[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1229-S1244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report the joint 
resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) 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 case procedures.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 
there will now be up to 10 hours for debate, equally divided between 
those favoring and those opposing the joint resolution.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to 
discuss the Congressional Review Act resolution that Senator McConnell, 
the Republican leader, Senator Enzi, the Senator from Wyoming, and I 
have filed to stop a new National Labor Relations Board rule. Last 
December, the National Labor Relations Board issued a

[[Page S1230]]

final rule that shortened the time between when pro-union organizers 
ask an employer for a secret ballot election and when that election 
actually takes place.
  I refer to this as the ``ambush election rule,'' because it forces a 
union election before an employer has the chance to figure out what is 
going on. Even worse, it jeopardizes employees' privacy by requiring 
employers to turn over employees' personal information, including email 
addresses, phone numbers, shift hours, and locations to union 
organizers.
  This action by the National Labor Relations Board, which increasingly 
has become a union advocate instead of umpiring disputes between 
employees and employers, has attracted enormous attention across this 
country. I have letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the National Council of Chain 
Restaurants, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry 
Leaders Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, the American 
Lodging and Hotel Association, HR Policy Association, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource 
Management, the Associated General Contractors of America--173 total 
organizations that have registered their deep concern about this ambush 
election rule.
  Senator Enzi is already on the floor. He has for many years fought 
this battle. We want the American people to understand why the ambush 
election rule is such a bad idea, why it is so unfair to employers, 
forcing them to have a union election before they can figure out what 
is going on. For the same reason, it is unfair to employees. Employees 
have to vote in a union election before they have a chance to hear both 
sides.
  Here is how the procedure will work. If a majority of the Senate 
approves this resolution, it will then go to the House for a vote. If 
it passes both chambers, the President can veto the resolution. It will 
take two-thirds of the Senate to override that veto.
  If the NLRB's new rule is disapproved, the Board cannot issue a 
substantially similar rule without congressional approval. The question 
I would ask is: What is the rush? What is the problem here? Today, more 
than 95 percent of union elections occur within 56 days of the petition 
filing. But under this new rule, elections could take place in as few 
as 11 days. This rule will harm employers and employees alike. If you 
are an employer that is ambushed by that 11-day election, here is how 
it works. On day 1, you get a faxed copy of an election petition that 
has been filed at your local NLRB regional office stating that 30 
percent of your employees support a union.
  The union may have already been quietly trying to organize for months 
without your knowledge. Your employees have only been able to hear the 
union's point of view. By day 2 or 3, you must publicly post an 
election notice in your workplace. If you communicate to your employees 
electronically, you have to publish the notice online as well. By noon 
on day 7 you must file with the NLRB what is called a statement of 
position. This is a comprehensive document in which an employer sets 
out legal positions and claims in writing. Under the NLRB's new rule, 
you waive your rights to use any legal arguments not raised in this 
document. So it should be pretty obvious that by day 7 you will have to 
have a lawyer on hand. You probably need that lawyer on hand on day 2, 
and hopefully on day 1, because if you make any mistakes in the lead-up 
to the election, the NLRB might set aside the result and order a rerun 
election. Worse, if a bigger mistake is made, it could require an 
employer to automatically bargain with the union.
  Now think about the real world. At our hearing before the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, a representative of the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses testified. She said there 
are 350,000 independent business owners in the NFIB, with an average of 
10 employees. So you have small businesses all over America. They do 
not sit around with labor lawyers; they do not have money to hire labor 
lawyers. They are expected to know in a day or two exactly what to do 
about a complicated petition before the NLRB because of this ambush 
election rule that could cause the election to happen within 11 days.
  On day 7, you must also present the union and the NLRB with a list of 
prospective voters as well as their job classifications, shifts, and 
work locations.
  Now if you are a business with five, six, seven, eight employees, you 
are going to be spending your time working on this union matter. Your 
customers might want your services. They might want on-time deliveries. 
All of a sudden, you are running around trying to find a labor lawyer, 
trying to avoid making mistakes, so you can deal with this ambush 
election.
  On day 8, a pre-election hearing is held at the NLRB regional office 
and an election day is set. By day 10, the employer must present the 
union with a list of employee names, personal email addresses, personal 
cell phone numbers, and home addresses. You have to hand this 
information over, even if the employees object.
  Day 11 is the earliest day on which the NLRB can conduct the election 
under the new rule. The union has the power to postpone an election by 
an additional 10 days, but the employer has no corresponding power. The 
union has ambushed the employer and has the power to postpone the 
election, but the employer has no similar right.
  Under this new NLRB rule, before the hearing on day 8, an employer 
will have less than 1 week to do the following things:
  Figure out what an election petition is. For most of those hundreds 
of thousands of small businesses with five, six, eight employees, they 
might have no idea what it is.
  Find legal representation. Finding a lawyer is not just a matter of 
looking in a phone book, it is a matter of finding a lawyer with whom 
you are comfortable, whom you trust, and whom you know has some 
ability. That may take a while, particularly if you are not a large 
company and you are not accustomed to labor relations litigation.
  Determine legal positions on the relevant issues--learning what 
statements and actions the law permits and prohibits.
  Communicate with employees about the decision they are making.
  Correct any misstatements and falsehoods that employees may be 
hearing from union organizers.
  As I mentioned earlier, making even the slightest mistake in the 
lead-up to an election can result in the NLRB setting aside the results 
and ordering a rerun election, or worse, when a bigger mistake is made, 
the Board could require an employer to automatically bargain with the 
union.
  But it is the employees who stand to lose the most under the new 
rule. First, some of the employees may know what is going on before the 
union files its notice of an election. But all of the employees do not 
have a chance to hear both sides of the issue in an ambush election.
  Second, because of the ambush, employees may have only heard half the 
story. Only 4.3 percent of union elections occur more than 56 days 
after the petition is filed. The current median number of days between 
the filing of an election is 38 days. These figures are well within the 
NLRB's own goals for timely elections.
  The unions won 64 percent of elections in 2013. In recent years the 
union win rate has actually been going up. What is the rush? Why is 38 
days too long? It is well within the NLRB's own goals and unions are 
winning more elections than they lose.
  Let's turn to 1959, when a former Member of this body, Senator John 
F. Kennedy, warned against rushing employees into elections in a debate 
over amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. This is what he 
said:

       There should be at least a 30-day interval between the 
     request for an election and the holding of the election in 
     which both parties can present their viewpoints.

  Senator John F. Kennedy, April 21, 1959.
  If Senator Kennedy thought 30 days was approximately right, if 38 
days is the mean today, and if that is within the NLRB's own goals, why 
the rush? Why the push for an ambush election? Why have an election 
that can be set in 11 days before employers and employees know what is 
going on?
  When a workplace is unionized, especially in a State that has no 
right-to-

[[Page S1231]]

work law, employees have dues money taken out of every paycheck whether 
they like it or not. They lose the ability to deal directly with their 
employers to address concerns or ask for a promotion or a raise. 
Instead, employees have to work through the union. Important 
considerations, such as which of their fellow employees will be 
included in a bargaining unit, will no longer be determined before the 
election. As the two dissenting members of the NLRB put it when this 
rule was decided: Employees will be asked to ``vote now, understand 
later.''
  I wish to emphasize what the employees are losing, in addition to the 
opportunity to fully understand the election before them. Employees are 
losing their privacy, because the rule requires employers to hand over 
employees' personal email addresses, cell phone numbers, shift hours 
and locations, job classifications, even if the employees have made 
clear they do not want to be contacted by union organizers.
  Some on the other side say: It is the modern age. But I would say 
that in the modern age our privacy is assaulted from every side. We 
should be even more careful about rushing an election and releasing 
personal information. Employers should not have to hand over employees' 
personal email address, cell phone numbers, shift locations, and job 
classifications just because a petition is filed by 30 percent of the 
employees. Many employees may have no interest in creating a union.
  This rule appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It is 
clear to see it is wrong, and that is why Senators Enzi, McConnell, and 
I are asking the Senate to disapprove it today and prohibit the NLRB 
from issuing any similar rule.
  I will come back to the floor during our debate time to talk about 
how this rule is part of the National Labor Relations Board's attempt 
to become more advocate than umpire. That is the reason Senator 
McConnell and I have introduced legislation that would change the 
National Labor Relations Board back from an advocate to an umpire by 
doing three things. First, it would end partisan advocacy by creating a 
six-member board of three Republicans and three Democrats where a 
majority would require both sides to find middle ground. Second, the 
legislation would rein in the general counsel. Businesses and unions 
would be able to challenge complaints filed by the general counsel in 
Federal district court. Third, it would encourage timely decisions. 
Either party in a case before the Board may appeal to the Federal court 
of appeals if the Board fails to reach a decision within 1 year.
  When I come back to the floor I will also talk about the joint 
employer standard and the NLRB's decision to destroy more than 700,000 
American franchise businesses. These men and women operate health 
clubs, barbershops, auto parts shops, childcare centers, neighborhood 
restaurants, music stores, cleaning services, and much more.
  Combine the attack on franchises with the ambush election rule and an 
NLRB decision allowing micro-unions--where unions target small units in 
a large company--and we see there is a consistent trend by unions and 
their friends in the NLRB to tip the balance in ways never intended by 
the creators of the National Labor Relations Act.
  The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to be an umpire, not 
an advocate. If there ever was an example of unfairness and tipping the 
balance in a single direction, it would be the ambush election rule. 
The rule allows union organizers to ambush an unsuspecting company and 
force an election in 11 days--before the employer and its employees 
have time to figure out what is going on.
  In conclusion, I think Senator Kennedy's advice is good advice to 
follow. Much has changed since 1959, but fairness, balance, and giving 
everyone a chance to have an opportunity to know what is going on have 
not. Senator Kennedy thought 30 days was about right, and 38 days is 
the mean today. This ambush election rule would reduce it to 11.
  That is the wrong thing to do, and I hope the majority in the Senate 
agrees with me on that. I hope the House agrees with us on that. I hope 
the President will agree with us on that. If he vetoes it, as he has 
said today he will, then I hope a majority of both parties will speak 
up for employers and employees in the United States and say no ambush 
elections for us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that real long-term economic 
growth is built from the middle out, not from the top down, and our 
government has a role to play in investing in working families, making 
sure they have the opportunity to work hard and succeed and offering a 
hand up to those who want to climb the economic ladder and provide a 
better life for themselves and their families. Our government and our 
economy should be working for all families, not just the wealthiest 
few.
  Thankfully, we have had the opportunity to put some policies into 
place over the past few years that have pulled our economy back from 
the brink and have started moving us in the right direction. We are not 
there yet, but across the country businesses have now added almost 12 
million new jobs over 59 straight months of job growth, including 
almost 1 million manufacturing jobs. The unemployment rate is now under 
6 percent. Health care costs are growing at their lowest rate in almost 
50 years, while millions more families have access to affordable 
coverage. The Federal budget deficit has been reduced by more than two-
thirds since President Obama took office. Although some Republicans are 
now threatening to bring this back, we have been able to move away from 
the constant tea party-driven crisis and uncertainty that was 
destroying jobs and holding our economy back.
  We are headed in a good direction, and I am proud of the policies we 
fought for that helped us get here, but we have a whole lot more to do. 
Over the past few decades, working families have seen their incomes 
stagnate while the cost of living and health care and education has 
continued to go up. For most workers, wages have stayed flat or have 
fallen over the past five decades. According to the National Employment 
Law Project, from 2009 to 2013 hourly wages declined by 3.4 percent. 
During that time low- and mid-wage workers experienced greater declines 
than higher wage workers. That means that across our country today too 
many families are struggling to make ends meet on rock-bottom wages and 
poor working conditions on the job.
  While the middle class's share of America's prosperity is at an 
alltime low, the biggest corporations have posted record profits. 
Congress should be working on ways to build an economy that works for 
all of our families, not just those at the top. Unfortunately, once 
again, instead of standing up for workers, my Republican colleagues are 
rushing to the defense of the biggest corporations that have an 
interest in keeping wages low and denying workers a voice to improve 
their workplace.
  Workers have a right to decide whether they want union 
representation. To ensure they are able to exercise that right, the 
National Labor Relations Board--or the NLRB--helps to make sure workers 
have a fair up-or-down vote.
  Unfortunately, too often big corporations take advantage of loopholes 
in the current election process to delay a vote on union 
representation. Unnecessary litigation and excessive delays threaten 
the rights of workers who want to have a free and fair election. In too 
many cases big corporations take advantage of every possible 
opportunity and wasteful legal hurdle--sometimes on small 
technicalities--just to delay a vote.
  Sometimes the confrontation and hostility during the election process 
can be extreme. A study from the Center for Economic and Policy 
Research found that among workers who openly advocate for a union 
during an election campaign one in five is fired. Bureaucratic delays 
make the problem worse. Another study--this one from UC Berkeley--found 
the longer the delay before an election, the more likely the NLRB will 
charge employers with attempts to tamper with the vote.
  What is clear from that research is that delays only create more 
barriers that deny workers their right to organize a union. The NLRB 
was absolutely

