Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support S.J. Res. 8. I thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee for bringing the resolution to the floor to disapprove the rule that the National Labor Relations Board has proposed that basically creates what are commonly referred to as ambush elections for votes to create labor unions in workplaces. The concerns I have with this NLRB mandate is that it is another draconian example of what I consider to be the hyperpartisan business and labor environment the National Labor Relations Board has created over the last several years. The NLRB is advancing a pro-union agenda nationwide in the guise of government policy. The NLRB's proposed policy is simply not necessary, particularly in light of the fact that some 70 percent of union organizing elections already succeed under the NLRB's current policy. Clearly the pro-union majority of the National Labor Relations Board is not satisfied with unions winning 70 percent of the time. They now want to run up the score so the unions win 100 percent of the time. Many people, when they think about labor unions and organizing, think about big business, but I am here to talk about the negative effect this proposal will have on small businesses. A 50-employee operation or a 250-employee operation, is a business that does not have the legal, financial, or administrative resources that a big business has to be able to react in the short timeframe the NLRB wants to mandate. Today the median time for holding elections on labor union organizing petitions is about 38 days. This rule would bring that down to just 8 days before an election would be required to be held. This would make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of America's small businesses to respond to the unionization effort and many of the employees themselves who may not want to be unionized would be swept aside by the compressed timeframe as well. We have several examples of this in North Carolina, but rather than get into a lot of details, I will just explain why this new ambush election rule is not needed. The petitions to unionize workplaces are already handled expeditiously. As I said, the average or median time for holding a vote is now 38 days. And again, the success rate for the unions is 70 percent. Let me say that again, 70 percent of the elections that are held under the NLRB's current rules result in employees being unionized. By turning elections into this sort of ambush will put small businesses at a severe disadvantage against the powerful unions targeting them. For instance, take one small trucking company down in Greensboro, NC, that would suffer serious economic consequences if this rule goes into effect. Guy M. Turner, Inc. was founded by two brothers in 1924 and 90 years later it is still a family owned business employing less than 250 people, clearly it is not a mega-corporation. Yet, if the NLRB imposes this new rule, this family business will have: little time to obtain competent counsel to counter union targeting of the company, little time to answer questions, marshal facts, or prepare arguments to share with their employees regarding the potential consequences and effects of unionization. And if that were not bad enough, under the NLRB's new proposal, employers would also be prohibited from expressing any views regarding the unionization effort--thus essentially eliminating the employer's right to free speech regarding the potential adverse effects of unionization on the workplace and the company's future viability. However, the NLRB's new rule would impose no such restrictions on a big union's right to speak in favor of unionization or the future benefits they promise it will deliver. A little common sense and a hard look at reality clearly demonstrates that the regulations enforced today are working not only effectively, but in favor of large unions most of the time. I hope Senators will support Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar Alexander, and the thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of employees, who oppose this regulation because it is an unnecessary and ill-advised effort to tilt the playing field in the workplace totally in favor of the large labor unions and their efforts to unionize the American workplace. I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Marsha Blackburn, have introduced legislation that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from pre-empting States with municipal broadband laws already on the books, or any other States that subsequently adopt such municipal broadband laws. The bill also includes a Sense of Congress stating that the FCC should not impose municipal broadband regulations on any state. Earlier today, the FCC took an unprecedented and legally questionable step to allow Wilson, North Carolina, to ignore North Carolina law when expanding its municipal broadband network. The North Carolina law the FCC preempted is intended to protect taxpayers and consumers from the financial risks we have seen many municipalities, including Wilson, face when venturing into broadband ventures that are best left to the private market to provide. After witnessing how some local governments wasted taxpayer dollars and accumulated millions in debt through poor decision making, the legislatures of states like North Carolina and Tennessee passed commonsense, bipartisan laws that protect hardworking taxpayers and maintain the fairness of free-market competition. Representative Blackburn and I recognize the need for Congress to step in and take action to keep unelected bureaucrats from acting contrary to the expressed will of the American people through their State legislatures.