[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7957-H7986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WORKFORCE DEMOCRACY AND FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3094.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3094.

                              {time}  1427


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3094) to amend the National Labor Relations Act with respect to 
representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor 
organizations under that Act, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3094, the 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The legislation we are considering today is straightforward. It 
reaffirms workforce protections that have been in place for decades.
  Across the country, the American people are asking: How can we get 
this economy moving again? What will it take to finally put people back 
to work? And Washington is responding with a number of answers. Some 
think we should support more spending, more taxes, and more 
regulations. In essence, they are asking the country to double down on 
the same failed policies of the past.
  My Republican colleagues and I believe we should chart a different 
course, one that includes removing regulatory roadblocks to job 
creation. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is part of that 
effort. The legislation says we shouldn't allow unelected bureaucrats 
to dictate policies that make our workplaces less competitive.
  In June the National Labor Relations Board proposed sweeping changes 
to the rules governing union elections. Under the board's radical 
scheme, employers would have just 7 days to find an attorney and 
navigate a host of complicated legal issues before confronting an NLRB 
election official. Employees will have as little as 10 days to decide 
whether they want to join a union, denying them an opportunity to gain 
valuable information and make an informed decision.
  The NLRB is already telling employers like Boeing where they can and 
cannot create jobs. Now the board wants to take away a worker's right 
to make a fully informed decision in a union election. This proposal 
largely prohibits employers from raising additional legal concerns, 
denies answers to questions that can influence the vote, and turns over 
to union leaders even more personal employee information.
  Let's get something straight: The board's scheme isn't about 
modernizing the election process. This is a draconian effort to stifle 
employer speech and ambush workers with a union election. Less debate, 
less information, and less opposition--that's Big Labor's approach to 
workers' free choice, and it is being rapidly implemented by the 
activist NLRB.

                              {time}  1430

  For 4 years Democrats controlled this Congress. To my knowledge, not 
once did they try to streamline the union election process. Not once. 
They did champion a failed effort to strip workers of their right to a 
secret ballot, but they didn't bother to offer any solutions to the 
alleged problems they now say plague the election process.
  Today, union elections take place in an average of 31 days, giving 
workers a month to consider the monumental

[[Page H7958]]

question of whether or not to join a union. One month. Are there cases 
where delays have occurred? Yes. But without a doubt, these are the 
exceptions to the rule. And former and current members of the NLRB have 
cited partisan shifts on the board as the leading cause of such delay. 
A broken board is no excuse for trampling on the rights of American 
workers.
  I'm aware the board recently revised--recently being yesterday--its 
earlier proposal and set aside some of the more egregious provisions. 
However, the latest iteration still denies employers access to a fair 
election process, still deprives workers of the opportunity to make a 
fully informed decision, and still perpetuates the threat of more 
punitive measures in the future. The board seems utterly determined to 
finalize a flawed proposal, regardless of the damage to the integrity 
of the board and our workplaces. We must act now.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act reaffirms workforce 
protections our Nation has enjoyed for decades. Employers currently 
have a fair opportunity to prepare for a preelection hearing. The bill 
ensures employers have at least 14 days--2 weeks--a fair opportunity to 
prepare for the hearing. Employers and unions can currently seek board 
review of issues raised before the election. The bill preserves their 
right to seek board review before the election. Workers currently have 
an average of 31 days to decide their vote. The bill guarantees workers 
at least 35 days.
  Before the board's reckless Specialty Healthcare decision, a 
commonsense standard determined which employees would participate in 
the election. Once again, H.R. 3094 takes steps to restore a 
traditional standard, ensuring employees continue to have freedom and 
opportunities in the workplace and employers can effectively manage 
their labor costs.
  Despite the heated rhetoric we will hear from opponents today, the 
bill is a responsible effort to set in law, Mr. Chairman, protections 
workers and employers have long enjoyed. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, with millions of Americans out of work, job creation 
certainly should be the number one priority of this Congress. And yet, 
where are we today? We're not creating any new jobs here, but we're 
using the precious floor time considering a bill that attacks the 
rights of all American workers and has no chance of becoming law. That, 
unfortunately, is something we do week after week here.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, rather than minimizing the delay 
in union voting procedures, today's bill mandates delay. The bill 
empowers employers to interfere in union elections by adding anti-union 
employees to voting blocs--gerrymandering the elections. That, by 
itself, should be enough to vote against this bill.
  Letting an employer deny and manipulate union elections is a blatant 
attempt to put the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is a direct attack 
on the ability of workers to bargain collectively to protect their 
rights. And we've seen in America, with all the protests and uprisings, 
that American citizens don't like that so much.
  Wherever you work, whether it's union or not, if you appreciate a 40-
hour work week, sick leave and vacation days, safer working conditions, 
don't blame the men and women of the unions for the unemployment crisis 
that they didn't cause. Thank them for bringing those things to you. It 
was not a benevolent employer that gave you those. It was the union 
movement.
  So rather than considering a bill to attack the American worker, we 
should be working together. As we plead on the floor day after day to 
create jobs for the American people, the situation grows more dire 
every day.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and see if we can get to 
work to really create jobs.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady just said that we should be 
addressing legislation to create jobs. That's exactly what we are doing 
today.
  At this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
the Workforce Democracy and Protection Act.
  Our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis. The national 
unemployment rate is hovering at 9 percent. In Tennessee, where I live, 
it's higher than that. Millions of American families are struggling to 
make ends meet. Amidst this economic uncertainty, the House has passed 
over 20 jobs bills that would help spur our economy that are sitting 
over on the Senate side, right down the hallway here, not voted on. 
Sadly, the Senate isn't the only roadblock to economic recovery. That's 
why we're here today--to rein in a National Labor Relations Board that 
has run amok.
  I grew up in a union household. My father was a member of the United 
Rubber Workers Union. And I know about this. I lived with it, grew up 
with it.
  In June, what problem were we trying to fix? Currently, elections are 
held, as the chairman said, within 31 days. And unions win almost 70 
percent of the elections held. So let's say the 1st of October of this 
year you wanted to have an election. By the end of that month you could 
vote on whether a worker wanted to be in the union or not. A very fair 
process. If this rule goes into effect, as he said, 7 days for an 
employer to find representation to go through over 400 pages of rules 
just on this very complicated subject.
  It gets worse. As little as 10 days to vote. So a worker would have 
to make their mind up, in some cases, it could be as quick as 10 days. 
Imagine voting on the President of the United States in 10 days.
  And it gets worse. Workers would then be required by law to hand over 
personal information. What we want to do is to allow the employee to 
decide what information is given to the union about how they want to 
get contacted.
  Mr. Chairman, this just isn't right, nor is the National Labor 
Relations Board's decision to redefine how a bargaining unit is 
determined. Instead of creating jobs, employers will be forced to 
negotiate with a multitude of small bargaining unions, which will raise 
labor costs and destroy the possibility of advancement opportunities. 
Something must be done to restore the fairness to the union election 
process. And that's why I'm a proud cosponsor of this legislation.
  The bill simply does this. It gives 14 days to pass before a 
preelection hearing is held. This hearing will allow both sides to 
raise any relevant or material issues in a non-adversarial environment. 
It would protect the worker's right to make an informed choice by 
requiring an election take place in not less than 35 days. We owe it to 
our constituents to let them hear both sides of the story and make up 
their own minds. A worker's privacy should also be protected, allowing 
the unions access to only what the employee decides is their contact 
information. This bill also restores longstanding rules for defining 
what a bargaining unit is. It's over three decades of rules.
  Mr. Chairman, there's only one way I can describe this bill--it's 
common sense. I respect the right of the workers to form unions. That's 
their right under the law. But I believe that the union election should 
follow a process that is balanced and protects the rights of employees 
and employers, not just the unions.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, during the depths of the Great 
Depression, Congress gave the American worker the right to ban together 
with coworkers and to bargain for a better life. For more than 75 
years, the National Labor Relations Act has vested the ultimate 
decision on whether or not to form or belong to a union with the 
workers themselves. The principle underlying this law is that when 
workers decide they want to have a union, they should get a union.

                              {time}  1440

  These rights and this law have served this country well. They built 
the middle class. They brought us the 40-hour

[[Page H7959]]