[[Page S1232]]

right to carry out its mission to review and streamline its election 
process and to bring down those barriers for workers to get a fair vote 
because it is clear the current system is outdated and vulnerable to 
abuse.
  As I have mentioned, the current election process is overburdened by 
unnecessary and wasteful litigation which drags out elections and puts 
workers' rights on hold. Not only that, the election process for one 
region of the country can be substantially different from another 
region, and that adds to inefficiencies and a lot of confusion.
  Workers have the right to vote on union representation in elections 
that are efficient and free from unnecessary delays and wasteful stall 
tactics. So after a very rigorous review process, in December of last 
year, the NLRB made reforms to their election procedures. These updates 
will make modest but important changes to modernize and streamline the 
process. They will reduce unnecessary litigation on issues that will 
not affect the outcome of the election. The new reforms will bring the 
election process into the 21st century by letting employers and unions 
file forms electronically. They will allow the use of more modern forms 
of communication to employees through their cell phones and their 
emails.
  It is important to note that in many regions the NLRB has already 
adopted some of these much needed reforms to the election process, so 
we know this can work. These reforms will simply standardized the best 
practices for the election process across regions, which will help all 
sides--all sides--know what to expect during the process to promote 
uniformity and predictability.
  These changes aren't just good for the workers, but they are good for 
employers by streamlining the process when workers file a petition to 
have an election on whether to join a union, and the reforms will make 
sure all sides have the information they need.
  I have laid out the improvements the new reforms will make, but let's 
talk about what these guidelines will not do. The new process does not 
require elections to be held within any specific timeframe. I want to 
repeat that because it is important. Contrary to what some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing, these new 
guidelines do not require elections to be held within any specific 
timeframe. Not only that, but this rule does not in any way prevent 
companies from communicating their views about unionization. Employers 
are able to communicate extensively with their employees about union 
issues, and these reforms do nothing to stop that. Employers would 
still be able to talk with their workers about what a union would mean 
for their company.
  The reforms simply make some commonsense updates to create a fair 
opportunity for workers to decide if they want union representation, 
but some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take great 
offense to these modest changes. Instead of standing up for workers 
across the country who are struggling with stagnant wages and poor 
working conditions, Republicans have chosen to challenge these 
commonsense reforms with a resolution of disapproval, and that is why 
we are here today.
  Instead of talking about how to create jobs and help working families 
who are struggling, Republicans would rather roll back workers' rights 
to gain a voice at the bargaining table. The Republicans' attempt to 
stop this rule through a resolution would have major consequences for 
businesses, for unions, and workers who want a fair election process.
  Passing the resolution would not only prevent the NLRB from 
implementing these commonsense reforms, but this resolution would take 
the drastic step of also preventing the NLRB from adopting any similar 
election rules in the future. So the outdated election process that 
leads today to frivolous litigation and delays would remain frozen in 
time without further congressional action.
  Let us be clear. This rule is simply about reducing unnecessary 
litigation and allowing the use of cell phones and email. I have heard 
some of my colleagues call this frontier justice. Everyone else calls 
it the 21st century.
  By law workers have the right to join a union so they can have a 
voice in the workplace. That is not an ambush, it is their right. It is 
guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act and by the First 
Amendment of our Constitution. So when workers want to vote on whether 
to form a union, they aren't looking for special treatment, they are 
simply trying to exercise their basic right. We, as a nation, should 
not turn our back on empowering workers through collective bargaining, 
especially because that is the very thing that has helped so many 
workers climb into the middle class. Workers having a seat at the 
bargaining table is very critical to America's middle class. When more 
workers can stand up for their rights or wage increases or making sure 
their workplaces are safer or they have access to health care, those 
things get better for them.

  In short, Americans are better able to share in the economic 
prosperity they have earned through their hard work. It is no 
coincidence that when union membership was at its peak in the middle of 
the last century, America's middle class grew strong. Collective 
bargaining is what gave workers the power to increase their wages. 
Unions helped workers get the training they needed to build their 
skills so they could advance on the job. They helped to make sure men 
and women had safe work places, and through collective bargaining 
access to health care rose. Workers shared in our country's prosperity. 
All of those benefits strengthen economic security for the middle class 
and for those working hard to get there.
  In Congress, we need to continue to work to expand economic security 
for more families. That should be our mission, to help move our country 
forward. This resolution would simply be a step backward. So instead of 
attacking workers who just want a voice in the workplace, I hope my 
colleagues will reject this resolution. Instead, I really hope 
Republicans will join with Democrats and work with us to protect 
workers rights and increase wages and grow our Nation's middle class. I 
truly hope we can break through the gridlock and work together on 
policies that create jobs, expand our economic security, and generate a 
very broad-based economic growth for our workers and our families, not 
just for the wealthiest few.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to object to another 
administrative overreach. As I travel the country and Wyoming, that is 
what I hear about--the way this administration keeps overreaching. 
Fortunately, there is a mechanism for us to object to the overreach; it 
is the Congressional Review Act. Very seldom can it be used. This is 
one of those instances where it can. When it is published as a final 
rule, we have an opportunity to circulate a petition. If we get enough 
signatures on it, we can have what we are having today, which is 10 
hours of debate, with a vote up or down on whether that rule is what 
Congress intended--not what the administration intended but what 
Congress intended.
  Unfortunately, when this rule was written, there was a provision that 
it went to the President. The President doesn't assign rules. Congress 
assigns rules, so Congress ought to have the final voice on whether a 
rule is appropriate. We don't. But we have a chance to voice it because 
we are going to get 10 hours of debate to talk about this proposed rule 
by the National Labor Relations Board--a totally appointed board, not 
an elected board, three Democrats, two Republicans. If this were as 
modest a change as we just heard, there would have been some common 
ground that would have brought one or both of the Republicans along. 
That has been a thing of the National Labor Relations Board in the past 
but not anymore. Now the Republican members of this National Labor 
Relations Board are ambushed as well, and we come up with what we call 
the ambush elections rule.
  So I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the Congressional 
Review Act resolution of disapproval of the National Labor Relations 
Board ambush elections rule. I again thank my friend Senator Alexander, 
the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 
for leading this resolution. Oversight of Federal agencies is one of 
the most important duties of a committee chair, and I appreciate his 
work and the way he goes about it.

[[Page S1233]]

