Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I object.

Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rose yesterday afternoon when we opened the vote and voted in favor of going to a final vote today on the tax package before us. Like many have expressed in this body, there are things I like and things I dislike about it, but I come to the floor today to talk about the things I like about it and to make a particular point with regard to scoring. First, I want to point out that 41 days ago the people of the United States went to the polls and voted. In the State of Georgia they voted for me. I ran a campaign on the basis that we do not have a tax problem; we have a spending problem. I ran a campaign based on the American people wanting us in Washington to do what they have had to do in the last 3 years: sit down at the kitchen table, reprioritize, and spend within their means. We must do that. I commend what Senator Conrad from North Dakota said, and I commend the courage of the others who voted for the deficit reduction commission report because it is the kind of shared sacrifice and tough love that all of us need next year to rein in spending in this country and get our balance back. But in the immediate future, in the next 3\1/ 2\ weeks, America's taxes are going up at a time of protracted recession and high unemployment. That doesn't make any sense. In 2003, when I was in the House, I didn't like the idea of putting a sunsetting on the Bush tax package because I feared exactly what is happening now--protracted uncertainty, 2-year renewals, American business not knowing what to do. While I will vote for this package today, I hope we will learn the lesson that 2-year incremental sunsets or things such as that are not good for the economy and not good for America. We, as Members of this Congress and this Senate, must deal with challenges when they confront us--not by arbitrarily setting times for sunsets and sunrises that make us make policy under duress and difficult circumstances. But on the scoring issue I want to point out two things about the tax rates and about the estate tax. There are those who say by extending the existing tax rates we cut revenue that would have come in. Hypothetically, that is correct, but in reality that is not correct because, historically, from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, Republicans and Democrats who were confronted with difficult economic times, when they changed tax policy and lessened the burden, they increased the revenue. So my forecast based on the next 2 years is we will see for the first time a clear example of dynamic scoring and hopefully change a little bit of CBO's mind on how they look on tax policy. I think we are going to see more employment, we are going to see more risk capital put out by business, and we are going to see a sense of certainty and a sense of optimism, which certainly our country needs. As far as the estate tax--and I love very much the Senator from North Dakota, but I disagree vehemently on his explanation about the estate tax. Let me tell you the reality of the estate tax. I have dealt with it. I have dealt with it for 33 years as a real estate broker in the State of Georgia. The assets of most American families are real estate, whether it is farmers and landowners or whether it is simply a homeowner. Other wealth in America is by people who have a small business. With the confiscatory tax rate of 55 percent, which is what it would be January 1, and an inordinately low deduction or unified credit of $1 million, most American landowners, most American business owners who had an estate worth anything over $1 million would have had to liquidate their estates to pay their taxes. A little known fact about the IRS Code that a lot of people don't realize but we all suffer from is that when you die, you have 9 months to file your taxes and pay your taxes with the government. They have 3 years to say whether they will accept it. So in a 9-month period of time, a family at a point of bereavement, with some assets, find themselves at a rate of 55 percent. That is confiscatory, and it is not right. If they have to liquidate their property or sell their business that asset no longer produces income; therefore, income taxes go down. I can demonstrate on a graph or chart or blackboard that an asset that has to be liquidated and paid at a tax rate of 55 percent one time does not, over 10 years, pay as much as would have been paid over the earned income that small business or land would have created. So the estate tax 2-year deal is a good deal, and it should be permanent. Five million dollars is a lot of money, but in the scheme of things for a small business, a family farm, a cooperative, it is not a lot of money. But it is the lifeblood of a lot of families. If we confiscate that business or confiscate that land because the tax rate forces a sale, then we are actually hurting ourselves in the long run, and we are hurting families in the long run. Last, there is a spending component, and we are going to have to, next year, sit around the kitchen table of the Senate and deal with our spending because it is out of hand. But I do believe the tax policy we are extending for the next 2 years will bode well for our economy. I agree with Senator Conrad it will probably help increase productivity by about one-third, which will be good for our country. It will be good for our tax rates. If we can combine that with a fiscal policy that has shared sacrifice and tough love when it comes to spending, we can regenerate the American dream and the great American engine of entrepreneurship and return our country to the prosperity we all hope and desire it will have. With those remarks, I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, on behalf of our leadership, I object.