workweek. They brought us safer workplaces. The exercise of these 
rights ensured economically secure families and the prospect that our 
children could build an even better life. These rights have been an 
unqualified success. They helped to create an economic engine 
unparalleled in the history of the world.
  But especially this year, forces have gathered that will do anything 
to take away those rights from American workers, from American 
families. These forces subscribe to the perverse ideology that says 
workers should just accept whatever the powerful decides is good enough 
for them, and that's the end of the discussion. They use real crises as 
an excuse to gain more power. We've seen them try it in Wisconsin and 
in Ohio and all across the country, where the real goal was to take 
away the rights of workers, not to solve the economic problems of those 
States; where the real goal was to constrain workers in the collective 
bargaining process, not to deal with the economic problems of those 
States; and where they don't control the statehouses and State 
legislatures, they have come to the Congress of the United States.
  This bill today is part of that scheme. This bill is part of a 
national effort by the Republican Party, by the Chamber of Commerce, 
and much of the business community in this country to strip workers of 
their rights at work; to take ordinary working men and women and tell 
them they will have no rights to join a union; they will not be able to 
gather for an election because this legislation prevents that election 
from happening.
  How does it do that? It does that, one, by having the employer decide 
who will be in the bargaining unit, not the employees as is dictated 
under the law and as affirmed by this Congress over and over again that 
decision belongs to them.
  How does it do that? So it stuffs the ballot box at the outset, and 
the employer making up the bargaining unit as opposed to the employee. 
Then they throw in the ability to have whatever frivolous appeals, 
whatever frivolous issues you want to raise, no matter how frivolous, 
they must be raised before this time, before the election, and all of 
the appeals must be decided. So while they talk about how this gives 
you a tight time frame, in fact what we see is endless delays. It's the 
endless running up of legal costs of attorneys on both sides, all in 
the idea of buying time for the employer to intimidate the employees 
from joining a union, to constantly hold businesses and the workplace--
face to face, businesses to advocate against the union so that they can 
turn around the decision that the employees essentially have made when 
they say, We want to go to an election; we want to have a union; this 
is our bargaining unit. And that's the goal here is to destroy the 
ability of this law to function.
  You cannot have a situation where that exists in this country, 
because this law is not only important to employees in the workplace. 
It's important to millions of Americans who are in the middle class in 
this economy today. These are people who are there because of the 
collective bargaining rights of people over the last 75 years in this 
country to bring the benefits, to bring the wages, to bring the job 
security, to bring the health care benefits, to bring the pension 
benefits and the protections to middle class families.
  We have seen, as the unions have declined, so have the wages, so have 
the benefits of workers to their own productivity. The American worker 
continues to increase their productivity. They are the most productive 
workers in almost every sector of our economy in the world, and yet 
more and more of their productivity is being syphoned off by the 1 
percent, if you will, by the employers that decide they need more 
bonuses, by the employers that decide they need bigger paychecks, by 
the employers that decide they need more shareholder dividends, by the 
employers that decide that they need more golden parachutes, they need 
more arrangements to get rid of people at the elite level.
  That's what this is about. It's about stealing from the American 
workers and not giving them a right to continue to bargain for the 
benefit of their families and their communities, and we ought to reject 
this bill today.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as I, a former United Steelworkers Union member, stand 
here today, the unemployment rate in Michigan stands at 10.6 percent, 
and in areas of my district it is as high as 14 percent.
  Our primary focus in Congress, as passed in the Republican jobs plan 
and seated in the Senate right now, our primary focus is to get 
burdensome government regulations out of our way and out of the way of 
the American people and let them get back to work.
  The National Labor Relations Board has taken actions that directly 
oppose American job providers and job creators. How can any Michiganian 
operating a business expect to compete on a level playing field with 
NLRB membership like Craig Becker, who once wrote, ``Employers should 
be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' 
election of representatives.'' And also, ``Employers have no standing 
to assert their employees' right to fair representation.''
  In their recent action to create an ambush-style election process, 
the NLRB has taken the side of a former special interest attorney over 
the will of the American working people. The rogue majority of the NLRB 
wants to set conditions that stifle job creation and expansion. Job 
creators are terrified of the NLRB's actions to create an ambush-style 
election process that will prevent employees from making an informed 
decision. And more stunningly, they reversed 30 years of precedent 
through their Specialty Healthcare decision, which would allow unions 
to carve up a worksite however they use.
  America's job creators and workforce deserve fairness to ensure that 
union representation elections, like elections for our political 
leadership, are done in a just manner that allows all participants to 
make an informed decision on their representation status.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act will ensure that employees 
and employers will have a level playing field at the NLRB and its 
special interest allies are determined to tilt.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, for years the American Dream has been 
based on a basic deal: If you go to work every day and work as hard as 
you can, you will make a decent wage. If you get sick and have to go to 
the hospital, you'll have health benefits that mean that you won't lose 
everything you have because you got sick. At the end of the 40th hour 
of the week, your time belongs to you and your family, not to your 
boss, unless your boss is willing to pay you time and a half. And you 
don't have to work until the day you die because you can earn a decent 
pension and spend the golden moments and days of your life taking care 
of your grandchildren and your family. That's the deal.
  None of that existed for most Americans before collective bargaining 
existed. America has a middle class because America has collective 
bargaining.
  This bill is not about the number of days before an election or the 
size of a bargaining unit. This bill raises the issue of whether you 
truly believe in collective bargaining. And what this bill does is say 
to the minority of employers in America--and I think they are the 
minority by far--who would choose to subvert an election process, who 
would choose to intimidate and coerce their workers into voting against 
the union, this bill gives them a roadmap of exactly how to do that. It 
is a subversion of the American middle class because it's a subversion 
of collective bargaining.
  Our grandfathers and grandmothers stood on picket lines to fight for 
collective bargaining. The people of Ohio stood on election day to 
fight for collective bargaining. Colleagues, let us together stand 
today against this legislation and for collective bargaining and the 
American middle class.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

[[Page H7960]]

  Mrs. ROBY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3094, the Workforce 
Democracy and Fairness Act, a bill I proudly sponsor.
  As a Representative from Alabama, a right-to-work State, the 
continued activist agenda of the National Labor Relations Board is 
alarming.

                              {time}  1450

  Its proposed rules to alter longstanding Federal labor practices and 
policies are a clear example that the White House and the NLRB are 
committed to a culture of union favoritism. The NLRB's proposals 
undermine the rights of employers and employees by empowering unions to 
manipulate the workforce for their own gain.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is one of many bills put 
forward by my Republican colleagues that will prevent the NLRB from 
imposing sweeping changes to our Nation's workplaces. Additionally, and 
most importantly, this bill restores key labor protections that both 
workers and employers have enjoyed for decades.
  I want to say that again: This bill restores key labor protections 
that both workers and employers have already enjoyed for decades. 
Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the NLRB's labor 
interests are not undermining an employer's efforts to create jobs and 
grow their businesses.
  At a time when approximately 14 million Americans are unemployed and 
searching for work, not to mention the millions that have given up, 
Congress must implement policies that encourage new jobs, not hinder 
them. This legislation will rein in the activist NLRB and reaffirm 
protections workers and job creators have received for decades.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a ranking subcommittee member of the 
committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3094, the so-called Workforce 
Democracy and Protection Act, what a great title for legislation that 
assaults the majority's year-long war against unions, against workers, 
and the National Labor Relations Board. This is just the latest of 
that. And they gave it this wonderful title.
  And since they took control of this body in January, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have been doing everything in their power 
to stack the deck against labor unions and those who aspire to join 
them. Seemingly, the bills that they bring to the floor are designed to 
make life easier for the corporate special interests and, as usual, 
harder on workers who just want a fair shake.
  Curious, since the labor movement is the most powerful force for 
economic security and upward mobility that we have in this country, and 
unions are the reason there is a strong middle class in the United 
States of America, that they would want to attack it. We need to remove 
obstacles to union elections, and we need to create ways for members to 
join unions, not prevent them from being union members.
  It's baffling to me that my Republican friends have absolutely no 
plans to create any kind of jobs, but a carefully orchestrated plan to 
undermine the rights and protections of working people. Instead of 
helping people who are reeling from this sluggish economy, they work to 
create distractions and to create scapegoats.
  Mr. Chairman, workers deserve better than a government of, by, and 
for the wealthiest 1 percent.
  Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3094.
         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                 Washington DC, November 18, 2011.
     Hon. John P. Kline
     Chairman, House Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC.
     Hon. George Miller
     Ranking Minority Member, House Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Minority Member Miller: On 
     behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3094, 
     the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, when it is 
     considered by the House of Representatives. Masquerading as a 
     bill to protect the status quo with respect to elections 
     supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, H.R. 3094 
     would actually mandate delays, giving companies more power to 
     wear down support for the union and creating new 
     opportunities for stalling elections. The result of this bill 
     will be to make workers wait months, perhaps years before 
     they are allowed to vote on whether to form a union. The bill 
     would also destroy 75 years of NLRB case law that has 
     governed the appropriateness of bargaining units, giving 
     companies more power to gerrymander the eligibility of voters 
     in a union representation election in order to unfairly skew 
     the results.
       Under H.R. 3094, no election may occur sooner than 35 days 
     after the filing of an election petition, even if all parties 
     agree to an earlier date. But the bill does not limit how 
     long an election may be delayed as a result of employer 
     claims, challenges and litigation. The bill would mandate a 
     full pre-election hearing on any ``relevant and material'' 
     issue, broadly defined to include virtually any issue, even 
     those that are not in dispute and not material to the 
     appropriateness of the bargaining unit. By incentivizing 
     marathon pre-election hearings, the bill would reward 
     wasteful litigation and increase taxpayer costs by requiring 
     findings on unnecessary and extraneous issues.
       In a further effort to deny workers their right to choose 
     whether to form a union, H.R. 3094 imposes restrictions on 
     workers' opportunities to receive information from unions, 
     but does nothing to curb the power of companies to force 
     workers to listen to their anti-union propaganda, under the 
     threat of discharge if they try to object. Moreover, it fails 
     to protect workers who are fired, threatened, or interrogated 
     because they want to exercise their federal statutory right 
     to form a union. In fact, current remedies for well-
     documented, wide-spread violations of workers' rights have 
     been regularly criticized as paltry and ineffective, treated 
     by companies as merely a cost of doing business.
       H.R. 3094 would also overturn the recent Specialty 
     Healthcare decision, in which the NLRB applied to non-acute 
     health care facilities, mostly nursing homes, the same 
     community-of-interest standard that it has traditionally 
     applied to determine the appropriateness of bargaining units 
     in other industries. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia upheld that standard in 2008, the bill 
     broadly applies a one-size-fits-all test in disregard of the 
     particular needs of specific industries and circumstances. 
     The bill's newly minted test will create uncertainties for 
     the parties as this vague new standard is repeatedly 
     litigated.
       H.R. 3094 has one goal: to empower companies which want to 
     delay elections so they can mount one-sided, anti-union 
     campaigns, both legal and illegal, to discourage workers from 
     freely choosing whether or not to form a union. At a time 
     when more and more experts are recognizing that middle class 
     incomes are falling in tandem with the declining rate of 
     union membership, Congress should be finding ways to protect 
     workers' freedom to form a union, not throwing up roadblocks 
     to the exercise of this fundamental right.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                                Director, Government Affairs Dept.

