Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 36.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, most of the small businesspeople I know consider themselves to be part of the middle class. I appreciate the statistics the chairman provided about 90 percent of the elections arriving at agreement prior to the election. What this rule is going to do is change it so that only 10 percent make agreements beforehand because there is no incentive for the union to participate at all. They have the right to just take it over. There are some statistics about unions and the middle class, and kind of a myth, that the current election procedures discourage unionization and are the main cause of private sector union decline. In the 1950s private sector union membership reached its height of 35 percent of the unionized workforce. Today it is less than 7 percent of the private sector workforce that is unionized, and the decline of unionization in the private sector can be attributed to several social, political, and economic factors, including present-day workplace laws at both the State and Federal level that have greatly improved working conditions; a decline in the manufacturing base; the new nature of employment, where people are more transient in their careers; and the desire for contemporary employees to have a more cooperative relationship with their employers, and vice versa. It is kind of a teamwork factor that most businesses operate on today. I think it was also said that employers have unfair access to employees and regularly bombard employees with anti-union propaganda. I think it was said it could happen 24 hours a day. The fact is employers' speech regarding unionization is closely monitored and regulated. For example, employers are restricted from visiting employees at their homes, inviting employees into certain areas of the workforce to discuss unionization, and making promises or statements that could be construed as threatening, intimidating, or coercive. That is the current law. Employers are required to provide unions with a list of employee names and home addresses for representation election purposes. I think it was also said changes are needed because current procedures discourage employees from forming unions. The fact is all employees have the guaranteed right to discuss their support of unionization and to persuade coworkers to do likewise at work. The only restriction is that they not neglect their own work or interfere with the work of others when doing so. Employees as well as unions have the unlimited right to campaign in favor of unionization away from the workplace. The National Labor Relations Board election rule will postpone these legitimate questions after the representation election is held and could result in more post-election litigation. So there are a lot of factors that were mentioned. I am not going to go into all of them. As I have stated throughout the debate, the National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule is an attempt to stack the odds against American employers, particularly small businesses that do not have a specialist in that area or in-house counsel. Most small businesses today cannot afford either of those. They can be put into this situation of having to figure it all out in less than 10 days. That is just to figure out the rules so they do not get some heavy fines from the National Labor Relations Board. Coupled with two other changes the administration is forcing, some employers will be caught in a perfect storm. Taken together, ambush elections, the National Labor Relations Board's micro-union decision, and the Department of Labor's proposed rule on persuader activity create a major shift in favor of organized labor. The Supreme Court has expressly stated that an employer's free speech rights to communicate his views to his employees is firmly established and cannot be infringed by a union or the board under the National Labor Relations Act. Yet the overarching goal of the National Labor Relations Board and the Labor Department's efforts is to put up barriers that can have the effect of limiting employer free speech. Under the specialty health care decision permitting micro-unions, unions can now gerrymander a bargaining unit so it is made up of a majority of employees who support the union. In this decision, the standard for whether a union's petition for a bargaining unit is appropriate was changed to make it very difficult for employers to prove it is not appropriate. The decision will lead to smaller units which will be easier to organize and cause fragmentation and discord in the workplace. Allowing micro-unions will increase the number of bargaining units in the workplace. The result means an employer could face multiple simultaneous organizing campaigns, all with shortened election periods, thanks to this ambush rule. Those two combined can be pretty dangerous. Under the Department of Labor's proposed regulation to require increased reporting of persuader activity, an employer, especially a small employer, will rethink obtaining advice from lawyers or consultants on what to do when faced with a union organizing campaign. Taking away the ability to consult outside parties, combined with a shortened election period, makes it nearly impossible for an employer to not only educate his employees, but also to ensure his actions are within the law. For over 50 years the Department of Labor has been exempted from reporting requirements advice provided to employers. The proposed rule will significantly affect that definition. The complexities of the National Labor Relations Act almost require an employer to seek advice on what he is permitted to do or say to employees during a union election, especially if the election period is as short as 10 days. The proposed rule on persuader activity will chill employer speech to the point that employers will not seek, and attorneys will not provide, advice on any labor-related issue. So unions have turned to these regulatory initiatives after losing the public and political battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as card check. Organized labor's end game remains the same, making it easier to organize by taking away the employer's free speech right and the employee's right to fair information. Supporters of organized labor have acknowledged the winning strategy is to gain voluntary recognition of the union from employers instead of allowing employees to vote in a secret ballot election, despite a 71- percent win rate. Ambush elections, increased reporting on persuader activity, and the decision to allow micro-unions will set the bar for an employer winning elections impossibly high, essentially coercing them into voluntarily recognizing the union. I do thank the Senator for mentioning that in 90 percent of the elections there is an agreement before the election done in a relatively short period of time that takes care of all the disputes. I don't know if the purpose