the aisle want to go back to: Giving the insurance companies the wherewithal to define everything and tell the consumer what it is that a consumer has to have. They call the shots. Well, quite frankly, what this regulation does is it gives more empowerment to consumers. It says to an insurer: You can't just willy- nilly change your plans that you had prior to April and call it a grandfathered plan. If you change it, if you make all of these big changes, guess what. You are going to have to cover preventive services without copays and deductibles. If you do all of these big changes, well, your insurer is going to have the right to appeal that. Quite frankly, I think that has a lot to do with this. We said for any new plans, the insurer has the right to appeal to a third party--not the grandfathered plans but the new plans. That is why a lot of the old plans don't want to become new plans. They don't want to give you that right of appeal. There are restrictions on annual limits, which I mentioned before, in the individual market. So, again, if you want to have a grandfathered plan, fine, but you can't just change it dramatically. I say again to my friend from Wyoming, read it in full. It doesn't say any changes; it says any changes based upon certain things.

Mr. HARKIN. So I say to my friends, we should vote this down and move ahead with health care reform and protect the consumers of America.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 29, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Comparison of International Housing Finance Systems.''

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act. This bill establishes vital new workplace safety measures and it deserves consideration here on the Senate floor. In 2009, there were 4,340 workplace fatalities. In my home State of Iowa, 78 people were killed on the job. This year, we have already witnessed the horrific mine catastrophe that killed 29 people in West Virginia, the fire at the Tesoro oil refinery in Washington State that killed 7 workers, and the BP Deepwater Horizon platform explosion that killed 11 people and was an environmental catastrophe for the Gulf of Mexico. As the son of a coal miner, I feel these losses very deeply, on a very personal level. My heart goes out to the family and coworkers of every worker who is killed or injured on the job. Too many of these tragedies are preventable, and we should not rest until the day that no hardworking American has to sacrifice his or her life for a paycheck. History teaches us that stronger laws protecting worker safety make a big difference, but our current laws are not doing the job. That is why I strongly support the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act, which would make long overdue improvements to our workplace safety laws and save the lives of many thousands of hardworking Americans. For months, we have been negotiating with Republicans trying to agree to a bipartisan bill that improves workplace safety. I think it is fair to say there have been setbacks in our discussions recently, but we want and intend to keep working with our Republican colleagues to craft a bipartisan bill--in this Congress or early in the next--that we can get to the President's desk. This has been a long and difficult process as we try to reconcile policy differences between Democrats and Republicans on these important issues. Nevertheless, we will keep working to bridge those differences because it is critical that we find a way to agree on legislation that is consistent with certain core principles: Every American deserves to go to work without fearing for his or her life; Responsible businesses that put safety first shouldn't have to compete with businesses that prioritize a quick buck over the safety of their employees; Employers who put workers' lives at risk should face serious consequences that will force them to change their ways; Companies shouldn't be able to hide behind high priced lawyers and convoluted corporate forms to avoid being held accountable for their actions; Critical agencies charged with protecting workers' lives should have all the tools they need to get the job done; and Whistleblowers are the first line of defense in safe workplaces, and deserve strong protection from discrimination and retaliation. While there may be many ways to achieve these goals, the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act clearly reflects these core principles, and its passage would be a major step forward for workplace safety. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and that is why I would ask my Republican colleagues to give us an opportunity to debate this legislation on the floor. This legislation makes common sense reforms to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed 40 years ago. For example, whistleblower protection under the act is toothless and unfairly tilted against workers who risk their career to protect the public welfare. This bill makes essential changes to ensure that workers are protected, including lengthening OSHA's 30- day statute of limitation for whistleblowers, providing for reinstatement while the legal process unfolds for cases with an initial finding of merit, and giving the worker the right to file their own claim in court if the government does not investigate the claim in a timely manner. The bill also strengthens criminal and civil penalties that, at present, are too weak to protect workers. Under current law, an employer may be charged--at most--with a misdemeanor