Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield that time to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as one of the managers of the bill, I will speak very briefly, and then I will move to table the Baucus amendment; and after conferring with the majority leader, it is my understanding that we are going to proceed without further debate to move to table two additional amendments this evening. All efforts to reach some reasonable time agreements have proven to be of no avail. I think it is worth stating again that when those object that they are not able to offer their amendments, we had time before the bill was taken down a week ago Thursday for people to offer amendments and the objectors did not offer amendments or even allow others to offer amendments. So they have had their opportunity, which has fomented the current situation. I wish to respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who made a comment that the Senator from Pennsylvania had not kept a promise.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, I am not going to ask the record be read back. If the Senator from Iowa said I did not keep a promise, I am glad to hear that. I don't make promises, I follow procedures. The Senator from Iowa wanted an amendment and he got an amendment, but I didn't make any promises. And if I made a promise, I certainly don't break promises. When an amendment is offered and you seek a time agreement around here, you have to have unanimous consent to get a time agreement. If you don't have unanimous consent, somebody gets the floor and can filibuster and can talk forever and the majority leader was not going to put this body in a position to have someone get the floor and talk forever. So that the Senator from Pennsylvania doesn't control unanimous consent agreements. The Senator from Iowa and I have worked together now for 27 years plus. We came to the Senate on the same day. Regrettably, he had an edge in seniority because he had been in the House. They didn't base it on State size. We have had no disagreements up till now, and I am glad to see we don't have a disagreement now.

Mr. SPECTER. I would add one addendum, Mr. President, and that is that I have to differ with him when he says he will not be around here 20 years from now. He is only 73 and Strom said he is a young fella. Vote on Division VII of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified Mr. President, I move to table the Baucus amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2 p.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. This hearing will consider the nominations of Mr. Bartholomew H. Chilton, of Delaware, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for the remainder of the term expiring April 13, 2008, and Ms. Jill E. Sommers, of Kansas, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for the remainder of the term expiring April 13, 2009. PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following bills: S. 950, S. 704, S. 1650, S. 1661, and to consider nominations for promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 581 and PN 582).

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27,2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1171, a bill to amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act and Public Law 87-483; to authorize the construction and rehabilitation of water infrastructure in Northwestern New Mexico; to authorize the use of the reclamation fund to fund the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund; to authorize the conveyance of certain Reclamation land and infrastructure; to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide for the delivery of water; and to resolve the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River basin in New Mexico.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Stealth Tax that's no longer a Wealth Tax: How to stop the AMT from Sneaking up on unsuspecting taxpayers.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 11:15 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SD-628. We will be considering the following: Agenda 1. S. 1695, Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. 2. S. 1693, Wired for Health Care Quality Act. 3. S. 793, The Reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. 4. S. 1011, Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007. 11. Any nominations ready for action.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Violent Islamist Extremism: The European Experience.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of the Federal Death Penalty'' on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226. Witness List Panel I: Barry Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; David I. Bruck, Esq., Federal Death Penalty, Lexington, VA; The Honorable Roberto J. Sanchez Ramos, Secretary of Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico; David B. Mulhausen, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; and William G. Otis, Falls Church, VA.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 in order to conduct a mark up on pending legislation before the Committee. The markup will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Building. Immediately after the conclusion of our mark up, the Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Charles L. Hopkins, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Operations, Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement).