of Congress is to make sure 100 percent of situations never occur or 90 percent or 99 percent, but everything cannot be solved by doing a new rush to action regulation, particularly by an organization that doesn't do those regulations normally. In 75 years there have only been three regulations. Two of them were done by the Labor Relations Board in the last year, and one of those has already been set aside by the courts. So this is a rush-to-action situation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act. It is a very difficult bar to reach because the Senate will have to pass the resolution of disapproval twice with a majority of votes. That gives the other side the opportunity to see who might support it the first time and see if they can talk them out of it the second time. But after that, it has to go through the House, and then this is the surprising part to me--if it passes both bodies where both bodies have said they do not think the agency correctly interpreted what we put in law, meaning Congress, who are the only ones with the right to pass a law--what we put into law, they are trying to change, and that third step is that it requires the signature of the President in order for the Congressional Review Act to become effective. We are an equal branch of government to the administration. The administration writes the rule. We disapprove of the rule because we say it doesn't follow the laws we have already passed, and then the administration which wrote the law gets to say whether the votes of the people in the House and in the Senate had any effect at all. The Congressional Review Act has a definite place, but it should have been done using the authority of Congress itself, not the authority of the Congress and the administration combined. We are at a point where there is a heavy hand in the administration, and that will have a drastic effect on business in this country. And if business fails, there will be less employees, not more.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are having an interesting duel of statistics here, because to take care of the 10 percent that the Senator from Iowa says has a problem, we will turn the other 90 percent on their head. It also doesn't surprise me that the President has put out a Statement of Administration Policy, a SAP. I always thought those were pretty aptly named, but not surprised my resolution would be opposed. As I explained, this is a regulation written by the administration so I would expect the administration would not like and would veto it. There has been only been one Congressional review action that has succeeded and that was regarding the rule on ergonomics. And what happened was the Department of Labor rushed through a 50-day regulation, and then we had a change of Presidents and the new President didn't like it, so he was willing to sign the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval. This is not a waste of time. This is an important action. It is to warn agencies and boards that the ones that make the laws are Congress, and we delegate that rulemaking authority, and it was delegated to the administration of the National Labor Relations Board, and they are abusing their authority. What has changed? Well, there is the pre-election hearing. In the new rule it says: ``A pre-election hearing is solely to determine whether a question of representation exists.'' The important question, such as which employee should be included in the bargaining unit or the eligibility of an employee, won't be heard prior to an election. A hearing officer may unilaterally bar testimony or evidence he or she deems not relevant to a question raised at a pre-election hearing--under this new regulation. The effect? A hearing officer will have wide latitude to prohibit certain evidence introduced at a pre-election hearing, even if such evidence is undisputed or stipulated, essentially leading to the conclusion that an election is proper. Under the new rule: Parties are prohibited from seeking a review of a regional director's decision and direction of an election by the Board. All issues to review would be heard after an election. Parties could seek a pre-election appeal if the issue would otherwise escape Board review. The effect? Parties with a legitimate legal bar to an election will be forced to run an unnecessary election. An unintended consequence is that an employer would have to commit an unfair labor practice in order to have their issues reviewed by the full Board. If you ask me, that is a pretty high bar they are putting in there. The new rule says: The 25-day waiting period between the direction of the election and election date is eliminated. The impact? The 25 days allowed parties to digest and understand the parameters of the regional director's decision to direct an election, and for the Board to rule on the parties' requests for the review of the decision. Although not included in the Final Rule, the Board originally proposed that a pre-election hearing will occur 7 days after the filing of a petition absent special circumstances. The effect? It forces employers to scramble to retain counsel. Again, we are talking about small businessmen here. There is no limit on how small of a business you can organize in this. It forces employers to scramble to retain counsel, develop a strategy, prepare for a hearing, and develop evidence. Many employers, especially small ones, will be unable to provide a reasonable response so quickly, leading them to agree to a stipulated election. There is not anything in this provision that gives any protection for the person in the middle class running a small business and trying to keep his business afloat. There used to be some protections, but this new regulation--and, again, agencies do write a lot of rules, but they don't write ones of this significance-- is only the third time it has been done by the National Labor Relations Board. It was done in a hurry-up situation. Two out of the three were done by this administration. One of those has already been set aside by the courts. That is not a very good record. Now we are trying to do this one on a hurry-up basis. I think there ought to be more consideration for it. Part of the role of Congress is to take a look at what the administration is doing with their regulations, which we ultimately give them the authority to do, to see if they are being done properly. So this is just a major part of the need for oversight. Thankfully, there is a process whereby we can get the right to debate this oversight. That is what we are doing at this point. I yield the floor to Senator Barrasso for such time as he needs.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have several letters of support printed in the Record, along with a list of 18 organizations that support the resolution.

Mr. ENZI. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Phil Kerpen in the Daily Caller entitled ``Will any Senate Democrat stand up to Obama's NLRB?''

