the keystone enters the united states through montana and that's why i'll keep fighting to get this project moving forward. in fact, in our state alone the state of montana the keystone pipeline means $80 million to montana counties and schools per year. $16 million per year of that goes directly to our montana university systems. this is how we continue to fund our infrastructure, our schools, our teachers. a couple weeks ago i got a call from ryan miles. he's the business manager for the operating engineers local 400 in montana. he told me the keystone x.l. pipeline will create 300 good-paying jobs for his union members in montana alone. and like most montanans ryan is scratching his head. he doesn't understand why the president is standing in the way of these good-paying union jobs.

a while back, i was in my pickup traveling in eastern montana in the town of glass go. ,,about glasgow. i stopped by the norvelle leak co-op. this supplies electricity to a few thousand families in northeast montana. they told me over a cup of coffee that morning that they will keep electric rates flat for the next ten years if the keystone pipeline is approved. why is that? because the norvelle electric co-op is supplying electricity that extra volume will keep costs down for everybody. and i asked what happens if the keystone pipeline is not approved? and they said electric rates will go up about 40% over the next ten years. that's nearly $500 a year

increase per family. now, these are hardworking montana families living month to month. these are senior citizens living on fixed incomes. we can hold their utility rates flat for the next ten years by passing the keystone pipeline and building it. what about north american energy independence? up to 830,000 barrels a day of oil will be transported through this pipeline. now, contrary to what the president has said, 100,000 barrels a day from the back anne -- bakken, which is shared between north dakota and montana, will be put into the pipeline close to baker montana. the president was just given four pinocchios by "the washington post" yesterday for claiming that the keystone pipeline bypassed the u.s. i'd like to have the president

come out to montana. i'll pick him up in billings. we drive out in my pickup and i'll show him where the proposed citing is -- siting is for the billings onramp where 100,000 barrels a day will enter the keystone pipeline. the people of montana the people in the bakken region know that the president's claim is absolutely false. now, with gas dropping under two bucks a gallon out where i'm from that's been a welcome change for many, many hardworking montana families. and why is gas -- why are gas prices dropping? that's because we're seeing more made in america energy. and, again this lowering in gas prices will result in approximately a $750 a year savings for the average american household. and that's a good thing. but rather than hitting pause on our energy production, it's

time to encourage it. just this morning we are reminded today by israeli president ethanol that -- it in net that we are living -- netanyahu that we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. energy security isn't just about jobs and energy prices. it is directly tied to our national security. whether it's isis, whether it's bocka that ram in nigeria and chad russian aggression in eastern europe, the growing threat of a nuclear iran, it is vitally important we move forward with more made in america energy because many of these regions filled with turmoil supply much of the world 's oil and natural gas. i remember just a year ago when we were having some challenges and we looked at the numbers of what's going on in the ukraine nearly 40% of the natural gas

that is supplied to europe comes through pipelines going through the ukraine. and thankfully as the united states becomes the world's largest oil producer this year, surpassing both russia and saudi arabia these are positive steps forward towards a more secure future for our children and grandchildren. we need more made in america energy not more made in the middle east oil and the keystone pipeline will help us do just that. so looking forward, the president's veto isn't the end. this week we will vote to override the president's veto. i hope we can get three or four more senators on board this veto vote and we can do it here in the senate. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it was encouraging to see a good bipartisan vote here in the senate and over in the house in support of the keystone pipeline. let's stand together, let's

stand with the american people and override the president's shortsighted veto. but regardless of the vote, the fight's not over. this week the president himself said he would make a final decision on this pipeline, and i hope he does. do you realize it took the canadians just seven months to approve the keystone pipeline, seven months. it's taken our president now over six years without approving the pipeline. so we must keep the pressure on this administration, we must continue to fight for american jobs, american opportunity american energy independence, and low energy prices. mr. president, i yield back my time.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: that's good to hear. mr. president, you i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 94 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 94 supporting the goals and ideals of career and technical education month. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the

table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's executive calendar, calendar 48 and all nominations on the secretary's desk and air force, army, coast guard marine corps and navy, i further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then return to legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow, wednesday, march 4 following the prayer and pledge, the morning business deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the

senate resume consideration of s.j. res. 8 with two hours of debate remaining, equally divided in the usual form. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so tomorrow senators should expect two roll call votes at approximately 11:30 on passage of the resolution of disapproval on ambush elections followed by cloture on the keystone veto message. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following up to an hour of debate controlled by senator murray or her designee. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president.

i rise to speak about the national labor relations board and the reforms that have been proposed the new rule, and i rise first of all to provide by way of a predicator background what happened in 1935 when the national labor relations act was passed. a lot to talk about in that act, but just like when a major piece of legislation passes, we have findings that undergird the statute itself. i won't go through all those today, but i think some of the language in there is especially appropriate for what we're talking about. the findings in summary spoke to the benefits of collective bargaining the benefits of organizing and collectively bargaining and asserted at one point very early in the statute in the findings, the first couple paragraphs of the

findings that experience -- and i'm paraphrasing this but i'll get to specific words in a moment -- but experience has shown that collective bargaining and organizing -- quote -- " safeguards commerce from injury impairment or interruption" -- unquote. it goes on to talk about why it was better, why they believed it was better to pass a statute to resolve labor-management disputes instead of the old way, which was constant conflict, constant fighting, and in some cases even violence. so we did the right thing in 1935 as a country and we've had -- we've had some history since then to draw upon. the national labor relations board, of course, is the entity that gives meaning to what we intend when we pass laws like the national labor relations act.

