Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will begin by propounding some unanimous consent requests. I think these have been agreed to on both sides. First, I ask unanimous consent that, for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the majority and Democratic managers of the concurrent resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. ENZI. For the information of Senators, this UC does not alter the existing traditions that prohibit the use of such devices in the Chamber by Senators in general, officers, and staff. It also does not allow the use of videos or pictures, the transmitting of sound, even through earpieces, for any purposes, the use of telephones or other devices for voice communications, any laptop computers, any detachable keyboards, the use of desktop computers, or any other larger devices. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the initial debate time on the budget resolution be allocated as follows: time until 1 p.m. equally divided between the managers or their designees; 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. under the control of the majority; 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. under the control of the minority; 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. under the control of the majority; 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. under the control of the minority; 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. equally divided.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum calls requested during the budget resolution be equally divided and come off the resolution.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Budget Committee took an important first step in helping to change the way we do business here in Washington--by reporting out a balanced budget. This week, we take the next step as the Senate begins debating how best to make the government live within its means and set spending limits for our Nation. But we are running out of time, and unless we do something soon, our Nation will be overspending nearly $1 trillion a year. Now, that is actually $1,000 billion a year. A trillion dollars makes it sound rather trivial. It is $1,000 billion a year of overspending. Hard-working taxpayers are paying attention. In fact, 24 States have already passed a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and there are 10 more that are working on it. If all of these States pass similar measures, we will have 34 States needed for a constitutional convention on a balanced budget and we will be forced to act as they desire. ``If it isn't all of you,'' they are saying, ``it will be all of us.'' Well, we are elected to represent our constituents. In the face of such demands, we should act or someday it will be out of our hands. One of the best ways to balance our budget is to make our government more efficient, effective, and accountable. If Congress does its job, we can have some flexibility and eliminate what is not working, starting with the worst first. Then we can eliminate waste and streamline what is left. But to do this, first Congress must do something it has not done in the past 8 years; that is, scrutinize every dollar for which they have responsibility. Actually, with the billions of dollars we spend every single year, they will be lucky to scrutinize every million dollars. If government programs are not delivering results, they should be improved; and if they are not needed, they should be eliminated. It is time to prioritize and demand results from our government programs. Through the process of getting the budget together, I discovered that we had 260 programs that have not been authorized. What is an authorization? Well, the committees are the people who are kind of experts or at least have a very concentrated concern over that particular area. They pass the new programs--the details of the new programs: the amount that can be spent on those programs, the way we can measure whether they are getting things done. I discovered that 260 of those programs that we are still funding have expired. Their authorization ran out. One thing that is in those authorizations is some kind of a sunset date; and we have passed the sunset date on 260 programs. So what? We are only overspending, according to the authorization, $293 billion a year on expired programs. Yes, some of those programs are absolutely essential. What we need to do, though, is have those committees that have the expertise go back and review them and reauthorize them and set the new limits and the new matrix for what they are supposed to be doing so we can tell if they are doing their job. Mr. President, 260 programs--one of them expired in 1983; a whole bunch of them expired before this century. So we know this will be a challenge for every single Member of Congress. But I believe we are up to the task because the American people are counting on us. This week hard-working taxpayers will also get to see something they have been waiting to see; and that is an open and transparent legislative process that will see Members from both sides of the aisle offering, debating, and ultimately voting on amendments to this resolution. Senate Republicans will offer amendments that will enhance fiscal discipline, build a strong national defense, boost our economic growth, tackle ObamaCare, protect education, and help make our government more efficient, effective, and accountable to hard-working taxpayers. What this budget does do. We will also hear people say what this budget does and what it does not do. But here is what this budget does do: It balances the budget in 10 years with no tax hikes. It protects our most vulnerable citizens. It strengthens the national defense. It improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. It slows the rate of spending growth. It preserves Social Security by reducing spending in other areas to fully offset Social Security's rising deficits and encourages our Nation's leaders to begin a bipartisan, bicameral discussion on how to protect and save Social Security and avoid the across-the-board Social Security benefit cuts that could occur under current law. It protects our seniors by safeguarding Medicare from insolvency and extending the life of the Medicare trust fund by 5 years. It ensures Medicare savings in the President's health care law are dedicated to Medicare, instead of seeing those changes go to other programs and more overspending. It continues funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and creates a new program based on CHIP to serve low-income, working-age, able-bodied adults and children who are eligible for Medicaid. It increases State flexibility in designing benefits and administering Medicaid programs to ensure efficiency and reduce wasteful spending and provides stable and predictable funding so long- term services and supports are sustainable both for the Federal Government and the States. So as we begin this debate this week, it is worth noting that the strong economic growth a balanced budget can provide will serve as the foundation for helping all Americans grow and prosper. A balanced budget allows Americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or advance their jobs, instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient and ineffective regulations. Most importantly, it means every American who wants to find a good-paying job and a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do just that. There are problems, however, with the family budget. Family income is not growing as it should, and this has dire consequences for