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to 
another member of the committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.
  Mr. HECK. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to pose an important question to Nevadans. 
How would you feel about having only 10 days' notice that an election 
would be held? That would give you only 10 days to research the 
candidates and find out where they stand on the issues, 10 days to 
decide who best represents you, your voice, your values.
  And to my distinguished colleagues in this body, how do you think 
your constituents would react if we changed the law so that they had 
only 10 days' notice that an election would be held?
  It would be unconscionable for Congress to abdicate its 
responsibility and allow a board of unelected bureaucrats to do 
something that this body would never do itself. That's the debate 
today, whether or not Congress allows the National Labor Relations 
Board to radically change the way union elections are governed, with 
little to no input from those most affected by this decision.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Workforce Democracy and Fairness 
Act to prevent the National Labor Relations Board from doing something 
we would not do ourselves.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and 
Fairness Act, really, as you know, should be called the Election 
Prevention Act.
  I'm gravely concerned about today's legislative proposal. Current law 
recognizes that workers should be able to associate with other units 
into any appropriate bargaining unit. This bill creates a presumption 
that all workers should be in a bargaining unit unless it is proven 
otherwise. That's just the reverse of the way law should be.

[[Page H7961]]

  It allows employers to stuff the ballot boxes with workers who are 
not engaged in the organizing drive in the first place, therefore 
likely to vote ``no.''
  It also increases the chances that workers' petition for an election 
will be rejected, which would cancel elections because they do not 
obtain the 30 percent signatures from this vast bargaining unit, all 
ways to try to thwart the election.
  The NLRB has proposed rules which would eliminate loopholes in 
current law that allow unscrupulous employers to delay elections, 
frustrating workers' efforts to organize. This bill would essentially 
impose arbitrary delays and block those pending NLRB rules to eliminate 
avoidable delays.
  The fact of the matter is that that bill encourages frivolous 
litigation. The original bill provided employers with an unqualified 
right to consistently raise a new issue at any point during the pre-
election hearing in order to drag out the hearing. This would include 
any issue that may reasonably be expected to impact the election's 
outcome.
  This bill does not limit these problems, but states that these 
issues, even when immaterial to an election, are considered relevant. 
Based on this fact, a hearing could therefore go on indefinitely, and 
that's what the purpose of this is.
  Furthermore, parties could bring up issues such as economic 
conditions, or unfair labor practices, or other items not normally 
considered in pre-election hearings. Additionally, this bill seems to 
require that the board must finish a request for review before an 
election can be directed. This will encourage employers to file 
requests for review, even frivolous ones, to create a backlog at the 
board and further delay elections.
  The current election process needs to be fixed. Employers easily 
delay and prolong elections giving themselves a unfair advantage to our 
American workers.
  The fact that we are even discussing the ``Workforce Democracy and 
Fairness Act'' is a mockery. There are millions of unemployed workers 
across the nation and yet we are here to limit the rights of those who 
are employed. We should be here passing the American Jobs Act to help 
the unemployed.
  A recent survey, conducted by the National Employment Law Project, 
NELP, of four of the top job search websites--CareerBuilder.com, 
Indeed.com, Monster.com, and CraigsList.com--found over 150 job 
advertisements that specified applicants must be currently employed. 
That is simply unacceptable.
  However, the provisions in the American Jobs Act will prevent 
qualified Americans, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, 
from being unfairly screened from employment opportunities.
  For over 300 days in the House majority, the GOP has refused to put 
forward a clear jobs plan. Now is the time to help our workers and not 
harm them.
  Again, I would like to reiterate my strong opposition to H.R. 3094 
and I request my Congressional colleagues to do as well.

                                      International Association of


                             Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

                            Upper Marlboro, MD, November 28, 2011.
     Re. H.R. 3094 Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.

       Dear Representative, On behalf of the International 
     Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, I strongly 
     urge you to vote ``NO'' to the ``Workforce Democracy and 
     Fairness Act'' H.R. 3094. This anti-worker legislation should 
     be called the ``Election Prevention Act'' because it would 
     give unscrupulous employers more opportunities to thwart 
     workers' efforts to organize and also add more delays to an 
     already broken National Labor Relations Board (``NLRB'') 
     election process.
       This bill was introduced in direct response to the NLRB's 
     proposed rule to minimize undue delay in union elections. 
     Instead of minimizing delay, H.R. 3094 mandates it. For 
     example, no election may occur sooner than 35 days after 
     filing of an election petition. However, there is no limit on 
     how long an election may be delayed as a result of employer 
     claims, challenges and litigation. Delay gives employers more 
     time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure 
     employees into abandoning their organizing efforts.
       H.R. 3094 imposes restrictions on workers' opportunities to 
     receive information from unions, but does nothing to curb the 
     power of employers to force workers to listen to their 
     antiunion propaganda, under the threat of discharge if they 
     try to object.
       H.R. 3094 also manipulates the procedure for deciding who 
     is in the bargaining unit. The bill encourages the 
     ``gerrymandering'' of bargaining units by codifying a test 
     that destroys 75 years of Board decision-making.
       In sum, H.R. 3094 would delay and ultimately prevent union 
     representation elections, encourages frivolous litigation, 
     and manipulates the procedure for deciding who is a 
     bargaining unit. For the above reasons, I ask that you oppose 
     this latest attack on workers' rights by voting ``NO'' to the 
     ``Election Prevention Act.''
       If you have any questions, please contact Matthew McKinnon, 
     Legislative Director.
           Sincerely,
                                           R. Thomas Buffenbarger,
     International President.
                                  ____

         Building and Construction Trades Department, American 
           Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                Washington, DC, November 28, 2011.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the approximately 2 
     million skilled craft professionals who comprise the Building 
     and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, I write to urge 
     you to vote against H.R. 3094, the Workforce Committee 
     Democracy and Fairness Act.
       This bill represents an unfair attack on workers and the 
     mechanisms in place that protect their ability to freely 
     choose to form a union. H.R. 3094 amends the National Labor 
     Relations Act (NLRA) to allow for obstructive delays in the 
     scheduling of a union election. This bill would mandate that 
     workers wait at least 35 days before voting on joining a 
     union once petitions have been filed seeking the vote. Not 
     only would this flawed legislation call for delays, but H.R. 
     3094 would also empower employers to engage in anti union 
     campaigns to discourage workers from making an unconstrained 
     decision on whether to form a union.
       Further, H.R. 3094 undermines the ability of the National 
     Labor Relations Board to protect workers who are fired, 
     threatened or otherwise harassed because they want to 
     exercise their federal statutory right to form a union.
       This troubling and misguided attack on workers' rights must 
     be stopped.
       With kind personal regards, I am,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mark H. Ayers, 
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 Service Employees


                                          International Union,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 2.1 million 
     members of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), I 
     strongly oppose H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and 
     Fairness Act, and urge you to vote against this bill when it 
     comes to the House floor for a vote.
       H.R. 3094 is yet another attack on workers' rights and the 
     NLRB's mandate to protect them. We encourage you not to force 
     American workers to choose between their rights and their 
     jobs. During these tough economic times, it is vital to 
     support good-paying jobs and protect workers' rights to 
     bargain collectively for better compensation. Good-paying 
     jobs are necessary to rebuild the middle class and they 
     support job creation by bolstering consumer demand.
       H.R. 3094 undermines workers' rights by limiting the NLRB's 
     ability to serve as an adjudicator of workforce fairness and 
     democracy by increasing litigation and representation delays 
     indefinitely; undermining a union's ability to communicate 
     with workers; and removing employees' right to determine 
     their bargaining unit. In a time when 54 percent of employers 
     threaten workers during work time about union membership, it 
     is vital that unions have fair access to communicate with 
     employees about their rights.
       If passed, H.R. 3094 will disrupt 75 years of NLRB 
     experience configuring appropriate bargaining units. It 
     undermines employees' ability to form a union by removing 
     employees' right to self-organize bargaining units and 
     allowing employers to manipulate the pool of eligible voters 
     for the representation election.
       Employers have the ability to drag the election process out 
     at least over six months. H.R. 3094 would allow the elections 
     to be delayed even further by first reversing the NLRB's 
     proposed rule to efficiently serve and standardize election 
     procedures and secondly by allowing virtually any issue, 
     including frivolous appeals, to be litigated in 
     representation case proceedings prior to the election. During 
     this delay, many employers hold captive audience meetings and 
     threaten workers to prevent them from exercising their 
     democratic right to representation in the workplace. Finally, 
     H.R. 3094 would overturn 50 years of NLRB procedure regarding 
     the list of eligible voters provided to the union and making 
     it difficult for unions to communicate with workers.
       SEIU strongly opposes H.R. 3094 and urges you to vote NO 
     when this bill comes to a vote. It not only overturns the 
     NLRB's recent proposed rules but sets American workers' 
     rights back decades.
       Votes on this legislation will be added to the SEIU 
     Congressional Scorecard found at www.seiu.org. If you have 
     any questions, contact Josh Nassar, Assistant Director of 
     Legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
                                          International President.

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the recognition and 
also

[[Page H7962]]

for bringing forth this most necessary legislation.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3094. Quite simply put, the National Labor 
Relations Board has lost all credibility. From its anti-American attack 
on Boeing to its inability to allow Delta employees to choose their own 
labor future, the NLRB has become nothing more than a taxpayer-funded 
Big Labor advocate.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is just what it says it is, 
legislation that, if passed, will enshrine in law the rights of the 
American worker to both information and choice, two things my friends 
on the other side of the aisle believe in as well.
  What is truly sad, Mr. Chairman, is that taxpayers, already living 
under the burden of exploding debt and record unemployment, are paying 
the salaries of NLRB attorneys and administrators to stifle employment 
and to ship jobs overseas. The proposed NLRB rule remedied by this 
legislation requiring elections be held in as little as 10 days gives 
workers virtually no opportunity to inform themselves about their 
rights.