when a willful violation of OSHA leads to a worker's death. Under the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety Act, felony charges are available for an employer's repeated and willful violations of OSHA that result in a worker's death or serious injury. The bill also updates OSHA civil penalties, which have been unchanged since 1990, and sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful violation. In addition to toughening sanctions for employers who needlessly expose their employees to risk, the bill makes sure that the government is responsive to the worker when investigating the charges. It guarantees victims the right to meet with the person investigating the claim, to be notified of and receive copies of reports or citations issued in the investigation, and to be notified of and have the right to appear at proceedings related to their case. Victims of retaliation should not suffer the double indignity of being ignored by government officials charged with protecting them. The bill also makes critical changes in our mine safety laws. We still don't know exactly what caused the tragic death of 29 miners at Upper Big Branch, but we do know that the mine had an appalling safety record, and that the tragedy might have been prevented had the Mine Safety Health Administration, MSHA, had effective tools to target such a chronically unsafe mine. We have provisions in our laws that are supposed to target repeat offenders--called the ``pattern of violations'' process--but this system is broken and badly needs to be revamped. As bad as Upper Big Branch's record was, the law has been interpreted to allow it to continue operating without ``pattern of violation'' treatment as long as its operators can reduce their violations by more than one third in response to a written warning. With a record as spotty as Upper Big Branch's, a partial reduction in its numerous citations is hardly a sign of a safe mine, and it should not be a ``get out of jail free'' card to escape the intent of the law. Operators are also finding creative ways to ensure that the system cannot work as Congress intended. Some chronic violators have avoided being placed on ``pattern of violation'' status and avoided paying legitimate penalties by contesting nearly every citation that is assessed against them. Because MSHA uses only final orders to establish a pattern of violations and there is a substantial backlog of cases the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, repeat offenders are able to evade pattern of violations status by contesting large numbers of violations. At the Upper Big Branch coal mine, for example, Massey contested 97 percent of its ``significant and substantial'' violations in 2007. These appeals can take up to three years to resolve, virtually guaranteeing that mines are never placed on pattern status. MSHA needs to be able to respond to safety concerns in real time, not 3 years later. This legislation changes the pattern of violation system so that MSHA will be able to address unsafe conditions as they occur, and gives MSHA the enforcement tools it needs to put dangerous mines back on track. Let me respond to recent suggestions that Democrats have been playing political theatre with important safety and health legislation. We want to pass bipartisan legislation based on a shared commitment to workplace safety. I am thoroughly committed to that process, and I hope it continues. But we will not support weak or ineffective reforms in the name of bipartisanship. Workplace accidents--whether in a mine, an oil refinery, or wherever--are preventable. All we are asking for is an opportunity to debate, amend, and vote on a bill that will make real progress in improving the safety of our most dangerous workplaces. If we are not allowed that opportunity today, I plan to keep pressing forward on this issue until we get that chance. It is far too important, and too many lives are at stake, to give up now.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is what we are here to talk about once again: making it in America. On Friday, the Department of Labor made available more than $500,000 to assist 183 Iowans laid off from the ThermoFisher Scientific plant in Dubuque. All of the workers were certified as eligible for trade adjustment assistance. This grant was designed to help unemployed Iowans as they attempt to find new work in an economy that is already desperately short of new jobs. I am certainly grateful for the temporary assistance from the Federal Government, as I am sure are the unemployed workers and their families. But what is wrong with this picture? Once again, we find ourselves lending modest assistance to American workers whose jobs have been eliminated--whose economic security has been destroyed--because U.S. manufacturing is being shipped overseas. I would note that manufacturing jobs, which are generally high paying, have been particularly hard hit in this economic downturn. In my State of Iowa, there has been a steady, relentless drumbeat of layoffs and plant closings as companies from Electrolux to Cummins shut down their plants and move to other countries--including Mexico and China and other countries--that offer low wages, lower workplace safety standards, and only minimal environmental oversight. This is happening despite the fact that American workers, while paid more, tend to be far more efficient and productive. Adding insult to injury, these newly unemployed American workers must reckon with the fact that the United States