  The National Labor Relations Board has proposed a rule that would 
drastically alter the way union elections are held.
  A union election is one of the most significant decisions employees 
will have to decide at their workplace. It fundamentally alters their 
relationship with their employer, with the men and women they work with 
every day, and with the community. A union election means that small 
business employers have to meet unfamiliar and complicated legal 
obligations, with serious consequences for failing to meet deadlines, 
file specific documents, or assert their rights in the process.
  The current process for holding union elections is both fair and 
timely. It ensures that businesses and employers have the necessary 
time to fully meet their legal requirements. It gives employees time to 
educate themselves about what unionization will mean for them and their 
families and to investigate the union that would be representing them 
to ensure that it is consistent with their values and priorities.
  Under the current process, the average time between when an election 
petition is filed and ballots are cast is only 38 days. That is under 6 
weeks. And more than 95 percent of union elections are held within 2 
months of an election petition.
  The rule the National Labor Relations Board is pushing would squeeze 
union elections into as few as 11 days. No, it doesn't require 11 days; 
it can shorten the time to as few as 11 days. That is just 11 days for 
employees to learn about the union that would have overwhelming 
influence on the future of their work conditions and to learn about 
what unionization would mean in their workplace and what dues they 
would have to pay. That is 11 days for employers to learn about their 
rights and requirements during the election, to collect information 
about employees that must be submitted, to draw up the final documents, 
to ensure that they haven't missed anything, and to make their position 
clear to their employees--all that while running their business. It is 
not enough time. The smaller the business, the more critical it is.
  It is important to point out that a union that wants to organize in 
the workplace isn't subjected to that timeline at all. A union can 
start its campaign months in advance, maybe even years. Professional 
union organizers can start making their pitch long before they intend 
to petition for an election. Organizers have plenty of time to figure 
out which employees are union supporters and which employees might be 
on the fence but could be convinced. A union can take its time to 
create a narrative and build its case to workers, and it can do so 
without the business ever knowing. And then when the union decides the 
time is right, it can petition for the election when it is most 
advantageous for the union.
  This is why we call it the ambush election rule--because if this rule 
goes into effect, after a union has had months to build its case in its 
favor, a business will only have a few days to respond. That is only a 
few days to figure out what union officials have told employees; to 
determine if there are any misstatements, falsehoods, or misconceptions 
that need to be addressed in what employees have been told; to make the 
employer's position clear and answer any questions employees might 
have; and to meet all their legal obligations under the union election 
process. But it is not so simple because under the rules, employers 
must follow specific guidelines about what they can and cannot say and 
even who can say it.
  I don't know any entrepreneurs who started a business because they 
were excited about understanding the ins and outs of the National Labor 
Relations Act. That is why it is important to maintain the current 
system, which includes sufficient time for employers to study election 
procedures, understand their legal requirements, and ensure they are 
meeting their obligations to their employees. The National Labor 
Relations Board's rule will deny employers the necessary time to do 
their due diligence.
  This would be especially true for small businesses that don't have 
in-house lawyers or human resources departments. Small businesses are 
the backbone of our economy, and staying competitive means that small 
business owners have to take on a whole range of responsibilities. They 
have to be accountants. They have to be janitors. They have to play 
dozens of different roles every day to keep their business going. The 
rule we are debating today would mean they would suddenly have to 
become labor lawyers too.
  Most small business owners are not familiar with the complex business 
laws that determine what they can and cannot do during a union 
election. They might not know that if they make certain statements or 
take certain actions, the National Labor Relations Board can impose a 
bargaining obligation on them even without a secret ballot election. 
Let me repeat that. They might not know that if they make certain 
statements or take certain actions, the National Labor Relations Board 
can impose a bargaining obligation on them without a secret ballot 
election. They might not know that they have certain rights but that 
they have to exercise those rights at a certain point in the process or 
they forfeit them.
  Under the current system, they have time to learn. More importantly, 
they have time to work with their employees and even with the union 
organizers. One of the ways the current system succeeds is that it 
allows businesses, employees, and unions that would want to hold an 
election to work together through the election process. Many of the 
union elections that happen in less than the 38-day average are able to 
move forward so quickly because all sides can come to an agreement on 
the issues, efficiently resolve any disagreements, and hold an election 
without any holdup. Businesses have enough time to understand the 
process, and that allows them to work cooperatively. If a business can 
be confident that it doesn't need to file unnecessary paperwork or hold 
unnecessary meetings, it can move forward without unnecessary delays. 
That won't be the case under the new rule where businesses--especially 
small businesses--don't have the time to get comfortable enough with 
the process. And I predict that the number of elections where unions 
and businesses can work cooperatively to hold elections more 
efficiently will fall significantly.
  Under the new rule, a small business is going to have two options--
either go into an election blind and hope they don't make any mistakes 
and hope everything comes out OK or take every precaution, hold every 
hearing, and fully exercise every right to make sure they don't miss 
anything important.
  I believe small business owners want to work in good faith with 
unions through this process, but the ambush election rule is going to 
make it harder for them to do that. Efficient elections are better for 
everyone. Businesses can get back to work faster, unions can hold an 
election sooner, and employees get a fair and timely vote. But this 
rule is going to make it harder for that to be the case.
  The National Labor Relations Board says it is making this rule 
because the process needs to be streamlined and updated. But what the 
Board is doing in a very partisan way simply doesn't make sense in 
light of the fact that the average time for a union election is 38 
days--which means many elections happen sooner than that--and that 
nearly all elections are completed in less than 2 months.
  The Board says these rules are meant to address problems with some 
elections that have been held up for months or years. That would really 
affect these mean numbers, so that can't be much of the case. If that 
is the case, why did they write a rule that is going to undermine a 
system that already provides for timely elections and gives businesses 
the time they need to work cooperatively with unions? When an agency 
makes a rule, it is supposed to be solving a specific problem, and that 
rule is supposed to be targeted at fixing this problem. In this case, 
NLRB's rule has not targeted the problem they want to fix. What is 
worse, this rule is going to undermine a system that meets the needs of 
businesses, unions, and employees in all but a handful of cases.
  This rule doesn't make sense, and the way the Board is pushing this 
rule doesn't fit with how labor laws should be updated and improved. 
The National Labor Relations Act is a carefully balanced law that 
hasn't been changed very often. When changes have been made, it has 
been the result of careful

[[Page S1234]]

negotiation, input from stakeholders, and thoughtful debate. 
Unfortunately, it looks as though the only stakeholders in the room 
when the Board wrote this ambush elections rule were the unions.
  The Board also says that its rule is intended to update the elections 
process to account for new technology, such as email and cell phones. 
Unfortunately, the rule fails to take into account the key concerns 
about data privacy and security that we face today. It undermines 
employees' privacy at a time when identity theft, computer crimes, and 
cyber security are serious issues.
  Under current law, an employer is required to turn over employees' 
names and addresses within 7 days once an election is set. The proposed 
rule would not only expand the type of personal information that must 
be turned over, but would require that information be handed over to 
the union within 2 days. The expanded information the Board wants 
employers to give to the unions includes all personal home phone 
numbers, all cell phone numbers, and all email addresses that the 
employer has on file. It would also require work location, shift 
information, and employment classification. All of that can be used to 
harass the employee whether they want to be contacted or not, whether 
they want information or not.
  Now keep in mind that under the new rule, the question about which 
workers are eligible to unionize or to participate in the vote isn't 
determined until after the election. What? They are not going to know 
which workers are eligible to unionize or to participate in the vote 
until after the election. That is a strange rule. The ambush election 
rule would require employees to hand over personal information on their 
employees to unions without confirming which employees should or should 
not be on that list. That is part of the process that gets left out.
  The purpose of requiring the information, of course, is so the union 
organizers can come to your home, call you whenever they want, email 
you, find you after work and intercept you before or after your shift. 
There is no time limit to how many times union organizers can contact 
you or at what time. There is no opt-out for employees who simply don't 
want to be contacted. That could turn into a serious invasion of 
privacy for any employee, but for an employee who isn't eligible to 
participate in the election but has his or her information turned over 
to the union anyway, that is a serious breach of privacy.
  I think it is important to point out how this rule undermines 
employee privacy, particularly when we frequently hear about news of 
data breaches, stolen credit card numbers, and identity theft. 
Protecting personal information is not something that can be taken 
lightly. Union elections can be very intense, an emotional experience 
for employees, employers, and union organizers alike. The last thing 
this rule should do is create a situation where an employee's personal 
information is used as a tool for harassment or intimidation.
  The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to be an impartial 
body that hears cases, weighs the facts, and makes fair, unbiased 
decisions according to the law. Although the Board's decisions set 
precedents that determine how labor laws are applied going forward, it 
has not traditionally been a rulemaking agency. It has issued only a 
small number of rules, especially compared to other departments and 
agencies. Unfortunately, the Board has gone too far with the ambush 
elections rule. It has taken upon itself to impose new regulations that 
would hurt businesses, undermine a sensitive process that has already 
provided fair and timely elections, give up employee privacy, and bend 
carefully balanced labor laws in favor of the unions. Congress needs to 
tell the National Labor Relations Board this rule is out of bounds.
  The Congressional Review Act gives Congress a tool to rein in 
agencies that use the Federal rulemaking process in ways Congress never 
intended. When an agency goes beyond what Congress has authorized or 
tries to issue regulations that would be harmful, the Congressional 
Review Act ensures that Congress can intervene and hopefully prevent 
that rule from going into effect. Congressional Review Act resolutions 
can't be held up by the usual procedural delay tactics, although today 
we saw a historic event. For the first time the Congressional Review 
Act had to have a cloture motion for it. That is privileged, so the 
cloture motion only required 51, but I have done several of these, and 
that is the first time I ever remember having to do a cloture motion. 
That is a filibuster. That is a delay on an inevitable discussion of 
the actions taken by a board.
  So at the end of the day the Senate has to vote. That is important 
because it means Congress's oversight responsibilities over executive 
branch overreach has a real and immediate effect when we use the 
Congressional Review Act. But it goes further than that, because the 
Congressional Review Act also says once Congress has disapproved a 
rule, it cannot be reissued by the agency. That is important in this 
case, because this isn't the first time the National Labor Relations 
Board has issued this rule. The rule we are debating today is nearly 
identical to the rule the Board proposed in 2012, which was overturned 
by the courts because the Board failed to follow its own procedures 
when it issued the rule.
  We need to pass this Congressional Review Act resolution, not just to 
roll back the National Labor Relations Board's unnecessary and harmful 
rule, but to make it clear to the Board that Congress has the final 
word on this rule and any other rule, and that the issue is closed.
  It will also be a lesson to other boards and agencies proposing rules 
without finding common ground, without looking at some of the common 
sense, and without looking out for the hard-working taxpayers.
  The Board has already issued this rule twice, and we should make sure 
this is the last time. Congress should make it clear that unnecessary 
regulations that hurt small business and undermine the fair and timely 
elections process are nonstarters.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. 
We need to remind the National Labor Relations Board and other boards 
and agencies that their duty is to consider the facts of specific 
cases, to treat parties in those cases fairly, and to make impartial 
decisions according to the law. The Board's role is not to try to stack 
the system against one side or tip the scales in favor of the other, 
which is what this rule does. This rule makes it harder for businesses 
to meet their obligations in good faith. It denies employees the time 
they need to be able to make informed decisions, and it undermines the 
fair and timely process for union elections that is currently in place.
  As you heard a number of times, John F. Kennedy, when he was a Member 
of the Senate, said 30 days was a pretty good time. Moving it down to 
11 days--I don't think he would approve of that.
  This is one of the most important votes on labor issues we will have 
this year, and I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this burdensome 
rule.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the time be equally allocated to the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 638 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, on a separate topic, I would like to urge 
my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 8, the joint resolution of 
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the National Labor 
Relations Board's final rule regarding union representation election 
procedures.
  As we heard today, it is often called the ambush election rule. It 
gained its namesake because it shortens the time between when a union 
files a petition for an election and the holding of that election.
  As a cosponsor of this resolution and a signer of the discharge 
petition to bring it before us for consideration, I believe this rule 
needs to be stopped before it takes effect on April 14.

[[Page S1235]]

