Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - March 22, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Re-empowerment of Skilled Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers Act, also known as the RESPECT Act.

This legislation will amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of ``supervisor.'' It is necessary because of recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board, which has determined that millions of workers do not fall within the definition of ``supervisor.'' An employee who is deemed a ``supervisor'' under the National Labor Relations Act does not have collective bargaining rights or other labor protections.

The NLRB rulings in these so-called Kentucky River cases have an enormous impact on nurses. According to the amicus brief filed by the American Nurses Association and United American Nurses, AFL-CIO, in these cases, ``[o]f the more than 2.1 million people working as registered nurses in the United States in the year 2002, 15.6 per cent were union members. Registered nurses covered by a collective bargaining agreement can earn approximately 11 per cent more per week than non-unionized nurses..... .''

There are 800,000 nurses in this country--40,000 nurses in my home State of Illinois alone. We owe it to these nurses to find a workable definition of the term ``supervisor'' so that they and other professional employees and construction tradesworkers receive the labor protections that Congress intended.

The supervisor exclusion was created in 1947 when Congress adopted the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. The Act defines ``supervisor'' as:

[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.

The interpretation and application of this definition has resulted in years of litigation before the NLRB and courts of appeals. The United States Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in 2001. In NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001), it reviewed the Board's test for determining supervisory status and rejected the Board's interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision left open the interpretation of the term ``supervisor'' and three cases were filed before the National Labor Relations Board to address this issue: Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Case 7-CA-22141, Golden Crest Healthcare Center, Cases 18-RC-16415 and 18-RC-16416, and Croft Metals, Inc., Case 15-RC-8393.

The NLRB refused to hear oral argument in these cases despite the fact that its attempt to define supervisory status had been reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court and it has been more than 5 years since the Court's decision in Kentucky River. In July, I joined Senator Kennedy and other Democrats in a letter to the Chairman of the NLRB to urge that the Board reconsider its decision not to allow oral arguments in these cases. The NLRB refused.

In October 2006, the Board issued its rulings and expanded the meaning of the definition of ``supervisor'' by expanding the meaning of the terms ``assign'' and ``responsibly to direct.'' The NLRB rulings override the intent of Congress not to exclude minor supervisory officials, professionals, skilled craftpersons, and nurses from labor protections.

Last December, I noted that several States are suffering from nursing shortages. This legislation is necessary to alleviate the nursing crisis. More than 72 percent of hospitals experience nursing shortages, and 1.2 million nursing positions need to be filled within the next decade. By denying nurses the right to collectively bargain, pay will surely decrease and the working environment of these nurses will deteriorate, thereby driving even more nurses out of the profession and discouraging individuals from entering the field.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators DODD, KENNEDY, and I in supporting the RESPECT Act--an important effort to help American nurses, other skilled professional employees, and construction tradesworkers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, my colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and I join together to introduce bipartisan legislation to use economic and diplomatic measures to help convince the Iranian Government to turn away from its path toward the development of nuclear weapons.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 would strengthen our economic sanctions regime against Iran until Iran completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantles all nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs.

The bill, for example, would penalize foreign oil companies with U.S. subsidiaries doing business in Iran and would forbid the awarding of U.S. Government contracts to those who have violated our existing sanctions against Iran.

The bill reiterates the requirement to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran mandated in last year's Defense Authorization bill.

In addition to these measures, the bill addresses Russia's role in exporting nuclear and military technology to Iran.

Nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia would be prohibited if that country continues to assist Iran in developing nuclear weapons. The United States could not enter into such an agreement with Moscow, absent a Presidential certification that Russia's assistance to Iran has ceased.

This week has brought some promising news. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns testified before the Senate Banking Committee that Russia has begun applying pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. That is most welcome, and if the President provides the verification that Russia's nuclear assistance to Iran has ceased--and that this is a sea change and not merely a contract dispute--then our other negotiations with Russia can proceed unimpeded.

I firmly believe that we should offer positive incentives if Iran does change course and abandon its programs to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has energy needs, and we hope that they will join us and the community of nations in the peaceful acquisition of those resources.

This legislation authorizes $50 million to the International Atomic Energy Agency to support the establishment of an international nuclear fuel bank, a concept originally proposed by Congressman TOM LANTOS. This bank would maintain a reserve of low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel and make it available to countries in full compliance with IAEA safeguards which do not operate uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing facilities. It is our hope that Iran will become one of these nations.

Because members of the American public are our best ambassadors and America itself is the strongest evidence of the benefits of freedom and prosperity, this bill increases the authorization for funding for young Iranians to come to the United States as part of exchange programs.

I support efforts to engage with Tehran's leaders regarding Iraq. They should recognize that they, too, have a vested interest in regional peace and security. This bill is aimed at an issue which we cannot compromise: the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Iran's leaders face a choice of whether to pursue a legitimate goal of peaceful nuclear power for their citizens or a dangerous strategy to develop nuclear weapons. We must provide the economic and political pressure as well as incentives to help Iran choose the path to legitimacy and nuclear nonproliferation. This legislation will help achieve that goal.

Source