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Investing in Young Children Pays Dividends: The Economic Case for Early Care and Education'', in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the relationship between doctors and the drug industry.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Protecting Water Quality at America's Beaches.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sent a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Webb amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry. According to 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, statistics, the market value of all agriculture production in PA was approximately $7,026,739,000. Further, dairy is the number one sector of our agriculture industry. In 2005, Pennsylvania dairy farmers produced 10.5 billion pounds of milk from 558,000 cows on approximately 9,000 dairy farms. In 2004, milk production in PA contributed about $1,770,912,000 to the economy. I have consistently fought for Pennsylvania's dairy producers since taking office in 1981. Last year, I fought to ensure the viability of the dairy industry by ensuring that the Senate Budget Committee opposed the administration's fiscal year 2007 proposals that would have been detrimental to our Nation's dairy farmers. I, along with 16 other Senators, wrote a letter on March 8, 2006, to the Senate Budget Committee urging rejection of the proposed budget cuts and tax increases on America's dairy farmers that included: 1. reducing the value of the price support program; 2. cutting Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, payments by 5 percent; and 3. taxing every dairy farmer in America 3 cents per hundredweight, cwt., on all production. We were successful in this fight to protect Pennsylvania's, and the Nation's, dairy producers. Also, I, along with five other Senators, requested that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, review the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, cash cheese market because the price of cheese is strongly correlated to the price of milk. The GAO is expected to have a final report in the near future. This report will help us set legislative priorities by giving us a better understanding of the CME cheese market and its relation to the price of milk. Even though milk production in Pennsylvania had a market value of $1,770,912,000 in 2004, dairy farmers across PA and the Nation experienced decreased prices of milk from November of 2005 until early this year. Our dairy producers should not be receiving decreased milk prices, especially with the increased costs of production, such as fuel, feed, and fertilizer. These unpredictable fluctuations in the price of milk paid to our dairy farmers place an undue financial burden on our producers, which in turn negatively impact our rural communities. As a result, I worked hard with Senators Santorum, Chambliss, Kohl, and Leahy to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program until September of 2007. The MILC program was created as part of the 2002 farm bill to provide supplemental payments to dairy farmers when the market price falls below a statutory trigger. This program has provided timely and crucial payments to producers, particularly when prices were low in 2002, 2003, and 2006. Although milk prices are expected to be above the statutory trigger price of $16.94 through 2007, we need to ensure a more stable milk pricing system. The 2007 farm bill creates an opportunity to address the current volatile milk pricing system. While many legislative measures have been proposed, it is essential that any program address costs of production, ensure market and price transparency, and provide a safety-net for our producers. Additionally, we need to provide dairy producers with tools to help them should milk prices fall below sustainable levels, such as a voluntary revenue insurance program. I, along with Senator Bob Casey, have worked with our constituents to propose two dairy legislative proposals to ensure that we continue to discuss America's milk pricing system and the need for change in the 2007 farm bill. I have met with dairy producers from across the Commonwealth and there is a broad consensus that the unpredictable milk pricing system needs to be addressed. The hard part is coming to a consensus on how to reform the system. Although these two legislative proposals may not be perfect, they provide ideas on assuring an equitable milk price for our dairy producers. The first bill that we are introducing is the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the number of classes of milk from four to two with the intent of simplifying the pricing of milk. The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the price of all milk used for manufacturing purposes, which will be classified as Class II milk, by using the national average cost of production. This price would then be the basis formula for calculating the price of Class I milk, which is fluid milk. Although costs of production can vary drastically farm by farm, this legislation would ensure that dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk based on a national average cost of production figure. Costs of production for dairy farmers all across America have increased, not just in one region. Fuel, feed, and fertilizer costs have more than doubled. Only recently has the price of milk paid to farmers reached higher than the MILC program trigger price of $16.94 per cwt. With the price of milk above this target price, no payments to farmers will be made, even though input costs have more than