Employee Free Choice Act of 2007

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak tonight as we get close to the point hopefully of passing an energy bill here in the Senate.

I first acknowledge the leadership of both Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. When we look at where we are today on energy, much of it started, the bipartisan cooperation, between Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, in the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. I know there have been critics of that act, but it was a creation that was put out in a bipartisan fashion, a significant step forward on energy.

This legislation that came out of the Energy Committee, which is included in the bill which we are about to vote on, in large part is a very good step forward in terms of trying to address the goals we had in that particular legislation.

I also congratulate both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I think when you think about the people who have made such a mark, an imprint on the Senate today and on our country, two of our national heroes are Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye. I never get tired of hearing the story of Senator Inouye and his service to our country. Every time I see him and I remember his great contribution and sacrifice to our country, I remember those are the greatest of the greatest generation, and certainly both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye embody that greatness.

I also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their great work. As a member of the Finance Committee, we worked very hard to come up with legislation that would help us move forward in dealing with the reality of getting energy independence.

While I am disappointed that part of the package is not included as we move

forward toward final passage here, it nonetheless represented the best of our thinking about how we could invest in this new imperative of America, and gets us to a new energy future for the 21st century.

I also thank the rest of my colleagues who were involved in some of the discussions that have been underway today. Let my say that from my point of view, there is no more important issue we must deal with here in Washington, here in the Congress, than the issue of energy.

If we look at the big issues of our time in the 21st century, I think in my mind there are three issues we have to deal with. We have to deal with the issue of foreign relations and how we put the world back together again and restore America's greatness in the world.

We also need to make sure we embark on a new clean energy future for the 21st century.

We also need to deal with other issues that are very difficult, the enormous challenge that we face with the health care in America today. That issue is bankrupting America's families and America's businesses day by day. So how we move forward with those three issues is very important.

But tonight we are at the doorstep of taking a significant step forward on one of those huge issues; that is, the issue of energy and moving forward to establishing a clean energy future.

Now, when I often talk about energy, I think back to what happened in the early 1970s and through the 1970s with both President Nixon and President Jimmy Carter, where President Nixon declared the need for us to be energy independent, and coined that term.

Then following him, President Carter spoke about energy independence as being something that was the moral equivalent of war. Well, the fact is that in those days the driver for those statements and the coining of that term came from the economic volatility that was caused by the formation of OPEC and their ability to be able to influence the world markets on oil.

I think today we have three inescapable forces that drive us to look at the clean energy future as the imperative of the 21st century. Those inescapable forces are, first and foremost, our national security. When we see what is happening in the Middle East with Hezbollah and in Lebanon with Hamas in the Gaza, you know that terrorist organizations such as those are being funded by the very oil that is being consumed by the free world.

So for us to become energy independent is our way of making sure we are not held hostage to those kinds of organizations, to the oil barons and sheiks of this world. It is an imperative we do that from a national security point of view.

Secondly, I think it is now beyond argument in our world today that the issue of global warming is here, and we will have some debate that will come on down the road with respect to how we address the issue of global warming here in America and across the world.

It is inescapable that we must do something about global warming if we are to save civilization for our children and grandchildren and save this planet we have been given the humble privilege of inhabiting. That is an inescapable force that will drive us to a clean energy future in the 21st century.

Last is the economic opportunity and dealing with the economic volatility that happens when you are hostage to someone who controls supplies such as OPEC can today. The economic opportunity is one that you already see happening throughout our great Nation.

In my State of Colorado, where 2 years ago, before passage of the 2005 act, there was really nothing going on in terms of renewable energy, we have totally turned that around. We have now ethanol plants in places such as Fort Morgan and Yuma. We have a number of other ethanol plants springing up in Windsor and Devon, down in the southern part of the State, places which were part of the forgotten rural America which had been hanging on by a shoestring just to keep their communities alive. There is a new breath of activity, a new breath of hope and opportunity and optimism in rural America, in large part because we believe we can grow our way to energy independence.

I believe strongly we are headed in the right track with the legislation that has been put forward. I am hopeful that we will move forward and conclude our effort on this energy legislation tonight.

I want to go back for a minute and reflect upon the legislation that came out of the Energy Committee which was led in a remarkable fashion by Senator Bingaman, with the support of Senator Domenici. It was a bipartisan effort that focused on three major issues, all of which are included in the underlying legislation.

The first of those was moving forward with alternative fuels. If you think about what we have done with the renewable fuels standard, we will be quintupling the amount of energy we create from biofuels. We will be opening a new chapter with cellulosic ethanol that will make the biofuels targets a reality.

Secondly, the efficiency measures are important to make sure we stop wasting the energy we consume. When we look at what the experts tell us, from the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Lab, we know we waste 60 percent of the energy that is consumed in America today. Therefore, the lowest hanging fruit for all of us is to move forward with efficiency measures. We are doing that in the part of the legislation that was created in the Energy Committee. We also are doing it very much with the CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards that were negotiated today with the leadership of Senators Stevens and Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and many others who were involved. That will help us achieve the oil savings targets and goals we have set forth in this legislation.

