Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the period of these last few days, we have had a number of our colleagues on this side who have spoken, and spoken very well, about the Employee Free Choice Act. We have had Senator Durbin, Senator Brown, Senator Clinton, Senator Schumer, Senator Murray, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Webb, Senator Casey. I have spoken myself. We have a number of additional Senators. I see my friend from Maryland, Senator Cardin, will be addressing the issue this afternoon. I think we have had some excellent presentations about this issue and about the importance of this issue, about the fact that there are about 60 million men and women across this country who wish to be able to participate in the trade union movement, but because of the realities of the current election process are denied the opportunity to do so. There are millions of people across this Nation who are enormously concerned about the growing disparity which has taken place in this country between the explosion of wealth in terms of the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our population and the fact that those at the lower end of the economic ladder most recently had to wait 10 years to get an increase in the minimum wage. I can remember going back to a period of time when the increase in the minimum wage was a bipartisan event. People understood at that time they were trying to make the minimum wage about half of what the overall national wage was going to be, to say to American workers: If you worked at the lower end of the economic ladder in our economic system, we still appreciated your work and you would not have to live in poverty here in the United States of America. We have in recent years seen where millions of our fellow citizens have had to live in poverty because we have failed to get the increases in the minimum wage. It has become a more partisan issue here in the Senate and also in the House of Representatives, regretfully. I am basically suggesting that we are seeing America growing apart. That is a matter of enormous concern to Americans everywhere. It does not have to be this way. It was not this way when I think America was at its best. It was not this way. What we are seeing now is the increasing factor that those who have the resources and have the wealth and have the superwealth are accumulating it more and more; those who are at the lowest end are falling farther and farther behind, and the great middle class that is represented by workers and used to be the trade union movement is being constantly challenged. For many in that middle class, they feel they are slipping farther and farther behind, and they are slipping farther and farther behind. They were not slipping farther and farther behind when we had a strong trade union movement. They weren't. They were moving ahead with the rest of the country. But now, they are falling farther and farther and farther behind. They know that. The option before the Senate now is to at least give American workers an opportunity, if they so desire, to be able to participate in a union so that their economic interests, their health insurance interests, a decent retirement, can be addressed, because as we have seen, working families, increasing numbers of those working families, are losing health insurance, are finding their deductibles and copays are on the rise, and it is getting more and more difficult for them to continue to afford this. An increasing number of retirees, who thought they had commitments to health insurance, are being dropped. We are finding an increasing number of those Americans who rely on a defined benefit system losing out on their pensions. We are finding out that the costs across the spectrum for working families are going up through the roof--the price of gasoline, the price of health care, the price of prescription drugs, the price of tuition, the price of any kind of retirement income. Books have been written about this great shift from the kind of common responsibilities and common involvement Americans had with each other, commitments we had with each other, to a different perspective and a different paradigm where everyone is sort of effectively on their own. That means you are on your own with regard to retirement, health insurance, and education in the workplace. That is happening increasingly. You are on your own when the employer won't give you a raise. You are on your own when you are put in working conditions which may very well jeopardize your health. I wish to review exactly where we have come as a country on the issue of growing apart and growing together. Most of us remember clearly the Mayflower compact that was signed a few miles off Provincetown, MA, when extraordinary men and women had sailed the seas to escape religious persecution and, after 6 long weeks and the loss of a number of those who had set sail on the ships, before they got off the ship, they gathered on the deck and made a compact between each other about the importance of working together for the common good as a community and as a society. The Federal Constitution talks about the general welfare and about moving ahead together as a country and a society. We have seen that when America has been at its best. Here we have a chart that shows the years 1947 to 1973. It is titled ``A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.'' What this chart shows is income for five different sectors of our economy--this is from the Economic Policy Institute--the lowest 20 percent, the second 20 percent, the middle, fourth, and top 20 percent. This chart shows clearly from these colors that from 1947 to 1973, America's income moved along together. Those in the lowest sector of our economic society moved along. As a matter of fact, they moved along a little higher than those at the very top. But America was moving along together. It is interesting that this is a period of time when we had the trade union movement at its peak. One of their strong themes during that time was economic fairness, economic justice. If we were going to see an increase in productivity as a result of their own enterprise and working with the employer, the benefits were going to be shared. It was going to be shared between those at the top and those who were working. That was the concept we had seen reflected in this growth from 1947 to 1973. Look at what is beginning to happen from 1973 to 2000. We begin to see now the lowest is growing the least and the top 20 percent is growing at a rate of three or four times higher than the lowest. This was the beginning of significant tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest individuals. We see the economic indicators reflected here in the income for those individuals across the board. Now look at what has happened in the most recent time. We see that those in the lowest economic income have been falling further and further behind, and those in the top 1 percent have been going further and further ahead. All of this is going on at a time when we have seen the weakening of the trade union movement. How is this reflected in what has happened with corporate profits? Here we see at the same time corporate profits were going up some 84 percent at the time from 2001 to 2007, where wages and salaries have been virtually stagnant. They haven't moved. They have gone up a total of 4 percent over this 6-year period. The profits have been growing; wages and salaries have not been growing. Benefits are going up in terms of corporate profits, but the workers' are not. We have seen what has happened. This chart is interesting. It tells the story of what I have just mentioned in a different way. For the first time, young men make less than their fathers did. We have grown up in this country believing that the future generation was going to have a better opportunity and a more hopeful future than the current generation. Those certainly were the hopes and dreams of those who came to this Nation. It has been certainly generally true, right? Wrong. We saw that was true from 1964 to 1994, the purple colors reflecting the son; the green, the father. We talk about income. You see that the son's income exceeded the father's. Now look from 1974 to 2004. There has been a 12-percent decline of the son over the father--again, the decline in the voice to speak for workers, the strong voice that is going to speak for workers. Now look at what happened again, if we can go back. Remember the first chart where I talked about 1947 to 1962 when all of the different economic groups went along and went up together. This is the time of peak union membership. What this chart shows is that wages and productivity rise together. What does this chart show? It shows right along here increasing productivity. That means the workplace is becoming more productive. They are producing more. What happened when we had the height of the trade union movement during this time, we found out wages were keeping up with productivity; therefore, workers were working harder, but they were getting more in terms of wages. They were keeping pace with their increasing productivity. Now we see the unions begin to decline, and the workers are falling further behind. Productivity is still going up, but real wages are in decline and productivity grew more than 200 percent more than wages, reflected in that earlier chart which showed the profits going up. All this is at an interesting time where the workers' voice in the workplace is being constantly diminished. On the far left, we find peak union membership; wages and productivity rise together. Now you can ask: What happened after 1966? Why this sudden disparity? How could it be doing so well with union membership during this period and then suddenly we find a decline? Well, we had decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court that decided businesses can veto majority signups as a result of elections. I will go through that in more detail. But they have it as an art at the present time where an election can be held, let the workers make a judgment, a majority can say: We want to join a union, and next you know that those individuals who are involved in that activity are being fired, lose their jobs, are out of jobs--not just for 1 month or 2 months, not just for 6 months, not even for 1 year, sometimes 3, 4, 5 years. It is the cost of doing business. A whole industry has grown up to help employers defeat the voices of workers in