[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 26 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S852-S858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Brown of Ohio):
S. 2117. A bill to increase access to adult education to provide for
economic growth; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Adult Education
and Economic Growth Act of 2012. This bill will address the critical
needs in our workforce by investing in adult education, job training
and other workforce programs needed to build a strong and competitive
21st century workforce. I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by
Senators Jack Reed and Sherrod Brown. An identical bill has been
reintroduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Hinojosa.
By almost any measure, our Nation faces a critical need to strengthen
existing programs of adult education. Our current adult education
system falls short in preparing our people to compete globally. In
fact, fewer than 3 million of the 93 million people who could benefit
from these services actually receive them.
The U.S. labor market has changed dramatically with the advent of new
technology and with the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. The
need for well-trained and highly skilled workers has increased. At the
same time, our adult education system, which should effectively prepare
our low-skill workers to meet the demands of this shifting economy, has
not kept pace with this changing workforce.
Since 2002, the Federal Government has consistently decreased funding
for adult education. In addition, the Nation's primary Federal resource
for adult education, job training and employment services, the
Workforce Investment Act, has not been reauthorized for more than 10
years. Only about one in four adults with less than a high school
education participates in any kind of further education or training.
There are other signs pointing to the need for a better approach to
adult education. Consider adult education enrollment rates. In 1998
there were more than 4 million individuals enrolled in adult education
programs. In 2007, enrollments had dropped to just 2 million. This is a
40 percent drop from when the Workforce Investment Act was originally
enacted in 1998.
A growing number of U.S. skilled workers are facing retirement age
and the growth in skilled labor force has stagnated. Addressing the
looming skills shortage in many sectors and regions in the U.S.,
through reinvestment in our adult education system, will result in an
educated and literate adult population.
According to the Workforce Alliance, 80 percent of jobs in today's
economy require some education beyond a high school degree. Yet there
are 8 million adults in the workforce who have low literacy, limited
English proficiency, or lack educational credentials beyond high
school.
With so many workers who are unemployed or underemployed, it is clear
that we should invest in the training or re-training of U.S. workers to
fill this growing gap.
Our legislation begins the vital task of addressing these problems.
Today, we are proposing a four-pronged approach to strengthen the
Nation's workforce. First, we want to build ``on ramps'' for American
workers who need new skills and a better education in order to improve
their lives. Currently our adult education programs are operating in
silos and it is critical that we improve the adult education system
through partnerships with businesses and workforce development groups.
Just as importantly, we want to encourage employers to help them, by
offering tax credits to businesses that invest in their employees. This
government has long provided employers with limited tax credits when
they help their employees go to college or graduate school. It is basic
logic and to the national good, that we should provide similar
incentives for basic adult education.
Second, we must modernize the delivery system of adult education by
harnessing the increased use of technology in workforce skills training
and adult education. The bill provides incentives to states and local
service providers to increase their use of technology and distance
learning in adult education. Many adult learners cannot afford the time
or money to travel to a classroom and deploying technology will help
meet this need.
Third, our bill establishes stronger assessment and accountability
measures.
This bill authorizes a rather modest $500 million increase in funding
to invigorate state and local adult education programs nationwide to
increase the number of adults with a high school diploma. As a result,
the bill will inevitably increase the number of high school graduates
who go on to college, and update and expand the job skills of the U.S.
workforce. All of this is relevant to my longstanding personal goal of
promoting basic economic fairness in our society.
Other provisions of the Adult Education and Economic Growth Act will
improve workers' readiness to meet the demands of a global workforce by
providing pathways to obtain basic skills, job training, and adult
education.
The act will provide workers with greater access to on-the-job
training and adult education by encouraging public-private partnerships
between government, business and labor.
The act will improve access to correctional education programs to
channel former offenders into productive endeavors and reduce
recidivism.
The act will encourage investment in lower skilled workers by
providing employers with a tax credit if they invest in their
employee's education. This tax credit is aimed at encouraging general
and transferable skills development that may be in the long term
interest of most employers but are not always so clearly rewarded by
the market.
This act focuses on addressing the unique needs of adults with
limited basic skills, with no high school diploma, or with limited
English proficiency. Those individuals who may have taken a different
path earlier in life, and who now find themselves eager to go back to
school and receive additional job training and skills, should be
provided opportunities to get back on track.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important endeavor. Our
Nation's workforce and local communities will be stronger for it.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr.
Franken, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 2119. A bill to establish a pilot program to address overweight/
obesity among children from birth to age 5 in child care settings and
to encourage parental engagement; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Healthy Kids from Day One Act--a bill that will add another tool to our
toolbox for tackling the national epidemic of childhood obesity. Today,
about one in three children is either overweight or obese, and nearly
21 percent of our littlest ones--those in preschool--are obese or
overweight. This problem has become an epidemic, and I want to thank
Senators Coons, Carper, Franken, and Tom Udall for joining me in
introducing this important legislation.