Tax Code actually rewards companies for sending their jobs overseas. That is right. Most Americans don't know this, but the Tax Code actually incentivizes companies that shut down operations and kill jobs in the United States. This betrayal of American workers is outrageous on its face. And with the official unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent--that is the official rate; the actual rate is closer to 18 percent--it is simply intolerable. That is why I have come to the floor to speak in strong support of the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act of 2010. This bill would take three urgent steps to reduce and begin to reverse the bleeding of jobs from America. First, the bill would end subsidies for plant closing costs. That is right. There are subsidies if you close a plant. It would prohibit a firm from taking any deduction, loss, or credit for costs associated with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the United States and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas. Let me note that the bill would not apply to any severance payments or costs associated with placement services or employee retraining provided to those who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring. Secondly, the bill would end the tax breaks for runaway plants, for companies that reduce or close a trade or business in the United States and start or expand a similar business overseas for the purpose of importing their products back into the United States. Under current law, U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned by their foreign companies or subsidiaries until that income is brought back to the United States. This is known as deferral. Deferral has the effect of putting these firms at a competitive advantage over U.S. firms that have stayed here and that hire U.S. workers to make products in the United States. Imagine that. So you take your company and ship it overseas. All of the money that plant makes over there, you don't have to pay taxes on it. You keep your money there and keep expanding your plant, or make another plant in another country that is low wage and has low environmental oversight. What an advantage they have over good companies, good businesses in America that want to stay here. So we have to close that loophole. The third loophole we have to close is the encouragement businesses get right now to create jobs that go overseas. We have to create incentives for businesses that expand here. This bill would provide businesses with a 2-year break from paying the equivalent of the employer's share of Social Security payroll tax on wages paid to new U.S. employees performing services in the United States that used to be performed overseas. In other words, if they have a plant and a business here and can bring jobs back to the United States, guess what. For 2 years, they get a tax break; they don't have to pay the employer's share of the payroll tax. We will pick it up--the Federal Government, the taxpayers--because those jobs will come back here; people will be hired; and they will be paying into this economy. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for introducing this bill. I also salute the senior Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who has been such an outspoken champion of American manufacturing. He has fought long and hard to end the provisions in the Tax Code that have the perverse effect of actually encouraging and rewarding U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas. I also commend the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, who also is a tremendous champion of the focus and attention to try to do everything we can possibly do to keep our jobs here. Ohio has especially been hard hit. If we look at all of the statistics, Ohio has been especially hard hit over the last decade, during the last 8 years of the Bush administration, from all of the jobs that left Ohio and were shipped overseas. Let me give an example of the destruction that is caused by this. Almost exactly 1 year ago, workers at the Cummins Filtration plant in Lake Mills, IA, a small community, were gathered together on the shop floor. Company officials, surrounded by a phalanx of security officials, announced that some 400 jobs would be moved to Cummins manufacturing plants in Mexico. This announcement came out of the blue. The employees immediately went into mourning, trying to make sense of their new status--victims of the outsourcing of their jobs to Mexico. Thirty-five married couples worked at the plant. So many families lost two jobs in one fell swoop. In one case, the couple had worked at Cummins for 30 years. As one plant employee said: This is going to be terrible for people, terrible for this town. It's going to hurt everybody, the gas station, the grocery store. Mr. President, this is the kind of personal tragedy and devastation that we are seeing in thousands of towns all across America as companies lay off employees and/or shut down operations and move overseas. Since 2001, some 42,000 American factories have closed their doors. Roughly three-fourths of those employed over 500 people. Not 42,000 jobs, Mr. President, but 42,000 American factories closed their doors since 2001. The manufacturing sector lost 1.3 million workers in 2009 alone, continuing the disturbing loss of more than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2009. That is right, 5 million manufacturing jobs lost. It is bad enough this is happening, but what is absolutely