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, let me congratulate you on your victory and welcome you to the Senate. I know you will be a great addition to the Senate. I have already enjoyed serving with you on the HELP Committee this morning. Mr. President, I rise for just a few minutes to talk about three issues--jobs, the economy, and housing--that I think all of us around the country will recognize are the three biggest problems thwarting our recovery. There are some realistic solutions that are out there that I think we could all come together on if we would just take the time to realize that working on disagreement rather than finding agreement is not serving the Senate very well right now. One of the reasons we have had a slow job recovery is because of the uncertainty American businesses and American wage earners have in what their tax rates are going to be. I ran a company. It started out as a small company, and it became a pretty good-sized company. This was the time of year--every December-- when we had our managers' retreat, and we would plan what we would do the next year. We would do our budget, we would talk about new hires, new departments, and new ideas. Right now, corporations and small businesses in this country that are sitting around their planning retreats and talking about next year do not know what their tax rates are going to be, they do not know what their regulatory environment is going to be. So they are doing what every business does: They are making conservative decisions. They are not risking capital. They are going to wait until their future tax lives and regulatory lives have some degree of certainty. So one way to bring back jobs to America and bring them back quicker than anything else would be for this Senate and the House to come together and extend the existing tax rates for a predictable, foreseeable period of time so businesses know what the playing field is going to look like. The absence of certainty between now and the end of the year means that no one will make a decision to hire anybody until we first make a decision on what their taxes are going to be. If we decide they are going to go up, if we capitulate and let the current sunset take place, then American businesses, at a time of high unemployment and low productivity in terms of business activity, will see an increase in their tax rate and we will see a decrease in employment next year in the United States. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope we will find common ground and find a way to extend the existing tax rates. Secondly, I wish to talk about housing for a second because it is an important part of jobs. I know there have been two speeches on the floor this week talking about some stimulus to bring the housing market back. One stimulus that will bring it back is to make taxes certain because if taxes become certain, people know what the taxes will cost them and they make important big-purchase decisions. When they have uncertainty in what their income or their net is going to be, they do not make big-ticket purchases, whether it is an automobile or a house. But there are other problems in housing as well. We need to fundamentally return to a marketplace that has some degree of liquidity in it for acquisition and purchases. Right now, except for the FHA and an occasional lender in terms of a jumbo lender to a big-ticket client, there is basically no mortgage money in the United States for an American home buyer. Because of mark to market being applied by the FDIC and the other cease-and-desist orders the banking institution and lenders are under, nobody is extending credit. In my State of Georgia--in Atlanta, GA--in 2006 there were 63,000 housing permits. That was 2006, 4 years ago. This year, there were 5,300. That is a 90-percent reduction in new construction. Granted, we were in a hypereconomy in 2006 and, granted, overbuilding probably contributed to the decline of the economy later on, but a 90-percent reduction is unhealthy. If we continue to sustain that reduction, we will continue to sustain what is a difficult economic period now. We need to be looking to the future. So my recommendations are, first, give us a platform of predictability by extending existing tax rates and not raising them in a rescession. That is No. 1. Secondly, recognize there is no liquidity in mortgage money in the United States. The longer we wait to address the question of what happens after Freddie and after Fannie, the longer the housing market will suffer. So I propose a solution for that problem in terms of housing finance. I don't think there is any question that Freddie and Fannie have to be wound down. They are in a conservatorship now. They have already cost us billions of dollars, and they will cost us billions more, which is why I worked hard to get them under the financial reregulation bill so we could peel back the layers of the onion and figure out what went wrong, but this body decided not to do that. But whatever happens, we have to create a new entity, and whatever happens, it will have to look, in some ways, like Freddie and Fannie but in other ways remarkably different. But there has to be a solution. The long-term solution can't be a government-sponsored entity or an implied government guarantee. That is what imploded in terms of Freddie and Fannie. And the taxpayers of America don't want you or me pledging their future full faith and credit behind a mortgage entity just to provide mortgage