Finally, we take some movement forward in terms of dealing with the issue of carbon by making sure that we are dealing with carbon sequestration mapping in the United States and that we develop the way forward in terms of how we sequester carbon. There has been debate about coal. Not everybody agrees on how we ought to move forward with respect to coal. I believe it is important that we look at coal as a possible resource because it currently generates about 50 percent of our electricity today and it is the most abundant resource we have in this country. We have enough coal resources for the next 200 years of energy for America's use. Coal is to the United States what oil is to Saudi Arabia. So it is important that we not turn a blind eye and say we are a nation that is not going to look at all at coal.

Some of the new technologies we have with respect to IGCC--the creation of electricity in a way that can help us with the hybrid plug- ins--will open a whole new chapter today and build on the 2005 act. That will all be very important. Carbon sequestration needs to be a part of the equation. We know there are formations throughout this country where, in fact, we can sequester carbon. The technology is not all that complex. The enhanced oil recovery efforts and the technology we have with EOR is technology that has been used in the oilfields for decades. We know there are formations out there where we can, in fact, store carbon. So we can find ways of utilizing this abundant fuel we have in the United States to help us fuel the energy needs of the country.

In addition to the many Members who have worked on making this a possibility--and I hope we do get the 60 votes we need--there have been a lot of people on many staffs on both the majority side and the minority side who have worked to make this happen. I thank each and every one of them for getting us to the point we are today. I know the countless hours and nights and days they have spent working on this issue. Without them, we would not be where we are tonight.

I thank the people in my office who have been working hard on this legislation for a long time, both in the Energy Committee and in the Finance Committee. I say thank you to Steve Black, who has been an enormous player on the energy issue, in 2005 as well as today; Matt Lee-Ashley, Suzanne Wells in my office, Grant Leslie, and Sam Mitchell, who have done an enormous job pulling all of this together.

This is a major step we are about ready to take. I look forward to being a part of the celebration when we get this all done, hopefully in the not too distant future before we go into the wee hours of tomorrow morning.

Efficiency Title

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the improvements to vehicle efficiency that are included in H.R. 6. It is time for us to make reasonable, achievable, and meaningful increases to the corporate average fuel economy standards.

In the past 2 weeks I have spoken repeatedly about the national security, economic security, and environmental security implications of the energy debate that we are holding. The converging and growing risks of our overdependence on foreign oil are well understood among Americans, who see the impacts of our failed energy policy on a daily basis.

At the gas station, consumers see prices spike at OPEC's whim or with the threat of supply disruptions in countries like Venezuela or Nigeria. In their businesses, Americans feel the pain of soaring oil prices--fuel prices for farmers are so high that some do not know if they will be able to complete the harvest in the fall. And in their land, air, and natural surroundings, Americans are beginning to understand the impacts that global warming could have over the coming decades.

This week we have already made significant progress in our quest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not only is the underlying bill an important step forward, but we have passed several amendments that strengthen the foundations of a new, clean energy economy for the United States.

So far we have increased the oil savings targets in this bill by 50 percent, so that by 2016, we are saving as much oil as we are currently importing from the Middle East. We have passed provisions from the DRIVE Act that will bring high-efficiency vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids, to consumers. And we set a goal of producing 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025. These are important improvements that will accelerate the pace at which we are moving toward energy independence.

Today, though, I want to talk more specifically about a provision of this bill that has been a point of intense debate for some time. Vehicle efficiency standards in this country have been stagnant for too long. Although our vehicle manufacturers have made impressive improvements to the safety, strength, and power of our vehicles, the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks was actually lower in 2006 than it was 20 years ago. Passenger cars sold in the U.S. only get around 27.5 miles per gallon on average.

The result? American consumers and businesses are suffering disproportionately from $3-a-gasoline. $50 and $80 visits to the gas station are now the norm, and transportation costs are taking a growing slice out of family budgets.

People who live in rural areas are hit the hardest by low fuel- efficiency standards. They drive around 15 percent more miles than people who live in cities, they rarely have the choice of using public transit, and they use work vehicles, like pickups, that get fewer miles to the gallon. As a result, gas bills in rural households have risen almost $1,300 in the past 5 years.

The question of how to improve vehicle efficiency standards is not an easy one, and is not to be taken lightly. But today the path forward is clearer than it has been in some time. Not only is the need for improved efficiency evident, but we have the technological know-how to make these changes to our vehicle-fleet in a safe and cost-effective manner.

The bill before us raises the CAFE standards for cars and light trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. This is a reasonable and appropriate goal for efficiency. The bill also gives manufacturers tremendous flexibility to meet the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, will have the ability to set a national fleet-wide average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020 that will be tailored to the weight, size, type of use and towing capabilities of each car type. Under this flexible system, the standards for light trucks will likely be significantly lower than the standards for passenger cars, and standards will vary for passenger cars: smaller cars will have higher standards than larger cars.

The bill also includes an important exemption for work-trucks between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds--these are the trucks that are essential to the daily operations of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners.

The CAFE standards in this bill are achievable by incorporating a group of modest, proven conventional technologies into vehicles. The technologies would add about $1,100 to the price of an average vehicle in 2019, an investment that would be recovered in less than 3 years of driving, assuming that gasoline costs $2.00 per gallon. Over the lifetime of the vehicle the owner would save a total of more than $3,600 in gasoline costs.