The Healthy Kids from Day One Act seeks to focus on the childcare
setting as a part of our strategy to combat childhood obesity and get
kids healthy and moving again. This bill recognizes that in order to
reduce the prevalence
[[Page S853]]
of childhood obesity, we must reach children in as many settings as
possible and particularly in the places where they live, learn, and
play. With 75 percent of U.S. children aged 3 to 5 years in childcare
and 56 percent in centers, including nursery schools, preschools, and
full-day centers, it makes sense to focus on the preschool and
childcare environment. Experts are increasingly acknowledging this
setting as critical to obesity prevention. For example, this past
October the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a research
synthesis on how childcare settings can promote healthy eating and
physical activity. Furthermore, an article in the January 2012 issue of
Pediatrics examined barriers to children's physical activity in
childcare.
Childcare providers want to create healthy environments for children
but vary in the expertise or resources needed to achieve this goal.
This legislation builds on a bill I introduced with Senator Franken in
2010 by supporting the establishment of childcare collaborative
workshops at the local level to offer childcare providers the tools,
training, and assistance they need to encourage healthy eating and
physical activity. This bill supplements some of the work being done
right now by the First Lady in her Let's Move Child Care initiative, as
it would bring together, in interactive collaborative learning
sessions, relevant entities needed for meaningful childhood-obesity
prevention.
Obesity has serious health and economic consequences. It puts our
children at greater risk of costly but preventable chronic illnesses,
such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. Obesity also comes at a
tremendous cost to our society. The total economic cost is estimated at
$300 billion annually, and, as the Nation's youth continues to age,
further costs will be added to the national health care system if these
trends continue. Obesity also has impacted our ability to recruit
healthy, young servicemembers into the military and maintain a strong
national defense.
My childhood and much of my adult life has been spent in the great
outdoors, and I have tried to bring my enthusiasm for being active and
exploring the world around us here to the U.S. Congress as a cochair of
the Senate Outdoor Recreation Caucus. I firmly believe that we need to
reconnect folks with the idea that being active is fun and rewarding,
and it can help us lower health care costs and improve the quality of
life here in America.
I would like to thank Nemours, Trust for America's Health, the YMCA
of the USA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart
Association for working with me to develop this legislation. This bill
builds upon their expertise with obesity prevention.
I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against childhood
obesity by supporting this bill.
______
By Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Lee, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul,
Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, and
Mr. Wicker):
S.J. Res. 36. A joint resolution providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to
representation election procedures; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today after introducing a
Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval to stop the National
Labor Relations Board's unfair and unnecessary ambush elections rule. I
am pleased that 43 fellow Senators have cosponsored this resolution. I
know it will draw more support on the Senate floor as people learn the
details of the new rule.
This administration's National Labor Relations Board has done a lot
of controversial things, but the ambush elections rule stands out
because it is a politicized and unjustified effort to make a fair
system less fair, and it is being rushed into effect over tremendous
objection.
The National Labor Relations Act, which the National Labor Relations
Board enforces, is a carefully balanced law that protects the rights of
employees to join or not join a union and also protects the rights of
employers to free speech and unrestricted flow of commerce.
Since it was enacted in 1935, changes to this statute have been rare.
When they do occur, it is the result of careful negotiations with all
the stakeholders. Most of the questions that come up under the law are
handled through decisions of the board. Board decisions often do change
the enforcement of the law significantly, but they are issued in
response to an actual dispute and an actual question of law. In
contrast, the ambush elections rule is not a response to a real issue
because the current election process for certifying whether employees
want to form a union is not broken.
This rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders. Instead, it
was rushed into place over just 6 months, despite the fact that it drew
over 65,000 comments in the 2-month period after it was first proposed.
Had the board held the comment period open longer to allow more input
from the regulated community, which was clearly quite engaged on the
proposal, it would certainly have received even more comments. Yet this
relatively small agency reported that it gone through all 65,957
comments in just the 7 weeks they took to release a modified rule,
which was then finalized. The rule was finalized just days before the
board lost its quorum with the expiration of Member Becker's recess
appointment term. Under any circumstances, a rulemaking this hasty
looks suspicious. In this case, there is simply no justification for
the rush.
Today's secret ballot elections occur in a median timeframe of 38
days. Unions win more than 71 percent of elections--their highest win
rate on record. The current system does not disadvantage labor unions
at all. But it does ensure there is fairness for the employees whose
right it is to make the decision of whether or not to form a union, to
pay union dues, and to have some of their dues go into political
campaigns and have the full opportunity to hear from both sides about
the ramifications of that decision--to have the time to get full
disclosure.
There is supposed to be a poster that notifies employees of their
right not to have their money go into political campaigns, but this
administration has taken that off of the poster so they are no longer
informed of that right.
This principle of law has been upheld over nearly seven decades. It
was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued during the debate over the 1959
amendments to the law, saying:
There should be at least a 30-day interval between the
request for an election and the holding of an election . . .
in which both parties can present their viewpoints.
Frankly, whenever I hear a government decision that aims to limit
information available to citizens and depress free speech, I am very
concerned. It was that sort of agenda that was behind the card check
legislation which was defeated in the Senate. Let me repeat that. It
was that sort of agenda that was behind the card check legislation that
was defeated in the Senate. I am afraid this rule has been hatched in
the same laboratory, and I hope it will meet the same fate.
