particularly place officers who lost their lives in the line of duty this week is national police week and thursday is national peace office memorials officers memorial day here in washington d and across the country our communities are honoring the contribution of their public safety officers i think that all of us in this body would agree that our police our firefighters paramedics and all of our first responders our heroes their jobs are dangerous and they are extremely demanding but unfortunately they too often don't get the respect and gratitude that they deserve and that is why i rise  afternoon to urge my colleagues now to support the public safety employer employee corporation act which will cooperation act which would take a small step towards repaying that sacrifice and mr president  most states around the country are police and firefighters have the right to form unions in fact my brother was a firefighter in the home my home state of washington and he is a proud member of his local union but even so there are still several communities in which our first responders don't have the ability to negotiate they don't have the ability to bargain for better wages or hours or working conditions or benefits the bill that we are considering on the floor this afternoon would ensure that all of our first responders have the power to organize and stand up for their rights and i believe it will make a real difference for our public safety officers and for all of our communities i want to think senator kennedy and senator gregg for their work on this legislation their work truly has been a bipartisan effort and i hope it is a sign that the entire congress is willing now to come together to ensure that our first responders have a right most workers in our country already enjoy mr president i believe that this bill will make our police and fire department stronger and our communities safer everyone in our communities gain when our police and firefighters are working together with their employers having a voice in their work schedules in their safety procedures in their pay scales and benefits helps our police and fire departments and helps them to improve safety and reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the job and it makes most departments more efficient and a department that is safer and more efficient as a department that is then better able to respond to a crisis but mr president i believe there's another reason why we asked members of congress should vote now to guarantee the right for all first responders to organize ever since september eleventh terrorist attacks we have called on our first responders to play an even greater role in keeping our homeland safe increasingly as every one of our snow our police our firefighters our troopers our paramedics are really the eyes and ears on the ground in our cities and counties and states where  no matter how large or how small their community so i think that if we ask our first responders now to do more for our entire nation we owe it to them to ensure that they across the country have the same collective bargaining rights mr but president this bill is pretty simple the new law would only affect states that don't already allow their public safety officers to bargain collectively it doesn't set up a new system of regulation in fact it is designed to ensure states have us much freedom as possible to decide how to implement this law and it specifically allows states to keep enforcing their right to work laws states that are affected would have a year to create a process for discussion with their workers they haven't acted by then the federal labor labor relations authority would establish a way to give employees the ability to choose whether to form a union and that's it mr president unlike some of the false rumors  i've been hearing it doesn't encourage police and firefighters to go on strike in fact it specifically outlaws that it doesn't require state and local governments to adopt any particular terms it excludes our elected sheriff and other policy makers and it won't affect an employee's right to work part time or prevent them from volunteering in chart mr president this bill would be very good for our first responders and very good for our communities but mr president seen this bill become law when it just be a victory for our first responders it would be the first major victory for organized workers in the last seven years mr president unions have forged the way for millions of working families to share in the prosperity that they helped create unions help balance the relationship between employers and employees and they help to ensure that working families get their fair share of the economic pie i've been very proud to stand with working families to protect their right to organize and advocate for on the job safety and job security and fair pay so mr president if we recognize national police week what better way to honor the sacrifice our police and other first responders have given us than by ensuring they have the right to collectively bargain allowing our first responders to negotiate with their employers is the fair thing to do and it also happens to be the right thing to do i hope all of our colleagues will support them and our communities by saying yes and passing this legislation thank you mr president i yield the floor suggest ed york he's paired to speak on this would welcome his comments well thank you mr president and i am going to speak on this for a minute then on one other issue as i mentioned to the senator from massachusetts but first i want to thank him for his leadership on this issue bottom line we've made progress in this country over the last hundred years because workers can gather and bargain and simply because somebody is in a life threatening position a position that saves lives police and fire emergency medical doesn't mean they should be deprived of that right the rules might not be exactly the same and this bill is cognizance of that but at the same time for a policeman a firefighter to have the right to basically bargain and give his family a life of some decency and some dignity is extremely important so i really want to thank the leader from the education and the health education and labor committee for bringing this bill forward i think it will mark real progress and i think that again those who put their lives on the line for us police and fire should not be penalized because they are in those professions the right to bargain is an important one many many state and local workers have it it's something i've supported for my whole career and i'm proud to be a supporter of this legislation and thank the senator from massachusetts for his leadership now i rise to discuss a different issue today as well and that is the rising energy prices and to remind president bush as he leaves for his trip to the middle east that his allies saudi arabia holds the key to reducing gasoline prices here at home in the short term i along with my good colleague senator dorgan of north dakota senator casey of pennsylvania senator close but your minnesotans senator sanders of vermont plan to submit a senate resolution that would block all four pending arms deals to saudi arabia which together total one point four billion dollars unless saudi arabia shows that it that our friendship is a two way street and increases its oil production by a million barrels per day above the january two thousand and eight output level because these weapons have not yet been delivered to saudi arabia congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to get the world's largest oil producer to bring its production back up to historic levels an action that would have the single greatest impact of lowering gas prices in the short term mr president i'm very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oriel going into the spro and as senator dorgan the sponsor and somebody has pushed this issue a long time and done it well has noted that will probably reduce price about a nickel there's more it's a good first step as he would be the first to say but we can do more if saudi arabia would produce reduce production by a million barrels a day the price of gasoline would go down fifty cents a gallon almost immediately it's a short term fix as my colleagues across the aisle in this administration continue to side with big oil we have no other choice because right now it's big oil and opec that is benefiting and american families that are losing it's unfortunate where at this point eight years of poor stewardship over our nation's energy policy has left us with few alternatives and my republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country and the hundred tenth congress alone my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked four different attempts by democrats to extend the alternative tax provisions and not just for a year or two but many on june twenty first of last year the extension of energy rick raddatz received fifty seven votes on december seventh fifty three votes on december thirteenth fifty nine and on february sixth fifty eight each time republicans put up roadblocks requiring sixty votes in order to pass the bill each time the overwhelming majority of democrats voted for the bill the overwhelming majority of republicans voted against president bush opposed the bills because each would have ended breaks for big oil as if they needed more tax breaks given their record profitability meanwhile americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline  prices at the pump have skyrocketed although our president was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top four dollars a gallon this summer american households are already faced with rising fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the sub prime foreclosure crisis in the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record high prices at the pump in a sign that high prices will continue unabated the department of energy reef recently forecasted th gasoline prices would average three dollars and sixty six cents per gallon across the u s this summer twenty five percent higher than just last summer's average so i along with several of my colleagues thinks it's time to get the president at the president's attention and the leaders of saudi arabia's attention the resolution we will we have introduced today which senator reid will rule fourteen to move on to the senate calendar the same afternoon requires saudi arabia to increase their oil production by a million dollars a day or jeopardize their one point four billion of pending arms deals with the u s one of those deals includes the sale of j dams joint direct attack munitions which make conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be aimed through the window of a house the administration has warned us that saudi needs to use these weapons in their fight against terrorism but how are they going to use laser guided bombs to fight terrorists in their  very much wants the smart bomb so our resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to saudi that friendship with the u s is a two way street if the saudis want to see their weapons we need to see an increase in crude oil production within the next thirty days as we all know the principal cause underlying the raw as in gasoline prices has been a spike in crude oil prices now over one hundred twenty dollars a barrel one hundred percent increase over the crude price at this point last year and a significant portion of this price rise is due to the supply decisions made by opec the largest member of opec saudi arabia controls one fifth of the world's crude reserves and constitutes more than ten percent of daily production of crude oil in the past saudi arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting supply producing anywhere from one to five million barrels per day below capacity currently they're producing two million dollars barrels a day below capacity why mr president why right now when crude prices are at their historic high the saudis continuing to cut back on production does it make any sense it does if you're a member of  opec it does if you're exxon mobil but it doesn't if you're almost everybody else with crude oil at the highest price ever saudi and the other members of opec are making record profit and saudis not alone last month big oil companies announced some of the best profits in recorded history exxon made almost eleven billion dollars in profit last quarter eleven billion dollars so we know that opec has no incentive to increase their production right now since that w decrease their profits in fact if saudi arabia where to increase its production by one million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of twenty percent to twenty five percent in the price of crude oil crude oil prices would fall by more than twenty five dollars a barrel from the current level of one hundred twenty six in turn that would lower the plant price of gasoline between thirteen and seventeen percent or by more than sixty two cents all of the expected summer price sixty two cents if the saudis would simply produce the kind of oil that they used to produce when they were far more responsible ye saudi arabia's oil minister said that there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil but even as they're saying no no no to the u s they're saying yes yes yes to china they're doubling oil production for china this is all galling when the president goes to saudi arabia and acts as if the saudi king and the saudi leadership are our good friends here to look the american family in the eye and say that and say that saudi is a loyal ally to most americans a well armed saudi arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for gasoline heating oil and all other products upon which oil is based mr president the saudis have to understand this is a two way street and the president has to understand that the one way street relationship with saudi arabia has got to end we provide them weapons our troops provide them protections and then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price of oil just as saudi arabia feels a need to protect itself with high tech laser guided missiles american consumers and our economy need protection from record high oil prices exacerbated by opec stranglehold on supply the administration needs to use all of the leverage it has to influence the opec cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its member nations own wealth advantage it's time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the united states with kid gloves that's just what our resolution does it reminds the saudis that there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time when american families are hurting it reminds saudi arabia can take american support for granted they can choose record oil profits or american weapons but they can't have both and i'd like any member of this chamber and president bush to look the average american family in the eye and say there's nothing we can do to get saudi arabia to be responsible there are things we can do we just refuse to do them this resolution has us step up to the plate the resolution is not the final answer of course to the problem of rising gas prices and that's why i'm a proud co sponsor of s two ninety nine twenty nine ninety one the consumer first energy act of two thousand and eight that we democrats will offer on the floor before memorial day and that bill addresses underlying causes that are driving up energy prices and forces big oil to reinvest some of their record breaking profits into alternative and renewable sources of energy that are both good for the environment the consumer and break our dependence on foreign oil far below last so attack the broader bail speculation punish price gouging and put additional pressure on the opec cartel and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support mr president i'm hopeful we can move on this resolution as soon as possible so that american consumers no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy the courtesy because we've had some speakers on our so that out of the respect for their schedules we've welcomed their comments at this time but i'd like to give he focused to attention to the subject matter at hand of the matter that is before the senate and to describe in greater detail this legislation and the reason to forward in the support  for this important piece of legislation mr president to first of all i want to commend the senate for voting earlier today to take up the public safety employer employee cooperation act the house passed this bill last july an overwhelming vote of three hundred and fourteen added ninety seven and the cooperation act isn't just about protecting union rights this bill is vitally important to each and every american because  it's about safety the safety of our dedicated first responders and the safety of our nation in this new era of heightened concerns about homeland security the bill takes a major step forward in protecting our firefighters police officers emergency medical technicians another first responders from danger on the job public safety workers are on the front lines of our constant efforts in keeping america safe they are all on call twenty four hours a day seven days a week doing back breaking difficult work and doing it with great skill great hardship and great dedication we are seeing all too often how dangerous these jobs can be and mr president this use charts here illustrate this point in two thousand six more than seventy five thousand police officers were injured in the line of duty and last year one hundred forty police offices paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the line of duty see see the similar mr president with firefighters who put their lives on the line every day in two thousand and six more than eighty three thousand firefighters were injured in the line of duty and last year one hundred  fifteen firefighters paid the ultimate price and another forty five have lost their lives so far this year dangerous work mr president life threatening work and a career which men and women follow for years with great courage and dedication and commitment to the public interest and to the families of america those are the individuals that we're talking about with this legislation first responders mr president could also face the chronic long term health problems as well the courage is firefighters who rushed to ground zero on nine eleven now suffer from crippling health problems such as asthma chronic bronchitis back pain carpal tunnel syndrome depression post traumatic stress disorders they often pay the ultimate price last year so i mention two hundred fifty public safety employees across the country lost their lives in the line of duty our public safety workers do not hesitate to rush into fires wade into floods put their lives on the line in other ways to protect our homes our families our communities and they know better than anyone else what is needed to keep them as safe as possible on the job and they deserve the right to have a voice in decisions that profoundly affect their lives and their safety when governments and public safety workers are unable to cooperate through collective bargaining the workers lives are put at needless risks the numbers tell the story look at this a chart mr president where we have the states with the collective bargaining with as the underlying issue before the senate with this legislation here the states without collective bargaining have thirty nine percent more fatalities thirty nine percent higher with states without the bargaining and the reasons primarily mr president is because these firefighters know how to work in ways that can protect the public and also can provide greate safety and security for the firefighters and for first responders and police officials as well based upon their experience their knowledge of the task which is of a form and because of that they are able to have a much better safety record and that is basically what we're trying to share that kind of experience with the other firefighters and police officials and first responders in other parts of the country that don't have these kinds of protection to present behind those numbers of the tragic stories of lives that could have been saved with better communication or better coordination of effort heartbreaking example occurred last year in charleston south carolina makes recommendations with regard to safety and security in the areas of fire and in fighting fires and fortunately there is no mechanism to ensure that these concerns could be heard and addressed in june eighteenth two thousand and seven nine charleston firefighters died in the line of duty in october two thousand and seven an expert panel hired by the city to investigate the laws recommended that the department begin following the n f p a standards and begin meeting with the workers that was their recommendation after finding out the loss of law afterwards we want to try and establish a procedure to avoid those kinds of circumstances in the in the future we will never know mr president how many lives might have been saved on that day in charleston if adequate safety standards had been placed but we do know that in many of the fire departments across the country critical discussions about safety should be happening but they are not unless public safety workers have a voice on the job these problems will never be fully and fairly addressed and without the protection of collective bargaining workers are afraid to speak out with fear they'll face retaliation these fears are well founded because of countless examples of brave and dedicated first responders who have been harshly punished for raising safety concerns consider the case of firefighter stan twenty adesa texas there's this situation mr president two thousand and one stanton the president of the firefighters association adesa texas published a newsletter critical of the fire department safety practices including the inadequate staffing and equipment today was suspended without pay reprimanded downgraded in a performance evaluation and a federal court took a federal court later found that the adesa city officials violated tenney's constitutional right it took a federal case in order to do that i think of all the other stand tinnies around the country that have been intimidated by that kind of action on that we don't need that we need to have suggestions we need ideas we need recommendations about how to protect our firefighters our first responders and our police community  twenty and four of his coworkers when this incident it took place where question individually by city officials and cheney was suspended without pay reprimanded and downgraded federal court later found his constitutional have been violated the city settled tenney's claim for two hundred sixty five thousand dollars all that heartache expense could have been avoided if there'd been a mechanism in place for twenty to express his concern this legislation provides that the public safety employer employee cooperation act will give stan twenty and countless others like him a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs their health and safety and their families will give them a safer workplace and just as important will give them a right to be treated with dignity and respect it's not just individual workers who will benefit from this important enabling public safety workers and their employers to work cooperatively together makes our entire nation safer in the past decade we have seen dramatic changes in the way we protect our country national security has become a local issue every city and town in our country large and small are been a role now has a vital role in keeping us safe from harm in this new and more dangerous world state and local public safety workers are being asked to play an even larger role we've asked them to become true partners with federal security agencies in protecting our country from threats and these dedicated workers have risen to the challenge but year after year we're failing to give them the support they need to do their vital jobs as effectively as possible giving these brave men and women of voice they deserve at the bargaining table will facilitate cooperation between public safety workers and their employers will enable them to poor form their jobs more efficiently and effectively the benefits are obvious and we see them in communities across the country that have already accepted the