doubled. Addressing costs of production is necessary to ensure that our family dairy farmers survive. The second bill that we have introduced aims to promote growth and opportunity for the dairy industry. This bill would change the current MILC program to a Milk Target Price Program and would link payments to dairy farmers on Class III milk. The program would pay farmers when the price of Class III falls below $12.00 per hundredweight. This trigger price would be adjusted by a feed adjustment factor to reflect the feed cost of producing 100 pounds of milk. The USDA would determine this factor based on a feed price index using a baseline period of calendar years 2001 through 2005. Further, the second bill would require the mandatory reporting of dairy commodities by requiring that dairy prices be reported on a daily and weekly basis. The current system is not mandatory and it is estimated that dairy farmers lost $6.4 million due to a Federal reporting error by the USDA over the past nine months. Along with 10 other Senators, I sent a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on May 9, 2007, requesting an explanation on how this misreporting occurred. This bill aims to close any loops in current law and assure proper auditing, data verification, and enforcement of reporting in order to ensure a transparent dairy market. Finally, the second bill would provide authorization for a Federal dairy education loan forgiveness program. This would allow students at higher education institutions across America who focus on agriculture for a 2- or 4-year degree and become a full-time owner of a farm to become eligible to have their Federal student loans forgiven. This is aimed to ensure that there is a younger generation of farmers to work the lands across the fields in America. Both of these bills aim to help our family dairy farms who deserve a fair price for their milk. I am committed to Pennsylvania's dairy farmers and will continue to work with my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Casey, and all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure our dairy farmers are not left behind. As more ideas and solutions are proposed, I will consider each and every one. Debate is important to finding a solution to any problem. Farmers and rural America are the backbone of our great country. Every day, they work the fields, milk the cows, herd the cattle, and pick the produce. I myself grew up in rural Kansas and at the age of 14, I worked for Clyde Mills, father of my close friend and high school classmate Steve, driving a tractor in the wheat fields, providing lessons on the difficulties of working on a farm. Agriculture is crucial to Pennsylvania and to the entire nation. We need to ensure that the next farm bill provides all our fanners with the assistance they need to overcome hardships, as well as providing our rural communities the financial and technical assistance they need to assure a vibrant and stable rural economy. Even though I voted against final passage of the 2002 farm bill because it disproportionately provided more Federal funds to other states and regions in the U.S., I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and my colleagues in the full Senate to ensure farmers across America are equitably treated when it comes to Federal agricultural programs and assistance.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry. According to 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, statistics, the market value of all agriculture production in PA was approximately $7,026,739,000. Further, dairy is the number one sector of our agriculture industry. In 2005, Pennsylvania dairy farmers produced 10.5 billion pounds of milk from 558,000 cows on approximately 9,000 dairy farms. In 2004, milk production in PA contributed about $1,770,912,000 to the economy. I have consistently fought for Pennsylvania's dairy producers since taking office in 1981. Last year, I fought to ensure the viability of the dairy industry by ensuring that the Senate Budget Committee opposed the administration's fiscal year 2007 proposals that would have been detrimental to our Nation's dairy farmers. I, along with 16 other Senators, wrote a letter on March 8, 2006, to the Senate Budget Committee urging rejection of the proposed budget cuts and tax increases on America's dairy farmers that included: 1. reducing the value of the price support program; 2. cutting Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, payments by 5 percent; and 3. taxing every dairy farmer in America 3 cents per hundredweight, cwt., on all production. We were successful in this fight to protect Pennsylvania's, and the Nation's, dairy producers. Also, I, along with five other Senators, requested that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, review the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, cash cheese market because the price of cheese is strongly correlated to the price of milk. The GAO is expected to have a final report in the near future. This report will help us set legislative priorities by giving us a better understanding of the CME cheese market and its relation to the price of milk. Even though milk production in Pennsylvania had a market value of $1,770,912,000 in 2004, dairy farmers across PA and the Nation experienced decreased prices of milk from November of 2005 until early this year. Our dairy producers should not be receiving decreased milk prices, especially with the increased costs of production, such as fuel, feed, and fertilizer. These unpredictable fluctuations in the price of milk paid to our dairy farmers