                              {time}  1500

  To show just how radical this NLRB has become, we must ask ourselves, 
when in the history of this great Republic has shortening the time for 
an election been considered more fair? We hear Members from the other 
side of the aisle say that even requiring some to show identification 
to vote is unfair and restrictive. But drastically cutting short the 
time for an election is more fair?
  As if that was not radical enough, the NLRB's decision on micro-
unions overturns 30 years of successful precedent. For example, at 
retail stores, multiple labor unions could target unorganized different 
groups of workers. Sales persons, merchandise managers, department 
managers, stock clerks, and security guards could each form separate 
unions. This will put worker against worker, and employers will spend 
more time negotiating with unions than they do on focusing on their 
jobs and on their business.
  The question we must ask is, what are they so afraid of? The answer 
is they're afraid of an American worker free to work hard and earn the 
fruits of that labor. They're afraid of the American worker given the 
right to choose their own future. I don't know about anyone else, but I 
trust the American worker to make the right decision. I don't trust the 
government.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. The right to organize is a fundamental right in a 
democratic society. In fact, workers' rights are human rights. This 
bill seeks to frustrate workers' rights to an election through 
attacking the National Labor Relations Board.
  Today workers have to wait an average of 101 days to cast a ballot in 
an election, 101 days to wait for union representation. How long should 
workers have to wait to be able to assert their fundamental rights in a 
democratic society if we really believe in democracy?
  Some of us believe that when a majority of workers want to be able to 
have a union, they should be able to do so forthwith.
  We believe in government of the people. Why then would corporations 
want to block or frustrate the right of workers to be able to organize? 
I think it's pretty obvious. When workers are organized, they have the 
ability to participate in being able to say what their wages are worth. 
So this is about wages. It's about benefits. It's about workplace 
safety, about working conditions.
  Workers rights are human rights. And this assault on the NLRB 
actually ends up being translated into a fundamental assault on our 
democracy. If we believe in a democracy, then we believe in a right to 
organize, a right to collective bargaining, a right to strike, a right 
to decent wages and benefits, a right to a secure retirement, a right 
for workers to participate in a political process.
  This is America. Let's lift up the standard of workers--not attack it 
by making the day of their election and claiming a union farther and 
farther away almost to the point of nullification. Stand up for the 
American workers. Defeat this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Workforce Democracy and 
Fairness Act offered by Chairman Kline, and I thank the chairman for 
his leadership on this issue.
  For the past 3 years, we have seen a vast expansion in the size and 
scope of the Federal Government, which has resulted in a suffering 
economy and job market and an unfriendly business environment for job 
creation and investment.
  A recent troubling example of this government overreach is the 
National Labor Relations Board's proposed rulemaking that would alter 
the long-standing precedent of procedures that govern union elections. 
These new rules would do little more than empower Big Labor bosses by 
restricting employers from communicating with their employees during 
the process, preventing the employees from gaining access to critical 
information necessary to make informed decisions on their votes, and 
diminishing the fundamental rights of both employees and employers 
across the country.
  This sort of government intervention in the workplace is an attack on 
our economic freedom and will only provide more uncertainty in our 
economy at a time when we are struggling to recover.
  With far too many Fifth District Virginians and Americans out of 
work, we must put an end to the arbitrary rulemaking of the unelected 
bureaucrats that comprise the NLRB. Instead, we must provide our job 
creators the opportunity to hire and grow without the uncertainty 
caused by unnecessary and burdensome government regulations. And we 
must preserve the protections and freedoms that American workers 
deserve, allowing them to participate in a full and fair election 
process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership 
on behalf of America's working families and for bringing the opposition 
to this legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, more than 75 years ago, President 
Franklin Roosevelt signed a bill which created the National Labor 
Relations Board and said he did so to give every worker ``the freedom 
of choice and action which is justly his.'' Today we say which is 
justly his or hers. That was a very important moment for workers 
because it said that they could negotiate, they could bargain 
collectively, giving great leverage to workers in our country, and it 
was necessary.
  The freedom of choice in action has rested at the core of a growing, 
thriving American workforce. It has created the American middle class 
that has made our country great and is the backbone of our democracy.
  This legislation on the floor today undermines freedom of choice in 
action. It will weaken our middle class, and again weaken our 
democracy.
  For months in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other States nationwide, Americans 
have seen Republican Governors and legislatures attack teachers, 
firefighters, police officers, and other public servants. We've seen 
American workers, union and non-union alike, fight back, inspiring the 
Nation.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have promoted many myths 
about their misguided legislation which they're bringing forward today 
and how it will impact the National Labor Relations Board. So I would 
like to clarify a few facts.
  First, this bill mandates delay rather than minimizes it. It 
encourages frivolous litigation rather than discourages it. It 
convolutes and distorts elections rather than simplifying them.
  Simply put, this legislation would deny workers their right to a free 
and fair election to form a union. It adds extensive delays to the 
process as workers organize with the clear intention of, as my 
colleague, Congressman George Miller, the ranking member of the 
Education and Labor Committee has said, wearing down workers so they 
give up fighting for a better deal. It's an age-old tactic. It must be 
rejected.
  At a time when Americans are demanding jobs and job growth, economic

[[Page H7963]]

growth for our country, today's legislation is the wrong priority. We 
need to be solving the problem and challenge of creating jobs, and not 
adding to the problems, as this bill would do.
  There is a great deal of work to be done to reignite the American 
Dream. Igniting the American Dream is what Franklin Roosevelt did when 
he signed this bill and many other initiatives of that era. And they 
corrected many ills in our economy and our society in communities 
across the country in terms of fairness and American value.
  So we want to reignite the American Dream, to build ladders of 
success for all who want to work hard and play by the rules, and remove 
obstacles to fuller participation in our economy so that many more 
workers can participate in America's prosperity.

                              {time}  1510

  This is about, again, strengthening the middle class, the backbone of 
our democracy. Yet this legislation will have the opposite effect of 
eroding rights and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record this letter from the 
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, with 243 associations and 
organizations in support of this legislation.

                                                   Coalition for a


                                         Democratic Workplace,

                                                November 29, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of millions of job creators 
     concerned with mounting threats to the basic tenets of free 
     enterprise, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace urges 
     you to support H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and 
     Fairness Act. Congress needs to immediately pass this much-
     needed legislation. The bill directly addresses recent and 
     economically crippling actions of the National Labor 
     Relations Board (Board or NLRB). Specifically, the bill would 
     block the Board from moving forward with its ambush election 
     proposal. If left unchecked, the proposal will effectively 
     deny employees' access to critical information about unions 
     and strip employers of free speech and due process rights. 
     H.R. 3094 also would reverse the Board's recent decision in 
     Specialty Healthcare, which poses an immediate and direct 
     threat to our economy by opening the door to swarms of micro-
     unions.
       The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of more 
     than 600 organizations, has been united in its opposition to 
     the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act'' (EFCA) and EFCA 
     alternatives that pose a similar threat to workers, 
     businesses and the U.S. economy. Thanks to the elected 
     officials who stood firm against this damaging legislation, 
     the threat of EFCA is less immediate this Congress. 
     Politically powerful labor unions, other EFCA supporters, and 
     their allies in government are not backing down, however. 
     Having failed to achieve their goals through legislation, 
     they are now coordinating with the Board and the Department 
     of Labor (DOL) in what appears to be an all-out attack on 
     job-creators and an effort to enact EFCA through 
     administrative rulings and regulations.
       While the Board's actions have gained recent notoriety from 
     the unprecedented attempt by the agency's Acting General 
     Counsel to mandate where and how one company--Boeing--can 
     operate and expand its business, the Boeing case is just the 
     tip of the iceberg. During the last few years, the Board and 
     DOL have issued a barrage of anti-business and anti-worker 
     decisions and rules, which collectively amount to the 
     greatest upheaval in U.S. labor law in over 50 years. The 
     Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act directly remedies ambush 
     elections and micro-unions (Specialty Healthcare), which are 
     two of the Board's most damaging and outrageous actions.
       On June 21, the Board proposed a rule on ``ambush 
     elections.'' According to Board Member Brian Hayes, these new 
     procedures could result in union representation elections 
     held in as few as 10 days after the filing of a union 
     petition. The NLRB's own statistics reveal that in 2010, the 
     average time to election was 31 days, with over 95 percent of 
     elections occurring within 56 days. The current election time 
     frames are not only reasonable, but permit employees time to 
     hear from both the union and the employer and make an 
     informed decision, which would not be possible under the 
     proposed timetables. In fact, the reduced time frame would 
     leave employers barely enough time to secure legal counsel, 
     with little to no opportunity to talk with employees about 
     union representation or respond to promises union organizers 
     may have made to secure union support, even though many of 
     those promises may be completely unrealistic. Given that 
     union organizers typically lobby employees for months outside 
     the workplace without an employer's knowledge, these 
     ``ambush'' elections would often result in employees' 
     receiving only half the story. They would hear promises of 
     raises and benefits that unions have no way of guaranteeing, 
     without an opportunity for the employer to explain its 
     position and the possible inaccuracies put forward by the 
     union. Ambush elections would be particularly damaging to 
     small businesses as the proposed changes would effectively 
     eliminate any measure of due process by forcing elections 
     before most employers could even understand what was 
     happening or even obtain legal advice and representation.
       The proposal also tramples over employer due process 
     rights. As Member Hayes noted, the proposed rule will 
     ``substantially limit the opportunity for full evidentiary 
     hearing or Board review on contested issues involving, among 
     other things, appropriate unit, voter eligibility and 
     election misconduct.'' The proposal would require that all 
     pre-election hearings occur within seven days of the 
     petition. Businesses must file a statement within those seven 
     days setting forth their position on all relevant legal 
     issues. Any issues not identified in the statement would be 
     waived forever. These unnecessary time limits put enormous 
     pressure on all businesses, but like the NLRB's ambush 
     election proposal, the impact will be especially damaging to 
     small business, who will have enough problems finding counsel 
     within these time frames, let alone obtaining any meaningful 
     understanding of their rights and obligations under this 
     complex law.
       In Specialty Healthcare, the NLRB paved the way for the 
     formation of ``micro-unions,'' which make it easier for 
     unions to organize by permitting them to form smaller 
     bargaining units that often exclude those similarly situated 
     employees who oppose unionization. This effectively 
     disenfranchises them. Prior to the decision, bargaining units 
     had to include employees who share a ``community of 
     interest.'' Smaller units were only permissible where the 
     employees in the proposed unit had interests that were 
     ``sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to 
     warrant the establishment of a separate unit.'' This 
     prevented swarms of small, ``fractured units,'' of similarly 
     situated employees. As a result of the Board's decision, 
     businesses now face the possibility of having to manage 
     multiple, small units of similarly situated employees with 
     increased chances of work stoppages, as well as potentially 
     different pay scales, benefits, work rules and bargaining 
     schedules. This will greatly limit an employer's ability to 
     cross-train and meet customer and client demands via lean, 
     flexible staffing because employees will no longer be able to 
     perform work assigned to other units. Employees also will 
     suffer from reduced job opportunities, as promotions and 
     transfers will be hindered by organizational unit 
     barriers.
       Again, we urge you to support passage of H.R. 3094, the 
     Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If left unchecked, the 
     actions of the NLRB will fuel economic uncertainty and have 
     serious negative ramifications for millions of employers, 
     U.S. workers they have hired or would like to hire, and 
     consumers.