the workplace. That is what happened during this period of time in the 1960s and 1970s. We had our Republican friends appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board during this period of time--also the Supreme Court--who made these judgments to disadvantage workers. We have seen the abuses skyrocket. This chart is from a Peter Hart Research Associates poll from a year ago. It shows that 58 percent of nonmanagement workers would vote for union representation. This represents 60 million workers who want to join. We can ask ourselves: If they want to join, why don't they join? Let me point out, before we get there, what else has been happening in the workplace. We find there have also been assaults on unemployment insurance. This is the fund for when we have extended unemployment periods. This is an unemployment insurance fund which is paid into by workers so they will be able to receive it when they are unemployed. It has been generally used historically in times when we have had a downturn in the economy. But we have had administrations which have refused to extend the unemployment insurance, even though the fund itself is in surplus, to look out for the workers. We have seen 6 million individuals who qualified for overtime who were workers 3 years ago lose their overtime pay. We saw the results of administration action in Hurricane Katrina where they refused to extend the Davis-Bacon provisions. We have the undermining of family and medical leave. We have had Supreme Court judgments and decisions which have also compromised the worker. One of the most notorious was the Supreme Court decision that was made probably 4 weeks ago where a woman who had been working in a plant for a number of years and had been working alongside a number of men for all these years found out she was being paid significantly less than the men. That is unfair under legislation we have passed in the Civil Rights Act. When the case finally went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said: Well, it is too bad that has been her case because under the legislation, she should have complained in the first 180 days. Since she didn't complain in that time, she lost all her rights. That is the most cockamamie decision I have heard of the Supreme Court making in recent years. I can give you another one, the Grove City case on civil rights, but imagine this individual didn't even know she wasn't being paid fairly. She had no notice of it. The payroll was being kept by the employer. This is what is happening in real America. We all know what happened with carpal tunnel syndrome. We had rules and regulations under the previous administration. More than a million people, most of them women, are doing the kind of repetitive work which endangers their health. We had the National Academy of Science make determinations that these individuals, by and large women, are being harmed by this kind of activity. We had the previous Democratic administration issue rules and regulations to provide protections and, and bam, under this administration, under the current administration, the Bush administration, they have been eliminated, all of them. So we see the series: elimination of overtime pay, elimination of protecting people in terms of pay on the job, eliminating rules and regulations to protect people from carpal tunnel syndrome--all of these going on at the same time. They are the kinds of situations the trade union movement speaks about and fights about. They fight for an individual member who is being abused like the woman being abused in the workforce. They have been a principal spokes-group for the protection of people doing repetitive work and being affected by carpal tunnel syndrome. But they have been weakened, their voice has been weakened. As a result, we see the great economic disparities, and we see the great threat to the workers. Now, you can say: Well, that is very interesting, Senator, but what are these kinds of barriers to workers, if they have an election and they are successful? Well, here are some of the roadblocks. Workers who lead the union efforts are fired. We have 30,000 a year who get backpay. Mr. President, 30,000 a year get backpay from employers for violations of their rights. What kind of message do you think that sends to other workers who have to provide for their children and their family, seeing the individuals dismissed or their rights violated? The employer challenges the election results. No matter what the disparity, they still challenge it and delay it. Then the employer appeals the NLRB ruling in the courts. I might, later on this afternoon, go over some of the court decisions as to the National Labor Relations Board and how they have changed from protecting the worker to protecting the employer and how the DC court--because the DC court is the special court of jurisdiction--how they have altered and changed in terms of protecting the workers. But the workers, effectively, are not getting protection either from the National Labor Relations Board, which was set up to protect them, or in the courts, which are supposed to be protecting their interests. The employer stalls or refuses to bargain for a first contract. They are able to kick this over for a year. The employer can seek to stop recognizing the union. Then the workers start all over again. This is what we have: The employees are fired in one-quarter of all private sector union-organizing campaigns--one-quarter of the campaigns. Talk about discouraging those who want to speak up. One in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired. This has not varied or changed. You would have thought the Department of Labor or the National Labor Relations Board or the courts would try to protect these workers. Oh no, they have not, and we have the current situation we have. In 2005, over 30,000 workers received backpay after employers had violated their rights. This gives you an idea of the warfare that is going on in the workplace--absolute warfare. Can we do something about it? Yes. That is what the legislation which is before us is trying to do. That is exactly the issue this legislation is trying to face. We will explain that. But that is exactly the point. We see why some 60 million workers want to join unions. This chart demonstrates the percentage of wages for union members over nonunion members. This next chart is very interesting because it draws the distinction, the effect of union organizing for women. It makes a very significant difference in protecting women and women's rights, for African Americans, and Latino Americans. It is a very major force and factor in terms of making sure we are going to protect the rights and the civil rights of our fellow citizens. This chart gives you a pretty clear idea. This is what we are talking about: people with wages that are $22,000, $23,000, $17,000, or $18,000. These are the people we are talking about. We are talking about, as demonstrated on this chart, that the cashier, if they do not belong to a union, is making $15,000; if they do, they are making $24,000. For childcare workers, if they are nonunion, they are making probably $16,000; if they are a union member, they are probably making $21,000. And we have demonstrated on the chart the wages for a cook, a housekeeper, across the board. Look at the Federal poverty line on the chart. Those who are not a part of the union movement are below the poverty line, and those who are members of a union are slightly above it. So let me point out what we are attempting to do. We are saying we want to give individuals the opportunity to be able to join unions through a card check, effectively. If a majority of those in a union are going to check the card, they are going to be a majority, and they have the opportunity to do so. But we do not eliminate the secret ballot. We are saying the secret ballot is still available. Today, the secret ballot is decided, effectively, by the employers. Since the employees are the ones whose interests are at stake, we give them the option to go either through the secret ballot or to be able to do it through a card checkoff. We have heard a lot on the floor about how the secret ballot in the workplace is comparable to the great American tradition of elections in the United States. But, of course, that is completely untrue. For example, if you take what we call the NLRB--that would be the elections in the workplace--versus a Federal election, in regard to equal access to the media, do we think the workers have equal access with the employer? No, of course not. It is the employer who has all of the access. Now, in a Presidential or a congressional campaign, there is relatively equal access. Maybe one candidate is able to get additional kinds of resources and able to get more of the media, but at least there is some degree of fairness and some degree of comparability. But here it is all one-sided, all with the employer. The freedom of speech is with the employer. Access to the voters: No union members can come onto a grounds and say: Look, we would like to talk to these individuals who are trying to make up their mind. But the employer has access to these individuals all day long. Campaign finance regulations: The employer spends whatever they wish on these issues. The timely implementation of the voters' will: The federal elections all have them but not here. As we have just pointed out, employers contest the elections. The way these elections are conducted now in the workplace, the odds are all stacked against the workers. So the workers have been discouraged from doing so, from being able to express themselves. As a result, they have not been able to move ahead. As a result, they have fallen further and further behind. Now, we also hear on the floor: Well, we can't have this kind of a checkoff because we will have intimidation of these workers in a certain way, we will have intimidation for those in the workplace. Well, the fact remains there are very strong laws against any kind of intimidation or coercion of workers. We can go through that in greater detail, which I am glad to do. I know some opponents on the other side have cited a study by the Human Resource Policy Association that identified 113 NLRB cases that involved union deception or coercion. Over the last 60 years, one expert--who testified at the House hearing of the employee free choice legislation--who examined the cases found they contained only 42 such instances. We should not have any, but