And the technologies are only getting better. Our national labs and universities are making breakthroughs in research that will allow us to make even greater advances in fuel efficiency. At the Colorado School of Mines, for example, researchers are developing a way to cast metal alloy composite materials for high strength, lightweight vehicle parts. This technology will reduce the weight of vehicle components by as much as 60 percent without compromising vehicle performance, cost, or safety.

While I am a champion for the responsible development of our domestic energy supplies and I firmly believe that we need to make smart investments in a renewable energy economy, improving efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest and quickest way for us to extend our energy supplies, get a handle on rising gas prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I am proud of the responsible, bipartisan approach we have taken to improving vehicle standards. I want to again thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici for their leadership on this bill and I look forward to passing it as soon as possible.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.

There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start my remarks.

When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez, the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country.

My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas. Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American consumer one bit.

There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places, and then it spends them on the wrong policies.

I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it. With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose cloture.

The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation.

I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the past I have supported renewable energy.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits, automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call.

Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration, and government research and development and asset financing, the answer has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act, investing heavily in it.

The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment.

Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives, and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good.

Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy. The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of $32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment.

But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase 15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5 gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines.

Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they were.

We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale, fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking $32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also.

But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit.

Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices, obviously, for natural gas.

The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing the most productive--the places where more money is being put for exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental

Shelf. Yet one-third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very high fee, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it? The place in America where we have a chance of producing, we have imposed a heavy tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax provisions only affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not true. But I have already told you who they are and what they represent in the world markets.

In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13- percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and gas coming from the shelf.

This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas. It will mean higher prices for consumers.

Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up, production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences.

Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf, upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax.

Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed to include a term in these agreements.

In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on; it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases with no royalty thresholds.

Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have to think about it and think about what we are doing.

I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for us to use for various things in this bill.

As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill will be lost.

The Department of the Interior has already testified before Congress expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this issue and the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as the delay of oil and gas production.

There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of 2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion over 10 years.

Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the Jobs Destruction Act.

Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision-- increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years.

This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves.

To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves.

To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American consumer.

I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with which I cast this vote.

In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state- owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American people.

That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people expect of us.

For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?

When is that? When you come back from the House?

The same people who voted here will vote again then, will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime from this side?

I see.

I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you could not get cloture again. That could happen.

Yes.

Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going to conference.

Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did. That is the Senate. Now we will see.

So do I.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4 years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation; supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want. We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing. It should have happened.

Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments and cleared them on our side. We have no objection.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world.

For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities.

Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.

Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved.

Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process.

Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.

Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That

would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system.

We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years.

It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles.

This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive.

Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly.

Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development.

The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles.

In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit.

Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is a very interesting series of statements we have heard in the last 15 minutes, half hour, statements basically trying to lead Americans to believe that this Finance Committee tax package, as well as the provisions of the tax package to pay for incentives so we can wean ourselves away from OPEC, away from all these countries, is going to result somehow in some cataclysmic event; namely, gasoline prices are going to go up, according to statements we have heard. We have also heard that we are going to reduce domestic exploration and development of American oil companies; we are putting ourselves in the hands of foreign countries. The fact is, the exact opposite is the case. These statements are amazing. It is good political rhetoric, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

First, it is more important that people understand that the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, basically delegates to the Secretary of Energy whether $30 billion worth of tax provisions will be enacted. I am astounded that anybody in the Senate wants to delegate that decision to the Secretary of Energy instead of the U.S. Congress deciding whether the tax needs to be imposed.

The Kyl amendment basically says that unless the Energy Secretary can determine that the effect of this will not increase the price of gasoline at the pump, that he, the Energy Secretary, or she, the Energy Secretary--whoever the Energy Secretary is--will automatically be forced to rescind the pay-fors in this bill. That is astounding. It is basically delegating to the Energy Secretary a policy which should be made by the Congress, and that is a huge dereliction of responsibility. I am appalled that anybody would dare suggest it. But that is a fact.

Second, if we look at the whole bill, the Finance Committee package in the Energy bill and also the Kyl amendment, several things are striking. The first is the major underlying Finance Committee bill is designed to accomplish the objective that the Senator from Idaho is complaining about. The Senator from Idaho is complaining that this amendment transfers power to Venezuela or to Saudi Arabia, other countries. The whole point of this bill is the exact opposite. It is to wean ourselves away from OPEC, wean ourselves away from those countries, so that we Americans are in a better position to determine our own destiny, in a better position to get more energy production here in America.

How do we do that? The committee bill does that through all kinds of incentives. It reduces taxes in lots of different ways for alternative energy, renewable energy, cellulosic development, encouraging more American clean coal technology so we can tap into our vast reserves of coal. It has lots of ways we could help America be more self-sufficient and wean ourselves away from these very high gasoline prices we are forced to pay partly because OPEC is forcing us to pay those prices; the truth is, partly because the major oil companies are charging whatever the market will bear. That is why they are charging such high prices to the American consumer. What evidence do I have of that? It is very simple and direct.

I was stunned because of the candor of the CEO of ExxonMobil when he made this statement. This was last year at a Judiciary Committee hearing. I was not there; I was watching on C-SPAN. At that hearing, the exchange was essentially between the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the CEO of Exxon. I think Senator Kohl asked the question. This was an open hearing.