Mr. ENZI. Unless there is further debate, I yield back the balance of our time for today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to avoid making the hard decisions to address our Nation's significant debt and annual deficits. Instead, they are turning the Nation's attention to a talking point, a shell, a sham, a political hoax designed to distract this country from our real financial problems and the real solutions we will need to get us out of this mess. The Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, dubbed the Buffett rule, that they describe as restoring tax fairness does nothing to address the fiscal disaster we are facing. The Buffett rule is, by President Obama's own admission, a gimmick. My friends, our country can no longer afford photo-op governance. The national debt has risen to over $15 trillion, or nearly $48,000 per person in the United States, and this figure keeps rising under an administration that consistently fights spending cuts of any kind. We must make spending cuts if we are going to solve our fiscal problems. Remember the President's debt commission, the Simpson-Bowles debt commission the President appointed then summarily ignored? Not everyone has ignored it. I continue to work with my colleagues on legislation to get the country back on track financially. I have introduced a bill called the one cent solution. It is also known as the penny plan or the 1-percent solution. My one cent solution bill would cut spending by 1 percent for 7 years and achieve a balanced budget in the eighth year. Every family can imagine taking one penny out of every dollar they spend. The Federal Government should be able to do the same. In February, President Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal to Congress. I hope it was the last budget proposal he will have the opportunity to submit. Like his budget last year in the Senate, the President's Budget in the House this year failed to get a single vote. Even Democrats shunned it. It failed 414 to 0. The Buffett rule is pulled from the same bag of tricks. Despite his promises of fiscal discipline and cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, President Obama presented the American people with another budget that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. It is time for a change. Congress should take the lead by passing a budget that includes strong deficit reduction provisions and sets the country on a path out of our $15 trillion debt. When you are in a hole, you stop digging. When you are broke, you stop spending. Rather than crafting a bipartisan measure to deal with these issues, the administration instead has turned its attention to the Buffett rule. This bill is symptomatic of a much larger problem plaguing this administration--the unwillingness to address the country's long-term fiscal imbalance and the diversion of the Nation's attention to a provision marketed as enhancing ``tax fairness'' that ultimately could impact very few taxpayers and does little to address the Nation's debt and deficits. The Buffett rule is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to raise approximately $47 billion over 10 years under current law. Even if current tax rates are extended past their current expiration date of December 31, 2012, the bill is estimated to raise approximately $160 billion over 10 years. The Nation's debt level is now over $15 trillion, and yearly deficits are running over $1 trillion under this administration. This bill is not a significant debt and deficit reduction measure; instead, it is simply an attempt to raise taxes on owners of capital and job creators when they can least afford it. And, no, it is not a step in the right direction because it distracts us from real solutions. It is a political stunt. The administration is ignoring the fact that four out of five people with incomes over $1 million and who would be hit by higher taxes as a result of the Buffett rule or any other millionaire tax are business owners, and these are the people the country needs to create new jobs. A millionaire tax increase like the Buffett rule means that over one- third of all business income reported on individual income tax returns would be taxed more. Particularly for those small businesses with narrow profit margins, these additional taxes would take even more money out of their businesses and make it more difficult to invest, expand, and hire. Warren Buffett, for whom this bill is named, generated most of his $40 million in taxable income in 2010 from dividends and capital gains, which under current law is taxed at 15 percent. Taking into account his wages of approximately $100,000 that are taxed at up to 35 percent, Mr. Buffett's effective tax rate was approximately 17.4 percent. What if Mr. Buffett and other millionaires who are corporate shareholders were instead taxed like most small business owners who operate flow-through business such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations, and are taxed immediately on their business profits at ordinary income tax rates of up to 35 percent? Mr. Buffett's tax rate would have been about 35 percent, double what he is reportedly paying now. Given that his share of the corporate profits in any year could be much greater than the dividends he currently receives, Mr. Buffett himself could be paying significantly more in taxes to the Federal Government. I wonder if this would cause Mr. Buffett to reconsider his position on tax fairness. My friends, I am concerned that under the guise of tax fairness this administration will continue to raise taxes in order to support its out-of-control spending binge. This administration either fails or chooses not to recognize that the current-law alternative minimum tax, or AMT, was put in place nearly 30 years ago to do exactly what the Buffett rule is intended to do--ensure that high-income taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of U.S. tax, regardless of various tax deductions and tax credits that they might be able to claim on their tax return. In that regard, this bill simply layers on yet another complex tax provision on top of the already complex U.S. tax system rather than addressing the underlying problems of the overall Tax Code. The country needs and deserves comprehensive tax reform that makes the system simpler and fairer for all taxpayers. At the very least, the administration should start by focusing on fixing the current Tax Code before adding yet another layer of complexity to it. Those who named this bill want you to think it is an appropriate method by which to ensure everyone pays their fair share. We need fairness; however, the manner in which that goal is achieved is just as important as the goal itself. In that regard, the Buffett rule misses the mark for each of the reasons I have just mentioned. This bill is yet another missed opportunity for this administration to address the most pressing issues of the day, including significant tax issues that confront us at the end of 2012. The most notable tax issues include the prevention of a massive tax hike on all taxpayers on January 1, 2013, as a result of the expiration of current income tax rates, the extension of tax provisions that expired at the end of 2011 and that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, providing a patch for the AMT for 2012 so that it does not ensnare millions of middle- income taxpayers, and reforming the estate tax to prevent a significant rate hike on January 1, 2013. Taking all of this into account, is the President flying around the country trumpeting the Buffett rule as the solution to what he perceives is a tax fairness problem really the best use of his and the country's time? We have more to think about than his reelection. There is a better path forward to achieve the desired result of the Buffett rule. That path includes comprehensive tax reform that results in a tax code that is simple, fair, and progrowth. If we combine that with appropriate spending cuts, our country will be able to get out from under the heavy weight of our current and escalating debt burden.