they had 42. In any event, those 113 claimed examples of coercing or intimidating workers over the past 60 years are next to nothing compared to the NLRB statistics that show acts of coercion alleged in a single year, which, in 2005, equaled about 30,000 workers getting backpay for firings or violations of their rights who were involved in union activity--firing them, throwing them out of their jobs or otherwise violating their rights. So experience has shown, too, that when the majority signup replaces the battlefield mentality of the National Labor Relations Board election process, conflict is minimized and the workplace becomes more cooperative and productive--a win for both sides. I might mention that this chart shows Cingular Wireless, and this one shows Kaiser Permanente. They provide for what is permitted under this bill. Of course, if the company wants to do it, it can do it now. It can do it today. But this will institutionalize it to encourage companies all over the country to do it. Here is Kaiser Permanente, a well-known company. Mr. President, 800 nurses were able to choose a union based on the model of the Employee Free Choice Act. Kaiser Permanente proves that respecting workers' desire to have a voice on the job, rather than fighting the unions, is not only the right thing to do, but it makes good business sense. Says the president of Kaiser Permanente: We not only believe it's the fair thing to do, but we also believe it's the right thing to do for our employees, our health plan members, and also our business. It has been their experience. This is Cingular Wireless. A majority signed up. This is what one of the workers, Larry Barrett, said: Management didn't pressure us or try to interfere. . . . We didn't attack the company and they didn't attack us. We were focused on improving our jobs and making Cingular a better place to work. This is what the executive vice president of Cingular said: We believe that the employees should have a choice. . . . Making that choice available to them results . . . in employees who are engaged in the business and who will have a passion for their customers. We can either do it right or we can do it wrong. That is what this is really all about. It is permitting, on a voluntary basis, the opportunity to be able to permit workers to make a judgment and a decision as to who can be their voice and representative in terms of their economic conditions, their work conditions, their retirement conditions, their health conditions, and the rest. If they want to so do it, let's let them do it. If they do not want to do it, let them make that judgment and choice. But today, the system is effectively broken. It is unworkable. The workers know it. The employers know it. Too many of the employers want to keep it that way. We have an opportunity to provide some real democratization in the workplace. When we do that and we have workers who can have a voice in determining their economic future, their future in terms of other issues, we are going to have a stronger economy. It is going to be stronger in dealing with our competition around the world, and we are going to have increasing productivity. I know there are those who say: Well, if we have a weaker trade union movement, we are going to have a stronger economy. I will just show the example of Ireland. Ireland has one of the strongest economies in all of Western Europe at the present time, and 35 percent of their workers are union members, as compared to 12 percent in the United States. Look at the economic growth of Ireland, which is at 6 percent; the United States is at 3.3 percent. So I am hopeful the Senate will at least give us a chance to move ahead on this legislation. The time to act is now. This legislation will make a major difference in terms of our ability to deal with the challenges of a stronger economy, a fairer economy, an economy where workers have a voice as well as a vote. It is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Maryland may consume.

Mr. KENNEDY. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 p.m. the Senate suspend its deliberation of the motion to proceed for the swearing in of the Wyoming Senator, and that any time consumed by that and speeches thereon not be counted against either side in the debate, with Senator Session's time delayed accordingly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. And, Mr. President, I yield myself such time as we might use. I listened to the very eloquent and persuasive speech of my friend from Maryland, and one of the points he made which I think deserves mentioning is the underlying disparity between the wealth of the Nation, between the very rich and basic workers in the country; and his pointing out that in the 1960s that difference was the narrowest in the greatest economy in the world--which is the United States of America-- and now it is the largest between the very wealthy and the neediest people in our society. I am sure the Senator remembers Henry Ford, who we all understand was the creator, the early entrepreneur of automobiles, and Henry Ford's concept at that time was to have a million people who had $10,000 a year to be able to support selling those cars and begin building the American economy. American workers brought us out of the Depression, fought in World War II, took a nation of close to 16 million men and women who had served in the military, came back, and transitioned again to being the most important economy in the world. Henry Ford understood it was important that there be a million people in America with $10,000. I am sure he would be perplexed today that we have 10,000 people with more than $1 million. It is an extraordinary kind of irony that we have seen a small number with enormous kinds of wealth at that time in America, which had the strongest economy, as compared to now. I share the concern the Senator from Maryland has, the direction we are going in, the indicators of where we are going and what is going to happen to that middle class, as the Senator pointed out; what is going to happen as tuitions go up and gasoline goes up, prescription drugs go up, and the pensions and security retirement are threatened, and the laws regarding what happens to workers. As in Maryland, the same will happen to the workers in Massachusetts. These were always issues that workers and working families felt were important not only to their own families but to their neighborhood's family, their community family, and to the Nation's family. I am wondering if the Senator is not perplexed somewhat about his sense of the individual kind of activity, that we can let every individual sort of take care of themselves. They do not need health insurance; they can survive. They do not need much retirement to somehow be able to survive. They do not need much assurance about the cost of their house because they are going to survive. They are on their own, versus the coming together of a worker who is concerned about the common community and the common good. I wonder if the Senator would talk a minute or two about how he sees which type of America he thinks is more in tune with our traditions and values.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator understands--as we listened to this debate-- who brings support for this legislation. The Senator suggested broadly, during his comments, we have civil rights groups supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. Civil rights groups, community, religious, and poverty groups all support it. Whether it is ACORN, Sierra Club, the Presbyterian Church, public health associations, the Churchwomen United, the Methodists, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Mexican-American Legal Defense--this is a group, not only of workers, it is a representation of civil rights groups, of women's groups, church groups that talk about the morality and the fairness. They talk about the morality of this issue as well, the fairness of this issue. I think that is what I find so persuasive. I wonder, if the Senator just had a minute, if he would not agree with me, in the outline of this legislation, that he finds this is an effective summary of the legislation? It requires the employer to recognize the union if a majority of employees sign valid authorization cards. So a majority has to find it. We have heard a lot of talk about expressing the minority and majority views. It preserves, as the Senator has said, the elections if employees choose to ask for one. The employees, after all, are the ones who are going to be affected by this choice. We hear a lot about free elections. Here, this legislation preserves free elections if the workers want that. It then instructs the NLRB to make clear and fair rules for a majority to sign up to protect workers' rights. Not if you listen to some of the comments and statements on the floor about how radical this proposal is. Does the Senator not agree with me that this is a fairly straightforward proposal to give those workers who are working in a setting the opportunity to express their will as to whether they choose to join a union?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for an excellent presentation. I see my colleagues desiring to address the Senate. I withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. So I yield the time until quarter after 3.