  According to NLRB data for the last 10 years, the median time before 
the union election was 38 days. This proposed rule could shorten that 
timeframe to as few as 11 days. The rule gives employers only 7 days to 
find legal counsel and appear before an NLRB regional office at a 
preelection hearing. Prior to that hearing, the employer must file a 
Statement of Position, which raises any and all legal challenges they 
may use later on. This is particularly burdensome for small businesses 
that typically don't have inhouse legal counsel. They have little time 
to get advice on what is permitted during this process.
  There are also privacy issues with this rule's requirement that 
employers must hand over employees' personal information--including 
cellphone numbers, personal email addresses, shift times, and 
locations--to unions. With more than 95 percent of these elections 
occurring in less than 2 months, it is hard to understand why this 
onerous ambush election rule is even necessary.
  Instead of burdening small businesses with complicated legal work and 
increased regulations, this administration and the NLRB should be 
focusing their efforts on increasing job growth and improving the 
economy.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democrats 
control the time between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and the majority control the 
time between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Supreme Court is going 
to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell. The Supreme Court's ruling 
could have sweeping consequences for the well-being of millions of 
Americans and for our Nation's entire health care system.
  The issue at hand is whether Americans who receive the opportunity to 
buy quality health insurance, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, can 
get assistance in paying for that care. The law gives our States a 
choice. Our States can design and manage an insurance exchange on their 
own or they can allow their citizens to shop on a federally run 
exchange. Furthermore, the law created tax credits to help Americans 
afford the cost of health insurance.
  Thirty-six States took the Federal option. Eighty-seven percent of 
the people who signed up in those States get some measure of assistance 
so as to better afford coverage. However, the petitioners in King v. 
Burwell argue that those Americans should be denied any assistance.
  In my view, the answer is simple. Let's help those who are in need. 
Let's not go back to that time in America when health care was for the 
healthy and for the wealthy.
  If one flips on C-SPAN and listens to the Congress debate and 
question the administration, one might hear something wildly different. 
Some Members of Congress seem to be rooting for Americans to lose their 
subsidies and consequently their access to affordable health coverage. 
In fact, Members of Congress have filed briefs with the Supreme Court 
making essentially that argument. At the same time, they have asked how 
the Obama administration would clean up the aftermath. To me, that is 
like pouring gasoline on a fire and then indignantly demanding that 
somebody else go put it out.
  There is no question the law's implementation has at times been a 
challenge. That is true of all major legislation. It is clear there 
ought to be bipartisan interest in continuing to improve the law. But 
the reality has been what we have had is a wornout, 6-year-old fight 
over the Affordable Care Act. The act's core purpose, which has been 
clear from the outset, is to help as many of our people get affordable, 
high-quality health insurance as possible, and the tax credits are 
absolutely key to making that work. In this case, those tax credits are 
in question.
  To make their argument, the King petitioners scoured the text of the 
law and plucked out one obscure phrase buried in the text. That phrase 
is ``established by the State,'' relating to how the tax credits are 
calculated. According to the petitioners, those four words--that one 
small phrase--is enough to put millions of Americans in danger of 
losing their health insurance. The petitioners are arguing, against 
common sense and the actual text and intent of the Affordable Care Act, 
that the intent was supposed to deprive millions of struggling families 
and individuals of affordable health care coverage.
  In my view, this should not be a difficult case for our Supreme Court 
to decide. Looking at the law itself, the text is clear. To cite some 
examples, when a State declines to establish an exchange, the Federal 
Government is directed to fill in and establish ``such exchange.'' This 
makes sure insurance coverage and tax credits become available to any 
``applicable taxpayer,'' regardless of where that taxpayer might live. 
Furthermore, the information used to calculate the subsidies is 
gathered from everybody who buys an insurance plan. That would be 
unnecessary if Americans in only some States were eligible for the tax 
credits.
  On top of that, it is a firmly established principle of statutory 
construction that when interpreting a provision of a law, a court 
should read the provision in context, not in isolation. It should 
consider how the part fits into the whole. As the Supreme Court has 
said, it is a ``fundamental canon of statutory construction that the 
words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to 
their place in the overall statutory scheme.''
  Here, looking at the overall statutory scheme, in my view there is 
only one plausible explanation. States have the option of establishing 
exchanges. If they decline, the Federal Government will establish an 
exchange for them. It was written that way so everyone who needs 
assistance and meets the relevant qualifications can receive that 
assistance. In my view, we just can't reach any other conclusion. 
Without the broadest possible access to health insurance--and financial 
assistance for those who need it--the system would simply be at risk.
  The interpretation made by the petitioners makes absolutely no sense 
in the context of the overall statutory approach. It would contradict 
the fundamental purpose of the Affordable Care Act which, as stated in 
the title, is to provide ``quality, affordable health care for all 
Americans.''
  Finally, a statute should be interpreted under the assumption that as 
the Court has said: ``Congress . . . does not . . . hide elephants in 
mouseholes.'' Congress does not slip major rules, which have huge 
ramifications, into obscure corners of the law. In this case, Congress 
would not slip a major rule denying tax credits to millions--what would 
in effect be a poison pill--the Congress would not slip that deep into 
a line that simply defines the term ``coverage month.''
  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the legislative history to 
support what I consider to be a warped reading of the law by the 
petitioners. If the Congress intended for the tax credits to help only 
some Americans, the Congress would have said that. The issue would have 
come up in committee hearings and markups and press conferences or in 
debates in the Senate or in the other body. It would have been 
reflected in fact sheets and in press releases that were made available 
to the public. It would have come up in committee reports that 
accompanied the bill's long journey through the Congress. It never did, 
not even once. The only way to get to the petitioners' view is by 
cherry-picking and contorting a four-word phrase.
  Look at the long record of analysis provided by the trusted 
nonpartisan

[[Page S1236]]

staffs of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. We rely on them. They are bipartisan. They are nonpartisan. 
It was their job to do the math, to score the bills and figure out 
exactly what the economic impacts would be. In every analysis and in 
every communication the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation had with the Congress, they correctly presumed 
that tax credits would be available to all who qualified. The tables 
and reports prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation are all online. So what I have said can be backed 
up, and anyone can read those materials.
  In my view, the petitioner's argument in this case is weak and the 
text of the law and congressional intent is clear. But, still, the 
wrong decision could make quality health insurance suddenly 
unaffordable for millions of Americans from one end of the country to 
the other. The negative effects of that ruling would radiate throughout 
our health care system. Recent studies of this case have suggested that 
the cost of insurance could soar upward for more than 7 million 
Americans. Only those most in danger of needing serious medical 
assistance would remain insured. The cost of insurance premiums, 
particularly in the individual market, would skyrocket for all. As a 
result, a crisis that would begin with 7 million people could grow to 
affect 8, 9 or 10 million and perhaps even more. In my view, it would 
send our country back to those dark days when health care in America 
was for the healthy and the wealthy. That is what the Affordable Care 
Act is intended to prevent. That is not what the American people want.
  The Federal Government, independent health care organizations, and 
those whose insurance is at stake all agree--the tax credits are meant 
for all. Even America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association 
representing the Nation's largest insurers, takes that view. It wrote 
in a brief filed with the Court that eliminating the subsidies ``would 
leave consumers in those states with a more unstable market and far 
higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted. . . . ''
  The only groups that argue otherwise are essentially political 
partisans that want to see the Affordable Care Act brought down at any 
cost. These arguments, in my view, are baseless, and they pose a 
serious danger to the health of millions of Americans--those in our 
country who went far too long without access to quality, affordable 
health care and who have it now with the Affordable Care Act.
  I strongly hope the Supreme Court will take a conservative approach 
in its ruling--a conservative approach--and reject the challenge to the 
law. Then Congress can get on with the important business of bringing 
both sides together to improve the law where it needs to be improved 
and address the other important needs of America's health care system.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this resolution 
which would overturn modest but vitally important updates to the 
process that enables workers to exercise their rights to join a labor 
union. Today's attack on the NLRB's rule to modernize its election 
process is misplaced and misguided.
  Today middle-class families are struggling with wages that aren't 
keeping up with expenses, while large corporations make record profits, 
and those at the top are doing better and better. But our economy 
doesn't grow from the top down; it grows from the middle out. Our 
economy is strongest when we have a thriving middle class with a strong 
voice in the workplace.
  That is why we should be talking about how to restore basic workplace 
fairness to middle-class Americans and to those aspiring to be in the 
middle class. To me, that means if you work full time, you shouldn't 
have to live in poverty. It means making sure that moms and dads don't 
have to choose between keeping their jobs and taking a few hours to 
take their sick child to the doctor. Those are the things we should be 
focusing on. In fact, if we want to accomplish those things, we need to 
strengthen the voices of regular Americans in the workplace. The NLRB 
representation rule takes a small but important step toward 
strengthening those voices. That is why the resolution before us today 
is not only misplaced, it is also misguided. This resolution would do 
the opposite of empowering workers.
  The purpose of this resolution is to block rules that will modernize 
a broken election process. Because that election process is broken, it 
is preventing workers from exercising a basic right they are supposed 
to have in the workplace--the right to have a seat at the bargaining 
table.
  Too often, loopholes are being exploited to prevent workers from 
having the freedom to decide whether they want to form a union. Today, 
35 percent of the time that workers file a petition for a union 
election, they never even get to have an election. The 10 percent of 
litigated cases that this rule targets for reform take over 6 months on 
average to get to an election, and some elections can be delayed for 
years. That is why workers need this rule to ensure a fair, effective 
process that is free of excessive delays.
  Some of the updates in the rule simply standardize best practices 
that are already used in some parts of the country. For example, in 
some regions of the country hearings are regularly scheduled to be held 
7 days after the petition is filed and petitions are accepted by fax. 
Also, under the representation rule workers and companies can file 
documents electronically, bringing the process up to date with 21st-
century technologies. It also increases transparency in the election 
process. Everyone involved--from workers petitioning for an election, 
to companies, to the NLRB itself--has to provide information to the 
other parties earlier in the process and in more complete form.
  Nothing in this rule will change an employer's right to express its 
support for or opposition to a union. Nothing in the rule will change 
an employer's ability to communicate with workers from their very first 
day on the job. If the employer opposes collective bargaining in the 
workplace for better wages and working conditions, the company has the 
right to do that from the very beginning.
  Modernizing and streamlining the process by which workers exercise 
their rights to join a union should not be controversial. Under the 
National Labor Relations Act, our laws explicitly recognize the rights 
of employees to engage in collective bargaining through representatives 
of their own choosing. That is the law.
  As a member of three unions myself, I have seen firsthand how 
important it is for workers to have a voice in their workplace. The 
evidence shows that being a member of a union can have a tremendous 
impact on the lives of real people and their families. Workers covered 
by a collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than 
those not covered. Unionized workers are more likely to have health 
care, retirement benefits, and paid leave benefits than other workers.
  So, again, the changes made by the election rule are just commonsense 
updates that will support these important objectives. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this resolution so that these commonsense reforms 
will be able to ensure a fairer election process for everyone.
  I yield to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
his outstanding remarks.
  I want to rise to make one thing clear in this debate. My friends on 
the other side of the aisle once again have taken up the cause of 
special interests at the expense of hard-working Americans. Once again 
they are using their new majority in the Senate to find ways to keep 
the rules rigged against American workers.
  Let's look at this. The bottom line is very simple. Middle-class 
incomes are declining. One of the main reasons middle-class incomes are 
declining is the decline of unions. That is what just about everybody 
who studies it says.

[[Page S1237]]

We are now 11 percent unionized. We were 30 percent, private sector 
only 6 percent. The bottom line is we had a lot of poor Americans in 
the 1920s.