our future. If family income does not grow, it becomes very difficult for parents to pay for their children's education and for their own training needs. Likewise, slow family income growth means less money set aside for retirement, health care, a downpayment on a house, and money to get the next generation started. Because job growth has been so slow since the beginning of the recovery, it is not surprising that income growth has been slow too. A lot of people fail to note that when jobs and incomes slow down together, the real victims are your hopes, your dreams, and your aspirations. Moreover, these trends of slow growth in jobs and incomes are relatively related and recent. Hardly anyone listening to me today would be confused by the term ``family income.'' It clearly means the cash that families receive from their jobs and their investments. It is the stuff that goes into a savings account, into a retirement plan, into education for the kids, into the household rainy day fund. You can count it, and it is tangible. One of the other things I discovered as I was going through this process is we have some things we call trust funds. I have discovered that you better not trust them. There is no cash in the trust funds. Normally that would be investments that can be withdrawn and the bills paid. I think if we really were doing a financial statement for the Federal Government, we would have to move those trust funds over to accounts payable because what is backing them is the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. I hope we can make it so that is full faith and credit. That is why we need to change some of the things we are doing right now. Last year, we spent $231 billion on interest. That is on an $18 trillion debt. In the President's budget, that is proposed to go to $780 billion. That is more than we are spending on defense, more than we are spending on education, more than we are spending on almost any other function the Federal Government does. If $230 billion is 1 percent, what happens if we go to the normal rate of 5 percent? Oh, goodness, we only get to make choices here on $1,100 billion. So virtually all the money we have would go to interest--no national defense, no education, no other function that the Federal Government is involved in. Our overspending is killing us. Yes, there are two ways you can reduce overspending. One is to cut spending; the other one is to raise taxes. We are already collecting more money than we ever have in the history of the United States. So how are we going to solve this problem of the interest itself from bankrupting us? This budget is designed to put us on a path to do that. It will not solve everything. We have only had about 8 weeks to do what has not been done in the budget for 6 years. So I hope you will bear with us during the course of this process. I am an accountant. I am also chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and we have started the monumental task of confronting America's chronic overspending, tackling our Nation's surging debt, and balancing our Nation's budget. Incidentally, under the President's budget, the overspending this year is $468 billion. Remember when we used to make decisions on $1,100 billion? If the Constitutional Convention that I talked about that the States are putting together were in place--there are 24 already; another 10 makes it mandatory--we would have to cut 50 percent. We are not able to do that. It was tough enough to balance the budget over a 10-year period. That is a tremendous task we have ahead of us if we are going to take care of balancing our Nation's debt and bringing it down to where it is a manageable level, where we can afford the interest on it. Before coming to Congress, I ran a small business in Wyoming for many years. I served as a mayor in my hometown and then served in the legislature. One of the most important roles I had was to ensure that my budgets were balanced every year. In time, we were even able to build some rainy-day accounts in Wyoming. So far, there has never been a crisis so bad that it has rained. It is time to begin this responsible accounting in Washington because while we can lie about the numbers, the numbers never lie. The worst kept secret in America is that this administration is spending more than ever and taxing more than ever. The President's budget increases taxes dramatically and still doesn't get us to a balanced budget. In fact, that $468 billion in overspending this year-- in the 10th year, he projects $1 trillion, which is $1,000 billion overspent. It never goes down. It keeps going up. We have to reverse that trend. The Federal Government should spend your tax dollars wisely and responsibly and give you the freedom and control to pursue your future in the way you choose. Hard-working taxpayers deserve a government that is more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. That should be something on which both parties can agree because I never heard anybody say they wanted a more inefficient, ineffective, and unaccountable government. Runaway spending habits over the past 6 years have created a dangerously growing debt because the habit of spending now and paying later is deeply ingrained. Actually, under the President's budget, it isn't even paying later that is included. Federal deficits have hit record highs. We have overspent nearly $1 trillion a year--that is $1,000 billion. The more Washington spends, the more debt we owe and the more is added to what future generations would have to pay. Today, America's debt totals $18 trillion. In fact, every man, woman, and child now owes more than $56,000 on that debt. The number is expected to grow to more than $75,000 over the next decade unless we make important changes. Yes, that is every man, woman, and child. That means somebody born this morning owes $56,000 on that debt. Every dollar spent on interest on our debt is another dollar we won't be able to use for government services, for individuals in need, or another dollar that won't be available to taxpayers for their own needs. It is time to stop talking and start acting. Washington has to live within its means, just as hard-working families do every day. We have to deliver a more effective and accountable government to the American people that supports them when it must and gets out of the way when it should. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't be able to fix it overnight, but we can begin to solve this crisis if we act now. The Republicans put forward a responsible plan that balances the budget in 10 years with no tax hikes. It protects our most vulnerable citizens, strengthens our national defense, and improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. A balanced budget means real accountability in Washington and ensures that programs actually accomplish what they set out to deliver--which goes back to my statement about 260 programs that have expired that we are still funding to the tune of $293 billion. A balanced budget supports economic growth for hard-working families and creates real opportunity for all Americans to grow and prosper. A balanced budget allows Americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or to advance their jobs instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient, ineffective regulations that drive down their opportunities. It also means our job creators can find new opportunities to expand our economy. Most importantly, it means every American who wants to have a good-paying job and a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do that. That is what a balanced budget means for our Nation, and it is what the American people deserve. Congress is under new management, and by working together to find shared ground with commonsense solutions, we can deliver real results and have real progress. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. If the Senator needs a few more minutes----