basic principles of public safety cooperation take the example of annapolis maryland  until recently scheduling rules for firefighters and paramedics in annapolis maryland often force them as the workers to work forty eight hour shifts leaving work is vulnerable to exhaustion and dangerous  union worked with management through collective bargaining to change scheduling rows shortening shifts and improving the safety for the workers and the public doesn't sound too complicated mr president doesn't it just sounds like common sense to me and it sounds like an important step in order to provide greater safety and protection for families annapolis in annapolis workers there were concerned about the scheduling rules and through a cooperate of collective bargaining relationship union work with a managed negotiate a new schedule that met the city's need reducing the length of individual ships these obvious changes resulted in better rested more effective firefighters  paramedics with real benefits to first responders the communities they serve such cooperation also give states and local governments the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances mr president look at this chart to here the economy in tulsa oklahoma was struggling after september eleventh and through collective bargaining the mayor and the firefighters great to defer payments into the firefighters health and welfare trust one year to ferrol save the city over four hundred thousand dollars city was able to spread the repayment of the trust over a period of time providing valuable flexibility that helped the city address its budget troubles working together with the community and for the community in important to achieve been an important complement accomplishments some of my colleagues argue that grantee these collective bargaining rights will limit the ability of states and cities to respond effectively  emergency nothing could be further from the truth we have seen in the most dramatic illustration of mr president all three hundred forty three firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty on september eleventh were union members and with collective bargaining rights there's no question about their courage no question about their bravery no question about their willingness to do their duty and do it heroically when challenge that is certainly been the evidence time in and time out so we reject  those suggestions and those those observations mr president in addition for example nine eleven the port authority police offices were eight cancel and the hard schedule continued for nearly three years and neither the union nor any union member filed a single grievance not a single grievance when they were upon to meet their responsibility not a single grievance they did their duty and they did it heroically our families and communities deserve the best public safety services we can possibly provide and achieve that goal with strong foundations that comes with a collective bargain no one doubts that our communities and our country are living on borrowed time we all hope that the numerous other steps we are taking will be successful in preventing a similar catastrophic attacks it makes no sense not to make the basic rights granted by this place just a available to all america's first responders it is an urgent matter of public safety and i commend senator gregg for his leadership on this important issue now you're to my colleagues to give our heroes the respect of support they deserve by approving the cooperation act the president sent from wyoming i appreciate the opportunity to find the comment on some of these things and to do my opening statement and i do want to say that i was a little surprised by senator the senator from new york speech under schumer about primarily about the price of gas and i've got to say he's got it right that is the biggest concern on the minds of people across this country no matter what else we're talking about it's it's about the price of gas now what i learned from his speech was that we're going to be disrupted in this debate later today as the majority leader rule fourteen's a an energy bill i want to congratulate senator domenici for his work on putting together an energy bill which we had a vote on this morning and i really think that if it could have been voted on in pieces but a number of those pieces would have passed and made a difference to this country and i can see that the main thrust of the bill that we're going to be interrupted by later to take a look at is one to force saudi arabia to increase their production by a million barrels a day or give up some arms purchases for from us and see if we sell arms which i haven't looked at enough to know whether that's a good idea or not we get some money back when we force them to do a million barrels a day we give them a hundred twenty million dollars a day part of that that some people don't like was produce produce at least a million barrels of oil a day from the united states we'd be paying people in the united states for the oil not shipping it over to saudi arabia who we have to worry about what they're going to do with the arms that we sell them so i can understand that they ought to be concerned about gas and are finally concerned about gas and are going to interrupt us to be concerned about gas but we had a proposal this morning that should have gotten a little bit more consideration and some of those provisions put into effect so that we could actually solve some of our energy problem let's see now we're going to put the burden on saudi arabia my my first my first encounter with higher gas prices happened back in one thousand nine hundred seventy three i was prez of the wyoming jaycee's and we did some things to saudi arabia they weren't very pleased about and they cut us off completely now that produced the biggest crisis in this country that in my memory we had lines at the gas pumps we had people that couldn't transport things we had people who couldn't get gas we were trying to figure out ways to store gas should we ever get it again and it was because saudi arabia said ok if that's well you're going to be no oil so now we're going to say let's see that we're not going to see that at any rate i don't think we're carrying his biggest stick on this  we as we think we are and we need to be looking at a number of the solutions windfall profit tax that was a good way for us to drive our companies overseas to do their work to sell us oil that doesn't bring down the price of oil if i had my way i'd call the energy companies and i'd tell them that i want to know what they're doing with their however many billion dollars worth of profit they're doing i want to know about it weekly and i report to the american people on a weekly basis i don't suspect that that would bring down the price of oil i do suspect that would bring up the investment in energy all kinds of energy and we need to have that done so i don't mean to go on and on about this but as long as we're go called public employer employee cooperation act the fact that this bill has come to the senate today is just another example of the cynical calculus of election year politics we are still do and gotcha politics on this floor how do i know that i know that we haven't passed a bill that didn't go through committee not just the health education labor and pensions committee that i'm the ranking member on but the other committees if it doesn't go through committee it doesn't pass but here we have an issue that i'm told was passed last july by the house you know many hearings we've held on it i look back four years we haven't had a hearing on this one not a hearing on what we do at hearings is kind of inviting people to tell us some specific points that they want to make on a particular bill now you'll find that i'm not a very big proponent of hearings because the chairman and i used to be the chairman gets to invite all the people on the committee except one of the ranking member gets invite one and then people from both sides show up beat on beat up on the other witnesses that's not very productive we did switch to a system occasionally where we've had round tables round tables are a little different than hearing with roundtable jim vida and ten fifteen twenty people that have actually done something in the area and you hear what the problems are and what the advantages are and after all of those spoken then they interact with each other not senators asking clever questions they interact with each other on ways that their idea fits with somebody else's idea and it comes up with some good legislation now we have neither had hearings as vicious as they are or roundtables on this issue so how do you know what is really a good idea how do you know what the effect is going to be on other people when you don't do anything to prepare for it when you bring it right to the floor another advantage of going through committee is that you can find out what the concerns are from the amendments when it gets to the markup process and from those of men that you can say well this this might be a good idea but we've got to revise it a little bit people go off and work on that part of the idea and they bring it back in a workable fashion that will fit that both sides agree on you say it can't be done on labor issues well in the past we have we passed the mine safety bill through here in less than six weeks and it passed unanimously in the senate and it passed unanimously in the house and that's how we did it the committee process now that was the first change in mining law in twenty eight years but it was done cooperatively and it was done through the committee  process this one has i guess purposely circumvented the regular order the senate and its committee process because the scrutiny of that process would expose the multiple flaws in this legislation and we're going to have some amendments that will point out what some of the flaws are in this legislation that it's very difficult to do it here i have to put in management and we kind of voted after we voted down we can't go off and work it out so that it's agreeable to both sides it's a difficult process especially when involve a hundred people with it much easier to do it in committee so we have this bill and once again we're going to play the election years been going to do soundbites probably do a lot of press but i suspect that the result may be the same as other things that don't go through committee their calculation is simple since this bill involves unions that organize among police and firefighters i'll continue to simply claim that anyone who opposes this builds against police and firefighters you've already heard it now let's address that calculated on truth first there is no one i know of republican or democrat supporter opponent of this bill who does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police our firefighters and other first responders their contribution our communities are immeasurable and our support for them is unwavering however this bill provides no benefit to any police officer firefighter or first responders it doesn't provide a dime in federal money to any state city or town to hire or to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel in fact it only imposes costs that will make the result less likely the bill does not contain a dime of federal money or a word of language that would increase the pay or benefits of any firefighter police officer or first responders or that would hance their working conditions or that would make their job safer or make their retirement more secure it only imposes totally unfunded costs on states cities and towns that will make those rules less not more likely plain and simple the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions this bill does nothing more than open new markets for unions and it provides them with the opportunity for increased revenue from new dues paying members this bill does nothing for any police officer firefighter or first responder except to provide them with the dubious opportunity to share a portion of their paycheck with the labor union the real truth is that there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being fully supportive of our local police and firefighters and first responders and totally opposed to this bill a vote against this bill is not a vote against first responders proponents of this bill would serve both the debate and themselves better by abandoning any absurd claims to the contrary the public is simply not that gullible and i think the public is fed up with a congress that transparently panders to special interests while trying to tell the rest of the world that they're acting in everybody's interest old songs out of tune but as long as some continue to sing it it shouldn't be any surprise about the fact that the public opinion of congress is at an all time low let me now turn for a moment to some of the serious and fundamental problems with this legislation over seventy years ago the congress passed what is now referred to as the national labor relations act that legislation has been amended numerous times over the many decades of existence and it has become universally recognized as the embodiment of our national labor policy a hallmark of that policy for eight decades has been the well reasoned principle that the employment and labor relations between a state city or town and its own employees should not be a matter of federal law but a matter of local law that bedrock principle is not only rooted in our national labor policy it's firmly fixed in our constitution and our traditions of federalism for more than seventy years congress has repeatedly and consistently excluded state and local labor relations from federal control and intervention yet today the proponents of this bill seek to overturn this hallmarked principle and to radically change decades of unbroken federal law and policy the enormity of this change is only matched by the prospect that it could occur in the wake of an appalling lack of thought total disregard for the processes of the senate and complete absence of any meaningful opportunity for rational debate this body has before it a bill that would overturn more than seventy years of unbroken precedent in law it would raise profound constitutional issues it would overturn a law in a majority of states in a majority of states and completely reversed the fundamental and founding principle of our national labor policy you'd think the senate would consider such a bill only after careful examination and due deliberation but if you do think that way sadly you're wrong this legislation as i said has not a senate committee hearing or markup this congress i look back four years i could not find a single hearing or markup on this bill there have been no meaningful exploration by the help committee in this congress of the important issues that this legislation implicate this bill grants enormous power over states to virtually unknown federal agency a virtually unknown federal agency will make critical decisions about these people yet we have never so much as asked or represented sampling of state officials of their views nor have we ever informally asked the federal agency involved if it feels up to the job we're about to impose on it the shortcomings alone are ample proof that this bill is being pushed not because it's good policy but only because we see it as expedient politics in an election year this bill would require that every state every city and every town with more than five thousand residents would open its police firefighters and first responders to unionization it would impose this federal mandate not in the absence of any state consideration of this issue but in direct opposition to the legislative will of several states proponents of this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it actually does little to disturb state l good way to pass a bill i guess but not true simply not the case within the last two legislative sessions some thirteen states have officially considered and rejected legislative proposals similar to the laws that would be federally imposed under h r nine eighty of this legislation attempted to maintain the fiction that it wouldn't disturb state laws nothing could be further from the truth every expert that's reviewed this law has concluded that it's clearly in conflict with the current law in at least twenty two states these of the twenty two states some believe the number is as high as twenty six and even the bill proponents freely concede it's at least twenty one all of the states their citizens and their legislatures have expressed they considered all the issues raised in this bill and  decided on a different approach a different approach than what would be required under this bill some states have decided to use meat and confer laws some of place limits on the enforceability agreements some have limited the subjects of bargaining some have made the issue one of local option and some have decided to limit bargaining by employees to limit bargaining by employees function states cities and towns have done what they think best to provide for the safety and welfare of their own citizens in developing their labor relations policy for their own public safety employees yet we proposed a clearly over tone or overturns the democratic judgment at least twenty two states through this legislation now let's be clear we would take this action not because dates have not acted that's not the case all the states made a conscious democratic decision about what's best for their citizens in fact some sixteen of these states have considered and rejected the laws similar to h r nine eighty just within the last few years now the impact our doesn't end there experts that have reviewed this legislation and existing state laws have identified at least twelve states where this bill would raise serious legal questions about one or more aspects of their collective existing collective bargaining law see those filled in here the states these are states that supposedly have full collective bargaining statutes remember the question of whether or not an existing state law complies with the eighty is going to be figured out later by a little known federal agency the federal labor relations authority and that's devoid of any experience in state labor relations and isn't accountable to a single state government i'm sure all the technical and legal issues left unclear by this bill which bear on whether a state law complies or not will keep an awful lot of lawyers busy for a long time and guarantee a huge expansion of the federal labor relations authority now the effect of this bill however goes beyond the states where the law is clearly overturned and where it's probably overturned and where the lawyers will fight about whether it's overturned or not by federalizing state labor relations this bill will affect every state city and town in the country as a matter of state law states have the authority to effectively take items off the union bargaining table many states with collective bargaining laws already do this particularly in the area of public safety manning and staffing levels training and job requirements deadly force rules drug testing merit pay and job requirements and promotion are just a few of the examples of of the terms and conditions of employment which must be bargained but could be exempted from going by state action or  law now once you federalize this law states will lose that authority now look closely at both the senate and the house language of this bill it specifically lists only three things the state can exempt or take off the bargaining table pension retirement benefits and in one version health insurance everything else is on the table that will be the federal law over which a state can do nothing a critical problem for every state states can't be responsible for the safety of their citizens when the federal government takes away the authority they need to accomplish the job here just one example suppose a state decides to implement mandatory drug testing for public safety officers it can't just do that under federal law if a char night eighty passes any change like that would require bargaining why would we ever require that any state city or town bargain or horse trade over matters of public safety if you don't think this is a real problem you need only look at today's papers the city of boston has for years sought to negotiate a drug testing provision with its public safety union despite incidents of documented and suspected drug used by active duty personnel of the city they have not been able to implement a program we have seen the same pattern reflected in the utterly shameful situation in major league baseball and the inability to achieve any meaningful resolution despite years and years and years of collective bargaining and here's the difference baseball's again public safety isn't so let us be completely clear about we're what we propose doing with this legislation and a vote that advances this bill is the to overturn the law and the democratic will of citizens of a near majority of our states then again any boat that advances this bill is a vote to overturn the law in the democratic will of citizens of a near majority of our states to create unnecessary question and and many other states and to forever tie the hands and limit authority of every state to protect the safety of its citizens as it sees best this legislation is not only directly contrary to over seventy years of federal label but labor policy it further violates the most fundamental centuries long principles of federalism and most likely runs completely afoul of the us constitution to boot with all this in mind we should be asking ourselves what price is this congress willing to pay in an effort to integrate she ate itself to organized labor earlier this year congress transparently pandered to the special interests of organized labor and came perilously close to depriving workers of their democratic right to a secret ballot in deciding the question of unionization now read it again this time however the price of congressional pandering is the sovereign authority of states and the integrity of their democratic process since even these compelling facts are unlikely to stand in the way of politics we need to look at the legislation itself since it's not been discussed and not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction i suppose at least a few moments of legislative consideration is better than none at all in no particular order here a few of the multiple and fatal drafting and policy problems of this bill first this bill is the height of hypocrisy by the federal government this bill would require states these and towns over five thousand to provide full collecting bargaining for all their public safety employees however while requiring this is states cities and towns the federal government would continue to exempt itself from any collective bargaining obligation with regard to many of its public safety employees and see we're going to tell states cities and towns what to do but we don't tell ourselves what to do it sounds like a fox should make second this law would require states to bargain over wages of their covered employees however the federal government retune routinely ex itself from bargaining over wages with its employees on how many senators bargain with their staff moreover this bill would severely limit in fact virtually eliminate the right of state governments to determine the appropriate subjects the appropriate subjects for bargaining with their employees are rightfully retained by the federal government with regard to its employees third this legislation forces collective bargaining on states but doesn't require or ensure fundamental employee rights for example federal law preserves the right of the worker in the private sector to decide the issue of unionization by secret ballot however this legislation which imposes collective bargaining on unwilling states cities towns and their employees not only fails to guarantee the right to a secret ballot in union elections it specifically ratify is an approved state law that stripped public sector workers of this fundamental democratic right forth this legislation is a gift to organized labor that comes with none of the obligations or safeguards of three federally mandated bargaining unionized workers under current federal law have the right to information about their unions finances and those unions in this public report on their finances