>> the state of the state coverage on c-span2 work the u.s. senate is gaveling in at 5 p.m. eastern him to begin the debate of the homage of michael botticelli. a vote follows at 530 p. eastern. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, be with us not only in great moments of experience but also during life's mundane tasks. through the power of your spirit, may our senators mount up with wings like eagles,

running without weariness and walking without fainting. lord give them the wisdom to be patient with others, ever lenient to their faults and ever prompt to appreciate their virtues. rule in their hearts, keeping them from sin and sustaining their loved ones in all of their tomorrows. surround them with the shield of your favor, as you provide them with a future and a hope accomplishing in their lives more than they can ask or imagine. woe pray in your mrciful name. amen.

the president pro tempore: 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. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i move to proceed to h.r. 240. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 5 h.r. 240, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland

security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: i understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading. the president pro tempore: et clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 405, a bill to enhance and protect opportunities for fishing hunting and shooting and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to further proceedings. the president pro tempore: objection having been heard the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. cornyn: i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding the president pro tempore: the minority leader. mr. reid: the minority leader who get their news in various fashions whether it is a blog or the nightly news are really concerned about the threat of

global terrorism. why shouldn't they be? look what they see. they see isis has murdered tens of thousands of people. one only need to look back at those thousands of people who are trapped in the mountains in iraq. we saw it play on day after day. these people were fleeing for their lives and many, many of them didn't make it. we've watched not only tens of thousands murdered, we've watched them behead people. and just a few days ago we watched them put a man in a cage set the cage afire and burn him alive. and they're so void of any respectability, they are so uncivilized, they filmed 22 minutes of that man suffering in the utmost torture until he died. 22 minutes of torture. we look

around the world. in paris 20 people dead, terrorist attack. people dead in belgium in thwart ago terrorist attack. -- in thwarting a terrorist attack. in ottawa, canada, at this parliament terrorist attack. sydney australia an tac in a restaurant -- an attack in a restaurant there. it seems, madam president that no matter what the day is, there's another act of terror that we have to be aware of. we have watched with some dismay at the terror that's coming. isis has bragged about they're coming our way. we have our national security agencies including the homeland security agency, which has protected us from attacks to this point. now we are 18 days away from having no money for the department of homeland security.

18 days. but that's a false number because we're out of session for about ten of those 18 days. so really, after this week, we're down to less than a week. -- to protect our homeland. now, madam president, jeh johnson, the secretary of homeland security, was on national tv yesterday warning the american people what we face. he went through what his agency does. what they do to protect our homeland. that agency was established during the presidency of george bush. it happened after 9/11. we consolidated 22 different agencies into something that's more workable. jeh johnson has done a very, very good job. border protection, coast guard -- they have responsibilities for preventing cyber attacks. there's rarely a day goes by that there isn't some cyber

attack. just which one is big that day. we had sony play out anthem just a few days ago. republicans are hellbent on playing chicken with our national security. jeh johnson said yesterday he would have to furlough as many as 30,000 people -- 30,000 people -- if they decided -- "they," the republicans -- continued to be a continuing resolution, which would be at last year's numbers. it would prevent the department of homeland security from funding any new grants. these are helps that grants that help our country. grants for dogs sniffing out all kinds of bad things, madam president. these grants fund counterterrorism task force units. a real big one is waiting to be established in arizona and las vegas. we have an urban initiative. 50 million people come to las vegas every year. we need help to make sure local

agencies can respond when they have to. and why are we concerned about these grants? we're concerned because it's what helps local government be ready for a tax deduction when and if they come -- for attacks when and if they come. the republicans have come to the conclusion that they're far more afraid of these people, some of whom were here last week. they're dreamers. they dreamed of having a country that they could relate to. they came to america as babies. i.t.it's the only country they even knew. they saluted the flag for many, many years. and president obama gave them respectability. the woman that was here last week -- i talked about her last week -- she is a young woman from las vegas. she -- her name is gamez. she is a wonderful wonderful woman. gotten two degrees now.