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have now had our first amendment offered, one to add more infrastructure. I doubt there is anybody in the Chamber--even when we are all here--who would doubt that we need to do things with infrastructure. My infrastructure time actually goes back to when I was elected mayor of Gillette, WY. It was a boom town. We didn't know how big it was going to increase. We knew we were already short of sewer, water, electricity, streets, sidewalks, not to mention police, garbage, and all the other things that come with it. The infrastructure was sorely lacking. In fact, one of the first calls I got was from a person who said: What are you going to do when your substation blows up? I had to ask what a substation was, and then I would have to ask why it would blow up. When it gets to 110 percent of capacity--or the first warm day--it ought to blow up. If that happened, the consequence of that was the people at Gillette would have been without electricity for about 6 weeks. I think in this day and age if a company went without electricity for 6 weeks, a person would be tarred and feathered. So I understand infrastructure and the need for it. The Federal Government never once offered to do any infrastructure for me, and we didn't need them to either. But there are things the Federal Government has taken the responsibility for and that we need to make sure are funded and taken care of and repaired, and I am sure both sides of the aisle want to do that. The title of this amendment sounds great, but when you get down into the details, there are some problems. The budget resolution has a deficit-neutral reserve fund for infrastructure and envisions that Congress will fully fund transportation priorities to strengthen our crumbling infrastructure with a new highway bill in May. I have been here long enough to know we always do that. It is not very difficult to get the votes together to pass a highway bill. The difficulty, of course, is coming up with the money, but there is a deficit-neutral reserve fund established to allow the flexibility to get that to happen. It provides a mechanism so a bill can move. It allows authorizers to find new revenue or offsets to extend the life of the highway trust fund. The Senate budget resolution strives to maintain a well-functioning national transportation system, a core element of the U.S. economy, which helps hard-working Americans while reducing lower priority items that do not contribute to a national transportation network and should be handled in a local way. Our Nation's system of roads and bridges has deteriorated and is in desperate need of repair. Everyone here is fired up about the issue because we have all experienced these infrastructure deficiencies. We have seen bridges collapse. We have seen some of the deterioration of the roads. We have all been frustrated with traffic, bottlenecks and potholes. Today, there are more than 1 million miles of roads eligible for Federal aid and more than 60,000 bridges are structurally deficient. However, the highway trust fund is bankrupt. Each year trust fund spending outpaces the revenues from the gas tax by about $14 billion and that gap is growing. To compensate for funding shortfalls, the trust fund has required large transfers totaling $65 billion since 2008, $62 billion of which came from the general fund of the Treasury. We didn't use to have to do that. Usually the gas tax provided a big enough fund that we were able to increase the number of dollars spent on infrastructure. When the Bowles-Simpson group met, their suggestion was that the gas tax--the user fee for cars using the highways--needed to be raised a nickel a gallon for each of three consecutive years. Unfortunately, that was about 5 years ago, and they predicted the money would run out before now if we didn't make that kind of a raise. There have been several things that have been proposed, but we never had a vote on any of them. A one-time cash infusion from a corporate tax increase does not do anything to take care of the discrepancy between spending and revenues that results in the highway trust fund insolvency. We do need a long- term highway trust fund solution rather than another short-term fix that kicks the can down the road. A corporate tax increase is not a long-term solution for the problems of the highway trust fund. I have been interested in the international tax piece, and that is the part the President hung his hat on for the infrastructure piece. The way that works is to mandate a 14-percent tax on all of the money that is overseas. I didn't really see any clause in there that allowed that to be paid over any kind of a period of time. We didn't need all of that revenue right in the first year. I did an international tax piece that had a much lower repatriation fee on it and it was not mandatory. The difficulty of making it not mandatory is it doesn't score so it does not show any money coming back because nobody has to bring it back. They have to declare everything upfront and agree to pay the tax over a period of 5 years if they were going to bring it back. There would be 5 years of revenue from this repatriation of funds, even at a lower rate, which could fund what we are talking about here, or it could fund the other needs that have to be done in tax reform. The way the budget is written, that is left up to the individual committees to come up with the solutions they need. It is not up to us here on the floor doing a budget where we have a mixture of people from all of the committees, but not the kind of structure we have in the specific committees to come up with the final solution for it. There has to be a solution, and I know it can be made, but it can't be done so that it bankrupts the companies. If we take the tax that is overseas and impose a 14-percent tax on it that has to be paid this year, we will bankrupt almost every company that is out there, and the reason is they don't just have that money sitting over there; it is being used over there. They have to be able to sell off or reclaim whatever money they have in order to be able to pay any taxes on the money they have overseas. And that needs to be done, because if we can find a way for companies to bring their money back to the United States, they will invest it in the United States and it will grow the economy and we will have more jobs. Incidentally, the best way to take care of most of these problems is to grow the economy, which is the opposite of what this administration is doing. It fascinated me that in the President's budget he said if we could grow the economy by just 1 percent, it would result in $4 trillion in taxes. But everything I saw in there were ways to change that back so we didn't grow the economy the 1 percent to raise $4 trillion. I had the Congressional Budget Office look at it, and they said a 1- percent increase in the economy would raise $3 trillion, so we have a small deficit difference, but that is a lot of money any way you look at it, whether it is the CBO's estimate or the President's estimate. Some of Senator Sanders' tax reform ideas have merit, but it should be dealt with within the context of the comprehensive tax reform and the highway bill. These tax policies have nothing to do