every year this bill would force unions on states and towns but wouldn't require union financial transparency or require that workers have access to this financial data fifth this is the gift that keeps on giving not only is there no requirement about union financial reporting and disclosure in this bill this bill also fails to contain any guarantees to the workers about how their union dues money can be spent for example workers unionized under current federal law cannot be required to contribute to a union's favorite political causes this bill which forces collective bargaining on states cities and towns that have rejected it contains no such guarantees fixed this bill would not only fail to provide any meaningful guarantee against the disruption of municipal services because of labor disputes it practically guarantees the rights of unions to cause those disruptions the bill purports to have no strike guarantee however it goes to great pains to say that it's not a strike when public safety officer refuses to carry out services that are not men that are not mandatory conditions of their employment what does that mean who decides which duties of a firefighter police officer or public safety officer that's pretty broad title are mandatory this provision appears to be nothing more than legislative code words specifically authorizing work to rule and a host of other types of disruptive job actions that have become all too familiar among public school teacher unions this bill forces unions on unwilling cities and towns and then gives those you indians a legislative greenlight to disrupt municipal services finally there's the enormous problem in this legislation the reason lights to volunteer firefighters it's no secret that the international association of firefighters the principal firefighter union in this country actively opposes the use of volunteer firefighters it has consistently sought to prevent its members from volunteering their services its own union constitution provides for the discipline finding and discharge members to do the most effective way this union has to prove him but volunteering or as they refer to it to having is the union contract clause to that effect they have sought and obtained this kind of clause in union contracts across the country and want to make sure they can continue to do so under h r nine now there's a clause in there that may be referred to but if you look at it it's weasel words it does not do what it's purported to do and it will eliminate the volunteer fire department members are being told that this problem with the bill has been fixed that's wrong it is not if you really wanted to make sure that unions had no authority to kill off volunteer fire fighting you could write a plain provision that jed did just exactly that instead both the house and senate version uses a convoluted double negative light years in a deceptive effort to claim that the problem is solved i guarantee you it is not once you unwind the language you will find that both the house and senate versions of this bill leave the door wide open to an all out union assault on the use of volunteer firefighters in twenty five states volunteer firefighters account for all or most of the staffing in more than ninety percent of the department statewide in fourteen states volunteers account for all or most of the staffing and more than eighty percent of the department with just two exceptions in the remaining eleven states volunteers account for all or most of the staffing in more than sixty percent of the departments no state can provide fire protection in its cities towns and rural districts without volunteer firefighters anyone who even considers advancing this legislation ought to be completely sure that it couldn't have a negative effect in their state these problems represent only the tip of the iceberg this bill is quite simply a prime example of terrible policy being badly executed without process president to bring up another point regarding this legislation that's also critically important this bill imposes an enormous unfunded federal mandate on states cities and towns across the country i want to take in a minute and address this serious concern not only from my current position as u s senator but from my former position of mayor gillette wyoming city of about twenty two thousand people as i look around this chamber there are not many here that have had any experience with trying to balance a budget of a city or town so i guess we should understand why they would pay so little attention to the very real financial consequences of their actions on thousands of municipalities they ought to just week after teetering on the brink of insolvency the city of l a hope california finally declared bankruptcy everyone has acknowledged that the cause of the late hos financial problems were plain and simple the spiraling costs of their police and firefighters labor agreements the law is not alone in the last few years a number of other cities and towns of teetered on the brink were actually been forced into bankruptcy mccall idaho toledo ohio but we usually don't realize in this body is those bodies don't get to print their own money they actually have to work with the revenue that comes in and most of them have severe limitations on the ability to raise money they can't raise taxes if they wanted to so the revenue is limited but the costs go up what do you do here's the reality without regard to pay or benefits just the administrative costs alone of collective bargaining represent a very very significant line item that congress now proposes to force on states cities and towns towns particularly small towns of currently don't have the resources to negotiate and administer multiple multiple collective bargaining agreements this isn't just going to be one it's multiple they'd have to hire and pay for those additional services towns and cities that did not devote the long hours of municipal time to the complicated process of bargaining and overseeing multiple union contracts and to administering contract and to resolving disputes under a collective bargaining system will be required to spend that time nobody should be fooled those additional manpower and man our requirements are enormously costly and burden this bill would impose those costs by federal mandate but would not provide a single penny of federal help to offset those costs make no mistake the congress here is proposing to buy organized labor a free lunch and stick america's small towns with the bill as a former mayor and is the only account here in the senate i'd remind my colleagues about the cold reality is that municipal finance if you increase municipal costs you have only two ways to meet those increased cost either increase revenues or decrease services this bill will unquestionably placed many municipalities in that difficult position of choosing between raising state and local taxes which they probably won't have the capability to do or decreasing and eliminating local municipal services which they don't want to do or the members of this body so completely out of touch with the real needs of their constituents and the real fiscal problems that their cities and towns face every day that they would impose these unnecessary costs and burdens with stagnant or declining property values and the endless parade of increasingly fixed costs like the gas we talked about early don't our cities and towns already have enough on their plate without the federal government imposing yet another new cost on them this isn't an imaginary problem remember the experience in vallejo california and a host of other cities and towns that i mentioned and didn't get to mention across the country that make it clear that this problem is very real for all these reasons mr president i'm opposed h r nine hundred eighty and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation now kelly will have a chance to make some corrections to this thing and particularly on the flaws that i've pointed out there are others that ought to be done i would just simply quickly recap here that this didn't go to committee it's an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government it directly overturns existing laws in twenty two states it casts doubt on a dozen more sixteen states have recently considered and rejected legislation very much like this calls into question constitutionality and no hearing no markup that provides unfunded mandates it would impose costs on small towns i don't know how many of you think that five thousands a big city actually in wyoming is thirty five hundred considered a first class city but five thousand is not a very big town there isn't as much expertise i'd  mention that another piece of this bill says that the requirement is imposed when there are twenty five employees it doesn't say twenty five public safety employees it doesn't say twenty five people it would be covered by this it says flat twenty five i'd suspect that there are a lot smaller towns in five thousand that have twenty five employees that's that's pretty small amount and that's not the same as the public safety employees so they'd either have to cut services or raise taxes  going into bankruptcy the bill really doesn't contain any worker protection for them getting to vote on whether they have a union or not and it puts in charge a little known federal agency and again it's pretty hypocritical of us we haven't imposed this on the federal government but we're willing to impose it on those little places that back home that i think will regret and  senator senator from massachusetts my friend from from utah on the floor just to we did have three speakers that on our side and we're going to do our best we can to balance it so if  public employees give to the public i could not agree more any given day one of these officers may be asked to put his or her life on the line and they will do so willingly and courageous i agree with my colleagues that individuals who choose these careers deserve respect gratitude and special treatment but the bill that we are considering today would actually result in diminishing the rights of public safety employees who are not currently unionized once a workforce is unionised even employees who do not wish to be part of the union will have paid a ducted from their paycheck spent in a manner outside of their control and they will have very little ability to question or alter the legal representation th guaranteed the right to vote by secret ballot limit the right of public unions dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses and allow financial transparency by ensuring that public safety employees in all states have the right to vote on whether to unionize by secret ballot my minute guarantees for public safety employees that same right that private employees now have in a democratic society nothing is more sacred than the right to vote and it that nothing ensures truly free choice more than the use of the private ballot the possibility of coercive or threatening behavior toward employees who may not wish to form a union is even more concerning in the context of public safety employees who rely on coworkers to reduce the deadly risks they faced routinely in the course of their important work the amendment would also limit the right of public unions dues collection of authority to non political uses those that choose public services often accept lower pay than they might make in the private sector because they are dedicated to public service let's not insult that choice by allowing labor bosses to take money from that paycheck and spend it on purely political causes that the employee does not support i believe public employees should have the same protections from fraud and abuse as private employees mind the it would empower public employees by allowing them to observe how their dues are being spent and the other financial dealings of their unions it does this by bringing public unions under the requirements of the labor management reporting and disclosure act and one hundred fifty nine law enforced with bipartisan support including then senator john f kennedy public employees and pay union dues especially those that are compelled to do so against their wishes are no less than titled the financial transparency and fraud protections in the private sector employees covered under the law today so i urge my colleagues to support this amendments of the simple amendment i think it provides for protections that ought to be there if this bill should pass these protections that a minimum ought to be part of this bill and and mr president are you on the floor speak in in just a short time in response to my friend and colleague from wyoming if this legislation did what he suggested it did i wouldn't be as far as direct or support the legislation either i'll go into some detail in explaining  what the legislation does do and what it doesn't do and i just to reaffirm with regard to the senator from utah this issue about having a secret ballot or non secret ballot we leave up to the states and that i think is rather than trying to mandate that the state law has been talked about here by giving the states the options about how to proceed we say on both of the items that the senator drafts but the states are the ones that  make those judgments and the determination will have a longer time to debate that i think the senator from new jersey thank you mr mr president and let me first say that i  appreciate the senator from massachusetts and his leadership in this regard and i have come to the floor that only to acknowledge his leadership on the this critical piece of legislation but to speak strongly in support of the public safety employer employee cooperation act effort mr president this bill is about protecting some of the most basic fundamental rights of america's bravest and find us public servants our nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day that sometimes only comes vividly to us when we lose one of those brave men and  women and their lives are lost in the line of duty but the reality is they are at risk every day risking everything they have to protect us to protect complete strangers to protect their communities at a moment's notice their own call to respond to natural and manmade disasters of every size scope and severity these men and women are firefighters emergency management technicians police officers first responde are paid prepared day in and day out to go to any length to save the life of a complete stranger they have one goal to keep others safe in those moments they don't think about anything else as they rush to respond to a fire they're not thinking about their job security as they risk their lives in a collapsing building they are not doing it in return for a higher wage as they put themselves into harm's way they are not thinking about the benefits their family might receive if the worst should happen there's a president two thousand and six more than seventy five thousand police officers were injured in the line of duty and last year one hundred forty police officers paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the line of duty in two thousand and six more than eighty three thousand firefighters were injured in the line of duty and a hundred and fifteen firefighters paid the ultimate prize this year alone another forty five have lost their lives mr president today we have an opportunity to thank these selfless heroes not just with words but with our actions we have an opportunity to guarantee the rights of those who work to protect our lives and safety every day in short we have an opportunity to fix what is wrong and do what is right this legislation simply gives first responders the same rights that virtually all americans enjoy the right to collectively bargain and have a voice about their working conditions to come together in common cause to achieve a better standard now a majority of the states already confer this right to collective bargaining including my home state of new jersey this bill would give public safety officers across the country that right it would ensure that if they choose if they choose to they can join a union and bargain over wages hours and working conditions now i was a former mayor i did not have the challenges of having a unionize police force and fire fighting force that ultimately worked in contradiction to the interests of my minutes of power i did not and certainly in the urban eyes context in which i was that was a bigger challenge than others so the reality is i do not believe that the right to collectively organize want to magically means the dire consequences that some of portray as it relates to this legislation in new jersey we recognize how important it is for first responders to have a strong working relationship with the minutes  sir we recognize these public safety officers deserve the dignity and respect to have a say in their wages hours and working conditions and we recognize that when public safety employers and employees work together the research the results say a service extremely well now some of my colleagues will try to argue this legislation will hurt volunteer firefighters by limiting the amount of time professionals volunteer while off duty we have volunteer firefighters in new jersey alongside those who are organized at the same time and that is not simply been the case this is simply incorrect as the legislation specifically for bids and the state from putting limits on professional firefighters who volunteer during their off duty outs others are saying this legislation could effectively repeal state's right to work laws again this legislation specifically allows states to enforce right to work laws the bill makes no change in states that have right to work laws and would not prevent any of the states from adopting  new right to work laws so let's be honest about what the bill actually does say it does not dictate how states should approach this issue the bill only requires local governments to engage in negotiations if if workers choose to join a union it respects the authority of local legislative bodies to approve or disapprove funding for any negotiated agreement the bill only affects states that don't already provide their public safety officers with the right to bargain collectively states that do not have these protections can choose to establish their own collective bargaining systems mr president i hope we realize what is at stake here beyond in this which is something that is fundamentally important particularly for those who risk their lives every day we're talking about safety in states where there are not not collective bargaining protections for workers but palaces are thirty nine percent higher that's a fact in states where there is not collective bargaining opportunities they tally these are thirty nine percent higher the fact is greater protections for workers lead to better safety conditions a we see in this time and time again in which the negotiation some people think it's only about money and it's not just about money when i was a mayor some of the most significant negotiations where about the standard under which you operated which was not only important as it related to the firefighter of the police officer but w important is that related to the response time and the ability to perform the services that ultimately save property and save lives so some people think this is all about simply money and better making more and having better benefits a lot of it was about working conditions and the nature of how one in fact applies their profession in a way that not only save lives but also of those who serve firefighters and police fire and police officers but also save the lives of those they were sworn to protect because they had a better system breathing apparatus having the ability to have the technology to enter into a fire and be able to detect someone who had been immobilized often that negotiation was not about money but about can we have this equipment that is essential for us to perform our duty in behalf of those we also want to sir so it seems to me that we have to understand that there is a direct correlation between the benefits that often are on the negotiating table to citizens not just to those who serve but to citizens in terms of having greater lifesaving capabilities for me as a mayor that was often what i heard as the negotiations be about and i thought it was exemplary that we were negotiating over how do we better save lives at the end of the day and i think that any time that we can have the reality that more lives are saved because in fact the collective bargaining system allows to create a circumstances under which not only the workplace in the profession but the lives of the citizens of those communities are say is something worthy of achieving with the center you have to you know i'm always appreciate hearing from the senator from new jersey but i i would hope our colleagues would listen carefully to what to the senator from new jersey has said because he comes to this a debate and discussion as a former mayor and mayors as we all know have the have had the special relationships obviously with fire and also with the police they have the right on the firing line and so when i hear the senator from new jersey talk about the value as a former mayor he can see the value in terms of safety and security to the people in that community as a result of this legislative legislation in terms of co cooperating kind of a  discussion and arrangement that says a good deal because we have had some that have presented a situation which of course is not accurate where this is going to be imposing  extraordinary hardships additional kinds of burdens and unfunded mandates on on mayors particularly in smaller very communities and to really do a great disservice actually in terms of the whole relationship between the public safety offices and the security of the community and so i'm particularly value his comments on this on this aspect of the the bill there's obviously a number of other important aspects of it but as it relates to small small towns i forget the actual population of the or the size of the community of the city that the good senator was the mayor of but in any event if he could just elaborate on again on his views about this legislation and its importance to to mayors as well as to firefighters i think it'd be very helpful because he speaks from a very practical experience i appreciate the senator from massachusetts in which we had about sixty thousand people in the community at the time but it was a challenge sixty thousand people and one point one square miles the most densely populated city for square mile in the nation and so the uniqueness of some of those challenges of having police and firefighters be able to respond was  but i've also was part of the mayor's coalition in the state of new jersey at the time and you know that coalition represented urban suburban rural mayors and throughout the state of new jersey they had obviously the right for collective bargaining and to be honest with you i don't recall any of those mayor saying that collective bargaining was the bane of their existence as it related to be able to produce the services and i think that the the the reality is is that what we do here through this process is that we build strong partnerships between first responders and the cities in the states in which they serve and when public safety employers and employees work together it not only reduces worker fatalities and of course work of fatalities have a consequence even in a non collective bargaining system and you know they're there obviously clearly claims against the minutes apology but above all improve the quality of the services and the delivery of those services at the end of the day and i believe that in a post september eleventh world having resided in a state that lost the hundreds of people on that fateful day and in a community that saw or seven hundred lost on that fateful day that these are individuals who now play a critical role far beyond what we envisioned originally or what their history has been which is certainly producing the safety in our communities from the normal challenges of crime burglaries daffs you know robberies or assaults or maybe even more minor roads and traffic violations and now these first responders across the landscape of the country face a much heightened response stability they play a critical role in homeland security so by enhancing cooperation between these public safety