intolerable is that our Tax Code actually encourages companies to kill these U.S. jobs and take their operations overseas. Senator Dorgan, many times, has cited the example of Levi jeans and Huffy bicycles. What can be more American than Levi? They moved their production to Mexico and to other parts of the world. They don't make any Levis here anymore. They contract with foreign companies who make Levis for the Levi Company. As Senator Dorgan said about Huffy bicycles in Ohio--Senator Brown's home State--workers there made $11 an hour making those bicycles. But they got fired, laid off, and Huffy bikes are now made in China at 30 cents an hour. The Huffy Corporation reaped millions of dollars in tax breaks as a result of this offshoring. Then, as this chart shows, is Fruit of the Loom, another signature U.S. company that has outsourced many thousands of jobs over the last decade. The company has closed plants in Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere, and shipped those jobs to Asia, the Caribbean, and Morocco, and the U.S. Tax Code has handsomely rewarded Fruit of the Loom for doing so. Mr. President, these are the Fruit of the Loom guys on the chart, which shows them leaving for Mexico, and they took 3,200 U.S. jobs with them. It is time to end this outrage, with the U.S. Tax Code actually encouraging companies to lay off employees and ship operations overseas, even as we struggle to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The way to grow our economy and drive our recovery is to create jobs in America and remove policies that encourage companies to ship American jobs overseas. We built the middle class by building things in America. We can do it again by giving companies incentives to bring jobs back to America and create new ones here as well. I encourage and urge my colleagues to support the Creating Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act of 2010. I assume our time has expired.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a couple more minutes. First of all, I don't know how anybody can argue with this bill. It just says, one, we are going to end subsidies for plant closing costs. In other words, right now, a company could close a plant here and move it overseas. All of the costs of closing down that plant and ending that operation would take a deduction--or they could take losses or credit against taxes for the cost of closing that down. If they shipped it overseas--if a plant goes belly up, and they can't make it anymore, or whatever they have made is not being purchased anymore, that is one thing. I can see providing for credits and losses and deductions for that. But if they are closing it down and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas, they should not get any tax benefits whatsoever. That is what this bill does; it ends that loophole. It ends the tax break for runaway plants when they expand their businesses overseas. Why should we allow companies that, as I say, are not good citizens--they take their plant overseas and the money they make over there--first of all, they don't have the same environmental protections. They have terrible working conditions and low wages. But they take all those profits--and a company that is here making the same products in America pays workers more, pays into Social Security, pays higher taxes, has environmental concerns to deal with--but this plant in America has to pay taxes on their earnings. The company over in China, making the same product, can defer those taxes, as long as they don't bring the money back here. You might say, as long as they don't bring the money back here, why should they not get a deferral? Because they take those profits and expand operations in that country or other countries, further putting at a disadvantage the good companies that stay in America. We ought to end that loophole. Third, this bill provides actual incentives for companies to repatriate jobs into this country--bring jobs back into this country. They get a 2-year break from paying their company's share of Social Security taxes. That is a good tax break for companies coming back into America. For those three reasons, I don't see how anybody can argue with us. I am not here to say we have to stop every plant and put laws into effect to stop them from going overseas. That is not what I am saying. I am saying don't have the Federal Government subsidize that. That is what we are doing with our trade laws. I am not going to get into that now. That is for another debate maybe later this year or next year about redoing our trade laws and what we are doing in the WTO. Why does China get away with undervaluing their currency, which makes their imports into this country cheaper, and we do nothing about it? At least Japan did something--raised tariffs to equalize the difference between what the currency could be worth on the open market. That is what we ought to look at in this country. China should not be allowed to get by with this undercutting of their currency just to make their exports to this country cheaper because it is taking more American jobs away. Again, that is not part of this bill. That is a discussion we need to have, and we need to have it soon in order to, again, have us take a more or a stronger position in world trade than we have been taking in the last couple of decades. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will withhold the request for the quorum call.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. On the opposite side?