with infrastructure and will force transportation spending even further away from the user-pays principle we have always had until recently when we started tapping some of the other trust funds. The U.S. tax code is overly complicated, inefficient, and archaic. I think we all agree it needs to be fixed, and I believe Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden are on a path to do that. Both have taken a look at it very extensively and have been working on it for quite a while. Senator Hatch was working on it with Senator Baucus before Senator Wyden became the chairman. I think the two of them are still working on it, and that is how it needs to be done. It is complicated, it is inefficient, it is archaic, it is too big, and it is not fair. The current structure hurts economic growth, it frustrates working Americans, and it pushes American businesses overseas. Any discussion of international or corporate tax reform should be dealt with in the context of a comprehensive tax reform to simplify the entire system. We should not drag tax reform into the highway funding debate. One of the tendencies we have around here is to come up with some very simple solutions that, as a solution, sound like a really good idea, but when we get into the details, there are a whole bunch of complexities that result in unintended consequences that can foul up the whole system, and that is one of the things that something as complex as our tax system can do if we try to write that as a budget resolution. The budget resolution assumes the tax-writing committees will adopt a tax reform proposal that reduces marginal rates but broadens the tax base to create a fairer, efficient, competitive, progrowth tax regime that is revenue neutral, and I look forward to their work. I am on that committee so I will get to be a part of that work. One of the areas I am particularly interested in is, of course, small business. I was in small business for a long time. My wife and I had shoe stores. If you have a small business corporation, you pay the taxes on the money you make in that given year, even though you still need to keep it invested in the business if you are going to keep the business going. Those are called the passthrough businesses, so we have to be careful that when we fix the corporate tax structure, we don't ruin the small business tax structure at the same time. That is a major complication, but when you get into the details of that, it gets even more complicated. I am hoping we do both corporate and individual at the same time. I have listened to Senator Sanders talk about and mention a number of corporations that didn't pay taxes and even got some money back, and my first reaction to that is that is terrible; it should not happen in America. But after I looked at it, I thought if they had really violated the law, they would be in jail. They didn't violate the law. They used the tax laws we have now, which shows why we need to have tax reform. I am in favor of tax reform and eliminating loopholes. I had an opportunity to look at a number of the tax expenditures. I know some of the businesses that were listed as tax expenditures actually wound up getting a different name for the same thing they get to write off that every other business gets to write off, and so we have to be careful that when we eliminate those that we are not moving into another category because one of the tax breaks I looked at, if we eliminated it, it would allow them to write their expenses off much faster than how they agreed to write them off. So it is more complicated than it seems on the surface. I am hoping we can eliminate some of that complication and eliminate some of those loopholes. I hope we can use some of the money for infrastructure and the rest for the simplification and fairness of it. Fairness is very important, and that is why we have the committee structures the way we do too so we can have people looking at the issues from both sides to make sure there is fairness in the eyes of as many people as possible. When we start tinkering with the tax code in very small ways, that is how we wind up with these unfairness issues that appear in there. Helping out one sector can sometimes be adverse to another sector, but we don't realize it until the actual action takes place. I am looking forward to the debate on infrastructure. It is my understanding we will vote on that sometime tomorrow around noon and that gives us an opportunity to have more debate on it. In the meantime, I think we can probably come up with some commonsense solutions that could be worked through the committee, which was what was always envisioned in our budget. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the ranking member for his comments. Madam President, I appreciate the civility with which we went through the committee process and look forward to having that same civility on the floor. Yes, there are some very important things for us to talk about. I have to agree, we need to do some things. The areas that were mentioned were taxes, wages, health insurance, infrastructure, and student debt. We just have a little bit different direction on how to achieve those things, but I am hoping we can find the common ground on those. The budget itself didn't get into specificity on how to do these things because our Budget Committee--while we have people who represent a lot of those different committees--don't have the range of expertise that the committees themselves do. So what we tried to do in the budget was set the parameters for them to work in and to find the solutions that would work best within those parameters. We are trying to get this budget done by April 15. That is actually a statutory deadline--it is seldom ever met--and I intend to meet that deadline. That is so the appropriators, the people doing the spending bills, can actually get started, so that for once maybe we can have all 12 spending bills debated on the floor, unlimited amendments, so we can get as many of the 100 opinions that we have--it is 300 or 400 opinions actually--involved in the decisions on how to best to spend the money the United States spends. The Finance Committee that I am also on is actually dedicated to getting some tax reform done. I think they will do it in a bipartisan way. That should eliminate some of the loopholes that have been talked about and also clear up some of the misconceptions there are about some of the things. I will conclude by talking a little about deficit, because I keep hearing the other side say they have reduced the deficit in half. Yes, but the word ``deficit'' is so misleading. It is not the debt, it is the deficit. That is the amount of overspending in any given year. So they have reduced the amount of overspending by one-half, but it is still overspent by one-half. Every time it is overspent, that adds to the debt. That is how the $18 trillion gets to $25 trillion in the next 10 years. We have to stop doing that. So I would appreciate it if they would use a different word. Somebody said it is the fiscal gap. Well, maybe ``fiscal gap'' is a better word, but it is overspending. Now overspending can be changed in two different ways: We can either increase taxes or we can reduce our spending on things or we can do a combination of those things. Until we start talking to each other, we won't be doing any combinations of anything, probably. So I am hoping we can have the civility we had in the committee here on the floor and come up with solutions for America and Americans and the hard-working taxpayers of this country, who are really interested in all of these topics and feel we ought to do something about it and that we shouldn't just be taking a lot of latitude and putting in details that maybe aren't there in the other's provisions. So I look forward to the debate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Kowalski and Greg Dean from my staff and Mike Jones and Josh Smith from the Democratic staff be given all-access floor passes for the Senate floor during consideration of the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 11.