The ambush elections rule eliminates the 25-day waiting period to
conduct elections in cases where a party has filed a preelection
request for review. It effectively eliminates the opportunity for
parties to voice objections and settle issues before the elections and
limits the ability to address them after elections as well.
What are we trying to hide? The effect of these changes will be union
certification elections held in as few as 10 days. Union organizers
will hand-select members of the bargaining unit, and any review of the
appropriateness of the unit makeup or status of employees who may
qualify as supervisors will be postponed until after the election--
something always done before the election. Employees will be voting on
[[Page S854]]
whether to form a union without any idea of who will actually be in the
bargaining unit.
Employers will be caught off guard and potentially flying blind with
regard to their rights under the law, particularly small businesses.
Union organizers spend months, if not years, organizing and spreading
their message to the employees, unbeknownst to the employer. So when a
union files a representation petition, employers are already at a
significant disadvantage in educating employees about their views on
unionization. Employers also use this time to consult with their
attorneys to ensure their actions are permissible under the law.
Shortening the time period will increase the likelihood that employers
will act hastily, opening themselves to unfair labor practice charges
that have very severe consequences.
I am particularly concerned about the small businesses that will be
ambushed under this rule. Instead of focusing on growing and creating
more jobs, they will be swamped with legal issues, with bargaining
obligations, a less flexible workforce, and increased costs across the
board. Most small businesses likely have no idea about the changes
being made by the National Labor Relations Board because the rule was
rushed into place so hastily.
Instead of directing the National Labor Relations Board to focus on
enforcing current law rather than ambushing small business job creators
and their employees, President Obama has stacked the Board with
unconstitutional recess appointees and requested a $15 million increase
in their budget. He simply doesn't understand. He doesn't get it.
By passing this resolution through both the House and Senate, we will
strike a victory for those on the side of job creation and fairness to
employees. It will also send a very important message to a runaway
agency. Under this administration, the National Labor Relations Board
has been more controversial than most observers can ever remember. They
have flouted the intentions of Congress repeatedly.
The President has redefined a recess appointment in order to keep it
going. There is no law that allowed that. There is no change that has
been made that would allow a President to do something different than
has ever been done before. But he did it. He redefined the recess
appointment in order to keep the Board going.
A few weeks ago, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Pearce
announced that he intends to push through even more controversial
changes to the elections rules before the end of the year. He is
planning to require a mandatory hearing 7 days after a petition is
filed. Employers would be forced to file a position statement on
important legal questions at the hearing or lose the right to
subsequently argue those issues. He plans to require employers to
provide personal employee information to union organizers, such as e-
mail addresses, within 2 days. Do you think the employees want to be
harassed with e-mails? I doubt it. These changes would completely
cripple any employer's ability to have a voice in the decisionmaking
process, let alone a small employer's.
Enacting a resolution of disapproval of the ambush elections rule
would prevent Chairman Pearce from promulgating these destruction
changes. It would not roll back any rights or privileges, it would
simply return these workplace rules to current law. Current law. Not
current rule, current law. It just returns it to the workplace rules we
have under current law. I will remind my colleagues that current law is
a fair system under which employees retain the right to decide by
secret ballot election whether to form a union. Elections occur in a
median of 38 days, and unions win 71 percent of the elections.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of
support from a number of groups.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association
of Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2012.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), I am writing to express manufacturers'
strong support for S.J. Res. 36, the ``Resolution of
Disapproval'' of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB)
rule relating to representation election procedures.
The NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade
association, representing small and large manufacturers in
every industrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM's
mission is to enhance the competitiveness of the
manufacturing economy by advocating policies that are
conducive to U.S. economic growth.
The NLRB's rule relating to representation election
procedures, finalized in December, represents one of many
recent actions and decisions made by the NLRB, stifling
economic growth and job creation. These actions would burden
manufacturers with harsh rules, making it harder to do
business in the United States. The rule would limit what
issues and evidence can be presented at a pre-election
hearing, potentially leaving important questions unresolved
until after an election has taken place, making these
questions moot.
Furthermore, the rule would also eliminate the current 25
day ``grace period,'' compressing the time frame for
elections to occur in approximately 20 days. Business owners
would effectively be stripped of legal rights ensuring a fair
election and those who lack resources, or in house legal
expertise, will be left scrambling to navigate and understand
complex labor processes with too little time. Moreover,
employees will be denied the ability to make fully informed
decisions about whether they want to join a union. Finally,
the NLRB has not provided any evidence such a rule is needed
in order to address a systematic problem of representation
election delays. Absent any justification, the NAM believes
the rule is unnecessary and will create problems where none
currently exist.
S.J. Res. 36 would send a strong message to the NLRB and
rein in the agency, whose actions have resulted in the most
dramatic changes to labor law in 75 years, threatening the
ability of business owners to create and retain jobs. We look
forward to continuing to work with you on our shared goals
for a strong economy, job creation and promoting fair and
balanced labor laws.
NLRB REPRESENTATION ELECTION STATUS THROUGH THE YEARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election
Fiscal year Cases agreement % Median days 56-day %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.......................................... .............. ................ .............. ..............
