[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1889-1896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Brown of Ohio):
  S. 2117. A bill to increase access to adult education to provide for 
economic growth; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Adult Education 
and Economic Growth Act of 2012. This bill will address the critical 
needs in our workforce by investing in adult education, job training 
and other workforce programs needed to build a strong and competitive 
21st century workforce. I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by 
Senators Jack Reed and Sherrod Brown. An identical bill has been 
reintroduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Hinojosa.
  By almost any measure, our Nation faces a critical need to strengthen 
existing programs of adult education. Our current adult education 
system falls short in preparing our people to compete globally. In 
fact, fewer than 3 million of the 93 million people who could benefit 
from these services actually receive them.
  The U.S. labor market has changed dramatically with the advent of new 
technology and with the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. The 
need for well-trained and highly skilled workers has increased. At the 
same time, our adult education system, which should effectively prepare 
our low-skill workers to meet the demands of this shifting economy, has 
not kept pace with this changing workforce.
  Since 2002, the Federal Government has consistently decreased funding 
for adult education. In addition, the Nation's primary Federal resource 
for adult education, job training and employment services, the 
Workforce Investment Act, has not been reauthorized for more than 10 
years. Only about one in four adults with less than a high school 
education participates in any kind of further education or training.
  There are other signs pointing to the need for a better approach to 
adult education. Consider adult education enrollment rates. In 1998 
there were more than 4 million individuals enrolled in adult education 
programs. In 2007, enrollments had dropped to just 2 million. This is a 
40 percent drop from when the Workforce Investment Act was originally 
enacted in 1998.
  A growing number of U.S. skilled workers are facing retirement age 
and

[[Page 1890]]

the growth in skilled labor force has stagnated. Addressing the looming 
skills shortage in many sectors and regions in the U.S., through 
reinvestment in our adult education system, will result in an educated 
and literate adult population.
  According to the Workforce Alliance, 80 percent of jobs in today's 
economy require some education beyond a high school degree. Yet there 
are 8 million adults in the workforce who have low literacy, limited 
English proficiency, or lack educational credentials beyond high 
school.
  With so many workers who are unemployed or underemployed, it is clear 
that we should invest in the training or re-training of U.S. workers to 
fill this growing gap.
  Our legislation begins the vital task of addressing these problems.
  Today, we are proposing a four-pronged approach to strengthen the 
Nation's workforce. First, we want to build ``on ramps'' for American 
workers who need new skills and a better education in order to improve 
their lives. Currently our adult education programs are operating in 
silos and it is critical that we improve the adult education system 
through partnerships with businesses and workforce development groups. 
Just as importantly, we want to encourage employers to help them, by 
offering tax credits to businesses that invest in their employees. This 
government has long provided employers with limited tax credits when 
they help their employees go to college or graduate school. It is basic 
logic and to the national good, that we should provide similar 
incentives for basic adult education.
  Second, we must modernize the delivery system of adult education by 
harnessing the increased use of technology in workforce skills training 
and adult education. The bill provides incentives to states and local 
service providers to increase their use of technology and distance 
learning in adult education. Many adult learners cannot afford the time 
or money to travel to a classroom and deploying technology will help 
meet this need.
  Third, our bill establishes stronger assessment and accountability 
measures.
  This bill authorizes a rather modest $500 million increase in funding 
to invigorate state and local adult education programs nationwide to 
increase the number of adults with a high school diploma. As a result, 
the bill will inevitably increase the number of high school graduates 
who go on to college, and update and expand the job skills of the U.S. 
workforce. All of this is relevant to my longstanding personal goal of 
promoting basic economic fairness in our society.
  Other provisions of the Adult Education and Economic Growth Act will 
improve workers' readiness to meet the demands of a global workforce by 
providing pathways to obtain basic skills, job training, and adult 
education.
  The act will provide workers with greater access to on-the-job 
training and adult education by encouraging public-private partnerships 
between government, business and labor.
  The act will improve access to correctional education programs to 
channel former offenders into productive endeavors and reduce 
recidivism.
  The act will encourage investment in lower skilled workers by 
providing employers with a tax credit if they invest in their 
employee's education. This tax credit is aimed at encouraging general 
and transferable skills development that may be in the long term 
interest of most employers but are not always so clearly rewarded by 
the market.
  This act focuses on addressing the unique needs of adults with 
limited basic skills, with no high school diploma, or with limited 
English proficiency. Those individuals who may have taken a different 
path earlier in life, and who now find themselves eager to go back to 
school and receive additional job training and skills, should be 
provided opportunities to get back on track.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important endeavor. Our 
Nation's workforce and local communities will be stronger for it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
        Franken, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
  S. 2119. A bill to establish a pilot program to address overweight/
obesity among children from birth to age 5 in child care settings and 
to encourage parental engagement; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Healthy Kids from Day One Act--a bill that will add another tool to our 
toolbox for tackling the national epidemic of childhood obesity. Today, 
about one in three children is either overweight or obese, and nearly 
21 percent of our littlest ones--those in preschool--are obese or 
overweight. This problem has become an epidemic, and I want to thank 
Senators Coons, Carper, Franken, and Tom Udall for joining me in 
introducing this important legislation.
  The Healthy Kids from Day One Act seeks to focus on the childcare 
setting as a part of our strategy to combat childhood obesity and get 
kids healthy and moving again. This bill recognizes that in order to 
reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity, we must reach children in 
as many settings as possible and particularly in the places where they 
live, learn, and play. With 75 percent of U.S. children aged 3 to 5 
years in childcare and 56 percent in centers, including nursery 
schools, preschools, and full-day centers, it makes sense to focus on 
the preschool and childcare environment. Experts are increasingly 
acknowledging this setting as critical to obesity prevention. For 
example, this past October the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released 
a research synthesis on how childcare settings can promote healthy 
eating and physical activity. Furthermore, an article in the January 
2012 issue of Pediatrics examined barriers to children's physical 
activity in childcare.
  Childcare providers want to create healthy environments for children 
but vary in the expertise or resources needed to achieve this goal. 
This legislation builds on a bill I introduced with Senator Franken in 
2010 by supporting the establishment of childcare collaborative 
workshops at the local level to offer childcare providers the tools, 
training, and assistance they need to encourage healthy eating and 
physical activity. This bill supplements some of the work being done 
right now by the First Lady in her Let's Move Child Care initiative, as 
it would bring together, in interactive collaborative learning 
sessions, relevant entities needed for meaningful childhood-obesity 
prevention.
  Obesity has serious health and economic consequences. It puts our 
children at greater risk of costly but preventable chronic illnesses, 
such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. Obesity also comes at a 
tremendous cost to our society. The total economic cost is estimated at 
$300 billion annually, and, as the Nation's youth continues to age, 
further costs will be added to the national health care system if these 
trends continue. Obesity also has impacted our ability to recruit 
healthy, young servicemembers into the military and maintain a strong 
national defense.
  My childhood and much of my adult life has been spent in the great 
outdoors, and I have tried to bring my enthusiasm for being active and 
exploring the world around us here to the U.S. Congress as a cochair of 
the Senate Outdoor Recreation Caucus. I firmly believe that we need to 
reconnect folks with the idea that being active is fun and rewarding, 
and it can help us lower health care costs and improve the quality of 
life here in America.
  I would like to thank Nemours, Trust for America's Health, the YMCA 
of the USA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart 
Association for working with me to develop this legislation. This bill 
builds upon their expertise with obesity prevention.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against childhood 
obesity by supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Mr.