He said: Sir, why are gasoline prices so high now?

The answer: Well, Exxon has to pay more because OPEC is charging us more. So we to have pay more, and we transfer those price increases down to the American consumer.

The Senator from Wisconsin asked the head of ExxonMobil: Explain this to me, please. At the same time, your profits have exploded. They have gone up about $35 billion this year. Your profits have expanded.

Senator Kohl said: I am a businessman. Ordinarily, if my costs go up, my profits go down. Please explain to me why you would say your costs are going up because OPEC is charging you more and yet your profits are going way up. Why?

His answer was very illustrative of the point here. He said, in all candor: Senator, my responsibility is not to the American consumer; my responsibility is to my stockholders. I will charge whatever the market will bear because I have a duty to protect my stockholders and get whatever I can for my stockholders. I am going to charge whatever I can.

That is why profits are so high, because Americans can't put milk in their car or their truck. They can't put in water. They have to put in diesel fuel or gasoline. Americans are stuck. The majors are passing on through their distribution system these very high gasoline prices because they can get away with it and because it fattens profits and because they are beholden to stockholders, not the American consumers.

What about these provisions which the Senator from Arizona wants to strike. There are three of them. It is very simple, and there is a reason why they are there and why they will not have the disastrous effect the Senator from Arizona claims.

The first one is to rescind a tax break we gave to the five major oil companies back in 2004. It is called section 199.

We gave that tax break, frankly, to all American domestic manufacturers, including the oil companies. It was as a response to a WTO ruling a year or two earlier which said our American tax laws-- which gave incentives for American products to be exported--were WTO illegal. So we came up with a backup plan. The backup plan was basically section 199 in the code, enacted in the 2004 Jobs Act, which says, OK, we will give an extra little break to domestic production in the United States. If they export the products, fine; if they do not, that is fine. We will still give them a break. That is what that is.

What has happened to domestic oil production in the United States since that was enacted in 2004? Well, one would think it probably increased a little bit because the major oil companies get a little tax break. The fact is, the exact opposite has happened.

Let me quote a couple statistics. In 2004, when that provision was put in effect, domestic production was about 170 million barrels a month. It was 170 million barrels a month in 2004. Well, you would think it would go up because of that tax break for domestic production. Oh, no, that is not what happened. It actually went down. It is down to about 160 million barrels.

Look at the price of oil. Back in 2004, the price of oil was $40 a barrel. Now it is about $65 a barrel. Well, gee, you would think--that is more money in the oil companies' coffers--they would want to use that for more exploration, more development. No. Again, there is less domestic production, even with the price of oil so high over that period of time and even though they have had a tax break. I might add, too, the price of gasoline at the pump back then was about $2 a gallon. Today, it is above $3 a gallon. So that did not help.

So, gee, we thought: We will take that away. It did not help, so we will take it away. So, therefore, it seems to me it is not going to cause an increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.

I might say, the statistics cited by the Senator from Arizona are based on the Heritage Foundation. I am not going to get into the question of who financed that study--I have an idea who financed that study; and, therefore, it drove the results they would like to get--but that is the same organization that said Iraqi oil is going to pay for Iraq reconstruction too. They were dead wrong then, and they are dead wrong now. They are an organization which, frankly, I think is not the most objective, independent organization in the world. That is the first one. That is why we made that first change.

The second provision in the Finance Committee bill the Senator's amendment wants to strike is a loophole closer. We are trying to close a loophole. The Joint Committee on Taxation said--that is a bipartisan organization, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which serves both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats--their independent study shows there is a big loophole the major oil companies take with respect to foreign tax breaks in this area; that is, ordinarily a company gets to reduce its income taxes in the amount of the foreign taxes that company pays to a foreign country.

Now, the law is different between exploration costs and distribution downstream costs. The companies game the system. They offset one against the other. Joint Tax saw this big loophole. Let's close it. That is the second provision. Also, I do not see how anybody could argue against that. It is a big loophole closer. It makes the Tax Code more fair.

Then we get to the third provision. This is the so-called confiscatory excise tax on the oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's be honest. First of all, the President of the United States, himself, believes there is insufficient revenue paid to Uncle Sam on these OCS leases. The best evidence: The President of the United States, himself, has enacted a 6\2/3\-percent royalty on all new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are not paying enough. He has increased the current royalty--it was 12 percent. The bill has a 13-percent severance tax. The President, himself, has enacted a whole new higher royalty provision on new leases in the gulf. He thinks they are undertaxed. Right now it is about a 12-percent royalty. This provision in our Finance Committee bill says a 13-percent severance tax.

Clearly, Congress has the power to enact a tax. The royalties paid by any company are credited against the 13 percent, and so it is a net lower than what the President thinks the amount should be in revenue paid by the oil and gas companies in the gulf.

I might also say the General Accounting Office has done a study of how much America taxes oil and gas compared with how other countries tax oil and gas. What is the result of the GAO study? The result of the GAO study is we Americans basically tax oil and gas less than other jurisdictions around the world--or other States. The State of Alaska is taxing more. Other countries tax more now. We Americans are pretty easy and soft compared to other countries on how much we tax oil and gas revenues.