and now we're having a dispute here in this body and in the other body as well about what these rules ought to be. what are the rules that govern the national labor relations board but in particular, what are the rules that govern elections. and with all of the challenges that we're facing in the country right now the middle class has nowhere near recovered from the last -- the great recession wages have been declining over a generation or at least not increasing at the level that costs have been increasing, so with all that pressure on families you would think this could be an area of common ground, but it's not. so with all those challenges facing middle-class families, it's disappointing that republicans in the senate have chosen to focus on rolling back the national labor relations

board's modest and commonsense reforms to help workers get a seat at the table so they can increase their wages and their economic security. now, democrats are the fighting to increase wages and we're also fighting for economic security. at the same time republicans seem to be constantly fighting to increase corporate profits while making -- making workers pay the price. all of us, whether we're democrats or republicans should be coming together to expand workers' voice at the table, and not attacking workers' rights to collectively bargain. so we're talking about something fundamental here. the opportunity to have an election in a workplace and the benefits that flow from that. and that's really about empowering workers. and i believe that's one of the reasons why we pass the --

passed the national labor relations act not just to have a board that could settle disputes but two actually empower workers in ways they hadn't been empowered up to that point in our history. so empowering those workers is an important part of building a stronger economy. that works not just for those individual workers in that work site but an economy that works for all families, not just the wealthiest few. when workers have a seat at the bargaining table, our economy prospers and the middle class thrives. i've always believed that if we didn't have unions and collective bargaining and organizing since world war ii and even since the 1930's, we'd have a much less robust middle class. some people believe there would not be a middle class. but i'm at least willing to assert that the right to organize and clearing collective bargain something not just good for the

worker and his or her family but is also good for the economy as well because those workers are the ones that drive the economy not just the work that they do but the expenditures they make on behalf of their family. so even though workers are more productive in the united states than ever before, workers are still struggling with those stagnant wages. and today the middle class accounts for the smallest share of the nation's income since world war ii. hard to believe that the middle class has been so devastateed. we know from our history that when workers have a voice in the workplace through collective bargaining wages increase, workplace safety improves, and workers have increased retirement and health security. all of these benefits have helped grow america's middle class. labor unions help workers share

in that economic prosperity that they've helped to create through their own hard work. now, one of the great moments that i've had as a senator from pennsylvania when you go to -- you go to a manufacturing plant and they take you on a tour -- i'm sure the presiding officer has done this a umin number of times. and they take you on a tour not to show you just how they're making something but they're also very proud of the way they interact with and relate to and work with their employees. and they go out of their way to point to a bulletin board to say we have very few injuries or zero injuries in a certain period of time. because they know if they have fewer injuries, they're going to be more productive. if they have fewer injuries, theythey're going to have employees

who are produce on their behalf. wovensone of the reasons they have fewer injuries in those businesses is because workers have rights. workers have rights they didn't have in the recallly part of the 1900's. so we know from our history that this works this process of making sure that workers have a seat at the table. now, let's go to the national labor relations board their election reforms. these particular reforms make modest but i, i would argue very important efforts to modernize and streamline the election process, to reduce delays and litigation. the current system is vulnerable to litigation that is drag out for a long period of time, drag out the election process ans and put workers' rights on hold.

in the past, employers and unions had to send information about the election process through the post office, which would cost time and money. the new rule brings this election process into the 21st century, which is 15 years old now, by letting employers and unions file forms electronically. i think that's the least that could happen. you would think that in this era we're living in, when everything is done -- most everything is done electronically in banking and in other industries, that at a minimum we should have information transmitted about an election something valuable in a workplace workplace -- we hold elections with great regard and we believe in the sanctity of elections so the least we could do is make sure that those workers have the benefits of something that would

transmit the information electronically. so sending that information in that fashion makes all the sense in the world. the rule also allows the use of modern forms of communication through cell phones and e-mails. that's not asking too much to be able to transmit information to prepare workers for an election by the use of e-mail or cell phones. the reforms are commonsense steps to make sure that the nlrb -- the board -- is using its taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively. now, these changes as i referred to earlier aren't just good for workers; they also help businesses by streamlining the whole process. the elections process in this case. right now the election process varies from region to region. streamlining the process will provide both certainty for

employers and workers themselves. the new rule allows businesses and unions to file forms electronically as meption mentioned instead of using postage. so modernizing -- this is what we're talking about here, modernizing election rules allows businesses and unions to use these basic forms of communication in a way that promotes common sense. the rule will at long last level the playing field for small businesses. right now the biggest corporations can exploit the system with long and costly litigation to deny workers if they choose to do that, deny workers a fair up-or-down vote on joining a union. by making the election process more consistent and transparent the board's reforms level the playing field for the smaller businesses that already play