employers and employees i believe that the legislation helps to ensure that vital public services run as smoothly as possible you know it's interesting a every every new york city firefighter into a police officer respond to the disaster of the world trade center on september eleventh was a union member under collective bargaining agreement and i believe that their ability to have been entered graded in their negotiations with the city's about all aspects of the delivery of their services gave some of the most incredible responses on that fateful day there is no there isn't a reason why we cannot see that take place across the country in terms of readiness so i believe that if we look at the bill that it only requires local governments to engage in negotiations if workers choose to join a union that that is a ever have a low threshold and again states that don't have these protections can choose to own collective bargaining systems so mr president i hope we realize what is at stake here the safety is can credibly at state you know twenty nine states along with the district of columbia currently guarantee all public safety workers the fundamental right of collective bargaining now with the house of representatives overwhelmingly overwhelmingly approving companion legislation almost a year ago it's hard to believe that the senate will not act in fact it is time for the senate to act and to respond with eighty thousand firefighters seventy six thousand police officers being injured in the line of duty each year the time come to ensure that these workers are protected it's time to put our votes where our values are you know it's interesting to me how very often  those of us and serve in this body and the other body you know we we want to be there with police and firefighters who want to take our picture with them acknowledge them we appreciate their services we talk about their but that's time for all of that talk to be meaningful is when you come to the united states senate and you cast a vote to simply have a right that is so fundamentally fundamentally basic  that we have believe that to be truly an american right and so all those pictures all of those speeches it's time to put that vote here to work it's time to put our votes where our values are sometimes to uphold the rights of those who provide for our safety it is time we show how much we appreciate the dedication and bravery of our nation's heroes who take this risk every day so i  i think all of us in this body know that the good senator represents a state new jersey in this case which had suffered extraordinary loss at the time of nine eleven and a number of those  many of these families there there are laws and that is why i believe the senate is the strongest support for this legislation as a former mayor and also someone that knows and has person experience with these firefighters can speak so authoritatively about what this legislation can really mean in terms of the safety and security of the community and also with regard to the safety and security of the firefighters police offices first responders as the as senator agree with me that those that and their brothers and sisters the perhaps were not lost on that day but in a very real sense brothers it says this of those first responders that were lost on the nine eleven many of whom lived in his district that they feel that this legislation will help and assist the providing safety and security of the people whether it's in new jersey or in the communities they represent and that they are supporting this legislation because they are very hopeful and prayerful that we will never again face that kind of tragedy that we face but that they believe that this legislation can help provide additional safety and security for their communities and for their for their fellow citizens the appreciate the senator from massachusetts question and the chairman of the committee and the answer is yes senator kennedy the fact is is that new jerseyans have this right and yet every year when i have had visits from firefighters and police officers they have talked about this legislation because they understand even though they already have the right they never want to visit another state where the loss  of one of their fellows in the service who will have committed the ultimate sacrifice they understand very powerfully that this ability to negotiate as i suggested earlier isn't just about salaries look you don't do this type of work for a salary you don't do this type of work for a pension you don't do this type of work for certain benefits you do this type of work because you are committed to the proposition that you are willing to sacrifice your life in return for saving someone else and that and that is incredibly important and and finally you know the reality is i found it interesting in those negotiations that i used to have a as a mayor when we were negotiating very often as i said before about the ability to perform the job because it was with the mission in mind goals that was taken to save lives that that more often was on the table than the question simply about salaries or pensions or benefits they know that their interaction with their governmental bodies in performing and having a service that far beyond that which may exist in those states that do not permit that interaction through the collective bargaining system that in fact lives can be saved lives of their fellow firefighters lives of their fellow police officers and most importantly lives of their fellow citizens and that's why they have come and advocated for this legislation even though they already enjoyed the benefit they understand the potential benefits for a much broader  just asked so i see other centers that want to address the senate we've been reminded about how my how long we've been considering this legislation and how important is that we do it at the present hundred ninety nine and the senate even voted on it in two thousand and two and we had a health committee meeting on this hearing on this same this is the time we're talking about homeland security and we're talking about first responders talking about those firefighters and police offices now is the time to permit them to be fully engaged involved in further advancing the safety and security of our of our colleagues with the senate did not agree with me that this ought to be this is a subject matter that we ought to we have full awareness of and knowledge legislation and it is even more appropriate today we face challenges on like any other time in our history as it relates to what police and firefighters are called to do go far beyond their traditional roles and they need to have a voice as it relates to how they respond to these new challenges and to their new roles and finally i would just simply say you know even when they negotiate i know i know new york city firefighters didn't say well we don't have enough men on the rig caught into our contract so we're not going to go respond on september eleventh or enough police officers that you know we don't have two people car two men cars patrolling so we're not going to go response that is never been the case of those who serve they have an ultimate calling they live with that calling every day and we need to live to our ultimate calling here in the senate to respond to the challenges they face each and every day and to give them the right and the dignity that they deserve to be able to negotiate not only for themselves and their families for the well being of the citizens they serve and with that mr president  set aside the pending amendment is there objection without objection present i've sent to the amendment i'm sent to the dance going to men and ask for its immediate consideration and i believe them with senator administrator officers of the cities in the states the opportunity to certify that this legislation would be in their circumstances contrary to the best interests of public safety number one or would result in an increase in local taxes and a decrease in the level of public safety rather municipal services and other words if this amounted to an unfunded federal mandate it would not be effective let me let me speak to the unfunded mandate aspect of this legislation and it's interference with the prerogative of states those are two different two different ideas and two very important ideas in the american fabric  let me first begin by saying that we're talking here about some of the most honored men and women in our country firefighters policemen other public safety workers that's true in tennessee as well we have over seven hundred fire departments we're grateful for the heroism of firefighters everywhere nine eleven local firefighters in tennessee and across the southeast are among the first on the scene after the deadly tornadoes earlier this year we are deeply grateful for that charles martinez from marable my hometown was a tennessee firefighter of the year in two thousand for for giving his kidney to a fellow firefighter we deeply a that in two thousand and six lieutenant terrence andrews of chattanooga was named tennessee firefighter of the year for his dramatic rescue during a house fire at which he pulled the security bars away from the wind of the say virginia humphries mr humphrey was injured miss humphrey was injured and spent some time in the hospital and she fully recovered i admire lieutenant terence andrews bravery another example firefighter shane dotty of the highway fifty eight volunteer fire department chattanooga died in the line of duty in january of last year when he was trying to rescue a family we mourn his life and  the bravery of that individual so all of us admire and respect of the bravery of firefighters and other public safety employees but that's not what we're talking about here a better name for this bill would be the washington knows best unfunded mandates act because in the name of some of the men and women we respect the most our firefighters our policemen another's we are about to commit of washington's worst and most flag since and that is number one to take away from states and communities their right to decide their own labor relations what it ought to be and number two to pass an expensive piece of legislation make it sound good take credit for it and then send the bill hold to mayors and governors and local officials will have to either raise taxes or cut services to deal with it's an unfunded mandate in that sense the current supreme court last suggests that the tenth amendment permits the federal government to require state compliance with the general regulatory scheme but does not permit the federal government to require states in their sovereign capacities to regulate their own citizens the argument made by the distinguished senator from new jersey basically boils down to this we have it so we're going to make tennessee we've decided in new jersey that it's a good idea so i'm going to fly to washington and impose it on tennessee and on georgia and on while me and on twenty one other states which have different laws this is not a new subject we haven't been waiting a long time to discuss this we debated and discussed this law every year i was governor of tennessee in the one nine hundred eighty s which is where it's supposed to be discussed because we're discussing the labor relations of the state of tennessee  it was discussed almost every year in the one nine hundred ninety s and rejected by the legislature of tennessee and in an entire series of years i have here the years in which it was sitter and rejected by our state so tennessee is considered this specific question in both the state house and the state senate which i might add our majority democratic during all of this hundred seven tennessee said we prefer to have a law in tennessee that provides that mayors and local officials deal directly with public safety employees such as firefighters and police officers we believe that that is the best way to encourage the public safety to have strong communities and to provide the best labor management relationship in our state the state legislature said that in ninety seven the democratic state legislature set it again in ninety nine senate again in two thousand and one again in two thousand and three again in two thousand fine so in our state in the state of tennessee  will grant that a different rule might be good for new jersey but we've decided over the last two or three decades that that's not good for our state now what are we talking about here what we're saying in this law in this federal law which will be imposed and as senator from wyoming has said it affects every state in america but in twenty one states like ours it overturns our law it says basically that a mayor is required to recognize a union leader if he wants to sit down or she wants to sit down and talk with policemen and firemen and other public safety employees about pay benefits and work rules it takes away the decision that says we believe it's better for the mayor to deal directly with those employers i don't know what that will do to improve working conditions or cooperation or the public safety but i'm confident it will curb course hundreds of thousands of local policemen and firemen to pay union dues and fatten those treasur so we're saying that what's good for new jersey what's good for massachusetts is good for tennessee and what i'm saying is that we've got ninety towns in tennessee will be forced to change how we deal with our public employees because someone in new jersey or someone in massachusetts or other states thinks that's what we ought to do not only does washington know best according to the advocates of this legislation washington knows best how to spend our money because what are these discussions about their discussions about whether in a town of six thousand such  example we've got really good schools there and that my father ran for the school board after world war two with the ticket of men and women who said we're going to take all the money we've got and we're really going to focus on having great schools and so in that blue collar town where at the time most of the people work for the alcoa plant middle income community lower middle income by and large we slowly build up a cult culture a very good schools and about seventy five percent of i remember the figures correctly of the local tax dollars go to make those schools superior they they win the academic scores year in and near out now what we're saying to marable is ok we the senator from new jersey in the center of massachusetts have a better idea for you folks unmarriable we're going to impose on you a different way of dealing with your policemen and firemen as a result of that some labor union leader from massachusetts new jersey may come into  instead of spending seventy five percent of your money to make your schools better we want you to do this that or the other about public safety and reduce the spending on schools and increase the spending for salaries of public safety people one could make that argument but so far the people in my hometown has said we rather we'd rather not do it that way we'd rather make education our priority we think we have a super good police force and we're very proud of them but we like the way we're doing things same in sweetwater and irwin involve over and rockwood in churchill in millersville ninety of our ninety of our town since tenn would suddenly we'd be doing things the new jersey way the new york way we want to do things in new jersey way we've moved to new jersey we moved to massachusetts we've moved to new york those are wonderful sit states but we don't choose to live there we like to do things our way and we've always been able to we've always been able to that we don't have a chance to do that just out of common sense common sense would suggest it is a big complex country of three hundred million people where people come from all over the world and and freedom and liberty is our value that  we allow people as much as possible to do things in different ways as long as they meet with certain constitutional rights as senator byrd likes for us to carry around in our pockets the the constitution of the united states to which we took oath to to honor and it says in the amendment ten the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people in other words it says that in the united states of america might not be true in some other countries in the world in the united states of america unless a says the federal government shall do it the states do it and so we've been doing it we  don't say in this country if new jersey does it in the center of new jersey thinks it's a good idea to do in tennessee make them do it that's not the way we say it so i don't believe this legislation is constitutional among other things let me also say that is a former governor trying to make a temperate speech about this about this legislation because i feel so strongly about it but i will say this is a former governor when i was sitting there in nashville nothing made me mad then to look up to washington and see some congressmen and i'll have to say sometimes they were republicans and sometimes they were democrats but somehow they flew to washington they got smarter than they were when they were back in these small towns in which they grew up and they would say in washington hey i have a great idea and they would pass it into law and hold a press conference and take credit for it and then they'd send a bill to me the governor and then what would happen well the next week that same congressman it was a republican be home in knoxville make it a lincoln day speech bragging about local control and the democrat would be a national make a jackson day speech bragging about local control and i'd be paying the bill that's not right that's called an unfunded federal mandate and the american people don't like it i'll tell you how much they don't like it i was one of those senators there a lot of us i've noticed who felt a calling to run for the presidency of the united states a few years ago in the middle of the nineties  i didn't make it my preacher brother in law said it was a reverse calling that i didn't make it is a because the people that i shouldn't be doing something else i'm here but i remember ninety four and ninety five and ninety six that there was a strong resent in this country toward being told what to do from washington d c people are headed up to here and the republicans seized on that and i remember newt gingrich and a lot of republican candidates for congress standing on the courthouse i mean the capitol steps in here and saying no more unfunded mandates and they put in something called the contract with america and the first piece of legislation that was passed by the new republican congress elected overwhelmingly by the people asked one was the un fund no one funded federal mandate that was asked one we're not going to do it anymore if we're going to pass it we're going to pay for it well this legislation doesn't pay for it it might tell irwin unmarriable and al cohen if you last year in ninety other towns in tennessee what they need to pay firefighters and what they need to pay policemen might tell me to pay them or create an environment that creates a higher salary perhaps or bigger benefits but it doesn't pay the bill now what the republican congress said in one thousand nine hundred four was no more unfunded mandates if we break our promise throw us out and in fact the people have and i think part of the reason is because some republicans forgot about no unfunded federal mandates so i would urge my colleagues to to recognize that to impose up on a state as as different as tennessee might be from new jersey is wyoming might be from georgia we don't need the same rules and regulations were capable in our hometowns of making a good decision about how to have good labor relations how do how how to deal directly with our volunteer firemen we have seven hundred fire departments in tennessee seven hundred and lots of different ways of dealing with them and we don't need anybody from new jersey or massachusetts or somewhere else telling us what how we should deal how we should deal with them this is an ominous trend tennessee is also a right to work state now i know that this legislation has a little section this doesn't interfere with right to work well i wonder about that maybe this legislation by itself doesn't is explicit terms but of the federal government can say in new jersey and new york and and other states we have a union shop in other words employees don't have the opportunity to make a choice about whether to join a union why can't they say it's good for new jersey let's let's have it in tennessee not a very big step or of new jersey or some other i'm not this picking on new jersey but they're senator was here saying this good for him would be good for us they might say we have we don't see any need for the secret ballot in union elections let's just let employees sign cards at it a lot easier to organize and if it's good in new jersey or new york or california it's good for tennessee a lot of people move to tennessee because they prefer our level of taxes they prefer the right to work they prefer the relations that we have between employers and employees i magine that the auto industry which is now one third of our manufacturing jobs in tennessee is there because we have a different labor environment then in some other parts of the country that doesn't mean we don't have union workers we have a lot of them in fact in the mid eighty's a lot of people paid attention to us in our state because here came the nissan plant which even today is non union and it's the largest most efficient automobile plant in north america making five or six hundred thousand cars the trucks a year and right right next door fifteen miles away is general motors saturn plant and when general motors came the united auto workers came and they're a partnership and both plants are successful there's been some shifting and changing at the general motors plant but it's back on track and so we have both plants there one where employees are required to join the union one where people have a choice to join the union and we like it that way and i think they like it that way and now we're the third or fourth largest state in suppliers they seem to like it that way so why would we do it the way some other state does if we figured out a better way to do it in our opinion particularly in the united states of america where we have a tenth amendment to the constitution we believe in federalism and we're a decentralized society so messed up mr president i am i am very worried about this piece of legislation i think it's bad for tennessee it's bad for our labor management relations we have enough common sense in our state our democratic governor our democratic house of representatives our republican state senate now to make these decisions for ourselves why do we need senators telling us this then when we get in the majority we might say what's good for us in tennessee is good for new jersey and change their law or what's good for us would change new york so we don't care about new jersey's law as long as we follow the constitutional rights of the people the united states we'd like to settle things that come to the mountains of tennessee my great grandfather was asked his politics he said i'm a republican i fought with the union and i vote like i shot the reason we're union republicans in the civil war and still today is because we didn't want the federal government telling us what to do and this is an extreme example of serious meddling one last example and then i will i will stop the argument is well if we can only force all these ninety tennessee communities to collectively bargain that will improve public safety well how do we know  that maine is new jersey and new york safer than tennessee do we know that for sure or let's take the one example in tennessee where we have required communities to to collectively bargain and that is with teachers and the unit in the cases is the net an arm of the national education association i've had some pretty important disagreements with my friends in the tennessee education association over the last twenty five years about what's good for education for example i thought it would be a good idea to reward outstanding teaching pay teachers more for teaching well and twenty five years ago our state became the first to do it and we created a career ladder system and we raise taxes in order to offer