So this argument that somehow, oh, my gosh, America is going to tax oil and gas companies with these provisions--that it is confiscatory; they are going to go overseas--it is just nonsense. It is just total nonsense because, already, oil and gas revenue in the United States is not taxed as much as it is in other jurisdictions. It seems to me, therefore, it is not unfair to enact this provision.

The main point is if the Kyl amendment passes, then the Finance Committee tax title of this bill is dead because we are not paying for it, effectively. That is because the Energy Secretary, under the Kyl amendment, probably would rule that maybe prices might go up at the pump, given the politics of it all, and that means we do not have a bill anymore.

Therefore, I urge Senators to say: OK, let's do what is right. Let's start to wean ourselves from OPEC. Let's start to give some incentives to American domestic producers of alternative fuels, renewable fuels, and have more conservation measures to help America again take control of our own destiny.

This is not a perfect bill. Nothing is perfect. But it is a good bill. It is a very good bill. It helps put America back on track, helps America turn the corner toward more energy independence, and enhances our national security so we are less reliant upon OPEC, less reliant upon those countries to which some Senators say this bill gives a break. It does not. This bill does the exact opposite. It helps America become America again.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I very much thank the chairman of the Energy Committee who I think has put together a very good energy bill. I thank him very much for his instructive comments here. They are very helpful.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes and--how many seconds?

I yield 2 minutes 10 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I will take the remaining 2 minutes. This whole debate boils down to something pretty simple and basic; that is, do we as Americans want to begin to become more self-sufficient in our energy production? Do we want to be less reliant on OPEC? Do we want to give incentives to new clean energy industries to develop in America-- not just renewables and alternatives but also clean coal technologies and other ways to help America be more self-sufficient?

Congress, for many years, has provided some very significant tax incentives to the oil and gas industry to help America be strong, to make sure we as Americans have a strong industrial base and a strong energy base to fuel our industries. That was probably the right thing to do over the years from 1926, and the various provisions that have helped America. I think the time has come for us to give incentives to other industries, alternative energy, renewable fuels, clean coal technologies, cellulosic, and so forth--the same kinds of incentives that the oil

and gas industry have enjoyed for decades and decades.

We are not taking away these incentives from the oil and gas industry at all. We are just saying the time has come for us to give incentives to make America more self-sufficient in the production of energy. This bill helps accomplish that result, and the way we do that is very fair and balanced. It will not have the horrible results that are claimed here. I urge our colleagues to begin to take--we will still have huge breaks for the oil and gas, but we give help on the margin to new independent energy sources in America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Bingaman regarding a study by professors of law John Leshy and Brian Gray.

Mr. President, I raise a pay-go point of order that the pending Kyl amendment would worsen the deficit, in violation of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy.

The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion. To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion.

Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline.

Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my State of Arizona, to illustrate the point.

The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a result of the bill.

In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to $3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury, it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real nevertheless.

What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an important principle for us to establish.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices.

The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue that they decided to tap.

This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies, which would then make it higher on those companies than others in manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the bill 2 years ago.

Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from raising taxes.

Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over $55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars and advanced fuels.

These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers.

All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax increases would go into effect.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close after that.

Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested, they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we want to avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of the bill. So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are loophole closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost of the bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that.

Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company, essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we are justified in taxing them.

I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much money,

we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing these new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be: Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is, you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer.

Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well, who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next 10 years. That is a 104-percent increase.

If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about that kind of a hit on the American consumer.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It is dated June 20, 2007.

This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that tax increase on not hurting American consumers.

He says:

This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to

certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not

lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline

prices for American consumers.

As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key it as a key vote.

He goes on to say:

The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill

because it contains many proposals that amount to little more

than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was

enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers,

long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of

foreign oil.

That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into effect.

My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC? What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact, yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that subsidy. I voted to eliminate it.

I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the objective? I think the answer is yes.

My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this.

My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men. All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil, then we say no. That is all this amendment does.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the floor at this time for him to do that.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Madam President, I thank my able colleague from Missouri. He is one of our most valuable and able members in the Senate. I value his thoughts on that and share his thoughts, actually.

I want to move off of that and some of the comments that Senator Dorgan had about working Americans and what they are facing today.

I remember addressing this point last year in the debate on immigration. I think it was at night when not many people were on the floor. Senator Kennedy was here. I raised the question of what was happening to wages of working Americans as a result of large-scale immigration, and quoted professors and experts who had demonstrated that where those areas--where immigration reached its highest levels, wages had gone down for workers; they hadn't gone up.

Now we are told that businesses cannot get workers, and we are told we are at full employment, but apparently something is awry if wages are not going up in many areas.

I want to mention to you what we have with regard to the immigration bill that is coming before us. We will have cloture vote on it in the morning. This is what I want to say to my colleagues. The legislation promises that it will bring legality to the system. They say we have an illegal system and we have got a comprehensive plan to fix it.

What does our own Congressional Budget Office say? They just did an analysis of it. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the legislation that is proposed. They made an opinion about how much it would cost the U.S. Treasury. It was about $30 billion over the next 10 years; not for the cost of enforcement, just the cost of additional social and welfare benefits provided to those who are here illegally, who will be made legal.