                The Coalition For A Democratic Workplace


                      National Organizations (118)

       60 Plus Association;
       Aeronautical Repair Station Association;
       Agricultural Retailers Association;
       AIADA, American International Automobile Dealers 
     Association;
       Alliance for Worker Freedom;
       American Apparel & Footwear Association;
       American Bakers Association;
       American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association;
       American Council of Engineering Companies;
       American Feed Industry Association;
       American Fire Sprinkler Association;
       American Foundry Society;
       American Frozen Food Institute;
       American Health Care Association;
       American Hospital Association;
       American Hotel and Lodging Association;
       American Meat Institute;
       American Nursery & Landscape Association;
       American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE);
       American Pipeline Contractors Association;
       American Rental Association;
       American Seniors Housing Association;
       American Staffing Association;
       American Supply Association;
       American Trucking Associations;
       American Wholesale Marketers Association;
       Americans for Tax Reform;
       AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology;
       Asian American Hotel Owners Association;
       Assisted Living Federation of America;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.;
       Associated Equipment Distributors;
       Associated General Contractors of America;
       Association of Equipment Manufacturers;
       Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association;
       Brick Industry Association;
       Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) 
     International;
       Center for Individual Freedom;
       Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund;
       Coalition of Franchisee Associations;
       College and University Professional Association for Human 
     Resources;
       Consumer Electronics Association;
       Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association;
       Environmental Industry Associations;
       Fashion Accessories Shippers Association;
       Food Marketing Institute;
       Forging Industry Association;
       Franchise Management Advisory Council (FRANMAC);
       Heating, Airconditioning & Refrigeration Distributors 
     International (HARDI);

[[Page H7964]]

       HR Policy Association;
       IEC National;
       INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry;
       Independent Women's Voice;
       Industrial Fasteners Institute;
       International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses;
       International Council of Shopping Centers;
       International Foodservice Distributors Association;
       International Franchise Association;
       International Sign Association;
       International Warehouse Logistics Association;
       Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association;
       LeadingAge;
       Metals Service Center Institute;
       Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association;
       NAHAD--The Association for Hose and Accessories 
     Distribution;
       National Apartment Association;
       National Armored Car Association;
       National Association of Chemical Distributors;
       National Association of Convenience Stores;
       National Association of Electrical Distributors;
       National Association of Home Builders;
       National Association of Manufacturers;
       National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;
       National Club Association;
       National Council of Chain Restaurants;
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;
       National Council of Investigators and Security Services 
     (NCISS);
       National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO);
       National Federation of Independent Business;
       National Franchisee Association;
       National Grocers Association;
       National Mining Association;
       National Multi Housing Council;
       National Pest Management Association;
       National Precast Concrete Association;
       National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
       National Restaurant Association;
       National Retail Federation;
       National Roofing Contractors Association;
       National School Transportation Association;
       National Small Business Association;
       National Solid Wastes Management Association;
       National Systems Contractors Association;
       National Tank Truck Carriers;
       National Tooling and Machining Association;
       National Utility Contractors Association;
       NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops;
       North American Die Casting Association;
       North American Equipment Dealers Association;
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America;
       Precision Machined Products Association;
       Precision Metalforming Association;
       Printing Industries of America;
       Professional Beauty Association;
       Retail Industry Leaders Association;
       Snack Food Association;
       Society for Human Resource Management;
       Society of American Florists;
       SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association;
       Steel Manufacturers Association;
       Textile Care Allied Trades Association;
       Textile Rental Services Association;
       The Real Estate Roundtable;
       Truck Renting and Leasing Association;
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
       United Fresh Produce Association;
       United Motorcoach Association;
       Western Growers Association.


                  State and Local Organizations (125)

       A & K Earthmovers, Inc.;
       American Society of Employers (Michigan);
       Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Associated Industries of 
     Arkansas;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. California 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Central Florida 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Central 
     Pennsylvania Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Chesapeake Shores 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Delaware Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Eastern 
     Pennsylvania Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Florida East 
     Coast Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Florida Gulf 
     Coast Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Hawaii Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Heart of America 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Indiana Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Inland Pacific 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Iowa Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Keystone Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Massachusetts 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Mississippi 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Nevada Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. New Mexico 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. New Orleans/Bayou 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Ohio Valley 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Oklahoma Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Pacific Northwest 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Rhode Island 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Rocky Mountain 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. South East Texas 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. South Texas 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Western Michigan 
     Chapter;
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Western 
     Washington Chapter;
       Associated Industries of Massachusetts;
       Builders Association of Northern Nevada;
       CA/NV/AZ Automotive Wholesalers Association (CAWA);
       CAI-Capital Associated Industries Inc. (Raleigh, NC);
       California Delivery Association;
       Carson City Chamber of Commerce, Carson City, NV;
       CenTex Chapter IEC;
       Central Alabama Chapter IEC;
       Central Indiana IEC;
       Central Missouri IEC;
       Central Ohio AEC/IEC;
       Central Pennsylvania Chapter IEC;
       Central Washington IEC;
       Centre County IEC;
       Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce;
       Eastern Washington IEC;
       El Paso Chapter IEC, Inc.;
       Employers Coalition of North Carolina (Raleigh, NC);
       Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce;
       Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce;
       Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce;
       Greater Montana IEC:
       IEC Atlanta;
       IEC Chesapeake;
       IEC Dakotas, Inc.;
       IEC Dallas Chapter;
       IEC Florida West Coast;
       IEC Fort Worth/Tarrant County;
       IEC Georgia;
       IEC Greater St. Louis;
       IEC Hampton Roads Chapter;
       IEC NCAEC;
       IEC New England;
       IEC of Arkansas;
       IEC of East Texas;
       IEC of Greater Cincinnati;
       IEC of Idaho;
       IEC of Illinois;
       IEC of Kansas City;
       IEC of Northwest Pennsylvania;
       IEC of Oregon;
       IEC of Southeast Missouri;
       IEC of Texoma;
       IEC of the Bluegrass;
       IEC of the Texas Panhandle;
       IEC of Utah;
       IEC Southern Colorado Chapter;
       IEC Southern Indiana Chapter-Evansville;
       IEC Texas Gulf Coast Chapter;
       IEC Western Reserve Chapter;
       IECA Kentucky & S. Indiana;
       IECA of Arizona;
       IECA of Nashville;
       IECA of Southern California, Inc.;
       IEC-OKC, Inc.;
       Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association:
       Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce;
       Lubbock Chapter IEC, Inc.;
       Manufacturer and Business Association;
       MEC IEC of Dayton;
       Mid-Oregon Chapter IEC;
       Mid-South Chapter IEC;
       Midwest IEC;
       Minnesota Grocer Association;
       Montana IEC;
       NAIOP Colorado;
       Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry;
       New Jersey Food Council;
       New Jersey IEC;
       New Jersey Motor Truck Association;
       North Carolina Chamber;
       Northern New Mexico IEC;
       Northern Ohio ECA;
       NW Washington IEC;
       Ohio Manufacturers' Association;
       Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of 
     California (CAPHCC);
       Portland Cement Association;
       Puget Sound Washington Chapter;
       Rio Grande Valley IEC, Inc.;
       Rocky Mountain Chapter IEC;
       Rogers-Lowell Chamber of Commerce (Arkansas);
       San Antonio Chapter IEC, Inc.;
       South Carolina Trucking Association;
       Southern New Mexico IEC;
       State Chamber of Oklahoma;
       Texas Hospital Association;
       Texas State IEC;
       Tri State IEC;
       Virginia Manufacturers Association;
       Virginia Trucking Association;
       Western Carolina Industries;
       Western Colorado IEC;
       Western Electrical Contractors Association;
       Wichita Chapter IEC.