[[Page 1891]]

        Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
        Coats, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Lee, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul, 
        Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sessions, 
        Mr. Shelby, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, and 
        Mr. Wicker):
  S.J. Res. 36. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to 
representation election procedures; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today after introducing a 
Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval to stop the National 
Labor Relations Board's unfair and unnecessary ambush elections rule. I 
am pleased that 43 fellow Senators have cosponsored this resolution. I 
know it will draw more support on the Senate floor as people learn the 
details of the new rule.
  This administration's National Labor Relations Board has done a lot 
of controversial things, but the ambush elections rule stands out 
because it is a politicized and unjustified effort to make a fair 
system less fair, and it is being rushed into effect over tremendous 
objection.
  The National Labor Relations Act, which the National Labor Relations 
Board enforces, is a carefully balanced law that protects the rights of 
employees to join or not join a union and also protects the rights of 
employers to free speech and unrestricted flow of commerce.
  Since it was enacted in 1935, changes to this statute have been rare. 
When they do occur, it is the result of careful negotiations with all 
the stakeholders. Most of the questions that come up under the law are 
handled through decisions of the board. Board decisions often do change 
the enforcement of the law significantly, but they are issued in 
response to an actual dispute and an actual question of law. In 
contrast, the ambush elections rule is not a response to a real issue 
because the current election process for certifying whether employees 
want to form a union is not broken.
  This rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders. Instead, it 
was rushed into place over just 6 months, despite the fact that it drew 
over 65,000 comments in the 2-month period after it was first proposed.
  Had the board held the comment period open longer to allow more input 
from the regulated community, which was clearly quite engaged on the 
proposal, it would certainly have received even more comments. Yet this 
relatively small agency reported that it gone through all 65,957 
comments in just the 7 weeks they took to release a modified rule, 
which was then finalized. The rule was finalized just days before the 
board lost its quorum with the expiration of Member Becker's recess 
appointment term. Under any circumstances, a rulemaking this hasty 
looks suspicious. In this case, there is simply no justification for 
the rush.
  Today's secret ballot elections occur in a median timeframe of 38 
days. Unions win more than 71 percent of elections--their highest win 
rate on record. The current system does not disadvantage labor unions 
at all. But it does ensure there is fairness for the employees whose 
right it is to make the decision of whether or not to form a union, to 
pay union dues, and to have some of their dues go into political 
campaigns and have the full opportunity to hear from both sides about 
the ramifications of that decision--to have the time to get full 
disclosure.
  There is supposed to be a poster that notifies employees of their 
right not to have their money go into political campaigns, but this 
administration has taken that off of the poster so they are no longer 
informed of that right.
  This principle of law has been upheld over nearly seven decades. It 
was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued during the debate over the 1959 
amendments to the law, saying:

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

  Frankly, whenever I hear a government decision that aims to limit 
information available to citizens and depress free speech, I am very 
concerned. It was that sort of agenda that was behind the card check 
legislation which was defeated in the Senate. Let me repeat that. It 
was that sort of agenda that was behind the card check legislation that 
was defeated in the Senate. I am afraid this rule has been hatched in 
the same laboratory, and I hope it will meet the same fate.
  The ambush elections rule eliminates the 25-day waiting period to 
conduct elections in cases where a party has filed a preelection 
request for review. It effectively eliminates the opportunity for 
parties to voice objections and settle issues before the elections and 
limits the ability to address them after elections as well.
  What are we trying to hide? The effect of these changes will be union 
certification elections held in as few as 10 days. Union organizers 
will hand-select members of the bargaining unit, and any review of the 
appropriateness of the unit makeup or status of employees who may 
qualify as supervisors will be postponed until after the election--
something always done before the election. Employees will be voting on 
whether to form a union without any idea of who will actually be in the 
bargaining unit.
  Employers will be caught off guard and potentially flying blind with 
regard to their rights under the law, particularly small businesses. 
Union organizers spend months, if not years, organizing and spreading 
their message to the employees, unbeknownst to the employer. So when a 
union files a representation petition, employers are already at a 
significant disadvantage in educating employees about their views on 
unionization. Employers also use this time to consult with their 
attorneys to ensure their actions are permissible under the law. 
Shortening the time period will increase the likelihood that employers 
will act hastily, opening themselves to unfair labor practice charges 
that have very severe consequences.
  I am particularly concerned about the small businesses that will be 
ambushed under this rule. Instead of focusing on growing and creating 
more jobs, they will be swamped with legal issues, with bargaining 
obligations, a less flexible workforce, and increased costs across the 
board. Most small businesses likely have no idea about the changes 
being made by the National Labor Relations Board because the rule was 
rushed into place so hastily.
  Instead of directing the National Labor Relations Board to focus on 
enforcing current law rather than ambushing small business job creators 
and their employees, President Obama has stacked the Board with 
unconstitutional recess appointees and requested a $15 million increase 
in their budget. He simply doesn't understand. He doesn't get it.
  By passing this resolution through both the House and Senate, we will 
strike a victory for those on the side of job creation and fairness to 
employees. It will also send a very important message to a runaway 
agency. Under this administration, the National Labor Relations Board 
has been more controversial than most observers can ever remember. They 
have flouted the intentions of Congress repeatedly.
  The President has redefined a recess appointment in order to keep it 
going. There is no law that allowed that. There is no change that has 
been made that would allow a President to do something different than 
has ever been done before. But he did it. He redefined the recess 
appointment in order to keep the Board going.
  A few weeks ago, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Pearce 
announced that he intends to push through even more controversial

[[Page 1892]]

changes to the elections rules before the end of the year. He is 
planning to require a mandatory hearing 7 days after a petition is 
filed. Employers would be forced to file a position statement on 
important legal questions at the hearing or lose the right to 
subsequently argue those issues. He plans to require employers to 
provide personal employee information to union organizers, such as e-
mail addresses, within 2 days. Do you think the employees want to be 
harassed with e-mails? I doubt it. These changes would completely 
cripple any employer's ability to have a voice in the decisionmaking 
process, let alone a small employer's.
  Enacting a resolution of disapproval of the ambush elections rule 
would prevent Chairman Pearce from promulgating these destruction 
changes. It would not roll back any rights or privileges, it would 
simply return these workplace rules to current law. Current law. Not 
current rule, current law. It just returns it to the workplace rules we 
have under current law. I will remind my colleagues that current law is 
a fair system under which employees retain the right to decide by 
secret ballot election whether to form a union. Elections occur in a 
median of 38 days, and unions win 71 percent of the elections.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of 
support from a number of groups.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2012.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), I am writing to express manufacturers' 
     strong support for S.J. Res. 36, the ``Resolution of 
     Disapproval'' of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) 
     rule relating to representation election procedures.
       The NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade 
     association, representing small and large manufacturers in 
     every industrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM's 
     mission is to enhance the competitiveness of the 
     manufacturing economy by advocating policies that are 
     conducive to U.S. economic growth.
       The NLRB's rule relating to representation election 
     procedures, finalized in December, represents one of many 
     recent actions and decisions made by the NLRB, stifling 
     economic growth and job creation. These actions would burden 
     manufacturers with harsh rules, making it harder to do 
     business in the United States. The rule would limit what 
     issues and evidence can be presented at a pre-election 
     hearing, potentially leaving important questions unresolved 
     until after an election has taken place, making these 
     questions moot.
       Furthermore, the rule would also eliminate the current 25 
     day ``grace period,'' compressing the time frame for 
     elections to occur in approximately 20 days. Business owners 
     would effectively be stripped of legal rights ensuring a fair 
     election and those who lack resources, or in house legal 
     expertise, will be left scrambling to navigate and understand 
     complex labor processes with too little time. Moreover, 
     employees will be denied the ability to make fully informed 
     decisions about whether they want to join a union. Finally, 
     the NLRB has not provided any evidence such a rule is needed 
     in order to address a systematic problem of representation 
     election delays. Absent any justification, the NAM believes 
     the rule is unnecessary and will create problems where none 
     currently exist.
       S.J. Res. 36 would send a strong message to the NLRB and 
     rein in the agency, whose actions have resulted in the most 
     dramatic changes to labor law in 75 years, threatening the 
     ability of business owners to create and retain jobs. We look 
     forward to continuing to work with you on our shared goals 
     for a strong economy, job creation and promoting fair and 
     balanced labor laws.