They made that analysis, and they also made one more analysis that is so stunning and so remarkable that I remain baffled that my colleagues have not picked up on it. What the Congressional Budget Office, our own budget office--a budget office that answers to the House, answers to the Senate, answers to the majority leader, Harry Reid, answers to the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi--the Congressional Budget Office concluded that net illegal immigration, after the passage of this bill, would only be reduced 13 percent.

Now what kind of reform is that, I ask my colleagues? I submit to you this is not a reform. A fix that is supposed to bring legality to a system that only reduces illegality by 13 percent. Last year we arrested 1 million people entering our country illegally. These are huge numbers. I would have thought we would want to see an 80 or 90 percent reduction of illegality at our border. This is a bill that by our own evaluation does not bode well.

There is another factor that many of my colleagues probably do not know, have never understood. My staff has worked very hard to account for the actual flow of legal immigration into the country. In the next 20 years, this country, if this bill is passed, will see a doubling of the legal permanent residents in America. That is the number of people who are given a green card. That is the next step to citizenship. Anybody with legal permanent residence can move on to citizenship. It will double the number of legal permanent residents, which is what we call green card holders.

So we are not going to have any reduction in illegality, and we are going to have a major increase--a doubling of legal immigration. I am worried about that. We have been talking here about this debate about card check and unions. What it is about is wages and fairness for American workers, is it not?

Mr. Tonelson testified at one of our hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was a hearing I requested and asked for. We were able to get him, and he testified about areas in construction, in meat packing, in restaurant work, where there was high level of immigration from 2000 to 2005. Wages went down. You bring into this country more wheat, the price of wheat will go down. You bring into our country more cotton, the price will go down. Bring in more iron ore, the price of iron ore will go down. You bring in more labor, the price of American labor will go down. That is a fact.

I support a legitimate guest worker program. I believe we do have certain needs in certain industries and situations such as Hurricane Katrina where the need was so dramatic on the gulf coast. I know there are needs for some guest workers, temporary workers. I am prepared to help write legislation which would meet that need. I believe in immigration into America in general. I am not asking that we slash the amount of legal immigration into the country. But I doubt most Americans, when they hear about the great group I affectionately call the ``masters of the universe'' who met in secret and wrote this bill, had any understanding that their promise of comprehensive reform of the illegal immigration system we have today--and that is a fair way to describe it--they had no idea this bill would only reduce illegal immigration by 13 percent. I don't believe they had any idea it would double the numbers who were coming in legally.

That brings me to my point. The longer this legislation has been out for review, the less the public has liked it. I can see why. If you remember, Senator Reid first called the bill up. He actually called up the old bill that the House wouldn't even look at last year. He let it sit for about a week and then plopped down, on a Tuesday, an entirely new bill, over 700 legislative pages, and wanted us to vote on it by Friday of that week. Why? That is what they attempted to do. We pushed back and said: No, this is a big issue;

we can't vote on Friday; we are not going to vote this week. We fought that, and they backed off. We had a week's break and came back. We got back on the bill and proceeded with it and had some amendment votes and were moving along, and then Senator Reid pulled the bill off the floor on a Thursday night. So we thought maybe that was the end of it.

But after working on it, they decided to bring it back up. It is going to be brought back tomorrow. The bill is filed. Cloture was filed. We now find ourselves prepared to vote tomorrow on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, go to this bill, and actually discuss it on the floor. We know there are probably 51 Senators who have committed to vote for final passage of the bill. I think they have made a mistake. Some probably didn't understand it fully. I am sure some are uneasy about that commitment. But more than 50, I am confident, are committed to voting for the legislation. Some really think anything is better than the current system. Maybe this is better, they say. They are prepared to vote for it. So by going to the bill, we are setting ourselves on a pathway that leads to final passage of legislation I believe is not worthy of the U.S. Senate.

More than that, I urge my colleagues to think about this. We have been told--and if I am mistaken, I ask the majority leader to tell me I am wrong--that an unprecedented procedure will be utilized to eliminate as much time of debate as possible and to completely control the amendment process to this legislation in a way that has never been done before in the history of the Senate. It has never been done this way. The majority leader is going to fill the tree. He is going to file a second-degree amendment. That amendment will be divisible into a number of different amendments so he can say which amendments will be voted on and which will not, and other amendments will not be allowed to be voted on. It is complete control of the process. They will say: We adopted some of your amendments, you complainers. We have some of your amendments in that group.

This process has been prepared with the care and precision of the Normandy invasion. This has been prepared meticulously for weeks, how they are going to move this bill through and how they are going to control the amendments. The amendments that will be allowed, I am confident, will be amendments they are confident they have the votes to defeat or amendments they don't care if passed. But they will not allow amendments to go to the core of this agreement by those masters of the universe who put it together, anything that would actually threaten this legislation's agreement they put together.

Some have been told: Don't worry, Senator, vote for cloture tomorrow, and we will let your amendment be voted on. If your amendment is selected, it is likely that they have the votes to vote it down or the crowd that put this bill together doesn't object if it passes. But anything that really goes at this mechanism, this special agreement they have put together in secret without committee hearings of any kind, will not be allowed to be voted on. That is a big mistake.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have been in the Senate 10 years, most of which Republicans had the majority. This procedure was never used against the Democrats when Republicans were in the majority. This is the first time it has been used in the Senate. What if it is used against Senators in the future on both sides of the aisle? The great free debate this Senate is so proud of would be eroded.