fair. so the nlrb, the board itself, the representation rule is in need of just kind of basic updates. there haven't been substantial updates to this nlrb election process since the 1970's, and today that leads to inefficiencies and delays. right now big corporations take advantage of those inefficiencies to postpone and even deny workers the right to vote on union representation. often in the face of employer tactics, workers give up hope. in fact, one in three will never even get to have an election. that's not something that the national labor relations act intended. i don't think that's what anyone intends when it comes to the possibility of an election. so these modernization reforms help restore balance and

fairness to the election process. so i'm perplexed why this is the subject of so much controversy because these are basic reforms to help people exercise their right to vote in the workplace which is consistent with our values, consistent with our history, and also consistent with our efforts not just to move that worker in and his other -- and his or her family forward but also to move the economy forward. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president i come to the floor today in strong support of the national labor relations board's new effort to make workplace union elections more efficient and more effective. and i come to the floor today in opposition to republican efforts to preserve a broken system. today instead of raising minimum wages for millions of struggling families or letting students

refinance their student loans or making sure that women get equal pay for equal work, instead of implementing policies that strengthen the middle class republicans are pressing a bill to stop a government agency from modernizing its procedures because it might help -- yes help american workers. coming out of the great depression america's labor unions helped build the middle class. for half a century as union membership went up, americans' median family income went up. that was true for families whether they were part of a union or not. as our country got richer, our families got richer. as our families got richer, our country got richer. since 1935, congress has required the national labor relations board to oversee the workplace elections in which workers decide whether to be represented by a union.

according to nlrb data, more than 90% of the time this works out just fine. for most of the cases that make it to an election, employees and employers agree about the process and an election is held without a dispute. done. but in the remaining handful of cases, the rules on how to resolve these concerns have turned into a mess. over time, a hodgepodge of different rules for resolving these disputes has emerged in each of the country's 26 nlrb regions. to fix this, the nlrb recently finalized one national set of rules that sets out clear procedures for resolving these issues. in other words the nlrb is trying to make dispute resolution clearer more efficient, and more consistent from region to region. trying to make government work better shouldn't be controversial but it is controversial.

why? because some employers simply oppose union votes altogether. they don't want the nlrb to work. they don't want union elections to happen at all. so they're lobbying against these new rules and congressional republicans are standing up for them, advancing a proposal to stop the nlrb from implementing its final rules and doing the job that congress gave it 80 years ago. republicans claim that they're concerned about workers being able to ambush their employers with workplace elections. now, that's just plain flan -- just plain nonsense. employers are always notified and according to a top labor attorney to testified just a few weeks ago in the help committee hearing, there is nothing -- nothing -- in the new rule that would stop an employer from having its relevant concerns heard and addressed prior to an

election. let's be honest. the only ambush here is the republican ambush on workers' basic rights. according to a 2001 sphriewd the berk -- study from the berkeley study, long election delays correspond with higher rates of labor law violations. a delay gives anti-union employers more time to retaliate against union organizers and to intimidate workers and delay works, according to nlrb data, nearly a third of the time when employees file a petition to request an election, they never actually get one. employers who want to keep their workers out of a union prefer a broken inefficient system that gives them room to manipulate the process and to block workers from organizing. but that's not the law. the nlrb doesn't answer to them. federal law directs the nlrb to

make sure that election disputes can be resolved fairly between employers and employees and that is exactly what the nlrb is doing. throughout our history powerful interests have tried to capture washington and rig the system in their favor but we didn't roll over. at every turn in every time of challenge, organized labor has been there fighting on behalf of the american people. labor was on the front lines to take children out of factories and to put them in schools. labor was there to give meaning to the words "consumer protection" by making our food and our medicine safe. labor was there to fight for minimum wages in states across this country. in every fight to build opportunity in this country in every fight to level the playing field, in every fight for working families, labor has been on the front lines.

powerful interests have attacked many at the basic foundations of this country the foundations that once built a strong middle class, and too many times those powerful interests have prevailed. so it comes down a question i've asked before: who does this congress work for? republicans say that government should keep on working for powerful c.e.o.'s who don't like unions and who've figured out how to exploit a tangleed system. republicans complain about government inefficiencies, but then they introduce a bill that is specifically designed so that a broken, inefficient system will stay broken and inefficient, even when we know how to fix it. well we weren't sent here just to represent c.e.o.'s who don't like unions. we were sent here to support working people who just want a fighting chance to level the playing field. i urge my colleagues to vote

against this republican resolution and let the nlrb do its job. thank you mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president are we in a quorum call? i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president i come to the floor to express my disappointment that the majority leader is asking to rule 14 the bipartisan iran nuclear agreement review act. i repeat, the bipartisan nuclear review act. and i must ask the majority

leader what happened. where is the bipartisanship part? where is the bipartisanship that we have expressed that i expressed this morning on the floor, and last night at apac? i ask again, what happened to putting aside political posturing and partisanship? what happened to the majority leader's pledge in january to -- quote -- "decentralize power in the senate" and -- quote --"open up the legislative process." quote -- "we need to return to regular order" he said. i agree with him. let's do it. let's return to regular order. frankly, this is not what was intended and it is certainly against my better judgment, against procedure against any understanding we might have had to take the politics out of our effort to establish congressional oversight of any nuclear agreement with iran.