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Ditch and Hannah Oh be granted the privileges of the floor during the consideration of S. Con. Res. 11 and votes that may occur in relation thereto.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sanders, I ask unanimous consent that Claire Mahoney and Keri Rice, OMB detailees to the Budget Committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. Con. Res. 11.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the pending business, the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Bill. The Senate is now on the second week of the trafficking bill and my colleagues in the minority refuse to allow this body to amend or pass this bipartisan bill. When this legislation was reported out of committee, not a single Democrat on the committee raised any concern with the inclusion of the protections offered by the Hyde amendment. This was hardly surprising, after all, Democrats have previously voted in favor of legislation that includes similar long standing statutory protections--such as the Affordable Care Act. That is why it's so shocking that Democrats--out of nowhere--have had a change of heart on the Hyde amendment, and are now obstructing efforts to help victims of human trafficking. I urge my colleagues who are filibustering this legislation to consider the gravity of their actions. While Democrats play politics as usual, thousands of victims--many of whom are children--are assaulted and abused every day, hoping someone will hear their cries for help. We cannot and must not allow political gamesmanship to stand in the way of helping thousands of victims of human trafficking. Now is the time we must work together to protect our Nation's most vulnerable from a horrific trade that robs our children of their childhood and rejects the sanctity of life. Let us honor our commitment to protect children from abuse, neglect and rape. Let us put aside politics and do the right thing by moving forward on this bill.

Mr. ENZI

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. 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 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.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to once again acknowledge the youth volunteers of my home State. I am never surprised but always impressed by what they can achieve--from reaching the rank of Eagle Scout to earning Gold Medals from the Congressional Awards program and so much more. Today I would like to share the achievements of those who are being recognized by the 20th Annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. I couldn't be more proud of them all for their heartfelt commitment to the future of Wyoming, the West and our Nation. For the past 20 years, the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards has been our Nation's largest youth recognition program for volunteer service. Each year, the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards selects two volunteers who have achieved extraordinary results in their work to help those in their neighborhoods who need their support. Nominations can be made by school or community organizations or any one of several other groups. Nominees then have their accomplishments judged by a panel which is tasked with the tremendously difficult job of selecting the winners. This year, Wyoming's two youth volunteers who are receiving this special honor are Laura Harris, 17, of Green River and Trinity Rich, 11, of Douglas. They will each receive an award, an engraved medallion and a trip to Washington, D.C. Laura has quite a remarkable story to tell. When she was born she was diagnosed with a heart defect. Her doctors didn't expect her to see her teens, but they didn't know Laura. She dealt with her personal obstacles by showing others how precious each day and every moment of their life is. In her words, ``I express my gratitude by providing hope to others.'' The results she has been able to achieve speak for themselves. She has uplifted the spirits of dozens of sick children, kept newborn infants in foster care warm with the blankets she made for them, and provided support to the veterans in her neighborhood who need help with chores around their homes. Simply put, Laura is always there with a helping hand to assure those in need that someone cares. While so many young men and women are busy looking for ways to have fun, Laura keeps busy looking for ways to be of service. Our other volunteer champion, Trinity Rich, is in the fifth grade. She learned about the importance of reaching out to help others in need during a visit to her grandmother's apartment building. She saw that her grandmother wasn't the only one who needed a little help so that's what she began to do. It wasn't long before Trinity's willingness to be of help and share the tremendous gift of her time and talents were making a difference all around her neighborhood. Whatever the need was, Trinity was there, giving her all to make things better. In the process both Laura and Trinity have learned an important lesson--the more you give of yourself to help others the more you receive in the satisfaction of knowing you have made someone else's life better. It's a blessing that will stay with them as they continue to observe the changes in their town, their neighborhood and their own backyard. Two other young Wyomingites are also being recognized as Distinguished Finalists this year and will receive engraved bronze medallions honoring them for their work. One is Adam Jones, 18, of Otto, Wyoming. Adam led the effort to complete the roofing and siding on an important facility at his local park. He was able to do so well in part because he was able to recruit 20 fellow Boy Scouts for the task at hand. I am a big supporter of Scouting because Scouts have been making a difference in their communities for 105 years with much more to come. This is just more proof of their determination to make their part of the world a better place to live. Our other finalist, Hannah Nieslanik, is a 17 year old from Cokeville who has also been getting involved in her community. She is now a certified emergency medical responder who helps the emergency medical response team care for those facing a medical crisis. All of these young people are winners in the important task of helping to inspire others to get more active and involved. We all have a gift to share with those who need our help. If we don't take action the change we could bring to our community will never happen. The four youth volunteers I have named here are all leaders who lead the best way--by example. Recognition by this prestigious Community Awards program means a great deal to all those who earned their awards this year. What means even more, I am sure, is the difference these individuals have made. The renewed sense of hope they have helped to instill in those they have helped and the smiles of appreciation they have received has made it clear how important their work is. Their efforts have shown us all what can be accomplished when our nation's young people see a problem and challenge themselves to address it--and solve it. Congratulations, Laura, Trinity, Adam and Hannah. We couldn't be more proud to claim all of you as Wyoming's own. Keep up the good work.