she's going to law school next year. she works pays taxes. but it appears that republicans are more afraid of her than they are of isis, these people that behead people, they burn people in cages. we cannot allow this to go on the way it's headed. these grants help local firefighters. the d.h.s. directives target criminals instead of families. the republicans i guess want us to target these families rather than the criminals. why are republicans putting our country at risk? madam president this isn't some liberal cabal that's talking about this. this is the -- let's take, for example, one of the most conservative publications in america, "the wall street journal." they wrote a featured opinion piece today about republican members of congress. they say, "the wall street journal" says, the republicans' strategy is doomed to fail.

even the very conservative editors of that newspaper said today that republicans' reckless scheme is destined for a spectacular crackup. i ask unanimous consent that the whole article be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: but here -- i'll read parts of it. and i'm quoting "if homeland security funding lapses on february 27, the agency will be pushed into a partial shutdown, even as the terrorist threat is at the forefront of public attention with the charlie hebe hebe dough and islamic state murders. fails to intercept and islamic state agent on route to detroit. so republicans are facing what is likely to be an another embarrassing political retreat and more interparty recriminations. the g.o.p.'s restrictionist wing

will blame leadership for a failure that he share responsibility for and the rest of the america will wonder anew about the gang that couldn't shoot straight." this is about as serious as anything could be. we need to fund this agency which is so vitally person to our country. we need to pass a clean bill, a bipartisan bill, that speaker boehner agreed to in december. anything less is not good. it is a disasters for ow country and really is very, very bad to protect our homeland. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business with time equally divided until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president last wednesday, president obama made a statement that is

troubling to me really. i think those of us who believe in executive leadership and honest leadership where leaders talk directly to the people about the serious problems we face have got to be troubled by this trend within this administration. sometimes it makes me fear for the future of the republic. so he accused republicans of -- quote -- "defunding the very operations that are involved in making sure we've got stronger border security." he said republicans are blocking funding of that. nothing could be further from the truth. the house of representatives the republican house has passed a bill with $40 billion funding fully as basically the president requested all of the agencies in the department of homeland security and it has one little

catch to it. it bars the president from taking money from the department of homeland security that's supposed to be used to enforce the law and using that to grant amnesty and to undermine the law. they're not in anyway undermining the house bill. the security of the united states of america the ability for homeland security to protect us from terrorists. in fact, it strengthens that ability because it keeps the money there and uses it for those purposes, whereas right now the president is spending over $100 million to create a structure across the river that would hire 1,000 new people in homeland security to process amnesty applications for people who violated the law and to give them the right to have earned-income tax credit benefits a social security

card, the ability to take any job in the american economy that maybe unemployed american would like to have, recent immigrant with a green card would like to have. no this person is in the country unlawfully just to take that job. under policy of congress dund -- fund that. the president as he said himself 20 times had no power to do this. so what is happening now in the senate colleagues? our democratic colleagues now unanimously, it appears are blocking even moving to the bill that funds homeland security. so i ask with all sincerity how can it be said that the republicans are failing to fund the operation making sure that we are, have a strong border security? how can it be made a statement by the president of the united

states? i just think we need to keep talking about that. we should not allow this modern-age politicians to go to the american people with false stories about what's really happening. democratic members of this senate are systematically blocking the bill that we would like to see come to the floor that fully funds homeland security and they have been given the right sass senator mcconnell has repeatedly stated -- which senator reid never did -- they have been given the right to offer any amendments that they'd like that are relevant and germane to the bill. so i just would say this is a most serious thing with me, and i believe the american people need to understand. the house bill will not deny a single penny of funding for legitimate lawful operations of homeland security.

it will be spent on enforcing the law enforcing the immigration and nationality act that was actually passed by congress, what the president is attempting to do is create and execute a law congress rejected. he asked them to pass, he asked the house to pass this law and the house said no. they didn't agree with this policy and rejected it. so he's executing it anyway. so republicans have now tried to move the bill to the floor three times, and each time it's been blocked by our democratic colleagues because the bill does not fund the president's unlawful executive amnesty that he admitted 20 separate times he did not have the power to do. now, congress, colleagues, is supposed to spend the taxpayers' money wisely.