  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the 
committee, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

[[Page H7965]]

  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.
  In the last few years, the National Labor Relations Board has had a 
clear bias toward Big Labor in decisions and rulemaking. Although this 
bill addresses several onerous rules and decisions from the NLRB, I 
would like to focus on one in particular.
  On August 26 of this year, the Board overturned decades--let me 
repeat--decades of precedent with its decision in the Specialty 
Healthcare case. By standing up today and voting for the bill before 
us, we can stop an out-of-control agency from causing irreparable harm 
to industries across the Nation. The Board has decided it will no 
longer determine if the interests of a bargaining unit are sufficiently 
different from other current units. This will encourage unions to 
create the smallest so-called ``micro-unions'' possible, and it could 
result in employers having to negotiate with multiple units within 
their own businesses. This undermines a worker's ability to make an 
informed choice about whether to join a union, and it may potentially 
fractionate the workplace.
  H.R. 3094 reinstates the traditional standard for determining which 
employees make up an appropriate bargaining unit. This bill is about 
fairness for workers and employers. It returns the Board to the 
precedent that it has operated under for the last 20 to 30 years under 
both Republican and Democratic administrations. Returning to this 
precedent will provide certainty and clarity to workers and employers, 
and it will undo the biased behavior of the current Board.
  I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today the majority is showing the American public again 
that the majority doesn't think we have a jobs crisis in America. 
Getting Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the 
American economy back on track and creating jobs is my first, second, 
and third priority. Until the majority gets to work, we're not going to 
move this country forward.
  Democrats remain committed to creating jobs immediately and to 
expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. Rather than 
bringing to the floor legislation to help create jobs, we're wasting 
time with this attempt to undermine workers' rights--the right to 
organize, to have safe working conditions, fair wages.
  On Monday night, I had a town hall. Not one person--not one--wanted 
to talk with me about the NLRB or its rulemaking; but many wanted to 
talk about job creation and wanted to make sure we were investing in 
our children's education. I offered an amendment to this bill to help 
keep teachers in the children's classrooms. I offered a real solution 
to a real problem, not a special interest giveaway to big business. 
Unfortunately, the majority blocked my amendment on procedural grounds.
  Now, across the country, budget cuts and teacher layoffs have forced 
schools to reduce the days of the school year, to cut classes in 
literacy or arts or music or physical education, to increase class 
sizes, or to reduce library hours. My amendment would have invested in 
our workforce and our educational system. My amendment would have 
supported nearly 400,000 education jobs, enough for States to avoid the 
harmful layoffs and to rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost 
their jobs over recent years.
  Tom, a student from East Brunswick, wrote me recently. ``Teacher 
layoffs in the eyes of this student is a bad thing,'' he said. ``This 
past year, I had many oversized classes.''
  Our children don't get a second chance to succeed in school. Our 
future economic growth depends on a well-educated and innovative 
workforce. That's what we should be dealing with today. My amendment 
would have supported our children. This flawed bill ignores those pleas 
for help.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
another distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
  Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank Chairman Kline not only for yielding but 
also for his leadership on this and on so many other issues on the 
Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for 
work, when so many of our fellow citizens want nothing more than to be 
able to meet their familial obligations and their obligations to the 
community, when so many of our fellow Americans want nothing more than 
the most fundamental of all family values, which is a job, and when 
they look and they see that America is increasingly competing with 
other countries for work, it is no longer just competition among the 
States. We are competing with other countries for work.
  The NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated 
agenda, thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our 
companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring 
example of NLRB overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint 
against Boeing. Despite not a single example of a job being lost in 
Washington State, despite not a single example of a worker losing a 
single benefit or right in Washington State, the NLRB sued Boeing, 
seeking to have Boeing close its South Carolina facility, mothballing a 
$1 billion facility, displacing 1,000 workers and returning the work to 
Washington State.
  Then they had the unmitigated temerity, as we recently learned, to 
joke about it in emails, to joke about a competitor called Airbus, 
which is Boeing's number one competitor. Wanting work and not getting 
it is not a laughing matter. Boeing is exhibit A among the evidentiary 
reasons that the NLRB has overreached its statutory mission, but it is 
not the only piece of evidence, Mr. Chairman. Currently, union 
elections take place, on average, within 31 days of the filing of an 
election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than 
not when there is an election.
  But that's not good enough. The NLRB wants more.
  So they proposed sweeping changes to the election process, shifting 
the balance of power even further towards unions seeking employees by 
promoting rush elections and ruling that elections can take place in as 
little as 7 to 10 days. The Board severely limits the opportunities for 
workers to hear all sides of an issue and make an informed decision. 
Additionally, employers would only have 7 days to retain legal counsel 
and decipher the complex labyrinth of Federal labor law before 
presenting their cases before an NLRB hearing officer.
  So Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline smartly introduced 
H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to simply level 
the playing field. This legislation requires that no union election 
occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to 
present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach 
an informed decision. H.R. 3094 acknowledges that full and complete 
information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will 
vote.
  Ironically, some unions have already endorsed President Obama in an 
election that is well nigh a year off; but somehow 31 days is too long 
for employers in an election that's every bit as important to them. The 
hypocrisy and blind advocacy has to stop.
  The purpose of the NLRA is to balance the rights of employers, 
employees, and the general public. The NLRA is not calculated to drive 
up union membership, because they're a loyal constituency for the 
Democrat Party. Because the NLRB through its filings and proposed rules 
and regulations has lost all pretense of objectivity in labor issues, 
fair, even-handed pieces of legislation, such as this one, are 
necessary.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will delay workers' 
attempts to unionize and will deny Americans their fundamental right to 
bargain collectively.
  In the next 3 weeks, we have jobs legislation to consider, middle 
class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to extend, a 2012 budget to 
pass. The Labor,

[[Page H7966]]

Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Subcommittee has 
not even seen a bill yet; and yet just as they have all year long, the 
majority has chosen to waste precious time--time that we should be 
spending on the people's business--to continue their misguided war 
against workers' rights.
  Once again, the majority has put forward a bill that has no other 
purpose than to roll back hard-won gains by American workers and erode 
the right of collective bargaining in this country. The legislation 
before us attempts to deny the right to form a union by imposing 
excessive delays on the process, stifling the flow of information to 
workers, and looking the other way while workers' rights are being 
violated.
  How long is this majority going to persist in this wrong-headed 
crusade against hardworking American men and women, the same 
hardworking men and women who built the middle class of this Nation? 
Last month the CBO found that wages have stagnated in this country and 
median income has fallen in recent times, even as the income of the top 
1 percent has tripled. It is no coincidence that this has happened 
while union membership has decreased. But the majority persists in 
trying to squeeze middle class workers and accelerate this race to the 
bottom.
  This is not the American way, and it is not what the American people 
want. In Ohio last month, they rejected yet another Republican attempt 
to eviscerate the right to collective bargaining. It is time to stop 
these attacks on basic American rights. It's time to roll up our 
sleeves and get to work on creating jobs, reducing the deficit, and 
restoring economic growth to this Nation.
  Say ``no'' to this legislation.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the 
committee, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  Mr. PLATTS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored and rise today in support of H.R. 3094 
because it aims to restore key protections to the American workplace, 
protections for both workers and their employers from overreach by the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  This important legislation intends to protect job growth by deterring 
harmful NLRB regulations. The NLRB's recent notice of proposed 
rulemaking would significantly alter NLRB union election procedures, 
thus undermining the rights of employers and employees alike. The 
proposed rules will unacceptably shorten the time between the filing of 
a petition and the election date, which will limit the opportunity for 
a full hearing of contested issues, including the appropriate 
bargaining unit, voter eligibility and election misconduct.
  I share the concerns of my constituents regarding the shortened 
timeframe for union elections and the potential it may have on an 
employer's ability to communicate with his or her own employees 
regarding unionization. H.R. 3094 aims to ensure that employers and 
employees are able to participate in a fair union election process by 
providing 14 days for employers to prepare their case to present before 
the NLRB, providing employees with at least 35 days to deliberate over 
the pros and cons of unionizing prior to voting on this issue, 
discouraging the so-called practice of ``ambush elections,'' and 
guaranteeing the right of employers to discuss the pros and cons.
  This legislation is not about whether employees should have the right 
to unionize. As a former Teamster member who worked his way through 
college, I certainly strongly support that right. This legislation is 
about giving employees a fair and deliberate opportunity to make that 
decision, one of the most important decisions they'll make in their 
life, because it deals with their livelihood.
  Outside of family matters and health concerns, deciding where you 
work and in what type of environment you work is going to be probably 
more important than anything else you do related to your career. What 
this legislation says is we think employees should have a fair 
opportunity to make that decision.
  I support this legislation and urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.
  This bill would severely undermine workers' rights to organize and, 
if implemented, will eventually silence and end unions as we know them.
  Congressman George Miller was correct in referring to this bill as 
the Election Prevention Act. H.R. 3094 would require the National Labor 
Relations Board to hear useless and trivial appeals from companies in 
order to stop elections. This is an outright assault on middle class 
workers and the families they support.
  The middle class is in decline. A CBO report found that between 1979 
and 2007, the top 1 percent of earners experienced income growth of 275 
percent. That's the top 1 percent, while the middle-income earners saw 
only 40 percent in growth over the same period. Statistics like these 
are startling and paint a distinct picture of this country as one that 
is quickly evolving into a two-tiered society with no room at the top 
at all for the middle class.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is nothing more than an 
outright assault on the middle class. If this misguided and dangerous 
legislation is passed, you will see an even more rapid decline of the 
middle class in our country. I urge all Members of the House to rebuke 
this misguided legislation and instead focus on policies that will 
encourage and facilitate job growth.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from California has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misnamed bill, 
which would promote neither democracy nor fairness in the workplace. 
Now, I have just been on this floor a few minutes, but it is ironic 
that I have heard speaker after speaker in favor of this bill but who 
vote consistently against working men and women's right to organize and 
bargain collectively.
  Ironic, perhaps, the right of workers to organize and bargain 
collectively for better and fairer conditions has been protected by our 
laws since the era of the New Deal, which was opposed by so many.
  This legislation is part of an agenda, frankly, that the Republican 
Party continues to pursue, which no economist believes creates jobs in 
the coming year. This bill before us won't do anything to help the 
economy or create jobs, period; and it places obstacles in front of 
workers seeking to exercise their right to organize.
  I want to point out to my friends that interestingly enough, in terms 
of trying to protect elections, there's all about you can't have an 
election before, but there's nothing in this legislation you have to 
have an election by. That would perhaps be more credible, if it said 
not sooner than this, but not later than this.
  That would show that you really wanted to pursue elections for 
working men and women so they could organize and bargain collectively 
for pay and benefits and working conditions.

