[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1257-S1260]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Labor 
Relations Board and the reforms that have been proposed in the new 
rule. I rise first of all to provide by way of a predicate or 
background what happened in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act 
was passed. There is a lot to talk about in that act, but just like 
when a major piece of legislation passes, we have findings that 
undergird the statute itself.
  I will not go through all of those today, but I think some of the 
language in there is especially appropriate for what we are talking 
about. The findings and summary spoke to the benefits of collective 
bargaining--the benefits of organizing and collectively bargaining, and 
asserted at one point very early in the statute, in the findings, the 
first couple of paragraphs of the findings that experience--I am 
paraphrasing this but I will get to specific words in a moment.
  But experience has shown that collective bargaining and organizing--
and these are the exact words--``safeguards commerce from injury, 
impairment or interruption.'' It goes on to talk about why it was 
better--why they believed it was better to pass a statute to resolve 
labor-management disputes instead of the old way, which was constant 
conflict, conflict fighting, in some cases even violence.
  So we did the right thing in 1935 as a country. We have had some 
history since then to draw from. The National Labor Relations Board, of 
course, is the entity that gives meaning to what we intend when we pass 
laws such as the National Labor Relations Act.
  Now we are having a dispute here in this body and in the other body 
as well about what these rules ought to be. What are the rules that 
govern the National Labor Relations Board, but in particular, what are 
the rules that govern elections?
  With all of the challenges we are facing in the country right now--
the middle class has nowhere near recovered from the last--the great 
recession. Wages have been declining over a generation, or at least not 
increasing at the level that costs have been increasing.
  So with all of that pressure on families, you could think this could 
be an area of common ground, but it is not. With all of those 
challenges facing middle-class families, it is disappointing that 
Republicans in the Senate have chosen to focus on rolling back the 
National Labor Relation's Board modest and commonsense reforms, to help 
workers get a seat at the table, so they can increase their wages and 
their economic security.
  Democrats are fighting to increase wages and we are also fighting for 
economic security, at the same time Republicans seem to be constantly 
fighting to increase corporate profits while making workers pay the 
price. All of us, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, should be 
coming together to expand workers' voices at the table and not 
attacking workers' right to collectively bargain.
  We are talking about something fundamental here, the opportunity to 
have

[[Page S1258]]

an election in a workplace, and the benefits that flow from that. That 
is really about empowering workers. I believe that is one of the 
reasons why we passed the National Labor Relations Act, not just to 
have a board that can settle disputes, but to actually empower workers 
in ways they have not been empowered up to that point in our history.
  Empowering workers is an important part of building a stronger 
economy that works not just for those individual workers in that 
worksite, but in an economy that works for all families, not just the 
wealthiest few. When the workers have a seat at the bargaining table, 
our economy prospers and the middle class thrives. I have always 
believed that if we did not have unions and collective bargaining and 
organizing since World War II and even since the 1930s, we would have a 
much less robust middle class. Some people believe there would not be a 
middle case. But I am at least willing to assert that the right to 
organize and collectively bargain is not just good for that worker and 
his or her family, but it is also good for the economy as well.