2010.......................................... 1790 92.1 38 95.1
2009.......................................... 1690 91.9 37 95.5
2008.......................................... 2085 91.8 38 95.1
2007.......................................... 2080 91.2 39 93.9
2006.......................................... 2296 91.1 38 94.2
2005.......................................... 2715 89 39 93.6
2004.......................................... 2537 89 39 93.6
2003.......................................... 2659 88.5 40 92.5
2002.......................................... 2871 86.1 41 91
2001.......................................... 2842 88.2 40 N/A
10 year Average............................... 2356 89.9 38.9 93.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Restaurant Association,
February 15, 2012.
Michael B. Enzi,
Ranking Member, Senate Health, Education, Labor, &
Pensions,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: We write on behalf of the National
Restaurant Association to commend you on your leadership
urging the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to
challenge the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB)
decision to issue ``ambush election'' regulations. These
regulations make it more difficult for small businesses to
respond and educate their employees during union election
campaigns.
The ambush election regulations would, in practice, deny
employees' proper access to information on unions, while
restricting employers' rights of free speech and due process.
Specifically, the ambush election regulations restrict an
employer's ability to raise substantive issues and concerns
prior to a union election, such as allowing the NLRB
[[Page S855]]
to limit the issues raised at a pre-election hearing and
preventing an employer from raising objections to the size
and scope of a unit.
The ambush election regulations would also eliminate the
requirement that a union election not be held within 25 days
after a hearing judge rules on pre-election matters. As NLRB
Board Member Brian Hayes points out, the intent of the ambush
election regulations is to ``eviscerate an employer's
legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective
bargaining.''
We praise your leadership on this issue and look forward to
assisting you as this matter moves toward a floor vote in the
US Senate.
Sincerely,
Angelo I. Amador, Esq.,
Vice President Director, Labor & Workforce Policy.
Michelle Reinke Neblett,
Director, Labor & Workforce Policy.
____
Associated Builders
and Contractors, Inc.,
February 16, 2012.
The Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC), a national association with 74 chapters
representing more than 22,000 merit shop construction and
construction-related firms, I am writing to thank you for
introducing S.J. Res. 36, which provides for congressional
disapproval and nullification of the National Labor Relations
Board's (NLRB) rule related to representation election
procedures. ABC supports S.J. Res. 36 and urges Congress to
immediately pass this much-needed resolution, which will
nullify the ambush election proposal.
The ambush election rule is nothing more than the Board's
attempt to promote the interests of organized labor by
effectively denying employees access to critical information
about the pros and cons of union representation. Stripping
employers of free speech and the ability to educate their
employees, the rule poses a threat to both employees and
employers.
In August, ABC criticized the NLRB proposed ambush rule
that could dramatically shorten the time frame for union
organizing elections from the current average of 38 days to
as few as 10 days between when a petition is filed and the
election occurs. ABC submitted comments to the NLRB stating
the proposed rule would significantly impede the ability of
construction industry employers to protect their rights in
the pre-election hearing process; hinder construction
employers ability to share facts and information regarding
union representation with their employees; and impose
numerous burdens without any reasoned justification on small
merit shop businesses and their employees, which constitute
the majority of the construction industry. In the largest
response on record, the NLRB received more than 70,000
comments regarding the proposal, many of which strongly
opposed the changes.
The Board published a final rule on December 22, 2011, with
an April 30, 2012 effective date. While it somewhat modified
the original proposal, disposing of the rigid seven- and two-
day requirements, the final rule is identical in purpose and
similar in effect to the August proposal.
At this time of economic challenges, it is unfortunate that
the NLRB continues to move forward with policies that
threaten to paralyze the construction industry and stifle job
growth. If left unchecked, the actions of the NLRB will fuel
economic uncertainty and have serious negative ramifications
for millions of American workers. We applaud you for
introducing S.J. Res. 36 and urge Congress to immediately
pass this much-needed resolution.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey G. Burr,
Vice President, Federal Affairs.
____
National Retail Federation,
February 16, 2012.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
U.S. Senate, 379A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the National Retail
Federation (NRF), I am writing to you urge your support for
the Joint Resolution of Disapproval challenging the National
Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rule on ambush elections.
Senator Mike Enzi has introduced this resolution, and NRF
urges you to support this legislation.
As the world's largest retail trade association and the
voice of retail worldwide, NRF's global membership includes
retailers of all sizes, formats and channels of distribution
as well as chain restaurants and industry partners from the
United States and more than 45 countries abroad. In the U.S.,
NRF represents an industry that includes more than 3.6
million establishments and which directly and indirectly
accounts for 42 million jobs--one in four U.S. jobs. The
total U.S. GDP impact of retail is $2.5 trillion annually,
and retail is a daily barometer of the health of the nation's
economy.
Senator Enzi's resolution will relieve the serious threat
to both employees and employers posed by a recently finalized
NLRB rule regarding election timing. The rule, announced
December 21, 2011, would drastically change the process for
union representation elections and would severely limit
worker access to information needed to make an informed
decision about whether or not to vote in favor of a union.