                              {time}  1530

  But it doesn't say that. It says you simply can't have it before. It 
never says you have to have it. It never says you can't delay it by 
suit after suit after suit. It never says you've got to get to issue. 
It never says you've got to give the employees the right by a certain 
date.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. This bill before us won't do anything to help the economy 
or create jobs, as I said. I continue to have the strongest faith in 
the American worker, that they are the most talented and most 
productive in the world. We should not be rolling back their 
protections. Instead, we should focus on helping to get more Americans 
back to work.

[[Page H7967]]

  And as for the NLRB, the real trauma is it is now a pro-worker and 
employer NLRB, as opposed to simply a pro-employer NLRB. That's the 
problem you have.
  The courts ought to ensure equal treatment. The NLRB ought to ensure 
equal treatment. It has not been doing that for some period of time; 
and now, in my view, it is. God bless them. That's what they should do.
  Employers and employees ought to get a fair shake and a fair 
election, and I agree with that premise. Timing is obviously of concern 
to both parties. I would hope we would defeat this bill, and then if we 
want to talk about assuring elections, let us do so to protect 
democracy and protect workers.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I come before you as an ironworker for 18 years before coming to 
Congress. I actually practiced before the National Labor Relations 
Board, and I've actually represented a number of unions in election 
proceedings, and I wish I could point out every inaccuracy offered by 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I only have 1 minute.
  Let me start off by saying that I've heard time and time again by my 
colleagues that the NLRB is an advocate for unionism; it's an advocate 
for Big Labor; it's nothing more than overreaching and trying to create 
unions. For those who believe that, I ask you to look at the American 
workforce. What percentage, since the NLRB is creating all of these 
unions and is overreaching, what percentage of the American workforce 
is working under a union agreement right now? The answer is 11 percent.
  So if those guys are in the tank, the NLRB is in the tank for 
creating unions, they're batting about 110. They're doing a lousy job. 
I've heard a lot about 31 days for an average election. That's where 
the union and the employer agree; it's 31 days. If the union and the 
company don't agree, it's over 100 days.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This is an attack on 
the middle class in America. We need to put people to work instead.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Why aren't we talking about jobs today? We are here on 
the floor to talk about this bill, this so-called Workforce Democracy 
and Fairness Act. Not surprisingly, it is neither democratic nor fair. 
It is, in fact, a blatant attack on workers' rights, the latest in a 
long line of Republican assaults on workers. This time the right wing 
is attacking the very right to organize.
  Labor unions helped create the middle class and build the American 
dream. They helped establish for all American workers much-needed 
protections and bargaining rights for wages and workforce conditions. 
This bill would undo that progress.
  The anti-worker bill would also empower employers to engage in anti-
union campaigns and weaken the NLRB and their ability to protect people 
from unfair treatment at work.
  Just as voters in Wisconsin and Ohio stood together to stop the 
Republican assault on workers, today I stand here on the floor against 
yet another assault on working families. When will we get beyond yet 
another Republican sideshow and get back to talking about jobs?
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. The sponsor of this bill 
recently said it would remove an obstacle standing in the way of a 
stronger and more competitive workforce. I find that statement 
puzzling. This bill, if passed, would actually make the organization 
process even longer, less efficient, and more litigious. It would drag 
out union elections so that the deck is stacked even higher against 
American workers.
  But the truth is unions have been at the forefront of workers' rights 
for over a century in the United States. They've been instrumental in 
achieving the 40-hour work week, the right to collectively bargain, 
safer workplaces, and the guarantee of compensation for injuries 
sustained on the job. They have created an entire generation of middle 
class Americans and helped build the most prosperous country in the 
world today. I think we'd all agree that unions have made the American 
workforce stronger.
  So how can legislation that makes it harder to form unions strengthen 
the American workforce? If someone has an answer, I'd like to know. If 
not, then let's get back to the job of creating jobs for the American 
people, strengthening the economy, and creating more jobs for these 
people. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from California has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. This particular piece of legislation that undermines 
unions makes it more difficult to organize and generally frustrates 
American working men and women from organizing on the job takes place 
just a few weeks after the Republican majority was trying to take down 
the Clean Air Act and the EPA. When you look at the Republican job 
approach, their argument seems to be that workers and people who want 
to breathe are the problem with the American economy. People who want 
to drink clean water and breathe clean air and people who want to have 
some rights to the job, they're the reason why the American economy 
doesn't work. Well, that happens to be about 99 percent of us, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I hope that as people are watching this debate on this floor today, 
that they're taking careful note of who is on the side of the American 
worker, who is on the side of Americans trying to breathe and to have 
clean air. And what in the world does getting rid of the Clean Air Act 
and gutting unions have to do with making American jobs?
  The fact is the Republican majority is abandoning their 
responsibility to create jobs, and I hope the American worker is 
watching today.

                                             Transportation Trades


                                          Department, AFL-CIO,

                                Washington, DC, November 29, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Transportation Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I urge you to vote against the 
     Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 3094) when it is 
     considered by the House of Representatives this week. Despite 
     its misleading title, this bill has nothing to do with 
     ``democracy'' or ``fairness'' but instead is intended to 
     interfere with a worker's basic right to freely decide 
     whether or not to be represented by a union under the 
     National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Instead of wasting time 
     on bills that would make it hard for workers to negotiate for 
     fair wages and good jobs, Congress should focus on helping 
     the 14 million Americans looking for work every day.
       H.R. 3094 would complicate and delay the union election 
     process. Specifically, the bill creates a mandatory waiting 
     period of 35 days after the filing of an election petition, 
     even if the employers and employees agree to an earlier date. 
     This waiting period is designed to give unscrupulous 
     employers time to mount aggressive campaigns to pressure 
     workers into abandoning their organizing efforts. At the same 
     time, the bill does nothing to limit how long an election can 
     be delayed, leaving the door open for employer claims, 
     challenges and litigation that could prevent fair elections 
     from being held for months or years after a petition is 
     filed. Moreover, this legislation encourages wasteful 
     litigation by mandating a full pre-election hearing on any 
     broadly defined ``relevant and material'' issues. The result 
     would be to incentivize time-consuming pre-election hearings, 
     and increase taxpayer costs.
       This legislation would also make it more difficult for 
     workers to choose to form a union and tip the scales further 
     toward employers in the election process. Additionally, the 
     bill would allow employers to effectively gerrymander the 
     bargaining unit to artificially create a workforce that is 
     more likely to reject union representation.
       H.R. 3094 is nothing more than an attack on the right of 
     America's workers to collectively bargain. At a time when 
     unemployment remains high, and our economy continues to 
     struggle, this legislation is an unfortunate distraction from 
     what the American people need: job-creating legislation

[[Page H7968]]

     that invests in our nation's aging transportation system 
     while helping our economy recover. Please vote against H.R. 
     3094 and stand up for America's workers.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Edward Wytkind,
     President.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations
                                Washington, DC, November 28, 2011.
     Hon. John P. Kline,
     Chairman, House Education and the Workforce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Ranking Minority Member, House Education and the Workforce, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Minority Member Miller: On 
     behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3094, 
     the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, when it is 
     considered by the House of Representatives. Masquerading as a 
     bill to protect the status quo with respect to elections 
     supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, H.R. 3094 
     would actually mandate delays, giving companies more power to 
     wear down support for the union and creating new 
     opportunities for stalling elections. The result of this bill 
     will be to make workers wait months, perhaps years before 
     they are allowed to vote on whether to form a union. The bill 
     would also destroy 75 years of NLRB case law that has 
     governed the appropriateness of bargaining units, giving 
     companies more power to gerrymander the eligibility of voters 
     in a union representation election in order to unfairly skew 
     the results.
       Under H.R. 3094, no election may occur sooner than 35 days 
     after the filing of an election petition, even if all parties 
     agree to an earlier date. But the bill does not limit how 
     long an election may be delayed as a result of employer 
     claims, challenges and litigation. The bill would mandate a 
     full pre-election hearing on any ``relevant and material'' 
     issue, broadly defined to include virtually any issue, even 
     those that are not in dispute and not material to the 
     appropriateness of the bargaining unit. By incentivizing 
     marathon pre-election hearings, the bill would reward 
     wasteful litigation and increase taxpayer costs by requiring 
     findings on unnecessary and extraneous issues.
       In a further effort to deny workers their right to choose 
     whether to form a union, H.R. 3094 imposes restrictions on 
     workers' opportunities to receive information from unions, 
     but does nothing to curb the power of companies to force 
     workers to listen to their anti-union propaganda, under the 
     threat of discharge if they try to object. Moreover, it fails 
     to protect workers who are fired, threatened, or interrogated 
     because they want to exercise their federal statutory right 
     to form a union. In fact, current remedies for well-
     documented, wide-spread violations of workers' rights have 
     been regularly criticized as paltry and ineffective, treated 
     by companies as merely a cost of doing business.
       H.R. 3094 would also overturn the recent Specialty 
     Healthcare decision, in which the NLRB applied to non-acute 
     health care facilities, mostly nursing homes, the same 
     community-of-interest standard that it has traditionally 
     applied to determine the appropriateness of bargaining units 
     in other industries. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia upheld that standard in 2008, the bill 
     broadly applies a one-size-fits-all test in disregard of the 
     particular needs of specific industries and circumstances. 
     The bill's newly minted test will create uncertainties for 
     the parties as this vague new standard is repeatedly 
     litigated.
       H.R. 3094 has one goal: to empower companies which want to 
     delay elections so they can mount one-sided, anti-union 
     campaigns, both legal and illegal, to discourage workers from 
     freely choosing whether or not to form a union. At a time 
     when more and more experts are recognizing that middle class 
     incomes are falling in tandem with the declining rate of 
     union membership. Congress should be finding ways to protect 
     workers' freedom to form a union, not throwing up roadblocks 
     to the exercise of this fundamental right.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____