congress should not fund any program, no matter how much the program wants it that, they believe is bad policy. more importantly more clearly no senator should vote to fund a presidential policy that violates the law that violates the constitution that, distorts the relationship between the congress who makes laws and the president who is supposed to execute only the laws congress makes. well that's where we are at this point. the president is not entitled to spend taxpayer money to implement a system of immigration that congress has rejected. and there's an article in yesterday's "washington times" as further indication of where we are in this world of

politics. it was reported that the department of homeland security is spending taxpayer money to set up hotlines for illegal immigrants to call in with any complaints they may have about immigration law enforcement officers if they think the officers have violated their rights under president obama's executive amnesty. not violating their rights under law. but the president has told them and sent out this message to the stakeholder groups. now who are the stakeholder groups? i suppose that's the activist groups. that's how they refer to them, stakeholders. so they sent out this message. if you're not happy with the way the federal agency is executing my policy but indeed those agencies are attempting to enforce the law as written then you have a right to call in to

this hotline and i'll get on them and i'll see that they do it. how do the officers feel about this? the national border patrol vice president sean moran said this in response. first let me tell you the border patrol officers and the uscis customs and immigration services officers have opposed the president's executive amnesty. their association has laid out how it will make the problem worse, it will increase the risk of terrorist attack and otherwise further degrade the integrity of our legal system. they have been clear about this. we ought to listen to them. they enforce that law repeatedly. that's their duty. and they've opposed bills that they think may look good on the surface but once they've read them and found out that the bill

won't work effectively they speak out against that, which is very helpful and i'm glad they do. this is what mr. moran said -- quote -- "instead of supporting our agents, this administration has decided it is more important to find new ways to solicit complaints and invite ridicule against them." close quote. and the american people have got to know that the obama administration's dereliction of duty relaitding -- relating to our immigration system did not begin with this recent decree. from the day he took office, the president has relentlessly and systematically colleagues, friends, american people, dismantled immigration enforcement. it's far more serious than you would imagine. so my office has compiled a

49-page baseline time line of nearly 200 specific entries and events that occurred since 2009 detailing how the law of the united states has been undermined by directives and orders from the president of the united states. it's step by step. this one person alone the president, has acted against the will of the american people and undermined law in america. and just briefly i'll mention the first event that came to my mind when he took office in early 2009. i believe in the state of washington the officers doing their duty, enforcing the law that says a business can't hire somebody unlawfully in america investigated a business in washington discovered quite a number of people unlawfully in america, and worked to commence action against the business for

violating plain law that is still on the books and has not been repealed. and what happened? immediately the president intervened, and he told them, no do not do this. and he told the activist groups, the la razas and the other activist groups that were engaged in pushing him on this issue, essentially he told them, look, i'm going to honor the promise i made to you during the campaign. that's the way i would interpret it to not to allow this activity to happen in the future. from day one the law officers in this country got a clear message. what was the message? if you go out and enforce the law, you'll get in trouble. if you don't say anything and don't do anything and stay back and lay back and not enforce the law, everything will be okay. that began the situation.

here are just some of the highlights their circled and looked at. this was the bellingham, washington case i mentioned detaining 28 illegal immigrants who were using false fake social security documents. on january 29 of 2009, in april of 2009, in june of 2009 the secretary of the homeland security janet napolitano, delays the e-verify deadline. e-verify is a system by which businesses are supposed to check a person's social security number to find out if it's valid before they hire him. and many times we know that people have used false social security numbers to get work. she delayed that. then she delayed it again in april and delayed it again in june. in june of 2010 the i.c.e.

union, the immigration customs and enforcement officers. there are three basic groups, the i.c.e. group the border control group and the customs and immigration border patrol group, the i.c.e. union cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in the agency homeland security leadership including i.c.e. director john morton and assistant director phyllis covin citing concern among employees that they abandoned the agency's core mission of united states immigration laws and providing for public safety and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty. he said the -- they said the policy of in the government, not what we as sworn officers are supposed to

be enforcing but the policy of our leaders is to spend all their time campaigning for policies relating to amnesty and undermining enforcement. i.c.e. went so far colleagues, as to file a lawsuit in federal court contending that they were being ordered to violate the law by their supervisors. the judge expressed sympathy for it but eventually decided they didn't have standing to proceed with the case, but i think it's still on appeal. in 2011 at a roundtable with amnesty advocates, president obama admitted his deportation statistics were deceptive or misleading. indeed, they have been. they claim they have increased deportation. well that's totally incorrect. they finally had to admit it. in february of 2012, president obama slashes the budget for the 287-g program a program that i helped advocate for and move