The average amount of time that elapses in a NLRB election
is presently 37 days. Under the new rule, a vote could happen
in as few as fourteen days, leaving an employer little time
to prepare for an election. Moreover, since a union can be
organizing for an election and talking to employees for up to
a year before a formal petition for an election is submitted
to the NLRB, the new rule severely tilts the playing field
against employers. As a result, the quality and quantity of
information available to employees in consideration of the
issue will be severely unbalanced; and the rights of
employees who do not favor the union position will be
undermined.
This action by the NLRB, taken along with a series of other
extraordinary rulings over the course of the last nine
months, are nothing more than an attempt to impose the
Employee Free Choice Act (card-check) on employees and
employers through regulation. We urge you to strongly reject
this ``backdoor'' card check agenda by a board of unelected
bureaucrats and restore balance to the organizing process so
that we can start removing the economic uncertainty facing
both employers and employees.
NRF is fully behind Senator Enzi's effort, and we urge you
to support the Joint Resolution of Disapproval. We look
forward to working with the Senate to move this Resolution
forward.
Sincerely,
David French,
Senior Vice President, Government Relations.
____
Coalition for a
Democratic Workplace,
February 16, 2012.
Dear Senators Enzi and Isakson and Representatives Kline,
Roe and Gingrey: On behalf of millions of job creators
concerned with mounting threats to the basic tenets of free
enterprise, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace thanks
you for introducing S.J. Res. 36 and its companion resolution
in the House of Representatives, which provide for
congressional disapproval and nullification of the National
Labor Relations Board's (NLRB or Board) rule related to
representation election procedures. This ``ambush'' election
rule is nothing more than the Board's attempt to placate
organized labor by effectively denying employees' access to
critical information about unions and stripping employers of
free speech and dues process rights. The rule poses a threat
to both employees and employers. We support S.J. Res. 36 and
its House companion and urge Congress to immediately pass
these much-needed resolutions, which will nullify the ambush
election proposal.
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of more
than 600 organizations, has been united in its opposition to
the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' (EFCA) and EFCA
alternatives that pose a similar threat to workers,
businesses and the U.S. economy. Thanks to the bipartisan
group of elected officials who stood firm against this
damaging legislation, the threat of EFCA is less immediate
this Congress. Politically powerful labor unions, other EFCA
supporters, and their allies in government are not backing
down, however. Having failed to achieve their goals through
legislation, they are now coordinating with the Board and the
Department of Labor (DOL) in what appears to be an all-out
attack on job-creators and employees in an effort to enact
EFCA through administrative rulings and regulations.
On June 21, 2011, the Board proposed its ambush election
rule, which was designed to significantly speed up the
existing union election process and limit employer
participation in elections. At the time, Board Member Hayes
warned that ``the proposed rules will (1) shorten the time
between filing of the petition and the election date, and (2)
substantially limit the opportunity for full evidentiary
hearing or Board review on contested issues involving, among
other things, appropriate unit, voter eligibility, and
election misconduct.'' Hayes noted the effect would be to
``stifle debate on matters that demand it.'' The Board
published a final rule on December 22, 2011, with an April
30, 2012 effective date. While it somewhat modified the
original proposal, the final rule is identical in purpose and
similar in effect to the proposal.
The NLRB's own statistics reveal the average time from
petition to election was 31 days, with over 90% of elections
occurring within 56 days. There is no indication that
Congress intended a shorter election time frame, and indeed,
based on the legislative history of the 1959 amendments to
the National Labor Relations Act, it is clear Congress
believed that an election period of at least 30 days was
necessary to adequately assure employees the ``fullest
freedom'' in exercising their right to choose whether they
wish to be represented by a union. As then Senator John F.
Kennedy Jr. explained, a 30-day period before any election
was a necessary ``safeguard against rushing employees into an
election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.'' Senator
Kennedy stated ``there should be at least a 30-day interval
between the request for an election and the holding of the
election'' and he opposed an amendment that failed to provide
``at least 30 days in which both parties can present their
viewpoints.''
The current election time frames are not only reasonable,
but permit employees time to hear from both the union and the
employer and make an informed decision, which
[[Page S856]]
would not be possible under the ambush election rule. In
fact, in other situations involving ``group'' employee
issues, Congress requires that employees be given at least 45
days to review relevant information in order to make a
``knowing and voluntary'' decision. (This is required under
the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act when employees
evaluate whether to sign an age discrimination release in the
context of a program offered to a group or class of
employees.) Also, in many cases, employers, particularly
small ones, will not have enough time under the rule's time
frames to secure legal counsel, let alone an opportunity to
speak with employees about union representation or respond to
promises union organizers may have made to secure union
support, even though many of those promises may be completely
unrealistic. Given that union organizers typically lobby
employees for months outside the workplace without an
employer's knowledge, these ``ambush'' elections would often
result in employees' receiving only half the story. They
would hear promises of raises and benefits that unions have
no way of guaranteeing, without an opportunity for the
employer to explain its position and the possible
inaccuracies put forward by the union.