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Marsha Blackburn, have introduced legislation that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from pre-empting States with municipal broadband laws already on the books, or any other States that subsequently adopt such municipal broadband laws. The bill also includes a Sense of Congress stating that the FCC should not impose municipal broadband regulations on any state. Earlier today, the FCC took an unprecedented and legally questionable step to allow Wilson, North Carolina, to ignore North Carolina law when expanding its municipal broadband network. The North Carolina law the FCC preempted is intended to protect taxpayers and consumers from the financial risks we have seen many municipalities, including Wilson, face when venturing into broadband ventures that are best left to the private market to provide. After witnessing how some local governments wasted taxpayer dollars and accumulated millions in debt through poor decision making, the legislatures of states like North Carolina and Tennessee passed commonsense, bipartisan laws that protect hardworking taxpayers and maintain the fairness of free-market competition. Representative Blackburn and I recognize the need for Congress to step in and take action to keep unelected bureaucrats from acting contrary to the expressed will of the American people through their State legislatures.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, earlier this week--actually, yesterday and today--the Department of the Interior announced a plan that will allow the permitting in 2017 for offshore oil and gas drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf of our beautiful east coast. The concern we have with this measure is not unlike the concern my friends may have in Alaska, with steps taken by the administration that actually limit the true potential of these regions. Like Alaska, we have a number of opportunities for offshore oil and natural gas drilling that have not been exploited in the past, and I am afraid that under the current course and speed of the administration's action, they will not be fully exploited to the benefit of North Carolinians and many east coast States. That is why Senator Burr and I have sponsored an amendment that directs the administration to take more decisive and more comprehensive action so we can seize the opportunity for North Carolina and many of our neighbor States. The main reason we are doing this is because I think North Carolina and the east coast can do their part to make our Nation an energy super power. We can also have enormously positive impact on our economy as we move forward. This slide depicts some of the initial estimates for the economic impact that we could have by simply directing the Department of the Interior to issue leases and to allow exploration and ultimately extraction off the coast. This graphic gives us an idea, from Delaware down to Florida, of the potential jobs creation. We can see that in North Carolina that is 55,000 jobs. It is 55,000 jobs in some of the hardest hit areas of North Carolina, where people are out of work, and the unemployment rate is well above the State average. It is a jobs creation opportunity that we are just waiting to be able to provide to the States with the ultimate authority to decide whether they are going to move forward. In terms of the economic impact, it is over $190 billion in capital investment and nearly $51 billion in revenue to the Federal Government and to State governments between 2017 and 2035. This opportunity is something that I hope doesn't go without the full efforts of the State to actually determine how we can do it in an environmentally responsible way. I was speaker of the house before I came into this great body, and we took the steps to put into place a regulatory framework to allow potential natural gas drilling within the State of North Carolina. We did it in a very responsible way, and we did it in a way that made sure stakeholders had the opportunity--environmentalists, business people, travel and tourism--so we make sure we get it right. I believe we have laid the groundwork with the State. Now we want to do the same thing for the opportunity that we have near the Outer Continental Shelf. The process will involve the input of several stakeholders. It will involve the input of environmentalists and key stakeholders across the State to make sure we get this right. Ultimately, it gives the States the right to determine whether they want to pursue this--from Florida to Delaware. The other thing it does is addresses a number of concerns I heard when I was a legislator and since I was speaker. It has to do with one of the greatest assets we have in North Carolina; that is North Carolina's beautiful coast. This is a picture of a North Carolina beach today. It is beautiful. It is why we have millions of people come visit our coast every year. Based on our amendment, this is a picture of how that same beach will look after we authorize drilling and we are actually creating those jobs. It is that same beautiful beach because we have taken the steps to make sure that any drilling would be beyond the sight line of our beautiful beaches. I believe, as a result, we will have travel and tourism on our side because those jobs create additional opportunity to expand opportunities for travel and tourism. Then, finally, I want to talk about what good the revenue to the State can do for this very same area. We desperately need increased infrastructure in the eastern part of our State. We desperately need funds to renourish our beaches, and we desperately need funds to clear our inlet and outfit our ports so that North Carolina can play a part in the new shipping patterns that will occur post-Panama Canal upgrade. So in terms of economics, it is fairly simple. We are looking for about 50 percent of a revenue share, with 37 percent of that going to the States and for the effective regions for items such as inlet clearing and beach renourishment. We are also looking to have 12.5 percent of the revenues dedicated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund so we can continue the good work of setting aside irreplaceable lands and increase outdoor recreation activities. I believe this is an opportunity for North Carolina to do its part to make America the energy super power that we need it to be, to improve our economy in North Carolina, and to contribute to improving the economy of this great Nation.