money. By the same token, they want us to be leaders, to find a way to get from where we are now, with no liquidity, to where we need to be, and that is with good liquidity. Here is my suggestion: we create a new entity to replace Freddie and Fannie--an entity that ends up having a government-implied sponsorship or guarantee, but over a 10-year period of time, it declines 10 percent a year to zero. During that same 10-year period of time, on every mortgage loan made in the United States, a fee will be attached to it at closing--maybe it is 50 basis points or half a percent, whatever it might be--that goes into a sinking fund. That sinking fund is walled off, and it grows over 10 years. As it grows, the government guarantee declines--for example, a-100 percent guarantee in the first year of the fund, 90 percent in the second year, 80 in the third, going down to zero in 10 years. As that fund guarantee goes down, the fund builds up, so it becomes the backstop for another failure that may or may not happen in the future but one for which we have to plan. This is not a new idea. There are not a lot of new ideas. In Great Britain, they have had Pool Re for years. That is the sinking fund they set up to handle catastrophic losses in terms of insurance. It has built up to be able to withstand the largest of catastrophic calls and has made their insurance system work very well. We need to establish a way for the government to sponsor an entity that gets out of the guaranteeing business but gets into the building of liquidity business and becomes an entity that can supply mortgages in the United States because there is not one now and there will not be one in the future until we create an entity that gives a foundation for liquidity to come back to the housing market. So here we are, 30 days from the end of the year. We don't know what our taxes are going to be next year, and if we wanted to go buy a house, we wouldn't know where we would find the mortgage money. This Senate can act and act quickly to make changes that see to it that jobs come back, and that is by extending the existing tax rates. When we come back together next year, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues in the Senate to create a mortgage-sponsored entity that will work and begin to bring liquidity back to the housing market so that construction returns, jobs come back, and America recovers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I join Senator Collins and many colleagues in paying tribute to the life and times of Senator Ted Stevens. While today we will lay his body to rest, his legacy will never be laid to rest. There has never been a more impactful Senator for their State in this country than Senator Ted Stevens. While I can tell countless stories, I wish to make two brief observations to show you the heart and soul of the effect and impact of Ted Stevens. One of my dear friends, the first Republican Senator from Georgia since Reconstruction, Mack Mattingly, from Brunswick, GA, told me not too long ago, after the passing of Senator Stevens, that when he first came to the Senate in 1981, Stevens was the first man to reach out to him, to help him, and to show him the way. I said: Mack, that is interesting, because when I was elected 6 years ago and I came to the Senate, the first man to offer a hand of leadership and help show me the way was Senator Ted Stevens. Ted was a consummate Senator, a ferocious fighter for the State of Alaska, and a proud patriot of the United States of America. He may have been small in stature, but he was a giant in ability. I always loved when we debated ANWR on the Senate floor--whether to drill. He wanted to drill. The people of Alaska wanted to drill. Every day that amendment was going to come up, you knew it because he had his Incredible Hulk tie on and was ready for the fight--not in an adversarial way or in a fistfight way but in a pride way, fighting for what was right for Alaska. Today, we will lay Senator Stevens to rest in Arlington National Cemetery, but his legacy will live on as a consummate fighter for his State and a lover of this great country. As I have said in my stories about Senator Mattingly and myself, Ted was a mentor to those who came to the Senate to serve. May God bless the life, the times, and the family of Senator Ted Stevens.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Before I introduce Senator Enzi, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota asked a rhetorical question regarding this election being similar to an election to the Senate. I would note one remarkable difference. National Mediation Board elections are unionized under current law as a permanent decision. Senators are elected every 6 years and then stand before the voters once again, so there is a significant difference between those two standards. Madam President, I will recognize for up to 10 minutes the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to reinstate the quorum call providing the additional time used is equally divided between the majority and minority.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes of the time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 30.