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, the Committee on the Budget has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Sanders, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the committee rules of procedure.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his comments. I don't think I have ever heard it put quite as concisely or the timeline explained quite as well as he did. I hope people are paying attention. I hope people take a look at the journal and see exactly how short a timeframe that is for both the employer and the employees. So I rise to support the resolution of disapproval that would repeal the National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule. I again thank my friend Senator Alexander for his leadership as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and for leading this effort to prevent yet more misguided Federal regulation that will hurt American businesses and employees. Unfortunately this isn't the first time we have had to fight this rule from the NLRB. When I led the Congressional Review Act resolution to stop this rule in 2012, I truly appreciated Senator Alexander's support and am proud to support him now. I didn't have the votes to pass the resolution in 2012, but we have had some elections and some changes in the Senate since then. The rule the National Labor Relations Board has proposed would be a tremendous burden on employers, especially small businesses. If this rule goes into effect, it will mean employers will barely have time to meet their preelection legal obligations. It will mean employees will be rushed into an election without time to study and consider what the unionization would mean for them, for their workplace, and for their community. Also, Big Labor will be able to force elections through in order to boost revenue from union dues and increase the influence of Big Labor. Our economy is already grappling with Federal rules and regulations that hold back businesses. This rule from the National Labor Relations Board will be yet another break, slowing down our economy at a time when we need to encourage employers and businesses to grow. It would be especially harmful to small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and the most important factor in maintaining our fragile economic growth. Small businesses that don't have human resource departments and more particularly don't have in-house legal counsel already face a significant burden when they have to navigate union elections. This rule would only make it harder. This rule would hurt businesses for the sole purpose of helping unions that don't need it. Union elections are supposed to be held in a timely and fair manner, which is what the current system achieves. The average time between filing an election petition, as has been mentioned, and holding the vote is 38 days, and nearly all elections happen within 2 months. That process allows employers to understand their rights and meet their legal obligations. It allows employees to educate themselves about what unionization means for them personally and for their work, and it ensures that union elections will be a fair opportunity for workers to decide whether to organize. Under the current system there is a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election and the actual secret ballot election. That window of time is crucial. Employers use that time to understand their rights and restrictions in the process and to meet their legal obligations. The union election process is not simple, nor is it straightforward for employees. There are numerous places where a well-meaning employer working to meet their obligations could misstep and face heavy penalties from the National Labor Relations Board. Employers also use this time to communicate with their employees about the decision they are making and to clear up misstatements, rumors or falsehoods that have been going around. The time between petitioning for election and voting is also used for parties to study decisions by hearing officers or the National Labor Relations Board's regional director and ask for clarification or review. Under the National Labor Relations Board's rule, all the opportunities for anyone involved with the process to understand their legal obligations, to exercise their rights, to study or debate the arguments for or against unionization or even to learn about the issue would be squeezed into as little as 14 days. Is it fair for an employee to only have 10 days to learn how his or her vote will affect the rest of their time with that employer--we have to remember they are going to be working during that time probably--or how much money membership in a union is going to cost them or what it means for their ability to negotiate directly with their employer for raises or other benefits or concerns or any of the countless other issues an employee might want to approach his or her employer about? Under current law, both parties are able to raise issues about the election at a preelection hearing, covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors. Under the new regulation, parties will be barred from raising these questions until after the election. Employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will actually be in the bargaining unit with them. This is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' votes. Under current law, when either party raises preelection issues, they are allowed to submit evidence and testimony, and file post-hearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider, and then they have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election. Under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of representation and all post-election briefs and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. This could be quite a disadvantage for employees as well as employers. What this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time for filing the petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with their employees their rights, and less opportunities for employees to research the union and the ramifications of forming the union. The NLRB is ensuring that the odds are stacked against the employees and the businesses. This vote is an opportunity to tell the National Labor Relations Board to reverse course. I hope this resolution will convince the National Labor Relations Board to pull back from this disastrous rule and encourage them to focus on their statutory mission rather than overturning decades of settled practice that ensures that this process is held in a timely manner and that there is a fair opportunity for all sides to understand, to participate, and to exercise their rights. The NLRB's purpose is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, which is a carefully balanced law that has only rarely been changed. When changes have occurred, they have been the result of careful negotiations, with input from stakeholders and thoughtful debate. The NLRB is attempting a sneak attack through the rulemaking process. This is an ambush on the National Labor Relations Act to set up ambush elections. The National Labor Relations Board is an agency that has historically issued very few regulations. Most of the questions that come up under the law are handled through the 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 a question of law. In contrast, the ambush election