Free Choice Act Of 2007--Motion To Proceed
Floor Speech
FREE CHOICE ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 19, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to first speak briefly about the Employee Free Choice Act, which is a very important piece of legislation. In fact, I introduced the original bill 4 years ago, worked hard to persuade many of my colleagues in the labor movement that this should be a top priority. I am so glad it is. I wish to salute the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, who has taken leadership on this issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill.
Let me say this: Before the union movement in America, we had a few wealthy people and a lot of poor people and not much of a middle class. The great thing about the union movement is it created a middle class. Through struggles of laboring men and women from about 1870 to 1960, America became a country that was about 30 or 35 percent unionized.
What that meant was that wages rose, benefits rose, health care rose, and America was a prosperous country. Without a middle class, America would not have prospered. Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many employers who wished to prevent unions or beat back unions found new ways to basically thwart what was the original thrust of the NLRB, which was to freely allow men and women to organize.
They hired lawyers. There are law firms with hundreds of people whose whole job is to prevent unionization. They basically succeeded. So as old industries closed, new industries that have as much reason to organize did not. Factories closed, office towers came about, but the union jobs did not follow from the factories to the office towers, with the exception of the public sector.
So now we are in this situation where fewer than 10 percent of American workers are organized. That hurts America. That means that men and women are not able to bargain collectively for rights. When you talk about declining wages of the middle class, when you talk about declining health benefits of the middle class, one--not the only but one of the reasons is we do not have unions.
Fewer and fewer Americans are organized. What the legislation does, what the Employee Free Choice Act does, is very simply restore the balance so it would be as easy to organize a factory in an office tower in 2007 as it was to organize a factory in the 1930s or 1940s or 1950s.
To show you the law works, Canada has basically the same economic structure as America. Canada is over 30 percent organized and America is 8 percent organized. One reason, they have a law such as the Employee Free Choice Act which allows a majority of employees to sign a card and then a union takes effect.
One of the great problems in the new America is income inequality. The top 1 percent of America represents 9 percent of the income in 1980, 16 percent in 2001, and now it is over 20 percent by the latest statistics. One of the many ways to overcome that inequality is to make it a little easier for people to organize.
So I think this legislation is extremely important to the basic fabric of America. If we want middle-class people to continue to have wage growth and benefit growth, unions are basically essential. So I am proud to support this legislation.
I understand there are employers who fight it tooth and nail. I have seen some of the ads. There is one today in one of the papers, particularly vicious, with a picture of a union leader and then of two dictators. I thought it was the kind of cheap shot we shouldn't see in this country.
The bottom line is simple. This legislation is vital to the health, economic health of working men and women and vital to keeping a middle class in America and not reverting to the old days, when you had very few wealthy people and a large number of struggling people. I support the legislation.
AMENDMENTS NOS. 1604, 1605, 1606, AND 1656 TO H.R. 6
Second, I would like to speak about amendments 1604, 1605, 1606, and 1656, amendments I will be offering to H.R. 6. I am not going to offer them tonight because none of my colleagues from the opposing side are here. But they are important.
This is an energy bill that is vital to the country. We all want to curb the emission of CO2, we want to curb our dependence on foreign oil, and we want to bring down the prices of gasoline, electricity, and all the other commodities that are petroleum dependent. There has been a great deal of talk and focus on alternative fuels. That is very good. But alternative fuels are the ``sizzle'' and conservation is the ``steak'' when it comes to reducing our dependence on oil and particularly foreign oil
It costs about a quarter as much to conserve as it does to create an alternative. So these amendments are very simple. I wish to thank the Finance Committee, first, for drafting a provision that will take billions of dollars in tax breaks and other benefits from the oil industry to create new, improved incentives to promote solar power and wind power and cellulosic ethanol.
But we also have to do energy efficiency. You do not have to be Thomas Edison to know that better energy efficiency is a win-win for American families. The Federal Government, thus far, has failed to take the lead in promoting commercializing or deploying energy efficiency technologies despite their cost-effectiveness and reliability.