i'm more than disappointed. i'm pretty outraged. i said last night and again this morning that i joined chairman corker senator graham and kaine, along with senators donnelly heitkamp, rubio risch in introducing bipartisan -- bipartisan -- oversight legislation to ensure that congress has a chance to review the deal before it goes into effect, and to oversee its compliance after it goes into effect. and now putting my bipartisanship aside, we are back to politics as usual. the only way to make this work is to work together. now, the provisions of the bill itself are good ones. it would require the president to submit an agreement to congress within five days of reaching it.

it would give congress 60 days to consider the agreement before sanctions relief to be provided. it would outline consequences should congress decide to disprove the agreement. -- disapprove the agreement and in terms of oversight it would require information on potential breaches to be promptly reported to congress along with a comprehensive report to congress every 180 days of any iranian action inconsistent with the agreement. it would require a report every 90 days from the president on iran's compliance informing us of any actions that might advance iran's nuclear program that it has not financed any act of terrorism and any sanctions relief is both appropriate and proportionate to iran's efforts under the agreement. and, of course, it would have the here in the senate that 60-vote threshold so it would have to be a bipartisan determination. we in good faith in good

faith, agreed to introduce this legislation and take it through the committee process and to the floor so that congress, which was responsible for bringing iran to the table in the first place to negotiate would have a role in reviewing the agreement before it goes into effect. whether to provide sanctions relief and overseeing implementation an iranian compliance after it goes into effect. because as i said last night a deal cannot be built on trust alone. now, i was talking about iran. i did not know i was talking about our deal to pass a bipartisan review act. so let me conclude, i can't imagine why the majority leader would seek to short circuit the process unless the goals are political rather than substantive, and i regret to say these actions make clear an intention that isn't

substantive, that is political. on a day -- on a day that has been defined by serious discourse about iran's illicit nuclear weapons program at a moment when legislators contemplated the most serious national security issue of our time i'm disappointed that the leader has chosen to proceed outside of regular order. by bringing the corker-menendez legislation directly to the floor for debate, the majority leader is -- has single-handedly undermining our bipartisan efforts. no one in congress has worked harder on that issue and i certainly don't take a back seat to anyone in pursuing iran's nuclear weapons program and standing up for israel, but i sincerely hope, i sincerely hope that we can restore regular order, that this bill cannot be fully considered by all the

members of the senate foreign read committee in due time. and finally there is no emergency, this deal, if there is one won't be concluded until the summer. so there's plenty of time to wait till march 24 find out whether we have a deal or not and then act to be able to be in a posture to opine on that deal and deal with it accordingly. there's no reason, no reason, to accelerate this process in this way go outside of regular order, bypass the senate foreign relations committee and come directly to the floor. now, i know i cannot object to the rule, rule 14 process under the rules but i say to my colleagues if this is the process, then i will have no choice but to use my voice and my vote against any motion to proceed. i hope that that is not the case. i have worked too hard to get to this moment. but if that's the way we're going to proceed then i will

certainly have to vote against proceeding at that time. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i rise to oppose s.j. res. 8, a misguided resolution that targets workers' rights to organize and hurts working families in hawaii and around the country. union election rules haven't been updated since the 1970's. the national labor relations board or nlrb is trying to bring union election rules into the 21st century but today's senate resolution will block the nlrb's commonsense updates. the right to organize is a crucial part of our democracy. unions have helped build the middle class in hawaii and nationwide.

it's disappointing that instead of working to create jobs or help the middle class get ahead, today we're debating whether to make it harder to join a union. workers wishing to join a union already face many barriers. for example companies have significant opportunity to make their case to employees about why they should oppose a union. meanwhile, unions are not allowed to visit the work site to make their case for joining a union. and they do not have access to modern contact information like emails and cell phones, unbelievable as that may sound to contact workers. in addition companies can delay union elections with what amounts to frivolous litigation and appeal after appeal. nationwide in contested cases workers already have to wait an

average of 40 months -- four months, excuse me, to vote whether to join a union. while most employers in hawaii want to support their workers there have been those rare cases of companies exploiting the current system to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace. let me tell you about a situation that happened in hawaii where workers have not been given a raise in six years. they asked a local union for help in organizing their union. in the runup to the union elections, the workers were forced to attend one on one or group meetings on work time where the management could convince workers to vote against the union. this company hired a private security firm and posted security guards outside the voting area during the vote. workers felt intimidated. the company appealed the election results and nlrb

rulings overand over again adding delay after delay and revote after revote. in july, 2005, 40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an election, the nlrb board finally certified a union for the workers. still, the company continued to offer appeal after appeal of the election results and even fired 31 union supporters in 2007. finally, at the end of 2012, ten years later the certified union reached its first union contract. remember i noted that most workplaces are organized things are done in four months? well that's not always the case. the nlrb's updated union election rules would help reduce this kind of intimidation and

delay, which happens all too often. including allowing organizers to contact workers by email and cell phone. it's pretty astounding that we have to have a rule change in order to make this kind of commonsense change available to organizers. which, by the way, this resolution that i ask my colleagues to vote against disallows. the rule will make it easier for small businesses to follow labor election laws. currently big corporations can use expensive lawyers to litigate and prevent union elections while small businesses don't have those kinds of resources. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these modest, commonsense updates to nlrb rules and voting no on the resolution. let's stand with working men and women in this country and