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Today I wish to discuss high gasoline prices and to express my concern that the legislator we are debating will only cause the price at the pump to increase. We need to have a serious debate about energy policy in the Senate. We have not passed substantial energy legislation since 2007, and without a sound energy policy, we will continue to see price instability. Unfortunately, the legislation we are debating is not that sound energy policy. Instead, it is an effort at political theater, designed to force a vote on a proposal that the majority finds politically popular. Republicans understand that the problem we face today will not be solved by taxing the five largest oil companies. Unlike the majority, we understand that you cannot expect to lower energy prices when you increase taxes. Increasing taxes will lead to higher prices. I want to see lower prices, and so I oppose S. 2204. Instead of passing this legislation, the Senate should take up any one of the ideas my colleagues and I have proposed. The Senate should pass legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline so we can obtain more of our energy from Canada as opposed to countries like Saudi Arabia. The Senate should pass legislation to prohibit the EPA from implementing its greenhouse gas policy--which will make it more difficult to use our most abundant, domestic energy source--coal--to power our homes, businesses, and daily lives. The Senate should pass legislation to open up more areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and production, and should require the administration to grant permits for responsible energy development. We should also pass legislation to open up a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to energy development. Any one of those actions would have a much more positive impact on our Nation's energy situation than the legislation we are debating today. S. 2204 is an effort to punish the Nation's five largest energy companies because oil prices are high. Republicans stand ready to have a serious debate on energy because we know our policies are the best solution for achieving energy security. We recognize that the problems we are facing are an undersupply of oil as well as an instability in some countries where a substantial amount of oil is produced. To address these issues, I want to produce more American oil on American soil. I want to see more oil produced in regions like the ANWR. I want to determine what technology is needed to recover the nearly 800 billion barrels of oil shale that the Rand Corporation has suggested are recoverable. I want to see permits granted in areas of Wyoming so we can develop our State's coal bed methane. We also want to see more wind turbines and solar energy panels in places where they make sense. Republicans truly support an ``all of the above'' approach. We support traditional sources like coal, oil, and natural gas. We support alternative sources like wind and solar. And our record shows that to be the case. President Obama claims to support an ``all of the above'' approach. However, his record shows something different. Earlier this week, his administration released a rule that will make it exceedingly difficult to build a coal-fired power plant in the future. That action follows his administration's decision in 2010 to put a moratorium on leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and their decision to put in place policies that make it more difficult to develop natural resources on our Federal lands. President Obama claims to support natural gas--at the same time his administration seeks to stop hydraulic fracturing, the tool that has allowed us to access our abundant natural gas reserves. President Obama also claims that there isn't a silver bullet to bring prices down. That may be true, but if you add up all of his administration's efforts to hold up American energy production, there are a number of measures we could undertake to make our situation better. Unfortunately, the legislation we are debating today is not one of those measures. What's further unfortunate about S. 2204 is that it is an attempt to punish a sector of our economy that is doing well. The oil and gas sector has created jobs during the recession and employs more than 9 million American workers. It is a sector that employs a lot of people in my State. In 2010, more than 21,000 workers were employed in the oil and gas industry in Wyoming. Instead of punishing these companies for their success, we should be finding ways to work with them so they can put more Americans back to work. It is valuable to have a discussion about energy like we have had this week. It allows us to point out the differences between the vision we offer of more production and more jobs versus the vision of our colleagues on the other side, which is essentially higher taxes and higher energy prices. When we have finished voting on S. 2204, which everyone acknowledges will fail, we should sit down and have a full debate about our energy future. I am confident that our vision is the right one if we want an America that has a secure energy future. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 2204.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are going to talk about Medicare today and the way the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cuts into Medicare, destroys Medicare. Two years ago the President wanted a health care bill in the worst way, and that is exactly what he got, and that is exactly what America got. Anybody out there on Medicare or about to be on Medicare or young enough that someday they will be on Medicare should be very concerned about what happened under this act. All of you, I am sure, are aware of somebody who is on Medicare who has already been denied a doctor; they are being denied because they are not being paid what they ought to be paid. To call it the ``patient protection'' and ``affordable'' care act is a major mistake. It neither protects Medicare patients nor makes it more affordable. In fact, one of the things we will bring out today is that there has been a theft of $500 billion from Medicare to fund other parts of the program. There is some fraud in it because it was spent, but it still shows up in the account. That is how they show that this really doesn't add to the debt. To solve the whole thing, they have a whole new board of unelected bureaucrats to make additional cuts to Medicare to make it look as though it is OK. And then there is the accounting sleight of hand. I am one of the two accountants in the Senate now, and you have to pay attention to see it. It goes back to the fraud because if this same sort of thing were being done in the private sector, people would go to jail. There are a number of ways that we will bring out how that is not just budget gimmicks and sleight of hand but is actually taking advantage of seniors. The Chief Medicare Actuary said that Medicare will go broke in 2024. That is 5 years earlier than last year's report by the Chief Medicare Actuary. He is the guy who works for Medicare; he doesn't work for us. He has to figure out each year how much in the hole it is and what needs to be done to fix it. My contention, of course, is that you can't steal $500 billion out of a program that is already going broke and expect it to be fine. We warned about that as we were going through the passage of this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which, as already mentioned, was passed 2 years ago tomorrow. It could have been fixed. There were three plans on the Republican side that would have done what is claimed to be done by this act. Those ideas were largely rejected. Today we are going to talk about some thefts, fraud, unelected bureaucrats, and accounting sleight of hand. I have some people here who want to respond to some of the things that have been said. Senator Coburn has listened to some comments made on the other side celebrating this great day.