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, let me take a moment to share a few alternative ideas to the distinguished Senator's representation. First of all, with regard to Ms. Puchala's response to my question in the confirmation hearing that all rules ought to be judged on their merit, I think that is a very good response. But it is coincidental or ironic that in one of the largest union votes in the history of America--the vote that will take place between Delta and Northwest employees on whether to unionize flight attendants--that when they were sworn in as board members, the previous application by the union for an election was postponed to give enough time for the rule change to take place in the first place. I do not know if that was judgment on merit or whether it happened to be just coincidental timing. I will say it was probably not based solely on the merit of the decision. Secondly--and I love the Senator from Iowa. He and I are dear friends--if you follow his thought process on not counting ``no'' votes, you have to look at this. Past practice at the National Mediation Board dictated that an absolute majority of workers in the class be required to vote to unionize, and once that union takes place it is a permanent decision. Yes, there is an archaic straw-man alternative. However, if you follow the thought of the Senator from Iowa in its entirety, once we are elected to the Senate, we would not have to run for reelection again. That is because the National Mediation Board has no decertification process. This is essentially a permanent decision by the workers. I do not think it should be a permanent decision when one of us is elected to Congress. That is why we have elections in Congress every 2 years or in the Senate every 6 years. Let's remember this is a decision. When we change this rule, we are allowing a minority to make a permanent decision for a class of workers. That is a very high threshold. I think requiring a majority vote of all those affected not only makes sense, but the reason it was done was to protect the National Mediation Board's intent in the first place in terms of interstate commerce in the United States of America. Another point Congress had no say in this process, even though Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States allows only us to regulate commerce. I wanted to add those two points. On the case of merit, I think it is obvious there were some considerations specifically because of one vote, i.e, the vote of the AFA and IAM. That is why the unions withdrew their applications and postponed the vote, to give the National Mediation Board an opportunity to pass the rule and affect a pending vote to organize. I wanted to make a point with regard to current policy not allowing people to be represented. Under the Railway Labor Act, 72 percent of the employees are unionized versus the 8 percent for all American workers. Nobody is talking about a rule preventing organization. We are only talking about requiring a threshold because of the permanency of the decision. That is very important. We are not trying to skew the balance between labor and management. We are trying to equalize that balance. To change this rule, given the threshold that has been in place for 75 years, is to skew the process in favor of union bosses over workers' rights. That should not be the intent of the Congress of the United States. That is why the National Mediation Board rules are what they are, and that is why the Supreme Court of the United States has twice upheld it. Madam President, I am happy to yield 10 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I wish to address the remarks of the distinguished chairman which in many ways validate the reason we should all vote for S.J. Res. 30. I wish to tell my colleagues why. The chairman said unionization is permanent, but it is kind of not permanent if you make a decision under the National Mediation Board. I wish to clear that up. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the October 8, 2009, letter from Sandra Polaski, Deputy Under Secretary of Labor for the Obama administration, sent to Cleopatra Doumbia-Henry, Director of International Labor Standards Department, International Labor Office in Geneva, Switzerland, who was asked a number of questions regarding U.S. labor law as it affects aviation and transportation.

Mr. ISAKSON. I will quote from her answer to question 15. Unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the [Railway Labor Act] does not provide for a decertification process. This is the Under Secretary of Labor for the Obama administration. Therefore, the union's certification continues until another union makes a showing of interest to represent the respective class or craft. In this circumstance, as this showing requires authorization from at least a majority of the class or craft, the alleged disadvantage of NMB certifying method works to the advantage of the incumbent union. I didn't say that; the Under Secretary of Labor said that. With regard to the examples the distinguished chairman used with regard to bond issues and the Missouri plan and things of that nature, I wish to make a few points. When you do vote for a bond issue, you vote it up or down. Most government bond issues are 20- to 30-year terms, which means in 20, 30 years, they are over. Organization under the National Mediation Board is in perpetuity. Then the distinguished chairman talked about what I think is called the Missouri plan, which is judges, where you can vote up or down on whether to continue a judge. You do that about every 4 years in the State of Iowa; right? Whatever the judicial term is, it is not in perpetuity. This is in perpetuity, with the narrow exception stated. Then, the chairman talked about the minimum wage. The minimum wage has risen from $1 to its current level because we periodically had elections to change it. This is permanent. So when we take the arguments he made about being anti-union or not in favor of unions, the National Mediation Board organization essentially guarantees the organization of a union remain in perpetuity, which