support the middle class. i want to end with a quote from one of our labor organizers and leaders in hawaii, business manager peter ganavan. in a recent piece in "pacific business news" he explained that -- quote --"hawaii's union climate is an extension of our local culture of helping each other and caring for our communities" -- end quote. allowing workers a fair choice and a fair chance to join a union is the least we can do for our workers in the middle class. i yield my time. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

ms. hirono: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: thank you very much mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 95 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 95 designating march 3 2015 as

world wildlife day. mr. blumenthal: i further ask -- the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. blumenthal: i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i'm here for the main purpose of vigorously opposing senate joint resolution 8 and to support the national labor relation board's recent rule to modernize the process that workers use if they decide they want to form a union and bargain collectively. the new nlrb rule makes modest but highly important changes to improve the overall consistency and efficiency of the election process allowing voters to vote

for or against the creation of a union in a fair and timely way. this rule is long overdue and i've seen in connecticut and in my personal experience with the nlrb how important it is. as i go around connecticut i consistently hear of problems that come in workers seeking to gain representation to form a union. it's cumbersome, it's costly, it's time-consuming. it is prone to needless delays. it involves needless litigation and it creates uncertainty for all involved. so this rule change, this new rule is good for working men and women but it is also good for businesses by reducing and in some cases eliminating the cost, time uncertainty that are

aggravating and expensive. it's a small step, a small step toward a level playing field and a guarantee that companies respect workers' rights to organize and gain the benefits of union membership. here's what the rule does. very simply, it removes obstacles to forming unions and requires businesses to postpone litigation over member eligibility issues until after the workers join a union. it cuts down on lengthy litigation that could cause union formation drag on for a year or more. it modernizes the election process. very very importantly it allows for the electronic filing and transmission of petitions for union elections believe it or not previously all of it had been done by fax or mail; not exactly the latest or least

expensive technology. and it assures unions and employees have enough information about each other so they can communicate in advance of the election. it streamlines the nlrb's procedures. and with all due respect to the nlrb what's needed there is practices that are uniform throughout the regional offices so that organizers can better interact with the agency. the its effect is not only on unions and businesses but also on the nlrb in speeding and streamlining and improving the way it works. now its effects are in other areas too. but the opponents of this measure forget to mention that these new rules apply equally to both elections seeking to certify a union and elections to decertify a union. these more eesht procedures will

help both workers who want to choose a union and workers who want to get rid of an existing union. a level playing field fairness, efficiency less cost, less time. and the rule also still gives employers the opportunity to inform workers about the drawbacks of unions so that workers have a fair opportunity to decide if they want union representation. this is the epitome of fair and balanced and more efficient kinds of rules. the simple fact of the matter is -- and we know it -- folks across america know it, people in this body know it, the majority of american workers want representation. 53% of workers want a union in their workplace but because of the broken election process fewer than 7% of workers are

represented. that's a stark fact, as ronald reagan said, facts are stubborn things. 35% of the time that workers file a petition for a union election they never even get to election. the current election process is full of delay and costs and in many cases unfortunately litigation gives way to outright discrimination. according to a 2011 university of california berkeley study the longer the delay between the filing of the petition and the election date, the longer the -- the more likely it is that the nlrb will issue complaints charging employers with illegal activity. in other words basically the election process is drawn out and leads to growing dissatisfaction and contempt and

and thereby damages everyone. this rule is a necessity and will have real impacts on real people. in connecticut i've spoken to people and heard the stories of individuals who have been deprived or inhibited from exercising their right to vote in the election process and this process is broken. the new nlrb would prevent frivolous litigation from delaying an election, and i've spoken to workers who wanted the election to be held on a date that was beyond the allowed waiting period. they told me they were told if they didn't back down, the employer would -- in quotes -- "make sure the process would be lengthy and difficult." the new rule will itself push back on intimidation. in the face of these kinds of tactics, some have persevered but only through tremendous resolve, and they've triumphed

in a seriously flawed and failed nlrb election process. in short mr. president these rules are an important step in the right direction. they provide for free choice, fair and protected for both sides. they will reduce costs and time and litigation. and so i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure as ill conceived and ill considered, and i hope that we will preserve the nlrb's new rule. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the

that vote was 257-167 and the measure did not contain any language dealing with president obama's immigration policy. follow the house live on c-span.

earlier today israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu spoke to a joint meeting of congress. he discussed the controversy surrounding his speech and he thanked lawmakers for their support of israel. here's a look. >> i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans for your

comments support for israel that year after year, decade after decade. [applause] [applause] [applause] i know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit you stand with israel. [applause] [applause] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been about politics.

it must always remain above politics. [applause] because america and israel we share a common destiny. the destiny of promised land that cherish freedom and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of american, of america's people and of america's presence from having truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. now some of that is widely known. [applause] some of that is widely known

like intelligence sharing opposing anti-israeli solutions at the u.n.. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known. i called him in 2010 when we had the carmel forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011 we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again he provided vital assistance at a crucial moment. or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [applause] in each of those moments i called the president and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise

between an american president and an israeli prime minister, but i know this and i will always be grateful for president obama for that support. [applause] [applause] that was just part of the speech by president netanyahu delivered today. you can see his entire remarks tonight at 8:00 eastern.