forward when i came to the senate 10 years ago. it simply says that the federal government would work with state and local law enforcement officers to train them in the things that they can legally do to help the federal officers enforce the law. perfectly sensible program very popular. a number of states had taken quite a step toward it. it was working in an effective way. they canceled it. after he became -- took office. they announced a delay in the biometric entry-exit visa system system. in february of last year, the inspector general audit revealed declines in workplace enforcement of substantial amounts as a direct result of white house policies and they admit that obama's administration manipulated deportation data. in march of last year, a new report revealed that the i.c.e. officers -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed 10 minutes.

mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would ask for one additional minute to wrap up. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: -- revealed that i.c.e. released 6 8,000 convicted criminals in 2013. these are convicted criminals. and on may of last year the deputy chief of border patrol revealed that the border surge was incentivized by the administration's policies. and as i said there are 29 pages of this. so mr. president i thank the chair and my colleagues for giving me this extra time. i would just point out, we are ready to bring to the bill -- the floor and allow amendments to the legislation passed by the house that fully funds homeland security and ensures that the money is spent for enforcement and not to dismantle the law. i thank the chair and would

yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: senator alexander and senator enzi are here on the floor. i wanted to briefly address the nominee we'll be voting on this afternoon and then turn to the matter that the three of us wish to address. today the senate's going to vote on the nomination of michael bottocelli to be the next director of the national drug control policy i look forward to working with our nation's next drug czar, just as i have with previous drug czars. drug abuse is a serious problem in my home state. kentucky is the fifth highest proscribing state when it come to painkillers and we have the nation's third highest drug overdose mortality rate with many deaths driven by prescription painkillers. heroin abuse is also a problem in the bluegrass state. heroin deaths accounted for 32% of the drug overdoses back in 2013 and they continue to climb.

the epicenter of the heroin problem is located in the northern region across the railroad from cincinnati although i'm hearing more and more from scich went that drug abuse is rising in other parts of the commonwealth as well. all told, the kentucky office of drug control policy reports that about a thousand kentuckians lose their lives overdosing on drugs every year, which is more than we lose in fatal car crashes. there's another reason why i'm pleased to welcome a prior drug czar, gill karlowski to tour kentucky. we had him there a couple of years ago and to take a close-up look at the problems we face. he visited louisville, lexington, london and pikeville four communities both urban and rural from across the state. he met with kentuckians who work to tackle this issue from every single angle. public health officials medical professionals, law enforcement

officials drug courts, members of the business community and kentuckians involved with prevention. the drug czar's visit helped focus more federal attention and federal resources on this issue. and in a time of strained budget the extra attention and those extra resources are particularly important. i'm also pleased to report that mr. boteocelli plans to visit eastern kentucky soon and also at my invitation to visit northern kentucky this spring. visits like these help ensure continued federal focus on kentucky's drug problem and i look forward to working with the next drug czar to move closer to the day when drug abuse is no longer ravaging our families and our communities. mr. mcconnell: now madam president recently the senate has had a lot of discussion about partisan overreach.

we've talked about an administration that seems to view democracy as what it can get away with not what it can work cooperatively to achieve. it's worrying for our country and we keep seeing more examples of it. consider the administration's effort to weaken worker rights. this administration's appointees on the national labor relations board released their so-called "ambush rule" back in december. it's designed with one purpose in mind -- to fatten the wallets of powerful political bosses by weakening the rights of middle-class workers. republicans believe a worker has a right to make her own informed choices about joining a union. we don't think powerful political bosses should attempt to make that decision for her. but that's just what this rule aims to achieve. these bosses think they can enrich their own coffers if they can deny workers real opportunities to weigh the pros and cons of joining a union.

for instance in an era of stagnant wages does a worker want to see her paychecks shrink so a political boss can attend more campaign fund-raisers? republicans think that's a choice for the worker to make. does a worker want to give up her right to demand better pay or a promotion that she deserves to cede head to decisions to a distant political organization? republicans think she has a right to make those choices for herself and that she has a right to make them in an informed way. but the administration's ambush rule would dramatically weaken her ability to do so. in many cases it wouldn't even allow her a handful of days to weigh the pros and the cons of such a costly and important decision. it's really not fair. and it's not just me saying that that. consider the words of john f. kennedy. here's what he had to say about it.