  Laws that were enacted by this Congress allowed unions to organize 
and workers, through collective bargaining, were able to gain some of 
the wealth from their labor. We had broad prosperity as America was 
unionized in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. What happened was 
that corporate America learned how to both prevent new unions from 
occurring in new industries and breaking old unions.
  As a result now, middle-class incomes are declining. Our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, once again, they talk they want to help 
the middle class, but in all the obvious ways to help the middle 
class--and unions do, whether the management likes it or not, they 
manage to give the workers more money--they do not walk the walk.
  These NLRB changes are simple. There have not been substantial 
updates to the NLRB election process since the 1970s. The new changes 
pull the process into the 21st century, letting unions and employers 
file electronically and using modern forms of communications such as 
cell phones. Our colleagues are opposed to this. They want to undo it. 
My God, the changes will modernize union elections, prevent delays, 
reduce frivolous litigation, something even the Republican Board 
members on the NLRB supported in principle in their dissent.
  Right now big corporations can use delays in labor elections to try 
and take advantage to postpone and even deny workers' rights to vote. 
This is what my friends on the other side of the aisle are rising up 
against: workers whose incomes are declining trying to get a little 
more money when corporate profits are at a record. The other side says, 
nope, side with the corporate profits over middle-class wages. That is 
what they are saying. That has been the theme in this Congress. It is 
going to continue to be the theme.
  We will make it clear to the American people who is on their side. 
The congressional review process on these changes allowing employers 
and unions to file forms electronically, and we have to invoke this 
unique process, streamlining the process so workers are not kicked 
around with an army of lawyers?
  It is disappointing that my friends across the aisle have made such a 
mountain out of a molehill with these rules. At the beginning of this 
Congress, I was hopeful my colleagues were ready to join us and go to 
work for working families who have experienced a lost decade of 
economic advancement, whose real wages have declined.
  In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this year Leaders McConnell 
and Boehner said one of the their primary goals was helping struggling 
middle-class Americans who are clearly frustrated by a lack of 
opportunity and a stagnation of wages. If their only answer is to 
reduce regulations on corporations, lower corporate taxes, lower the 
taxes of the wealthy, and that is going to help the middle class, I 
have news for them, that is not going to fly.
  I feel in my heart deeply that the decline of middle-class wages is a 
decline of America. I feel we have to do something about it, but we 
certainly should not regress. My colleagues, with this motion, it will 
make it harder for the middle class to grow wages, make it easier to 
say even a larger share of productivity goes to capital and a smaller 
share to labor, despite their rhetoric and despite the problems we 
face.
  I see my dear friend from Tennessee. I hate to oppose him in such 
strong language because I think he is a fine gentleman, but on this 
issue we disagree.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to talk about protecting the 
middle class.
  I am on the side of an economy that works for everyone and building a 
stronger middle class to bring opportunities to families across the 
Nation.
  What is an economy that works for everyone? It means that if you work 
hard and play by the rules, you deserve a fair shot at the American 
dream.
  An economy that works for everyone also means giving workers the 
right to organize, negotiate, and exercise their rights under the law 
in a timely way. I believe this can be done in a way that also enables 
businesses to prosper and to create jobs.
  Unions raise wages, improve working conditions, and ensure fair 
treatment on the job. In many jobs they make the difference between 
living in poverty and making ends meet or the difference between just 
getting by and making enough to make a better life for a family. The 
right to unionize and collectively bargain helped grow the middle 
class.
  When workers are choosing whether to unionize or not, they need a 
process that is fair, predictable, and efficient. But unfair rules, lax 
enforcement, and insincere negotiating has crippled union organizing 
and threatened the middle-class lifestyle that was once the economic 
pride of our country.
  The main role of the National Labor Relations Board is to manage the 
relations between unions, employees, and employers in the private 
sector. The primary functions of the Board are to prevent or resolve 
unfair labor practices and to supervise union elections so that they 
are done accurately and fairly.
  Now, the NLRB has put out rules that make modest updates to the 
election process that make sense in the 21st century. The rules would 
eliminate needless delays that slow the election process to a halt and 
modernize the process for sharing contact information to allow the use 
of email to communicate about the election.
  But this and other commonsense updates are under attack in Congress. 
Under this Congressional Review Act resolution, the whole rule would 
get tossed out. There is limited debate and there is no chance for 
offering amendments. Middle-class workers deserve better than this.
  Currently, workers organize themselves by signing a document saying 
they want to join a union. Once a majority of workers sign up, they can 
ask their employers to be recognized as a union and collectively 
bargain for a contract.
  However, some employers delay, delay, delay--refusing to recognize 
the union and requiring workers to go through an intimidating antiunion 
campaign that ends in an unfair election. Workers should be protected 
from these kinds of stall tactics and intimidation.
  It is common sense that communication should be allowed to take place 
over email. These rules would allow for that. Documents should be 
allowed to be submitted electronically. These rules would allow for 
that, too. This creates a more efficient process that benefits workers.
  I want workers to make more money. When families have more money in 
their paychecks, it is good news for the middle class and it is good 
news for our Nation's economy. When workers have a seat at the table, 
it means they have a better chance at getting the wages and the 
protections at the workplace they deserve. I want to grow our middle 
class by giving more workers this critical seat at the table. But they 
won't get it if Congress pulls the chair out from underneath them by 
throwing out this rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I know we are in Democratic time 
right now. So if a Member of the other side shows up, I will sit down. 
I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues on the other side allowing 
me to continue my remarks. I will not take more than 7 or 8 minutes.
  My good friend from New York just spoke. We have worked together on a 
number of things. He talked about the middle class. I think he is right 
to talk about the middle class and the effect of the National Labor 
Relations Board on the middle class.
  Let me give a little bit different perspective on it. My problem with 
this NLRB is that it is not acting like an umpire between employers and 
employees, it is acting like an advocate for the unions. It did so in 
2011 with the micro-union decision. It is doing so with the ambush 
elections rule, going against the advice of Senator John F. Kennedy in 
1959, who said 30 days seemed like a fair time to give employees to 
consider whether to have a union.
  They are ambushing employers--it's like riding through a canyon and 
suddenly people start shooting at you. In just 11 days--we have 
hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the

[[Page S1238]]

country that are trying to work, sell their goods, make a living, 
improve their status. That is the middle class we talked about.
  Say you have five employees, say you are down in Maryville, TN, or 
Wichita, KS, the last thing on your mind is a labor lawyer. Here comes 
an election in 11 days. Suddenly small businesses have to find and pay 
a labor lawyer. They need legal advice at every step because in as few 
as 11 days they might have an election. There is no need to rush into 
an election that rapidly other than to give union organizers an 
opportunity to force a union election before the employer and its 
employees know what is going on.
  Let me give one more example of the assault on the middle class that 
I see from this NLRB and our friends on the other side. In every 
community in America, there are lots of franchisees. These are the men 
and women who operate health clubs, barber shops, auto parts shops, 
childcare centers, neighborhood restaurants, music stores, cleaning 
services, and much more.
  We had some franchisees testify before the labor committee the other 
day. These franchisees could have worked for a big corporation, but 
they said: I would like to run my own business. Franchisees can own a 
Ruby Tuesday's, a Rainbow Station, or an auto parts franchise. They own 
that business. They run that business.
  They use that brand name to help it succeed. They use brand names 
like Planet Fitness, Merry Maids, or Panera Bread. They might work 12 
hours a day serving customers, meeting a payroll, or cleaning. This is 
hard work, but 700,000 Americans do it because it is their way up the 
economic ladder. It is their way to say: I have my own business. I do 
not work for the big guys. I am a little guy working my way up.
  Successful franchisees are one of the most important ways to climb 
the economic ladder of success. Yet this NLRB, the same one that wants 
to have ambush elections, has a pending decision that would threaten 
franchisees' very way of life. It is called the joint employer 
standard, which since 1984 has required a business to hold direct 
control over the terms and conditions of a worker's employment.
  Through broad language, the NLRB is saying to McDonald's or Ruby 
Tuesday's that they are part of the parent company, and anything they 
do at their store has to be accepted by the parent company.
  What are the consequences if that happens? The parent companies are 
going to say: We are not going to take that risk. We are going to own 
all of our stores. So we will own all of the Rainbow Stations. The 
parent company will own all of the McDonald's stores, or all of the 
Ruby Tuesday's.
  What will that do? That might protect the parent company because it 
can hire a team of labor lawyers. It can instruct its employees what to 
do and what not to do to avoid problems. But it takes away the middle-
class opportunity of moving up the economic ladder from these 700,000 
franchisees. That is what this NLRB is doing. The ambush election rule 
is nothing more than speeding up the time that it takes between when 
pro-union organizers ask an employer for a secret ballot election, and 
when that election actually takes place.
  Every step you take has to be perfect according or else you might 
have to have a rerun election or be ordered to negotiate with the 
union. That jeopardizes the fairness in our system. The National Labor 
Relations Act was intended to create an environment of balance and 
fairness among employers and employees. Senator Kennedy said in 1959 
that 30 days would be a reasonable amount of time between when a union 
organizer files a petition and when an election is held.
  Senator McConnell and I have another bill to restore the balance in 
the National Labor Relations Board. It is absolutely fair. The Board 
would be three Democrats, three Republicans. If the general counsel's 
complaint is outside the law, the aggrieved party can take it to 
Federal court. If the NLRB takes longer than 1 year to decide a case, 
either party can take it to Federal court. That is fair. That is the 
kind of umpire we need in labor relations today. So this is about the 
middle class. This is about moving up the economic ladder. This is 
about the kind of actions that give 700,000 Americans their franchise 
business. This is about the hundreds of thousands of Americans, with 4, 
5, 6, 10, 15 employees, who do not need to be ambushed as they try to 
earn a living, pay their bills, sweep the floor, make a profit, pay 
employees, and create the American dream.
  The stakes are high. We are right to say let's return the National 
Labor Relations Board to an umpire.
  Let us hope the House agrees. Let us hope the President agrees. It's 
time to return fairness and balance to labor-management relations in 
this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise to speak and to commend the 
chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 
Senator Alexander, for this resolution that is on the floor to rescind 
and overturn the ambush election rule the NLRB has asked to go in 
effect on April 14. It is just dadgum wrong. It is a solution in search 
of a problem.
  We don't have a problem in terms of labor relations. Ninety-five 
percent of all the elections for unionization take place within 56 
days. The median term is 38 days. That is 1\1/2\ months to 2 months. 
That is all it takes. This would compress that period of time from the 
average now of 38 days to 11 days.
  Is 11 days enough time for a worker to get all the information they 
need to find out whether they want to become unionized? No, it is not. 
Is it fair to an employer to give him only 11 days to defend himself 
against a union organization trying to take him to a union shop? No, it 
is not. Does it do anything for the middle class? No, it does not. This 
is a solution for an issue, as I said, that doesn't exist, a problem 
that doesn't exist. It is time we stood up for American business and 
American workers.
  I ran a sub S corporation, which is a small business in Georgia. Most 
everybody thinks this is a big business issue. It is not; it is a small 
business issue. It is a repeat effort by the NLRB to continue to meddle 
and tilt the playing field between labor and management.
  Everybody knows that during the Industrial Revolution this country 
overlooked the worker. We had child labor, we had workers working too 
long, and we didn't have good safety rules. We all know labor unions 
came about because businesses failed to address their needs. But that 
was 100 years ago. Today we have good labor law, we have fair labor 
law, and we have opportunities for people to be unionized if they want.
  Of all the elections called in the last 2 years, 64.2 percent have 
gone to a unionized shop--64.2 percent. In other words, the law we have 
now today works. It works for the worker and it works for the union. 
But it doesn't work to compress that time period to 11 days. That would 
cause confusion, it would cause discord, it would cause a terrible 
burden on the employer and terrible pressure on the employee.
  Included in the rule are, in my opinion, privacy violations by the 
organizers. It will require the company to turn over cell phone 
numbers, private information and all of that, so the unions can harass 
them to try to get them to sign a petition for a clarification and 
certification. It is just downright wrong.
  The chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 
is exactly right: This is an unfair rule. It has no place being passed 
and adopted. We have every right to rescind it, which I hope this 
Senate will do.
  Let's remember who the middle class really is. Let's remember who 
small business really is. Let's remember why we have unions and why we 
have a National Labor Relations Board. We have it for fair and 
equitable treatment of labor law. We don't have it to tilt the playing 
field in favor of labor or in favor of management. We have it to be 
fair, so everybody gets a fair shake and a fair notice and a fair time 
to have their say.
  So I rise to commend the chairman for his efforts and what he has 
done. I support his effort and what he has done, and I hope the Members 
of the Senate will vote in favor of rescinding this rule before it goes 
into effect. It would be a terrible one-two punch to have this rule go 
into effect on April 14