Mr. ENZI. But that board was made essential by decisions that were made in the health care bill. In the health care bill, we took $500 billion--$\1/2\ trillion--that should have stayed with Medicare to solve Medicare problems. The doc fix is one of the big problems we need to solve. It is up to about, I think, $230 billion that we need to do that. That would be a pretty good chunk out of this. And unless that is done, people won't be able to see a doctor. I keep saying, if you can't see a doctor, you really don't have health insurance, and that is what we are going to be doing to our seniors. We cut $135 billion from hospitals, we cut $120 billion from the 11 million seniors who are on Medicare Advantage, we took $15 billion from nursing homes, and we took $7 billion from hospices to spend on programs that have nothing to do with Medicare or those things. That is fraud, and it shouldn't have happened. The CBO Actuary and the Chief Medicare Actuary have acknowledged this reality. Incidentally, the Chief Medicare Actuary says the program is going to go broke in 2024, and CBO says it will happen in 2016. Now 2016 is pretty short term to be fixed. I think 2024 is short term. So whichever estimate you want to take, Medicare is in trouble and $500 billion should not have been taken out of it. That $500 billion should have been dedicated to fixing Medicare. We still have to fix Medicare, and the only solution we have come up with is the one Senator Coburn mentioned, which is to form this new board, with surprising powers, that is going to be able to cut some more in Medicare so it doesn't look as though we stole $500 billion from Medicare. Senator Burr is on the committee. He has had to sit through a lot of the hearings and a lot of the amendments that were never passed from our side that would have fixed this, and I am sure he has some comments.

Mr. ENZI. I think the Senator too would be interested in the accounting and some of the sleight of hand involved in the prescription Part D. We put a prescription Part D in so people would have a little better chance of paying for their prescriptions--a very difficult program. It was very expensive. I know in my State we were looking at only two people who were selling pharmaceuticals to seniors. I thought, boy, when this program goes in, there probably won't be any. But when it was opened to a wide choice, I found out there were 46 companies that wanted the business in Wyoming, and it turned out to be a very successful program at helping people. In this affordable care act, of course, they do some things with the doughnut hole which are a little sleight of hand, because some of the companies that sell brandname prescription drugs agreed they would reimburse people for a part or up to all of their medications while they went through that doughnut hole, knowing when they got out of the doughnut hole they would stay with that brandname and it would cost the whole program a lot more. So in an area where we were saving money and could have fixed it so seniors had a better chance at it but not giving an advantage to the brandname drug users would have actually saved some money in the program, but that didn't happen. I know since my colleague is involved a lot in the pharmaceutical area, and has done a tremendous job at making sure we are safe from terrorist attacks and pandemic flus and worked with vaccinations, and is probably the foremost person at both ends of the building at knowing how to do that, he may have some comments on this prescription Part D.

Mr. ENZI. So that prescription Part D actually drove down the cost of medication, and now we are ending up in a situation where part of that will be in trouble because of what has happened to Medicare, with $500 billion being stolen. I see we are joined by Senator Lee of Utah, and I know that Utah has had a health care system that has been a model for other States and now is possibly in jeopardy. I don't know if the Senator would care to comment on Medicare or on that, but we appreciate his coming.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thought I had 2 more minutes. I appreciate the comments. This is the 2-year anniversary of passing what is the so-called affordable patient care act. The Supreme Court has chosen next week to begin the deliberations on it, and they are going to take three times as long as they do on any case so that they can divide this into pieces, and that mandate piece will be the second one. One that they probably won't be going into is this Medicare problem. We are going to have seniors who are going to be without care because we have taken $500 billion out of Medicare when it needed a doc fix and it needed a whole bunch of other things, and particularly in rural areas where there are critical access hospitals, rural health clinics. Can any reasonable person believe that you can cut $\1/2\ trillion from a program and not affect its impact on patient care? I wish to have more time to show that there is a theft of this $500 billion, there is fraud involved, that there are bureaucrats and accounting sleight of hand.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the other side will not have their speakers use the last minutes, so we will start on our side. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to do a colloquy and have several Senators join in.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing our congratulations to Barbara Mikulski as she reaches another great milestone in her career of service to the people of Maryland in the United States Congress. Senator Mikulski is now the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. Although outstanding in and of itself, it is an achievement that represents far more than the number of years she has served in the nation's Capitol. It is also a testament to her outstanding public service and her commitment to our future that has made it possible for her to help to make our great Nation both stronger and more secure. Back home, Senator Mikulski's constituents have come to appreciate her more and more as they have seen how hard she works to represent them every day. That is why they always come out in such great numbers every election day to make sure she will continue to do so. They can see the difference she has made all around them and they appreciate the way she has made their cities and towns better places to live. I have often heard Senator Mikulski referred to as the Dean of the Senate women, a title she has earned that was conferred upon her with the great admiration, affection and appreciation of those with whom she has served. Over the years so many of them have acknowledged the difference she has made in their lives with her support, her encouragement, her guidance and her direction. She has been such a great mentor to them because she has always led the best way--by example. It is another mark of distinction that has