"there should be at least a 30-day interval for union elections," he said. he noted that these 30 days represent a safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. kennedy was right and there's another important issue at stake here too. just as republicans think a worker has a right to make her own informed choices republicans also think her personal information is none of the business of powerful political bosses. but the administration's ambush rule would allow those bosses to access things like her e-mail address and cell number without -- without -- her permission. it also would allow those bosses to track her to know exactly when and where she's working again, without her permission. she can't opt out and she can't unsubscribe. this is really chilling madam president. this is really extreme.

and what about the men and women who rise early every day to fulfill their dreams the men and women who provide so many opportunities for others to fulfill theirs? this ambush rule is also aimed at preventing someone with a small business of her own from even having a real conversation with her employees about the costs and the benefits of joining a union. the ambush rule would give extraordinary power to political bosses on the outside while shutting her voice down. the one person who probably knows more about and cares more about her employees than anyone else. after years spent building a dream and caring about the men and women who helped her get there, this rule is an insult -- an insult -- to entrepreneurs like her. moreover, it's not the men and women on the assemblyline who are demanding the ambush rule. there's no demand for this

coming up from the work force in america. so who is demanding it? it's the powerful political bosses who worry that more and more workers are making an informed choice not -- not -- to join a union. those bosses are worried about what informed choices could mean for them -- less money less power. so this far-reaching rule, the so-called mount everest of revelations, is not the result of the -- regulations, is not the result of the administration seeking out the best policy, it's just another example of the administration seeing what it can get away with. what it can get away with. it's a brazen attempt to enrich powerful political friends of the white house by weakening worker rights. it's not fair for workers and it's not right for our country. and my good friends the senators from tennessee and wyoming, are here on the floor to explain what congress plans to do to stand up for basic fairness in the workplace. they're going to talk about this

latest example of partisan executive overreach the kind of overreach that's coming to define the obama administration. and what congress plans to do next. so madam president i see the senator from tennessee is on his feet and i yield the floor. mr.ly aexaround:mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the president. i thank the majority leader for his remarks and his leadership. i'm also glad to be here with the senator from wyoming who over the years has been the leading republican senator on the issue of ambush elections. we're here today as the majority leader said, to introduce a congressional review act resolution to stop a new national labor relations board rule. i'd like to speak about that for just a few minutes and then let the senator from wyoming continue. last december the nlrb issued a final rule that shortened the time line between when prounion

organizers ask an employer for a secret ballot election and when the election actually takes place. i refer to this as many do, as an ambush election because it forces a union election before an employee has a chance to figure out what is going on. even worse before an employer has a chance to figure out what is going on. even worse it jeopardizes employees' privacy by requiring employees to turn over personal information including e-mail addresses, phone numbers, shift hours and locations to union organizers. the effect of this resolution will be to permit the majority leader to bring this resolution to the floor after the congressional recess. there will be 10 hours of debate debate. the resolution can't be amended. it needs a majority vote to pass. the house of representatives is following a similar procedure. both houses must vote on it.

if it passes both houses the president can sign or veto the resolution. if he decides to veto, it would take 67 votes to override. if the nlrb's new ambush election rule is disapproved the board cannot issue a substantially similar rule without congressional approval. now, madam president today more than 95% of union elections occur within 56 days of the petition filing. but under this new rule, elections could take place in as few as 11 days. this rule will harm employers and employees alike. here's how. if you're an employer who gets ambushed -- in other words a union election happens before you really know what's going on on -- on day one you get a faxed copy of an election petition that's been filed at your local nlrb regional office stating

that 30% of your employees support a union. the union may have already been quietly trying to organize for months without your knowledge. your employees have been only able to hear the union's pitch. by day two or three of this process you must publicly post an election notice in your workplace and post it on-line as well if you communicate with your employees electronically. by noon on day seven you must file with the nlrb what's called a statement of position. this is a comprehensive written legal document in which an employer sets out a legal position. under this new nlrb rule, you the employer, waive your rights to use any legal arguments not raised in the document. on day seven you must also present the union and the nlrb with a list of prospective voters as well as their job classifications, shifts and work locations.