[[Page S1239]]

and the IRS's tax day be April 15. That is too much punishment for one 
period of time. It is just not the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, my Democratic colleagues and I come to 
the floor all the time talking about how we grow a middle class, how we 
help middle-class families, and how we make sure we have a strong 
economy because we have a strong middle class. Yet what we are seeing 
on the floor right now is an effort by our Republican colleagues to 
fight to keep a system which is rigged against American workers being 
able to get a livable wage, to have a voice in the workplace.
  We know what we ought to be doing is looking for every possible way 
to support those who are working hard every day, to have a wage that 
allows them to care for their family, to send their children to college 
and achieve the American dream. They should have a voice in the 
workplace around safety issues, around other issues that are important 
for working men and women. We have in front of us a National Labor 
Relations Board rule change that was made to basically modernize the 
system around employee elections so that people have a fair shot to 
have their voice heard in the workplace.
  It is pretty interesting to me that we are talking about simple 
changes that allow the use of email communications or fax 
communications--not exactly radical things in the world we live in. 
Without this modernization by the NLRB, we actually have a situation 
where people are denied the ability to communicate through email; to be 
able to talk about forming a union and communicate with each other 
through email, which is pretty crazy when you think about it. This 
particular vote would stop folks from using email or faxes.
  The NLRB rule change was to modernize the election process, to 
eliminate certain paperwork hurdles that didn't make any sense, so an 
employer could not delay the ability for folks to vote as to whether 
they want to be part of a union. That is what is in front of us now.
  What I wish was in front of us is the agenda we have been pushing, 
which is to actually strengthen the middle class. Instead, what we have 
in front of us is a vote about keeping the system rigged against 
American workers. There is no mistake about it. A ``yes'' vote, which 
eliminates this modernization process, is a vote to keep the system 
rigged against men and women who are working hard every day in the 
workplace and who just want a fair shot to make it.
  Interestingly, this only affects about 10 percent of union elections, 
because 90 percent of elections are done through agreement with 
employers and employees. That is a testament to the fact that the 
majority of folks can work together, if 90 percent of them are working 
out agreements.
  What we really ought to be talking about on the floor is equal pay 
for equal work and how we enforce that. I am stunned that we have the 
Republican majority fighting to keep the system rigged against American 
workers and then turning around and saying, well, we are not going to 
pass laws that enforce equal pay for equal work, or we are not going to 
pass laws that create a livable wage so people who are working are out 
of poverty, so that we reward work by having a livable wage. That is 
not what is on the floor. What is on the floor is an effort to roll 
back the modernization of a process that would make sure the system is 
not rigged against workers.
  Why are we not talking about equal pay or raising the minimum wage or 
talking about the cost of going to college? The majority of people 
today, who are playing by the rules, trying to do the right thing, 
trying to get the skills they need to be responsible citizens and work 
in the workplace, come out of college buried in debt--buried in debt--
but we are not talking about that. We are not spending our time on 
that.
  We are not talking about protecting pensions earned by workers over a 
lifetime, who are counting on those to be protected. We are not talking 
about how we strengthen and expand and guarantee Social Security for 
the future, or any number of things we could be talking about. If we 
just made sure that equal pay for equal work wasn't a slogan but 
actually a reality of this country, we would jump-start the middle 
class. We would jump-start the economy if women were earning dollar for 
dollar what men are earning. That alone, along with any number of other 
things, affects middle-class families.
  It is not about creating an economy by giving to those at the top and 
having it trickle down and hoping someday, somehow, it will affect the 
majority of Americans. We believe you start with the middle, you grow 
the economy from the middle out. It is a middle-class economy that 
lifts everyone up and addresses the strength of our country.
  So I am very concerned that when we look at precious floor time and 
what the priorities are, we are debating a rollback on the 
modernization of rules with the National Labor Relations Board that 
will basically keep in place a rigged system. Without that 
modernization it is just one more mark against workers who are trying 
to have a voice and are trying to lift themselves up and improve their 
wages and ability to be successful and be rewarded for their work.
  There is a lot more we could and should be doing. We are going to 
continue to raise the issues that middle-class families care about. We 
are going to continue to fight for middle-class families every single 
day, and we are going to continue to oppose those who want to keep a 
rigged system against the middle class.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular resolution, and hopefully 
we can stand together and actually create jobs and a better standard of 
living by doing those things that are going to help middle-class 
families across America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, would you advise me what the time 
allotment now is for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls the time from 5 until 6.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting, when we get on the 
topic of unions, how we all come to this with such a different point of 
view. I come to it as a person who grew up in a household where every 
member of my family was a member of a union. My father and mother, who 
each had eighth grade educations, belonged to railroad unions in East 
St. Louis, IL. Because of that, there was bargaining for their wages 
and benefits--which I didn't understand as a kid, but I do now--that 
resulted in the quality of life we enjoy in our family. We weren't 
wealthy, but we were comfortable. I never went hungry, and I thought we 
lived a pretty good life. Mom and dad were hard workers. If you were a 
hard worker in those days and had the benefit of union representation, 
you could make a decent living. And we did.
  If we study history, we will find that is what has gone on in 
America. Primarily after World War II, we saw two things happening: a 
rise in unionism--people who belonged to organized unions--and a rise 
in the middle class. In other words, employees who were able to bargain 
for their wages and benefits and retirement ended up with enough money 
to raise their families and to build the middle class in America.
  In that period from post-World War II until the 1960s, the United 
States really took its place on the map in terms of our position in the 
economy. Exactly the opposite has been true since. Unionism--those who 
belong to organized unions--has been going down in most sectors except 
for government employment, and we have also seen a decline in the 
middle class. I don't think that is a coincidence; I think that is an 
indication that when workers do not have a voice in the workplace, they 
lose that bargaining ability to get a just wage, a good wage, a living 
wage, and the benefits that should come with it.
  The irony is that American workers are still the best in the world. 
If we

[[Page S1240]]

just look at the issue of productivity of American workers, there is no 
reason for us to apologize. Our workers know how to create profit for 
the people they work for. Sadly, though, when it comes to this, we 
don't find that the companies that employ them reward their 
productivity with more wages and benefits. They don't. As a result, 
workers are working harder, making more profits for their company than 
ever, and yet they aren't seeing any real growth in their wages.
  So there comes a time when workers should have the power to make a 
choice in their lives, and that is when they decide whether they want 
representation--an election to form a union where they work. That is 
what this bill is all about.
  The National Labor Relations Board came up with a process that said: 
If you are going to have an election in the workplace so that workers 
can decide whether they want to belong to a union, let's at least make 
it fair, make sure that employers and employees and the unions have 
enough information. They can tell the workers their point of view, and 
the workers can decide.
  I come to the floor today in support of the National Labor Relations 
Board's rule for modernizing and streamlining the election process for 
the workers. There is a wide divergence of opinions on both sides of 
the aisle here in terms of the value of unions. I value them. Some do 
not. But I think the ability of workers to organize and bargain 
collectively is about the only way to level the playing field and to 
create a growing middle class, which we need in America.
  Last December the National Labor Relations Board came up with a rule, 
after a long process, to modernize the election process--the first time 
in almost 50 years. Fifty years ago they wrote the rules, and they 
said: You know, there are a few things that have changed in 50 years.
  Here is what they said: The rule moves preelection problems, such as 
the 25-day waiting period and review, and consolidates options for 
delay and appeal into a single appeals process. In a nod to modern 
communications, the rule says employers and unions can file election 
petitions electronically rather than by fax or mail. This does not 
strike me as radical thinking. Think of all the things we do 
electronically today, from paying our bills each month, to 
communicating with one another, to gathering information. Bringing this 
to the labor situation, the choice of a union, is certainly not 
radical. And it requires employers to provide unions with the 
employees' personal email and phone numbers in addition to the existing 
requirement for names and addresses--personal email and phone numbers. 
When is the last time you filled out an application on the Internet 
when they didn't ask you for your email address or your phone number? 
It is routine, and we want to make this routine part of the process for 
unions and employers to get in contact with employees.
  Republicans have called this an ``ambush rule.'' They say it deprives 
employers of the time they need to explain why the worker should vote 
against a union. They also claim the rule limits an employer's ability 
to pursue adequate representation. But that is not a fair claim. Union 
elections are only triggered when 30 percent of the workers sign a 
petition favoring an election. Almost one out of three needs to sign it 
saying: We want an election. Employers talk to their employees all the 
time when the employees are being asked whether they want to sign up to 
be part of the 30 percent, so the employers have constant access in the 
workplace. And employers can still require workers to meet one-on-one 
with supervisors, and about two-thirds of the employers actually do 
that. Nine out of 10 employers require workers to watch anti-union 
videos before an election. The new rule doesn't change that at all.
  Under the new rule employers have time to talk to their workers; they 
just have fewer options to delay the actual election. It looks to me as 
if it is an advantage to employers going in, and the changes by the 
NLRB are really not that substantial.
  Last year at this time workers at the Rock River Academy and 
Residential Center in Rockford, IL, wanted to form a union. Rock River 
provides mental health and educational services for young girls with 
emotional disabilities. The workers didn't like the working conditions 
in the workplace, the short staffing and stagnant wages. They wanted to 
work together to address these problems and to do a better job. They 
quickly signed up a majority of their coworkers and filed a petition 
with the NLRB office in Peoria. From the outset, the workers felt the 
employers at the facility were trying to do everything they could to 
stop this election. The delay in finalizing a union gave the 
residential center time to wage an aggressive anti-union campaign.
  There was a hearing eventually at the NLRB, but it was nearly 3 weeks 
after the petition was filed. On the first day the employer's attorneys 
claimed that all the workers at the residential center were 
nonprofessional, even though they included registered nurses, licensed 
special education teachers, and licensed therapists and social workers. 
The following day they reversed their position and argued that all the 
employees at the facility should be considered professional--this was 
the next day--even though many employees lacked a college degree. That 
stretched the hearing out for 4 days. When it comes to these elections, 
delay is really the tool that is used to stop a final decision.
  The regional director at the NLRB ruled in favor of the union's 
position and ordered an election held 82 days after the petition was 
filed in which more than a majority of the workers said they wanted an 
election. Eighty-two days later they actually got an election. During 
that time the employer hired two anti-union consultants to wage an 
anti-union campaign that included threats and interrogation and even 
the installation of a video surveillance system to monitor employees at 
all times throughout the workplace. Pro-union workers saw their hours 
cut, while non-union workers were given all the overtime they wanted. 
Worst of all, the employer terminated or laid off six employees in what 
they believe was retaliation.
  Despite the delays and discomfort the employers created, a slim 
majority of employees still voted to form the union. But the employer 
continues to raise objections and intimidate the workers. Is that 
really what we want to see--the majority of the workers want the 
election, it takes 82 days to have the election, and then the 
recriminations and problems that follow? It doesn't seem as if this is 
workplace democracy, the way it was designed.
  So I support this NLRB rule, and I am going to vote no on the efforts 
on the other side of the aisle to overturn it. This brings the election 
process into the 21st century and lets employers and unions communicate 
with employees. It doesn't encourage or discourage unionization; that 
is still up to the workers.
  Some Republicans take offense to these changes and call it an ambush. 
Instead of standing up for workers, they have chosen to challenge these 
commonsense reforms. This rule is about reducing unnecessary delay and 
litigation and giving the workers the last word. That is what we are 
supposed to do.
  This case in Illinois isn't unique. In some extreme cases, workers 
have been forced to wait 13 years for the simple right to organize. In 
many others, the delays have eventually led do a situation in which 
there was never a vote. Fifty-eight percent of workers want 
representation in their workplace, but the delays and challenges to the 
election process through NLRB discourage organizing.
  These proposed changes by themselves neither encourage nor discourage 
unions. The proposed rule will apply the same way to workers attempting 
to decertify a union as it does to workers trying to form a union. The 
only real impact of the rule changes is, after 50 years, to recognize 
the existence of email and telephones, for goodness' sake. That is 
considered radical business by some on the other side of the aisle, but 
for most it is just common sense.
  So oppose this effort to overturn this NLRB rule. Give the workers a 
chance to vote one way or the other on whether they want a union.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, we are here today because the NLRB has 
once

