Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. With an understanding that in doing so it does not guarantee a family member ultimately being able to achieve a visa but would, in fact, give them a fighting chance under the 100-point system to at least have the ability----

Mr. MENENDEZ. I was asking a question, Madam President. I am asking the majority leader for his understanding.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I honor Joseph Simunovich for his leadership, dedication, and accomplishments at Hackensack University Medical Center and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Joe retired as chairman of the board of these great New Jersey institutions earlier this year. Joe's life of public service spans more than three decades. In 1972, he was elected to serve as a Hudson County freeholder, a position he held for 12 years, 3 of them as director/chairman of the board. In 1986, Joe was appointed by New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean to serve on the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. Reappointed by Governors Jim Florio and Christine Whitman, for a total of six consecutive terms, Joe is the longest serving member in the organization's history. In 2002, Joe was chosen by Governor James McGreevey to serve as the chairman of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, where he led the organization through the consolidation with the New Jersey Highway Authority. Additionally, Joe oversaw the remediation of New Jersey's E-Z Pass system, and the introduction of Express E-Z Pass. Over the past 17 years of Joe's service on the Board of Governors of Hackensack University Medical Center, no one has had a greater hand in making Hackensack the respected and sought out institution it is today. As chairman of the board, Joe has worked tirelessly to raise money for the expansion of hospital programs. This money means more access to medical treatments, increased technology, and better financial assistance for low-income patients. Additionally, Joe has dutifully served on numerous boards of directors, including New Jersey City University, the New Brunswick Development Corporation, the National Association of Water Companies, and the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. As a result of his hard work, Joseph Simunovich has helped improve the quality of life for thousands of families living throughout New Jersey. Dedicated to both his community and family, Joe is married and has two children and several grandchildren. He received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University and masters in business management equivalent from Fairleigh Dickinson University, and completed postgraduate coursework at the Carnegie Institute and guest lectured at Rutgers University School of Business. There is no doubt Joseph Simunovich is an exemplary leader and a profoundly committed individual who is a true role model for the nation. Therefore, I am pleased to pay tribute to Joseph Simunovich, and know my colleagues will join in wishing him continued success.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of including Puerto Rico in the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program. I want to thank Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici for accepting this amendment as part of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This is simply a matter of fairness and of equity. Puerto Rico is currently ineligible for Weatherization Assistance, and only receives a small set aside from the LIHEAP program. To include Puerto Rico in the weatherization program would cost less than 1 percent of the program's funds but would make a huge impact. Though Puerto Rico is blessed with warm weather, the Weatherization Assistance Program is desperately needed there. Because it is an island that must import the fuels it needs, energy costs are extraordinarily high. The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is under 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, but in Puerto Rico, electricity costs almost twice that at 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. And these high energy costs have a devastating impact on the Commonwealth's low-income population. Approximately 45 percent of the population is under the U.S. poverty line. Many homes rely on old, inefficient air conditioners to cool their homes and much of the low-income housing has not been built or maintained with energy efficiency in mind. Puerto Rico already has an active program to educate people about the importance of energy efficiency and to increase the energy efficiency of government buildings. But the weatherization program would help Puerto Rico offer weatherization assistance to low-income households and incentives for energy efficient appliance purchases, solar water heaters, lighting replacement, and other energy-saving measures. The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 expands authorization for the Weatherization Program from $700 million per year to $750 million per year. This vital program helps thousands of low-income families keep their energy costs down and also helps the environment by making energy consumption more efficient. It is time we help the low-income families of Puerto Rico gain access to this vital program. I again thank Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Pete Domenici for their leadership in accepting this critical amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, am I next in the order?