Mr. HARKIN. We have 35 minutes left on our side. I yield 10 minutes or however much he needs, up to 10 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I do not have any more speakers on our side. I wanted to respond on a couple of issues that have come up here in the remarks in the last several minutes, last hour and a half, I guess, since we have been here. First, having to deal with the idea that somehow under the National Mediation Board when there is an election for a union that it is permanent. Now, right. I mean, my friend from Georgia is right. You cannot kind of compare it to Senators, because we have to run every 6 years. I understand that. I think it is still holds, though, that should someone who does not vote be counted as a no or a yes either way--I would ask my friend from Georgia to think about this in terms of not elections for Senators but how about ballot initiatives? We have school bond issues, and school bond issues get, maybe, what, 30 percent of the vote out. Should all of the people who do not vote be counted no against a bond issue? I do not know about my friend's State of Georgia, but I know in Iowa we have retention ballot initiatives for our judges. We have a very good nonpartisan, nonpolitical way of getting judges. But then the judges come up on the ballot every so often. Yes or no, should they be retained? They do not have to run against anybody and no one runs for a judgeship. But should they be retained? Well, obviously not too many people vote on that. Should people who do not vote be counted automatically as a no vote? I do not think people would like that. A lot of people do not vote because they may not have enough information to vote one way or the other, so they leave it go and say, well, maybe other people who know better could have their votes counted yes or no. We have had ballot initiatives for minimum wages. Should all of those who do not vote be counted as no? I think it is a very fundamental principle of our system of government, as the Supreme Court has said many times in the past, that a ballot not cast should not in any way influence the outcome of the election, of any election. The outcome of the election is determined by the yes and no votes, not by people who do not vote, a very basic principle. So that is one point I wanted to clarify. This old rule of the National Mediation Board that people keep talking about, saying it is been the same for 75 years, I could quite frankly argue that it should not have been that way in the first place, although as I said in my opening statement I understand some of the rationale for it, that 75 years ago, where you did not have rapid communications and things such as that, you would not want a small group that maybe had voted a union in, and other people did not even know about it. But that is hardly the case today. Hardly. Everyone knows about it with instant communications and everything else. That is hardly the case today. It is time to get rid of old, archaic rules that govern certain kinds of elections. Gosh knows, we have had a lot of old archaic rules in elections in this country going back to Jim Crow laws and things such as that. But we have moved beyond that, and those old kinds of rules should not apply any longer. So we move on and we recognize that people ought to have the right to vote, and that if you do not vote, it should not be counted as a no or a yes vote one way or the other. Regarding the issue of when the union is voted in, it is as though they are forever, it is permanent. I have heard that argument made. Well, that is not necessarily true. But that is under the National Labor Relations Act the same thing. If a union is voted in, it is not voted in for 1 year or 3 years or 5 years. It exists until such time as the union is decertified. There are two processes. There is a process under the National Labor Relations Act for decertification, and there is a process under the National Mediation Board for decertification. Essentially, with the exception of how they start, they both rely upon an election by secret ballot as to whether the union will continue to represent the workers of that plant or that industry or that association or whatever. Under the National Mediation Board, if a union was voted in, the employees could at some point say, look, I do not think enough people want to maintain a union here. What they do is they put up a person to run in a union election, a straw man. People know if they vote for that person, they are voting to get rid of the union, because if that person wins, that person will not represent the workers. This is done. There is nothing wrong with that. It is fine. So workers know if they vote for this person, it ends the union. If they vote against this person, it continues the union. It is all by secret ballot. The National Labor Relations Act is basically the same way. If an employer or employees want to decertify a union, they file a petition with the NLRB, and then there is an election, as to whether the union will continue to represent the workers. There may be a little bit of difference in structure between the National Labor Relations Act and the National Mediation Board, but, in essence, they are the same thing. You have a secret ballot as to whether the union continues. So it is not that the union is there in perpetuity, it is there as long as the workers want to continue to be represented by a union. Lastly, I will digress a little bit from the point at hand; that is, the issue at hand on the matter before us on overturning this rule, to say a couple of things about unionization and workers who belong to unions in our country. It is a shame that union workers are somehow almost degraded as not even being worthy of being citizens in this country; that somehow a union has dark overtones, that somehow