  Those workers are the ones who drive the economy, not just the work 
they do, but the expenditures they make on behalf of their family. So 
even though workers are more productive in the United States than ever 
before, workers are still struggling with those stagnant wages. Today 
the middle class accounts for the smallest share of the Nation's income 
since World War II. Hard to believe that the middle class has been so 
devastated.
  We know from our history that when workers have a voice in the 
workplace through collective bargaining, wages increase, workplace 
safety improves, and workers have increased retirement and health 
security. All of those benefits have helped grow America's middle 
class. Labor unions helped workers share in that economic prosperity 
that they have helped to create through their own hard work.
  One of the great moments I have had as a Senator from Pennsylvania is 
when you go to a manufacturing plant and they take you on a tour. I am 
sure the Presiding Officer has done this a number of times. They take 
you on the tour not just to show how they are producing something, how 
they manufacture something, they are making something, but they are 
also very proud of the way they interact with and relate to and work 
with their employees. They go out of their way to point to a bulletin 
board or point to a data point in their record to say we have very few 
injuries, or zero injuries in a certain point of time. They take great 
pride in that because they know that if they have fewer injuries, they 
are going to be more productive. If they have fewer injuries, they are 
going to have employees who can produce on their behalf.
  One of the reasons they have fewer injuries over time in our economy 
and in those businesses is because workers have rights. Workers have 
rights they did not have in the early part of the 1900s. So we know 
from our history that this works, this process of making sure workers 
have a seat at the table.
  Now let's go to the National Labor Relations Board, their election 
reforms. These particular reforms make modest but, I would argue, very 
important updates to both modernize and streamline the election 
process, to prevent delays and reduce litigation. The current system is 
vulnerable to litigation that will drag out for a long period of time, 
drag out the election process and put workers' rights on hold.
  Those reforms will reduce unnecessary litigation that is not relevant 
to the outcome of the election. In the past, employers and unions had 
to send information about the election process to the Post Office, 
which would cost time and money. The new rule brings this election 
process into the 21st century--which is 15 years old now--by letting 
employers and unions file forms electronically.
  I think that is the least that can happen. You would think in this 
era we are living in, when everything that is done--most everything is 
done electronically, in banking and in other industries, that at a 
minimum we should have information transmitted about an election--
something valuable in a workplace. We hold elections with great regard 
and we believe in the sanctity of elections. So the least we could do 
is make sure those workers have the benefits of something that would 
transmit the information electronically. Sending that information in 
that fashion makes all of the sense in the world.
  The rule also allows the use of modern forms of communications 
through cell phones and emails. That is not asking too much, to be able 
to transmit information to prepare workers for an election by the use 
of email or cell phones.
  The reforms are commonsense steps to make sure the NLRB, the Board, 
is using its taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively.
  These changes, as I referred to earlier, are not just good for 
workers, they also help businesses by streamlining the whole process, 
the elections process in this case. Right now the election process 
varies from region to region. Streamlining the process will provide 
certainty for both employers and workers themselves. The new rule 
allows businesses and unions to file forms electronically, as I 
mentioned, instead of using postage. This will save everyone time and 
money. So modernizing--this is what we are talking about here--
modernizing election rules allows businesses and unions to use these 
basic forms of communications in a way that promotes common sense.
  The rule will at long last level the playing field for small 
businesses. Right now the biggest corporations can exploit the system 
with long and costly litigation to deny workers, if they choose to do 
that, a fair up-or-down vote on joining a union. By making the election 
process more consistent and transparent, the Board's reforms level the 
playing field for the smaller businesses that already play fair.
  The NLRB, the Board itself, the representation rule, are in need of 
kind of basic updates. There have not been substantial updates to this 
NLRB election process since the 1970s. Today that leads to 
inefficiencies and delays. Right now big corporations take advantage of 
those inefficiencies to postpone and even deny workers the right to 
vote on union representation.
  Often, in the face of employer tactics, workers give up hope. In 
fact, one in three will never even get to have an election. That is not 
something the National Labor Relations Act intended. I do not think 
that is what anyone intended when it comes to these elections or the 
possibility of an election. So these amendments, these updates, these 
modernization reforms help restore balance and fairness to the election 
process. I am perplexed why this is the subject of so much controversy, 
because these are basic reforms to help people exercise their right to 
vote in the workplace, which is consistent with our values, consistent 
with our history, and also consistent with our efforts not just to move 
that worker and his or her family forward, and their business forward, 
but also to move the American economy and the middle class forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with strong 
support of the National Labor Relations Board's new effort to make 
workplace union elections more efficient and more effective. I come to 
the floor today in opposition to Republican efforts to preserve a 
broken system. Today, instead of raising minimum wages for millions of 
struggling families, or letting people refinance their student loans, 
or making sure women get equal pay for equal work, instead of 
implementing policies that strengthen the middle class, Republicans are 
pressing a bill to stop a government agency from modernizing its 
procedures because it might help--yes, help--American workers.
  Coming out of the Great Depression, America's labor unions helped 
build America's strong middle class. For half a century, as union 
membership went up, America's median family income went up. You know, 
that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not. As 
our country got richer, our families got richer. As our families got 
richer, our country got richer.
  Since 1935, Congress has required the National Labor Relations Board 
to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to 
be represented by a union. According to NLRB data, more than 90 percent 
of

[[Page S1259]]