is why it ought to require a majority of all people covered. The chairman talked about an Iowa union that had been decertified. Those employees work under the NLRA. We can't have it both ways. The Railway Labor Act should be like the National Labor Relations Act, under which the decertification process is parallel to the organization process. I am honored and privileged to represent the State that is home to Delta Airlines. I know what kind of an employer they are, and they do not deserve to be vilified by the Obama Administration. I have a letter I have already asked to be printed in the Record, but I would like to read a part of this letter from a Delta employee by the name of Susan Powell of Buford, GA. She writes: I have invested 31 years into a fabulous career at Delta [Air Lines] and I feel so blessed to have been able to work for such a wonderful company all these years. The intentions of the National Mediation Board are totally transparent and should not be tolerated by Congress--or any other body or individual (including President Obama) who claims to embrace honesty, fairness and ethics. It is abundantly clear to me that motivation of the newest . . . appointees to the National Mediation Board is to pave the way for an Association of Flight Attendants to gain entry into Delta Air Lines--I see no other justification for imposing voting rules on Delta flight attendants contrary to the voting rules applied to union elections at all other carriers. That is a key point. I have loved my career at Delta and I am so proud of the monumental efforts my company and my fellow employees have made to emerge from bankruptcy and return to profitability. I watched in horror years ago as the unions at Eastern Airlines single-handedly brought their own company to its knees--and I was forever grateful that I had chosen to work for Delta, as opposed to Eastern. It is my belief that an election in favor of the AFA will be the ruination of my company and the end of the blissful career I have enjoyed at Delta. I have tons of letters from Delta employees--including from many who were employed by NMA before the merger--that are just like the remarks made by Susan Powell. This is a great company, a company where, on one of its anniversaries, its employees raised the money internally to buy the company an anniversary jet for their fleet. Delta Air Lines is a great company that has operated under the National Mediation Board's regulations since it was incorporated as an airline carrier in the United States of America. Those regulations should continue without this pro-union change by the Obama Administration, as they should for everybody else in the 75-year history who has been granted their rights under a National Mediation Board regulation, which has served the industry well, served commerce in the United States of America well, and served transportation well. We should not allow two members of an appointed board to overturn 75 years of history and 75 years of precedent. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, on May 11, 2010, the National Mediation Board, the board that oversees labor relations in transportation--in the railroad and airlines industries--finalized a regulation repealing the 75-year-old majority rule. Under the majority rule, a majority of the organizing unit was required to affirmatively vote yes to unionize. The repeal of this rule means that now a minority in the bargaining unit can organize, essentially permanently, the entire organization of the unit. Today, I am asking this body to pass S.J. Res. 30 to undo this rule change under the procedures created by the Congressional Review Act of 1996. This law allows Congress to disapprove regulatory rules issued by Federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. This resolution will revoke a recent regulation promulgated by the National Mediation Board eliminating the old majority rule that had been in place for 75 years under 12 Presidential administrations. Under the old rules, a majority of the workers in the organizing unit were required to affirmatively vote yes in order to organize. Under the new rules, however, only a majority of those voting are required to vote yes to organize a union. Let me give you an example. If an organizing unit had 10,000 employees, under the 75-year-old rule, 5,001 would have had to vote affirmatively for a union. Under the new rule, if only 4,000 turned out to vote, only 2,001 would have had to vote affirmatively to be able to unionize. In fact, in large measure, it seems to me, it is kind of ``card check lite.'' There is no sound legal or policy basis for hastily changing a rule that has been in place and upheld repeatedly for 75 years. Throughout this time, the majority rule has furthered the primary purpose of the Railway Labor Act, which is ``to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein.'' The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the rule not once but twice. The National Mediation Board, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, previously rejected changes to the majority rule on four separate occasions. In fact, the National Mediation Board, under former President Jimmy Carter of Georgia, concluded that only Congress could make such a decision. Even the Obama administration's own Labor Department defended the soundness of the majority rule, writing on October 8, 2009: For 70 years, the Board has required, when there is no representative and just one organization is seeking to be representative, a majority of the workers in the craft or class to vote for that organization. In so doing, President Obama's own Labor Department argued