unions are destructive or not in keeping with American society or who we are as a people. If we look at the history of the country, it was unions that built the middle class in America. I defy anyone to refute what I just said, that it was unions that built the middle class. It was unions that instituted things such as the minimum wage, such as safe working conditions, such as making sure they had a fair share in terms of wages, that they had an 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek and time and a half overtime--all these things were brought by unionization, people collectively bargaining for wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Maybe there are some who would like to undo the Wagner Act. If they do, fine. I suppose some people believe we shouldn't have any unions at all. China doesn't have any independent unions. Do we want to be like that? Unions built the middle class in America. Unions today do a very good job of representing workers, both in the public and private sectors. Today, we have too few people in America who actually belong to unions. We should have more, but we have made it more and more difficult for people to freely exercise their right to actually join a union. I just looked at a list of countries in the G8. With the exception of Russia, which I can't get figures for, the United States basically is at the bottom. Canada, 27 percent of their workforce is unionized; Japan, 18 percent; Italy, 33 percent; Germany, 19 percent. Look at the economy of Germany. The United Kingdom is 27 percent, and the United States is 11.9 percent. We are down there at the bottom. One cannot say that somehow if we have unions and we are highly organized, that our economy is going to be bad. Quite frankly, these other economies are doing as well or better than we are, and they have pretty strong unions. I digress because it seems that time after time we hear people in a subtle way hinting or implying that unions, by their very nature, are somehow destructive of American free enterprise and our capitalist system. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. If it were not for unions, our economy would have gone down the tubes a long time ago. Quite frankly, I believe one of the reasons we have seen in the last few years a widening gap between the rich and the poor--and it is happening; no one can refute that. The gap between the very wealthy and those at the bottom is growing rapidly and has grown rapidly just over the last 10, 15, 20 years--is coincidental with the fact that fewer and fewer people belong to unions, and more and more unions are being decertified or it is more difficult for people to join unions. Unions are being busted through by one means or another. I often tell the story of my brother Frank. He is now deceased. He went to work for a plant in west Des Moines, IA, back in the early 1950s. It was unionized by the United Auto Workers. My brother was disabled, but the owner of the plant--it was privately held--Mr. Delavan, owned the plant and hired a lot of people with disabilities. They had good jobs, good wages and hours. It was a great place to work. He worked there for 23 years. He worked there for 10 years one time, his first 10 years, and they gave him a gold watch because in 10 years he never missed 1 day of work and was not late once. In fact, in 23 years, he only missed 5 days of work because of a blizzard. In all those years, they never had one labor strike, not one labor problem, no strikes, nothing. They would have their bargaining agreement. They would bargain with the owner. They would move on. They never had a work stoppage, never had any problems, until Mr. Delavan got old and sold the plant to a group of investors. The investors came in and openly bragged--and I have the newspaper to prove it--if you want to see how to get rid of a union, come to Delavan's. That was in the Des Moines Register. When the contract came up for negotiation, the employer refused to negotiate. They would sit down and talk for a little bit, but nothing could be agreed upon. It went on and on. Finally, the union had to call a strike, the first time ever. The new owners, the investors, brought in what the striking workers called the scabs, the replacement workers, brought them in, kept them there. One year later, they had a vote to decertify the union because the new people there didn't want to lose their jobs. They decertified the union, busted the union. Why did they want to do that? Because a lot of the people, such as my brother who had worked there for 23 years, had established seniority. They were getting paid a good hourly wage. But the new investors figured out they could get rid of all those people, hire younger people, pay them a lot less, and they would make more profit. That is exactly what happened. Investors made more profit. But they got rid of a lot of people and destroyed a lot of lives. People who had worked there for a long time and had families basically were told they were used up, burned out, out on the trash heap out in back. I often think about that. I think about what happened. There was no reason to break that union other than to have more profits for the investors and less for the workers. That has been going on in this country at least for the last 25 to 30 years. So is it any surprise that fewer and fewer people are getting more and more wealth and more and more people are getting less? I hear people talking about unions and they don't want to strengthen unions, don't want to help unions. I want to make sure the playing field is open and level and that the secret ballot is fairly used, that people should have a better chance at joining a union than what they have in the United States today. That is why I am for the Employee Free Choice Act. It will strengthen the right of people