every single teacher a seventy percent pay increase on the state's share there and ten thousand teachers went up that ladder and guess who the number one opponent of that was the teachers union not albert shanker in the american federation of teachers but the national education association so i'm not criticizing them they are very open about that they don't like the idea of paying teachers more for teaching well i think to improve education we should so does that really improve education in tennessee to allow a require that collective bargaining or another  example i notice a lot of teachers are worried about being sued by parents i think that's not right why not offer teachers the same liability insurance that the state provides to state employees the tennessee education association raised its dues to defeat my proposal because they offer liability insurance that improve education in tennessee or charter schools i think charter schools are a good idea of public charter schools that leave teachers free to make their own decisions about the kids who are there but the teacher's union disagrees that's a legitimate difference of opinion but i think i'm right they think i'm wrong but does that improve tennessee schools to have them their choices for parents i think the best thing to do in nashville for example where schools are having a very difficult time might be to ask all the parents where they like to send their kids to school and see if we can do it given their first second third choice to see if we could probably supply them the teachers union as opposed to that and even when we were bringing  auto industry the tennessee bring in the nissan plant first time we've ever had those jobs right as our family incomes i wanted to build a road out of the plant was state dollars and the teachers union objected because they wanted me to give the money to them i thought that was short sighted or to the teachers i thought that was shortsighted because i thought if we improve the tax base we have the money to improve education so there are differences of opinion about what would improve education and there are differences of opinion about what would improve public safety we like our opinions instead of the mr president and that's why we don't like this bill so i will offer my amendments when the appropriate time comes i would urge my colleagues you may be right about your own home state maybe it's better to require all your communities to to collectively bargain maybe that improves safety and new jersey or new york or somewhere else but in tennessee we've we've considered almost every year for the last twenty five years and we've decided a different way we believe states ought to have the right to decide what their own regulate labor relations ought to be we do not believe it is right for the federal government to impose unfunded mandates on us and cause us to pay our extra bills at a time when the gov is laying off people in our state because there's not enough tax dollars coming in this is the gross is sort of interference with the sovereignty of our state we have a strong bipartisan opinion about this in tennessee and that is why i'm so vigorously opposed to this piece of legislation it should be called the washington knows best unfunded mandate act i'm going to seek to amend it and i'm going to do my best to defeat thank you mr president i yield the floor the senator from vermont is present  distinguished republican manager of the bill senator enzi have a chance to see what it is before i do it but i'm just describe a little bit before i do call it up if member would reauthorize and extend the bulletproof vest partnership grant program of a sword from baltimore and i know his family father served as a police officer in burlington vermont when i was a prosecutor there are these he felt the bruises and not and this week thousands was forced on us are very round the country have come to washington to honor the men and women to give their lives in service over the past year and i think one thing that everybody in the senate going to agree on all americans could agree on that we should offer our gratitude to the officers and their families on thursday may fifteenth this week congress and the american people are going to pause to reflect upon the sacrifices too many have made as we celebrate peace officers memorial day this week of the police officers memorial will recognize remember the one hundred eighty one extraordinary losses on nine eleven and its aftermath think of that one hundred eighty one officers lost it lost in the line of duty also means a family lost a loved spouse father a mother son daughter brother or sister and we need to do all we can for the men and women to rest a life protected us and public safety every day and i was proud to initiate the bullet proof vest partnership that was senator ben nighthorse campbell in one nine hundred ninety eight both of us relied on our own experience in law enforcement experience both of us had and law so here's a number when candidates a good way to reduce federal spending when it comes to the safety of law enforcement officers i can think of no rational excuse not to fully me congress is determined level of support for the men and women who  hundreds of millions some as a billion dollar sent to iraq and misspent this just on the police forces there large sums of cash and weapons disappear that we sent over thousands of weapons we didn't even know where they went though some of them were showed up in the hands of the people trying to kill our own soldiers now we can abort the nation paper training and equipment for the iraqi police we would be able to for bulletproof vest for the offices of protect americans here at home there is money in the president's budget for the iraqi police force i'd like a little bit of money in the budget for american police forces i work for that when these police officers the years i was state's attorney i think we are stepping a little bit of tension here at home national security we're called upon to cooperate with federal authorities of fighting interstate crime when the federal government ought to provide and support what your nation strange eyes and our rule of law and congressman support the men and women who oppose the laws protect our democracy so the bullet proof vest partnership grant act expires next year so the member and i will call i will want a little bit of time to talk about at least two of the amendments and probably mention on the one that we just had i have to review a little bit of the bill that is not in the bill yet to see on that but  on the on the underlying bill we have two amendments that have been suggested one for public employees bill of rights and the other one for an unfunded mandate exemption and i will the senator from new jersey the former mayor of the community of sixty thousand made some comments about how this bill would work and i wanted to point out that sixty thousand pretty big city and a lot a lot of states around this country that would be bigger than any city in wyoming so when we're talking about how easy it is to do these negotiations i think we're leaving out some things plus the bill says if the municipality has more than five thousand people or this very important it's a five thousand people or twenty five employees it is twenty five employees no matter what they do for the city the city comes under this bill becomes an unfunded mandate for the city even if they're less than five thousand people and i can tell you there are a lot of towns that have less than five thousand that would have depending on what services they provide more than twenty five employees i think that some of these other employees are going to be a little upset too that ising that you know we have this opportunity to place some special emphasis and should on the public safety employees but my my city had a had its own electrical utility and i can tell you if the power goes out the most important people in the city for public safety is the guy that comes and gets the electricity going again and this bill would not cover those people if your city sewer is backing up into somebody's home the most important city employee from a public safety standpoint is the guy with the city utility this this doesn't include him but it will force the mandates on the city that will take away money from the guy that fixes the sewer backing up into your house or fixes the electrical utility that keeps the power on that handles heat and air conditioning and other important things for your for your home it was kind of fascinated by the senator from massachusetts senator kennedy mentioning that as far as a secret ballot they're going to leave that up to the states why would we leave that up to the states we're not leaving any of the rest this up to the states not only that we're saying that no matter what the city and the employees agree to there's going to be this little known federal agency can say nope not enough that's the way the bill reads it allows overwriting of agreements by the director of a federal agency so we're not only saying we don't care what kind of relationship you have with your public safety people we don't care how unfunded this is we don't care if it steals money from other city employees we've got a federal agency that's going to keep their eye on you and let you know if you are doing it well enough not to mention of course the rules haven't even been written on this so we don't even know how theirs are going to go so there are some difficulties with this and i want to have the chance to address some of these amendments in a little more a little more fully but i see because i thought the senator from maine was here so to cover a couple of the other things that have been left out of this  i do need to mention that many of the people who voted for the motion to proceed some voted because we should proceed to the debate i mentioned in my speech that we needed to have some time to talk about the difficulties o this that there are a lot of things that people realize about this bill that need to be corrected and brought out and we're doing that through some logical amendments but washington does not know best how a municipality works there's no way that we can understand all of the diversity all of the municipalities in this united states that would come qualify under this bill remember it's those the five thousand or more population or twenty five employees so we're not even sure who we're pulling into this but we do know that we are affecting state law in all fifty states except of course under secret ballot where we say if they already require it it's ok but if they don't that's ok too so we can impose every rule on them that we can possibly think of but we're going to leave that secret ballot part out i hope that's not the case floor and reserve the right to speak again the senator from maine thank you mr president mr president i rise since support of the public safety employer employee cooperation that i've been a co sponsor of this legislation in previous congresses and i'm pleased that the bill which i first joined just as several years and co sponsoring it finally coming to the senate floor this bill would ensure that the people we most count on to protect and serve the public our firefighters our police officers our emergency medical personnel and other first responders can exercise their right to organize embark and collectively with their employers currently twenty american states do not affectively provide for this right despite the fact that it applies to cross nearly every other area of the american economy all first to respond or should have an effective process to address job issues  but in fact the bill simply requires states to allow public safety officers to bargain over wages hours and working conditions my state of maine has a very similar laws in place already this bill does not in any way dictate outcomes of this process it gives states not federal courts the authority to enforce contract rights that arise from collective bargaining i also want to emphasize that the bill does not say actions that might threaten public safety in fact it prohibits both strikes and  further it does not interfere with any existing collective bargaining agreements nor does it impinge on any area traditionally reserved ten management decision making mr president i've heard some of my colleagues say that this bill will somehow harm the volunteer firefighters better so important in rural states like mine and in the presiding officer states i think it's important mr president bed to we spell out why that is not the case him fact there is no collective bargaining as stablished by this bill for not employed any suggestion that cities and towns are going to be required to bargain with em possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is simply wrong volunteers are expressly not covered by this bill and will have no right to collective bargaining all volunteer departments would have no bargaining obligations furthermore miss the president per fashionable firefighters would still be encouraged to volunteer i'm really touched by the fact that some of the professional firefighters to my town volunteer firefighters for their hometowns they may be employed by a larger city in maine by bangor lewiston or or porous land but they may live in a very small town outside of the city where they i mentioned volunteer firefighters are actually per session of firefighters who volunteer during their off duty hours our legislation preserves that kind of relationship by groups representing volunteer firefighters i would note that the national volunteer fire council supports the language in the senate substitutes that protect the volunteer firefighters mr president i believe that this bill is a balanced constructive measure that will help first responders and improve public safety without improperly or un burdening states it has won the endorsement of the international association of firefighters and it is particularly appropriate that we are turning to this bill during national police we when so many police officers are also in town mr president i believe that all americans gained a new appreciation for the service and the sacrifices  first responders on that terrible day september eleventh two thousand and one on that day three hundred forty three new york city firefighters and paramedics twenty eight new york police department officers and thirty seven port authority officers died doing what they've loved they died trying to rescue ther the sacrifice and service the south cliff notes of our first responders is to ensure bed all public safety eight officers have the right to bargain on their pay and safety standards and working conditions mr president does legislation makes sense i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting  america's public safe he workers on an equal footing with their counterparts in thank you mr president mr president the senator from wyoming i want to thank the senator from maine for her very considered words i would have one request for her and that's that she look at the paragraph that deals with volunteer firefighters if they are also professional firefighters but want to help out in their community as well there was some language suggested that would make it clear what you said would happen but the language from the house definitely doesn't say that the language as revised still doesn't say that and i'd appreciate if you'd take a look at it and see if there's some way that that can be made a lot clearer language that i thought was going to be in there was going to say to prohibit an employee from engaging in volunteer part time employment any agreement that contains such language should be unenforceable as this pretty clear but when you look at what's actually in there a little concern that it will not only be misconstrued but it will be bargained anyway without any consequence so  from wyoming first let me say that it's clear that the house bill does not do a good job in this area i think the house bill is very ambiguous language which it's my understanding that they had if in fact it did not protect the volunteer firefighters and certainly my intent is not to impose  of obligation on volunteer firefighters there by definition not employees so i don't think they commandeered the spill and in addition i do want to make sure that anyone who firefighter and employed in that profession is not precluded from also acting as a volunteer firefighter as so many professional firefighters the main across this firefighters council and that they believe that the substitute language does cure what i think all of us would agree was a problem in the house bill but again i thank the senator from wyoming and i will take another look at the language thank you mr president senator from ohio thank you friends and i concur in the words from junior senator from maine that the volunteer organization volunteer firefighter organizations worked closely with senator and senator kennedy and signed off on the language and are supportive of it so i think that that answers many of those concerns i am particularly pleased with to present to participate in this discussion for a lot of reasons one of them was because i was in the house state legislature many years ago when we debated bill that would give some twenty five years ago give collective bargaining rights to ohio first responders and that legislation eventually passed and i have to tell your heigho partly because of that legislation i was the best public safety forces in the united states of america the best police officers the best firefighters the best e m s professionals i may be biased about that but i'm also right i work with the firefighters in cincinnati to push for legislation would help eliminate needless risk to their safety on the job i work with firefighters and lorraine in akron ohio to make sure that federal municipal firefighters receive proper benefits when illness or injury strikes i work with police officers to fight for the cops program and e m s professionals to reduce the red tape surrounding hometown hero benefits all of these men and women have pledged to fight for our lives every single day they bear deadly risks on our behalf the public safety employer employee cooperation act gives members of this body an opportunity to fight for first responders just as they fight for us it gives us an opportunity to take on risk in overcome it just as our first responders do as twenty one twenty three will reduce the risk of injury or death to first responders and the public they serve the alexander amendment will take away our ability to do that as twenty one twenty three will reduce the risk of a first responder workforce shortage the alexander amendment again will take away our ability to do that will reduce the risk that first responders will be grossly overworked or dramatically underpaid the alexander memory will give and take away our ability to do that it will reduce available risk when it comes to public safety avoidable risks you'll reduce avoidable risk when it comes to public safety of voidable risks or unconscionable risk as it stands some public safety professionals have the right to negotiate fair wages and decent and proper equipment and some don't have that right that's because some states empower their first responders to collectively bargain and others do not in collecting bargain ings not just about wages nor is it just about benefits it's about it's about doing the job in the safest way possible doing the job in the bin the best way possible if first responders without bargaining rights are underpaid or overworked or poorly outfitted their options include living with it or leaving neither option serves the public good our nation has a stake in ensuring that public safety jobs are filled in every town in every city in every state denying first responders the right to negotiate fair wages denying them the right to negotiate their own safety isn't exactly a strong selling point for these jobs that's why the alexander amendment showed go should go down that's why the underlying bill should pass the public safety employer employee cooperation act ensures that every first responder regardless of where she lives regardless of where he lives can do just that this bill promotes fairness and safety wasn't just written first first responders police fire e m s it was also written for those who rely on first responders that's us this bill was written for us now senator alexander is amendment when he spoke talked about the the washington knows best attitude and i i thought about that as he was talking in his points were well made and well  knew he had to get out of the mines in those days the mine worker had no government strike that cared enough to protect him no union strong enough to protect him in didn't in those days after elected bargaining rights in we know that one hundred years ago people in this country that were born a baby born in this country lived to be about forty six or forty seven years old today a child born in this country live thirty years longer you know why that was it's not mostly medical miracle medicals medical technology it certainly chemotherapy and heart transplants and other things help us all help many of us live longer but the reason people live thirty years longer to today is is is frankly because of national standards because of collective bargaining rights just look around we have we have strong scl people live thirty years longer because we have strong laws on safe drinking water and clean air we have strong laws on minimum wages so security and medicare and prohibition and child labor and protections for women and all the things that  many of which were negotiated the bargaining table many of which were passed by this congress setting national standards national standards and clean air national standards on safe drinking water national standards and worker safety national standards and workers went on a whole host of issues that bring standards up for all of us that's why when i hear this washing knows best we'll do it our own way we haven't done that on civil rights we haven't done that of worker rights we believe as a nation we share these values whether from wyoming or tennessee whether from new jersey or massachusetts or ohio we share these values of lifting people up giving people collective bargaining rights passing a minimum wage increase having say drinking water in clean air and pure food laws all that our country has stood for now mr president and i also the center of xander said this this act imposes an unfunded mandates on cities and states they want to be able to afford new benefits for public safety officers let's let me just answer that for a moment first of all under this bill no costs are imposed a bill comes with no price tags not a single provision in this bill that requires cities and states to spend a penny center of zander spoke about  pelasgian other communities alco and other communities and kind of see that that we're going to go to tennessee and we're going to tell them how much they're going to have to pay their first responders and placekicker first responders in nashville and we don't want to do that i don't want to sell i don't want federal government to tell what first responders in mansfield in zanesville lyman springfield xenia should get but it still doesn't do that doesn't set those kinds of standards and we know that this no pertain to couple of other issues no particular terms are imposed in this legislation local governments under the community greg bill are free to write their own contracts the bill doesn't require any particular terms state local officials will sit down with their workers in figure out together what will work for their communities that's the whole point of collective bargaining not to impose this health provision where this level of pension or that particular wage doesn't do that it simply says gives those communities the right to organize and bargain collectively there's no binding arbitration in this bill many states have done binding arbitration this bill doesn't require any mandatory arbitration so no third party can require a government to raise wages are spend any money that the local government and their citizens don't agree to spend in all we mr president state local legislators slater's have the final say we went out of our way to respect the autonomy of state governments one way we've done that is the let state local legislatures have the final say on collective bargaining