place an undue financial burden on our producers, which in turn negatively impact our rural communities. As a result, I worked hard with Senators Santorum, Chambliss, Kohl, and Leahy to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program until September of 2007. The MILC program was created as part of the 2002 farm bill to provide supplemental payments to dairy farmers when the market price falls below a statutory trigger. This program has provided timely and crucial payments to producers, particularly when prices were low in 2002, 2003, and 2006. Although milk prices are expected to be above the statutory trigger price of $16.94 through 2007, we need to ensure a more stable milk pricing system. The 2007 farm bill creates an opportunity to address the current volatile milk pricing system. While many legislative measures have been proposed, it is essential that any program address costs of production, ensure market and price transparency, and provide a safety-net for our producers. Additionally, we need to provide dairy producers with tools to help them should milk prices fall below sustainable levels, such as a voluntary revenue insurance program. I, along with Senator Bob Casey, have worked with our constituents to propose two dairy legislative proposals to ensure that we continue to discuss America's milk pricing system and the need for change in the 2007 farm bill. I have met with dairy producers from across the Commonwealth and there is a broad consensus that the unpredictable milk pricing system needs to be addressed. The hard part is coming to a consensus on how to reform the system. Although these two legislative proposals may not be perfect, they provide ideas on assuring an equitable milk price for our dairy producers. The first bill that we are introducing is the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the number of classes of milk from four to two with the intent of simplifying the pricing of milk. The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the price of all milk used for manufacturing purposes, which will be classified as Class II milk, by using the national average cost of production. This price would then be the basis formula for calculating the price of Class I milk, which is fluid milk. Although costs of production can vary drastically farm by farm, this legislation would ensure that dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk based on a national average cost of production figure. Costs of production for dairy farmers all across America have increased, not just in one region. Fuel, feed, and fertilizer costs have more than doubled. Only recently has the price of milk paid to farmers reached higher than the MILC program trigger price of $16.94 per cwt. With the price of milk above this target price, no payments to farmers will be made, even though input costs have more than doubled. Addressing costs of production is necessary to ensure that our family dairy farmers survive. The second bill that we have introduced aims to promote growth and opportunity for the dairy industry. This bill would change the current MILC program to a Milk Target Price Program and would link payments to dairy farmers on Class III milk. The program would pay farmers when the price of Class III falls below $12.00 per hundredweight. This trigger price would be adjusted by a feed adjustment factor to reflect the feed cost of producing 100 pounds of milk. The USDA would determine this factor based on a feed price index using a baseline period of calendar years 2001 through 2005. Further, the second bill would require the mandatory reporting of dairy commodities by requiring that dairy prices be reported on a daily and weekly basis. The current system is not mandatory and it is estimated that dairy farmers lost $6.4 million due to a Federal reporting error by the USDA over the past nine months. Along with 10 other Senators, I sent a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on May 9, 2007, requesting an explanation on how this misreporting occurred. This bill aims to close any loops in current law and assure proper auditing, data verification, and enforcement of reporting in order to ensure a transparent dairy market. Finally, the second bill would provide authorization for a Federal dairy education loan forgiveness program. This would allow students at higher education institutions across America who focus on agriculture for a 2- or 4-year degree and become a full-time owner of a farm to become eligible to have their Federal student loans forgiven. This is aimed to ensure that there is a younger generation of farmers to work the lands across the fields in America. Both of these bills aim to help our family dairy farms who deserve a fair price for their milk. I am committed to Pennsylvania's dairy farmers and will continue to work with my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Casey, and all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure our dairy farmers are not left behind. As more ideas and solutions are proposed, I will consider each and every one. Debate is important to finding a solution to any problem. Farmers and rural America are the backbone of our great country. Every day, they work the fields, milk the cows, herd the cattle, and pick the produce. I myself grew up in rural Kansas and at the age of 14, I worked for Clyde Mills, father of my close friend and high school classmate Steve, driving a tractor in the wheat fields, providing lessons on the difficulties of working on a farm. Agriculture is crucial to Pennsylvania and to the entire nation. We need to ensure that the next farm bill provides all our fanners with the assistance they need to overcome hardships, as well as providing our rural communities the financial and technical assistance they need to assure a vibrant and stable rural economy. Even though I voted against final passage of the 2002 farm bill because it disproportionately provided more Federal funds to other states and regions in the U.S., I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and my colleagues in the full Senate to ensure farmers across America are equitably treated when it comes to Federal agricultural programs and assistance.