[[Page S1241]]

again overstepped the line. I am not sure it is a red line, but I do 
know this--that the Board has become a hyperpartisan, pro-union entity, 
and that does not benefit the American people.
  We saw it in my home State of South Carolina, in my hometown of North 
Charleston, when the NLRB and the IAM attempted to destroy what was at 
the time 1,100 jobs at Boeing. Boeing represents more than 8,000 jobs 
in North Charleston because of the success of South Carolina's pro-
business, pro-employee--I want to emphasize ``pro-employee''--
environment. But the NLRB and the President simply decided that didn't 
fit their tastes. So after more than a year, when we saw the NLRB's 
general counsel joke about destroying the American economy and call 
Members of Congress names, they finally relented when they realized 
South Carolina and the American people would not stand for it.
  But since then, the NLRB has continued to push policies loved by 
union bosses, even though it was created to be an unbiased arbiter. So 
today we are taking a very rare step--invoking the Congressional Review 
Act--because the NLRB decided to do union bosses one more favor.
  The ambush elections rule, which the Board has now finalized, will 
allow as few as 10 days to pass between employees filing a petition to 
unionize and a vote occurring. This rule is perhaps the most pro-Big 
Labor action taken by the current administration, which is quite a fete 
for this administration. Ambush elections hurt the ability of employees 
to make a well-informed choice on joining a union as it gives limited 
time to hear both sides of the debate. The rule also requires 
unprecedented amounts of employees' personal information to be given to 
union representatives, such as personal cell phone numbers and email 
addresses. The NLRB is also now placing burdensome requirements on 
employers that unions do not have to follow themselves, providing an 
unfair advantage to union organizers.
  In South Carolina we have seen the potential ramifications that come 
as a result of a widely partisan NLRB, and this rule simply reinforces 
the fact that the Board must return to acting as the neutral arbiter it 
was intended to be. But since that does not seem likely anytime soon, 
as my friends on the left resist efforts that Senator Alexander and I 
and others have introduced to reform the Board, we find ourselves here 
today.
  I will leave you with just a few quotes. One is from Brian Hayes:

       The principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our 
     election process is to minimize, or rather, to effectively 
     eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express 
     its views about collective bargaining.

  I urge my colleagues to vote to disapprove of the ambush elections 
rule and return workplace decisions to employees--not to Big Labor and 
a partisan administration.
  Just a few weeks ago we had a hearing in the HELP Committee. 
Sometimes when we have this conversation about what is good for 
employees versus what is good for employers, we find a way of taking 
these two groups of folks and trying to put them in competing 
categories. I asked a very simple question at one of the hearings, and 
I wish to take a few minutes to walk through what we are expecting of 
employers as we engage in this new process of ambush elections. I think 
we will see very clearly why we call them ambush elections.
  For the last 13 or 14 years, before entering Congress, I was a small 
business owner, an entrepreneur. I thought I had found the American 
dream. We were making a profit. We were moving forward. We were hiring 
people. And now, as I think it through, if I were still in business 
today, what are we asking employers to do in as short a window as 10 
days?
  With less than two dozen employees and no in-house legal counsel, I 
am expected in as few as 10 days to understand what an election 
position is; to find a labor attorney in Charleston with NLRB 
experience, and hopefully, NLRB expertise; to learn what can and cannot 
be said to employees; to figure out which employees are eligible to 
vote; to submit to the union names of eligible employees, their 
addresses, personal emails, their cell phone numbers, their work 
location, shift information, employee classifications; and to ensure 
all legal arguments are raised at this point in time so that I do not 
waive my right to use those arguments in the future. All of this must 
be done with amazing haste and great precision.
  Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. The clock is ticking on my right to 
talk with my employees before an election. My business is being 
neglected. Bear in mind that employers and entrepreneurs start 
businesses so that we can actually accomplish a task, not necessarily 
to defend ourselves in this process. So while we are neglecting our 
business and incurring substantial legal costs, I have to ask myself 
one very simple question--and I think many people are going to ask 
themselves the same exact question--and it is simply this: How does 
this lead to a fair election for any employee or any employer? It seems 
to me that it simply cannot and it will not.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


            The Israeli Prime Minister's Address To Congress

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this morning we were fortunate enough to 
hear Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a joint meeting 
of Congress. I was disappointed the Vice President and a number of 
Democratic Members of Congress chose not to attend this event. They 
missed a powerful speech, and they missed an opportunity to demonstrate 
America's commitment to our strongest ally, Israel.
  In his speech before the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee 
yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about Israel's alliance with 
the United States to, as he put it, ``defend our common civilization 
against common threats.'' He spoke of ``values that unite us . . . 
values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, and compassion.'' 
These are the values that unite us. They are the values both our 
Nations are committed to defend. It is an area of the world where 
respect for liberty and equality is often nonexistent. Israel stands up 
for these most essential principles. America is proud to be her ally.
  The Prime Minister spoke this morning about the dangers of a nuclear-
armed Iran. I scarcely need to enumerate the reasons why Iran 
possessing a nuclear weapon is such a dangerous prospect.
  First and foremost, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. That rather 
bureaucratic phrase obscures the full horror of what it signifies--that 
Iran's Government helps advance the activities of those who have made 
violence their mission and have kept millions of ordinary men, women, 
and children in the Middle East from living in stability and peace.
  Iran has fomented hostility toward the State of Israel, and its 
leaders have publicly stated the desire to wipe the entire Nation of 
Israel off the map. As Iran spreads violence and oppression abroad, it 
also uses the same tactics against its people at home. Iran's 
Government is hostile to freedom of any kind, whether it be freedom of 
speech or freedom of religion, and thousands of its own citizens have 
been tortured and imprisoned and executed for daring to stand up for 
their human rights. Keeping such a regime from developing a nuclear 
weapon must be a priority.
  Unfortunately, since November of 2013, when the Obama administration 
first reached an interim nuclear agreement with Iran, all we have seen 
from these negotiations are delays and extensions while Iran has 
received an easing of sanctions. We hear it repeated that ``no deal is 
better than a bad deal.'' Yet while Israel has made it clear that an 
agreement which recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium is 
unacceptable, our own administration has yet to clearly state what a 
good deal would look like.
  When the Senate made efforts to set out the parameters for an 
acceptable final agreement by introducing the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon 
Free Iran Act of 2015, which I cosponsored, the President announced 
that he would veto such a bill without even waiting to see

[[Page S1242]]

what it would look like after being fully debated and amended.
  Last week two of my colleagues introduced the Iran Nuclear Agreement 
Review Act of 2015, which would give Congress 60 days to approve or 
disapprove any final agreement. It will be telling if the President 
threatens to veto this bill as well. It is essential that any final 
agreement on Iran's nuclear capability be acceptable to the American 
people, and congressional review is therefore indispensable.
  I am eager to work with the White House and my colleagues across the 
aisle to provide the American people and our allies abroad with the 
assurance that Iran will not be allowed to arm itself with a nuclear 
weapon. However, I am concerned that if the President continues his go-
it-alone approach, Americans may not like the deal that emerges.


                            King v. Burwell

  Mr. President, I wish to pivot to an issue that is being considered 
over in the Supreme Court this week. Tomorrow the Supreme Court is 
going to hear oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, which 
challenges the extension of ObamaCare subsidies to States with Federal 
exchanges.
  The President's health care law states that individuals who enroll 
through ``an exchange established by the State'' are entitled to 
receive subsidies to help with their premium payments.
  ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber made it clear this was intended 
to give States an incentive to create their own exchanges. At an event 
in 2012, he told the audience:

       [W]hat's important to remember politically about this is if 
     you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means 
     your citizens don't get their tax credits--but your citizens 
     still pay the taxes that support this bill.