                              NLRB REPRESENTATION ELECTION STATUS THROUGH THE YEARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Election
                  Fiscal year                        Cases         agreement %      Median days      56-day %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011..........................................  ..............  ................  ..............  ..............
2010..........................................            1790              92.1              38            95.1
2009..........................................            1690              91.9              37            95.5
2008..........................................            2085              91.8              38            95.1
2007..........................................            2080              91.2              39            93.9
2006..........................................            2296              91.1              38            94.2
2005..........................................            2715              89                39            93.6
2004..........................................            2537              89                39            93.6
2003..........................................            2659              88.5              40            92.5
2002..........................................            2871              86.1              41              91
2001..........................................            2842              88.2              40             N/A
10 year Average...............................            2356              89.9            38.9            93.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              National Restaurant Association,

                                                February 15, 2012.
     Michael B. Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Senate Health, Education, Labor, & 
         Pensions,Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: We write on behalf of the National 
     Restaurant Association to commend you on your leadership 
     urging the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to 
     challenge the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) 
     decision to issue ``ambush election'' regulations. These 
     regulations make it more difficult for small businesses to 
     respond and educate their employees during union election 
     campaigns.
       The ambush election regulations would, in practice, deny 
     employees' proper access to information on unions, while 
     restricting employers' rights of free speech and due process. 
     Specifically, the ambush election regulations restrict an 
     employer's ability to raise substantive issues and concerns 
     prior to a union election, such as allowing the NLRB to limit 
     the issues raised at a pre-election hearing and preventing an 
     employer from raising objections to the size and scope of a 
     unit.
       The ambush election regulations would also eliminate the 
     requirement that a union election not be held within 25 days 
     after a hearing judge rules on pre-election matters. As NLRB 
     Board Member Brian Hayes points out, the intent of the ambush 
     election regulations is to ``eviscerate an employer's 
     legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective 
     bargaining.''
       We praise your leadership on this issue and look forward to 
     assisting you as this matter moves toward a floor vote in the 
     US Senate.
           Sincerely,
     Angelo I. Amador, Esq.,
       Vice President Director, Labor & Workforce Policy.
     Michelle Reinke Neblett,
       Director, Labor & Workforce Policy.
                                  ____

                                               Associated Builders


                                        and Contractors, Inc.,

                                                February 16, 2012.
     The Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of Associated Builders and 
     Contractors (ABC), a national association with 74 chapters 
     representing more than 22,000 merit shop construction and 
     construction-related firms, I am writing to thank you for 
     introducing S.J. Res. 36, which provides for congressional 
     disapproval and nullification of the National Labor Relations 
     Board's (NLRB) rule related to representation election 
     procedures. ABC supports S.J. Res. 36 and urges Congress to 
     immediately pass this much-needed resolution, which will 
     nullify the ambush election proposal.
       The ambush election rule is nothing more than the Board's 
     attempt to promote the interests of organized labor by 
     effectively denying employees access to critical information 
     about the pros and cons of union representation. Stripping 
     employers of free speech and the ability to educate their 
     employees, the rule poses a threat to both employees and 
     employers.
       In August, ABC criticized the NLRB proposed ambush rule 
     that could dramatically shorten the time frame for union 
     organizing elections from the current average of 38 days to 
     as few as 10 days between when a petition is filed and the 
     election occurs. ABC submitted comments to the NLRB stating 
     the proposed rule would significantly impede the ability of 
     construction industry employers to protect their rights in 
     the pre-election hearing process; hinder construction 
     employers ability to share facts and information regarding 
     union representation with their employees; and impose 
     numerous burdens without any reasoned justification on small 
     merit shop businesses and their employees, which constitute 
     the majority of the construction industry. In the largest 
     response

[[Page 1893]]

     on record, the NLRB received more than 70,000 comments 
     regarding the proposal, many of which strongly opposed the 
     changes.
       The Board published a final rule on December 22, 2011, with 
     an April 30, 2012 effective date. While it somewhat modified 
     the original proposal, disposing of the rigid seven- and two-
     day requirements, the final rule is identical in purpose and 
     similar in effect to the August proposal.
       At this time of economic challenges, it is unfortunate that 
     the NLRB continues to move forward with policies that 
     threaten to paralyze the construction industry and stifle job 
     growth. If left unchecked, the actions of the NLRB will fuel 
     economic uncertainty and have serious negative ramifications 
     for millions of American workers. We applaud you for 
     introducing S.J. Res. 36 and urge Congress to immediately 
     pass this much-needed resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Geoffrey G. Burr,
     Vice President, Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

