>> i don't recall those words. >> or anything like them? is that your evidence, mr. murdoch? >> i don't remember those words or words like that. it was a short meeting -- >> [inaudible] ransom because although his case is worth much less, um, he knows that we know that the reputational harm to the company would be so great that a vast overvalue of the claim has to be made by way of settlement to get rid of it. did you have that communicated to you? >> that's not the gist of what was communicated to me. >> doesn't that very fact emerge from the next file note, jcp13, 10th of june, jcp13 is -- sorry, 62326 -- 62426 which is really mr. crone reporting back to

mr. pike. mr. pike is running the litigation, mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yep. .. >> the answer came add 01659,

page 80, which did go to you. mission accomplished. this is to mr. michel. former sky -- [inaudible] were contacted mr. cable, rather than getting in political games, in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. he also emphasized the opportunity to mr. cable to show -- partners working for long-term and will draw from the coalition government. then we can see the second political point. very keen to also put these issues across to cable. recall with you tomorrow, wednesday, the scottish press on the economic importance of news corp. for scotland.

i think you did have a conversation with them, did you, mr. murdoch? >> i think i did, but mr. jay, i think you characterized, page 18, the note that starts mission accomplished on how the answer to to talk to with respect to mr. cable. and i don't think the two are related. for clarity, i think 16 is vincent main adviser suggesting that would lord oakeshott be contacted or other, or, and then this is a separate point on 18, which is mr. michel, who basically started speaking to some scottish politicians where as we discussed earlier, british sky broadcasting is a major employer, to make some of the economic arguments with respect investment. i think we have to recall that this merger was about the creation of a television

platform with major operations in the united kingdom. and particularly that meant potentially quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in scotland where technical support, i.t., service centers, et cetera were located for british sky broadcasting as an important employer. that's entirely straightforward to reach out, normal for business to reach out to advocate and legitimately the economic benefits of a transaction or business as it were. i don't see that there's anything related to the of the peace in this e-mail. this is just legitimate advocacy. >> teach you through the process of in discussion with alex salmond shortly thereafter? >> i had a discussion with alex salmon at some point in your. making many of the same point as was i'm sure other agenda items.

>> speak to we just look at your page 21, page 801662, you were copied on. vince's adviser just called me. he discussed the state of the process. he promised to make sure -- submissions by thursday afternoon. he will then schedule a face-to-face chat. so i think that's in reference to the adviser was going to read the submissions. indeed, the adviser didn't region, page 22, because the adviser texted mr. michel stating that it was his view you put up a very strong case which would stand you in good stead on this.

the next page, 01664, when you send e-mail on the eighth of november 2010, just four days after mr. cable had issued a european intervention notice. do you recall that? >> yes. and i would note that the previous e-mail i think is on the day or thereabouts when the european intervention notice was put. >> saying that our case with strong with respect to our brief. >> the gist of the e-mail 01664, page 23, this is a call with mr. cable's main adviser, really along the lines, paraphrased, that they didn't want a meeting at that stage between news corp.'s to cable. you can see they also wanted to be able to say it was an independent view, -- we would

like things to be. then we can see that the bottom i also have schedule with others on this. mr. cable was taking an appropriate line, wasn't he, in terms of not wishing to have a meeting? he wanted to have an independent view, would you agree? >> now, i actually think it would been entirely appropriate, and the reason i thought it, driving meeting with mr. cable and his advisers to be able to lay out some of the issues, as we saw them, and to be able to lay out both the rationale for the transaction and also our analysis of the relevant around and competition concerns. it's self evident in what emerged over the next 12 months,

namely, i guess it was december when he was removed in an interview he made afterwards, that he was taking other peoples advice, which is very frustrating because really, you know, all we wanted to do was be able to sit down in a proper way and say, here are the issues, you, the secretary of state should consult on this and you should be listening, we know you will be listening and inform all the noise row, please let us make our case. >> page 24, 01665, mr. michel to you, mr. michel had a meeting with harrison who i think as we established before lunch is a special adviser to mr. george osborne, is that right? >> that is what he said earlier, yes. >> this was a way into finding out what was going on at a high level, and we can see that from the text of the e-mail.

firm tensions in the coalition around his cable and his current policy positions, this made a political decision. this is the issue of the intervention notice, probably without even reading the legal advice, as confirmed was also by vicki price and david lord yesterday. do you think it's appropriate, mr. murdoch, that here you are getting confidential information as to what's going on at the high level in government? >> i think, i think that, what i was concerned with here was the substance of what was being communicated, not necessarily the channel by which it was being communicated. mr. michel's job was to engage with special advisors at the political level, with westminster to put it broadly, that is what a public affairs executive does. he reports back what he is being told. and at no point in here did he or the company put forward, you

know, anything illegitimate or inappropriate. i was concerned here with the substance of what i was doing. i thought you're about to ask do you think it's appropriate to the decision without reading any of the legal advice. >> that stinks for itself, mr. murdoch. >> that was the thing that stood out to me in all of these communication. it was the substance of what was being communicated more than reflecting on the channel. >> maybe this is your view, and i'm not saying it is right or wrong, but if he is prepared to speak to mr. michel, and speak indiscreetly, that's a matter of mr. harrison, but mr. michel simba doing his job? >> mr. michel is reporting back what he is hearing, in some cases he is calling people on others as you just refer to him in the, he's receiving telephone calls unprompted. and channel of communication exists that is just additional to really the important channels, which were voluminous submissions that we are making

to the secretary of state and to his people, and to whom ever else asked for the. >> from the enough, mr. sam and dashed mr. sam and -- i would like to move forward please do your page 26, two are buried there 1667. >> yes. >> fifteenth of november 2010, jeremy, that's jeremy hunt, tried to call you. it looks as if mr. hunt was trying to call you, mr. murdoch, directly, is that your understanding? >> that seems to be what it says, that mr. hunt tried to call me. >> he has received very strong legal advice not to miss today as the current process is treated as a judicial one, not a policy one. and any meeting could be referred to and jeopardize the entire process. jeremy is very frustrated about it.

secretary is now also being involved. what do you understand by that? >> i understood that there was a meeting scheduled with mr. hunt, and presumably advisors, and i certainly bring along my public affairs executive. and that it was canceled because of advice that as a minister he shouldn't meet with someone who had an issue before the government. >> what was the date on which mr. cable was responsible to responsibly was passed on? >> a month later. december. >> thank you. and again, mr. jay, you know, i was seeking to have entirely transparent, you know, conversations with policymakers and around the place but because by this point we were obviously extremely frustrated by the things we were hearing. i would also add a lot of the communications that were coming back from government, from politicians, i took with a grain of salt year given the fact

we've been hearing many, many times, people speaking after the sides of the mouth it seems to me and all the key medications we had come up to. >> aside from the point that mr. hunt didn't have carriage of the decision at this stage, it was mr. cable, what you're being told here was that government was receiving strong legal advice. that this was a judicial process, meetings were inappropriate. did you understand that to be the case? >> i understood that was the advice he was getting. it said that he was frustrated, and i was frustrated by it as well because there was nothing inappropriate i thought about being able to advocate a reasonable position, which was that the government should be applied appropriately because, particularly when we heard as a saw and enough before that perhaps that wasn't a process that been followed earlier. >> whatever the position before, mr. murdoch, you were being told that as this was a judicial

process and not a policy issue, it was inappropriate to have certainly formal meetings, and by parity of reason, informal meetings, because that was come have a propensity to subvert the judicial process. spent and i didn't have any in formal meetings. this was, i understood to be that mr. hutt would not be taking direct meeting from here on in. >> so you understood that it was inappropriate because this was a judicial process to have formal meetings with the secretary of state, did you? >> that seems to be what this does. i didn't agree with the point, and i was, you know, i'm not sure which are coming to. i was displeased with the decision. >> the e-mail from mr. michel continues. my advice would be not to meet him today. it would be counterproductive for everyone. but you could have a chat with him on his mobile which is

completely fine, and i will liaison that his team privately as well which suggest if you do it surreptitiously, by direct mobile phone contact, well then no one will find out about it. that's what he is telling you, is in its? >> i didn't take it to mean sententiously. i took a commitment to a small telephone call he wanted to speak to you would be fine. but there was no understand in my mind that a telephone call would replace a meeting that was to be substantive where we could make the case that we want to make. and i'm sure, by the way, there were lots of other things on the agenda to meet with him at the time, most notably the ip review, the next-generation access networks, legislation, all of the normal things that actually we were not able to discuss at all because of this idea that we weren't able to government leaders. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hunt on his mobile phone? >> i believe he called me to apologize for canceling the meeting, but i don't have a

specific recollection, but i think that is what is in the records. >> your reply, which is the one reply which may be relevant, at the time of 1202 time in early afternoon, you must be halfway joking, fine, i will text him and find time. so you were angry speakers as i said earlier i was displeased. >> did you get advice as to what a judicial process such as this amend? and also what would be or would not be appropriate or news corp. to be doing in relation to officials and ministers who were responsible for the judicial process? >> with respect to judicial process, my understand was that the secretary of state had a

responsibility to take into account the advice that he was receiving from his advisers and that they would receive submissions from various parties in putting that forward to him. our only concern in this, and i think a lot of these communications will keep going, we're really around that, around the process itself, because remember, under the enterprise action this was uncharted territory. we hadn't really done this before with the secretary of state doing this. and to the timetables, how many submissions, what other bodies would be consoled and what wouldn't be consulted at different phases, and it was something that, you know, a matter of dialogue with the relevant authorities as we went through it. and that is why i can, what a public affairs executive does is try to have an understanding of those things and keep the process moving along. >> the next few pages, starting at 01668, show mr. michel was

also trying to work on the specialist -- special, partner, advisor, mr. cable, and mr. wilkes who was mr. cable's advisor was saying that that would be inappropriate. >> are on you on pages 27 and 28? >> he refers to example to his being sure that we're both equally interested in staying within the bounds of proper conduct your warning of mr. michel lay off, isn't he? >> but i think mr. -- i can't speculate or i was on any of these e-mails, but actually what we've seen given the process that the department for business innovation and skills have gone through, they didn't want any dialogue and they didn't want, they did what of anyone talking to him about the process because they hadn't had one. >> okay.