>> people are drawn to the beach beach. the rising tide in the rising wind certainly drew them. they watched as both of these factors. at the time we had wooden bathhouses over the gulf of mexico and we also had peers and we then had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea. as the storm and kristin intensity these big structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston

saturday september 8 1900. the storm began before noon, increased and dramatic intensity and finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. coming up next today's white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. he spoke about a range of issues including hillary clinton conducting official business of secretary of state while using personal e-mails. also israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's address to

congress earlier today. here is more now. >> i am here to take questions on that or any other topics on your mind. >> did anyone here at the white house raise objections to secretary clinton using her personal e-mail account? >> what i can tell you is specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government which is specifically that employees of the obama administration should use their official e-mail accounts when they are conducting official government business. however when there are situations where personal e-mail accounts are used it is important for those records to be preserved consistent with the federal records act. in fact the president signed into law a bill at the end of last year that clarified the guidelines for how those personal e-mails can be properly stored and maintained.

this is part of why the state department has asked all of the previous secretaries of state who have used any e-mail as they were conducting official u.s. business to send their e-mails to the state department so they could be properly preserved and maintained. secretary clinton came in response to that request reviewed her e-mails and complied with that request by sending all of the e-mails on her personal account that pertains to her official responsibilities as secretary of state. they did that even though many of the records were all ready maintained on the state system because those records were e-mails between the secretary of state in state department employees using their official government e-mail address. >> so are you saying her use of her personal e-mail saleh was appropriate or was it in violation?

>> you should check with the state department who was responsible for managing this policy but the policy as a general matter allows individuals to use their personal e-mail address as long as those e-mails are maintained and sent to the state department which if you ask secretary clinton steam that is what they completed in the last month or two. >> she is not the first person to use a personal e-mail. is there a system for archiving personal e-mails for governor -- government officials? >> it does establish clear guidelines for how individuals if they are using their personal e-mail to conduct official business can ensure that those records are properly maintained. official guidance that we offer to administration employees and certainly the guidance that i follow when i have been the white house is that i use my official government e-mail address when i'm conducting official government business. it seems the additional step of taking a personal e-mail and

forwarding it to my government e-mail so it can be maintained is not incredibly uncommon for one of you or your colleagues to send an e-mail to my personal address. a few of you have it but when i do that i will answer the e-mails which i try to be good about doing. but then i will take that response and forward the e-mail to my official accounts of the record can be properly preserved. >> and you respond to the announcement from the house that they will vote on homeland security funding bill without restrictions? >> as you heard me say yesterday the white house has been urging the congress for months now to do the right thing and that is passé full year funding bill for the department of homeland security that does not include any politically motivated writers and the benefit of that is that while the department of homeland security takes the necessary steps to protect the american people and at the end of last year democrats and republicans on capitol hill got

together and work to hammer out an agreement about the appropriate funding levels for that agency. that agreement was reached at the end of last year but for several months now congressional republicans have prevented votes on that compromise because they are trying to figure out a way that they can capitalize on a political opportunity. the fact is trying to politicize something as fundamental to our national security as funding for the department of homeland security is completely inappropriate and we are pleased congressional leaders in the house have apparently relented and abandoned the search for political advantage and instead are trying to move forward to do the right thing which is to fully fund the department of homeland security. roberta. >> when secretary clinton was using her private e-mail address was the white house counsel's office office aware of that and didn't sanction that? >> well their responsibility for

ensuring that agency records are properly preserved and maintained is the responsibility of agency officials in court nation with the national archives and records administration. this is a fairly bureaucratic function but yet an important one. these records need to be maintained for a variety of reasons. one is it's not hard to imagine historians in the future will want to review these records to conduct their academic analysis about things that occurred in the administration. they also the records need to be preserved and maintained so legitimate request either from private citizens or from congress to review that information can be fulfilled. so it's the responsibility of agency to maintain their own records management plan if you will but they certainly do that in close coordination with the experts at the national archives and records administration.

>> they didn't raise this at any point in time and why are you using the official government account? was this okay with everybody? >> as they were said it's the responsibility of agencies to preserve those records even when those records exist on a personal e-mail account. that is why in order to make it easier for everybody and to avoid circumstances where an individual may forget to forward an e-mail we encourage people to use their official government e-mail account when they are conducting official government business. however when a personal e-mail account is involved the law suggests or the law mandates in fact that record be properly preserved and it can be done by forwarding it to official government e-mail work and be preserved on the system.

again that is what secretary clinton steam did. they reviewed her personal e-mails to capture all of those that pertain to the conduct of official u.s. business and sent them to the state department so they could be properly maintained and in fact i understand hundreds of those records have already been provided to congress in response to a legitimate congressional oversight. that reflects a commitment on the part of the state department to not just follow the federal records act but also coordinating and complying with legitimate request for congressional oversight. >> are they concerned with a higher ranking official at the secretary of state using a personal e-mail address for official business? >> again for the specific protocols in place you should check with the experts at the state department. these are their rules for them to manage. the president which he insisted all the agencies do is live up to the obligations they have under the federal records act.