come to her as, each day, she has helped to write another chapter of the history of Maryland and this great Nation of ours. Looking back, she has played an active role in a long list of changes that have come to our country over the years. Because she has been at the forefront of so many of them she has been a role model not only for those with whom she has served, but for those who have been watching her in action back home. I have no doubt, in the years to come, many more women will serve in the House and the Senate who will credit Senator Mikulski for first giving them the idea of serving in the Congress. Her own record of success then assured them that it would be possible for them to do the same if they were willing to work hard and take their case to the people for their consideration. In the end, that is what our service in the Senate is all about-- doing everything we can so that the current generation will have the tools they will need to succeed and then take their place as the next generation of our nation's leaders. Thanks to good people like Barbara Mikulski the people back home know that someone cares. She has given them a voice and it is heard and heard clearly whenever she takes to the Senate floor to make their concerns known. I have often heard it said that the meaning of public service is found in the definition of the word ``service.'' That is why we are taking a moment today to thank Senator Mikulski for putting her principles and her beliefs into action all these many years for her beloved Maryland and the United States of America. If I may paraphrase the words of Abraham Lincoln, it isn't so much her years of service that matters so much as the service of her years. Through the years she has made a difference in so many ways that will be long remembered and celebrated. Congratulations, Barbara. You are setting a record pace here in the Senate. From this day on, you will be setting a new record every day. Thank you for your service, but most of all, thank you for your friendship. Diana and I have appreciated having the chance to come to know you and to work with you.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first, I want to say how important roads and bridges are. We are on the highway bill, and that is one of the main advantages the United States has had--having excellent transportation. Of course, that is particularly important in my own State because we want people to be able to get to the first national park, which is Yellowstone National Park, and another gorgeous park, the Grand Teton National Park, and a place called Fossil Butte National Monument, where people can actually fish for 60 million-year-old fish. We have a spot in the middle of the State where people can help dig up dinosaur bones--and if you dig one out by yourself, you get it named after you-- or the first national monument, Devils Tower, which is up in the northeast corner. And, of course, we are a corridor between those Western States too. So we know how important roads and bridges are. We need to do that, and we need to do it now, but we should do it the right way. So I want to refer to an amendment I have filed, No. 1645. My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would allow the gas tax to be adjusted with inflation--not with the price of gas, with inflation. This is not a new idea, and it certainly is not a very popular discussion point, but this is the debate the Senate needs to have. The long-term viability of the highway trust fund is incredibly important to our States. The underlying proposal the Senate is debating would pay for transportation and infrastructure projects and programs for the next 2 years, but it does not address the future of these programs, nor do the financing proposals fit within the timeframe of the bill. I have serious objections to paying for 2 years of spending with 10 years of revenue. Let me stop on that issue for a moment. We are spending money in 2 years that it will take us 10 years to generate. How can we tell the American people we are serious about the deficit and serious about spending when we allow money to be spent five times as fast as it comes in? If the Senate wants to keep the highway programs viable through a trust fund instead of subjected to the general fund, which any accountant or banker would say is bankrupt, we need to either cut spending or generate more revenue. Those are the two choices. A lot of work has gone into the bill before the Senate. Four committees have worked on it. Four committees have filed amendments that have been included in the version we are seeing. I appreciate that many of my colleagues are trying to reduce the mandates on the States as well as consolidate and eliminate programs. That is good. Those are steps we need to take. Even with some serious streamlining, however, the highway trust fund will not have the revenues needed to meet the current obligations of the fund. We can certainly give States more flexibility in how they prioritize the Federal funds they receive. We should not and cannot ignore that with this bill we are just buying time. Buying time is something the Federal Government has been doing for decades, and that has gotten us into this serious financial mess. We are buying time with borrowed money. The borrowing is pretty dubious, and some of it is from countries we would rather not be borrowing from. I want to share some charts with you. You may only be able to discern what I say, and what I say is what appears in the Senate Record, not the charts. These have a lot of numbers on them. I am an accountant, so I get excited over numbers. Too many numbers, but it still makes the point. What we have is the highway trust fund balances, starting in 1993, which was the last time we passed the gas tax. That was 18.3 cents. This column shows the total revenue received. For the most part they have been going up, which means more gas has been bought. But here are the expenditures, and you will see what effect that has had on the closing balance in the trust fund. We have had quite a few years when there was some money in there--right after 1993 when the gas tax more closely matched the cost of construction, and as we get out here in 2001, we can see that it drops significantly and keeps dropping. At balance, at the end of 2012, it is going to be $11.4 billion. Of course, we are spending more than that just in this one bill. So next year it will be a minus $2.8 billion and $18.7 billion, and then $34.7 billion. Those are deficits I am talking about, deficits in the trust fund, which means in those years we are going to have to get the money from somewhere else. It winds up in 2016 at being a $50.7 billion deficit to the trust fund. That is what we are doing generally with all of our accounting, but it shows up here in something that I do not think anybody in America denies is absolutely necessary. We have to have roads