Unlike the development of cutting new alternative and renewable fuel sources, we do not have to wait for new technologies to reap the benefits of energy efficiency in our homes. An excellent example is our largest State in population, California. Over the past 30 years, it has demonstrated significant efficiency gains that can be achieved through various energy efficiency measures, especially by increasing the efficiency of utilities, buildings, and appliances.
With these measures, California has generated more than 20 percent of energy savings since 1975. California's energy use, per capita, is similar to many countries in Europe because they did this 30 years ago. So if California can do it, so can America.
The four amendments I have mentioned, one on buildings, two on appliances, and one on electric generation, take the California legislation and basically apply it to America. I am going to discuss each.
The first amendment will create a national energy efficiency resource standard that would require utilities to achieve a small percentage of energy savings every year based on their annual sales.
Under my amendment, utilities can generate energy savings through a variety of ways, including helping their customers save energy through energy-efficient programs, improving energy efficiency in their own distribution systems or credit trading.
Energy savings requirements are phased in in small increments each year, which will give the utilities enough time to boost their energy savings program.
This is not a new idea. Many States already successfully have implemented EERS standards--not only California but Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Several States, including my State of New York, as well as New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, are actively working to implement the standard. Since the States are moving forward on this standard, it makes sense for Congress to create a national standard so all Americans can reap the benefit of increased energy savings.
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, by 2020 a national EERS will reduce peak electric demand by 130,000 megawatts, saving enough to power 40 million households and reduce CO2 emissions by more than 300 million metric tons. That is equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. Is that not incredible? By simply requiring our utilities to be efficient, it is equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. I hope we are going to do it. It would save U.S. consumers $26 billion from their utility bills. So this is a huge amendment that can do a great deal.
Now, my second amendment deals with buildings. Buildings account for 37 percent of the total energy used in the United States and two-thirds of the electricity. We all focus on cars. We are going to have a fight on CAFE standards. But buildings are as important as cars in producing efficiency. There is much less controversy and we can get it done more easily.
California has demonstrated that significant energy gains can be achieved through State building codes that are well designed and implemented. But despite the great savings made by California, many States have inadequate State building codes or none at all.
Again, the Federal Government has lagged behind the States in setting aggressive energy saving building codes. Under my amendment, commercial and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy use targets. Both must be 30 percent more efficient by 2015 and 50 percent more efficient by 2022.
States will be deemed compliant once they adopt an acceptable code and as long as 90 percent of all new buildings comply with the States's code. Even if a State is not in compliance, each city that meets the criteria will be in compliance.
I wish to salute the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, for taking the lead in imposing such standards on the city of New York.
Finally, my amendment will authorize funding for technical assistance, training, and to help States ensure they are in compliance with these energy-efficient targets. Again, according to the Alliance to Save Energy, this amendment--listen to this--could save our country 5 percent of its total energy use. That simple amendment, done now in California, could be done here--5 percent of our total energy use. It would save consumers $50 billion a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an equivalent of taking another 70 million cars off the road. So it is obvious we should do these things.
Finally, the amendments on appliances. Again, California took the lead in improving energy efficiency standards for appliances. However, Federal law has restricted the ability of States in favor of lower Federal standards that, in many cases, have languished at DOE. For example, earlier this year, the GAO found that DOE had missed 34 out of--guess how many--34--34 out of 34--Congressionally set deadlines for reviewing and updating appliance and equipment standards.
GAO found that delays on four of the overdue standards will cost consumers $28 billion in energy savings by 2030. In addition, even when DOE finally gets around to setting the new standards, these standards fail to meet the very real energy needs of our country.
My amendment also fixes these problems in the bill. First, they will strengthen the process through which the States can apply to DOE to set higher standards for appliances that are currently regulated by the Federal Government; second, to restore authority for efficiency standards--that is the second amendment--to the States when DOE misses legal deadlines for setting or revising standards.
My amendment states that if DOE misses legal deadlines for setting up updated efficiency standards, States may create higher standards that allow them to address their energy needs more effectively.
By cutting our energy use through these energy efficiency measures, while also increasing the use of clean, renewable alternative fuels, we can make a huge difference and begin to address our energy problems, from ending our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil to helping consumers lower their rising energy bills. I urge adoption of these four commonsense efficiency measures and look forward to working with the managers of the bill as we go forward.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source