page 31, 016 -- spent proper reading of his e-mail requires to go to the bottom. mr. michel is saying to mr. wilk, well, so that means nobody else has spoken. you have not met anyone else, and asking someone, pointedly, and he is responding well it happens the only thing i have, and, of course, we've got to stay in proper conduct, and the top was as i understand, i was only being cheeky in a friendly way. >> and he doesn't back off. -- he doesn't back off. >> the next e-mail that was sent to you was an early evening of the 15th november, page 01672, your page 31, when mr. michel tells you can he just had a conversation with his main advisor regarding meeting they might've had with the

transaction given rumors we here. so he might have a meeting. >> where are you in this? >> i apologize. >> i have the page, just not -- >> i think at one stage, i'm not sure exactly when, there was a meeting between mr. cable and the complainant to the transaction, wasn't there? >> we understand that to be the case, but it is being, they are saying it didn't happen here. this group of people, i don't think the ft, although the resort outside it, and very publicly come together. i think they call themselves and the lines. they capitalized it. and they had a pr firm and illegal firm, that was doing a lot of lobbying on the other side. >> on the 17th of november, not within these e-mails, you gave a speech at barcelona, do

your number that? >> it was a presentation at an investor conference. >> you appreciate that presentation, it was by some a threat to the government over a reference to the competition commission, wasn't it? >> i think it was miscast as that in the uk press. at the time, the initial wire stories and things like that, and i've gone back and looked and played pretty straight, it was simply an argument about the economic benefits and an argument about potential disincentive to invest around lengthy and uncertain regulatory processes. >> it wasn't a gentle message to government to get on with it? >> it was a clear message to say that uncertain and lengthy regular processes were a disincentive to invest, and they made harder for businesses who have a lot of choices to invest around the world. particularly news corporation, to make decisions to invest in

those areas where the uncertainty existed but i think any business person would agree with it. and anyone would take it entirely reasonable to advocate that position. >> page 32, e-mail, mr. michel to you, 19th of november, lord oakshott is told today by cable advisors to approach any meeting with lord oakshott, and intro discussion. is the rubicon the internal company name for the -- >> it was just a project codenamed among internal documents. >> and possible way forward. next e-mail, i had a discussion with hves advisors next wednesday to update on ofcom, the next steps. why was there continual interaction with mr. hutt at

this stage when he didn't have a responsibility for deciding that it? >> i think the view was that we wanted any interested party in policymaking to be able to see the relevant arguments and the relevant submissions given that we were concerned about the process and we want to make sure that the relevant process, the right process and the relevant legal tests were applied. so we were happy to provide documents, argument, official copies of submissions, et cetera, is ministers advisers wanted them. >> the e-mail continues, jeremy has also asked me to send them relevant documents privately. do you know which documents those were? >> i would imagine it was things like submissions, things that were the official documents just that he could have been. but i am speculating. >> do you know whether that happen? >> i don't. i think so because i think, in reading all these the other day, that there are some that say

they have written them but i don't know if that's advisors. >> i move forward to your page 36, our pages or 1677, mr. michel reporting back to you on the second december, 2010. michel has spoken to the advisors about the deputy prime minister and the prime minister. do you see that? >> yes. >> particularly the emboldened bullet point, message coming from the deputy prime minister's adviser on the discussion on the importance to get labour on board, cover with the transaction. that begin is damaging the importance of the political damage, isn't? >> which they were telling us to focus on.

>> will you look, please, at page 38, 01679, 14th of december, in order to understand it is, the 10th of december, 2010 -- [inaudible] identifying the key issues which would need to be addressed in relation to the merger. we know that from another exhibit but we're not going to look at it. now, the right order, from reading these e-mails, can you look at the e-mail first, the second e-mail on page 38, 01679, because that comes first at the time.

>> yes. >> that's michel to you. very good be brief without on the issues but he's pretty amazed i findings methodology and clear process. he very much shares our views on it. we're going to try to find a way for you to meet with him, one to one, before christmas. because we don't know whether that reference to mr. hunt is mr. hunt in person or special adviser, to hear -- do we? >> now. spent this general question, mr. murder, when you're getting these e-mails through, did you -- with all the references to mr. hunt asked of him personally, or did you interpret them more widely as being a reference to his advisor or to his office because i think it is and he was communicating through his office. i would have assumed that in

that the minister is busy, doing all the other things a minister has to do so i didn't assume it was all direct. >> and the next -- >> but i think you can appreciate just, again, the channel wasn't my primary concern your come was the content of these notes which were confirming our concerns, our lease providing other people seem to agree with our concerns about the process. >> well, this time the issues letter emanates, it is anything to do with governance that i think it's an issues letter issued to our response to the second state had made a little while before. the issues letter identified issues, and then it comes out, and then people opine, event out, publishers, and more formal report on and i didn't come until the end of december.

this is part of the same process and gives, gives interested parties an idea of what sort of things they're going to be weighing up and thinking about in terms of how they determine what to do. >> i think we understand it's process. but the e-mail chain going upward, mr. michel, pardon me, it's rebekah brooks. i think mr. michel tasha yes, it is mr. michel forwarding or adding an e-mail to e-mail, isn't it? >> i think it might be a separate one. it's rebekah brooks 13 minutes later sending an e-mail to you and to mr. michel clear that rebekah brooks has spoken to either george osborne or his office the message is -- total

bafflement and response. so you're also getting insight into what mr. osborne thinks about the issues letter, or to speak it may not have been the issues letter. remember there was a general bafflement at ofcom's view, because most people would assume it controlled sky already. >> mr. osborne's list of meetings prior to this, this conversation with mrs. brooks is described as a general discussion, but maybe you can consider that. higher up the page, mr. michel is e-mailing you and mrs. brooks, referring to the back from a spokesman close to mr. gable. i think the feedback we learn on

page 39, 01680, at mr. michel has just spoken to his main adviser, neither date put forward to meeting with vince early january is likely to work since he's out of the country. so there's a possibility the meeting it to january, do you see that? >> i took a lot of the communicate should from the politicians with a big grain of salt because they have been, this is now six months into this process. hadn't been able to get a meeting with a relevant adviser. we heard conflicting accounts of whether or not he was willing to look at al events or not went to look at evidence. we had evidence from ofcom that was hard to understand where they were going. so the whole thing at this point was very frustrating. >> next page, page 40, 01681,

mr. michel to you. you just had a chat with the chief of staff regarding the ordinary process. he was very surprised him and appointed unto him the cable will be attended to take a decision with a lot of political influence. it's a matter for the secretary of state with the statute obligations. it happens that is 100% correct. that he was unclear, therefore, wide news corp. is seeking at the views of people who have no decision in the decision-making process and thinking their view in their case with the political. why were you doing that? >> because vince's main adviser many months before had advised us to do so. >> i can paraphrase, mr. cable

was keen to make up his own mind and not being influenced by anyone, although you were -- >> were separate trying to make the case that a clear process should be put in place around us, and any relevant legal test that is clearly understood should be applied. i don't think that's influencing. that is a let us make the site of the i got one way or the other so he can see, so he can have the right inputs to make a decision. >> okay. page 41, 01682, now the early evening of the 21st of december, 2010, and mr. cables remarks to two persons posing as his members of his constituency but, in fact, journalists, it's clear that mr. michel had spoken to either mr. clegg's chief of staff for his special adviser,

just spoke to me is absolutely furious that mr. clayton was absolutely furious, or his advisor is, doesn't matter which, said cable's comments unacceptable. iran through the cable about to be blackmailed. do you know what that was about? >> blackmail? i didn't -- oh, i think it is because when the comets came out, they had been well, i guess is on tv but also mr. pashtuns, from the bbc's blog, came out and apparently the telegraph who have done the recording of a number of liberal democrats at that time had gotten this recording and then had published it as the fall transcript of

without the relevant piece about news corporation. i think mr. cables that something like, they're under attack from everywhere, and i declared war on mr. murdoch, and he will stop the bskyb transaction. important uses that's the reason why it's good to be in coalition government because they can do things like this as opposed to just protesting opposition. i'm paraphrasing there. that whole piece was left out of the telegraph, and given their prominent role in the so-called alliance against us, you know, that was cause for some, you know, concern of ours and we thought it was pretty inappropriate. >> and then the demand by oakshott. with lord oakeshott, any off copies or what ever it is, there were suggestions made of investing the times and other things like that. that i just wouldn't engage in because i thought that only the relevant legal test should be the matter at hand.

>> well, the reference to mr. clegg's office being furious, mr. cables, is being unacceptable, that must though be a reference to mr. cables remarks that he wanted, he wanted to declare war on murdoch? >> or that he had. i think it was, it was an exposure of acute bias, i mentioned earlier. >> page 42, 01683, we are now christmas eve. mr. michel, you and others, mr. michel just spoke to jh, must have spoken to mr. hunter directly. this is the last of the communications which is

mr. hunter directly, according to mr. michel's witness statement, that he was very happy to meet to be point of contact with them. add-on is special adviser to mr. hunter on behalf of jr am going forward. very important to avoid giving the anti-any opportunity -- to affect the process and find that political level, while also legal teams are in touch. so to be clear, by the series mr. hunt is now being seized with response before making a decision, hadn't he? >> yeah, that's right. and my understanding is this is, we have sought to understand what the right way to liaise with, now that the response that had passed to them and it appeared this was their answer. >> so the answer seems to be well, they can't be direct contact, mr. hunt and mr. moore.com but there can be

in direct contact through mr. michel and mr. himes special adviser, that's right, is in its because i think it is direct contact between mr. smith and mr. michel. i read it to be nothing inappropriate about outages as a people's advisors and their staff would coordinate and communicate throughout the process. >> i'm not quite sure that's what this is thing. what mr. michel is income is very important to avoid giving the anti-in your opportunity to attack the fairness of the process. so he's saying that if there were direct contact, mr. murdoch and mr. hunt, that would give them an opportunity to object to the fairness of the process and i would try to ask them directly if we do on the political pfizer and mr. michel, well then, that

risk is reduced. >> but mr. hutt come in january, did meet with me and with all of his advisor, and those are the meetings you referred to earlier and was a forming process where we can make our case in which is what we always saw. i understand he also took meetings with other constituents in this whole piece from people against the deal and so on and so forth. but that coordination sort of, coordination by staff was normal part of making sure that process moved along. >> mr. himes undertaken to you on advice, formal meeting. we've seen the meetings of those meetings, where okay, that would not intend them, the process. there was informal contact. that would be inappropriate and the way to avoid the appearance of that is that the informal contact take place secretly

between mr. michel and the special adviser. do you see the point? >> mr. jay, i've respect we disagree with a pointer i think is in in from contact with me or mr. hutt or others, would raise eyebrows. they would say what was discussed at center, but you are contact at the political level at you will, at the staff level, process, ran document submissions, around, just to give color around these things that that was something that was acceptable and that was part of the process he was setting up. >> it may depend on what the contact was about, would you agree? >> i suppose we'll. i assume we'll keep going through this. >> we'll see this contact that took place as the months and see. we might, we might begin to see whether they fell into the appropriate locks or the inappropriate box. let's look at the next one. new year's eve, page 43, 01684, you are not party to this one.

jeremy hunt and his chief have not received it yet. that it -- just bear with me. was the ofcom report on the bed, which was published that day. we will let you know if they do today. we already know privately jeremy will not look at this before next wednesday, not to be repeated. so, what did you do choose from that? >> i didn't really. i just defused from this whole piece that ofcom come were keeping us informed and mr. himes office was in a dialogue and we are waiting for this report to be released so that we could digest it and understand what the issues may be. and i think earlier on its head mr. hunt was away or something

like that so it probably was just he is a way and he will not read it right away. >> move forward to page 46, 01687. mr. michel spoke to hunt, well, according to mr. michel statement, we must read that in hunt's office, or heinz adviser, more likely and not mr. hunt directly. but you're getting an insight here into mr. himes thinking. he is relaxed regarding ftp to more. amazed by what is citing the confidential e-mail to guardian there i think related to phone hacking issues, and reuters. and hope they will launch inquiry into. he said were about stand with

the still doing the session with cms committee thursday and we shall not tell anyone. a little bit later on he understands, hunt understands -- >> sorry, we should tell everyone. spent what did i say? >> the opposite. >> pardon me. he understands the cc referral and the potential damage for the day. so this is, this is hunt, mr. hunt part me. inside current state of affairs which you are receiving directly from his special adviser, aren't you? >> as i understand, that this is the feedback that we heard. and i think important thing here is to look at, sand lake is working for the parties against the associated newspapers, british telecom, who else is in

there? bbc was the first and they cannot come "the guardian" was in there. that group of complainants. and what they're doing talking to the cms committee about i don't know, but they were the pr firm advising a plurality on the proposal that we're making. and i think it's important as what that there was lots of selective leaking going on around this time and is burning also slaughters an mating that had been commissioned around the issue of four out of. dealing with incomplete information and we didn't have, we did know what information of the people it seemed that we are told they were seen quite a lot. >> you are also being given confidential information here as hunt discussions, the bottom of the e-mail. we see that. he, that is mr. hutt, challenged on the rationale. had was adamant the threshold was very low. so the only option, he also challenged him on sufficiency a