and bridges. So if my amendment were enacted, what kind of an adjustment to the tax rate would we see? If this amendment had been enacted last year, in 2011, this January--the tax does not go into effect until the year after the inflation is measured. This January the tax would have increased by one-half of one penny--one-half of one penny. The price of a gallon fluctuates more than that on a daily basis. In fact, I was watching on television the other night, and the lady was showing the high price of gas, and she showed a sign out in front of the pumps. Just as she was about to leave, she said: Wait a minute. While I have been talking, the price has gone up 20 cents. So we are seeing some huge changes there, but not with the gas tax. If we had enacted the indexing in 1993, the last time Congress adjusted the gas tax, there would have been an increase of 11 cents in the gasoline tax over 19 years. Excluding the one-tenth of 1 cent that is added to the base tax rate for the leaking underground storage tanks, the rate would adjust from 18.3 cents a gallon in 1993 to 29\1/2\ cents per gallon today. That is what this chart shows. It shows the amount of inflation there was each of those years, so the amounts the gas tax would have gone up in each of those years to provide a fund that would actually help us with building the roads and bridges, and it would be at 29.5 cents per gallon today. In that same timeframe gasoline prices have risen from $1 per gallon to $3.50 per gallon or more. It was $4 in the example I was giving off the television. If we had enacted indexing in 2005 under the last highway bill, there would have been only a 3\1/2\-cents-per-gallon adjustment. I estimate there would have been increased revenue in the highway trust fund by over $18 billion from the gas tax alone. So this is the chart that shows what would have happened if we had indexed it in 2005, what the CPI index would have been and what the adjustment would have been. So that would have been a change of 3.5 cents per gallon, hardly noticeable in the price of gas we have today. But the trust fund would have had $18 billion, which we need to be able to spend. Very important. In 1993 the gas tax of 18.3 cents was included in the $1 of gas, and there was also State taxes included in the $1 gasoline price, 18 cents out of a dollar. Now the 18 cents is part of $4 a gallon. Don't you think construction costs have increased based on the cost of a gallon of gas alone? Remember, the gas tax is what paid for roads and bridges but cannot anymore, causing us to use very bad financing methods--stealing from pension funds with no way to pay it back, using 10 years' of projected revenue to pay for 2 years' of construction. What do we do for the money in 2 years? Roads and bridges will always need construction. Our economy runs on construction. The construction industry has mixed feelings about my proposed amendment. They are for it as long as it does not bring the bill down. My intent is not to bring the bill down but, rather, to make it a viable bill. Of course, my amendment will not make it a viable bill all by itself. The Bowles- Simpson Commission deficit report said we needed to increase the gas tax by 5 cents a year for 3 years to have a viable fund. Here are the quotes from that deficit commission. The President appointed the deficit commission. They looked at everything, and on highways and bridges alone, this is what they came up with: 15-cent- per-gallon increase in the gas tax over a 3-year period; limit spending to match the revenues the trust fund collects. That is what we are failing to do with this current bill. Once fully implemented, a 15-cent increase would generate an additional $24 to $27 billion per year for the highway trust fund. Each 1-cent increase would generate about $1.6 to $1.8 billion per year. That is from that deficit commission that was trying to figure out how to get ourselves out of the hole we are in right now. This is what they came up with just for the highway fund. So with my amendment, it indexes with inflation. It does not start until next year. It is just a way to test the waters to see if there is enough courage in this body to take a very minimal step. My amendment does not solve the shortfall of the highway trust fund, nor would it fully pay for this legislation. It is just a small step in the right direction. It is a step in getting the highway trust fund back to what it was created to be, a dedicated pot of money to pay for the roads, funded by those who use the roads. We need to take this step and a lot of other steps if we are going to fix our money problems and fund programs as intended. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform--that is that Simpson- Bowles Commission--supported a 15-cent increase in the gas tax to be gradually adjusted over a 3-year period. Once fully implemented, a 15- cent increase, as I said, would provide $24 to $27 billion per year. That is what we need for roads and bridges. The Commission also recommended that Congress enact a limitation so that the spending could not go beyond revenues. That seems like a fairly commonsense approach. Spend only what we generate. We could use that around here. Of course, that principle is something we need to enact in the overall budgeting in Washington. Let's be clear. The tax rate and gas prices are two very separate issues. Folks might think that as the price of fuel goes up, so does the Federal gas tax. That is not true. Whether the price of gas is $1 per gallon or $4 per gallon, the Federal tax remains the same. Again, the fund collected 18.3 cents from every dollar of gas in 1993. Construction costs have increased, and now we only collect the same 18.3 cents for a $4 gallon of gas. If we were being successful with some alternate means of transportation, the amount of gas would go down as people used those other ones, but it is not. I am sensitive to the fact that the gas prices are high right now. I am always looking for ideas on how we can work to bring those prices down. With the distances we have to travel in Wyoming alone, high fuel prices have a disproportionate effect on the residents of my State. The President said there is not a silver bullet to bring the prices down. That is certainly true if we look at his administration's policies, having done everything possible to increase the price of fuel. While there might not be a silver bullet, there are a number of actions that will make a real difference. One reason gas prices are high is that the supply is limited, and tensions in the Middle East have further strained that supply and encouraged speculators. To fix the supply problem, we should be producing American energy wherever it is possible. Instead of blocking production the President should be encouraging us to develop American energy in Alaska and off the Outer Continental Shelf and on Federal land. Yes, production