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we have had a very good discussion over the course of the afternoon and earlier. As I mentioned in my opening comments, a number of our colleagues spoke about this issue during the last week. So this is a matter of importance. It is a matter of economic justice and economic fairness. It is an extremely important issue, I think, a defining issue in terms of what is happening to the middle class in this country. Are they going to have voices and votes that are going to be taken seriously? Are they going to be able to participate in a meaningful way in terms of our economy? This involves their families and their future, their own personal future, their economic future, the future of their retirement, the future of their health care, and the future of their ability to be able to educate their children. So it is a very important matter. I have been listening to the debate and the discussion. It is an interesting fact that the bill itself is only three pages long. It is only three pages long. But the difference it would make for working families is enormously significant and incredibly important. So this legislation, although it is written in some technical language, is understandable and should be. Basically, what it does is it gives the worker the kinds of expression and the rights in the workplace which increasingly they have been denied. I wish to go over very briefly exactly how this legislation works, because if you were someone back home listening to the discussion and the debate, I think you would wonder what this legislation is all about. I thought I would take a few moments to go through this. As I mentioned, a majority sign up in a workplace for employee free choice requires the employer to recognize the union if a majority of the employees sign valid authorization cards; if the employees want to have an election, then there can be an election. The idea that has been suggested around here is that this eliminates the opportunity for free elections and that, of course, is not so. But what it is saying is that the people who are going to be the most affected by it will be able to make the decision as to whether it is going to be an open election or whether it will be the card check-off. Then we have the instructions by the NLRB to make clear and fair rules for how that signup is to protect the workers' rights. Then, this says, the Employee Free Choice Act brings the employers to the table within 10 days to start bargaining. The majority has indicated through the card check that they want to form a union and this is a process spelled out in this legislation about getting the employer to the table within 10 days and provides a reasonable timetable for negotiations and creates an incentive for both parties to reach an agreement and provides for mediation and binding arbitration as a last resort. This idea we have heard during the course of the afternoon that this is going to require Government imposing a judgment and decision on companies is, of course, completely fallacious. This is the timeline. Although it may be somewhat difficult to see, it is not enormously complicated. The union is certified, requests to bargain, it takes 10 days, and the bargaining begins. It goes on for 90 days. It can be extended. As long as there is a demonstration on both sides that they want to continue to move ahead, they will go ahead. If not, either party may request they go to mediation. What we have found out, and history demonstrates, that 86 percent of the cases that go to mediation are actually settled. This is an extraordinary achievement and a record. So it gives full opportunity for the 90 days, continued opportunities for the sides, if they think they are making progress. If one or the other sides requests the mediation, they go to mediation. Then, only at the very end, if they are unable to get, through the mediation, if they are unable to resolve their questions in collective bargaining, then there is going to be 30 days after that which will be for the arbitration. Now, a point that has been missed during this debate and discussion is that on the issue of arbitration, it is not in the interest of the union to put the employer out of business because they wouldn't have jobs, and it isn't in the interest of the employer to be so arbitrary that they will find they are not going to have a workforce. So there are forces that are out there to bring the situation together, and that is how it has worked in the past and is working. The example that has been used, of course, is in our neighboring country of Canada, where it has met with great success. This is not enormously complicated, but the impact this will have in terms of permitting the 60-odd million individuals across this country who want to participate in a union to be a member of a union is dramatic. I wish to reiterate for the membership what is happening in the real world. I explained earlier the kinds of activities employers have had to discourage, effectively to demean the workers themselves and destroy their economic life by firing them, even after there is a successful outcome in favor of a union. I wish to show what the numbers are. This is in 2005, when over 30,000 workers received backpay after the National Labor Relations Board found that employers had violated their rights--30,000 workers across the country. This isn't 5 or 6 workers, where it is happening in New England, or 4 or 5 workers down in Los Angeles or in another part of the country; this is 30,000 across the country. Thirty thousand across the country are receiving the backpay in one particular year. It demonstrates what is out there and the difficulty. That means they have been fired or their rights have been violated for being involved in union activity, to try to get an expression in their workplace, and they get fired or their rights are violated. What happens is they get fired or somehow their rights are violated, and it can be 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, luckily, if they ever get a reinstatement, so many of them become discouraged and completely drop out of the market. Now let's see, after the National Labor Relations Board says they have been harshly and illegally treated, what is the burden then on the employer to pay them? Look at this. The average backpay of those 30,000 workers, many of whom are out 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, is $2,660. That is the backpay. That is the average backpay for those 30,000 workers. Talk about a slap on the wrist. It is not even a slap on the wrist. This is the cost of doing business. Compare this to the unauthorized reproduction of Smokey the Bear. The penalty is $10,000 and up to 6 months in prison. This is the unfairness to American workers when they have been unfairly treated or fired, risking their family's future and their future, reinstated by the National Labor Relations Board and receiving the average pay of $2,660. So you can understand very easily why these many unscrupulous--not all, and we have given examples of informed and enlightened employers--but we can understand why many employers say go ahead, give me those firms that you have a list of, and we will take these kinds of penalties any time, rather than going ahead with the union. That is what is out there, in terms of its impact, by failing to move ahead. We illustrated earlier in the day when it wasn't this way--when we had strong unions, speaking for working families, increase in productivity, increase in wages, and the result was that America was growing together. America was growing together toward being the strongest economy with the strongest national security in the world. The opportunities for those families to continue their being a part of what I call the march for progress, being a part of an America that was offering better opportunities than these families had or that their parents had. That was the promise of America. That isn't where we are today. We have gone through that earlier in the afternoon. Since there have been a number of references to the National Labor Relations Board, I wish to include a letter from an extraordinary former Secretary of Labor. His name is Ray Marshall. He was an extraordinary Secretary of Labor under President Carter. He now continues to be a professor at the Johnson School of Public Affairs. He wrote, on March 21--and I will include his letter in the Record. I wish to mention briefly the relevant and very important part of his letter pointing out numerous studies, including those by the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations, the Dunlop Commission. The Dunlop Commission was led by John Dunlop, who taught at Harvard Business School, a Republican, a Secretary of Labor for a number of Republican Presidents, and generally perceived to be one of the most thoughtful Secretaries of Labor we have had, in fact, over the last 50 years, and there was a Dunlop Commission which he took great pride in, in reviewing labor-management relations. That is what Ray Marshall is referring to. He pointed out the Dunlop Commission documented the failure of American labor law to adequately protect workers' rights, bargaining rights. The National Labor Relations Act's major weaknesses include: Giving employers too much power to frustrate workers' organizing efforts through unlawful means. This is the Dunlop Commission, former Republican Secretary of Labor, included in a letter from Ray Marshall. No. 1: Giving employers too much power to frustrate workers' organizing efforts, often through unlawful means. No. 2: Weak penalty for illegal actions by company representatives. We gave an example of both of those. No. 3: Employers' refusal to bargain in good faith after workers vote to be represented by unions. The letter goes on. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think these summarize the challenge and the problem and what we are trying to do to address them. There have been comments about who will benefit--that it is going to be the union bosses who will coerce the people; the union representatives have no power over workers; the employer can fire you. He can hire you and fire you. He can decide whether you are going to have any kind of health insurance, or vacation, or paid sick leave. They are the ones who hold the whip, and we should not forget it. There is the claim that this is a payback for union leaders. It is the people who care about the workers who support this. That brings me to this point. We have a letter from 124 religious leaders. I will read quickly part of this excellent letter: As religious leaders, we will continue to work to disseminate within our communities of faith this message: That the right of workers to freely organize in a democracy, and families and communities are strengthened when workers can bargain for fair wages, adequate benefits, and safe working conditions. We, as leaders of faith communities that represent the entire spectrum of U.S. religious life, call upon the U.S. Senate to bring the Employee Free Choice Act to the floor of the Senate as soon as possible. We urge that the Senate vote to pass this historic legislation as a public representation that this bill offers the best remedy to the egregious violations of workers' rights and best hope to restore to workers a voice in the workplace free from fear and harassment. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. That isn't just the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Vermont, or others who have spoken in favor of this. This is an open letter from 124 religious leaders, representing all of the great faiths, who are urging us as a matter of social consciousness and morality to give a voice and expression in the form of support for that legislation. I also include a letter from 16 Governors from around the country. In part, they say: The freedom to form and join unions is a fundamental human right protected by our constitutional freedom of association, our Nation's labor laws, and international human rights laws . . . it is a right for which millions of Americans have struggled. The freedom to form unions is of special importance to the civil and women's rights movements because unions help ensure adequate wages, health care coverage, and retirement security. It was the right to form a union that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was supporting during the Memphis sanitation strike when he was assassinated in 1968. Unions also helped to reduce the wage gap for women, people of color, and can prevent arbitrary and discriminatory employer behavior. So 16 Governors are recommending that we move ahead with this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, we have a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Two hundred civil rights groups are endorsing this legislation. In part, their letter says this: This bill will reform the current system for selecting a union to give all working people the freedom to make their own decision about whether to choose a union and bargain for better wages and benefits. LCCR strongly believes that a healthy labor movement invests America's diverse working people with a powerful voice with which to challenge workplace discrimination and demand equality. I ask unanimous consent that this letter also be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. So there it is. The oustanding religious leaders, the Governors, those who have been speaking out to protect and advance the cause of women and minorities in the workplace, all see this legislation as being a major consequence to economic justice to workers' rights in this country. That is why we are in such strong support of this legislation. We are hopeful we will get a strong vote on tomorrow. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in support of this important legislation to reduce the difference in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. It is important to ameliorate harsh drug laws that have discriminatory consequences. The Sentencing Reform Act was enacted over 20 years ago to reduce unwarranted disparities and assure proportionality in punishment. Instead, the severity of crack-cocaine sentencing has had a harsh impact on low-income and African-American communities and has undermined public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Unfair sentencing feeds the perception that the criminal justice system unjustly targets the poor and minority communities. The crack powder laws were intended to punish those at the highest levels of the illegal drug trade, such as traffickers and kingpins. But the low amount needed to trigger the harsh sentences is not associated with high-level drug dealing. As the Sentencing Commission reported in 2005, only 15 percent of Federal cocaine traffickers were high-level dealers. The overwhelming majority of defendants were low-level participants, such as street dealers, lookouts, or couriers. Harsh sentencing in such cases has only a limited impact on the drug trade because they involve low level offenders who are not at the top of the drug chain. The mass incarceration resulting from these sentences has done nothing to decrease drug use. Recent data indicate that such use has actually increased over time. When these laws were enacted, there was widespread belief in the extraordinary dangers of crack cocaine. It was viewed as highly addictive and likely to cause violent behavior. We know much more about crack cocaine now than we did 20 years ago. The rationale that crack is more dangerous or more addictive than powder is not supported by research. In fact, research has demonstrated that the effects of crack cocaine are much like the effects of powder cocaine. Medical experts have determined that the pharmacological effects of crack were overstated. They found that crack use doesn't incite violent behavior. As with other drugs, the violence is related to the distribution of the drug. Changes in the drug market have also called the 100-to-1 ratio into question. Demand for crack cocaine by new users has decreased significantly, and the violence associated with crack cocaine has declined. How can Congress continue to support a policy it knows is flawed? Changes are long overdue and will be an important step in reducing the disparity that plagues drug sentencing policies. Under the current sentencing laws, the statutory ratio for powder and crack cocaine is 100 to 1. One gram of crack cocaine triggers the same penalty as 100 grams of powder cocaine. Possession of 5 grams of crack triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum penalty. It is the only drug with a mandatory prison sentence for a first-time possession offense. This disparity results from an early attempt by the Commission to incorporate congressionally mandated minimum penalties into the guidelines, even though such harsh mandatory minimums are completely inconsistent with the structure and goals of the Sentencing Reform Act. Judges, experts, and practitioners in the Federal criminal justice system have long opposed mandatory minimums on the ground that they undermine the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act by creating unwarranted disparities, subjecting defendants with different levels of culpability to the same punishment, and adding another unnecessary layer of complexity to the sentencing process. In its 2002 report, as well as an updated report to Congress in May, the commission has repeatedly recognized that the 100-to-1 ratio exaggerates the relative harm of crack cocaine and creates unwarranted disparities that are correlated with race and class. With a new sense of urgency, the Commission continues to call on Congress to eliminate the 100-to-1 ratio. Senator Hatch's legislation takes two important steps toward this goal. It reduces the ratio from 100-to-1 to 20-to-1, and it eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for first-time possession. Under the new sentencing scheme proposed by this legislation, the amount of crack cocaine triggering a mandatory minimum sentence would be raised from 5 grams to 25 grams, an amount that targets the more serious traffickers. This change will make cocaine laws more consistent with the penalty structure for other types of drugs that require much greater amounts to trigger a mandatory minimum. For heroin and marijuana, it is 100 grams. Even for methamphetamine, the triggering amount is 10 grams. Congress must take action to support the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission. Changing the ratio will also provide important benefits to the criminal justice system as a whole. The Sentencing Commission estimates that the 20-to-1 ratio could save over 3,000 prison beds in the Federal system over a 5-year period, with millions of dollars in savings each year. Resources for prosecution could also be redirected toward more serious drug offenders, whose prosecution may actually make a difference in drug trafficking. Adjusting the ratio will also help to restore public confidence and fairness in the criminal justice system. Currently, 5,000 people are convicted under the Federal crack cocaine laws every year. The Sentencing Commission recently proposed amended guidelines for crack cocaine by reducing sentencing ranges, a change that will affect 78 percent of Federal defendants. The commission's proposed amendment to the guideline will result in an average sentence reduction of 16 months. Drug abuse and addiction are increasingly being recognized as public health issues, not just as crime problems. More resources must be directed at breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which often leads to involvement in crimes. More resources must also be directed toward drug courts, which provide nonviolent drug offenders with treatment, not punishment. We are currently working to reauthorize SAMSHA to improve substance abuse treatment, since punishment and incarceration only address one part of the overall drug problem. The commission recognizes, however, that its efforts are only a partial step to eliminate unwarranted disparities in the Federal crack powder laws. It has strongly urged Congress to address the problems with the 100-to-1 ratio. It is important for us to move forward on this issue without any effort to raise penalties for powder cocaine. Current law provides for 5-year and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for offenses involving, respectively, 500 and 5000 grams of powder cocaine. There is no evidence that existing powder-cocaine penalties are too low. Our goal is to return to the original intent of these laws and direct our limited resources to arresting and prosecuting high level drug traffickers. Our harshest punishments should be reserved for those who truly deserve them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in support of this important legislation to reduce the difference in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. It is important to ameliorate harsh drug laws that have discriminatory consequences. The Sentencing Reform Act was enacted over 20 years ago to reduce unwarranted disparities and assure proportionality in punishment. Instead, the severity of crack-cocaine sentencing has had a harsh impact on low-income and African-American communities and has undermined public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Unfair sentencing feeds the perception that the criminal justice system unjustly targets the poor and minority communities. The crack powder laws were intended to punish those at the highest levels of the illegal drug trade, such as traffickers and kingpins. But the low amount needed to trigger the harsh sentences is not associated with high-level drug dealing. As the Sentencing Commission reported in 2005, only 15 percent of Federal cocaine traffickers were high-level dealers. The overwhelming majority of defendants were low-level participants, such as street dealers, lookouts, or couriers. Harsh sentencing in such cases has only a limited impact on the drug trade because they involve low level offenders who are not at