plurality. ed repeated the same concerns which were in the report. did you think it was appropriate that you receiving inside into private conversations between ofcom and the sector estates because i'm not sure how accurate they were anyways but i told you before, mr. jay, all this was taken with a grain of salt, given what we're going to pick him in the in the event, mr. hutt took everything word of ofcom's advice all the way up until we withdrew the transaction. so it doesn't really, this may have just been coming from his advisor, coloring tried to make nice, while behind the scenes they were just going to follow everything that ofcom and the os he said which in the event is exactly what happened. stick i think you're making the point, one can't necessarily -- the agassi of what appears to be but you did say at that time, did you? >> now, but what i said i've taken all the with a grain of salt. we were given with politicians

and we have seen in the earlier e-mails that they were one way and then the next, trying to have a conversation. mr. michel, who is a public affairs executive, his job is to have that conversation and listen and then come back. >> you look at pages 48 and 49, our pages 01689, and 01690, you see a -- mr. smith said to mr. michel, there's much more formal e-mail, isn't? >> i'm just reading it. >> it could effectively be, be sent and received while the informal, perhaps inappropriate e-mails were looking at

previously. do you notice the difference and don't? >> i think this is a formal letter about the process. which is something we would have, i mean, again, most of these e-mails in here, and as we continue to go through them all really about the process and our concern that the appropriate things were being considered, that they're being considered in the a program way, and that our legal arguments were heard, you know, around the place. this is, this is a large-scale transaction that was in the hands with respect to the decision-making process of the department of culture, media and sport, we're going to get into in a minute, the undertakings in luke that were extracted, the concession, the remedy, if you will, and it was entirely reasonable to try to communicate with the relevant policymakers about the merits of what we were

proposing. >> we can see on page 51, 01692, an example of a rather different e-mail where mr. michel is reporting back on discussions he had with mr. hunt special visor as to what was going to happen next. you are given detail here, confidential bases of timetabl timetables. andy dick, mr. hunt's view of the merits of your case. look in the middle of the page, it says his view, that is mr. hunt's you, but once he announced it publicly he is a stronger i have. that is the undertaking. it's almost came over for the opposition. >> well, it was already came

over once we offered it because they had one. we basically said to them, irrespective of the merits of the plurality conclusion, we will just take the rally off the table by removing sky news, the main issue, the only change in the plurality that was, that could possibly or conceivably be, come from this transaction. the undertaking in luke had removed it because it reboots kindness on the transaction and town. it was a separate entity and would have no change to its ownership structure. so mr. hunt was trying to say now, who's been helpful but by this point he'd already extracted a structural solution that was very, very robust it and on the face of it dealt with a problem. >> yes, mr. hunt is still acting in a quasi judicial role, still hadn't granted you the bid, as it worker and he said you know, what is you is, it's almost came

over for the opposition. you understand that, don't you? >> yes, because the undertaking was stronger and i would've thought that the opposition actually we would've won the arguments with the opposition because they have gotten what they professed to want. spent i'm not sure you understand the difference, mr. murdoch. he said you had a 99% rocksolid case. the difference between you having that view and then the judge who is going to decide the case telling you behind the scenes, the judges of you as well that you're going to win. >> i guess the primary, the primary case that i was concerned with here was whether or not an undertaking would be required at all, given the strength of the undertaking we required. i saw that as large as the end of the process and now this is really just about negotiate in some of the details around the undertaking going forward. >> use -- >> again have been over because he undertaking have been extracted and it was so strong

spent i'm not sure that begins to answer my question, that your answer systematically on the basis is news corp.'s case was a brilliant case. i say let's accept that as a given come but there's a difference between you thinking you had a brilliant case and the judge telling you that you had a brilliant case. and that is what you are telling in his e-mail, aren't you? >> i think there are two cases here, mr. yates spent can you answer yes or no, mr. murdoch? >> mr. jay, i apologize but may i? i think there are two cases you. there was a case that was really about whether or not there was insufficiency of plurality with respect to this transaction completed. and i think that we had a strong case, and they still believe it was a strong case. that case was lost essentially when ofcom wrote its report, which i thought, you know, had lots applause and we submitted lots of work on that and went through it. and ultimately we conceded that we would not be able to win that argument and the case was lost. at this point we enter a new

case, right? and the only case really is how to negotiate the undertakings in blue, and those pieces. that was you started and the undertakings here, they were very strong undertakings. they structurally separate the company. >> i understand that. this is the third time you told us that. i understood it the first time and understand the time but all you're doing is telling is how good your case was. but my point was you were learning the judge also thought it was a good case spent but i was i took all that with a grain of salt because i thought it may have been his office single, it will be fine, but actually all the way through this unit, it was never any inch of, he only just took the advice of -- >> what we see a bit later on, which may resonate with at least part of the truth if not all of it, he understood, understands fully our concerns here regarding the publication of the report and the complication of

our firm in the process. but he wants out to take the heat within the next two weeks. the political heat he wants to be sure. he said very specifically that he was keen to get to the same up, and wanted jail ran to understand he needs to build some political cover at the process. >> which i took to mean basically he did want to take any heat alone. i never met a politician who d did. and he was about to go and do something we would like and he wanted us to be quiet about it while he went out and consulted on the undertaking. >> yes. he said he would get there, and he shared our objective. >> again, all of these things from the politicians you take with a grain of salt. >> if it weren't for the public relations disaster of "the guardian" piece on the fifth of

july, 2011, you would have gotten in the remaining shares, wouldn't you? >> i can't speculate. he never come he never ended up making that decision. >> well, mr. murdoch am you have read these e-mails. i'm sure as close as i have. to win -- the wind by that point was blowing very firmly in your direction, was in its? >> i think, i think the legal test had been examined and the undertaking in lieu was strong enough. i had high hopes would be able to proceed with the transaction. >> mr. hunt's office, page 52, 01693, mr. michel to you subject, confidential, i had a very constructive conversation with jh tonight. please read all bill.

confirm would have a meeting with him on the business plan later in the week. i read on. he confirmed yesterday, go ahead tuesday with the publication of the ofcom report after submission, announced he is looking. he did not say -- [inaudible] he will not say he might accept the statement. but the statement is the public statement, is in its? >> i assume so. >> legal letter on process early tomorrow morning. i have run through it, and he recognizes the strength of our arduous than a special on consulting ofcom and ofcom report publication. so your letter on process before he receives it is transmitted to him or the gist of it is transmitted to mr. hunt's advisor in advance, isn't? >> i think is in terms of updated, this is where we are, this is the letter we're putting

together come is the helpful or not? i think it's a staff conversation, as i understand it, you know, about process. and again, because the undertaking was again, we were sort of a new territory in terms of timetables, in terms of whom mr. hunt had to consult with them how to run the, et cetera come process was at the top of vermont. >> he thinks the ofcom report, a departure from the process, stop by sometime, provide some content to the public debate. a bit later on, he is keen for me to work with his team on the statement through the course of tomorrow and offer some possible linkage to naturally his view. so the public statement mr. hunt is going to put out is one which is going to be a collaborative effort between his, mr. hunt's team, and your team, isn't it? >> i think it's not necessary a

statement by mr. hunt but it seems to me a statement by news corporation that they were tried to influence us in the statement. that's my reading of that. he is keen for me to work with his team on the statement during the course of tomorrow, and offer some possible language. >> i do think it is speed perhaps i'm wrong. that's why i read it when i went through these e-mails. >> didn't you feel by this point that, in effect, although this was going to take some time, this was in the bag? >> i didn't actually pick i was very worried about this transaction because while we have done as much as we could do, it just seemed to be interminable. and the more consultations went on and the longer the process lasted, the more i was concerned. we were, the whole point of the undertaking was to avoid the 32 weeks, or if not more, of the

competition commission process. so as it took longer and longer, the value of the diminished and it was becoming difficult for us. >> it does look, if you look towards the bottom of the e-mail, do you see the paragraph beginning -- >> now, i've just seen that. >> that is mr. hunt statement. >> i just don't know. again, it was a while ago. >> look at the e-mail on page 54, 01695, in the middle of the page, 21st junior, mr. michel to you. confidential, jh statement, managed to get some info on the plans for tomorrow. brackets, although absolutely illegal. what do you make of it? >> i thought it was a joke.

greater than an exclamation point there, a wink, it is a joke. >> it was absently illegal. it was unethical, wasn't it? >> i'm not so sure. look, mr. jay, i'm really not, i have to say i'm not familiar with the sort of ins and outs of westminster protocol, and i know that, you know, the rules around lobbying and all of those bits and pieces are some, you know, some debate. and it's really not my profession but it seems to me, and again as i was going through these, my fundamental concern was that a process is sound and that the appropriate things were being considered and that it was becoming politicized. i think in the context of everything we have seen today in this evidence, that was a very legitimate concern that the company had. and our representatives sought to gain as much information. they could have a dialogue in the right way. they tried to find out things

were going. >> let me preview the secretary of state, press statements and statements of parliament. you were given the gist of it here. we can read for ourselves in this e-mail, can't we? >> a dialogue in the first few pages ago, yes, this was a question of the process going forward, and the outline to us, this is the timetable on tuesday, we'll be there thursday and that's how this process will work. so that both sides could prepare. i understand, i've looked, or then told any, more recently in a judgment, for example, sometimes it's customary for the two sides to get an advance without process will work out, how it will go so they can prepare -- >> we are leaving this examination of british newspapers and phone hacking for live coverage of the u.s. senate. a quick reminder that rupert murdoch, the father of former executive chair of news international james murdoch, testifies tomorrow thursday morning. will have live coverage on c-span2 starting at 5 a.m. eastern.

live now to the u.s. senate for work on a domestic violence bill and national labor relations board rules on union elections. also possible measure changing operations of the postal service. and now live to the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our sustainer, silence

everything in our senators that would keep them from hearing your wisdom. control their minds this day that their thoughts may concentrate on you. illuminate their path with the light of your presence, providing them with the strength to walk with integrity. lord, give them a sense of duty that they will leave nothing that they ought to do undone. may they not be content to wait and see what will happen, but give them the wisdom and courage to make the right things happen.

we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 24, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to --

mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? would you recognize me, please? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate is now considering the motion to proceed to s. 1925, the violence against women reauthorization act. at 10:30 this morning the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 36 which is a resolution of disapproval regarding the nlrb election rule. the time until 12:30 today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senate will recess from 12:50 today to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. at 2:15 there will be a roll call vote on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 36. if that motion is defeated, there will be several votes following it in order to complete action on the postal reform bill. mr. president, we're going to do our utmost to finish the postal reform bill today. i recognize that there is a

important event with the supreme court today with the legislative branch of government, the senate. and we're going to, therefore, might have to come back after that to complete work on this bill unless there's a way forward. so i would suggest to everyone if there are amendments that can be accepted by voice vote, take that. if there's something that could be worked out with the two managers, do that. otherwise we might be here until very, very late tonight and i would like to avoid that, if possible, for everyone's benefit. mr. president, in 1994 the violence against women act passed both houses of congress on strong bipartisan votes. in 18 years since that incidents of domestic violence have fallen by 53%. despite that progress staggering rates of abuse make clear we have a long way to go. more than a third of women and

more than a quarter of men in in country have been victims of violence, sexual assault or stalking by a partner. because of the unique nature of the crime combatting domestic violence and protecting those affected also requires unique tools. victims have been abused by the people who are supposed to love and care for them. so congress must make certain law enforcement has the means to stop these crimes, and we must ensure communities have the resources to support victims and help them heal. that's why the senate must move quickly to reauthorize this legislation which expired last year. many of the programs established under the vawa have been funded by continuing resolutions but a full reauthorization is necessary to ensure authorities have all the resources they need to fight domestic violence. women and families across the country are depending on us to act. several in nevada wrote to share their stoeurs. mr. president -- share their

stories. mr. president, when i practiced law, this law was not in effect. the only good news during that period of time that developed as i began to do more work in the domestic relations field, as a result of some people who had really -- really generous people. they established in las vegas a domestic crisis shelter. what is that? it's a place where women and children can go to stay away from husbands who are abusing them. and it's so important. these are secret locations. you can't find them in the phone book. and it gives these women and their children, sometimes just the woman, a place to go. and i can give -- i had a leadership meeting this morning, and i spent some time talking to them about some examples of things that took place before

this law passed. it was very difficult to find ways of helping these women with this law it's much, much easier. we must continue this legislation. it's so extremely important. the women that wrote to me had some very sad stories. without this legislation, it would be even worse. and i convince coincidentally talked to vice president biden this morning and reminded him what he had done and he has been watching what we do here. he said thanks for continuing this legislation. it was his idea, and has been extremely valuable for this country. every day in america three less fortunate women die at the hands of their abusers. three women die every day in america by being abused by their spouses. and in addition to those three that die, there are nine that are abused very, very much.