  That is from ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber back in 2012.
  In the wake of the health care law's passage, however, States made it 
clear they were reluctant to take on the costs and burdens associated 
with ObamaCare. More than two-thirds of the States declined to set up 
their own exchanges, and the Obama administration provided the 
subsidies to those enrolled on Federal exchanges despite there being no 
authority in the law for it to do so, and despite the concerns 
expressed by members of the President's own administration who were 
doubtful about the legality of such a move.
  The administration's decision to push forward with the subsidies 
despite the lack of legal authority could have serious consequences for 
millions of Americans. If the Supreme Court finds the Obama 
administration overstepped its authority, 5 million Americans could 
lose their ObamaCare subsidies.
  I recently joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the 
head of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury 
Secretary to ask what the administration's plan is for dealing with the 
aftermath of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling. The administration's 
answer: Nothing. That is right. Health and Human Services Secretary 
Sylvia Mathews Burwell told us the administration has no administrative 
plans for what it would do in the event of an unfavorable decision by 
the Supreme Court.
  In fact, the administration declined to even warn Americans enrolling 
this year of what could happen if the Supreme Court found the 
administration was illegally providing subsidies.
  Clearly the millions of Americans who could lose their health care 
premium subsidy, thanks to the administration's abuse of its authority, 
need a solution, and Republicans have been working on solutions. The 
junior Senator from Nebraska has put forward a plan to use the 1985 
COBRA law to extend temporary health care assistance to these Americans 
for 18 months.
  Other Republicans--Senator Hatch from Utah, Senator Alexander from 
Tennessee, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming--have offered their own plan 
which would also provide temporary financial assistance to affected 
Americans while they recover from the loss of the subsidies.
  The chairmen of the House Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and 
Education and the Workforce Committees have released a roadmap for 
replacing ObamaCare with market-based solutions. Their plan allows 
States to opt out of many ObamaCare mandates while maintaining 
protections for Americans. It would also make refundable tax credits 
available to Americans who lost their subsidies.
  All of these plans seek to replace the broken ObamaCare system with 
real health care reform that would lower costs, expand access to care, 
and to put patients, not the government, in charge of their health care 
decisions.
  We don't need this court case to demonstrate that ObamaCare has been 
a massive failure. We already had the unexpected tax bills, the higher 
premiums, the loss of doctors and hospitals, the health care plans 
Americans were not allowed to keep, the law's negative effect on 
employment, and I could go on and on.
  This court case underscores what all the other law's problems have 
demonstrated: ObamaCare is not fixing the health care challenges facing 
our country. If anything, it is making them worse. ObamaCare has been 
tried, and it has been found wanting. It is time to repeal this law and 
to replace it with health care reforms that will actually fix the 
problems in our health care system and improve affordability and access 
for all Americans. Five years of ObamaCare is long enough.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the National Labor 
Relations Board representation case procedures rule, which is set to go 
into effect April 14.
  This rule unfairly expedites union elections and squelches individual 
self-determination, democratic decisionmaking, and freedom of 
expression. It is also a blatant attempt to circumvent Congress's 
legitimate constitutional role in how--if at all--to reform the 
National Labor Relations Act. It is a clear case of regulatory 
overreach, and it is an abuse of power.
  The National Labor Relations Act seeks to create equity--or a ``level 
playing field,'' so to speak--in labor relations. Now, I believe the 
NLRA is far from perfect. In fact, I have introduced multiple pieces of 
legislation over the years to amend the NLRA. Nevertheless, any reform 
must be openly debated and enacted by Congress, not decided 
unilaterally by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
  I am concerned because this National Labor Relations Board case 
representation rule clearly favors the unions. I am not anti-union. I 
oppose this rule because I am a champion for both workers and 
businesses, for employee groups and the employer community. This rule 
hurts both. I oppose this rule not because I am against a worker's 
right to join a union but because this rule is detrimental to both 
employers and employees.
  The NLRA guarantees the right to engage in union activities. It also 
ensures the right to refrain from such activities. This rule 
dramatically shortens the period of time that exists between a union 
filing an election petition and the actual election. Shortening this 
time period undermines an employer's ability to hold a lawful exchange 
with its employees on whether to select union representation. It also 
deprives workers of their right to receive key information from all 
sides, as the NLRB currently provides--a system that allows for a full 
and robust debate between unions, employees, and employers.
  Moreover, there is simply no need for the rule.
  Both businesses and workers deserve a process that is free of 
unnecessary delays. Nearly 95 percent of all elections take place 
within 2 months after a petition has been filed, and the unions have 
won more than two-thirds of these elections during that time. No one 
can claim that this process is fraught with unnecessary delays.
  Unions favor this rule because it rigs the system by allowing them to 
campaign without the employer's knowledge. While some argue that 
employers are free to talk to their employees about unionization at any 
time, employers are unable to rebut a union's

[[Page S1243]]

argument if they are unaware the arguments are even being made. This 
rule leaves employers with insufficient time to respond to a union's 
arguments--and they know that. That is what is wrong with this 
legislation. Once again, this hurts both the worker and the employer.
  While my main objection to this rule is that it precludes workers and 
employers from necessary and protected information sharing, I also 
oppose the rule because it is likely to throw many elections into chaos 
and confusion.
  Under this rule, voter eligibility would be deferred to postelection 
procedures. Employees would be asked to vote on joining a union without 
knowing which employees will ultimately make up the bargaining unit. 
Simply put, unions are trying to win representation elections without 
defining whom they are representing.
  Furthermore, there are serious due process concerns surrounding the 
initial hearing and Statement of Position requirements. It is 
particularly burdensome to small employers to collect the required 
information following the filing of the petition in this drastically 
shortened timeframe.
  Lastly, we cannot ignore that with this rule the NLRB is invading 
employees' privacy and exposing them to potential identity theft by 
mandating that employers turn over employees' personal telephone 
numbers and email addresses to the unions. That is outrageous. The rule 
tramples on workers' individual liberties by allowing unions to 
unfairly obtain an employee's private information.
  The NLRB should be a neutral arbiter--an impartial overseer of the 
process--working to enforce the law, and to stop violations, and to 
intervene in attempts to sway benefit from one side or the other. It 
should not be an advocate for organized labor. Rather than approaching 
the situation from the neutral perspective, this rule makes a value 
judgment that favors unions based on false assumptions.
  The NLRB should properly be safeguarding labor relations processes. I 
urge us all to support workers' personal liberties by providing them 
ample opportunity to make up their own minds. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support employers in preserving due process while 
cultivating constructive dialogue between businesses and workers.
  I thank Senators Alexander and Enzi for leading this action under the 
Congressional Review Act. I am proud to stand with the majority of my 
Senate colleagues today in preventing the NLRB's abuse of regulatory 
power by supporting this resolution of disapproval.
  I am well aware of these types of tactics by the union movement. I am 
one of the few people in this body who was really raised in the union 
movement, who actually learned a skilled trade, who actually worked as 
a union member for 10 years in the building and construction trade 
unions as a metal lather.
  I have to tell my colleagues that some of these people in the NLRB 
and others have been trying to get quickie elections through for a long 
time, and of course, the purpose of it is to slant everything in their 
favor, when they win a majority of the NLRB votes anyway. No, they just 
want to win all of them without giving the employees the necessary 
information to be able to make wise decisions as to whether to join a 
union, and then they cloud it up by making it almost impossible to know 
which part of the union or which methodology they are going to go into.
  We have stopped quickie elections for years. We have had good 
Democrats and good Republicans vote against quickie elections. It is 
not fair to slant the system totally against employers, which is what 
this bill will do.
  Frankly, it is time we quit pulling these dirty tricks. It really 
never ceases to amaze me. When Republicans appoint--and they are in the 
majority--people to the NLRB, as a general rule, they try to make 
things more fair. They try to look at both sides and be fair. When 
Democrats do it--when Democratic Presidents do it--they try to pull 
tricks such as this that really are unworthy of the type of 
considerations that really are involved in these union elections. I 
don't mind unions winning, but they ought to win fair and square. They 
shouldn't win because they stacked the deck against the businesses. 
There are enough rules to give unions advantages in union elections as 
it is. But to have quickie elections so that the owner of the business 
or the owners of the business don't have a chance to answer the 
questions that come up or even speak to their employees is just wrong. 
I am opposed to it, and I hope everybody in this Senate is opposed to 
it as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Keystone XL Pipeline means opportunity 
for the American people. The President is standing in the way of jobs. 
He is standing in the way of affordable energy. He is standing in the 
way of our Nation's energy security. His recent veto threat and now 
carrying through with the veto sent a clear message that he is more 
concerned with political games than increasing opportunity for the 
American people.
  We are here today to send a strong message that this fight is far 
from over.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is a lifeline for many Montana communities. 
In fact, the Keystone Pipeline enters the United States through 
Montana, and that is why I will keep fighting to get this project 
moving forward.
  In fact, in our State of Montana alone, the Keystone Pipeline means 
$80 million to Montana counties and schools per year. Now, $16 million 
per year of that goes directly to our Montana university systems. This 
is how we continue to fund our infrastructure, our schools, and our 
teachers.

  A couple of weeks ago I got a call from Rion Miles. He is the 
business manager for the Operating Engineers Local 400 in Montana. He 
told me the Keystone XL Pipeline will create 300 good-paying jobs for 
his union members in Montana alone. Like most Montanans, Ryan is 
scratching his head. He doesn't understand why the President is 
standing in the way of these good-paying union jobs.
  A while back, I was in my pickup traveling in eastern Montana in the 
town of Glasgow. I stopped by the NorVal Co-Op. This co-op supplies 
electricity to a few thousand Montana families in northeast Montana. 
They told me over a cup of coffee that morning that they will keep 
electric rates flat for the next 10 years if the Keystone Pipeline is 
approved. Why is that? That is because the NorVal Co-Op is supplying 
the electricity to a couple of the pump stations on the Keystone 
Pipeline. That extra volume of electricity will help keep costs down 
for everybody.
  I asked: What happens if the Keystone Pipeline is not approved? They 
said electric rates would go up about 40 percent over the next 10 
years. That is nearly $500 a year of increase per family. These are 
hardworking Montana families living month to month. These are senior 
citizens living on fixed incomes, where we can hold their utility 
rates, electric rates flat for the next 10 years by passing the 
Keystone Pipeline bill.
  What about North American energy independence? Up to 830,000 barrels 
a day of oil will be transported through this pipeline. Contrary to 
what the President has said, 100,000 barrels a day from the Bakken, 
which is shared between North Dakota and Montana, will be put into that 
pipeline close to Baker, Montana.
  The President was just given four Pinocchios by the Washington Post 
yesterday for claiming that the Keystone Pipeline bypassed the United 
States.
  I would like to have the President come to Montana. I will pick him 
up in Billings, and we will drive in my pickup. I will show him where 
the proposed siting is for the Baker onramp where 100,000 barrels a day 
of made-in-Montana and made-in-North Dakota oil will enter the Keystone 
Pipeline. The people of Montana and the people in the Bakken region 
know the President's claim is absolutely false.
  With gas dropping under two bucks a gallon where I am from, that has 
been a welcomed change for many, many hard-working Montana families. 
Why are gas prices dropping? It is because we are seeing more made-in-
America

[[Page S1244]]

energy. Again, this lowering in gas prices will result in approximately 
$750 a year of savings for the average American household. That is a 
good thing. But rather than hitting pause on our energy production, it 
is time to encourage it.
  Just this morning we were reminded by Israeli Prime Minister 
Netanyahu that we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. Our 
energy security isn't just about jobs and low energy prices. It is 
directly tied to our national security. Whether it is ISIS, whether it 
is Boko Haram in Nigeria and Chad, whether it is the Russian aggression 
in Eastern Europe or the growing threat of a nuclear Iran, it is 
vitally important we move forward with more made-in-America energy 
because many of these regions that are filled with turmoil supply much 
of the world's oil and natural gas.
  I remember just a year ago when we were having some challenges and we 
looked at the numbers of what is going on in Ukraine. Nearly 40 percent 
of the natural gas that is supplied in Europe comes through pipelines 
going through Ukraine. Thankfully, as the United States becomes the 
world's largest oil producer this year, surpassing both Russia and 
Saudi Arabia, these are positive steps forward towards a more secure 
future for our children and grandchildren. We need more made-in-America 
energy, not more made-in-the-Middle East oil. The Keystone Pipeline 
will help us do just that.
  Looking forward, the President's veto isn't the end. This week we 
will vote to override the President's veto. I hope we can get three or 
four more Senators onboard for this veto vote, and we can do it in the 
Senate. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It was 
encouraging to see a good bipartisan vote in the Senate and in the 
House in support of the Keystone Pipeline. Let's stand together, and 
let's stand with the American people and override the President's 
shortsighted veto. Regardless of the vote, the fight is not over.
  This week the President himself said he would make a final decision 
on this pipeline. I hope he does. You realize it took the Canadians 
just 7 months to approve the Keystone Pipeline--7 months. It has now 
taken our President over 6 years without approving the pipeline. We 
must keep the pressure on this administration. We must continue to 
fight for American jobs, American opportunity, American energy 
independence, and low energy prices.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________