>> how do you feel about those rules and wouldn't that world and allow a big space for e-mails to not be preserved if the use of personal e-mail on a regular basis is even allowed long-term? >> again michelle the guidance we have given to everybody who works here at the white house and i think this is consistent with the guidance that federal employees and agencies across the government have received is that they should use their official e-mail account when they are conducting official government business business. in those instances in which official business is conducted on personal e-mail accounts it's important for those records, those personal e-mails to be forwarded to the agency so they can be maintained. in most cases at least at the white house it's as simple as forwarding it to your official government account so those can be properly maintained and preserved. >> that's a personal responsibility responsibility and to think and rules may be tightened up since it seems to leave a big gap in who is going

to forward the e-mail and make sure that e-mail is forwarded. >> the law's clear about what is necessary to comply which is it's important to ensure that those e-mails that may exist on one's personal e-mail account are properly maintained and again that is why we saw the state department take the step of asking all of the former secretaries of state who have used e-mail as they have done their work to review their personal e-mail in search of records that relate to the conduct of official u.s. business. secretary clinton steam complied with that request by reviewing her personal e-mail pulling together all the ones related to her official work as a secretary of state and forwarded to the state department so they could preserve them in the records in fact use them to respond to legitimate requests from congress. >> we just heard from prime minister netanyahu.

his point in aiding this potential deal is i ran is a threat that can't be trusted under any means. you think you overstated that threat on the basis that a deal is being worked out and do you think he did -- the trust between allies as you put it because he discuss some key points in that potential deal? >> let me take the first part first which is i think susan rice the national security adviser had a cogent way of summarizing our approach to this deal. distrust and verify. as she laid out and is the president relayed in his comments in the oval office there are a variety of reasons to not trust the iranians. there are numerous examples of the iranians not being honest with the international community about their nuclear program. there are a variety of examples

of that. in some ways the best example of that is the nuclear facility that the united states and our allies revealed early on in the president's tenure in office back in 2009. that is why is the president mentioned in the oval office in a sort of deal that the united states signs onto will include historically significant verification measures. we are talking about detailed verification measures that would include of course as you would expect the routine inspection of nuclear facilities in i ran but it would also expand to things like regular inspections of uranium that exists in i ran, regular inspection of manufacturing facilities that are related to nuclear equipment that are critical to the functioning of their nuclear program. we are talking about an in depth rigorous inspections regime that

can verify for the international community that i ran is living up to their deal. the second part of your question was related to. >> talking about these points in a potential deal. should he not have done that in was done that in was that a betrayal of trust? >> again the israeli prime minister is allowed to make decisions as i referred to yesterday, loud to make decisions about what he's going to say based on his own assessment about the best interest of the israeli national security. that's his responsibility as the democratically-elected leader of israel. but the president has made clear there are other concerns in mind principally ensuring that the relationship between the united states and israel isn't subjected to the turbulence of partisan politics. that's why the president has chosen a somewhat different approach and that's why the president is not meeting with

the prime minister and his visit to the united states but it does not reflect any change in this administrations were this country's commitment to israel's national security. zeke. >> going back to the e-mails the president is the e-mailer in chief. has he ever e-mailed with former secretary of state clinton ended the e-mails when he was an off -- she was in office? >> yuli surprised to hear that i'm not going to talk in detail about e-mail sent to or from a person of the united states. the president e-mails are subject to the presidential records act which does have which is a little bit different than the federal records act. hopefully you guys are going to quiz me on that but they are subjected to a presidential records act that does require those records to be preserved and maintained. they have obvious scholarly value in the future. the second i will make about that is if secretary clinton did

e-mail the president of the united states under that protocol those records would have been preserved and again i think that highlights the situation that secretary clinton steam encountered which is that a large number of the records that they reviewed in response to the state department request were records that are it existed on the state department system because they were e-mails between her and employees at state department.gov e-mail address is. >> somebody in the white house and the west wing e-mailed the secretary of state did they just use your private e-mail account? how did they get in contact with her? >> could seek what i will tell you is that during her four years as secretary of state she and i did not trade e-mail so i don't know her e-mail address but i can tell you if there were e-mails between secretary clinton white house officials

and i'm confident there were some e-mails those e-mails were just protected or maintained by the white house e-mail system. those e-mails were reviewed by secretary clinton steam and they were sent to the state department so they could be properly maintained on their system as well. again that is consistent with the requirements of the federal records act. >> the e-mail the secretary is to send these e-mails was registered a week before the president took office and says it seems this was set up for the express purpose of being a vehicle to use as she was serving as secretary of state. the most transparent history is this a conversation they had before she took office verses someone anyone at the white house is like for her and this is consistent with the presence promised to make this a

transparent administration? >> i'm not aware of all the mechanics of setting up an e-mail system that you've just described. i would urge you to check with the state department but again what the president has insisted on from the beginning of his administration is a commitment to among other things making sure e-mail communications to the extent that they are official government records are properly preserved and maintained those who in the future they can be reviewed by historians but also so they can be used when necessary to respond to legitimate requests from congress or the public to review those records. >> the last one, you said the secretary staff turned over 50 million pages of e-mails. that's up 55,000 e-mails and wide shouldn't the american people take her word or her staff's word for? why is there no independent review and by going through this process she set it up on her word or her staff's word that