they have very serious injuries. some have been made paralyzed as a result of the beatings. it's hard to believe these beatings take place, but they do. it's in our power, 100 of us, to protect them, to help them. so reauthorizing the violence against women act would help law enforcement continue to develop effective strategies to prosecute cases involving crimes against women. but also, in addition to the criminal aspect of it, it allows these women a place to go. as i just said. it would provide funding for shelters and transitional housing programs for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to help victims get back on their feet. it would make legal assistance available to victims of violence

and help children made victims by dating violence and stalking. this reauthorization would enact important portions of the law gleaned from 18 years of fighting violence against women. it would extend help for native american women, the most significant spousal abuse, abuse of children, takes place in indian reservations. this legislation will enlarge the breadth of this bill to protect these people who are so badly in need of help. this legislation also includes nondiscrimination protection for all victims regardless of what they look like or where they're from. it reduces bureaucracy and implements new accountability measures to ensure federal investments are properly spent and it places greater emphasis on training police to respond to reports of sexual assault which has among the lowest conviction of rate of any violent crime. and for police officers, it's one of the most dangerous things they do. last year we had a police

officer in las vegas, sergeant, been in law enforcement for many years. he went with another officer to respond to a domestic violence phone call. he was shot and killed as he walks in the door. so we do need to understand that we need to continue to help train police and also make them better trained to convict these people who are doing these bad things. mr. president, many years ago when i was a freshman in the senate, i held hearings under the auspice of the appropriations committee on spousal abuse. maybe things have changed over the years, and i hope they have. there are better counseling programs. but one thing we learned during those hearings those many decades ago is that the main

thing that helped a man stop abusing his wife was put him in jail. now maybe things are better now. but at least we need to have better tools to make it so these people can be convicted of these brutal crimes. we know that the tools and training this legislation provides are effective. just consider this legislation's record, successful record of reducing domestic violence by 53% and helping police punish these abusers. we need to do better. but what we've done is a really big step forward from the time that i was holding these hearings before this legislation became effective. that's why the senate reauthorization -- we reauthorized this law in 2005 on a 95-0 vote. 95-0 vote. that's pretty good. in 2005, we did it unanimously.

in 2000 we did it by a 95-0 vote. both times unanimously. i hope we can do it again. i look forward to a similar bipartisan vote this year as democrats and republicans join together to renew our national commitment to end domestic violence. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to just say before the majority leader leaves the floor that with regard to the violence against women act, we'd be very happy to enter into a short time agreement. he's entirely correct. this law has passed the senate in the past on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. there's strong bipartisan support for it again this year. and we would be happy to work with him to expeditiously approve that bill in short order, and those discussions over some kind of a very short

time agreement could begin as soon as now. so we'll be happy to work with you to facilitate passage of the violence against women's act. mr. reid: mr. president, i'll briefly respond to my friend. i think that's a positive statement as long as there's not efforts made to weaken this legislation. if this move forward quickly short time agreement is an effort to weaken the bill, we want no part of that. i look forward to conversations. we'll grin with staff and bring -- we'll begin with staff and bring in senator leahy and others. mr. mcconnell: i would say i agree with the majority leader. there's no reason to have a fight over something nobody wants to have a fight over. we're happy to work toward a reasonable time agreement to pass it in short order. mr. president, on another matter, it's no secret that most americans are tired of candidates for political office who make promises they don't keep. and who can blame them? for years politicians have been going to washington promising to

make government more effective and more efficient, to balance the books, make life more secure, and restore americans' confidence in their country again. and time and time again they've either failed to get it done or didn't even really make the effort in the first place. but, frankly, it's hard to think of any politician who promised more and deliver less than our current president. he was the one who would erase divisions and bring people together. he was the one who would erase politics as usual and bring in a new era of harmony. a lot of people believed him. naturally a lot of them are more jaded now than ever. they're jaded because a candidate who said he was different turned out to be just another politician who seems more concerned with reelection than reform. not only has he failed to step up to the challenges we face,

he's actually aggravated them. social security, for example, is now expected to go broke three years sooner than we expected. the tax code is more complicated than ever. the national debt is bigger than any of us could have imagined. health costs are higher. gas prices are up. millions can't find work, and even most college graduates, those best-equipped to step into the modern economy, either can't find work to match their skills or just can't find any work at all. so instead of fixing problems, he's made them worse. and what's he doing now? well, the president who was supposed to change the direction of the country now wants to change the subject. he spends his days running around the country blaming whatever doesn't happen to poll well that day for the consequences of his own policies.

he spent two years expanding government and constricting free enterprise and now that the results are in, he spends his time pointing the finger at others for problems that originated right in his white house. it's the millionaires, i.t it'se banks, it's big oil, it's the weather, it's fox news, it's anything but him, and it's absurd. i mean, if you believe that a president who got everything he wanted for two years -- two whole years -- has nothing to do with the problems we face, then i've got a solar panel company to sell you. the president spent two years reshaping america in the image of western europe, and now he wants us to believe that the fact that our economy is performing like a western european economy has nothing to do with it. nowhere is this more apparent than in the challenges facing the young people in america

today. as we all know, one of the defining characteristics of western european economies is high unemployment rarity, particularly among -- rate, particularly among young people, and recent college graduates, includingish growth, inflexible labor -- sluggish growth, inflexible labor laws are two of the main reasons people have been locked out of the labor market in those countries literally for years. today unemployment is above 20% in the european union among young people. some of this is no doubt a result of the european debt crisis, but the more fundamental problem is decades of policies rooted in the same big-government vision that the president has been busy imposing right here in the united states. it's hardly a coincidence that as president obama has tried to

reshape the united states in the image of western yiewrntio euros own youth unemployment rate has been stubbornly high. that's what happens when you increase regulations on businesses that hire college graduates. that's what happens when you impose health care mandates on them. that's what happens when you impose new labor rules, like the one that senator enzi is leading the charge against this week that make it even cost litter for business -- costlier for businesses to hire. and we see the long-term effect of this in europe. unless this president changes course, we'll see the same lack of opportunity for young people right here. so today the president will bring his latest poll-tested message to the students at the university of north carolina, and i'll sure he'll give a rerousing speech -- he'll give a very rousing speech. i'm sure he'll also express his strong support for things all of us already agree on. but what he won't talk about is

the extent to which the decisions he's made are limiting their opportunities in the years ahead. some of them already see this. i mean, you have to think that most of these students are sharp enough to put this president's rhetoric up against his record and to conclude that it just simply doesn't add up. as the promises of this president's campaign collide with real life, i think young people across the country will realize they got sold a bill of goods. and the next time they're promised change, they'll know enough to kick the tires first. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report h.r. 4348. the clerk: an act to provide extension of federal-aid highway or, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, after all -- all after the enacting clause is stricken and the text of s. 1813 is passed by the senate is inserted in lieu thereof. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 4348, an act to provide an extension of federal-aid highway and highway safety and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: yorktsd the bill as amed is passed. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the senate insists on its amendment, requests a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair appoints the following conferees on the part of the senate: the clerk: senators boxer, baucus, rockefeller, durbin, johnson of south dakota, schumer, nelson of florida, menendez, inhofe, vitter, hatch, shell bi, hutchison, and hoeven.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 32 -- motion to proceed to s. 1-9d 25, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i am very pleased with just -- with what just happened at the desk for those who didn't follow it, the majority leader, senator reid, and senator mcconnell just basically named the conferees so that we can get moving with the house and settle our differences and move forward with a very important transportation bill. we all know how hard it's been

on the construction industry. we all know that the housing crisis has made it very difficult for our construction workers to get work. we all know that at that same moment that we ha have this real problem in the construction industry where we have well over a million construction workers out of work and tens of thousands of businesses that want to do construction work, we all know that 70,000 of our bridges are failing, that half of our roads are in disrepair, and that the american people expect an infrastructure that meets the needs of the strongest economy in the world, our economy. so i'm very pleased with what just happened. i'm very pleased that we see the continuation over here of bipartisan support for a transportation bill. we have senator reid working together with senator mcconnell to mai name the

conferees. and we had a unanimous vote in our committee last year on this bill, and it has been a very tortured path to get to where we are now because for some inexplicable reason the republicans over on the house have insisted on just going to their own party to reach agreement rather than going to the democrats so we can have bipartisanship over there. i am very hopeful that with the naming of these conferees today the house will now do its job and name conferees, and i'm hoping -- i've been reading in the press perhaps tomorrow. so i am very hopeful for that. it's 10:20 in the morning today on tuesday, and i'm going to call ateptio attention to this t we are now on path that we need

to be on starting at this noament get to cfns. and there's no reason why we can't do that very soon when so much is at staifnlg stake. the senate bill is a reform bill. there are no earmarks in that bill. that bill is fully paid for. it doesn't add to the deficit. it protects two million jobs and creates another million jobs. what good news will it be for this economy to have this bill pass? and i know there are those who have predicted this could never happen. a, we'd never get a bipartisan bill out of our committee. we did it. b, we'd never get it to pass the floor. we did it with 74 votes. and then, c, the house will never act and the house actually did act to move to conference. it took them a long time, but we're there. and there is no reason why we cannot work together to get this done. if senator inhofe and i can agree, then i think we should be able to get a very strong bill

through both houses. on my committee, the environment and public works committee, i'm so privileged to chair, we have very conservative members like senators inhoved and sessio inhd very progressive members like myself and senator -- and we have senator vitter on the other side. we have senator sessions, we have senator sanders, we have senator cardin, we have -- we have members that reach the entire ideological spectrum. so if we could all vote for a bill, then this can happen. and it will send a great significant mall to this country. -- signal to this country. i want to thank all the groups out there who have worked so hard to bring pressure an all of us to keep this moving forward. and it really starts with a coalition that includes the afl-cio and the chamber of commerce. good for them. you know, they don't always agree, but they agree on this one. and then we have all the

business community that's behind this, the grant granit granite e cement people and the general contractors. it goes on and on. it's many, many groups who have come together to push forward on this. so i want to mark this moment -- i'm really happy i was able to be on the floor when the conferees were named. it is a great list of conferees. we have in this bill the restore act, which will rebillete whichf after the terrible b.p. spill. and we have people who are very instrumental in writing this restore racquet, including senator bill nelson & senator richard shelby. so we have -- and senator vitter also was involved. and i want to take a moment to thank senator landrieu, who was a driving force in this bill. there's no question without her insistence this wouldn't have happened. so what an opportunity we have.