                                       National Retail Federation,
                                                February 16, 2012.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, 379A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the National Retail 
     Federation (NRF), I am writing to you urge your support for 
     the Joint Resolution of Disapproval challenging the National 
     Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rule on ambush elections. 
     Senator Mike Enzi has introduced this resolution, and NRF 
     urges you to support this legislation.
       As the world's largest retail trade association and the 
     voice of retail worldwide, NRF's global membership includes 
     retailers of all sizes, formats and channels of distribution 
     as well as chain restaurants and industry partners from the 
     United States and more than 45 countries abroad. In the U.S., 
     NRF represents an industry that includes more than 3.6 
     million establishments and which directly and indirectly 
     accounts for 42 million jobs--one in four U.S. jobs. The 
     total U.S. GDP impact of retail is $2.5 trillion annually, 
     and retail is a daily barometer of the health of the nation's 
     economy.
       Senator Enzi's resolution will relieve the serious threat 
     to both employees and employers posed by a recently finalized 
     NLRB rule regarding election timing. The rule, announced 
     December 21, 2011, would drastically change the process for 
     union representation elections and would severely limit 
     worker access to information needed to make an informed 
     decision about whether or not to vote in favor of a union.
       The average amount of time that elapses in a NLRB election 
     is presently 37 days. Under the new rule, a vote could happen 
     in as few as fourteen days, leaving an employer little time 
     to prepare for an election. Moreover, since a union can be 
     organizing for an election and talking to employees for up to 
     a year before a formal petition for an election is submitted 
     to the NLRB, the new rule severely tilts the playing field 
     against employers. As a result, the quality and quantity of 
     information available to employees in consideration of the 
     issue will be severely unbalanced; and the rights of 
     employees who do not favor the union position will be 
     undermined.
       This action by the NLRB, taken along with a series of other 
     extraordinary rulings over the course of the last nine 
     months, are nothing more than an attempt to impose the 
     Employee Free Choice Act (card-check) on employees and 
     employers through regulation. We urge you to strongly reject 
     this ``backdoor'' card check agenda by a board of unelected 
     bureaucrats and restore balance to the organizing process so 
     that we can start removing the economic uncertainty facing 
     both employers and employees.
       NRF is fully behind Senator Enzi's effort, and we urge you 
     to support the Joint Resolution of Disapproval. We look 
     forward to working with the Senate to move this Resolution 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                     David French,
     Senior Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                                   Coalition for a


                                         Democratic Workplace,

                                                February 16, 2012.
       Dear Senators Enzi and Isakson and Representatives Kline, 
     Roe and Gingrey: On behalf of millions of job creators 
     concerned with mounting threats to the basic tenets of free 
     enterprise, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace thanks 
     you for introducing S.J. Res. 36 and its companion resolution 
     in the House of Representatives, which provide for 
     congressional disapproval and nullification of the National 
     Labor Relations Board's (NLRB or Board) rule related to 
     representation election procedures. This ``ambush'' election 
     rule is nothing more than the Board's attempt to placate 
     organized labor by effectively denying employees' access to 
     critical information about unions and stripping employers of 
     free speech and dues process rights. The rule poses a threat 
     to both employees and employers. We support S.J. Res. 36 and 
     its House companion and urge Congress to immediately pass 
     these much-needed resolutions, which will nullify the ambush 
     election proposal.
       The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of more 
     than 600 organizations, has been united in its opposition to 
     the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' (EFCA) and EFCA 
     alternatives that pose a similar threat to workers, 
     businesses and the U.S. economy. Thanks to the bipartisan 
     group of elected officials who stood firm against this 
     damaging legislation, the threat of EFCA is less immediate 
     this Congress. Politically powerful labor unions, other EFCA 
     supporters, and their allies in government are not backing 
     down, however. Having failed to achieve their goals through 
     legislation, they are now coordinating with the Board and the 
     Department of Labor (DOL) in what appears to be an all-out 
     attack on job-creators and employees in an effort to enact 
     EFCA through administrative rulings and regulations.
       On June 21, 2011, the Board proposed its ambush election 
     rule, which was designed to significantly speed up the 
     existing union election process and limit employer 
     participation in elections. At the time, Board Member Hayes 
     warned that ``the proposed rules will (1) shorten the time 
     between filing of the petition and the election date, and (2) 
     substantially limit the opportunity for full evidentiary 
     hearing or Board review on contested issues involving, among 
     other things, appropriate unit, voter eligibility, and 
     election misconduct.'' Hayes noted the effect would be to 
     ``stifle debate on matters that demand it.'' The Board 
     published a final rule on December 22, 2011, with an April 
     30, 2012 effective date. While it somewhat modified the 
     original proposal, the final rule is identical in purpose and 
     similar in effect to the proposal.
       The NLRB's own statistics reveal the average time from 
     petition to election was 31 days, with over 90% of elections 
     occurring within 56 days. There is no indication that 
     Congress intended a shorter election time frame, and indeed, 
     based on the legislative history of the 1959 amendments to 
     the National Labor Relations Act, it is clear Congress 
     believed that an election period of at least 30 days was 
     necessary to adequately assure employees the ``fullest 
     freedom'' in exercising their right to choose whether they 
     wish to be represented by a union. As then Senator John F. 
     Kennedy Jr. explained, a 30-day period before any election 
     was a necessary ``safeguard against rushing employees into an 
     election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.'' Senator 
     Kennedy stated ``there should be at least a 30-day interval 
     between the request for an election and the holding of the 
     election'' and he opposed an amendment that failed to provide 
     ``at least 30 days in which both parties can present their 
     viewpoints.''
       The current election time frames are not only reasonable, 
     but permit employees time to hear from both the union and the 
     employer and make an informed decision, which would not be 
     possible under the ambush election rule. In fact, in other 
     situations involving ``group'' employee issues, Congress 
     requires that employees be given at least 45 days to review 
     relevant information in order to make a ``knowing and 
     voluntary'' decision. (This is required under the Older 
     Workers Benefit Protection Act when employees evaluate 
     whether to sign an age discrimination release in the context 
     of a program offered to a group or class of employees.) Also, 
     in many cases, employers, particularly small ones, will not 
     have enough time under the rule's time frames to secure legal 
     counsel, let alone an opportunity to speak with employees 
     about union representation or respond to promises union 
     organizers may have made to secure union support, even though 
     many of those promises may be completely unrealistic. Given 
     that union organizers typically lobby employees for months 
     outside the workplace without an employer's knowledge, these 
     ``ambush'' elections would often result in employees' 
     receiving only half the story. They would hear promises of 
     raises and benefits that unions have no way of guaranteeing, 
     without an opportunity for the employer to explain its 
     position and the possible inaccuracies put forward by the 
     union.
       For these reasons, we thank you for introducing S.J. Res. 
     36 and its House companion and urge Congress to immediately 
     pass these much-needed resolutions. If left unchecked, the 
     actions of the NLRB will fuel economic uncertainty and have 
     serious negative ramifications for millions of employers, 
     U.S. workers they have hired or would like to hire, and 
     consumers.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Geoffrey Burr,
                                                         Chairman.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S.J. Res. 37. A joint resolution to disapprove a rule promulgated by 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
emission standards for certain steam generating units; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to announce that I introduced a 
resolution of disapproval just a few minutes ago under the 
Congressional Review Act.
  A lot of people don't know what the Congressional Review Act is, but 
it is