that all past boards ``reasonably construed'' the Railway Labor Act. As former National Mediation Board Chairman Elizabeth Dougherty wrote in her strong dissent of the repeal of the majority rule, making this change ``would be an unprecedented event in the history of the National Mediation Board.'' She continued: Regardless of the composition of the board or the inhabitant of the White House, this independent agency has never been in the business of making controversial, one-sided rule changes at the behest of only labor or management. The majority rule is not unfair to organizing efforts, as over two- thirds of the 1,850 reported elections since 1935 have resulted in a union. Moreover, an average of 72 percent of airline and railroad employees are represented by unions, while only 8 percent of private- sector workers are union represented. One of the reasons the majority rule was approved is because recognition of a union under the Railway Labor Act is essentially permanent, and I reiterate that. The decision is essentially permanent and irrevocable. Thus, to reference my example earlier, the minority of 2,001 in an employee group of 10,000 could irrevocably unionize an organization and make it permanent. Quoting the Obama administration's Labor Department again: Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act does not provide for a decertification process. ``Does not provide for a decertification process.'' Therefore, the union's certification continues until another union makes a showing of interest to represent the respective class or craft. . . . Consequently, it is of utmost importance that a certified union has the support of the workers it is certified to represent. While existing practice allows for a cumbersome and slow ``straw man'' union disillusion process, the Railway Labor Act has no decertification process as there is under the National Labor Relations Act. The current ``straw man'' union disillusion process is Byzantine and nearly impossible for workers to use. This is how National Mediation Board Chairman Dougherty described the process: Employees who no longer wish to be represented by a union must select an individual to stand for election (the so- called ``straw man''), convince a majority of the eligible voters in the craft or class to sign authorization cards for that individual (while attempting to explain that this individual is not actually going to represent them), and then file an application with the Board. If the requisite showing of interest is met, an election is authorized, and the employees must either vote for the ``straw man,'' with the hope that he will later disclaim interest in representing the craft or class, or abstain from voting. What a ridiculous process that is. Unfortunately, the new rule allows no corollary process by which employees can choose to opt out of unionization. Thus, the Obama administration greatly lowers the bar for unionization, while continuing to ensure that it is nearly impossible to decertify a union. In Teamsters v. BRAC, the DC Circuit Court wrote: It is inconceivable that the right to reject collective representation vanishes entirely if the employees of a unit once choose collective representation. On its face, that is a most unlikely rule, especially taking into account the inevitability of substantial turnover of personnel within the unit. If the Obama administration truly sought to ``more accurately measure employee choice,'' they would have provided a parallel process by which employees could vote out a union in an election conducted in the same manner as the election which resulted in certification of the union in the first place. Of course, they did not do that. Quoting Chairman Dougherty again: Apparently, employee choice only matters to the Majority when it relates to changing the status quo from no representation to representation and not the other way around. The impact of this is dramatic in my State, and it has a dramatic impact on Delta Air Lines, which is headquartered in my State. On April 14, 2008, Delta and Northwest Airlines announced a merger. Before the merger, Delta was a predominantly nonunion organization. Its pilots were unionized, but flight attendants and ground personnel were nonunion. Delta employees--many of whom reside in Georgia--were and still are some of the most dedicated employees of any company in the United States, and some of the best paid employees in the airline industry, which explains why Delta employees have voted down six unionization drives since 2000 alone. Some of the former employees of Northwest, which was a much smaller operation than Delta, wish the new Delta to adopt their old labor agreements. Those old labor agreements at Northwest led to a long history of labor strife, lower pay, and burdensome work rules. I say, leave that decision up to the workers. If the benefits of union representation are so great, then why the need to change the rule? This administration simply refuses to obey the will of the majority of the class and has chosen to side with the union in the passing of this rule. As National Mediation Board Chairman Dougherty has written, the board's actions are targeted at ``40,000 employees at two major airlines--the largest group of elections in the history of the National Mediation Board. I believe it is harmful to the reputation and credibility of the [National Mediation] Board for it to take a position in favor of a change to our election rules during these elections.'' In short, we are here today for one reason and one reason only: The Obama administration has chosen to tilt the outcome of unionization elections at Delta Air Lines in favor of