For these reasons, we thank you for introducing S.J. Res.
36 and its House companion and urge Congress to immediately
pass these much-needed resolutions. If left unchecked, the
actions of the NLRB will fuel economic uncertainty and have
serious negative ramifications for millions of employers,
U.S. workers they have hired or would like to hire, and
consumers.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Burr,
Chairman.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I look forward to the opportunity to debate
this resolution on the floor, and I thank the Senators who have joined
me as original cosponsors.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S.J. Res. 37. A joint resolution to disapprove a rule promulgated by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
emission standards for certain steam generating units; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to announce that I introduced a
resolution of disapproval just a few minutes ago under the
Congressional Review Act.
A lot of people don't know what the Congressional Review Act is, but
it is an act that will allow Congress to look at some of the
regulations. If there is something they don't believe is in the best
interest of the country, they are able to introduce something to
rescind that. It would call for a vote, and the vote would be a 51-
vote. So it is one that has not been used very much, but it is a
measure that would prevent, in this case the Obama EPA, from going
through with its Utility MACT.
MACT is the maximum achievable control technology. That is used quite
often because there are sometimes requirements in these EPA rules that
require different industries to do things where there is no technology
available to allow them to get that done. So the Utility MACT is one of
the most expensive environmental rules in American history, second only
to President Obama's cap-and-trade rules, which he was unable to
achieve legislatively. Left untouched, the Utility MACT would destroy
over 1 million jobs and cost the American economy billions of dollars.
My CRA, the Congressional Review Act, will be the moment of truth for
a majority in this body who understand how harmful the Obama EPA
regulatory agenda will be for their constituents. Remember, last year
at this time 64 Senators voted in different ways to rein in the EPA's
destructive greenhouse gas regulations. I had a bill to take away the
jurisdiction from the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gases. It was called the Energy Tax Prevention Act. At the
same time, there was another I call a cover vote. Sometimes when you
want to tell people at home that you are against something, you can
have a less maybe severe vote, and there happens to be a cover vote
that takes place.
The bottom line is 64 of the 100 Senators voted to do something about
the overregulation that is coming out of the Environmental Protection
Agency. That particular one was on the regulation that would be the
most expensive of all.
The Utility MACT I am offering the CRA on now is probably the second
most expensive. But to refresh your memory, in order to have the EPA
have jurisdiction of the greenhouse gases, they had to somehow come up
with an endangerment finding. They did, and they based it on the IPCC
science that gave rise to the concern that was exposed in climategate.
I think everyone understands that was flawed science. But, nonetheless,
that is what they used. That is why we were able to get two-thirds of
this body to object to the EPA regulating greenhouse gases.
I think the bottom line now is that there are more than a dozen
Senate Democrats who have claimed they want to rein in the EPA because
they know the devastating impact the Agency's regulatory train wreck
will have at home. The Senators understand if their constituents lose
their jobs as a result of these overregulations, they might lose their
jobs.
So today the Senate can look forward to having one more opportunity
to stand up to President Obama's war on affordable energy. They can
vote for this CRA which will put a halt to one of the Obama EPA's most
expensive and economically destructive rules.
Under the Utility MACT, it would cost American families--and nobody
disagrees with this--the range is between $11 billion and $18 billion
in electricity rate increases. That is over an 11-percent rate increase
on average that it would cost if we were to pass this Utility MACT
under the regulations of the utilities. This would send ripple effects
throughout the economy, causing approximately 1.4 million net job
losses by 2020. And it is not just jobs in the coal industry that would
be affected.
Dr. Bernard Weinstein of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern
Methodist University has estimated EPA's air rules could endanger 1
million manufacturing jobs outside of the coal and utility industry
losses. Workers recently laid off in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia
are feeling the devastating impacts of the rule. Sadly, these lost jobs
are all part of Obama's wider war on coal and fossil fuels.
You might remember that he admitted this was his goal in the campaign
of 2008 when he said:
If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them. And under my plan of a
cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily
skyrocket.
When the cap-and-trade failed, Obama began aggressively pursuing
these goals through an executive regulatory barrage of unelected
bureaucrats. So companies such as Solyndra got big cash payoffs while a
regulatory train wreck was unleashed by the EPA to destroy America's
fossil fuel industry.
The political climate is much different now than it was in the days
when global warming alarmists could bask in their historical gloom-and-
doom predictions about the end of the world. Now, President Obama
wouldn't dare say anything like that because the American people no
longer are buying it. Instead, he has begun touting oil and gas
development and saying he is for an all-out, all-of-the-above energy
strategy. In an election year, he knows the American people want the
hundreds of thousands of jobs and affordable energy prices that come
with domestic oil and gas.
But he is clearly still determined to achieve his global warming
agenda. His war on affordable energy is moving underneath the radar and
wrapped in lies about protecting public health. Make no mistake, the
train wreck will achieve all of Obama's global warming objectives, and
it will severely undermine our Nation's economy in the process. So I
will spend just a moment on that.