agreements the states can give their legislatures the right to approve or disapprove funding for you negotiate agreements again that's mr president that's what collective bargaining is all about whether it's in new jersey or massachusetts or wyoming or ohio or tennessee this bill most specifically this bill's about mandating a discussion between employers and workers it's not and it's not it's not a mandate it's certainly not an unfunded mandate that's why the alexander amendment should be defeated that's why the underlying bill should be approved with the you certainly will the center massachusetts mr president i hope of our colleagues and friends listen carefully to the senator from ohio because he is laid out the essential elements of this legislation and did it very effectively and well and as i mentioned very briefly very often around here we have people that differ with the legislation and often they misrepresent or mischaracterize the legislation and then differ with it i've even done it myself a few times and we have seen that done with regards to this legislation the senator very eloquently i i listen to my friend and colleague it is my friend and colleague from from tennessee i watched him wave of the constitution and talk about the tenth amendment and the senator from ohio has answered that i think it's probably is the senate and not agree with me that the basic process that is followed is that if this legislation is passed as stated then must set up because there is no such requirement in this legislation as described by the senator from tennessee and i wish the senator would once again talk and speak to the issue in question of the unfunded mandate there is no possibility as a senate as mentioned that there can be any impact in the local community or in the state in terms of require him to spend a nickel if it isn't going to be approved by the regular o within that state dale state is going to have to make that judgment and that decision whether they want but there's nothing included in this legislation that is going to alter or change that process of the procedure so the the concerns that we've heard during the course of the of the afternoon that this new legislation is going to suddenly be unfunded mandate i'm always interested you know if you eliminated the word unfunded mandate quiet about half the senate around here they just use those words so frequently when they too often don't have other things to say it's a fun funded mandate and everyone quivers and shakes about it but that is that the situation it's good if we have a debate and will we welcome the opportunity to take some time we're in a no rush this is important legislations important that the members understand it but it is important it does seem to me as we're doing this debate for the members to understand correctly what we are doing and what we aren't doing and i was just interested at the senator with me that the requirements in here will not require any town or community  massachusetts and in my state i don't highlight i've watched for twenty five years what's happened with collective bargaining public employee collective bargaining it's it's made the state better at the beginning of my by m comments i talked about ohio i believe has the best police fire m s system forces and then the entire country and a big part of that came out of collective bargaining there are certainly many times when communities when the city consul reaches a difficult position with their police or with their fire or with their other first responders the federal government doesn't get involved in that we don't tell them we don't mandate them that if there should be a certain level of pay or certain level of fringe benefits or a certain level of of worker protections as they do their jobs that's up to them in this bill just makes that easier to accomplish when no in no way is there mandated no way is this an unfunded mandate there aren't costs imposed their no particular terms are imposed there's no arbitration it's as senator kennedy said if you have newton massachusetts or lynn or boston wants to wants to do that they want to have binding arbitration or they want to have fact finding they can do that the same is same with marion and in portsmouth then in with the senator not agree with me that the decision making been is going to be done at really effectively the local level the federal level even at the state level the state is going to set an outline a process and a procedure states going to do that then the membership is going to make a judgment whether they want to follow that or not and if they choose that they will not do it then there's  process or procedure there's the they don't have to do it so it will be the i think a compelling aspect of this legislation is the fact that we're giving the authority to deal on the most local issues to responsibility today in the local community and who know best in terms of safety and security are trained in safety and security and as responders who have ideas who have suggest who have recommendations the record is powerful in this in this area about how to ensure additional safety protection for local communities the state the country we want to use that important that we make sure our colleagues have a good understanding and awareness of the great efforts that have been made to make sure that we are going to respect both the states we're going to respect obviously local communities  reflects the senate is all different parts of the country and what has important is that local firefighters local first responders local police officers are so strongly in support of this legislation because they understand they understand they understand better than anyone on the floor of this united states senate of the difference it can make for the safety and security of the american people i thank the clothes thank thank senator kennedy again for his comments and  you look at what's happened in this country over the last decades and as we set up a national system of collective bargaining for for private employees we had this body had no interest in telling g m in the u a w how to negotiate a contract only that the rights of collective bargaining are recognized in this country we have the same view not a not a mandate not an unfunded mandate to be sure the same view of setting up collective bargaining with its government with governments and elected officials and all that we do but is senator kennedy said it's all down to the local level they're going to make the decisions that's why defeated the alexander amendment is crucial it really does all the good in this bill and after defeating the alexander amendment this legislation should receive an affirmative vote this president  floor senator from arizona i'd like to speak to this legislation and addressed briefly some of the comments that have just been made i don't think there's any question that this legislation would represent an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into the affairs of states it is justified on the basis primarily that it is needed that states should be required to do the things that the law mandates i don't think that one can argue that this is not an intrusion into into state law as a matter of fact as i understand it the bill would specifically reverse the actions of thirteen states that have considered and rejected similar legislation in the last two legislative sessions of those states the law in these states would be overruled by this legislation and the bill would specifically overturn the current law in an additional eight states and cast into doubt a number of aspects of current law in at least an additional nine other states so apart from the constitutional issues that have been raised by some of my colleagues the first point that i wanted to make is that we can't very well argue here that we're not telling the states to do anything we're not really changing anything in the states this is federal law that controls certain aspects of the state's labor laws from now on and as i've said in several situations would specifically change the policies of states as determined by the citizens of those states and we've got to ask ourselves a fundamental question here do we trust states and local governments or do we not there are some reasons why states have different labor laws as well as other kinds of laws and there are reasons why some states have permitted what this legislation would mandate and other states have  not i think for example it's very difficult to argue that a state that doesn't currently have this kind of requirement doesn't care about the safety of its employees in these are people in our in our communities these are people who are already governed by other laws relating to the minimum wage and safety to the things that were mentioned by my colleague from ohio and these are people who certainly have the ear of others in their community their leaders in the community and i can certainly attest to the fact that in my state of arizona there are some tremendous folks in our firefighting communities specifically in my hometown of phoenix but in other communities as well and if they were working under unsafe conditions or conditions that they felt were inappropriate to the circumstance i think we would hear about that so i think that to suggest that the mayor of the town doesn't care about their safety or else he'd be doing this and therefore we're going to have to mandate it onto that community is not really a proper recognition of the way that our government works in this country starting from the ground up rather than the top down that's that's what the united states is all about and that's why communities have different ways of dealing with these with these different situations i frankly haven't heard any case made for the legislation i haven't heard of situations where in several of these communities over five thousand population because this particular mandate doesn't exist there are all sorts of horrible things happening that have to be fixed and i think unless there is some suggestion that that's the case first of all that oughta that that petition ought to be a product of the state or local government that's involved to see if they don't want to change their laws but otherwise there's certainly no reason why the federal government should be intruding into the area so i don't think we can say that this legislation is not a mandate to the states that it simply allows states to continue to operate as they are that's clearly not the case and as my colleague from massachusetts pointed out there are four specific requirements that have to be met under this legislation but in went on and i'm not certain of exactly what the point here was that if they don't agree then that's the end of it the reality is the legislation itself has a very explicit provision for what happens if the federal authority doesn't believe that the agreement isn't compliance with this law it's subject to the enforcement of section five of the law which is a very extensive section and deals with what happens if you're not in compliance i won't bother to go through the whole through through the whole legislation but if it squeaks about the determination of rights and responsibilities and says that the authority shall make a determination as to whether a state substantially provides for the right rights and responsibilities set forth in the legislation not later than one hundred eighty eight eighty days after an accident and if it concludes that it which the federal authority would then have the jurisdiction to make determinations as to what the state a supposed to do this is an intrusion of the federal government into activities that have previously been left to the states and i think there is a failure to protect both the rights of the workers in this case as well as the local communities i note that senator hatch has an amendment which i think is a good idea to provide for in effect a a bill of rights for the workers under this legislation i also think that the bill itself purports to prohibit strikes but let me let me describe to you what what the bill does do it goes to great pains to say that it's not a strike when a public safety officer refuses quoting now to carry out services that are not mandatory conditions of their employment what does that mean there's a rich history in labor law about you know  well we were all sick that day was just purely coincidence that we didn't come to work kind of things we're all familiar with that and who decides this obviously at least in my view this provision appears to be nothing more than  legislative code words that authorize work to rule in a host of other types of destructive job actions that we've all become familiar with certain unions teachers unions for example and the bill forces unions on unwilling cities and towns and then gives those unions and legislative greenlight in effect to disrupt you know small services and as long as it is not the refusal to reality mandatory  condition some of these things i think probably could have been corrected had the bill gone through the regular legislative process but as the senator from wyoming the ranking member of the committee and former chairman pointed out the bill hasn't gone through the  had the benefit of some of the changes that would have improved the bill had it had it done so in fact i'm informed that there were changes that were recommended even by some supporters of bill when it came from the house of representatives things that they understood at that point that should be done to the bill to make it a better bill and to make it work more effectively but the committee had no opportunity to consider those items so at a minimum this kind of complicated legislation that's going to direct states and municipalities should be the subject of hearings and of the regular legislative process that would enable us to correct its deficiencies before it comes to the floor of the senate here now there's been discussion about the administrative expenses not being you know an unfunded mandate i don't think there's any doubt that there are costs associated with this and the federal government isn't paying for them you can call it whatever you want to and i don't know what those costs would totally amount to whether they would end up bankrupting cities or not i'm not going to make that claim but i don't think you can deny that there would be extra costs associated with the implementation of this legislation and that the federal government does not pay for those cost it's also been pointed out that because of provisions that have union contracts that cities have taken on in certain instances those cities have either declared bankruptcy or become close to declaring bankruptcy because of the requirements of these union contracts and i'm not going to assert that every city would end up in that end of a situation either but i do think it's important to no that there will be financial ramifications if there's just no point in doing it otherwise and as a result of that i think the cities and the folks in those communities need to consider what their additional obligations are going to be as i said there's no reason to have this legislation  last one assumes that there will be additional costs imposed upon the folks in those communities now another thing about this legislation that causes a great deal of consternation at least on this side of the aisle and among a lot of people who have been surveyed about the so called card check legislation this is the principle that in order to unionize a particular facility you don't have to have a secret about the people of the workers there are not in fact entitled to make their their wishes known by secret ballot but rather it is done through what's called a card check it's non secret proposition where somebody comes around and says you want to sign this petition don't you and through various methods of intimidation direct or indirect they could end up forcing unionization in that situation that's not the american way we've always prided ourselves on having secret ballots in this country in labor relations as well as when we elect  our officials and vote on propositions that affect our communities and this bill contains no federal worker protections aspect specifically it sanctions state card check laws that do not guarantee secret ballot elections for unionization and it doesn't require transparency fiscal transparency for labor unions or any other control over the way that the union with them spend the union dues the members of the union one of the things that bothers me most about it though is this what's called the authority this is the federal entity it's a new entity that would be created to supervise this legislation it's not accountable to the states it but it basically is becomes in charge of their state laws in fact as i said if if if it makes the determination that the state law doesn't comply with what it thinks is a requirement of this legislation then there are several different foresman actions that can take to bring the state into compliance that's not states rights that's not allowing communities to decide that's imposition from the top down from the united states government here in washington and there are a lot of smart people in the united states senate and a lot of support smart bureaucrats and other officials here in washington but i don't think any of them got any smarter when they came back to washington d c from wherever they they originally were located we have money smart people in our states and communities who can do these things we don't have to turn to washington d final point i want to make is that there's a little bit of a double standard here because of course we don't have this in the federal government we're not mandating this full collective bargaining for federal employees but we are going to impose it on cities and towns for a large segment of their employees and i think our folks back home would would rightly ask us now what about this isn't something that you're imposing on a us if it's such a wonderful idea why don't you try to do it at the federal level as well and i think most of us recognize it wouldn't get very far here at the federal level and it shouldn't get very far at the local level again mr mr president just conclude with this we all have folks back in our communities who do a tremendous job in protecting us through fire and police protection providing emergency services it's been my pleasure and frankly honor to visit with some of them even this week and to visit with them back home and to represent them in to work with them on matters of concern to them and from time to time some of them have spoke to me about this legislation we have a pretty rich tradition in errors i mean it's a right to work state it's a state that obviously has unions but it also has a rich tradition of trying to protect workers rights and i just find so much of this legislation as it is written does not meet what the people of the state of arizona have year after year insisted in labor relations legislation to govern the relations with the folks who work in the state of arizona i think it would be rejected by my constituents  that therefore it is far better to try to work to correct conditions as they exist locally if those conditions can be presented as significant problems as i said i haven't seen that i haven't seen in my local community and i haven't seen it presented as a national emergency that has to be dealt with in this extraordinary way if there are hearings bring these problems out if the legislation then works through the committee in a way that provides some of the worker protections that we don't see here provides a little more clarity with respect to some of the things that we've indicated are not clear that it's obviously something that folks could look at but in the meantime i'm going to respect the local communities and the people of state of arizona who have spoken to this issue in the past and as a result urge my colleagues to reject this legislation in its current form and in the meantime support some of the very interesting amendments that have been brought brought forth one by my colleague from tennessee but i specifically mention the one from my the senator from massachusetts and i'll just take a few moments i'd respond to some of the points that been made during the afternoon and that there are some very basic and fundamental the senator from tennessee and the time here earlier from the senator from from arizona and i appreciate his his sick kind of personal comments and i always said join in paying tribute to my coll senator from wyoming although we differ on this legislation he knows the great respect that i have for him as a legislator and affection that i had for him but there is a difference between a state saying no we are going to deny people the opportunity for collective bargaining and a state having a process and a procedure and which the people in the state make that judgment and decision it's as if we had the right to the state says well we're not going to permit a right to vote what we say every individual or to have that right to vote and if they're not going to use it there that's their judgment decision but it is an important enough right to say that they ought to exercise and be able to exercise it and that's what we're saying with this legislation that a decision do you when safety and security and collective bargaining for the first responders is sufficiently important that they have an opportunity to express themselves in the states in the states and at the state itself  as good as the we believe their judgments are and i ought to set up a process and a procedure and let the people in the states make that judgment that's pretty apple pie americana to let people judgment and decisions about matters that are going to make an important difference with regards to safety and security of the people in the community that's what this is basically about so when we hear on the other side all my state made a judgment on it and we're trying to see another state trying to impose its will on a poor state i think my friend sherrod brown answered that very well as a general concept but in the particular it's important to understand what is at the root of this and that is a process this legislation passes the state has four broad criteria is that it must be and the senator from arizona is correct that state doesn't meet those requirements then the federal labor labor relations authority has to step in to make sure that those requirements are met but if they do and they're only for and they're not complicated and it's therefore the the federal labor relations authority would not become involved unless there was a request that they should become involved so that the idea that we get to these scare kind of a tactics and i don't say that say that in a pejorative way but just as a trying to for our membership to understand where we believe that the those the firefighters and first responders can make that judgment we think it's important enough decision that affects their lives and the lives of the people that they are protecting that they should make it and then they can make that judgment decision on what they want in that particular state they make the judgment decision that they don't want to have any of these collective bargaining so be it but at least they have the possibilities of moving ahead in that direction and it's difficult for me to believe that the sta refuse to establish the kind of outline process and procedure where that would be possible so that mr president i think is important for us to to  tomorrow but i want to just point out in this legislation there is no requirement that we're going to be card to check off i have a supporter of the card check off i think that would open up the opportunities for people to be able to speak on the issues of whether they want to organize or not but there's we have not made that to judgment in this legislation and that isn't what this legislation is about you know it's always interesting to me here although opposition to car we know historically that we had card check off and it worked very very well into the late one nine hundred fifty s we had it and we didn't hear a lot of the car stories that we he associated with it at this if at this present time but there is not any requirement in this that we are going to alter or change that and so it's important people understand that because during the course of the afternoon i heard description of this