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. This bill will level the playing field for workers seeking a voice at work and ensure they have the freedom to choose to join a union without coercion. I applaud Senator Kennedy for his passion to move this bill forward and his relentless fight to improve and uphold the rights of workers. Some may ask why this change is needed. They may think that in 2007, in this great democratic Nation, the right of an employee to seek representation in their workplace is alive and well. It should be. But the fact is, under current law, there are loopholes that have been exploited, tactics that have been utilized, and actions taken against employees that have undermined the basic rights to which employees should be entitled. We have a chart that shows the number of workers facing roadblocks trying to form a union. From start to finish, workers often face roadblock after roadblock in trying to seek union representation. Active union workers are fired; employers challenge and file appeals with the NLRB; and employers can simply stall the process and prevent it from moving forward. We cannot ignore that there are some concerted and disturbing efforts that have tainted what should be a fair process. In that process, employees are fired in roughly one quarter of all private-sector organizing efforts. One in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 workers experienced some form of discrimination for their participation in an organizing effort, resulting in lost wages or lost jobs. And, in an increasingly common trend, a vast majority of private employers are hiring union-busting consultants to fight unionization drives. Clearly, existing law has not been enough to deter these types of tactics. The Employee Free Choice Act would close loopholes that have allowed employers to abuse the labor process without repercussion, and it would beef up the penalties for violation. Part of the problem is that under current law, there is not a strong enough incentive to follow the law. While employers face stiff penalties for firing an employee based on race, gender, or disability, they face minimal penalties for firing an employee for union organizing. In addition to enacting stronger penalties, this legislation would essentially enforce the steps that are supposed to take place, but often do not. A key part of this bill is that it will bring people to the table. It would ensure that when employees make their voices heard, the process moves forward. This is not forcing the hand of employers or employees, but it simply ensures that negotiations that are supposed to take place will take place. Currently, employees can agree to join a union, but then the process is dragged out for months or years. This is not the spirit of the law. The Employee Free Choice Act will restore that spirit and uphold the meaning of the rights employees are supposed to have. Improving the rights of workers is not just about fairness--it is also about equity. We know that workers who have a voice at work have better benefits and are able to provide a higher quality of life for their families. When nearly half of all Americans report having just ``enough to get by,'' it should be obvious that we need to take action to improve the economic standing of many of our workers. The fact is, union membership means higher wages. According to the Department of Labor, union workers earn 30 percent higher weekly earnings than non-union workers--that is an average of $191 dollars per week, or more than $9,000 per year. This is especially true for minorities. Latinos represented by unions typically earn median wages that are 46 percent higher than non- unionized Latinos. Women and African-Americans typically earn more than 30 percent higher median wages when they are unionized. By opening the door for more workers to seek union representation, we are helping ensure a pathway to fairness and hopefully, a pathway to a better quality of life. Hardworking Americans deserve the chance that this bill provides. They deserve a strong law that will not allow employers to skirt its meaning; a law that will protect their decisions and ensure their voices will be heard. That is why I support this bill. I believe a majority of voices should be upheld and I believe that our workplaces should be the very best they can be for our Nation's workers. So I urge my colleagues to support the Employee Free Choice Act to protect and enforce the rights of any worker to freely join a union; free from intimidation, free from back-door tactics, free from fear of retribution. That is a right. That is a right that no worker in America should be denied. I hope we will have the support of our colleagues when this comes to a vote on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I believe on all of these scores, this is not pursuing the renewable energy sources the underlying bill is all about. This undermines the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. This puts at risk other States. This is not about Virginia alone. This is about the entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Other States have interests when one shore can ultimately create consequences on the rest of that coastline. Also the Department of Defense takes the position that it is in opposition. For all of those reasons, it is fitting and appropriate that we oppose the Warner amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I hope all States within the Outer Continental Shelf understand the passage of the Warner amendment begins the undoing of the moratorium. For if one State is able to do this, the domino effect that could undo the whole basis of the moratorium that has existed for a quarter of a century will begin to be undone. Secondly, this is not simply about Virginia's waters. These are Federal waters. This is the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a national context in which we look at it. That is why we have a national moratorium. Thirdly, even the Senator from Virginia recognizes that damage to other States can take place, because he creates a fund in his amendment to mitigate damages that may take place as a result of such drilling. I don't want my State or any other coastal State to have to deal with damages and to mitigate damages. I want to prevent those damages. Fourthly, anyone who believes we are going to drill for gas and then maybe find oil and plug it up and not pursue the oil is living under a different set of illusions. That is the reality. Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 10, 2006 letter from the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior opposing such efforts for drilling off of Virginia.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the senior Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, am I to assume the unanimous consent request is for 5 minutes additional for each side?