When President Obama could not achieve cap-and-trade through
legislation, he said he would just do it through regulations. EPA's
greenhouse gas regime will cost American families between $300 billion
and $400 billion a year. This is important because no one has refuted
this. We have gone through the Kyoto convention, and that was a range
that was given to us by the Wharton econometrics survey at that time.
And several others chimed in--MIT chimed in, CRA chimed in. So the cost
of regulating greenhouse gas
[[Page S857]]
would be about $300 billion to $400 billion a year.
When we talk about billions and trillions of dollars, I am like
everybody else. I have a hard time seeing how that really affects us.
In my State of Oklahoma, I regularly determine each year how many
families in my State of Oklahoma are going to file a tax return, and
then I do the math. This particular one, at $300 billion a year, would
cost each family filing a tax return in my State of Oklahoma about
$3,000 a year. Now, that is not just once, that would be every year.
What do you get for it? And this is the thing that I think is
important, and the American people finally have caught on. They have
admitted that through the EPA, when you ask them if we were to pass one
of these things regulating CO2 through the cap-and-trade
legislation that we have defeated, would this reduce greenhouse gases,
the answer from the Administrator of the EPA is, no, it wouldn't
because this only would affect the United States of America. This isn't
where the problem is. China would still be doing its thing, India would
be doing its thing, and Mexico.
I have contended if we are regulating these in the United States, it
could actually have the effect of increasing the emissions because, as
we chase our manufacturing base overseas to find energy, they would be
going to countries such as China and India where they don't have the
regulatory restrictions we have in this country.
So the Utility MACT is second only to the greenhouse gas regulations
in terms of what it would cost, in terms of costing the people in terms
of jobs and money. Actually, the regulatory thing would be worse when
we are talking about greenhouse gases because under the bills that were
introduced starting in 2003--that was the McCain-Lieberman bill, going
all the way forward to the Waxman-Markey bill--the assumption has been
that they would regulate industries and emitters that were over the
25,000 tons a year.
Now, if we do it through regulation, as they are trying to do it
right now, the Clean Air Act has a limit of 250 tons. So we would be
talking about regulating virtually every church, school, and hospital
in America and not just the very large utilities. So that is where we
were on that issue.
On oil, President Obama has been congratulating himself on decreasing
the imports of oil from the Middle East, but he fails to mention his
policies have been consistently against oil and gas. In fact, he and
people in his administration have said they want to do away with fossil
fuels. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said they wanted to ``boost the
price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
Well, that is $7 or $8 a gallon. Right now we are looking at $4 a
gallon, and that is what they want to do. What is their motive? To do
away with fossil fuels. He claims to care about energy security, yet he
stopped the Keystone Pipeline.
I am very proud of a lot of Senators in here who have talked about
it. Senator Hoeven, for example, is very familiar with it because of
the production in his State. We are talking about the sands up in
Alberta and bringing them down through the United States. I am
interested in this because Cushing, OK, happens to be one of the
intersections that is there for the pipeline.
So here is something there is absolutely no reason to do away with
except to kill oil because we know the pipeline is going to bring oil
down into the United States through, I might say, my State of Oklahoma
down to the coast where it can be used. A lot of people don't
understand this because they have been told things that, quite frankly,
are not true.
In terms of oil, gas, and coal, the United States of America has the
largest recoverable reserves in the world. People keep saying over and
over again: Well, we only have 3 percent of the reserves. Yet we use 25
percent. Quite frankly, they are talking about proven reserves. You
can't get a recoverable reserve until you drill. If they don't let us
drill because of the policies of this administration, then, obviously,
we would be stuck with just the very small amount we could produce.
Nonetheless, it is out there. We are the only country in the world that
our politicians don't allow us to explore and recover our own
reserves--the only country in the world.
Natural gas. We know it is happening right now. We know in areas like
New York and Pennsylvania with the Marcellus debate, we have
opportunities we have never had in this country. We have the
opportunity to recover more natural gas. When the President made a
statement in the State of the Union Message about being supportive of
``all the above,'' talking about natural gas, he slipped in one little
statement: Well, we don't want to poison the Earth--or something like
that.
What he is talking about is they have spent countless hours trying to
regulate a process called hydraulic fracturing--a process that started
in my State of Oklahoma in 1949. There has never been a documented case
of ground water contamination since they have been using hydraulic
fracturing. And we can't get into these tight formations without
hydraulic fracturing. It can't be done.
So the President can get by with saying he wants to produce the
natural gas we have locally, and at the same time take over the
regulation of hydraulic fracturing by the Federal Government. We know
what that would mean. I think the best evidence of that is President
Obama in his current budget is doubling the funding for the
antifracking agenda in the 2013 budget. Nuclear? That is agreed. If we
believe in ``all of the above,'' you have to have fossil fuel as coal,
oil, and gas, but also nuclear. It is a very important component. It is
interesting that only yesterday President Obama sent his Energy
Secretary, Steven Chu, to Georgia, to take credit for the 5,800 jobs
that will be created when two new nuclear reactors are built there. As
Secretary Chu said yesterday:
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama outlined
a blueprint for an American economy that is built to last and
develops every available source of American energy. Nuclear
power is an important part of that blueprint.