the top of the drug chain. The mass incarceration resulting from these sentences has done nothing to decrease drug use. Recent data indicate that such use has actually increased over time. When these laws were enacted, there was widespread belief in the extraordinary dangers of crack cocaine. It was viewed as highly addictive and likely to cause violent behavior. We know much more about crack cocaine now than we did 20 years ago. The rationale that crack is more dangerous or more addictive than powder is not supported by research. In fact, research has demonstrated that the effects of crack cocaine are much like the effects of powder cocaine. Medical experts have determined that the pharmacological effects of crack were overstated. They found that crack use doesn't incite violent behavior. As with other drugs, the violence is related to the distribution of the drug. Changes in the drug market have also called the 100-to-1 ratio into question. Demand for crack cocaine by new users has decreased significantly, and the violence associated with crack cocaine has declined. How can Congress continue to support a policy it knows is flawed? Changes are long overdue and will be an important step in reducing the disparity that plagues drug sentencing policies. Under the current sentencing laws, the statutory ratio for powder and crack cocaine is 100 to 1. One gram of crack cocaine triggers the same penalty as 100 grams of powder cocaine. Possession of 5 grams of crack triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum penalty. It is the only drug with a mandatory prison sentence for a first-time possession offense. This disparity results from an early attempt by the Commission to incorporate congressionally mandated minimum penalties into the guidelines, even though such harsh mandatory minimums are completely inconsistent with the structure and goals of the Sentencing Reform Act. Judges, experts, and practitioners in the Federal criminal justice system have long opposed mandatory minimums on the ground that they undermine the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act by creating unwarranted disparities, subjecting defendants with different levels of culpability to the same punishment, and adding another unnecessary layer of complexity to the sentencing process. In its 2002 report, as well as an updated report to Congress in May, the commission has repeatedly recognized that the 100-to-1 ratio exaggerates the relative harm of crack cocaine and creates unwarranted disparities that are correlated with race and class. With a new sense of urgency, the Commission continues to call on Congress to eliminate the 100-to-1 ratio. Senator Hatch's legislation takes two important steps toward this goal. It reduces the ratio from 100-to-1 to 20-to-1, and it eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for first-time possession. Under the new sentencing scheme proposed by this legislation, the amount of crack cocaine triggering a mandatory minimum sentence would be raised from 5 grams to 25 grams, an amount that targets the more serious traffickers. This change will make cocaine laws more consistent with the penalty structure for other types of drugs that require much greater amounts to trigger a mandatory minimum. For heroin and marijuana, it is 100 grams. Even for methamphetamine, the triggering amount is 10 grams. Congress must take action to support the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission. Changing the ratio will also provide important benefits to the criminal justice system as a whole. The Sentencing Commission estimates that the 20-to-1 ratio could save over 3,000 prison beds in the Federal system over a 5-year period, with millions of dollars in savings each year. Resources for prosecution could also be redirected toward more serious drug offenders, whose prosecution may actually make a difference in drug trafficking. Adjusting the ratio will also help to restore public confidence and fairness in the criminal justice system. Currently, 5,000 people are convicted under the Federal crack cocaine laws every year. The Sentencing Commission recently proposed amended guidelines for crack cocaine by reducing sentencing ranges, a change that will affect 78 percent of Federal defendants. The commission's proposed amendment to the guideline will result in an average sentence reduction of 16 months. Drug abuse and addiction are increasingly being recognized as public health issues, not just as crime problems. More resources must be directed at breaking the cycle of drug addiction, which often leads to involvement in crimes. More resources must also be directed toward drug courts, which provide nonviolent drug offenders with treatment, not punishment. We are currently working to reauthorize SAMSHA to improve substance abuse treatment, since punishment and incarceration only address one part of the overall drug problem. The commission recognizes, however, that its efforts are only a partial step to eliminate unwarranted disparities in the Federal crack powder laws. It has strongly urged Congress to address the problems with the 100-to-1 ratio. It is important for us to move forward on this issue without any effort to raise penalties for powder cocaine. Current law provides for 5-year and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for offenses involving, respectively, 500 and 5000 grams of powder cocaine. There is no evidence that existing powder-cocaine penalties are too low. Our goal is to return to the original intent of these laws and direct our limited resources to arresting and prosecuting high level drug traffickers. Our harshest punishments should be reserved for those who truly deserve them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we find ourselves now in the middle of June, and it is important, as we move through the legislative agenda-- and more on that next week--that we pause for a few moments and take stock about where our country is in terms of the economy of this Nation and take stock about where our country is with regard to working families in this Nation. We often get tied up on particular pieces of legislation, but I think all of us are very mindful it is the working families of this Nation who have made America great. If America is great--and it is great--it is because of working families in all parts of our Nation. We are mindful of our recent history: of those extraordinary men and women who lifted our Nation out of the Great Depression of the 1920s and the 1930s; the extraordinary exploitation of workers that took place, even prior to that time and during that period of time; and the struggle workers had in order to have a voice in the decisionmaking part of this Nation, in the workplace as well as in governmental policies, that influenced the conditions by which they worked. It was a long, continuing struggle. It was a long, continuing struggle, with a loss of life and blood that was shed and with battles that were fought--physically fought. Out of the end of it came the trade union movement, which has made such a difference in terms of the life of this country, the fairness of the country, the economic fairness and economic justice of the Nation. It has always impressed me--as one who has been a sponsor of the increase in the minimum wage, with a number of our colleagues--that even though many of these union members are making a good deal more than the minimum wage, that any time issues about the working conditions of fellow Americans who are at the short end of the economic ladder arise, they are always out there. They are always there. They are always not only speaking for but in support of their fellow workers in this country. That was seen in this last year in the six different States that had initiatives about the increase in the minimum wage, where the representatives of the trade union movement were out there going door-to-door, working with other families, shoulder to shoulder, to try to indicate and reflect that this Nation wanted to make sure that work paid, that those on the short end of the economic ladder--primarily women--were going to be able to receive a decent wage for a decent hour's work. We need to recognize, again, the majority of women who are out there receiving the minimum wage have children, so it is a children's issue, it is a women's issue. It is a civil rights issue because so many of those who earn the minimum wage are men and women of color. Most of all, it is a fairness issue. Americans understand fairness. What we have seen over the more recent years is enormously distressing and disturbing because we have seen that those efforts of the trade union movement are targeted by unscrupulous employers and companies who are bent upon destroying the trade union movement and to move us back into a different time and a different circumstance for those workers. We saw, in fact, it took 10 years for us to get an increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage was purchasing, at the end of those 10 years, perhaps less than at any time in the history of the minimum wage. We have seen it reflected in the policies of this administration, when they cut about 6 million workers out of overtime and when they refused to include Davis-Bacon provisions for the restoration of the buildings and constructions down in the gulf coast because of Katrina and with a whole series of additional kinds of activities. We see the courts, as well, striking down protections in the last few weeks-- protections for an increase in the minimum wage and overtime pay for homecare workers. We see the Supreme Court also effectively striking down equal pay for women. There is really an assault--an assault--on working families. As we look back at the history of this country, what really reflects--these are general statements and comments, but let's look at what were the circumstances and what were the conditions I speak about. If you look at 1947 to 1973--and we are looking at the economic growth in the United States of America; this is the Economic Policy Institute--and you look over this chart and you see each segment of the American economy is all growing, virtually at the same rate. This was 1947 to 1973. America was growing together. This is extraordinary because we know we just came out of World War II. We had mobilized 16 million of our fellow citizens, and that had an extraordinary impact, and we had to retool the whole domestic economy and still we were able to see the growth in the