now, there are certain things that i think we should keep out of this cfn conference, and thas things that tear us apart. there's no reason to have controversy in this conference. we can save those battles for another day. i think what we should do with this cmp conference is just all rally around the consensus of what has to be done. and if it's something outside the scope of the conference, if it's unanimous and everybody thinks it is a good idea, like the restore act, let's do it. there's a provision in the bill that helps our rural counties use the proceeds from timber sales to -- for their schools. how critical is this? and for their local governments. you know, one could argue, yeah, it's not part of the transportation program, but it's -- it's -- it's a consensus. it's a coming together.

where we can do that, that's very important that we stick with those consensus items and stay away from the highly charged controversies. we have plenty of time for that. we don't have to put that into this conference. so i look forward to the house, mr. president, naming their conferees, and we'll get this done. i also want to say how important it is that we pass the violence against women act. the bill that has 61 cosponsors -- it is my understanding that is the case -- is a strong bill, and it makes sure that people who are the victims of violence are taken care of. and it continues a great program that was put together by then-senator joe biden. i remember it well because i was in the house at that time, and

then-senator biden -- now vice president biden, doing such a great job -- spoke to me and said, congresswoman boxer, would you be willing to carry the house version of the violence against women act? this was in the early 1990's. i looked at the bill and said, i would be honored to do so. i had worked with then-senator biden on coast al issues. and i was able to get a couple of provisions passed, a couple of the smaller provisions passed -- safety on excuses, campus lighting, some other things. but the heart of the bill did not pass until i actually was over here in the senate when senator biden really picked up steam and he drove that bill through. and my understanding is that senator schumer at that time in

the house picked up the bill and did the same in the house. now, so this has been the law of the land, the violence against women act, since the 1990's. so we don't need to have any arguments about it. i was very glad to hair senator mcconnell -- hear senator mcconnell say he didn't intend to have arguments about it because in this bill we cover people who are more brutalized. it is very, very key. i see my colleague senator harkin has come to discuss a very important labor matter. i will tell him i will finish in about three minutes if that's okay with him. i want to conclude by saying that the violence against women act is what we call a no brainer. it's a serious problem in our nation. senator reid said that three women are killed every day because of violence against women. the shelters in our states are doing incredible work.

they take in women, children. they make sure that there's protection, crack down on the violators. and there's no reason to argue about that. the last thing i wanted to talk about in my last couple of minutes goes to the heart of what senator mcconnell said in his leader time. you know, i've noticed that almost every time senator mcconnell has a chance on the senate floor, he comes and attacks president obama, aepbd goes after president obama and -- and he goes after president obama and blames him for everything under the sun. i have to say i support senator mcconnell's right to say whatever he wants to say. he has every right to use his leadership power to attack the president and do it as much as he wants. so i'm not complaining about that. but i'm just saying it's very unfortunate for this country that the republican leader in

the senate said -- and i quote -- i'm not quoting directly the word but this is what he said, that his mission in the united states senate is to make president obama a one-term president. the theupbz he blames the -- the things he blames the president for are unbelievable. the way he attacks the president for being out around the country, he doesn't attack the republican candidates for president for traveling around the country. let's face it, it's a few months until the election. does he expect the president to stay in the white house? i'm glad the president is getting outside. i'm glad the president is making speeches. i'm glad the president is fighting for students. i'm glad the president is fighting for senior citizens. i'm glad the president is fighting for small business. i'm glad he's fighting for fairness. why should a billionaire pay a lower tax rate than his secretary? i'm glad this president is doing

all of that. and to hear him attacked day after day after day is absolutely discouraging, when we have so much work we can do here, that we can talk about in our leader time. but i've decided i'm going to follow this. and every time senator mcconnell does this, i'm going to use my privileges as a senator to come down. let's never forget, this president inherited the worst economy since the great depression from a republican president who left us bleeding 800,000 jobs a month, who left us with an auto industry flat on its back, who left us with a credit system that was frozen. and this president, through his leadership, stepped up and led us out of that mess. and the other voices, the naysayers said let detroit go bankrupt. just stay out of everything. and this president didn't listen

because he's a fighter for change. so if this floor is going to be used to attack this president, count me in to stand up and make sure the record is set straight. and i hope that we can go back to the work we need to do here instead of using this floor of this great body to attack our president, the president of the united states of america. and everyone has a right to do it. believe me, i don't argue that. but i also have the right as a senator, and so do others, to come here and to clear the record on it. and i intend to do that. and i thank you very, very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to senate joint resolution 36, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to consider calendar number 361,

s.j. res. 36. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees on the motion to proceed. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i yield as much time as the senator needs. a senator: thank you. i'd like to, one, thank the senator from wyoming for yielding. but more importantly, his leadership on the subject that brings us all to the floor. mr. graham: the national labor relations board has gotten a lot of attention lately, for reasons i don't think are too helpful to the cause. obviously being from south carolina, their decision to entertain a complaint against the boeing company for moving to south carolina, a complaint filed that sat on the desk for a

year and then finally was brought forward by the nlrb to potentially shut down the south carolina site and move the facility back to washington, thank god that is behind us now. but at the end of the day this organization, the national labor relations board, seems to be hellbent for changing process across the board more for political reason than substance reason. what brings us here today is the rule making proposal to change the time for union elections, for employees who vote on whether or not they want to be part of a union. it does away with the preelection consultation, the idea of employer and the union setting, and the people who want to represent the employees, sitting down to see if they can work out a proposal or compromise. it shortens the election time to as little as ten days. so if you're in the company in question, you have a ten-day period before the election.

the current mean average is 38 days. so i would argue this is being done not though make things more efficient but to change outcomes. really, quite frankly, the outbeing being desired -- the outcome being desired here is to make the union position stronger, not to make the system more efficient. and that's what happens. i expect a republican president to nominate people to the board like the nlrb with a business background. i expect a democratic president to nominate people to the nlrb and like boards with maybe a more union background. but i expect the board not to take the agency and turn it into a political organization, and try to create by rule making what you can't create by legislating. and that's what brings us here today. the whole complaint filed by the machinists union in washington, taking that complaint up, that the move to south carolina was

somehow in retaliation against the union in washington when no one lost their job in the state of washington, no one's pay was reduced, i think was taking the nlrb into an area it's never gone before. this is just a continuation of that pattern, and this is not good because the unelected aspect of our government, the nlrb and like agencies, have a lot of sway over our economy. at a time when we're trying to make sure we create jobs in america and make it easier for people to locate their companies here, proposals like this, i think, are undercutting what we need to be doing. and this is an unprecedented move. this kind of breathtaking change in the rules has only happened, i think, two or three times. and this is proposed, as mr. becker was on the way out. so congress and their administrative review act has an opportunity here to stop this before it's too late. and what this is being called on our side is sort of an ambush

election. the point we're trying to make is by changing this rule to a ten-day period, doing away with preelection negotiations creates an environment where people are having to cast votes and not understanding who is going to be representing them or the nature of their decision. why do you want to shorten an election? why do you want to do away with the ability to negotiate between the employer and people that want to represent the employees? so i don't see that this is addressing a problem that exists. i think this is more motivated by getting an outcome rather than reforming a process. and i hope some of our democratic colleagues will say this is excessive and unnecessary. if the congress doesn't stand in the way between the american people and unelected bureaucrats, who will? this is your chance as a member of congress to do something about the unelected side of government that's growing more powerful by the day. you have a chance here to say no

to a rule that makes no sense, that's going to skew the playing field, and, quite frankly, i think represents the worst in special interest politics. i hope you'll take the opportunity to exercise your authority as a member of congress and say whoa, time out, we don't need to go down this road. let's let people understand who will be representing them. let the people who are going to vote in an election regarding unionization of the workplace to have a meaningful understanding of what they're about to vote on. there is no reason to shorten the process to ten days. i doubt most of us would like our elections to be shortened to ten days. this is not about reforming election process that's broken. it's about trying to change the outcome and skew it to one side versus the authority. again, the rule making here is not necessary. this is a chance for a member of congress to stand up and say no to the unelected side of government at a time when somebody needs to say no to them. and i just hope and pray that we

can get some bipartisan support for this, because senator enzi has done a very, very good job of trying to explain to the senate and to our conference as a whole about what awaits the american workforce if this rule is changed kwr-rbgs it's so -- changed, why it's not necessary and it's not about reforming a broken process. it's trying to get an outcome where one side versus the other. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this as an opportunity for congress to speak out against excessive rule making and what i think is an abuse of a process. so with that, i will yield and appreciate very much the leadership of senator enzi. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i thank the senator from south carolina, particularly for the insight on the way that this particular board abused his state and found out they were wrong and got it all taken care of. his comments are particularly

valuable in dealing with this shortening of the time as well. i thank him for speaking. i yield the floor.

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. har mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that paul edenfield, a member of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of this session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i yield myself such time as i may consume. for more than a year i've been working on a series of hearings both here in washington, d.c. and in iowa focusing on the state of the american middle class. we've learned that the american middle class is disappearing, falling into the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots. the people who do the real work in this country are being squeezed to the breaking point. their paychecks aren't rising. their benefits are disappearing. their pensions are disappearing. their jobs are being shipped overseas. when we looked into the causes of this crisis, we found that the middle class is not

disappearing due to some inevitable effect of forces beyond our control like globalization and technology. in fact, the decline of the middle class is primarily due to policy fail kwraours. we have failed -- policy failures. we have failed to respond to our changing economy while at the same time we have let the underpinnings such as a fair minimum wage, strong overtime laws, defined benefit pensions, we have allowed those to disappear. one of the biggest factors in this downward spiral has been the decline of american unions. as former secretary of labor robert reich described last year, when unions are strong, the middle class thrived and our country prospered. in the mid-1950's more than a third of workers in america were unionized and unions demanded and received a fair slice of the american pie.

nonunionized companies offered similar deals. as employers boosted wages, the higher wages kept the machinery of our economy going by giving average workers more money to buy what they produced.that's wy of labor, robert reich, said. now unfortunately that productive cycle has broken down. workers have lost their unions and they don't have money in their pockets to spend to help grow the economy. that's costing us the jobs and holding our economy back. now, there are lots of reasons for the decline other than unions. but i think chart which i showed yesterday is instructive. if you look at a chart here from 1973 to 2010, you will see, first of all, the -- in the green line is the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. look how unionization has declined. here union membership -- these

are the ones covered by collective bargaining agreements. here's union membership going down the same way. and the red line is the middle-class share of national income, and look how it tracks. so as union membership and collective bargaining has decreased, the middle-class share of national income has decreased also. just almost parallels. now again lots of reasons, but a big one i think is the broken union election process. it's become so riddled with abuses that people are giving up on it altogether. as i mentioned in my remarks yesterday, the number of union representation elections has declined by an astounding 60% between 1997 and 2009. when workers do file for an nlrb election, 35% give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation and withdraw from the election before a vote is even held.