legislation that i could  us as the person senator from wyoming as the senator from tennessee is preparing here and i'd just like to make a couple of comments because i still haven't got to talk about either the bill of rights or the unfunded mandate come here to the floor and here it is kind of take it or leave it and any amendment that we bring up is going to be considered to be an old regurgitated i tell you they're not these are these are things that we've always had a concern for especially when something's being thrust on states who have specifically said who have specifically address the particular issue and said no now i know that the senator from ohio had a lot of enthusiasm but i don't really think that he can correct it collective bargaining with the clean air act and the clean water act so both sides are using some things that might be a little extraneous to what what we're trying to achieve here but i do want everyone to pay particular attention to what's in the bill about the final authority of the federal labor relations authority as the senator from massachusetts says or just for requirements well those are very vague requirements and i will find some people that work with this on a daily basis that will make some kind of a comment about the vagueness and how impossible it is to deal under that criteria not to mention the fact that states before have not been subject to having after they make agreements have a federal agency say no that's not good enough and that's what we're giving authority to in this bill that a federal agency that we hardly ever hear about the federal labor relations authority to say even if a city and their first responders police and firefighters say this is a contract that we like that group can override it they can say that's not good enough i don't i don't think that's the kind of federal authority that we're trying to give to an agency that hasn't had that kind of authority and card check we're going to let some of the states do it some of the states not do well it's not so good are we still giving the federal labor relations authority authority over that provision so i do have more more minutes before making a yes or if that's if that's ok with the senator yes i'm sure we're going to exceed to it but there was just something that want to be checked out that's what i'll do if it's ok if continue to desk an amendment to the pending legislation that we're discussing to be amendment number four seven one five and what this amendment would do in the spirit actually of what our distinguished senator from massachusetts this said talking about giving states the ability to really do what they wish after this legislation passes and in that same spirit what this amendment would do is actually give each day give each state or political subdivision the ability within one year of a nachman of this legislation should it pass to be able to override that and not have this legislation applied to their state or or to their political subdivision i think this very much actually keeping with many of the statements that senator mask use is just made and so i hope this amendment passes let me say and giving a backlog background of this that  that i was a mayor of a city and it's a job that that i don't think i'll ever have a job that i love more than than the mayor of a city working with citizens right there with problems with they have to deal with north i think they'll ever be a group of people that i respect more than the far hiders and the men and women of our police department has served us so well like many people here i've attended funerals of policeman who've lost  their lives in the line of duty have attended retirements and other meaningful events for five riders who spent their entire life giving public service to our city and so i want to say that i don't think there's anybody in this body that respects what firefighters and police men and women do in their line of duty to protect each of us and deal with this but i've also had to deal with those issues that the local level where we have balance a budget same thing at the state level something that we here in washington don't have to do we don't have the financial constructs that local municipalities and states have they actually have to deliver and i find it almost  very ironic actually that here in washington we're going to mandate to the states we're going to mandate to cities all across america how they should go about dictating labor agreements in their own cities and states i think that this is a tremendous overreach by those of us at the federal level and i've yet to hear a good policy reason for this the in place states and cities throu country should they decide to incorporate collective bargaining in the area of public service can do that if they wish and i think that this this legislation certainly deserves defeat in its present mode i hope that this amendment as it will be presented tomorrow can be accepted and at least call this legislation to give back to states and cities the right to determine their own destiny as it relates to negotiating with without objection the clerk will report give the workers a chance an opportunity to make a judgment and decision about how to proceed not the federal government not us here in washington d c not in the at the state of state capitals not the legislatures but to let the workers who are at the front line work this fire fight as police offices the first responders to make the judgments that are going to make a difference in terms of their lives and in terms of their view what is in the best interest the safety and security of the fellow citizens and this of course will undermine that that that effort finally mr president i just wanted to review about what this legislation does and i won't take you down this is a bit earlier today but i wanted to do a chart mention exactly what the requirements that the states e first responders and the firefighters and the police would make a judgment to be of at least a process to be able to form or join a union so they can have a voice in the am to import decisions like safety bargain over working conditions with their employers sign a legally enforceable contract and have a neutral third party help resolve disputes we don't say in there whether it's arbitration we don't say in there if it's mediation we don't say in there if it's fact finding all of that can be and at the end of the day the lower the communities the states local communities say we don't want that then it's the issue is settled but they have the voice they have the voice that is at the heart and the so of this legislation you have sufficient confidence in these individuals to be able to make that judgment those four hundred thirty five extraordinary firefighters that lost their lives on nine eleven should they have had the opportunity to make judgments with regard to their safety and security should maybe the individuals because they can know what is important in terms of safety and security they weren't failing or flagging in terms of their resolution or their coverage and what we are attempting to doing say they're the knowledgeable people they are the train people they're the ones that know how to improve safety and the circumstances and is useful to talk about mr president but this is a very basic important element of trust of this legislation which is so important in terms of the people that work every day to make our communities and our cities and our country safe and secure president the senator from wyoming and we again i appreciate the words of the senator from massachusetts and do enjoy working them up with him on bills and i think men pretty cooperative at getting bills through committee as he was when i was when i was the chairman and again we haven't had a chance to work on these amendments or on the bill together we're having to do it separately and there's a lot of rhetoric involved in this thing and a lot of misunderstanding those are the kinds of things that get cleared up in a little closer working relationship than you have by just addressing it on the floor of the united states senate but i too was a mayor and i was mayor of a boom town and boom towns attract young people and young people are by vases they are busy they like to work hard and they like to play hard and as a result i had a police department that had to handle some probably unique situations and i had a volunteer fire department to work with and we later combined that with the county so that we didn't have disputes over whether a building that was on fire was inside the city or outside the city and that helped overcome a lot of a lot of difficulties there i've worked with the firefighters i've worked with the police i worked with the sheriff's department again we have that same boundary problem when it comes to what's within the city limits and what's outside the city limits particularly if you have a fast growing community and we did and we do again the energy boom is creating a fast growing community again i remember being at a cross ish boil almost a month ago and that's one of the highlights of the year for people at work particularly in the oil patch but actually people at work all over the community and it was started by some cajuns from louisiana that came up to work in the oil patch and you know we all have a crawfish boil and they haven't figured out a reason for it to said you know if we can get somebody to donate the food and then we can charge people to come we can put that kind of an emergency fund for anything that happens to anybody and they did that and the event still goes on twenty five years later they used to give the beer away now they sell the beer that's worth another forty thousand dollars  donations but they did about eleven thousand pounds of crawfish this year and said about five thousand people and in any one time there was easily thirty five hundred people in the building and as you came in you had to you had to be approved is being over twenty one in order to be able to buy that beer and if you're over twenty one you got this bright orange wristband virtually impossible to take off of that cutting and as i was enjoying my crawfish i looked around the room and noticed that almost everybody there head on one of these orange bands but i also noticed they all looked like they were about eighteen or nineteen and i knew they were twenty one so once again we have a very young community of people who are working hard and playing hard and that put some extra stress on law enforcement and i really respect the people that are in law enforcement in fact my brother in law is a policeman in it and he is the oldest person to ever go through the wyoming law enforcement academy he decided to become a policeman at the time that most policemen are retiring and he loves it he really enjoys it and he does a good job with it and he's seen some interesting situations and even been bitten by a person but he loves his work he does it well  but he has now asked me to do the collective bargaining neither did the people who worked for me when i was mayor and i would not have had the capability to do any particular additional thing for them because all we got while it was a boom it was an energy boom and all the energy happened outside of the community so we didn't get any tax base off of that business the reason for the growth we only got to tax what was inside the city limits and we had to handle things like sewer and water streets garbage police protection and electricity we even had our own electrical utility and i had to find water for people you know they considered that to be the biggest need and the only place we could get enough water to take care of the population we were already on water rationing when i took office was to go forty two miles away and the cost of that project the interest alone on the cost of that project exceeded all the revenue for the city of gillette didn't leave me a lot of negotiating capability with anybody tied my hands significantly and i had to come to new york city and prove that we would be able to pay off the water loans the water bonds the different i had do a whole bunch of different kinds of mechanisms in order to do that and i had to go to new york to go to the rating agencies so that we could get a good enough rating that i could go into some other areas to get revenue to be able to cover it so we could do so we could do afford the whole thing and the ironic part of it was it was when new york city was going broke new york city was going broke mayor lindsey was having a few problems with the city and the questions that i got were very difficult to handle for a small town in wyoming because they were basing it on a big city in new york they wanted to know if we were going to run into the same problems that new york city had well the big problem that new york city had was that they bargained early retirement for firefighters and police so that they only had to work twenty years till they could get their retirement and so they worked for twenty years or only forty years old they had two people retired for every one person that was working it's hard to provide police protection if you have twice as many people retired asiad working and you have to pay all of these people that are not working their retirement and it created a huge problem for new york they didn't need us to say you've got to have collective bargaining because they already had collective bargaining so we didn't have  collective bargaining i was able to explain why our policeman would work a little bit longer and be a part of the productive part of the police force and the new york city and i got the rating that i needed on the bonds and was able to build a water project that until now it's been a good source and still is a good source of water it's just that the town has had another one of those booms where they've probably doubled or maybe tripled in size and that requires a lot more water and water is a basic need for communities so i don't feel real comfortable at imposing on them any kind of requirements about how they're supposed to do their business they are right there where the people are when i was mayor i used to talk about the obeid of the ways that's when you're walking down the street or when you're out to dinner or even with your family and people come up and they say oh by the way i got this little problem don't get up and solve it right now tomorrow will be fine but they really do intend for you to solve that problem by tomorrow now the whole discussion today has made it sound like municipalities are enemies of public service and public safety employees i don't know of any communities where that's true  there probably are but to make it sound like the whole country works against the policeman against the firemen against the first responders because there isn't the collective bargaining law is wrong there's an old expression that you can't fight city hall my opinion of that is if you can't you never tried it because the people at city hall are responsive the mayors and the council keep their job if they take care of the problems that the people have if they don't they're out of there probably not just one of the time but in mass they don't try to pick out exactly who made the bad decisions they just get rid of them so towns have to be responsive to all of their employees and as i said before i think there are probably a lot of employees out there who say how come i'm not important how come just the firefighters just the police just the first responders are important i'm important too and this leaves me out so we're trying to make some points while the big event is on here this week i finally figured out that that's why the timing on this thing came up and i'm a little disappointed in that to we on bills that have come before this committee before we tried to avoid the heat of the moment because we have i have found that in legislating if it's worth reacting to it's worth overreacting to and i think what we have here is a little bit of an overreaction and there's not going to be much chance to make any changes in that i was kind of keeping track of time here and i know that we had about the same number of speakers that we did certainly didn't have the same amount of time to to speak and i also know that the leader also already sent out the word during a meeting were votes today well since we haven't gotten to address this before with the rest of the body i have asked all of them to pay attention to the amendments that we're doing but i would hesitate to offer any more amendments when i know that everybody's gone home and they're all out to dinner by now i don't i don't think that's fair i don't think it's the way that we try to do business i don't think it was intentional but i think it certainly puts us at a disadvantage when we're trying to do some things that point out some difficulties with this particular bill and i think offering some responsible amendments regardless president's better for message mr president as the further proceedings on the quorum be suspended without objection mr president i think we've had a good discussion today on this legislation i hope for the we'll have a chance to look over the record tonight we've got four pending amendments we understood that they have members wanted to talk about these measures and that wanted to give consideration to up so we' of things that we've made some some good good progress today i understand will be on this legislation in the mid late morning at a tomorrow and we'll be looking forward to that opportunity to to these amendments are ready to give consideration of voting on some of these measures i think they're all at least the amendments we've seen a pretty straightforward i responded to this this afternoon and we'll have a chance further in the morning but i think we'll be prepared to keep the process moving moving there are matters which should be discussed and debated we'll look forward to that to debate discussion as well the tomorrow and if there is a least a now we have no for the speakers on this at this point and i see our friend from iowa is on his feet i would ask  consent that the senate proceed to a period of mourning businesses send is permitted to speak for up to ten minutes is their objection without objection bowater mr president senator from iowa i would ask permission to speak for fifteen minutes that is their objection without objection so if i come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all americans and that issue is a crime against children we've all heard stories of children our most innocent population being victimized and abused by predatory criminals while it is true we've made great strides passing federal legislation ag s criminal predators more work to meet needs to be done and that is why i'm here today to introduce a bill that i entitled the prevention and deterrence of crimes against children act  two thousand and eight i'm pleased to be joined by senator kyl and senator vitter will co sponsored this bill with me this is a very important veil that will protect our children from the violence forms of abuse and will send a strong signal good to criminals that we as a society won't tolerate such behavior and that their predatory actions have real significant consequences i'd like to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my home state of iowa jetsetter marie gage on march twenty fourth two thousand and five jet set off a ten year old girl from cedar rapids iowa went missing from her home within twelve hours over disappearance i will on force months agents arrested a registered sex offender roger bentley for the crime he had been previously convicted of committing with c b s acts with a minor regrettably this criminal served just over a year in prison for his previous sex crimes conviction  two days after her disappearance an amber alert tip led officials to the location of her body she was found stuffed in the cabinet and then bandon mobile home the autopsy revealed had been sexually assaulted assaulted and suffocated with a plastic bag i can't help but wonder whether jetsetter would still be alive today had her killer receives stricter penalties for his first off fans it breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases like this but it's even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented and with that added with adequate sentencing last week i honor extraordinary law enforcement officers who helped put away another one of jet setters abusers james batley on believably james bentley is the brother of roger batley who is responsible for the rape and murder abuse prosecution of james bentley stalled in state court due to six amendment concerns u s postal actor tori raper and cedar rapids police department investigator charity hansell followed up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to james batley as conviction on federal child pornography charges these investigators work tirelessly to find nine previous victims of james batley only two of the nine victims testify but their courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful as a result these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to use higher sentencing guidelines the putting away in federal prison for one hundred years i am truly thankful for the public service that inspector cory raper and investigator charity hansell have done for iowa kids in doing our part we in the congress have not sat idly by two years ago we passed into law the adam w child protection and safety act this important legislation made great strides in protecting america's children against violent sexual predators among its many components this acts standardized the national sex offender registry eliminated the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children providing grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders for violent crimes against children amendment the amendment created mandatory minimum terms of him of imprisonment for criminals who committed murder kidnapping or serious bodily harm against children we are on the right path but i still say that this is not enough not enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crime there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious injury this bill that i'm introducing today will help change this by protecting children in four ways it will increase mandatory minimum sentences those penalties for certain crimes against children control the use of passports by say convicted sex offenders and strengthen the process for removing criminal aliens who commit se offenses the first section of the bills increases the penalties for child pornography offenses and i elevates a mandatory minimum punishment for criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children i know that some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums especially in the context of drug sentences i understand that concern but in light of the supreme court's decision in the b case something must be done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences appropriate for their crimes in booker the court held that the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory that federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing i'm very worried judges are not doing their job to protect children as a matter of fact deputy attorney general lawrence  testified to the senate judiciary committee last year that since a booker decision federal judges have significantly increased the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of child pornography to counter this trend my bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for exportation crimes against children one where a crime involves child pornography that offender will receive twenty years to life to where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a parent or guardian the offender  receive no less than three years to life the second section of the bail increases penalties for child sex trafficking and child prostitution the penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage that they do to children the third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for criminals convicted of child sex offender offenses resulting in death repeated child sex crimes and forcible rape of children these crimes involve the most violent types of sex offenders and justice for these crimes should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences the final section of the bail has to do with not permitting the sex offenders to travel