is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. The rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders, it was not made with careful debate, and there was no attempt to reach a consensus. In the late 1950s Congress worked to pass the Landrieu-Griffin Act, which protected the rights of both rank-and-file union members and their employees. This was a carefully constructed piece of legislation that came out of a special committee to study the issue, that heard from more than 1,500 witnesses over 3 years. And Congress debated the issue of how long a period of time there should be between the request for an election and the actual election coming up during those negotiations. My colleagues may be surprised to learn--although they wouldn't if they were listening to the previous two speeches--that it was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. He said: There should be at least a 30 day interval between a request for an election and the holding of an election . . . in which both parties can present their viewpoints. . . . The 30 day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. Again, that was a quote by Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. The 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law, and obviously it is not a law today. Instead, the NLRB adopted the practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case. This caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. Employees who are not aware of the organizing activity at their worksites and even those who are need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. They will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. They will want to know how other worksites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. Employees should have every chance to understand the impact of unionization. Four decades ago Senators recognized that employees deserved the opportunity to gather this and all other relevant information before casting their votes. Unfortunately, the NLRB is choosing to ignore this caution, and rank- and-file employees will suffer. This situation is exactly what the Congressional Review Act was intended for. When an agency goes too far and tries to impose rules and regulations that are unnecessary or harmful--in this case, both--the Congressional Review Act gives Congress an expedited process for repealing that regulation. It is a process that cannot be held up and cannot be stalled or put off to ensure that Congress can act when it needs to stop an out-of-control agency. By any measure, the current law and certification system for union elections ensures that the process is fair for all parties and that all parties have the opportunity to exercise their rights and to fully understand the implications. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make the case because the data doesn't support it. I want to repeat. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make that case because the data doesn't support it. There is no need for this rule, which is just a handout to Big Labor, which relies on pushing unions forward before businesses and employees have a chance to study and understand the full effects. This resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law. It will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. It is important to say that again because there is going to be a lot of misinformation about what this resolution does. This resolution does not disadvantage unions or roll back any union rights. What it does is it ensures that small business employers and employees in America are not unfairly disadvantaged by a burdensome process and that employees are not misled with insufficient or incorrect information during the union election process.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. ENZI. Under a successful Congressional Review Act disapproval, the agency in question is prohibited from issuing any substantially similar regulation. That means the National Labor Relations Board could not just reissue this regulation again and again, as they have currently done. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that the National Labor Relations Board understands that this rule is a no- go and that we will stand up to ensure a fair process.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his comments. I don't think I have ever heard it put quite as concisely or the timeline explained quite as well as he did. I hope people are paying attention. I hope people take a look at the journal and see exactly how short a timeframe that is for both the employer and the employees. So I rise to support the resolution of disapproval that would repeal the National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule. I again thank my friend Senator Alexander for his leadership as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and for leading this effort to prevent yet more misguided Federal regulation that will hurt American businesses and employees. Unfortunately this isn't the first time we have had to fight this rule from the NLRB. When I led the Congressional Review Act resolution to stop this rule in 2012, I truly appreciated Senator Alexander's support and am proud to support him now. I didn't have the votes to pass the resolution in 2012, but we have had some elections and some changes in the Senate since then. The rule the National Labor Relations Board has proposed would be a tremendous burden on employers, especially small businesses. If this rule goes into effect, it will mean employers will barely have time to meet their preelection legal obligations. It will mean employees will be rushed into an election without time to study and consider what the unionization would mean for them, for their workplace, and for their community. Also, Big Labor will be able to force elections through in order to boost revenue from union dues and increase the influence of Big Labor. Our economy is already grappling with Federal rules and regulations that hold back businesses. This rule from the National Labor Relations Board will be yet another break, slowing down our economy at a time when we need to encourage employers and businesses to grow. It would be especially harmful to small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and the most important factor in maintaining our fragile economic growth. Small businesses that don't have human resource departments and more particularly don't have in-house legal counsel already face a significant burden when they have to navigate union elections. This rule would only make it harder. This rule would hurt businesses for the sole purpose of helping unions that don't need it. Union elections are supposed to be held in a timely and fair manner, which is what the current system achieves. The average time between filing an election petition, as has been mentioned, and holding the vote is 38 days, and nearly all elections happen within 2 months. That process allows employers to understand their rights and meet their legal obligations. It allows employees to educate themselves about what unionization means for them personally and for their work, and it ensures that union elections will be a fair opportunity for workers to decide whether to organize. Under the current system there is a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election and the actual secret ballot election. That window of time is crucial. Employers use that time to understand their rights and restrictions in the process and to meet their legal obligations. The union election process is not simple, nor is it straightforward for employees. There