United States of America move along at a similar kind of growth pattern so that all Americans and those at the lowest end of the economic ladder moving just a little bit faster, a little bit faster than some of those in the top 20 percent. Then, from 1973 up to the year 2000, we find a new political philosophy taking place in this country. These were the policies we were going to see, the very dramatic and significant tax cut policies, the economic policies that took place in the 1980s and after, with the Republicans. We look at this and we see the level of growth between 1973 and 2000, and we see the lowest economic growth growing at the lowest rate and on up to those at the top growing the fastest--in a number of instances, growing three or four times faster than those at the lowest. That is a direct result of economic policies by primarily the Executive and Congress, which advantages those individuals at the top of the economic ladder and disadvantages those at the bottom. If we look at what has been happening over the last 5 years, we see those at the lowest end of the economic ladder are now not only not moving up but falling further and further behind, and those top 1 percent--not the top 20 percent, but the top 1 percent--have been moving up so dramatically. So we are having a divided America. Now, let's see what is the one factor that has had the greatest influence. This is an interesting chart because, remember, we talked about 1947 and how we all grew together. Look at this. We had the increase in productivity, that is the increase in workers' output, finding more efficiencies, more effectiveness, and we also found a corresponding increase in the wages. American workers were participating in the increased productivity, and with that participation all during this 20-year period, the American economy and Americans were growing together--growing together, not apart. We ask ourselves: Do we want to be a divided nation, or do we want to be one nation with one history and one destiny? Then look what happened during the latter period. This is at a period of peak union membership. Wages and productivity rose together. America was on the road to prosperity, and all Americans were participating, and the trade union movement played an important role to ensure fairness in the workplace. Now we find that the unions are declining. And what happens correspondingly? As the unions decline, the workers fall further behind. Here we have real wages from the 1970s to 2000 virtually stagnant, and the increasing productivity which grew at 206 percent more than wages. What does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that we have seen the extraordinary growth in the profits. We find workers' wages have basically stabilized, but corporate profits grew up to 63 percent. Wages were down here, and profits were at the top during the same period of time that workers and unions are being attacked and attacked and attacked. From 1947 to the early 1960s, right in here, we had effectively what we call the card checkoff, which is the subject of the legislation we will be voting on next Tuesday. Interestingly, the card checkoff was in effect all during this period of time: from 1941, 1946, 1956, right up to 1966. We had the card checkoff then. The legislation we will be voting on next Tuesday has already been in effect and been utilized. We will hear a lot of statements on the floor of the Senate about a process and a procedure which is irregular and fraught with problems and complexities, but the fact is, we had it in use in the United States of America all during the period where we had economic stability and economic growth, and the Nation was growing together. Then, as the National Labor Relations Board changed and the Supreme Court and businesses got geared up, they effectively eliminated the card checkoff. We have seen what has been happening in the workplace, and this indicates how abuses have skyrocketed. So when we had the checkoff, we had economic growth, we had economic prosperity, and America growing together. That is what we want. That is what next Tuesday morning is about--to restore this period of time when America, with the checkoff, was able to ensure economic growth and prosperity for workers across the board. That is what we are looking for. Now, you say: Well, what are all these abuses you talk about? That is an easy word to use, but what are we really talking about? What we are talking about are these kinds of abuses which are the everyday abuses being used in the workplace. First of all, the workers face too many roadblocks to try to get a union. Over here, workers who lead the union effort are fired. I will give examples and illustrations of that. Then, the employer challenges the election results at the NLRB. So even if they have a successful vote for the union, too many of all of those results are challenged in the NLRB. Then, the employer appeals the ruling often in court. Then, the employer stalls and refuses to bargain for a first contract. If you look at what has been happening in the courts, you will find more have been upholding the National Labor Relations Board when they have found against the workers. Then, after 1 year, the employers, if they are able to delay, can seek to stop recognizing the union, and workers have to start all over again. This is a pattern. This isn't a unique situation. This is what is happening now. This is what is happening. The employees are fired in one-quarter of all the private sector union organizing campaigns. One-quarter are all fired. One in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired. Now, it is fair enough to ask--in 2005, here is the employer abuses chart. In 2005, 30,000 workers received backpay after the National Labor Relations Board found that employers had violated their rights--30,000 in 1 year alone. That means employers at some time during the year fired or violated the rights of 30,000 people--30,000. That is 30,000 we are talking about who are being treated unfairly. Now, the question becomes, do workers really want to join? Are we talking about something that is a real problem or not? Here is 1984 to 2005. Workers want unions more than ever, but can't join them. The percentage of nonunion workers who want a union is up 23 percent. The percentage of workers in a union is down 6.5 percent. So you would think with those kinds of indicators we would be able to have a clear pathway where people would have an opportunity to join, but that is not the case. What we have seen is out across the countryside, on a wide range of different kinds of issues, this is what is happening across the countryside for the average family in this country. We find that gas is up 79 percent. We find medical expenses are up 38 percent. College tuition is up 43 percent. We find that housing is up 40 percent, and wages effectively are stagnant or up only 4 percent. The survey we earlier saw about the numbers of people who wanted to join the unions show that over half of the workers--more than 60 million workers--would join a union if they could, but they cannot. Now, we have given some of the flow lines and the statistics, but these charts show what happens to some real people: ``I was fired,'' Erron Hohrein, former boilermaker from Front Range Energy. This is a picture of him. They forced us to attend meetings. They threatened that if our campaign was successful, our paychecks may suffer. Managers would follow me around the workplace at all times. They would not permit other workers to talk to me. They isolated me from my coworkers. Within days after the union election was certified by the National Labor Relations Board, I was fired. This gentleman worked in that plant and found all kinds of safety concerns and raised the safety concerns to the employers and was told to keep quiet, even though he believed those kinds of safety matters were endangering the lives of the people with whom he was working. When he found that the employer was unwilling to try and address some of these safety conditions, he said: I am going to try and form a union. Then he had the following circumstances: within days after the union election was certified, he was fired. So this is happening out there. These are examples of the 30,000. Anna Calles, who is a laundry worker in North Carolina: The union was the only way to have better pay, good health insurance and equality, not discrimination. Cintas will never improve working conditions on its own free will. When we tried to organize, management told us that we would lose our jobs. The workers are scared. The NLRB has not been able to help much. We have had to wait three years to get a decision. Delay, delay, delay, delay. Cintas has appealed the NLRB's ruling that the company committed extensive violations of workers' rights. So Anna and her coworkers are still waiting for justice. These are real-life stories. It is quite clear why individuals want to be able to join the unions. These are the figures which show that union members get better wages. These are Department of Labor statistics which show that workers are going to be able to have a modest increase 30 percent more--than those who are nonunion. If we look at particular sectors of our economy--this is an interesting chart. A union job means higher wages for women and for people of color. Again, we are talking about equity in this country. We are talking about fairness in this country. This is what unions do in terms of equity and in terms of fairness. If you look at women, the difference it makes in terms of helping, it is more than 31 percent; nonunion, if you are talking about African- Americans and Latinos--all of them are inevitably much better off. If you have the freedom to choose the union, it lifts the workers out of poverty. This is the Federal poverty line, this black line across here on the chart. Look at this. These are the national figures for these particular industries: cashier, childcare, cook, and housekeeper. If they are nonunion, they are below the poverty line. If you are a cashier and a member of a union, you are just above it, a little less than $25,000. We are talking about people who have a sense of dignity and pride and desire to do a good day's work. These are men and women of pride. We are talking about $20,000 to $25,000 a year. For childcare, the difference at a union wage is just about at the Federal poverty level. If you are a cook, it is a little above the poverty level. For a housekeeper, it