then on day eight a pre-election hearing is held at the nlrb regional office and an election date is set. by day ten the employer must present the union with a list of employee names personal young email addresses, personal cell phone numbers and home addresses. day 11 is the earliest day on which the nlrb can conduct the election under the new rule. under the new rule, the union has the power to postpone an election by an additional ten days at this point but the employer has no corresponding power. under this new nlrb rule, before day eight an employer will have less than one week to figure out what the election petition is, to find a lawyer, legal representation. and, madam president many employers don't have a labor lawyer as a matter of course, to

determine legal positions on the relevant issues, to learn what statements and actions the law permits and prohibits to gather the information required by the nlrb to communicate with employees about the decision they are making to correct any misstatements and falsehoods that employees may be hearing from union organizers, making even the slightest mistake in this in the leadup to an election can result in the nlrb setting aside the results and ordering a rerun election or worse, the board could require an employer to automatically bargain with the union. but it is the employees who stand to lose the most under this new rule. first, because of this ambush election employees may only hear half the story about what unionizing may mean for them and for their workplace. when a workplace is unionized especially in a state that does not have a right to work law employees have their dues money

taken out every paycheck, whether they like it or not. they lose the ability to deal directly with their employer to address concerns, to ask for promotion, to ask for a raise. they instead have to work through the union. important considerations like which of their fellow employees will be included in the bargaining unit will no longer be determined before the election. as the two dissenting members of the nlrb put it, employees will be asked to vote now understand later. second employees lose their privacy because the rule that is proposed now finally the rule we seek to overturn requires employers to hand over employees' personal email addresses, their cell phone numbers, their shift locations their job classifications even if the employee has made it clear he does not want to be contacted by union organizers.

this rule madam president appears to be a solution in search of a problem. only 4.3% of union elections occur more than 56 days after the petition filing. within 56 days, nearly 96% of the elections occur. only about 4% occur after 56 days. and the current median number of days between a filing and an election is just 38 days. so half the elections are in less than 38 days. these figures are well within the nlrb's own goals for timely elections. and unions won 64% of elections in 2013. in recent years the union win rate has actually been going up. so what's the problem here? the majority leader said it very well when he referred to a 1959

debate over amendments to the national labor relations act and then-senator john f. kennedy warned against rushing employees into a union election. senator kennedy said -- quote -- there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of an election in which both parties can present their viewpoints. the 30-day waiting period, senator kennedy said then, is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they're unfamiliar with the issues. madam president, it's clear to see that this rule is wrong and that is why senator enzi, senator mcconnell and i are asking the senator to dis-- the senate to disapprove it and to prohibit the nlrb from issuing any similar rule. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. enzi: madam president i would ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: mr. president i want to thank the senator from tennessee, senator alexander for his comments. i don't think i've ever heard it put quite as concisely or the timeline explained quite as well as he did. i hope people are paying attention. i hope they'll go back and take a look at the -- the journal and see exactly how short a time frame that is, for both the employer and the employees. so i rise today to support the resolution of disapproval that would repeal the nlrb's ambush election rule. i want to again thank my friend, senator examped for his leadership as the -- senator alexander, for his leadership as the head of the committee and for leading this effort to prevent yet more misguided federal regulation that will hurt american businesses and employees. unfortunately, this isn't the first time that we've had to

fight this rule from the nlrb. when i led the congressional review act resolution to stop this rule in 2012, i truly appreciated senator alexander's support and am proud to support him now. i didn't have the votes to pass the resolution in 2012, but we've had some elections and some changes in the senate since then. the rule that the national labor relations board has proposed would be a tremendous burden on employers, especially small businesses. if this rule goes into effect, it will mean that employers will barely have time to meet their pre-election legal obligations. it will mean that employees will be rushed into an election without time to study and consider what the unionization would mean for them, for their workplace and for their community. also big labor will be able to force elections through in order to boost revenue from union dues and increase the influence of big labor. our economy is already grappling with federal rules and regulations that hold back businesses.