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, if there would be equal time, 10 minutes on each side, I would not object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. But the distinguished Senator from Virginia has a very significant port operation in his State, and his trucks come through the interstate into the State of New Jersey and do quite a bit of damage on the roads of New Jersey along the way, in terms of the wear and tear, in terms of the movement of its product. Some of that product is not the most fanciful product we might all enjoy. That is the collectivity of our consequence as a Nation. There is a reason there is a moratorium that we, collectively as a body, the Congress, have adopted for 25 years. The distinguished Senator, whom I admire so much on so many issues, wants to aggregate what the Congress has done as a body for his State, without recognizing there are consequences to others. I simply offer an amendment that says we will allow Virginia to do what they want, but they must do it in concert with those within 100 miles of its territorial waters. I didn't say the whole eastern seaboard but within 100 miles of its territorial waters, to make sure those States rights are not affected.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If the Senator will yield, first of all it is all Governors within 100 miles, not 100 States.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If I can respond to my friend from Virginia, I would say under the amendment of the distinguished Senator, clearly there are no States' rights for those States that will be affected by the amendment of the Senator. Second, there can be no negotiation of any consequence if there is not some sound footing under which one can negotiate. If you have no right, then there is very little to negotiate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to answer. What it is is an opportunity for those Governors within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State of Virginia to work together to ensure that their interests are protected and maybe come to a collaborative approach as to how it might be done, which the Senator from Virginia does not, under his amendment, permit in any way whatsoever.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator from Florida asking a question and raising a concern. I expressed it in my comments. I am familiar with the letter of the Department of Defense to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior that made clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the DOD's training and testing exercises, and it went on for a variety of reasons and then concluded by saying: Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this OCS planning area. So, yes, I am aware, and it is an additional concern. However, I know the Senator from Virginia has an exceptional record, which we all admire, in his support of the Nation's military forces. I am sure that somehow he believed he could overcome that objection. Nonetheless, it is an objection on the record in addition to the objections of States such as my own. What I hope, in reality, is that the second-degree amendment I have offered to the amendment from the Senator from Virginia would be accepted and we could move forward because it still would allow Virginia to move forward, but it would give those States whose coastline is within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia the real opportunity to work between States to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think that is a reasonable effort to try to achieve some compromise. I know the Senator from Virginia raised previously with the chair of the Environment Committee: Well, does it mean that we shouldn't drill anywhere else? Well, the gulf coast had already been drilling. It had been well established. But there is a reason there is a moratorium for other parts of the country, and the distinguished Senator from Florida wanted to preserve what is a critical part of the Florida coastline, which means so much to Florida's economy and to all of us who visit, as Americans, the great State of Florida--what it means to us as Americans, as one Nation. Yes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I say to my friend from Virginia. Just because the gulf coast has for quite some time pursued it, there are limitations, limitations the Senator from Florida created to ensure its coastline. Last, we talk about the cost. What is the cost of an oilspill? What is the cost of a leakage? What is the cost of the consequences? What is the cost of a hurricane? What is the cost to the other States, not just New Jersey, but the other States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia? I believe our amendment allows Virginia to move forward, but it has to move forward in concert with those States that can most profoundly be hurt, potentially, as is recognized by the amendment of the Senator by virtue of the fact of creating a fund for damage, so they can work together and come to a conclusion. In the absence of that amendment being accepted, I have to notify the body that this is such a critical issue to my State and to others along the Outer Continental Shelf that this Senator is willing to spend as much time on the floor as is necessary to pursue the full discussion of this matter and, if necessary, to raise it to a 60-vote level because it is that critical an issue. I thank the Senator from Florida for his observations. I thank him for his leadership in this regard, both past and present. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I see my colleague from the State of Florida is here, and he has a lot of experience in the situation, so I will be happy to yield to him for his comments.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the dialogue, and if the Senator from California would like to respond, I will yield to her.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will not ultimately object, but I would note that it is not just the potential from drilling and it is not just the potential of oil spills from drilling. I have listed in my remarks a series of other consequences environmentally from drilling, but it is also the consequence of when drilling takes place and then we have, during hurricane seasons, the consequences to those drill rigs and how that can create a disruption. So there are many facets that are involved that are not addressed by the National Academy of Sciences information. But as it relates to the Senator's unanimous consent request, I will withdraw my objection so that he may enter that into the Record, and I will reclaim my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for the purpose of propounding his questions.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield. I wish to make sure I have not yielded the floor.