are numerous places where a well-meaning employer working to meet their obligations could misstep and face heavy penalties from the National Labor Relations Board. Employers also use this time to communicate with their employees about the decision they are making and to clear up misstatements, rumors or falsehoods that have been going around. The time between petitioning for election and voting is also used for parties to study decisions by hearing officers or the National Labor Relations Board's regional director and ask for clarification or review. Under the National Labor Relations Board's rule, all the opportunities for anyone involved with the process to understand their legal obligations, to exercise their rights, to study or debate the arguments for or against unionization or even to learn about the issue would be squeezed into as little as 14 days. Is it fair for an employee to only have 10 days to learn how his or her vote will affect the rest of their time with that employer--we have to remember they are going to be working during that time probably--or how much money membership in a union is going to cost them or what it means for their ability to negotiate directly with their employer for raises or other benefits or concerns or any of the countless other issues an employee might want to approach his or her employer about? Under current law, both parties are able to raise issues about the election at a preelection hearing, covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors. Under the new regulation, parties will be barred from raising these questions until after the election. Employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will actually be in the bargaining unit with them. This is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' votes. Under current law, when either party raises preelection issues, they are allowed to submit evidence and testimony, and file post-hearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider, and then they have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election. Under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of representation and all post-election briefs and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. This could be quite a disadvantage for employees as well as employers. What this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time for filing the petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with their employees their rights, and less opportunities for employees to research the union and the ramifications of forming the union. The NLRB is ensuring that the odds are stacked against the employees and the businesses. This vote is an opportunity to tell the National Labor Relations Board to reverse course. I hope this resolution will convince the National Labor Relations Board to pull back from this disastrous rule and encourage them to focus on their statutory mission rather than overturning decades of settled practice that ensures that this process is held in a timely manner and that there is a fair opportunity for all sides to understand, to participate, and to exercise their rights. The NLRB's purpose is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, which is a carefully balanced law that has only rarely been changed. When changes have occurred, they have been the result of careful negotiations, with input from stakeholders and thoughtful debate. The NLRB is attempting a sneak attack through the rulemaking process. This is an ambush on the National Labor Relations Act to set up ambush elections. The National Labor Relations Board is an agency that has historically issued very few regulations. Most of the questions that come up under the law are handled through the 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 a question of law. In contrast, the ambush election is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. The rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders, it was not made with careful debate, and there was no attempt to reach a consensus. In the late 1950s Congress worked to pass the Landrieu-Griffin Act, which protected the rights of both rank-and-file union members and their employees. This was a carefully constructed piece of legislation that came out of a special committee to study the issue, that heard from more than 1,500 witnesses over 3 years. And Congress debated the issue of how long a period of time there should be between the request for an election and the actual election coming up during those negotiations. My colleagues may be surprised to learn--although they wouldn't if they were listening to the previous two speeches--that it was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. He said: There should be at least a 30 day interval between a request for an election and the holding of an election . . . in which both parties can present their viewpoints. . . . The 30 day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. Again, that was a quote by Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. The 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law, and obviously it is not a law today. Instead, the NLRB adopted the practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case. This caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. Employees who are not aware of the organizing activity at their worksites and even those who are need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. They will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. They will want to know how other worksites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. Employees should have every chance to understand the impact of unionization. Four decades ago Senators recognized that employees deserved the opportunity to gather this and all other relevant information before casting their votes. Unfortunately, the NLRB is choosing to ignore this caution, and rank- and-file employees will suffer. This situation is exactly what the Congressional Review Act was intended for. When an agency goes too far and tries to impose rules and regulations that are unnecessary or harmful--in this case, both--the Congressional Review Act gives Congress an expedited process for repealing that regulation. It is a process that cannot be held up and cannot be stalled or put off to ensure that Congress can act when it needs to stop an out-of-control agency. By any measure, the current law and certification system for union elections ensures that the process is fair for all parties and that all parties have the opportunity to exercise their rights and to fully understand the implications. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make the case because the data doesn't support it. I want to repeat. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make that case because the data doesn't support it. There is no need for this rule, which is just a handout to Big Labor, which relies on pushing unions forward before businesses and employees have a chance to study and understand the full effects. This resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law. It will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. It is important to say that again because there is going to be a lot of misinformation about what this resolution does. This resolution does not disadvantage unions or roll back any union rights. What it does is it ensures that small business employers and employees in America are not unfairly disadvantaged by a burdensome process and that employees are not misled with insufficient or incorrect information during the union election process.