this rule from the national labor relations board will be yet another break slowing down our economy at a time when we need to encourage employers and businesses to grow. it would be especially harmful to small business, which are the backbone of our economy and the most important factor in maintaining our fragile economic growth. small businesses that don't have human resource departments and more particularly don't have in-house legal counsel all ready to face a significant burden when they have to navigate union elections. this rule would only make it even harder. this rule would hurt businesses for the sole purpose of helping unions that don't need it. union elections are supposed to be held in a timely and fair manner, which is what the current system achieves. the average time between filing an election petition as has been mentioned and holding the vote is 38 days, and nearly all elections happen within two months. that process allows employers to understand their rights and meet

their legal obligations. it allows employees to educate themselves about what unionization means for them personally and for their work, and it ensures that union elections will be a fair opportunity for workers to decide whether to organize. under the current system, there is a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election and the actual secret ballot election. that window of time is crucial. employers use that time to understand their rights and restrictions in the process and to meet their legal obligations. the union election process is not simple, nor is it straightforward for employees and there are numerous places where a well-meaning employer working to meet their obligations could misstep and face heavy penalties from the national labor relations board. employers also use this time to communicate with their employees about the decision they're making and to clear up misstatements, rumors or falsehoods that have been going around. the time between petitioning for

election and voting is also used for parties to study decisions by hearing officers or the national labor relations board's regional director and ask for clarification or review. under the national labor relations board's rule, all the opportunities for anyone involved in the process to understand their legal obligations, to exercise their rights to study or debate the arguments for and against unionization or even to learn about the issue would be squeezed into as little as 14 days. is it fair for an employee to only have ten days to learn how his or her vote will affect the rest of their time with that employer? you have got to remember, they're going to be working during that time probably. or how much money membership in a union is going to cost them? or what it means for their ability to negotiate directly with their employer for raises or other benefits or concerns, or any of the countless other issues that an employee might want to approach his or her

employer about. under current law both parties are able to ravishes about the election at a pre-election hearing, covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors. under the new regulation, parties will be barred from raising these questions until after the election. employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will actually be in the bargaining unit with them. this is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' votes. under current law when either party raises pre-election issues, they are allowed to submit evidence and testimony and file post-hearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider, and then they have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election. under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of

representation and all post-election briefs, and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. this can be quite a disadvantage for employees as well as employers. what this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time for filing the petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with employees their rights and less opportunities for employees to research the union and the ramifications of forming a union. the nlrb is ensuring that the odds are stacked again the employees and the businesses. this vote's an opportunity to tell the national labor relations board to reverse course. i hope this resolution will convince the national labor relations board to pull back from this disastrous rule and encourage them to focus on their statutory mission. rather than overturning decades of settled practice that ensures that this process is held in a timely manner and that there is

a fair opportunity for all sides to understand, to participate and to exercise their rights. the nlrb's purpose is to enforce the national labor relations act, which is a carefully balanced law that's only rarely been changed. when changes have occurred, they have been the result of careful negotiations with input from stakeholders and thoughtful debate. the nlrb is attempting a sneak attack through the rule-making process. this is an ambush on the national labor relations act to set up ambush elections. the national labor relations board is an agency that has historically issued very few regulations. most of the questions that come up under the law are handled through the decisions of the board. board decisions often do change the enforcement of the law significantly, but they are issued in response to an actual dispute and a question of law. in contrast, the ambush election

is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. the rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders. it was not made with careful debate. and there was no attempt to reach a consensus. in the late 1950's, congress worked to pass the landram-griffin act which protected the rights of both rank-and-file union members and their employees. this was a carefully constructed piece of legislation that came out of a special committee to study the issue that heard from more than 1,500 witnesses over three years and congress debated the issue of how long of a period of time there should be between the request for an election and the actual election came up during those negotiations. my colleagues may be surprised to learn -- although they wouldn't if they had been listening to the previous two speeches -- that it was senator john f. kennedy who argued

vigorously vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. as he said, there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of an election in which both parties can present their viewpoints. the 30-day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees if into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues. unquote. again, that was a quote by senator john f. kennedy speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. the 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law and obviously it's not a law today. instead the nlrb adopted a practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case. but this caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. employees who are not aware of