that's after they've already signed -- the card is signed -- they've signed up to petition for the nlrb to have an election. one-third of them never get to an election. now, the rule we're discussing today can't solve all of these problems, but as i said yesterday, it is a step in the right direction. it addresses some of the most abusive situations where unscrupulous companies are manipulating the process so they can intimidate workers. the primary way is to raise challenges at the preelection hearing. now, some of these disputes such as challenging the eligibility of an individual voter can certainly wait until after the election to be decided. that's what we do in elections across the country. if a voter's eligibility cannot be confirmed, they vote a provisional ballot until their eligibility can be verified. we don't stop an election from

happening until every voters' eligibility can be confirmed. if there is a challenge, they vote a provisional ballot. after the election, you see whether or not they were qualified to vote or not. now, some of these challenges are just downright silly. but they have their intended effect, thansdz t and that is t. in 2002, one employer raise add challenge arguing that the international association of machinists was not a -- quote -- "labor organization." within the meaning of the statute. the nlrb actually held a hearing on this and found that the machinists who had been representing machinists since 1888 are indeed a labor union. but the election was delayed by a month just to address that one issue. some anti-union consultants brag openly about their ability to abuse the process and create delays. one union-busting law firm

boasted on its web site how a 27-day hearing contributed to a five-month delay between filing of a petition and the election at a massachusetts hospital organizinorganizing drive. now, why is delay so important to management, who do not want to bargain in good faith with workers? well, by delaying an nlrb election, they give themselves more time to conduct an anti-union campaign and make it more likely that they will win. one former anti-union consultant wrote a book. it is very instructive. it is called "confessions of a union buster." "confessions of a union buster." he described the strategy as -- quote -- "challenge everything. and then take every challenge to a full hearing. then prolong each hearing as long as possible. then appeal every unfavorable

decision." end quote. the consultant explained that -- quote -- "if you make the union fight drag on long enough, workers lose faith, lose interest, lose hope." let me repeat that. this is from an anti-union consultant, wrote this book called "confessions of a union buster." and he said, "if you make the union fight drag on long enough, workers lose faith, lose interest, lose hope." and the impact on workers is clear. in 2000, workers at a dillards distribution interest in little rock, arkansas, began to organize a union called "unite." the campaign involved a unit of between 500 and 600 workers involved as other warehouse workers making just over the

minimum wage. dillard's management began talking with workers about the union almost immediately after workers began signing cards. before the petition was even filed. aware that the company was likely to quickly escalate its campaign, unite, the union, filed an election petition in the spring of 2000, a couple of weeks after it began meeting with workers. at the time it filed for the election, unite had signed union authorization cards from 65% to 70% of the workers had signed up to join the union. well, what happened? soon after the union filed, election commission, the company began holding mandatory captive audience meetings and one-on-one meetings with all workers. basically threats were made that if the union were to succeed, the distribution center might lose its competitiveness and be forced to shut down p. -- and be forced to shut down.

the employer also lost legal challenges to the petition. they claimed -- get this -- the management claimed that all professional and white-collar workers should be in the union, even those at the corporate headquarters in a separate building adjacent to the distribution center. wlgwell, the company forced a dispute that took amongsts to resolve and the -- that took months to resolve and the company didn't really want the whitwhite-collar workers in the union. but by disputing it, it took months to resolve. the company isolated union supporters by excluding them from captive audience meetings and changing their shifts or job locations. it distributed and posted anti-union literature and continued one-on-one meetings. support for the union began to wane as workers' fears grew.

workers felt they were being surveiled at work and could not discuss the union at the work site or even outside the distribution center before or after their shifts. workers grew too scared even to accept union materials that their fellow workers handed out outside of the plant gates. attendance at general meetings, at organizing committee meetings fell sharply in the months leading up to the election. after facing two and a half months of intense anti-union campaigning, workers voted against union representation by a margin of 2-1. now before that, just about three months before that, over 65% to 70% of the workers had signed a petition to form a union. but less than three months later, they voted 2-1 not to have a union. now, the nlrb has put in place reasonable rules to limit the kind of game playing that the workers from dillard's

experienced. the nlrb hasn't tried to advantage or disadvantage workers or stop employers from spreading their message. all the board has done is to send a clear message to employers: you can't abuse the process to buy yourself more time to intimidate your workers. you get a fair period of time to convey your message, and then your workers deserve their day at the ballot box. this isn't the radical act of an out-of-control board. it won't even affect most employers, union or nonunion, one bit. as i pointed out yesterday, 90% of all of the petitions that are filed succeed without having nlrb input anyway. management and workers get together and work things out. but it's in those 10% of companies where, like dillard's, they go on this massive campaign

to intimidate and frigh frighten workers. that's what this rule is aimed at. preventing abuses of our laws that keep workers from having a union is a small step in the right droak direction to help pe middle class back on track. a lot of people when i talk about this, they say, well, isn't it against the law for management to fire workers for union activities? and i say, yes, it is. but what's the penalty? the penalty is basically nothing. i pointed out yesterday and i say again, a young man in iowa who had been organizing a union got fired. he filed a petition with the n nlrb. took him about three years to settle the case, found out that yes, he had been fired because of union activities, and the penalty -- the penalty for the company was to give him all of his back pay, minus whatever

he'd earned in between. well, how many people can go for two or three years and not take care of their family and pay their mortgage and pay to put food on the table without having a job? so, of course, that intervening time that this person had to work, all the wages were subtracted from whatever the company had to pay him, and it turned out that basically it was nothing. so there's really no penalty, because all the employer has to do, as i say, is pay backwages minus an offset of whatever the worker made in between the time he was fired ant time the decision was made -- and the time the decision was made by the nlrb. so there's really no penalty for the employers to do that. so, again, allowing our labor laws a bused is a policy choice d. abused is a policy -- to be abused is a policy choice. a lot of the reasons for the decline of the middle class in america is because of policy choices that are made here.

and these policy choices we've tolerated for far too long, these abuses. working families have suffered as a result. union membership has declined. the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, as i pointed out, has declined. and the middle class has declined right along with it. there's much more we need to do to move these trended back in the right -- trends back in the right direction. i recently introduced a comprehensive bill, the rebuild america act, that i think presents a bold agenda for restoring the american middle class. and that agenda, everything from investing in the infrastructure to job retraining, better educational benefits, better pensions, raising the minimum wage, it also -- it also has restoring the right to form a union to workers who have been

unfairly denied this basic freedom. it would provide real penalties for employers who abuse and fire workers to bust unions. and it would try to restore a real voice to the people who do real work in this country. so i hope that once we vote today and uphold the nlrb's emfientslb'seminently sensible e can move on and have a real debate on restoring this economy, an economy that works for everyone. mr. president, in listening to the comments made by my good friend from south carolina, he alluded to the recent situation with a complaint filed with the nlrb by the attorney, by the attorney for the nlrb, the general counsel's office.

a year or so ago they filed a complaint with the nlrb that the boeing company in seattle had retaliated against its workers for union activity, that type of thing. the fact is, the nlrb never acted 0en that fnlt d. never acted on that. the company and the workers settled it. isn't that what we want? but somehow to listen to my friend from south carolina, he's saying, he's even opposed to even letting the general counsel file a complaint. well, i mean, that takes away the basic right of anyone to have their grievances heard. so i hope that's not what my friend from south carolina meant. but i just wanted to point out that there was a lot of abuse of the nlrb during that process even kno though the nlrb was dog exactly what we told them to do; take into account all of the factors, look at all the evidence buff make before you a

-- before you make a decision. a lot of political pressure was put on the nlrb, a lot threats on the nlrb. and as it turned out, it all worked out because the union and boeing got together, settled their differences and we moved ahead. that's the way it ought to be in our country. but we shouldn't cut off the right of people to actually file a complaint if they have a complaint. the duty of the nlrb is to investigate and to take into account all the factors before they issue any findings. but that never happened in that boeing case because, as i said, people were -- good businesses, and boeing is a good business. boeing is one of the our great businesses in our country. it does a lot for america. you get the good businesses, and the machinist union is a great union. and they worked it out. and that's the way things ought

to be done, and nine times out of ten that's the way it happens. what we're talking about here is just really the rules for nlrb to take care of those bad actors that are out there that, like dill lard's and what they do to their people down in arkansas, and others and to give people, people who want to form a union, at least a level playing field without having all of these abuses and delays and intimidations and things like that. so that's what the issue is about. and hopefully this afternoon we'll have a good affirmative vote to uphold the ability of the national labor relations board to issue this ruling. with that, i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i would yield myself such time as i might consume.

i'll have to continue the debate a little bit on the boeing situation because the company was including 2,000 additional jobs. reducing none but creating 2,000 additional jobs in south carolina at a new plant. the inspector general, who was not confirmed by this body, went ahead and decided to investigate and work on a complaint, and created a lot of concern for 2,000 employees who didn't know whether they would be able to work or not. it actually wasn't settled. the national labor relations board, i think, realized that they had made a mistake. and because of the national controversy on it actually withdrew it, even though they could have taken about three or four years through the courts to take care of that. and we had that covered in one of our, one of the hearings that senator harkin asked for.

and i thought that the company did an outstanding job. but what we're talking about today relates a little bit to that because the south carolina folks decertified in a small window that they had, which says that they weren't pleased with what they had been handed. so, some of these discussions are extremely important, and the time to do those is extremely important. and so today we're renewing this debate on s.j. resolution of disapproval number 36, the congressional review act resolution of disapproval to stop the national labor relations board's ambush elections rule. this rule is the second formal rule making that the national labor relations board has pushed through in the last year, the third in the past 75 years. there was only one before this board decided they had'd take

unusual -- they'd take unusual action. the first rule has been struck down already by federal courts because it went far beyond the agency's authority of. this ambush election rule is also being challenged in court but it is set to go in effect in less than a week, monday, april 30. that's why the senate must act today to stop the national labor relations board from stacking the odds against america's employees and small businesses. during yesterday's debate both sides got to air their concerns. i want to respond to some of what i heard. there was much talk about the 90% of elections that go forward under mutual agreement. the agreement that was that because both sides were able to come to an agreement and because the wide majority of elections occur in a timely fashion, parties should not mind losing their rights to raise issues prior to the election. this argument is turning the concept of coming to agreement on its head. yes, it is true that 90% of elections occur under mutual

agreement and occur in 38 to 56 days. but that's precisely because both sides have the ability to raise issues of concern, such as which employees belong in the bargaining unit and have them resolved. in other words, both sides have incentive to make fair requests because the other side has the leverage of exercising the right to contest. when all of these rights are taken away and an election is scheduled in as few as ten days, the result will be that less mutual agreement occurs. the national labor relations board has taken a process that's working well and becoming swifter year after year and turning it into a contentious process where the small business employers side feels entirely ambushed. if the national labor relations board was truly intending to address the small minority of cases where long delays do occur, they should have drafted

a rule that addressed only those cases. yesterday both chairman harkin and i quoted presidents from each other's parties. i quoted john f. kennedy's statement during labor law debates in 1959 when he was a senator here, saying -- quote -- "there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of the election." he went on to say -- quote -- "the 30-day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues." i agree that one of the most important reasons for a waiting period is for the employees to learn more about the union they may join. this is fairness to the employee. in many cases the election petition is the first some employees have ever heard about the union. they want to know what the union's reputation is for honesty, for keeping their promises, treating members well, and working well with the

employer to make sure the business stays in business. once a union is certified, it's very difficult for employees to vote it out if they decide to. employees are barred from petitioning for decertification for a full year after the election and barred as well throughout the term of the collective bargaining agreement. employees should have a chance to understand that once they unionize, they will no longer be able to negotiate or raise individually with their employer exceptional peformance will not be rewarded and grievances cannot be brought straight to the employer but will have to go through the filter of union officials. chairman harkin quoted former president dwight eisenhower. i haven't had a chance to look up the quote's context, but the gist of it was only a fool would oppose the right of an employee to join a union. my comment on that is that a vote for this resolution does absolutely nothing to diminish the right of any employee to form a union. this resolution will not change

the law one bit. if we're able to stop the ambush elections rule, union elections will still occur in a median of 38 days, with nearly 92% occurring in 56 days, just as it is now. and i would even venture to guess that the unions will continue to win the majority of elections. last year they set a new record by winning 71% of elections. that's under the old rule. so a vote for this resolution may please both those former -- both those former presidents whom we all admire, and forcing a fast election, an ambush election may irritate employees into a negative vote. i know that the president issued a policy on this that says if it comes to his desk, he'll veto it, and that's his right. i've checked the constitution, and the constitution says that we are an equal branch of government with the president.