So for two reasons I urge my colleagues tomorrow to vote against cloture. First, we need to have this bill pulled down. We need to go back and review what it is that has caused the American people to reject it so overwhelmingly. We need to find out why the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that it will reduce illegal immigration by only 13 percent. My goodness. We need to ask ourselves, do we really want to double on top of that the legal immigration into America?

What are we afraid of? Why is there this obsession to move this flawed piece of legislation through, utilizing the unprecedented procedural gambit to do so? I ask why?

Three weeks before we had the final vote and Senator Reid pulled it down, after the debate continued a couple of weeks ago, a Rasmussen poll showed support for the bill in the high 20s. Then fell to 23 percent, and the last poll showed only 20 percent of Americans supported this bill. Only 20 percent of the American people said we should pass this bill. A decent respect for the opinions of the people who elect us, I suggest--if nothing else, maybe for our own self- interest--would call on us to say: What is it that people are worried about? Why don't we pull this bill and see if we can't make a decent piece of legislation that we could be proud of and move it forward? What possible reason is there to be obsessed with just ramming it through this Senate? I am amazed. It takes my breath away. There is every kind of reason to suggest that we should pull the bill down and work on it.

I will conclude with these thoughts. Let's don't go forward tomorrow. Let Members of the Senate say to those who are promoting the legislation--one former law officer called them mandarins; I jokingly called them the masters of the universe--this legislation will not work. They are good people. They think they were doing good. But the product they produced won't work, and the American people don't like it. I say vote against cloture tomorrow because a vote for cloture is a vote ultimately to move this bill passage.

No. 2, I say vote against cloture tomorrow because unless the majority leader declares otherwise, we will have to assume that what we have been hearing is correct, and he will use an unprecedented procedure--a procedure dubbed ``the clay pigeon''--to completely control the amendment process and to bring this bill up for final vote with amendments only he has approved in a minimal amount of time that can be expended on such legislation. Any legislation this big deserves time. Any legislation this big or with this many flaws deserves a lot of work.

I urge my colleagues, in light of these factors and others they may personally care about--and there are many more problems--to reject cloture tomorrow. It would be a clear message to the leadership that is trying to move this legislation that we are not going to have it. We want better legislation, if you want us to pass it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is a widespread perception among the people of our country that things are getting worse, not better. Polls seem to indicate that people feel that life for the middle class in the last 10 years is not as good as it used to be. By very strong numbers, the people of our country believe the economy is getting worse, not better. We are the greatest country in the history of the world, but there is something wrong when, if current economic trends continue, the young people in our country will have a lower standard of living than their parents. We are moving in many respects in exactly the wrong direction, and it is our job as Members of the Senate to turn that around and to begin making government work for all people rather than just the wealthy and the powerful who have so much power over what goes on in this institution.

I rise in strong support of the Employer Free Choice Act. I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue.

Year after year, millions of American workers have been working longer hours for lower wages. In Vermont, it is not uncommon for people to work two jobs and on occasion work three jobs in order to cobble together an income in order to cobble together some health insurance.

Consider the facts: Since 2001, median household income has fallen by nearly $1,300; wages and salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades; the number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 million since 2001, to over 46 million Americans without any health insurance today; the number of Fortune 1,000 companies that have frozen or terminated their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001. Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty since the

year 2000. So what we are seeing is the average American worker working longer hours for lower wages.

Today there are millions of Americans who work who scarcely have any vacation time whatsoever. People are losing their health insurance, they are losing their pensions, and they are sitting around looking at the reality that if we do not turn this around, their kids will be even worse off than they are--all at the same time technology is exploding and worker productivity is increasing.

Meanwhile, while the middle class shrinks and poverty increases, corporate profits today make up their largest share of the economy since the 1960s. While the middle class is shrinking, millionaires and billionaires in this country have never had it so good since the late 1920s.

Today, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The CEOs of our largest corporations now earn 400 times as much as the average worker. This is not just an economic issue, this is a moral issue. Is this what America is supposed to be about, the wealthiest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the gap between the rich and the poor growing wider every day, as the middle class continues to shrink. I do not believe that is what America is supposed to be.

At the same time, workers are seeing a decline in real wages, are being forced to pay more for their health insurance, and are seeing their pensions slashed. The CEOs of large corporations are making out like bandits.

Just one simple example: Several years ago, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, received a $400 million retirement package-- while we are paying over $3 for a gallon of gas, and ExxonMobil, last year, enjoyed the highest profits of any corporation in the history of the world.

But it is not just CEOs such as Mr. Raymond. At a time when big banks are ripping off American consumers by charging outrageous interest rates and sky-high fees, Richard Fairbank, the CEO of Capital One Financial, received over $300 million in total compensation over the past 5 years.

While consumers have been getting ripped off at the gas pump, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum, raked in over $500 million in total compensation over the past 5 years. And on and on it goes, CEOs making out like bandits, workers paying $3 for a gallon of gas, losing their health insurance, losing their pensions, losing their homes.