to actually freely and openly join a collective bargaining unit. That would be better for the country. I state that unequivocally. The more and more we denigrate workers in terms of their ability to collectively bargain, we will hurt the economy. When we strengthen unions, when we strengthen people and give them better rights and better chances to organize and bargain collectively, then more and more of our money, our national economy, more of that will go to the workers, maybe less to capital. I think that is the way it should be. Too much of our money is going to capital and not enough to labor. We need a better balance there. About the only way that will happen is through collective bargaining. Count me as a person who is strongly in favor of collective bargaining and strongly opposed to this effort to overturn a rule made by the National Mediation Board which I believe rights an injustice, rights a wrong, and says that: In the future, if you have an election, if you don't vote, your vote is not counted one way or the other. The outcome of the election will be decided by those who vote yes or no in a secret ballot. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:20 p.m., there be 10 minutes of debate remaining on the joint resolution; that it be equally divided and controlled between Senators Isakson and Harkin; further, that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 30, the joint resolution of disapproval.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time is on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. And on the other side?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as an agreement between the Senator from Georgia and myself, we have agreed that since he is the author of this joint resolution, he will close out the debate. I think that is proper. I will just take a little bit of the remaining time on this side again to reiterate why this resolution of disapproval should be defeated. No. 1, as has been adequately stated many times, it is time to get rid of antiquated, outdated rules that say if you do not vote, it is counted as a ``no'' vote. That does not make any sense. Again, this idea that it is in perpetuity--it is not. There are ways for people to get rid of unions under the NMB, as under the NLRB. So it is not in perpetuity at all. It is just, again: How should ballots be counted? Should a person who does not vote be counted as a ``no''? That should not be so. Even if you accept the argument that it is in perpetuity, why should someone who does not vote be counted as a ``no'' vote? On the judges, we say that every 4 years they are up. That is true; they are not kind of in for perpetuity. But why should someone who does not vote be counted as a ``no'' vote? It does not make sense in any system. I do not care what the length of time is or whether it is in perpetuity or for 2 months or 2 days; those who do not vote should not be counted no or yes, one way or the other. Secondly, the National Mediation Board went through proper procedures in giving notice and comment in rulemaking. As I said, they published it on November 3 of last year, a detailed explanation of why they were considering it. They had 60 days of comment, 25,000 public comments, a public hearing. Thirty-four members of the public testified. Well, this is what Federal agencies do. They follow the Administrative Procedures Act in doing this, and that is exactly what the Board did. So no one was misled. No one was kept out of it. There was no evidence to support any claims that one member somehow was excluded or did not have an opportunity to have input into this process. Again, I understand why this resolution has come up. I understand that for whatever reason, Delta Air Lines does not wish to be unionized. Well, that is fine. That is their right. But there ought to be a process whereby the workers have a fair, open chance to organize, if they want to. It is not illegal in this country to belong to a union--perfectly legal. The National Mediation Board has set up rules and procedures under which workers who work for Delta or for Northwest--the combined group now--can decide whether they want to have a union. To me, that is the American way. So why should we now say: Well, no, we want that old rule that if you do not vote, it is counted as a ``no'' vote? That is what this is all about. Stripped to its essence, if you vote for the resolution introduced by my friend from Georgia, what you are saying is, if a person does not vote, it is counted as a ``no'' vote. You are also voting to override the National Mediation Board's decision, which has already been upheld by Federal courts. But, in essence, that is what it is. If you believe a person who does not vote should have their vote counted as a ``no'' vote, you probably ought to vote for my friend's resolution. I do not think we should. I think we should uphold good democratic principles, principles by which, I say, bond issues or other ballot initiatives are always done. You do not count someone if they do not vote. We do not do it here. We do not do it anywhere in this country, and it should not apply here any longer. So I ask for a ``no'' vote on the resolution of disapproval so we can have free, fair, and open elections.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2010, at 2 p.m. in room SR- 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2010 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``the Federal Housing Administration--current condition and future challenges.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2010 at 10:15 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on September 23, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform: Lessons from the Tax Reform Act of 1986.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2010, at 9:45 a.m.