time this works out just fine. For most of the cases that make it to an 
election, employees and employers agree about the process and an 
election is held without a dispute. Done.
  But in the remaining handful of cases, the rules on how to resolve 
these concerns have turned into a mess. Over time, a hodgepodge of 
different rules for resolving these dispute has emerged in each of the 
country's 26 NLRB regions. To fix this, the NLRB recently finalized one 
national set of rules that sets out clear procedures for resolving 
these issues. In other words, the NLRB is trying to make dispute 
resolution clearer, more efficient, and more consistent from region to 
region.
  Trying to make government work better should not be controversial. 
But it is controversial. Why? Because some employers simply oppose 
union votes altogether. They do not want the NLRB to work. They do not 
want union elections to happen at all. So they are lobbying against 
those new rules, and congressional Republicans are standing up for 
them, advancing a proposal to stop the NLRB from implementing its final 
rules and doing the job Congress gave it 80 years ago.
  Republicans claim they were concerned about workers being able to 
ambush their employers with workplace elections. That is just plain 
nonsense. Employers are always notified at the beginning of the 
election process, and according to Caren Sencer, a top labor attorney 
who testified a few weeks ago in the HELP Committee hearing, there is 
nothing--nothing--in the new rule that would stop an employer from 
having its relevant concerns heard and addressed prior to an election.
  Let's be honest. The only ambush here is the Republican ambush on 
workers' basic rights. According to a 2001 study from the Berkeley 
Center for Labor Research and Education, long election delays 
correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. A delay gives any 
union employer more time to retaliate against a union organizer, and to 
intimidate workers and delay work.
  According to NLRB data, nearly one-third of the time when employees 
file a petition to request an election, they never actually get one. 
Employers who want to keep their workers out of a union prefer a 
broken, inefficient system that gives them room to manipulate the 
process and to block workers from organizing. But that is not the law. 
The NLRB doesn't answer to them. Federal law directs the NLRB to make 
sure election disputes can be resolved fairly between employers and 
employees, and that is exactly what the NLRB is doing.

  Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture 
Washington and rig the system in their favor, but we didn't roll over. 
At every turn, in every time of challenge, organized labor has been 
there fighting on behalf of the American people. Labor was on the 
frontlines to take children out of factories and to put them in 
schools. Labor was there to give meaning to the words ``consumer 
protection'' by making our food and our medicine safe. Labor was there 
to fight for minimum wages in States across this country. In every 
fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the 
playing field, in every fight for working families, labor has been on 
the frontlines.
  Powerful interests have attacked many of the basic foundations of 
this country--the foundations that once built a strong middle class--
and too many times those powerful interests have prevailed. So it comes 
down to a question I have asked before: Whom does this Congress work 
for? Republicans say government should keep on working for powerful 
CEOs who don't like unions and who have figured out how to exploit a 
tangled system. Republicans complain about government inefficiencies, 
but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so a 
broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient, even when 
we know how to fix it.
  Well, we weren't sent here just to represent CEOs who don't like 
unions. We were sent here to support working people who just want a 
fighting chance to level the playing field. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this Republican resolution and let the NLRB do its job.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my 
disappointment that the majority leader is asking to rule XIV the 
bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
  I must ask the majority leader, what happened? Where is the 
bipartisanship part? Where is the bipartisanship that we have expressed 
and that I expressed this morning on the floor and last night at AIPAC? 
I ask again, what happened to putting aside political posturing and 
partisanship? What happened to the majority leader's pledge in January 
to ``decentralize power in the Senate'' and ``open up the legislative 
process''?
  "We need to return to regular order,'' he said. I agree with him. 
Let's do it. Let's return to regular order.
  Frankly, this is not what was intended, and it is certainly against 
my better judgment, against procedure, against any understanding we 
might have had to take the politics out of our effort to establish 
congressional oversight of any nuclear agreement with Iran. I am more 
than disappointed; I am pretty outraged.
  I said last night and again this morning that I join Chairman Corker 
and Senators Graham, Kaine, Donnelly, Heitkamp, King, Nelson, Ayotte, 
Rubio, McCain, and Risch in introducing bipartisan oversight 
legislation to ensure that Congress has a chance to review the deal 
before it goes into effect and to oversee its compliance after it goes 
into effect. And now, putting any bipartisanship aside, we are back to 
politics as usual. The only way to make this work is to work together.
  The provisions of the bill itself are good ones. It would require the 
President to submit an agreement to Congress within 5 days of reaching 
it. It would give Congress 60 days to consider the agreement before 
sanctions relief could be provided. It would outline consequences 
should Congress decide to disapprove the agreement. And in terms of 
oversight, it would require information on potential breaches to be 
promptly reported to Congress, along with a comprehensive report every 
180 days of any Iranian action inconsistent with the agreement. It 
would require a report every 90 days from the President on Iran's 
compliance, informing us of any actions that might advance Iran's 
nuclear weapons program, that it has not supported or financed or 
carried out any acts of terrorism, and that any sanctions relief is 
both appropriate and proportionate to Iran's efforts under the 
agreement. Of course, it would have here in the Senate a 60-vote 
threshold, so that means it would have to be a bipartisan 
determination.
  We in good faith agreed to introduce this legislation and take it 
through the committee process and to the floor so that Congress--which 
was responsible for bringing Iran to the table in the first place to 
negotiate--would have a role in reviewing the agreement before it goes 
into effect, whether to provide sanctions relief, and overseeing 
implementation and Iranian compliance after it goes into effect 
because, as I said last night, a deal cannot be built on trust alone. 
Now, I was talking about Iran; I did not know that I was talking about 
our deal to pass a bipartisan review act.
  So let me conclude. I can't imagine why the majority leader would 
seek to short-circuit the process, unless the goals are political 
rather than substantive. And I regret to say these actions make clear 
an intention that isn't substantive, that it is political. On a day 
that has been defined by serious discourse about Iran's illicit nuclear 
weapons program, at a moment when legislators contemplate the most 
serious national security issue of our time, I am disappointed that the 
leader has chosen to proceed outside of regular order. By bringing the 
Corker-Menendez legislation directly to the floor for debate, the 
majority leader is singlehandedly undermining our bipartisan efforts.
  Nobody in Congress has worked harder on this issue, and I certainly 
don't take a backseat to anyone in pursuing