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Kathleen Pepper, a detailee in the office of Senator Kyl, be granted the privileges of the floor today and tomorrow.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time. I have sought recognition to speak on the legislation entitled the ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' I have had numerous contacts on this bill, both for it and against it, very impassioned contacts. People feel very strongly about it. The unions contend they very desperately need it. The employers say it would be an abdication of their rights to a secret ballot. I believe there are a great many important issues which need to be considered on this matter, and that is why I will vote, when the roll is called, to impose cloture so that we may consider the issue. I emphasize that on a procedural motion to invoke cloture--that is, to cut off debate--it is procedural only and that my purpose in seeking to discuss the matter is so that we may consider a great many very important and complex issues. I express no conclusion on the underlying merits in voting procedurally to consider the issue. In my limited time available, I will seek to summarize. I begin with a note that the National Labor Relations Act does not specify that there should be a secret ballot or a card check but says only that the employee representative will represent in collective bargaining where that representative has been ``designated or selected'' for that purpose. The courts have held that the secret ballot is preferable but not exclusive. In the case captioned ``Linden Lumber Division v. National Labor Relations Board,'' the Supreme Court held that ``an employer has no right to a secret ballot where the employer has so poisoned the environment through unfair labor practices that a fair election is not possible.'' The analysis is, what is the status with respect to the way elections are held today? The unions contend that there is an imbalance, that there is not a level playing field, and say that has been responsible in whole or in part for the steady decline in union membership. In 1954, 34.8 percent of the American workers belonged to unions. That number decreased in 1973 to 23.5 percent and in 1984 to 18.8 percent; in 2004, to 12.5 percent; and in 2006, to 12 percent. In taking a look at the practices by the National Labor Relations Board, the delays are interminable and unacceptable. By the time the NLRB and the legal process has worked through, the delays are so long that there is no longer a meaningful election. That applies both to employers and to unions, that the delays have been interminable. In the course of my extended statement, I cite a number of cases. In Goya Foods, the time lapse was 6 years; Fieldcrest Cannon, 5 years; Smithfield--two cases--12 and 7 years; Wallace International, 6 years; Homer Bronson, 5 years. In the course of my written statement, I have cited a number of cases showing improper tactics by unions, showing improper tactics by employers. In the limited time I have, I can only cite a couple of these matters, but these are illustrative. In the Goya Foods case, workers at a factory in Florida voted for the union to represent them in collective bargaining. Following the election, the company refused to bargain with the union and fired a number of workers for promoting the union. The workers filed an unfair labor practices case in June of 2000, seeking to require the employer to bargain. In February of 2001, the administrative law judge found the company had illegally fired the employees and had refused to bargain. But it was not until August of 2006 that the board in Washington, DC, adopted those findings, ordered reinstatement of the employees with backpay, and required Goya to bargain in good faith--a delay of some 5 years. In the Fieldcrest Cannon case, workers at a factory in North Carolina sought an election to vote on union representation. To discourage its employees from voting for the union, the company fired 10 employees who had vocally supported the union. The employer threatened reprisal against other employees who had voted for the union and threatened that immigrant workers would be deported or sent to prison if they voted for the union. The union lost the election in August of 1991. Although workers filed an unfair labor practice case with the NLRB, the administrative law judge did not decide the case until 3 years later, in 1994, and his order was not enforced by the Fourth Circuit until 1996--a lapse of some 5 years. In my written statement, I cite seven additional cases. Similarly, there have been improper practices by unions. On the balance, I have cited nine on that line, the same number I cited on improper activities by employers. At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, which I conducted in Harrisburg, PA, in July of 2004, we had illustrative testimony from an employee, Faith Jetter: Two union representatives came to my home and made a presentation about the union. They