Yes, nuclear power is so important that President Obama forgot to
mention it in his very long State of the Union message. To send
Secretary Chu to Georgia is kind of ironic, given that Chu is the one
who said that nuclear power is the ``lesser of two evils.'' It was the
President himself who designated a Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission who had been leading the antinuclear energy group for quite
some time. In fact, Chairman Jaczko tried to delay the progress on
licensing the very reactors in Georgia that they went up to try to take
credit for.
We see this over and over again.
What does this all mean? President Obama knows he needs to talk the
talk on domestic energy because people have caught on. I think people
know now that we have the recoverable reserves to be completely free
from the Middle East. All we have to do in a short period of time is
develop our own resources. I know my environmental friends are already
saying, about the CRA on the Utility MACT--the NRDC jumped on the story
today with the headline ``Let Loose the Defenders of Mercury
Poisoning.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.
I remember in 2003 and 2005 when we had the Clear Skies bill. The
Clear Skies bill would have had mandatory reductions--keep in mind we
are talking about 2003--mandatory reductions on mercury emissions by 70
percent by 2018. It was a matter of a few years from now, that would be
reality. Think about it, 6 years from now we would already have a 70-
percent reduction if the Democrats had not stopped the bill. The reason
they did is because we refused--we want to have SOX,
NOX, and mercury, which are the real pollutants, reduced and
reduced in a rapid fashion, faster than President Clinton or anybody
else has tried to do it. They held it hostage because they also wanted
CO2 included in it, so we got none of the above as a result
of it.
The EPA's Utility MACT is designed to destroy jobs by killing off the
coal industry. EPA admits itself that the Utility MACT rule would cost
an unprecedented $11 billion to implement. Of course these costs will
come in the form of higher electricity rates for every American.
Importantly, the EPA also admits that the $11 billion in costs will
yield a mere $6 billion in direct benefits.
Do the math. It means the agency has by its own admission completely
[[Page S858]]
failed the cost-benefit test. It has the advantage of reducing
emissions without killing jobs and the Utility MACT would do little for
the environment but destroy millions of jobs. Why did Clear Skies fail?
As I said, it was held hostage because they didn't want us to just lose
SOX, NOX, and mercury, the real pollutants. They
wanted to include CO2.
Before Obama's decision to halt the ozone rule, which would have put
hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk, then-White House Chief of Staff
Bill Daley asked: What are the health impacts of unemployment?
That is a good question. What are the health impacts of skyrocketing
electricity rates which hurt the poor the most? What are the health
impacts on children whose parents will lose one of the 1.4 million jobs
that will be destroyed by the EPA's rules on powerplants?
The Senate needs to focus on promoting policies that improve our
environment without harming our economy. The EPA's Utility MACT does
the opposite. My CRA, I think, is one of the things about which they
say: You will never get it done. I have criticized people for bringing
a Congressional Review Act up against regulations where I know the
votes are not there. It takes just 51 votes. The reason I think the
votes should be here now is if the people at home care enough to put
the pressure on. That is exactly what happened on the ozone
requirements. They said the President was committed to ozone changes.
He changed his mind because of that.
Remember the farm dust rule? The President was going to have a farm
dust rule on emissions that would hit the air. I always remember, I had
a news conference in my State of Oklahoma, in the western part of the
State. We had a couple of people there from Washington who had never
been west of the Mississippi. We got down there in this area of
Oklahoma. We were talking about farm dust. I said: You see this brown
stuff down here? That is dirt. You see that round green thing? That is
cotton. Hold your finger up in the air--that is wind. Are there any
questions?
There is no technology to do that, yet the expense to each of my
farmers in a farm State like Oklahoma would have been hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year and not accomplishing anything. We were
able to get the public to write in to complain about that. As a result
of that, the President pulled back.
I hope enough people are concerned about Utility MACT and its
devastating effect on our economy and on jobs in America that they will
join in and apply the pressure necessary to help the people in this
Chamber understand that we should pass this Congressional Review Act
and do away with this particular, very harmful regulation that is
before us.
I have often said--a lot of people do not understand this--but
Presidents are the ones who put the budgets down every year. A lot of
times they try to blame the House or Senate, Democrats or Republicans.
No. It doesn't matter. Who is in the White House, they are the ones who
determine what the budget is. During the Bush years there was a total
of $2 trillion of deficits in 8 years. However, after this budget came
out last week, in the Obama 4 years the increase has been, in deficits,
$5.3 trillion. That is $5.3 trillion in 4 years as opposed to $2
trillion in 8 years.
As bad as that is, I contend that the regulations of this
administration are actually more expensive to the American people than
servicing this debt. So I think it is important that we talk about
this, talk about not just Utility MACT but all of these. Utility MACT
is where we should draw the line, however, because that is one that
directly affects our ability to provide energy for America, for our
manufacturing jobs. We are right now a little bit under 50 percent
dependent upon coal for our ability to run this machine called America.
If you do this, we would lose, it is anticipated, 20 percent of our
generation capacity and that translates into a lot of money, as I have
noted.
That is what we have introduced today. I encourage my Democratic and
Republican colleagues to join us in passing the CRA.
____________________