[[Page 1894]]

an act that will allow Congress to look at some of the regulations. If 
there is something they don't believe is in the best interest of the 
country, they are able to introduce something to rescind that. It would 
call for a vote, and the vote would be a 51-vote. So it is one that has 
not been used very much, but it is a measure that would prevent, in 
this case the Obama EPA, from going through with its Utility MACT.
  MACT is the maximum achievable control technology. That is used quite 
often because there are sometimes requirements in these EPA rules that 
require different industries to do things where there is no technology 
available to allow them to get that done. So the Utility MACT is one of 
the most expensive environmental rules in American history, second only 
to President Obama's cap-and-trade rules, which he was unable to 
achieve legislatively. Left untouched, the Utility MACT would destroy 
over 1 million jobs and cost the American economy billions of dollars.
  My CRA, the Congressional Review Act, will be the moment of truth for 
a majority in this body who understand how harmful the Obama EPA 
regulatory agenda will be for their constituents. Remember, last year 
at this time 64 Senators voted in different ways to rein in the EPA's 
destructive greenhouse gas regulations. I had a bill to take away the 
jurisdiction from the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 
greenhouse gases. It was called the Energy Tax Prevention Act. At the 
same time, there was another I call a cover vote. Sometimes when you 
want to tell people at home that you are against something, you can 
have a less maybe severe vote, and there happens to be a cover vote 
that takes place.
  The bottom line is 64 of the 100 Senators voted to do something about 
the overregulation that is coming out of the Environmental Protection 
Agency. That particular one was on the regulation that would be the 
most expensive of all.
  The Utility MACT I am offering the CRA on now is probably the second 
most expensive. But to refresh your memory, in order to have the EPA 
have jurisdiction of the greenhouse gases, they had to somehow come up 
with an endangerment finding. They did, and they based it on the IPCC 
science that gave rise to the concern that was exposed in climategate. 
I think everyone understands that was flawed science. But, nonetheless, 
that is what they used. That is why we were able to get two-thirds of 
this body to object to the EPA regulating greenhouse gases.
  I think the bottom line now is that there are more than a dozen 
Senate Democrats who have claimed they want to rein in the EPA because 
they know the devastating impact the Agency's regulatory train wreck 
will have at home. The Senators understand if their constituents lose 
their jobs as a result of these overregulations, they might lose their 
jobs.
  So today the Senate can look forward to having one more opportunity 
to stand up to President Obama's war on affordable energy. They can 
vote for this CRA which will put a halt to one of the Obama EPA's most 
expensive and economically destructive rules.
  Under the Utility MACT, it would cost American families--and nobody 
disagrees with this--the range is between $11 billion and $18 billion 
in electricity rate increases. That is over an 11-percent rate increase 
on average that it would cost if we were to pass this Utility MACT 
under the regulations of the utilities. This would send ripple effects 
throughout the economy, causing approximately 1.4 million net job 
losses by 2020. And it is not just jobs in the coal industry that would 
be affected.
  Dr. Bernard Weinstein of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern 
Methodist University has estimated EPA's air rules could endanger 1 
million manufacturing jobs outside of the coal and utility industry 
losses. Workers recently laid off in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia 
are feeling the devastating impacts of the rule. Sadly, these lost jobs 
are all part of Obama's wider war on coal and fossil fuels.
  You might remember that he admitted this was his goal in the campaign 
of 2008 when he said:

       If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. 
     It's just that it will bankrupt them. And under my plan of a 
     cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily 
     skyrocket.