tried to pressure me into signing the union authorization card, and even offered to take me out to dinner. I refused to sign the card . . . shortly thereafter, the union representatives called again at my home and visited my home again to try to get me to sign the union authorization card. I finally told them that my decision was that I did not want to be represented . . . despite that . . . there was continuing pressure on me to sign. At a hearing of the House Committee on Labor this February, witness Karen Mayhew testified about offensive pressure tactics by the unions. I would cite some of my own experience with the issue. When I was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, I tried the first case against union coercive tactics to come out of the McClellan Committee investigation. The McClellan Committee had investigated Local 107 of the Philadelphia Teamsters Union, found they had organized a goon squad, beat up people, and exercised coercive tactics to form a union. That case was brought to trial in 1963 and resulted in convictions of all six of the union officials and they all went to jail. Without elaborating on the detailed testimony, it was horrendous what the union practices were in that case. There is no doubt if you take a look at the way the National Labor Relations Board functions--it is not functioning at all--but that it is dysfunctional. If you take a look at the statistics, on the one category of intake, it declined from 1,155 in 1994, to 448 in 2006. In another category, it declined from almost 41,000 in 1994, to slightly under 27,000 in 2006. On injunctions, where the NLRB has the authority to go in and get some action taken promptly, it is used very sparingly, and again there is a steep decline: from 104 applications for injunctions in 1995, to 15 in 2005, and 25 in 2006. The full table shows a great deal of the ineptitude as to what is going on. So what you have, essentially, is a very tough fought, very bitter contest on elections, very oppressive tactics used by both sides and no referee. The National Labor Relations Board is inert. It takes so long to decide the case that the election becomes moot, not important anymore. What they do is order a new election and they start all over again and, again, frequently the same tactics are employed. If there is an unfair labor practice in a discharge, the most the current law authorizes the NLRB to do is to reinstate the worker with backpay. That is reduced by the amount the individual has earned otherwise, which is in accordance with the general legal principle of mitigation of damages. But there is no penalty which is attached. So when you take a look at what the NLRB does, it is totally ineffective. Those are issues which I think ought to be debated by the Senate. We ought to make a determination whether the current laws are adequate and whether there ought to be changes and whether there ought to be remedies. We ought to take a look, for example, at the Canadian system. When I did some fundamental, basic research, I was surprised to find that 5 of the 10 provinces of Canada employ the card check; that is, there is no right to a secret election. One of the provinces had the card check, rejected it, and then I am told went back to the card check. So their experiences are worthy of our consideration. In Canada, elections are held 5 to 10 days after petitions are filed. I believe this body ought to take a close look at whether the procedures could be shortened, whether there could be mandatory procedures for moving through in a swift way--justice delayed is justice denied, we all know--whether there ought to be the standing for the injured parties to go into court for injunctive relief. That is provided now in the act, but only the NLRB can undertake it. This vote, we all know, is going to be pro forma. We have the partisanship lined up on this matter to the virtual extreme. There is no effort behind the debate which we are undertaking today to get to the issues. There is going to be a pro forma vote on cloture. Cloture is not going to be invoked. We are going to move on and not consider the matter. We know there are enough votes to defeat cloture. The President has promised a veto. So it is pro forma. But that should not be the end of our consideration of this issue because labor peace--relations between labor and management--is very important, and we ought to do more by way of analyzing it to see if any corrections are necessary in existing law. It is worth noting, in the history of the Senate, there has been considerable bipartisanship--not present today. But listen to this: In 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed by a voice vote. In 1932, the Norris LaGuardia Act was passed by a voice vote. In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, was passed by a voice vote. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, again, by a voice vote. In 1959, only two Senators voted against the Landrum- Griffin bill. A comment made by then-Senator John F. Kennedy, on January 20, 1959, commenting on the Landrum-Griffin bill, is worth noting. I quote only in part because my time is about to expire, but this is what Senator John F. Kennedy had to say: [T]he necessity for bipartisanship in labor legislation is a principle which should guide us all. . . .The extremists on both sides are always displeased. . . .Without doubt, the future course of our action in this area will be plagued with the usual emotional arguments, political perils, and powerful pressures which always surround this subject. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.