outside the country if we know someone is a convicted child molester we have the responsibility to not allow them travel page here or europe or anywhere else to exploit and harm other kids and other lanes the bill provides for the following when the sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense the issuance of passports shall be refused secondly if a passport has already been a issue the use of a passport may be restricted if the passport was used in the firms of a sex offense and lastly any alien convicted of sex offense shall be placed immediately in removal proceedings the provisions of this bail are designed to protect our children by locking up violent sexual predators i doubt that the members of this body many of whom have young children of their own will have any objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts it is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls like jetset a gauge for a law was severe penalties to be i strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future we have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens including our most vulnerable populations and we have an obligation as adults to protect our young people we have a commitment as parents to protect our children and ensure that they're given the opportunity to grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders po urge my colleagues to join me and senators kyl and vitter in strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat offender  email me about what the collapse of the middle class means to them personally not an esoteric economic terms but in a sense of what they are going through and frankly we are a small state  and we're out people are pretty reticent people in vermont don't like to open up and tell everybody all of the problems that they have they try to keep it to themselves and we expected that we've received perhaps a few dozen replies in fact over the last month we have received some seven hundred e mails that came into my office talking about how people in the middle class today are trying desperately to survive about ninety percent of the e mails came from the state of vermont we've had a number from around the rest of the country mr president i sometimes think that many of our colleagues here really don't have much of a clue about what is going on in the real world it is no great secret that the law bees of congress filled with lobbyists who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year representing the energy companies the coal companies the oil companies the drug companies the insurance companies the banks credit card companies all over the place and they try to influence and are successful in many instances influencing congress to pass legislation that protect the interests of multi national corporations or the wealthiest people in this country it is thought to read that we hear the pain and the reality of life that's going on among ordinary people especially people who come from a rural state like mine what i would like to do mr president is spend most of my time doing nothing more than just reading to my colleagues and to the american people some of the reality that takes place in a small rural state which i think is not radically different than what is taking place today all over this country and all of these are verbatim e mails that i received from families in the state of vermont let me begin by reading one which says and i quote i make less than thirty five thousand dollars a year and work ought to earn that i'm trying to get by with rising costs of fuel i have a wife and four kids that i love dearly and  trying to do the best that i can for them with the cost of gas pushing four dollars a gallon and the price of heating oil up to overnight four dollars a gallon it is hard to make ends meet on top of that the furnace that heats the house and keeps my kids warm died today and while it will not need to run much longer the nights are still too cold for a three year old i am not sure how i am going to pay for the repairs i never thought that i would be classified as poor having grown up in a top of middle class family but that is where i am now i don't know what we need to do but i know we need to do something before the middle class is a thing of the past and of quote and mr president as i read these stories what you are going to hear today in the year two thousand and eight is that children are going cold in america and we have got to understand that this is one example i will read more and anyone who thinks it's not true doesn't know what's going on in the real world here's another email that i received quote i am a teacher with twenty years of experience and i have a masters degree as a single parent i am struggling every day to put food on the table this is a teacher with a master's degree i will close all come from thrift stores i have a five year old ca that needs work my son is gifted and talented i try to sell my house i tried to sell my house to enroll him in a school that had curriculum available for his special needs after two years on the market my house never sold the property taxes have nearly doubled in ten years and the price of heating oil is prohibitive to meet the needs of my son i have left the house sit by let's let the house sit and moved into an apartment near his high school i don't go to church many sundays because the gasoline is too expensive to drive them now i wonder how many people all over this country are facing that same reality every read write from her letter i don't go to church many sundays because the gasoline is too expensive to drive there every thought of an activity is dependent on the cost i can only purchase food from dented can stores i don't know how i can continue this way for two more years of my son's high school yet i am trying to meet his academic and psychological needs i know that i will never be able to retire on a teacher's retirement with no insurance i am stretched to the breaking point with no help in sight end of quote and the female this is a teacher with a master's degree this is not somebody who was unemployed who have a graduated high school this is solid middle class this is her reality here's another story my wife and i live in rural vermont we own a home and make about seventy five thousand dollars a year combined which is in vermont not a bad income we own two vehicles and travel about seventy four miles a day round trip to get to our jobs not only is the price of gas killing us i have been displaced from to drop in the last nine years due to the exploitation of jobs overseas my current job is in jeopardy of being downsized due to the economy every job i have had since i moved here in one nine hundred ninety nine has paid yes with life benefits we are spending our life savings just to make ends meet and when you read these stories you hear recurring things the price of gas people losing their jobs due to outsourcing over and over again these things keep reappearing is another story and again i want to reiterate this mr president these are not quote unquote poor people these are not homeless people these are not people without any education these are people who once considered themselves to be part of the american middle class and like millions and millions of other people that middle class life is rapidly disappearing quote notice this is another level i work full time at the just hospital in vermont i am in more debt now than i was ten years ago as a single mother going full time to college and waitressing to make ends meet when is something going to be done to lower gas prices which have exponentially raise the cost of everything i would love to just tell my children yes we can go out to the movies and not have it break the bank and the quote another is what you're seeing all over this country is what people with just take a ride to church they go to the movies they no longer can perform these basic joys of life because they just can't afford to do that anymore here's another one husband and i have lived in vermont our whole lives we have two small children a baby and a toddler and felt fortunate to own our own house and land but due to the increasing fuel prices we have at times had to choose between baby food diapers and heating fuel we've run out of heating fuel three times so call and the baby has ended up in the hospital with pneumonia two of the time we try to keep the kids warm with an electric space heater on those nights but that just doesn't do the trick my husband does when he can just to scrape enough money for coffee will each week and we've gone from three vehicles to one just to try and get by without going further into debt we're going to sell the house and rent but the rent around here is higher than what we pay for a monthly mortgage and property taxes combined please help here is a story in america in two thousand and eight family not having enough heat child getting the monia this is the united states of america two thousand and eight and she asked please help well help this is from north central vermont due to illness my ability to work has been severely limited i am making ten dollars an hour and if i am lucky i get thirty five hours a week of work at this time i'm only getting twenty hours as it is off season and so which is a major recreation area money it does not take a mathematician to do the figures how all my wife and i supposed to live on a monthly take home income of less than eight hundred dollars we do it  spending our hard earned retirement savings i am fifty and my wife is forty nine at the rate we are going we will be destitute in just a few years the situation is so dire that that is all that i can think about now listen to this soon i will have to start walking to work an eight mile round trip because the price of energy is so high and either it is that or going bad as our situation is i know many in worship we try to donate food when we do our weekly shopping but now we are not able to even afford to help our neighbors eat what has this country come to imagine that having to walk fo miles and they donate food for people who are worse off than they all is from a single mother in a small town in southern vermont i'm a single mother with a nine year old boy we live  past went so without any heat at all in vermont in the wintertime fortunately someone gave me an old wood so i had to hook it up to an old unused chimney we had in the kitchen i couldn't even i couldn't even afford a chimney lined up the price of line is went up with the price of fuel to say warm it night my son and i would pull off all the pillows from the couch and pile them on the kitchen floor i'd hang a blanket from the kitchen doorway and we'd sleep right there on the floor all by february we ran out of wood and i burned my mother's dining room furniture i have the oil for hot water we boil our water on the stove and poured in the tub i'd like to order one of your flags and hang it upside down at the capitol building we are certainly a country in distress this is a gentleman from another town in southern vermont i make less than thirty five thousand dollars a year and work hard to earn that i am trying to get by with rising cost of fuel i have a wife and four kids that i love dealing and i am trying to do the best i can for them we do receive help from the state but i would like to be able to make it without that help is another story getting some help from the state is pride as he would like to do it without that help with the cost of gas pushing four dollars a gallon and the price of heating oil up over four dollars a gallon it is hard to make ends meet on the top of that the furnace that heats the house and keeps my kids warm died today and while it will not need to run much longer this went on the nights are still too cold for a three year old and i  next winter to look forward so i'm not sure how i'm going to pay for the repairs here's another one from a woman in a small town in central vermont my husband and i followed all the rules he grew up in urban projects  went into the military with vietnam service so we could get g i bill benefits and go to college i grew up picking strawberries as a migrant worker but i had a mother who was so pressed who so pressed education that i was able to go to college on scholarship and by working full time nights in a mental hospital my husband and i worked hard to buy a home and paying good credit even taking government jobs because we truly wanted to help others i became disabled and unable to work but we managed to live a middle class life on one salary slowly though we have sunk back to the poor days our heating oil bill gas prices food prices well you know the story even a pizza is a splurge now the interest on our meager savings doesn't seem worth keeping the money in the bank we're so much more fortunate than many others since we can still meet our bills but we're scared that we'll drop a nice that level soon it doesn't seem right that after working hard and following all the rules for our lives now at sixty we're tumbling down here's an email from a woman from a small town town in central vermont as a single parent i'm struggling every day to put food on the table our clothes will come from first laws i think we read that m our here's one from a small town near the new hampshire border the ascent of the sand is first let me thank you for all the support rallying behind the middle class who have done i too have been struggling to overcome the increasing cost of gas heating oil food taxes et i have to say that this is the toughest c f financially that i have ever experienced in my forty one years on this earth i have what used to be considered a decent job i work hard pinch my pennies but the penalty pennies have all but dried up i am thankful that my employer understands that many of us cannot afford to drive to work five days a week instead i work three fifteen hour day i have taken augur aabs to try to make ends meet this went after keeping the heat just high enough to keep my pipes from bursting the bedrooms are not heated they never got above thirty degrees i began selling off my woodworking tools snow blow up pennies on the dollar and furniture that i've been handed down in my family from the early eighteen hundreds just to keep the heat on today i am say it broken and very discouraged i am thankful that the winter cold is behind us for a while but now gas prices are rising yet again i just can't keep up and this is from a mother in a town near the canadian border i am a single mother of four each day the struggle becomes more difficult thank goodness for spring my last oil delivery was five hundred dollars i spend over two hundred dollars a month on gas just driving back and forth to work approximately three hundred miles away can sometimes what some of my colleagues don't understand is that in rural parts of america people don't walk to work they don't take a car right of five minutes sometimes people drive fifty miles to work sometimes they drive one hundred miles to work and when gasoline costs three dollars and seventy cents a gallon every nickel of the pay raise they may have gotten goes right into that gas tank we have cut our budget again and again there is little left to cut spring and summer brings  respite from the fuel bills of went up but i worry what next went that will bring i will have to dig into my small four hundred one k to make some home repairs this sum of money that i had been set aside went to fuel and electric bills and increased by fourteen percent president i read these letters because sometimes in the middle of the debates that we have here everyone is spotting off all kinds of facts and figures and ideas but i thought it important to bring a little bit of reality of what's going on in middle class per month and i have to say i doubt very much it's any different than middle class new jersey or any other state in this country people off hurting poppy is increasing the middle class is collapsing and the only people in our economy who are doing well are the people at the very very top and they are doing extremely well many of the stories that we have heard deal with high energy prices and i believe that what's happened is that while the middle class has been shrinking for many years now these high energy prices have result is that a lot of people are now just drop and over the clips they wish krugman they were struck and they were trying to keep their heads above water and suddenly nowhere comes three seventy dollars three dollars and seventy cents for a gallon of gas but dollars for home heating oil and that just take him over the edge and i think is one of the reasons why some eighty two percent of the american people think our country is moving in the w direction and what do we do well there's a lot that we have to do let me just very briefly focus on energy the good news is that today thankfully ninety seven senators voted to stop the bush administration from continuing the absurd policy of adding seventy thousand barrels of oil a day into the show to teacher trolling in reserve which is already ninety seven percent but is not going to save the world is likely to result in a precipitous drop in gasoline prices no will it help yes it will and i applaud my colleagues with doing that now i find it interesting mr president that ninety seven percent ninety seven about colleagues voted for this today went to three weeks ago we were wondering whether we had the votes to get this thing through and i think what many of our colleagues are now hearing when they go home is that people are in trouble they're hearing exactly the same stories that i am hearing and they're hearing people want them to begin to stand up to the bush administration stand up to the oil companies stand up to the speculators stand up to the people who are ripping them off while their lifestyle is rapidly declining what we did today is a good thought but clearly we have a long long way to go i am on board legislation which we discussed a little bit today which demands that president bush tell saudi arabia that it is not acceptable that they have cut back on their oil production that it is imperative that they increase oil production so that we can have more oil on the market lowering gas and oil prices in addition to that mr president i believe that the time is long overdue that we sought dealing with the reality that opec is by definition a cartel designed created in order to restrict trade  collude to limit oil production output and to make prices higher than they need because i think we have to take a hard look at opec and begin to demand that this president go to the w to go and break impose a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry the american people do not understand why they are paying record breaking prices at the gas pump while exxon mobil has made more profits that any company in the history of the world for the past two consecutive years last year alone exxon mobil made forty billion dollars in profits and rewarded its c e o with twenty one million dollars in total compensation just a few years ago exxon mobil gave its almost c e o a four hundred million dollars retirement package four hundred million dollars retirement packages and people in vermont that all over this country are unable to fill up their gas tanks or heat their homes but exxon mobil is not alone chevron conoco phillips shell and b p have also been making out like bandits in fact the five largest oil companies in this country have made over six hundred billion dollars in profits since president bush has been in office last year alone the major oil companies in the united states made over one hundred and fifty five billion dollars in  believe it or not these profits just continue to saw just recently exxon mobil reported a seventeen percent increase in profits totaling ten point nine billion erling up b p b p announced a sixty three percent increase in profits sixty three percent and on and on it goes every major oil company is seeing a significant increase in their profits and meanwhile what these big oil companies do with all of their revenue is they have the capability of providing their c e o s with lavish lavish compensation in two thousand and six occidental petroleum gape its c e o jet when they missed the irani four hundred million dollars in total compensation for one year of work so my friends when you are going to fill up your gas tank at three seventy five a gallon let's remember that the gentleman who runs occidental managed to survive last year on four hundred million dollars  total compensation and knocked over a knock call petroleum c e o received twenty six point seven million chevron c e o receive fifteen point seven million  conoco phillips c e o made fifteen point one million in total compensation mr president let's be clear i believe that oil companies should be allowed to make a reasonable profit and c e o s of big oil companies should be able to make a reasonable compensation but a time when so many americans are struggling to make ends meet and when people can't afford the outrageous fifty five prices that they are now forced to pay these kinds of the executive compensation is just to me totally unacceptable mr president it is not just the oil companies that are ripping off the american people there is a lot of evidence out there and they've been the hearings that have been held on this that wealthy speculators and hedge fund managers have been making obscene amounts of money by driving up the price of oil in unregulated energy markets with absolutely no government oversight the top fifty hedge fund managers earn twenty nine billion in income last year so what you're seeing now is not only oil company greed driving prices up but you're seeing financial institutions and head of hedge funds speculating on oil futures also driving up the price of oil and this is an issue that must be dealt with a number of ways including repealing the so called enron loophole well let me just conclude the president by saying what i think the american people know they know that our middle class is in deep distress that people had worked their whole lives hoping to enjoy a secure retirement and not going to have that retirement we have heard from young people who are very worried about how if ever they're going to be able to pay off their very high a college loans and we've heard from other people just can't afford to go to college so mr president i think the time is very much overdue for the united states congress to stop listening to the oil companies and the speculators and the banks and the credit card companies and all of these people who make huge sums of money and who pay their c e o s obscene compensation packages and start listening to ordinary americans who to a great degree are not having their voices heard that's what i would job is that's what we swore to do when we swore to uphold the constitution i think we were sworn to uphold the needs of the american people so i would hope that we can move forward in addressing the energy crisis short term long term of course we need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and foreign oil into energy efficiency and into sustainable energy and i know you and i mr president of worked on a number of peaceful legislations pieces of legislation five sixty one commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the north american aerospace defense command proceed to the measure to present i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to the motion t sixty two honoring concerns of police survivors as the organization begins its twenty fifth year of service to family members of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty without objection the senate proceeds to the measure to present i am not a must consent that the resolution report send senate joint resolution thirty two limiting the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense service as to the kingdom of saudi arabia completes its business today and stand adjourned until nine thirty a m tomorrow may fourteenth the following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved today the morning i would be deemed expired the time for the two leaders be reserved for the use later in the day and then be mourning business for up to one hour with a time equally divided to control between the two leaders what the designees with the majority controlling the first half and republicans controlling the final half further i asked that the following morning business the senate resumes consideration of