  When the cap-and-trade failed, Obama began aggressively pursuing 
these goals through an executive regulatory barrage of unelected 
bureaucrats. So companies such as Solyndra got big cash payoffs while a 
regulatory train wreck was unleashed by the EPA to destroy America's 
fossil fuel industry.
  The political climate is much different now than it was in the days 
when global warming alarmists could bask in their historical gloom-and-
doom predictions about the end of the world. Now, President Obama 
wouldn't dare say anything like that because the American people no 
longer are buying it. Instead, he has begun touting oil and gas 
development and saying he is for an all-out, all-of-the-above energy 
strategy. In an election year, he knows the American people want the 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and affordable energy prices that come 
with domestic oil and gas.
  But he is clearly still determined to achieve his global warming 
agenda. His war on affordable energy is moving underneath the radar and 
wrapped in lies about protecting public health. Make no mistake, the 
train wreck will achieve all of Obama's global warming objectives, and 
it will severely undermine our Nation's economy in the process. So I 
will spend just a moment on that.
  When President Obama could not achieve cap-and-trade through 
legislation, he said he would just do it through regulations. EPA's 
greenhouse gas regime will cost American families between $300 billion 
and $400 billion a year. This is important because no one has refuted 
this. We have gone through the Kyoto convention, and that was a range 
that was given to us by the Wharton econometrics survey at that time. 
And several others chimed in--MIT chimed in, CRA chimed in. So the cost 
of regulating greenhouse gas would be about $300 billion to $400 
billion a year.
  When we talk about billions and trillions of dollars, I am like 
everybody else. I have a hard time seeing how that really affects us. 
In my State of Oklahoma, I regularly determine each year how many 
families in my State of Oklahoma are going to file a tax return, and 
then I do the math. This particular one, at $300 billion a year, would 
cost each family filing a tax return in my State of Oklahoma about 
$3,000 a year. Now, that is not just once, that would be every year.
  What do you get for it? And this is the thing that I think is 
important, and the American people finally have caught on. They have 
admitted that through the EPA, when you ask them if we were to pass one 
of these things regulating CO2 through the cap-and-trade 
legislation that we have defeated, would this reduce greenhouse gases, 
the answer from the Administrator of the EPA is, no, it wouldn't 
because this only would affect the United States of America. This isn't 
where the problem is. China would still be doing its thing, India would 
be doing its thing, and Mexico.
  I have contended if we are regulating these in the United States, it 
could actually have the effect of increasing the emissions because, as 
we chase our manufacturing base overseas to find energy, they would be 
going to countries such as China and India where they don't have the 
regulatory restrictions we have in this country.
  So the Utility MACT is second only to the greenhouse gas regulations 
in terms of what it would cost, in terms of costing the people in terms 
of jobs and money. Actually, the regulatory thing would be worse when 
we are talking about greenhouse gases because under the bills that were 
introduced starting in 2003--that was the McCain-Lieberman bill, going 
all the way forward to the Waxman-Markey bill--the assumption has been 
that they would regulate industries and emitters that were over the 
25,000 tons a year.
  Now, if we do it through regulation, as they are trying to do it 
right now,

[[Page 1895]]

the Clean Air Act has a limit of 250 tons. So we would be talking about 
regulating virtually every church, school, and hospital in America and 
not just the very large utilities. So that is where we were on that 
issue.
  On oil, President Obama has been congratulating himself on decreasing 
the imports of oil from the Middle East, but he fails to mention his 
policies have been consistently against oil and gas. In fact, he and 
people in his administration have said they want to do away with fossil 
fuels. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said they wanted to ``boost the 
price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  Well, that is $7 or $8 a gallon. Right now we are looking at $4 a 
gallon, and that is what they want to do. What is their motive? To do 
away with fossil fuels. He claims to care about energy security, yet he 
stopped the Keystone Pipeline.
  I am very proud of a lot of Senators in here who have talked about 
it. Senator Hoeven, for example, is very familiar with it because of 
the production in his State. We are talking about the sands up in 
Alberta and bringing them down through the United States. I am 
interested in this because Cushing, OK, happens to be one of the 
intersections that is there for the pipeline.
  So here is something there is absolutely no reason to do away with 
except to kill oil because we know the pipeline is going to bring oil 
down into the United States through, I might say, my State of Oklahoma 
down to the coast where it can be used. A lot of people don't 
understand this because they have been told things that, quite frankly, 
are not true.
  In terms of oil, gas, and coal, the United States of America has the 
largest recoverable reserves in the world. People keep saying over and 
over again: Well, we only have 3 percent of the reserves. Yet we use 25 
percent. Quite frankly, they are talking about proven reserves. You 
can't get a recoverable reserve until you drill. If they don't let us 
drill because of the policies of this administration, then, obviously, 
we would be stuck with just the very small amount we could produce. 
Nonetheless, it is out there. We are the only country in the world that 
our politicians don't allow us to explore and recover our own 
reserves--the only country in the world.
  Natural gas. We know it is happening right now. We know in areas like 
New York and Pennsylvania with the Marcellus debate, we have 
opportunities we have never had in this country. We have the 
opportunity to recover more natural gas. When the President made a 
statement in the State of the Union Message about being supportive of 
``all the above,'' talking about natural gas, he slipped in one little 
statement: Well, we don't want to poison the Earth--or something like 
that.
  What he is talking about is they have spent countless hours trying to 
regulate a process called hydraulic fracturing--a process that started 
in my State of Oklahoma in 1949. There has never been a documented case 
of ground water contamination since they have been using hydraulic 
fracturing. And we can't get into these tight formations without 
hydraulic fracturing. It can't be done.
  So the President can get by with saying he wants to produce the 
natural gas we have locally, and at the same time take over the 
regulation of hydraulic fracturing by the Federal Government. We know 
what that would mean. I think the best evidence of that is President 
Obama in his current budget is doubling the funding for the 
antifracking agenda in the 2013 budget. Nuclear? That is agreed. If we 
believe in ``all of the above,'' you have to have fossil fuel as coal, 
oil, and gas, but also nuclear. It is a very important component. It is 
interesting that only yesterday President Obama sent his Energy 
Secretary, Steven Chu, to Georgia, to take credit for the 5,800 jobs 
that will be created when two new nuclear reactors are built there. As 
Secretary Chu said yesterday:

       In his State of the Union Address, President Obama outlined 
     a blueprint for an American economy that is built to last and 
     develops every available source of American energy. Nuclear 
     power is an important part of that blueprint.