is up, but it is not from Federal lands. That is shut down. It is coming from private land where a permit does not take a lifetime of investment and delay. Federal lands are down 12 percent in production. We should be enacting policies that encourage energy production on public lands in Wyoming and other Western States rather than relying on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. President Obama should approve the Keystone XL Pipeline so we can get as much supply as possible from friendly nations such as Canada before they feel forced to sell it all to China, who is buying up energy worldwide. China understands that in 20 years the country with the energy will have the power. I am not talking about electrical power; I am talking about world power. Gas prices are high because of the regulatory uncertainty created by the administration's relentless pursuit of policies that are designed to make energy more expensive under the guise of halting climate change. Rather than arguing over new taxes for the oil and gas industry, we should be working to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency to stop those regulations that make it impossible for businesses to plan. We have a permitting problem. When I hear the lecture about the number of acres leased for exploration but not being drilled, I get angry. I am usually not angry. Leased parcels include land that has no oil. When you buy a lease, you buy a package, and then you drill where the oil or gas is within that package. Also, there are millions of acres ready to be drilled, but the leaseholder cannot get the bureaucrats to turn loose the permits. Of course, Energy Secretary Chu recently confirmed that his energy policy is to create conservation by having our gas prices reach the same level as Europe. Well, unless we do something with the gas tax at his desired $7 a gallon, we will still only get 18.3 cents a gallon for the critical highway fund. If we were really trying to match cost to construct with revenue, the radical suggestion would be for the gas user fee--and it is a user fee. If you do not drive on the roads, you do not need to buy the gas. You do not need to pay the tax. So it is a user fee. But it would be a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas if we were really being radical. But be clear, we are not doing that. We are probably not doing any of this. We need to do everything we can to lower gas prices. I am working to do just that. In fact, we are debating some of these issues on this legislation because the majority refuses to debate them using regular order. However, the issue of gas prices is entirely separate from the issue of determining how we should pay for highways. We have set up a trust fund that is supposed to take care of road and bridge needs. I might mention that changing the formula to miles driven would just be to increase the gas user fee while hiding the increase. That is not the way to do it. We should be honest about whatever kind of an increase we are putting on this user fee. That is the wrong way to do it. If we do not add more revenue to the trust fund, we should cut our spending to the amount of money we have in the trust fund. That is, again, what the Simpson-Bowles report said. I know there a lot of sensitivities in talking about the rate of gas tax or any other tax. There is no doubt that individuals and businesses are still stressed in this economy and are struggling to make ends meet. People in rural States such as Wyoming have few options. They have to drive long distances for many of their needs. Several of my colleagues have said to me: This just is not the time to be talking about the gas tax. I must ask: When will the time be right? Members of Congress do not want to tackle this topic when the economy is strong nor do they want to tackle the topic when we have economic challenges. When revenues to the highway trust fund were meeting the needs of the highway program, no one wanted to consider that there might be a time when the revenue could not keep up with the needs to maintain our highway system. We are pennies away from insolvency of the highway trust fund. When is the right time to talk about the revenue stream for the highway trust fund? We need to start today. My amendment is a small step to address the long-term viability of the highway trust fund. It is a small step to get us moving toward living within our means and maintaining our roads with the money we have not the money we wish we had. I probably cannot get a vote on this minimal increase, but it does test the water. I would be happy to revise my amendment to any reasonable level that Senators would support. We cannot continue to kick this conversation down the road for another 2 years. We cannot lie to our constituents about the state of the highway trust fund. We should not steal from other trust funds, and we should not do unapproved long-term financing for short-term projects. We have a mechanism to pay for the road programs, a dedicated funding stream paid for by those who use the roads. I hope my colleagues will take a hard look at my amendment, take a look at the plan under Simpson-Bowles, and study the numerous ideas out there. Let's have a real debate on how to preserve this dedicated funding for our roads. In Wyoming, we have an optional sales tax for projects by communities and counties. The construction project is stated, and the people get to vote for this increase in their taxes. As long as the money is used to pay for the promised projects, the voters continue to approve additional projects with additional taxes. It has happened for 30 years in Wyoming. People will allow focused taxes for what they know they need if they believe that is what it will be spent for. And I say they know the needs for roads and bridges. When is it the wrong time to do the right thing? I believe most everyone in this Chamber knows this is the right thing. Most of our constituents will see it that way too. A vocal few won't, but the reason congressional approval is at a record low is because so many live in fear of taking the votes that will fix the problems. We have a chance to change that with this amendment. I hope my colleagues will take a serious look at it and fund the highway fund the way it was intended. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Ward from my office be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 36 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I look forward to the opportunity to debate this resolution on the floor, and I thank the Senators who have joined me as original cosponsors. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I look forward to the opportunity to debate this resolution on the floor, and I thank the Senators who have joined me as original cosponsors. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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.