we do not serve for the president. we serve with the president. and that could be a quote from senator byrd, who used to sit at that desk and pull out his copy of the constitution and point out that the president gets to do what he wants to do, but we have a responsibility to do what we need to do. and in this case one of the administrative branches is overreacting, doing something that it should not do. and we need to say no. if it gets to the president's desk and he vetoes it, that's his part of the process. although i think that when the law was written, it should have been that if congress who passes the laws and gives out this right to do rules and regulations, disagrees in the senate and the house, that ought to be the end of it. it ought to be the end of the rule or regulation. it shouldn't be the beginning of a process where the president could veto it because he's in charge of the side that did the rule. but our job is to stake a look at each -- take a look at each of these things, decide whether they are right or wrong, and if they are wrong to vote against

them as part of the process. so i think that many will be joining me on this resolution of disapproval. at least i hope they will. that's our job and our right. i yield the floor. mr. harkin: i yield to my good friend, the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i join the distinguished leader of the committee on health, education, labor and welfare in opposing senate joint resolution 36 and to support the national labor relations board rule that would, very simply, modernize the process workers use to decide whether they want to form a union. right from the start, let's be very clear about what is at

stake here. it is a rule that the national labor relations board has formulated pursuant to the administrative procedure act set by the congress of the united states after comment that was solicited from all the relevant stakeholders and people who would be affected by it. and they are rules that are long overdue because of the inconsistency and delays that are endemic to the current process. as i travel around the state of connecticut and i hear from people around the country, i consistently hear about problems that exist under the present process for choosing a union. this rule does not determine the outcome. it simply modernizes and improves the process. and it does it by a rule making

process that is -- rule-making process that is consistent with and pursuant to the administrative procedure act, which is the way that the congress has said it should be done. and in fact, it adopts the rule-making procedure rather than doing it by individual cases, which is the way that the united states supreme court and the courts of appeals have said to the board it should do more often. so far from raising constitutional questions or issues of procedural lack of process, the nlrb has acted in accordance with the will of the congress and the constitution in formulating this rule. why is it necessary? well, for one thing, there are 34 regional offices of the national labor relations board, and each of them has different policies and practices for

processing election petitions. we're talking about petitions that are submitted by workers who want to form a union and can do so by election when at least 30% of those employees send the petition to the nlrb. the gap in time is an opportunity for intimidation by unscrupulous employers. fortunately they are a minority, small minority of employers, but they exist, that wish to discourage or deter workers from forming a union. that intimidation is unacceptable. we should do everything we can to stop it. second, the delays themselves are intolerable. some of those delays are years as long as 13 years in some

instances. and the gap in time discourages or deters the exercise of rights that are guaranteed under the law. so this new rule is simply to modernize the process, end intimidation, make sure that rights are made real in realtime so employees can exercise those rights without any discouragement from employers. are the employers free to communicate with workers? of course they are. the rights of communication on the part of the employers are not eliminated by any means. are they still part of the process? yes, indeed, employers remain part of the process if they wish to do. the effort here, as one of the

employers in fact submitted comments to the nlrb, said quite pointedly, health care west, a health care company with 31,000 employees, in its comments said -- quote -- "reforms proposed by the nlrb are not pro-union or probusiness. they are promodernization." and will -- quote -- "modernize the representation election process by improving the board's current representation election procedures that result in unnecessary delays, allow unnecessary litigation and fail to take advantage of modern communication technologies." that quote from an employer really says it all. some of the litigation is not only against the interests of employees, it also is costly to the employers, especially when it fails to succeed. it creates uncertainties for other employers, and it can

block representation and lead, again, to unnecessary delays. this rule has an impact on real people in connecticut and around the country. to give you a couple of examples, registered nurses who are at a number of the hospitals in connecticut have come to me about the need to reform this process. members of the employee workforce at t-mobile, for example, and chris coza, a technician at t-mobile u.s.a. in connecticut joined with 14 colleagues, came to me to recount his experience. he filed for union representation with the support of the communications workers of america, the c.w.a. he experienced problems of exactly this kind because his rights were delayed and,

thereby -- almost denied. and when t-mobile filed a claim that officially challenged the status of c.w.a. as a labor organization, he could see -- chris coza and all of us could see that clearly c.w.a. is a labor organization; this tactic was simply a delaying one, and the nlrb rule would prevent the kind of frivolous challenges and frivolous litigation that occurred there. mr. president, let me conclude by saying that, as has been said already, this rule is neither prounion nor pr proemployer. it is simply profaners. it is -- it is simply profairness. it is ant antilitigation antilid

profaners in the workplace. -- and profairness in the workplace. mr. enzi: mr. president, i would again yield myself such time as i might consume. the presiding officer: without objection. stey disee one omr. enzi: one os i've been checking on here is the statement earlier, one in five people get fired from working on organizing. and that -- checking on it, that's based on a phone survey of union activists for their

estimate of employees terminated during an organizing drive. it's not based on fact. and the fact is that unions only filed objections in approximately 1.5% of the elections and that number includes objections based on many issues other than employee terminations. under the current law, it's illegal to terminate or discriminate in any way against an employee for their union activities. if this occurs during an oil and organizing campaign, the -- if this occurs during an organizing campaign, the national labor relations board is required to -- this occurs in about 1% of all elections and has been decreasing in recent years. i would expect that to increase in succeeding years in this rule passes because this is an attack on small businesses. and the small businesses will not have the necessary information to know what is legal and illegal, especially if they only have ten days to get their act together. the national labor relations board can go even further if

they believe a fair election is not possible. they can certify the union regardless of the vote and order the employer to bargain. so i have information on some of the studies that have been done on this, and the number doesn't come out nearly that high. of course it's terrible if there's even one person that's fired for organizing activities. but there is recourse that can be done. i want to raise an important privacy issue that's come up as part of the national labor relations board's ambush election rule. one section of the initial proposed regulation concerned the private information of employees. it raised so much concern that it was dropped from the final rule. however, the national labor relations board chairman has publicly stated that he plans to push this and other dropped provisions into law later this year. now, president obama's so-called recess appoints have created a full board. under the current law, employers

are required to provide employees' names and addresses within seven days, once an election is set. the proposed rule would not only expand the type of personal information that an employer must turn over but would require that information to be turned over within two days of an election being set. of course if we're moving it from 36 days down to 10 days, i would see why they'd want it in 2 days instead of the 7 that's been normal. the information includes all personal phone numbers, cell numbers, e-mail addresses that the employer has for each employee. it also would demand work location, shift information, and employment classification. let's consider this for aempt mox the national labor relations board wants to give employers 48 thundershowers turn over information -- 48 hours of information to turn over noftion. despite the imply's eligibility may not even be determined at

that point. in essence, an employer will be forced to turn over personal information of employees who may not even be in the bargaining unit. the rule even would have required that the employer alpha beties the lists. the threat of this new invasion of privacy is very alarming. the purpose of the information, if so -- is so that the union organizers can come to your home, call you, e-mail you, find you outside your work location, catch you before and after a shift. there's no prohibition on how many times the organizers can contact you or at what times. there's no opt out for those employees who do not want to be contacted. anwhile a large part of this debate circles around the shortened election time and what that means for employers, with

good reason i do not want us to forget what this new rule could mean to the privacy of employees. supporters of expanding the information provided to the yiewngunions claim the flosh nlr relations board is modernizing the standard. in this time of cyberbullying, protecting personal information is not something to be taken lightly. union elections can be a very intense and emotional experience for employees and employers alike. the last thing we want is for an individual's personal information, like an e-mail address, to be used a as an harassment. mr. president, i want my colleagues to know that what's at stake in this debate, a successful congressional review act petition also prohibits an agency from proposing any similar regulation unless authorized by congress. by supporting my resolution, we

could put a stop to employersed handing over more personal information. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution o disapproval. this is one of the most important votes we've had. we need to let the national labor relations board know that their duty as a federal agency is to be the referee and decide what is fair for the parties involved based on the clear facts of the case. their job is not to tip the scale in favor of one party or another. tipping the scale is exactly what the national labor relations board is doing with the ambush elections rule. congress needs to step up and say, flu no to the overbearingnf these regulations coming out of so-called independent agencies. you can do that by voting for s.j. 36. i would yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time.

mr. harkin: mr. president, just a couple of things. i keep hearing it stated that ambush elections. i want to point out that there is no timetable set in this -- in these rules, none whatsoever. so i keep hearing ten days and seven days and all that. that's -- that's just not set. flothere are no timetables at a. 90% of nlrb elections are conducted under voluntary agreements between the parties and those procedures are unchanged. the current median time right

now between when a petition is filed and when an election occurs is 37 to 38 days. jackson lewis, the nation's biggest law firm said their attorney told "the wall street journal" that he thinks the time under these rules would be shaved to between 19 and 23 days. the vice president of the national association of manufacturers said the elections would be held in 20 to 25 days under the new rules. hardly an ambush election. the other -- i want to briefly mention what has to do with the context -- contacting and right of privacy act. right know the only way -- right now the only way that a union can contact people is at their homes, at their homes.

the only information that the june allowed to get after the petition is filed -- the union is allowed to get after the petition filed is the addresses of the workers, their home addresses. what the board was considered but has not yet implemented is allowing access to e-mail addresses. it seems to me that's a lot less intrusive than going to someone's home. now, again, it's much harder obviously for a union organizer to go to a home. people are with their children, they're busy. that's more intrusive than e-mailing them. so i would hope that we would look upon a possibility that they might say that they should have their e-mail addresses as less intrusive as going to their home.

but that is not part of these rules. they would still have to contact them at their home and the only information that the employer would have to give would be their home addresses. again, mr. president, just to keep -- just keeping in mind that what these rules are, they're very modest rules. and i keep hearing that, well, there's only been three rules since the board was comprised in 1938. quite frankly, the supreme court and appeals courts have said time and time again that they should don't rule making, because it's orientation it's transparent, parties get db because it's open, it's transparent, partes get to be heard. so this board is being more open and transparent than any board before it. you know, this is not anything overwhelming. but it is a step in the right direction to make sure that we loafl thlevel the playing fieldt

we don't have these undue delays. where the management can intimidate, intimidate -- and i gave some examples of it. i've got a whole ream of examples of -- where management has delayed and delayed and delayed in order to intimidate workers so that they would eventually vote not to form a union. again, an employer has the right to communicate to their employees all day long in captive audiences, one on one, meeting with supervisors. the union can only contact a worker at that worker's house, in the evening or on a weekend. so lore the employer has much more opportunity to converse with and to get its views known

to its workers than the union has, much more, all day long, on the job, at the job, through supervisors, one-on-one contacts, group meetings, over the loud speaker, whatever it might be. so already there is much more ability for the management to weigh in on this than it is for the union. the one thing we're trying to do with these rules is to say fine, you can continue to do that. there will still be that disparity between the ability of management to communicate to the workers and the union to communicate, but what these rules are saying is that, fine, you can do that but you just can't continue to do it month after month after month, and wear the workers down and intimidate them, make them afraid of losing their jobs, and you fire one person for union organizing, that sends a pretty chill across everybody else.

they say well, but that's illegal. well, it may be illegal but as i have pointed out time and time again, there is no penalties for that. it may be illegal but there are not much penalties for that. and management can always find some excuse that they may have fired someone for something other than union activity, but everyone would know that that person was fired because that person was trying to organize a union. we're saying that you just can't continue to drag these things out month after month after month. the proposed rules just simply say that we'll have elections and if there is challenges, if there are challenges by the management to who can vote in that election, then those challenges would be held until after the election, and then you see whether or not those individuals so challenged were really part of that unit and could vote or whether they couldn't and whether or not that

would even make a difference. again, if you had 100 people, let's say, that sign a petition to form a union and that was, let's say, 50% of the workers out of 200 and the employer was challenging five of those, well, as it is now, you could challenge those five, have a hearing, appeal the hearing, appeal that and just keep appealing it. well, what the rules would say is okay, you can say that those five are not part of it. their balance would be set aside. you have the election. if the election was, let's say, 150-20 that they wanted to form a union, then those five wouldn't make a difference one way or the other. if, however, the election was very close and those five would make a difference, then the election is held in abeyance until such time as it's determined whether or not those five so challenged were part of that bargaining unit or not.