is just above it also. This is a commitment to try to make sure we are not going to have our fellow Americans living in poverty. We are talking about people who want to work, can work, and will work. That chart is about as clear an indication of the difference, if they have an opportunity to join. Mr. President, I will mention a couple of companies that have recognized the card check process. Some employers have been remarkably enlightened and say: We are going to let our workers, if they choose, have a checkoff, and we will recognize them. That used to be the way the law went. A number of companies, including Cingular Wireless, have supported that concept. This person said: Management didn't pressure us to try to interfere. We didn't attack the company and they didn't attack us. We were focused on improving our jobs and making Cingular a better place to work. This is Rick Bradley: We believe employees should have a choice. . . . We make that choice available to them results . . . in employees who are engaged in the business and who have a passion for customers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 final minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the purpose of this is to show that when America has been at its best and strongest, we all grow together. When we find out that America is divided--and the principal reason for this division is demonstrated with these charts; it is so often because employers have assaulted and attacked the rights of workers and their representatives over this history. We want to try to bring America back together again and make it stronger from an economic point of view. A final chart shows that in Ireland, which has the one of the strongest economies in Europe and a high rate of union membership and strong annual growth, a partnership of decency and fairness goes hand in hand. I hope the Senate recognizes that on Tuesday when we vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are all thankful for those comments given by our Members about the extraordinary bravery and heroism of our men and women who serve in the Armed Forces of our country. All of us, day after day, salute their courage and their dedication to the country, and it reminds us of our responsibility of making sure we are going to get the policy right in Iraq. More about that at another time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, every day millions of men and women across America get up and go to work. Their labor--whether it is building bridges or selling groceries, programming computers or cleaning homes--is what makes this country great. Their work is the foundation of our economy and of our communities and families. Over 100 million Americans rely on their jobs to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table, pay their doctor's bills, save for their children's college tuition, and retire in dignity. But all of that can be threatened in an instant when serious injury or illness strikes. Fourteen years ago, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to enable employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to care for themselves or a seriously ill family member. For the first time, employees could meet their responsibility to their loved ones without risking their jobs. It was landmark legislation--the first bill signed into law by President Clinton in 1993--and tens of millions of families are healthier and more secure because of it. But for millions of Americans, the ability to meet their family health needs is still out of reach. Most American families can't afford to take unpaid leave because it means they will miss even one weekly paycheck. They need every week's income to meet the rent, pay the electricity bill, and feed their families. A serious illness shouldn't mean choosing between caring for a sick child, spouse or parent, or suffering a financial catastrophe. That is why I strongly support the Family Leave Insurance Act. This legislation will fill a serious gap in the Nation's health policy. It builds on the Family and Medical Leave Act by providing a safety net for the average working family. Under this vital legislation, employees would be eligible for up to 8 weeks of paid benefits while they care for their families. With such benefits, workers would not be forced to choose between the families they love and the paychecks they need. Most important, the program targets the employers and workers who will most benefit from the program. Lower income workers, who are least able to afford time off from their jobs, would be eligible for up to 100 percent of their weekly income. Smaller employers would have the option to participate--and would receive special incentives for doing so. This is an idea whose time has come. California has led the way with its paid leave program, which has been a great success. Other State legislatures around the country are considering it as well. The Family Leave Insurance Act is just one of the important new policies we should adopt to help America's working families. We also need to address the nearly half of American workers who don't receive paid sick days at work--and millions more who cannot take paid time off to care for their families. That is why I will continue to fight for the Healthy Families Act, which will provide up to 7 paid sick days a year to workers, to help them meet immediate and short-term health needs not covered by the Federal Leave Insurance Act. I commend my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Stevens, for their leadership on this issue. This legislation, together with the Healthy Families Act, removes the risk that a sudden illness in the family will devastate a worker's financial well-being. Hard-working American families deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support the Family Leave Insurance Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the important legislation under consideration. Like many of the bills the Senate has taken up this year, it is the product of Democrats and Republicans working together, and I commend its authors for their hard work. The bill before us does the things the Nation must do to become more energy self-reliant, starting with raising fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. Over 30 years ago I cosponsored Scoop Jackson's legislation which first established fuel economy standards to improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Unfortunately, very little progress has been made since then. There is no silver bullet for ending our dependence on foreign oil or slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, but raising CAFE standards is the single most important step we can take to make positive changes in this area. Increasing the average efficiency of passenger cars by just over 5 miles per gallon would eliminate the need for American oil imports from the Persian Gulf. The CAFE provision the Commerce Committee reported will increase fuel economy in cars from 27.5 miles a gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It is the best chance this Congress will have to raise fuel economy standards, and I hope that the Senate will preserve the Commerce Committee's strong provisions. The bill will make more cars capable of running on biofuels. Ethanol, in particular, has incredible promise as a biofuel, and it will emit far less carbon dioxide than conventional oil. The bill will ramp up production of biofuels over the next 15 years and mandate that a growing number of new vehicles be able to run on these kinds of fuels. It also provides funding to ensure that these new biofuels can reach fuel stations across the country. This provision is particularly important to New England, which has just one E85 pump located in Chelsea, MA. Brazil has shown us the way by producing ethanol from sugarcane in amounts equivalent to 300,000 barrels of oil each day. The United States must invest in biofuels, so that we too can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill also reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program, which is especially important for low-income families struggling with high energy costs throughout the Nation. In Massachusetts, energy costs are among the highest in the Nation, but this program has weatherized more than 10,000 homes in the last decade. Vulnerable families can't afford to make these expensive improvements themselves, so these wise investments by the government will help families save on energy and reduce the Nation's fossil fuel emissions. Another critical issue is the inclusion of a strong renewable electricity standard. The RES will provide the certainty the renewable energy market needs to invest in innovative technologies. In April, Senators Durbin, Snowe, and Reid led a bipartisan letter expressing support for mandating that major utilities generate a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. I was one of the 50 Senators who signed the letter, and I commend Chairman Bingaman for his work on a renewable electricity standard. I also commend the Finance Committee for its work to provide tax incentives for renewable energy technology, and repealing tax breaks for oil and gas companies. While most Americans are seeing less and less in their paychecks, the Big Oil companies are making money hand over fist. During the first quarter of this year, Big Oil reaped $29.5 billion in profits. Repealing these tax breaks will save taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil and allow the Nation to invest in clean energy technologies. Last week, I joined Senator Salazar, Senator Smith and several other Senators in urging the Finance Committee to extend tax incentives for fuel cell technology. Hydrogen fuel cells are an energy storage technology, like batteries, that can deliver clean and reliable power. They have a broad range of uses for vehicles, auxiliary power units, and electronic devices, and they are helping us diversify our fuel supply and find better ways to deliver clean energy. Massachusetts is among the world's major centers of this technology, with more than 60 companies involved in fuel cell and hydrogen technologies. I commend Chairman Baucus and the Finance Committee for allowing tax credits for this important technology. Overall, this bill brings us closer to a cleaner and more secure energy future for our nation, and I look forward to its enactment. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we are in a period of morning business.