these are the only e-mails pertaining to her official business at the state department. why should anybody take that at face value and why shouldn't there be an independent harbinger of that? >> in terms of the number i haven't verify that number so i would be careful to avoid using it. i don't know that refers to pages or e-mails or what. i'm not disputing the number. i'm just saying i don't know what the number is. there are large number of records that number in the thousands that were turned over by secretary clinton steam at the request of the state department. this is a request the state department had made two previous secretaries of state. all previous secretaries of state of both parties and in the same way secretary clinton steam reviewed her personal e-mail to make sure they were forwarding it on to the state department e-mails that relate to her conduct of official u.s. business, the same is true of

the secretaries of state who served in a republican administration and ultimately that is what the law requires. if an individual uses of personal e-mail account for official business that information, that record should be sent and maintained in the system set up by the specific agency. that is why frankly we encourage a lot of people don't have a team like secretary clinton does and that is why we encourage them to not rely on remembering to forward a personal e-mail to the government system but to use the official government system that set up to ensure those records are properly maintained and preserved. major. >> there have been a lot of descriptions today of what secretary clinton may or may not have done. violating the law, skirting the law. where do you come down? >> i come down wherever the state department attorney comes down. ultimately it's the

responsibility of the state department to ensure compliance with these rules. >> it's not the administration though. >> of course it is and that is why we have been cleared the guidance these agencies should be following but each of them understandably implements these guidelines in their own way to reflect the unique challenges and responsibilities of the agency's employees. is the responsibility at the agency level for compliance to be determined. they do that in coordination with the national archives and records administration but ultimately it's their policy to implement in their policy to evaluate whether or not or how individuals should comply with those guidelines and again this is what prompted the request from the state department to previously serving secretary of states to forward on records that may have been kept in a personal e-mail account. >> i'm not trying to be cute here but lots of people work for the semesters meant this as an ongoing conversation. i know there's a new law but can you venture a conclusion or will

you offer a conclusion as to whether or not the secretary broke the law, skirted the law or comply with the law? based on what we know safari so far. >> again major the guidelines that are laid out under the federal records act require records that are maintained that pertain to official government business that do reside in one's personal e-mail account should be turned over to agency officials said those records can be properly maintained and preserved. >> do you believe the secretaries comply with that guidance? >> i know secretary clinton steam has complied with that guidance. i know the secretary or the department of state has made the request and has received what secretary clinton steam put together but ultimately it's the responsibility of those two parties to assess how and whether the these are guidelines

that water required. what secretary clinton steam is set as they review the e-mails and they took the e-mails that were related to her official work as a secretary of state for the state department. >> in the name of transparency we call on the state department to release these e-mails publicly if they are not classified? >> their number of these e-mails -- first of all i don't know that any of them are classified that i know number these e-mails have already been produced to congress as it relates to congressional legitimate congressional oversight requests. i don't know exactly what the rules are under the freedom of information act for the state department but certainly if you are just in seeing those e-mails that would be the avenue i would recommend. >> now to the speech. if the prime minister say anything in his characterization of what iran's behavior has been or would be?

>> i think it depends. what prime minister netanyahu did detail at some length are the reasons the international community does distress comments made by iran's leaders. there is no doubt i ran has done things like routinely supported and continues to support terrorism around the globe. most of it in the region but also around the globe. there is no arguing as the president pointed out with the fact that i ran has menaced our closest ally in the region repeatedly including using some vile anti-semitic language. there is also no question and i don't think prime minister netanyahu raised is that there are american citizens who are currently being unjustly held in i ran. the list of concerns that we have with i ran is lengthy and

several of the items at the top of that list are significant. though what we know is that it is important for i ran not to obtain a nuclear weapon because obtaining a nuclear weapon would only strengthen their hand as they try to do the other bad things that they do. if i ran has a nuclear weapon and they are supporting terrorism it makes their support for terror groups even more dangerous. if i ran has a nuclear weapon and they are menacing israel that makes those threats even more dangerous. the fact is if i ran obtains a nuclear weapon and they unjustly detain american citizens in their country it makes it harder to get those citizens back. that is why the president has made as his priorities were solving the broader international community concerned with their nuclear program and the strategy the president has laid out is one that we can count on to best

resolve our concerns with their program and if we can put in place very tough monitoring requirements and extend the breakout time to one year that's the best possible way to resolve international community's concerns with their nuclear program. the alternative advocated by prime minister netanyahu and others falls far short of that. military action we know would fall far short of that. additional sanctions that would cause her international coalition to crumble would fall far short in fact. the strategy the president has laid out is the one that has the best likelihood of success and the one that can best resolve the concerns of international community. the only x factor is whether i ran will sign onto an agreement that does all those things. that is why all along we have continued to place a likelihood of success in this particular path at 50/50 but because the

potential benefits that lie at the end of this path that is why the president believes it's -- >> the prime minister said the alternative is military action. it's a better deal meaning for i ran to dismantle its underlying nuclear technology so it can't have this capability and the breakout potential. as the prime minister describing a world that he imagines that doesn't exist? >> it certainly is not a plausible outcome to the united states. and what is a plausible outcome is an outcome that has i ran voluntarily rolling back key aspects of their program. ..