  Yes, nuclear power is so important that President Obama forgot to 
mention it in his very long State of the Union message. To send 
Secretary Chu to Georgia is kind of ironic, given that Chu is the one 
who said that nuclear power is the ``lesser of two evils.'' It was the 
President himself who designated a Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission who had been leading the antinuclear energy group for quite 
some time. In fact, Chairman Jaczko tried to delay the progress on 
licensing the very reactors in Georgia that they went up to try to take 
credit for.
  We see this over and over again.
  What does this all mean? President Obama knows he needs to talk the 
talk on domestic energy because people have caught on. I think people 
know now that we have the recoverable reserves to be completely free 
from the Middle East. All we have to do in a short period of time is 
develop our own resources. I know my environmental friends are already 
saying, about the CRA on the Utility MACT--the NRDC jumped on the story 
today with the headline ``Let Loose the Defenders of Mercury 
Poisoning.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I remember in 2003 and 2005 when we had the Clear Skies bill. The 
Clear Skies bill would have had mandatory reductions--keep in mind we 
are talking about 2003--mandatory reductions on mercury emissions by 70 
percent by 2018. It was a matter of a few years from now, that would be 
reality. Think about it, 6 years from now we would already have a 70-
percent reduction if the Democrats had not stopped the bill. The reason 
they did is because we refused--we want to have SOX, 
NOX, and mercury, which are the real pollutants, reduced and 
reduced in a rapid fashion, faster than President Clinton or anybody 
else has tried to do it. They held it hostage because they also wanted 
CO2 included in it, so we got none of the above as a result 
of it.
  The EPA's Utility MACT is designed to destroy jobs by killing off the 
coal industry. EPA admits itself that the Utility MACT rule would cost 
an unprecedented $11 billion to implement. Of course these costs will 
come in the form of higher electricity rates for every American. 
Importantly, the EPA also admits that the $11 billion in costs will 
yield a mere $6 billion in direct benefits.
  Do the math. It means the agency has by its own admission completely 
failed the cost-benefit test. It has the advantage of reducing 
emissions without killing jobs and the Utility MACT would do little for 
the environment but destroy millions of jobs. Why did Clear Skies fail? 
As I said, it was held hostage because they didn't want us to just lose 
SOX, NOX, and mercury, the real pollutants. They 
wanted to include CO2.
  Before Obama's decision to halt the ozone rule, which would have put 
hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk, then-White House Chief of Staff 
Bill Daley asked: What are the health impacts of unemployment?
  That is a good question. What are the health impacts of skyrocketing 
electricity rates which hurt the poor the most? What are the health 
impacts on children whose parents will lose one of the 1.4 million jobs 
that will be destroyed by the EPA's rules on powerplants?
  The Senate needs to focus on promoting policies that improve our 
environment without harming our economy. The EPA's Utility MACT does 
the opposite. My CRA, I think, is one of the things about which they 
say: You will never get it done. I have criticized people for bringing 
a Congressional Review Act up against regulations where I know the 
votes are not there. It takes just 51 votes. The reason I think the 
votes should be here now is if the people at home care enough to put 
the pressure on. That is exactly what happened on the ozone 
requirements. They said the President was committed to ozone changes. 
He changed his mind because of that.
  Remember the farm dust rule? The President was going to have a farm 
dust rule on emissions that would hit the air. I always remember, I had 
a news conference in my State of Oklahoma, in the western part of the 
State.

[[Page 1896]]

We had a couple of people there from Washington who had never been west 
of the Mississippi. We got down there in this area of Oklahoma. We were 
talking about farm dust. I said: You see this brown stuff down here? 
That is dirt. You see that round green thing? That is cotton. Hold your 
finger up in the air--that is wind. Are there any questions?
  There is no technology to do that, yet the expense to each of my 
farmers in a farm State like Oklahoma would have been hundreds of 
thousands of dollars a year and not accomplishing anything. We were 
able to get the public to write in to complain about that. As a result 
of that, the President pulled back.
  I hope enough people are concerned about Utility MACT and its 
devastating effect on our economy and on jobs in America that they will 
join in and apply the pressure necessary to help the people in this 
Chamber understand that we should pass this Congressional Review Act 
and do away with this particular, very harmful regulation that is 
before us.
  I have often said--a lot of people do not understand this--but 
Presidents are the ones who put the budgets down every year. A lot of 
times they try to blame the House or Senate, Democrats or Republicans. 
No. It doesn't matter. Who is in the White House, they are the ones who 
determine what the budget is. During the Bush years there was a total 
of $2 trillion of deficits in 8 years. However, after this budget came 
out last week, in the Obama 4 years the increase has been, in deficits, 
$5.3 trillion. That is $5.3 trillion in 4 years as opposed to $2 
trillion in 8 years.
  As bad as that is, I contend that the regulations of this 
administration are actually more expensive to the American people than 
servicing this debt. So I think it is important that we talk about 
this, talk about not just Utility MACT but all of these. Utility MACT 
is where we should draw the line, however, because that is one that 
directly affects our ability to provide energy for America, for our 
manufacturing jobs. We are right now a little bit under 50 percent 
dependent upon coal for our ability to run this machine called America. 
If you do this, we would lose, it is anticipated, 20 percent of our 
generation capacity and that translates into a lot of money, as I have 
noted.
  That is what we have introduced today. I encourage my Democratic and 
Republican colleagues to join us in passing the CRA.

                          ____________________