The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and millionaires and billionaires have never had it so good. It is our job to turn that around. There are a lot of reasons for the growing inequality in our economy, and economists may differ, but there is clearly agreement on some of the basic reasons the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider and the middle class is shrinking.

The failure, up until very recently, to raise the minimum wage is an obvious example. Millions and millions and millions of workers today-- before the new minimum wage goes into effect--are making $5.15 an hour. Yes, the U.S. Congress has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, but we could not raise the minimum wage until a few weeks ago. That is certainly one of the reasons poverty in America is increasing.

Another reason is that unfettered free trade, which forces American workers to compete against desperate workers in China, Mexico, and Vietnam, is also responsible for an increase in poverty and a lower standard of living for millions of American workers. No, American workers should not be forced to compete against desperate workers in China who are making 30 cents an hour. That is not a level playing field. That is wrong, and that is another reason the middle class in this country is in decline.

But perhaps the most significant reason for the decline in the middle class is the rights of workers to join together and bargain for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions have been severely undermined over the years.

Today, if an employee is engaged in a union organizing campaign, that employee has a one in five chance of getting fired.

Today, half of all employers threaten to close or relocate their business if workers choose to form a union.

Today, when workers become interested in forming unions, 92 percent of private sector employers force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear antiunion propaganda; 80 percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; 78 percent require supervisors to deliver antiunion messages to workers they oversee; and 75 percent hire outside consultants to run antiunion campaigns.

In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were discriminated against, losing wages or even their jobs, for exercising their constitutional right of freedom of association--a right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.

Further, Human Rights Watch has said:

Freedom of association is a right under severe, often

buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to

exercise it.

The right to come together to form a union is a constitutional right. It is under severe, unprecedented attack today.

Even when workers--who are faced with all of these enormous obstacles--win union elections, more than one-third of the victories do not result in a first contract for workers.

Today, corporate executives are routinely negotiating obscenely high compensation packages for themselves, but then they deny their own employees their ability to come together to create better wages and working conditions and better lives for themselves. That is wrong. This Senate has to stand up for those workers.

It is time to turn this around. It is time to stand up for the working people of this country. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about.

The House of Representatives did the right thing when it passed the Employee Free Choice Act by a vote of 241 to 185 earlier this year. Now it is time for the Senate to act.

This legislation is very simple. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply allow workers to join unions when a majority sign valid authorization cards stating they want a union as their bargaining representative. As Senator Kennedy has correctly pointed out, card check recognition was the law of the land in the United States from 1941 to 1966. In other words, all this legislation does is give workers the same rights they had 41 years ago.

More than half of the U.S. workforce--nearly 60 million workers--say they would join a union right now if they had the opportunity. Yet only 12 percent of the workforce has a union. This is much different from other industrialized countries around the world.

In Canada, where card check is the law of the land, twice as many workers belong to unions than in the United States. In Britain, where card check recognition is the law of the land, 60 percent of workers belong to unions.

What has strong union participation meant for workers in other countries? This is an important point to be made because it is terribly important we in the Senate see what is going on in the rest of the industrialized world, see and note the benefits workers around the world are receiving that our workers are not.

Just a few examples. In Finland, where two-thirds of workers belong to unions--guess what--unlike college graduates in the United States who are graduating $20,000 in debt, Finland provides a free college education, including law and medical schools, to all qualified citizens. That is pretty good. They encourage young people to go to college and graduate school tuition free.

While the cost of childcare in the United States is skyrocketing-- millions of American families cannot afford quality childcare--in Finland, day care is free to all citizens.

Unlike the United States, where the 2-week vacation is becoming a thing of the past, in Finland, workers are guaranteed 30 days of paid vacation and 60 days of paid sick leave.

In Norway, where the union participation rate is about 60 percent, women receive 42 weeks of maternal leave at full pay--full pay--while U.S. workers only receive 12 weeks of unpaid maternal leave.

In Belgium, France, and Sweden over 90 percent of workers belong to unions. Workers in those countries all have

much stronger pensions, health care, childcare, and vacation benefits than American workers.

In addition to the card check provision, the Employee Free Choice Act would also stiffen penalties against employers who illegally fire or discriminate against workers for their union activity during an organizing or first contract drive.

Perhaps most importantly, this legislation will make it easier for workers who win union elections to negotiate a first contract. We will end the situation where, when workers decide to form a union--they go to negotiate--the employer simply refuses to negotiate.

In order to strengthen America's middle class, we have to restore workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

After all, union workers in this country earn 30 percent more, on average, than nonunion workers who are performing the same jobs.

Madam President, 80 percent of union workers have employer-provided health insurance; only 49 percent of nonunion workers do.

Madam President, 68 percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit plan; only 14 percent of nonunion workers do.

Madam President, 62 percent of union workers have short-term disability benefits; only 35 percent of nonunion workers do.

Union workers have, on average, 15 days of paid vacation; while nonunion workers, on average, have fewer than 11 days of paid vacation.

Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. We have to do everything we can from a moral perspective to reverse the decline of the middle class, to lower our poverty rates, to improve the standard of living of American workers, and passing the Employee Free Choice Act is an important step in that direction.

Madam President, thank you very much.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.