the transit unions. Let me discuss the integrity of this process that took place at the Board. Once confirmed by the Senate, revoking the majority rule was clearly job one for Members Puchala and Hoglander. Only 5 weeks after Mr. Hoglander was confirmed on July 24, 2009, the AFL-CIO requested the rule change on September 2, 2009. Two months later, on November 2, the National Mediation Board issued the proposed rule. Not coincidentally, the transit unions immediately withdrew their applications to organize Delta, giving Hoglander and Puchala more time to stack the deck in their favor. Public remarks of union leaders from the Association of Flight Attendants have since confirmed their insider knowledge of the proposed rule. On November 6, the Democratic members of the National Mediation Board told Chairman Dougherty they had prepared a ``final'' version of the proposed rule and she had only 1\1/2\ hours to consider their proposal. Further, the Democratic majority told her she would not be permitted to publish a dissent in the Federal Register. Of course, publication of a dissent is not prohibited by any agency. Finally, on May 11, 2010, the Democratic majority issued their final rule, having prevented an honest and forthright debate and comment--all of this from an administration that prides itself on transparency. Throughout their effort to repeal the majority rule, the Democratic majority and the National Mediation Board intentionally left Chairman Dougherty out of the process. As she wrote in her stinging dissent: ``This rule was drafted without my input or participation.'' I am concerned this course of conduct by two former union leaders plainly reflects a predetermination to proceed with a course of action beneficial to transit unions at the expense of fairness and sound public policy. Chairman Dougherty is correct when she writes: Independent agencies have an obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The Board's failure to do so in this instance has damaged the Board's reputation irreparably. Clearly, this administration is afraid that the Employee Free Choice Act, which it promotes, will not pass the Senate in the near future. As a result, President Obama has repeatedly assured union bosses in Washington that his administration will use the Federal regulatory agencies and Executive orders to implement their radical agenda on behalf of labor bosses in Washington. We are just beginning to see the impact that former union boss Craig Becker is having as a member of the NLRB. Mr. Becker was rejected by this body on a bipartisan vote. The President responded by thwarting the will of the Senate and extending to Mr. Becker a recess appointment. Since assuming his position, Mr. Becker has been anything but impartial to the unions. He has refused to recuse himself in cases involving his old employer, the SEIU, and is doggedly attempting to foster card check campaigns at businesses throughout the country. Last week, President Obama said: What we've done instead [of getting EFCA passed in the Senate] is try to do as much as we can administratively to make sure that it's easier for unions to operate. The repeal of the majority rule fits into this pattern. It is yet another attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the Congress of the United States and vilify American businesses. As the Supreme Court wrote in Russell v. National Mediation Board in 1985: Employees were given the right under the (Railway Labor) Act not only to vote for collective bargaining, but to reject it as well. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's two Democratic nominees to the National Mediation Board, in repealing a 75-year-old rule without congressional approval or adequate reasoning, have recklessly tossed aside fairness and impartiality to benefit their former labor bosses in the labor movement. In so doing, they have eviscerated the right the Supreme Court articulated. The Congressional Review Act is the appropriate legislative vehicle for Congress to undo this assault on workers' rights. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. I ask unanimous consent that letters supporting this resolution from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance for Worker Freedom, Americans for Limited Government, and Associated Builders and Contractors be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled ``Letters from Workers.''

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I keep hearing the argument that you should not count a ``no'' vote; it is undemocratic. Today, at 2:15, the Senate will vote on a cloture motion, and everyone who does not vote is counted as a ``no'' vote as it requires 60 votes out of 100 to get cloture. So we have to make that point from the outset, No. 1. No. 2, this is not about being antiunion or against unions or promanagement. This is about a 75-year-old history in the United States of America for the essential service of commerce in terms of railroads and airlines. We have historically had the National Mediation Board rule that required a majority of the people who would be affected in the class rather than just a simple majority of those voting for a very precise reason: because it is a permanent decision, as referenced by the quotes in letters from the Under Secretary of Labor. While I understand the chairman's remark that the Under Secretary of Labor is just the Under Secretary of Labor, she is the Under Secretary of Labor appointed by the President of the United States. While the chairman says the courts have ruled in favor of this particular ruling of the National Mediation Board, the Supreme Court has twice said they are