to me, this is a much more fair and decisive way of moving ahead rather than these constant delays and intimidations that go on right now in -- in some of the places. not all, not all, but in some of the places. it's like a lot of times we pass laws here not because there are broad-based -- let's say broad-based incursions on a person's freedoms or certain things that we want to address, but a lot of times we pass laws because there are a few bad actors out there one way or the other, and you want to make sure that those bad actors don't -- aren't able to sort of act unreasonably and in violation of what was intended by the national labor relations act.

so that's really what these are all about. they are very modest and they i think would lend themselves to much more reasonable -- a much more reasonable path forward in union organizing and voting. mr. president, i would ask that if there is a quorum call entered into, that both sides be charged equally on the time. mr. enzi: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i would yield myself such time as i might need. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i do want to talk a little bit about this open and fair transparent process that was just referred to. much has been said about the flawed policy behind ambush elections we're discussing on the senate floor, but i want to spend a few minutes discussing the rule-making process that was followed or not followed, for that matter, by the national

labor relations board. while the other side portrays the changes as moderate, make no mistake about it, this new rule greatly alters the election system, especially should chairman pierce be able to finalize the more controversial provisions that were previously proposed. this entire rule took under one rule to complete. the national labor relations board introduced the proposed rule on june 22, 2011, and published the final rule only six months later on december 22, 2011. considering the scope of the rule and how much attention it garnered from stakeholders, it's absurd to think that a federal agency could promulgate a rule that would have such a major effect on all employers in only six months. as evidence of how critical this rules impact will be on stakeholders, the board received 65,957 comments. let me repeat that. the board received 65,957

comments during the 60-day comment period. that's an astounding number. to compare, the board's previous rule making on its notice posting requirements garnered little more than 6,000 comments. on november 30, 2011, the board voted to finalizing a new, amendedded proposed rule. the reason for this new amendedded rule was clear -- the board was going to lose its quorum at the end of the congressional session in late december, 2011. what continues to astonish me is that the chairman claimed his staff read each of the 65,957 comments twice in such a short period of time. in rushing to finalize the ambush elections rule, the board discarded several well-established internal procedural precedents as well. for example, until the ambush election rule, the board didn't advance a major policy change without three affirmative votes. this was a major policy change.

never did it without three affirmative votes, whether through rule making or on a case decision. this was not the case in the ambush elections rule where only two members voted in favor of finalizing the rule. further, the board rejected the tradition of providing any dissenting member at least 90 days to produce an opinion. instead, chairman pierce only offered to publish a dissent after the final rule was published. the process the board used to promulgate the ambush elections rule was rushed through for no good reason, yet in the process decided to discard years of board precedent. now, i should mention, too, that one of these people, one of the two who voted for it, not three, one of the two who voted for it -- and there were two who voted for it -- but one of the two was a recess appointment because they knew this body would not stand for that person

with the radical views that he had actually claiming before his appointment that he would cause this sort of a thing to happen. that he would even be able to institute through board procedures card check. that's a pretty radical statement. that alone was keeping him from being -- was keeping him opposed by both sides of the aisle. there are people on both sides of the aisle that voted against card check. so two people voted for it, one person voted against it. that person was not allowed the right to put in at a dissent opinion. that's wrong. that's not open and transparent. now, i'd like to talk a little bit about the targeting of small business that this does as well. once a petition for representation is -- and all of our states have a lot of small business, and small business is the backbone of job creation in

this country. we need to make sure that that process can still follow, but once a petition for representation is submitted, the current median time frame for a union election to be held is 38 days. that's the median time. the ambush election rule would shorten that time frame to as few as ten days. for small business owners with a range of company responsibilities and limited resources, this puts them at a severe disadvantage. most small business owners are not familiar with complex labor laws that they have to adhere to during the representation election process. for example, they may not be aware that certain statements and actions could result in the national labor relations board imposing a bargain obligation without any secret ballot election. they can declare the election over. furthermore, most small businesses do not have the resources to employ in-house counsel or human relations

professionals familiar with these laws, so holding an ambush election in as few as ten days doesn't provide small business owners with enough time to retain a competent labor attorney, consult with them and then adequately prepare for an election. i have given the reasons before why it's unfair to the employees, but it's very unfair to a small business owner, too, because their day-to-day responsibilities range from sustaining a competitive product to managing personnel to balancing the books at the end of the day. i know. i have been there. hi a shoe store. of you have to do all of those things. i -- the definition by the federal government for a small business is 500 or less employees. in wyoming, that would be a really big business. my definition of a small business is where the owner of the business has to sweep the sidewalks, clean the toilets, do the accounting and wait on customers, and definitely not in that order. so those day-to-day

responsibilities to keep the business competitive take a lot of time, and given such a demanding schedule, it takes time for a small business owner to fully understand the pros and cons of union station. -- of unionization. it takes even longer for a small business owner to communicate these points to their employees. ambush elections make it logistically impossible for small business owners to fully discuss the effects of unionization with their employees, partly because they won't even know what those effects are and neither will their employees. a union organizing campaign does not begin on the day an employer receives a petition for representation. it typically starts months or even years before when professional union organizers start conveying their side of the story to targeted small business employees. they work on it for months. by unjustly curtailing an employer's ability to convey their point of view, ambush elections deny employees the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument on unionization. the small business employer is also at a disadvantage because

the union organizer will be in a position to set the election up to his best advantage, essentially cherry picking union supporters before the election process begins. the organizers will have had limitless amounts of time to analyze which employees could be argued to belong in the bargaining unit, which may qualify as supervisors and who is most likely to support a union with ambush elections. the national labor relations board will impose the election before the employer has an opportunity to even question those assumptions, especially since we have eliminated the one tool, the pre-election hearing, that the small businessmen would have to question who was in and who was out. according to a recent bloomberg study, unions win 87% of secret ballot elections held 11-15 days, compared to a 58% rate when elections are held 36-40 days. by shortening the election time frame, labor unions will undoubtedly win more

representation elections, perhaps. the perhaps is that they may really irritate the employees and win less of them. the way that it's held in 11-15 days is when the employer and the employees agree on all of the issues and get the thing moving forward, so it can happen in a short period of time. otherwise, the median time wouldn't be 38 days. but i think that this rule will alienate those people that have been getting together and arriving at these agreements, so for small business owners, the surge of union bargaining obligation means a less flexible work force, increased labor costs and fewer opportunities for job creation, and they are the job creators. the national labor relations boards are only creating more uncertainty for small business owners at a time when the country needs them to focus on creating jobs. small businesses account for over half of the jobs in the private sector and produce roughly one half of the privately generated g.d.p. in the country.

in 2010, small businesses outpaced gross job gains of large businesses by 3-1. as the national labor relations board has publicly indicated, ambush elections are only the beginning of a round of regulations aimed at making it easier for unions to win representation elections in american workplaces. proposed regulations such as requiring small businesses to compile a list of employee phone numbers and emails and then hand them over to union organizers before an election are time consuming. they are costly, they are extremely invasive. furthermore, they are indicative of how this administration is more concerned about boosting labor union membership than creating jobs. we have got to create jobs. we cannot continue to pick on the small businessman and put him at a disadvantage. this is a rule that is looking for a place to act. it's not one that was needed or requested other than by labor organizers. it will have a repercussion, i would think, so i would ask

everyone to vote for the resolution of disapproval so this does not go into effect. although we have been promised, of course, a presidential veto if it makes it to his desk. but that's -- that's congress having the right to say we don't think the rule is right. the president has the right to say his administration is right and veto the law. but we have to make that statement and we have to make it on behalf of small businesses and employees. a lot of this has to do with employee fairness and giving them the time to figure out what the union will do with them and for them and to them. so i yield the floor and -- i would yield three minutes to the senator from alabama for morning business, as i understand it.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the senator from wyoming for his thoughtful remarks on this important subject. i hope all our colleagues are listening. i just want to give a heads up to our colleagues. i will later today offer a budget point of order on the postal bill. it adds $34 billion to the debt. it violates the agreement we reached last august in which we said there would be limits to how much debt we would increase and how much spending we would increase, and now the first big bill coming through the -- down the pike, the first big one adds $34 billion. every penny of the new spending is added to the debt. there is no offset to it. those of us who supported the concept of a limitation on spending, i don't think it limited it enough last summer. many thought it did.

but agreeing to that limit, you have to know that when i raise that budget point of order, someone will probably raise another -- raise and ask a vote to waive the budget, to waive the limitations on spending and debt we just passed last august. we need not to kill reform of postal service. we need to send this bill back to the committee, let them produce a -- produce legislation that either spends not so much or doesn't spend money, or if they do spend money, pay for the money through cuts in spending that are perfectly available. foe goa says -- g.a.o. says there's over $400 million spend each year in duplicative programs. we've got g.s.a. number of las vegas in hot tubs on taxpayers' money. we can pay for this bill if it's so important that we have to do it. if we don't and that's what the

vote would be. so i just urge my colleagues to understand the importance of it. those of -- those of you, our members, who believe that it was important to have a limit on spending in order to gain a debt increase last summer, increase the debt ceiling, should vote against the motion to waive because we -- to do so, to vote for waiving the budget would undermine in the first real opportunity the agreement we reached. i thank the chair and would reserve the balance of the time. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i would ask unanimous consent to be able to put three additional letters of support in

the record. they'd be from the motor and equipment manufacturers association, the national counsel of textile organizers, and the building owners and managers association international. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i would also mention, for the benefit of anyone that will be voting, that there will be key vote alerts by the associated builders and contractors, associated general contractors, the brick industry association, competitive enterprise institute, the heritage action for america, international franchise association, international warehouse logistics association, national grocers association, national association of manufacturers, national federation of independent business, national restaurant association, national roofing contractors' association, the national taxpayers' union, and the retail industry leaders association. i'd yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the time equally divided. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i'd ask that further action under the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: and i would yield up o ten minutes to the senator from georgia, senator isakson. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: thank you, senator enzi, and i appreciate the opportunity to address the floo, mr. president. mr. president, i haven't been able to hear all of the speeches but i want to commend senator enzi on his detailed and eloquet explanation of how we arrived to

where we are today. but i'd like to add a little other history lesson to tell you my journey in terms of where we are today. as a student in college in the 1960's in business management, i learned a lot about the industrial revolution, the labor revolution, the development of labor unions and labor-managemet practices as they developed from the 1920's until then 1960's and now until today. you know, it's absolutely corret that the playing field was unlevel in the 1920's and the 1930's and it's absolutely true that we had poor working conditions, safety risks were high, wage and hour issues were certainly an issue and there was an place and an appropriate nature for us to level the playing field so that management and labor could go together head-to-head, negotiate and arbitrate and have binding agreements upon themselves to protect the safety of workers bt also to improve the environment in which to work in the united states of america. for 75 years, those laws served

us well. but now, all of a sudden, it seems like there's a perfect storm. from every corner, the nlrb sees to be making proposals to tilt the playing field away from fairness and away from equity, and it's just not right. last year, 70% of the elections for unionization in the united states of america were successf. there is not a problem in terms of people being able to organize and negotiate collectively. the problem is that the -- the regulatory bodies are attempting to circumvent the legislative branch of government and through rule and regulation do what they cannot pass on the floor of the senate. when -- when mr. becker was appointed to the nlrb last year by the president over the objection of the senate, it was an example of where the presidet would use a recess appointment o go around the -- the lack of approval of advice and consent y the united states senate. this particular legislation that we're talking about today is jut like the specialty health care bill. the specialty