[[Page S1260]]

Iran's nuclear weapons program and standing up for Israel, but I 
sincerely hope that we can restore regular order and that this bill can 
be fully considered by all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee in due time.
  Finally, there is no emergency. This deal--if there is one--won't be 
concluded until the summer, so there is plenty of time to wait until 
March 24, find out whether we have a deal, and then act to be able to 
be in a posture to opine on that deal and to deal with it accordingly. 
There is no reason to accelerate this process in this way, to go 
outside of regular order, bypass the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, and come directly to the floor.
  I know I cannot object to the rule XIV process under the rules, but I 
say to my colleagues, if this is the process, then I will have no 
choice but to use my voice and my vote against any motion to proceed. I 
hope that is not the case. I have worked too hard to get to this 
moment. But if that is the way we are going to proceed, then I will 
certainly have to vote against proceeding at that time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 8, a misguided 
resolution that targets workers' right to organize and hurts working 
families in Hawaii and around the country.
  Union election rules haven't been updated since the 1970s. The 
National Labor Relations Board--or NLRB--is trying to bring union 
election rules into the 21st century, but today's Senate resolution 
will block the NLRB's commonsense updates.
  The right to organize is a crucial part of our democracy. Unions have 
helped build the middle class in Hawaii and nationwide. It is 
disappointing that instead of working to create jobs or help the middle 
class get ahead, today we are debating whether to make it harder to 
join a union.
  Workers wishing to join a union already face many barriers. For 
example, companies have significant opportunities to make their case to 
employees about why they should oppose a union. Meanwhile, unions are 
not allowed to visit the worksite to make their case for joining a 
union, and they do not have access to modern contact information such 
as emails and cell phone numbers--unbelievable as that may sound--to 
contact workers.
  In addition, companies can delay union elections with what amounts to 
frivolous litigation and appeal after appeal. Nationwide, in contested 
cases workers already have to wait an average of 4 months to vote 
whether to join a union.
  While most employers in Hawaii want to support their workers, there 
have been those rare cases of companies exploiting the current system 
to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace.
  Let me share a situation that happened in Hawaii where workers had 
not been given a raise in 6 years. They asked a local union for help in 
organizing their union. In the runup to the union elections, the 
workers were forced to attend one-on-one or group meetings on work time 
where their management could convince workers to vote against the 
union. This company hired a private security firm and posted security 
guards outside the voting area during the vote. Workers felt 
intimidated.
  The company appealed election results and NLRB rulings over and over 
again, adding delay after delay and revote after revote. In July 2005, 
40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an election, the 
NLRB finally certified a union for the workers. Still, the company 
continued to offer appeal after appeal of the election results and even 
fired 31 union supporters in 2007. Finally, at the end of 2012, 10 
years later, the certified union reached its first union contract.
  Remember, I noted that where most workplaces are organized, things 
are done in 4 months. That is not always the case. The NLRB's updated 
union election rules would help reduce this kind of intimidation and 
delay, which happens all too often, and would allow organizers to 
contact workers by email and cell phone. It is pretty astounding that 
we had to have a rule change in order to make this kind of commonsense 
change available to organizers--which, by the way, this resolution 
which I ask my colleagues to vote against disallows.
  The rule will make it easier for small businesses to follow labor 
election laws. Currently, big corporations can use expensive lawyers to 
litigate and prevent union elections, while small businesses don't have 
those kinds of resources.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these modest, 
commonsense updates to NLRB rules and voting no on the resolution. 
Let's stand with working men and women in this country and support the 
middle class.
  I want to end with a quote from one of our labor organizers and 
leaders in Hawaii, Hawaii Laborers' business manager Peter Ganaban. In 
a recent piece in Pacific Business News, Mr. Ganaban explained that 
``Hawaii's union climate is an extension of our local culture of 
helping each other and caring for our communities.''
  Allowing workers a fair choice and a fair chance to join a union is 
the least we can do for our workers in the middle class.
  I yield my time.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________