wrong. Granted, those were in other cases. But twice the National Mediation Board authority has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and twice the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it. Even all the way back to 1976, President Jimmy Carter, from the State of Georgia, spoke eloquently about the importance of National Mediation Board rules and what it takes to unionize under that versus the NLRB. So I appreciate very much the arguments the Senator has made, but the facts are quite clear that it is better for the United States of America, it is better for workers in the transportation industry, and it has been historically upheld by the highest Court in the land that the rules of the National Mediation Board serve the people of the United States of America better than any other alternative that was presented. So with all due respect, I would quote that letter, once again, from the Delta flight attendant who talked about their 31-year experience. Why would you, in the cause of a merger, have a union request for an election pulled out to give a board enough time to change the rules under which that election would take place? It is not fair. I wish to also say the 1996 Congressional Review Act is very important. Congress ought to have a say-so in the action of boards of the executive branch. We do have a system of three branches of government. We do have a system of checks and balances. But it has obviously been, apparently--as in this case and in others--that this administration has attempted, where it can, to go around the authority of the Senate in advice and consent, by appointing czars or, in this case, to go around the Senate of the United States by using the National Mediation Board. I would respectfully submit this is a legitimate question--not of whether you are for a union or against one or prefer management and do not prefer a union--this is a debate about extending a 75-year-old precedent which has served the United States of America well and has been upheld in 12 administrations and by the Supreme Court twice. It has been argued favorably by those 12 administrations every time it has been challenged and by the current administration's documentation, which I submitted, which has shown this is a permanent decision at the National Mediation Board. I would submit, the right thing for us to do is to join together today and vote yes in favor of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 30. I respectfully urge my colleagues to do that. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I yield up to 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to pause and pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of a citizen of my home community, Judge Conley Ingram. In fact, in a few days a number of members of our community, his friends and associates over his career in law and community service, will join to celebrate his life and achievements and his birthday. He is a remarkable person whom I admire greatly because he has been a mentor to me and the example I have tried to follow. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend that particular program, but today on the floor of the Senate, I wanted to memorialize a true storied jurist of the State of Georgia, probably amongst the top three or four from our State in the history of our State. He is a man who stands shoulder to shoulder with men such as Griffin Bell, the former Attorney General of the United States, and former Assistant Attorney General Larry Thompson. Conley Ingram has done about everything you can do as an attorney and a lawyer. When he graduated from Emory University 59 years ago and went into the service, he taught at the Judge Advocate School in Charlottesville, VA. From there, he went on to be city attorney, special assistant attorney general, juvenile court judge of the County of Cobb, and went on to become superior court judge in the County of Cobb. He then founded his own law firm and ran it for a number of years until he became a justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. After leaving there, he went with the storied firm of Alston & Bird and became probably the Nation's most recognized arbitrator and mediator of any attorney in the country. And not to finish and not to quit, for the last 12 years he has been a senior special superior court judge in Cobb County, GA, serving all the time the citizens of our State. But his greatest service is the example he shows. He has been selected our Community Citizen of the Year. He received excellence awards for the legacy he has left not just for his work on the bench, not just his work as a lawyer, but his work for the betterment of the community, whether it is the Boys Club or the Girls Club, whether it is his church, or whether it is his neighborhood. But for me, there is one special thing to say about Judge Conley Ingram: He is a man who takes time for everybody. He is a man who is willing to help. He is a man who would rather find common ground in the interest of both parties than have a winner-take-all philosophy of life. Probably the greatest blessing of Conley Ingram's life is his wife Sylvia, whom my wife Dianne and I cherish as a dear friend. So this week in which our community will celebrate the many accomplishments of the 59 years of the practice of law of Judge Conley Ingram and his life in general, I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and say: Conley, thank you, not just for what you have done for me but what you have done for so many people in our great State and for this great country, the United States of America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.