Mr. TILLIS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 102.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, long before I was actually sworn into the Senate, I traveled across the State of North Carolina. I promised the citizens of North Carolina that I would work toward commonsense solutions to provide opportunities for economic growth and opportunity. Today I hope to send forth amendment No. 102 with the support of my good friend Senator Burr from North Carolina on the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, to take a look at things that we can do to do our part in North Carolina to contribute to the ultimate goal of energy independence in this Nation. The amendment, the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Access and Revenue Share Act of 2015, will expand domestic offshore production, natural gas exploration and production, which, in turn, will create jobs and set our Nation on that track to energy independence. Families across the country are too familiar with the impact energy prices play in our day-to-day lives, making decisions that are very difficult for them in these difficult economic situations. When utility bills and gas prices increase, hard-working Americans face hardship and struggle to make ends meet. We need to make that easier and lift the burden on those hard-working taxpayers. We also cannot underestimate the great impact energy plays in America's foreign policy decisions. We are in many ways dependent on oil from the Middle Eastern States that do not share our democratic values. The predicament does not certainly place America in a position of strength. America has more energy potential than any other nation. It is time that we start realizing its full potential. What the amendment does is fairly straightforward. It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to finalize the 5-year program for 2017 to 2022. That includes annual lease sales in both the Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf and the South Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf region. It grants to States in both of these regions a 37.5-percent share of all revenues collected from the Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities. Each State in the region gets a minimum of a 10-percent share of that allocation. It directs 12.5 percent of the revenues collected for the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf activities to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 37.5 percent for the States and the 12.5 percent for other regions mirrors the revenue split given to the Gulf Coast States--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--under current law. North Carolina has received approximately $209 million in funding over the past 5 decades, protecting places such as the Cape Lookout National Seashore, the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. The Department of Interior is currently developing a 5-year leasing program for 2017 to 2022. The language of the amendment merely instructs the Department to include the Mid-Atlantic and the South Atlantic regions as part of that plan. Current law requires that the Department of Interior give deference to the preferences of States when developing a leasing plan for areas within 50 miles of the shore. Keep in mind, the drilling that we are talking about in North Carolina, off our coast, is greater than 30 miles off the coast, far beyond the site horizon of our beautiful beaches in North Carolina. I want to close by saying why we are moving this amendment now. First, it is the fulfillment of a promise I made to the citizens of North Carolina. It also does enormous progress for creating jobs and helping our economy get back on track in the State and the region. It is estimated that more than 55,000 jobs can be created by 2035; more than $4 billion annually in economic contributions to the State of North Carolina. Almost $4 billion in government revenue for the State of North Carolina--$4 billion. As someone who served as Speaker of the House of North Carolina, I cannot tell you what an enormous impact that will have in terms of reducing the burden on taxpayers and businesses in North Carolina, creating more opportunities for economic expansion and job growth. There will be up to $577 million annually in revenue share payments according to a report published by the Southeast Energy Alliance in 2009. These numbers increase opportunities in North Carolina unlike anything I saw in my 8 years in the State legislature. It is an opportunity for North Carolina to do its part to make the Nation energy independent and to help me fulfill my promises to the citizens of North Carolina, which is to create jobs and provide great opportunities for this generation and future generations.