                      The Election Prevention Act


                  Facts on the Republicans' H.R. 3094

    (Prepared by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
                       Democrats, November 2011)

       While Americans across the country are rejecting the 
     special interest attacks on workers' rights and demanding 
     action on jobs, Republicans in Washington are continuing 
     their overreach against working families. Their latest effort 
     to roll back workers' rights is H.R. 3094, which should be 
     called the `Election Prevention Act.' The bill's singular 
     goal is to delay and ultimately prevent workers from voting 
     in workplace elections.
       The Republican agenda's obsession with busting workers' 
     unions comes at the expense of rebuilding the middle class 
     and getting America back to work.
       H.R. 3094 favors wealthy special interests at the expense 
     of Americans' rights in the workplace.
       These rights helped to create the American middle class in 
     the last century. In recent decades, the erosion of these 
     rights has helped to lower families' paychecks, decrease 
     health and retirement security, and widen the gap between 
     rich and poor.
       A key to growing and strengthening our nation's middle 
     class is empowering Americans to bargain for more of the 
     wealth they create, not stripping them of rights.
       The `Election Prevention Act' denies workers' right to a 
     free and fair election in three key ways:
       The `Election Prevention Act' bill mandates delay, rather 
     than minimizing undue delay in elections. The bill's 
     overarching concern is that workers' choice be postponed with 
     mandatory and arbitrary waiting periods. For instance, no 
     election may occur sooner than 35 days after the filing of a 
     petition. However, there is no limit on how long an election 
     may be delayed. Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time 
     to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure employees 
     into abandoning their organizing efforts.
       Rather than discouraging frivolous litigation, the Election 
     Prevention Act encourages it. The bill incentivizes a 
     mountain of litigation for the sole purpose of gumming up the 
     election process and stalling any vote. This will create a 
     massive backlog of cases, including frivolous ones, on the 
     taxpayer's dime.
       The `Election Prevention Act' bill manipulates the 
     procedure for deciding who is in a bargaining unit. Employers 
     would get an edge in preventing an election from ever being 
     triggered by gerrymandering elections through stuffing the 
     ballot boxes with voters who were never engaged by the 
     organizing drive. And, although employers already have the 
     information, this bill would require that voter information 
     be hidden from those supporting a union until right before 
     the election.

  Mr. KLINE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If anybody thinks that this is just 
a technical change, let's understand what has gone on since the 
Republicans have taken control of the House. The first effort was they 
cut $50 million out of the NLRB account. Then there was an amendment on 
this floor to try and zero out the money for the NLRB. Then they passed 
a rule that said that you could retaliate against workers and you could 
move work away from those workers. You could outsource it, and they 
enshrined the right to outsource work to retaliate against workers. And 
now we have the effort to try and prevent elections from taking place. 
This is a systematic effort joined in by a number of States and the 
Republicans in this Congress to take away the rights of workers at the 
workplace in America, the basic rights that have built the middle 
class.
  And while they've continued this campaign against the NLRB, thank God 
the NLRB has continued to work because we see today that a settlement 
has been reached in the Boeing case, and you don't get to retaliate 
against workers. The new 737 work will go to Washington; the 787 will 
continue to go to South Carolina. The NLRB worked that agreement out 
between employer and employee. And let's remember, Boeing is on the 
record they didn't support the legislation that was put on in behalf of 
their name. So that worked out.
  And just a few minutes ago, the NLRB apparently voted on a compromise 
rule dealing with elections. And so that compromise rule hopefully will 
now become a permanent rule and that will go forward. That's what the 
NLRB does: It works out these arrangements between employers and 
employees over these issues about how the American workplace will be 
managed, but it does not strip away the basic rights of workers to 
choose to join a union. It does not allow you to retaliate against the 
union.

                              {time}  1540

  It does not allow you to delay elections to such a point that you 
finally beat the union into submission or people give up, they get 
dispirited and move away. It doesn't allow that. That's the basic labor 
law of this country.
  So today the NLRB, working with employers and employees, has 
reaffirmed that principle. Today in this House, they continue the 
effort to try to strip workers of their rights. They continue the 
effort in light of the evidence that these things get worked out in the 
workplace. Yes, these are contentious. They're big issues. But we have 
a vehicle that's 75 years old that has worked well on behalf of this 
economy. Not only did it build the middle

[[Page H7969]]

class in this country, it also built one of the largest economies. Why? 
Because we have the most productive workers in the history of the world 
industry after industry after industry, however you measure it.
  Why aren't our steelworkers competitive with China? Because our 
plants are cost competitive on ton of steel, but when you manipulate 
the currency, our people can't win. But our workers continue to be 
there every day. And now, thank you to the work of the NLRB working out 
these arrangements, the NLRB will continue to be there every day for 
employers and employees to settle their differences.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let's clear up a few things today we've heard in this debate. It's 
very interesting. We clearly have a different view, there's no question 
about it.
  We've heard repeatedly that this bill strips workers of their rights. 
Sometimes my colleagues confuse workers with Big Labor leaders. This 
bill in fact protects workers' rights--union workers' rights, nonunion 
workers' rights. The proposed regulations--which apparently are under 
modification, as we speak, from the NLRB--were in fact an attack on 
workers' rights, a demand that more personal information be provided 
union organizers whether or not the workers approved of that, and 
shrinking the amount of time that workers might have to make a decision 
on one of the most important aspects in their life to as little as 10 
days. This bill protects workers' rights and makes sure they have time 
to make this important decision.
  We've heard today that bargaining units would be gerrymandered by 
employers. In fact, this bill puts us back to the standards that have 
been in place for decades to make sure that workplaces aren't fractured 
and fragmented and you have worker against worker, worker against 
employer, making it harder for employers to run an effective business, 
making it harder for them to have confidence to hire Americans.
  We've been told that we're wasting time today and that we ought to be 
having a jobs bill, which apparently means spending more borrowed 
money. We're already borrowing 42 cents on every dollar, Mr. Chairman, 
that we're spending now, and yet apparently you can't create a job in 
this country unless government does it with borrowed money. Well, we 
disagree.
  We think, we believe that we have been moving legislation in this 
House which will in fact help American job creators put Americans back 
to work. One of the obstacles is confusion. It's uncertainty. It's 
worry about the regulatory climate and what is coming down the path.
  The President of the United States has said this economy needs a 
jolt, Mr. Chairman. I disagree. It needs certainty. It needs 
predictability. Employers, employees, and consumers need confidence in 
the future. They don't need to be jerked.
  The distinguished minority whip said the NLRB ought to be fair. He 
said employers and employees ought to get a fair election. I couldn't 
agree more. Employers and employees ought to have a fair shake. They 
ought to get a fair election. And that's what this bill does.
  So the choice today is pretty simple. If you support an employer's 
right to speak to his or her employees during an organizing campaign, 
then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support a 
worker's right to make an informed decision in a union election, then 
support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. If you support giving 
workers a say in the personal information, Mr. Chairman, available to 
union leaders, then support the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. 
And if you support reining in an activist NLRB and reaffirming 
Congress' responsibility to write the law, then support the Workforce 
Democracy and Fairness Act.
  I urge my colleagues to stand by our workers and their employers by 
supporting this simple, commonsense legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-
called ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act'' (H.R. 3094).
  The changes to union election procedures promoted in this bill are 
the exact opposite of the kind of fair and democratic policies that our 
working families need. Instead of focusing on job creation and the 
revitalization of our middle class, the Republicans in this chamber are 
once again promoting legislation that undermines the rights of American 
workers.
  This proposed legislation would limit the ability of the National 
Labor Relations Board to interpret our nation's labor laws and to 
protect worker's right to unionize. For over 75 years, the National 
Labor Relations Act has guaranteed the rights of employees to organize 
and bargain collectively, or to refrain from such activity if they 
choose. During the New Deal, our predecessors in this body created the 
National Labor Relations Board as an independent agency charged with 
the oversight and enforcement of these rights. H.R. 3094, which 
overturns the rulings of the NLRB, undermines its charge to maintain 
fair and democratic relationships between unions and employers.
  This legislation allows the problem of prolonged delays in union 
elections to continue unchecked by adding mandatory and arbitrary 
waiting periods. It seizes from workers the right to determine their 
own representative membership groups, which would allow unscrupulous 
businesses to suppress election drives and vote down union 
representation. It would also make it possible for irresponsible and 
frivolous litigation to endlessly delay the election process, 
effectively barring workers from their fundamental right to collective 
bargaining representation in the workplace.
  Supporting and protecting America's workers is an essential part of 
rebuilding our economy and ensuring that all families and communities 
share in our nation's prosperity. Our middle class was built on the 
rights and safeguards that labor unions fought to obtain. From the 40 
hour workweek to ending child labor, union representation has helped to 
guarantee rights that many of us take for granted today. Unions 
negotiate for safe working conditions, living wages, and basic benefits 
that impact all workers. Efforts to decrease the power of collective 
bargaining in this country in recent decades have been accompanied by 
an erosion of workers' benefits and greater income inequality. This 
year in Wisconsin and Ohio, we have seen voters reject recent attempts 
to strip away the rights of government workers, and we should likewise 
reject this attempt to limit access to these rights for those in the 
private workforce.
  This bill does nothing to protect and support working families, and I 
urge my colleagues to stand up for workers rights and oppose this bill.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, H.R. 3094, is a bill more aptly named the 
Election Prevention Act--not the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. 
There is nothing particularly fair about a bill intended to diminish 
the right of private-sector workers to organize union elections, 
promote delays for the sake of delays, and encourage unnecessary 
litigation. At a time when American workers are suffering from layoffs, 
unemployment, and stagnant wages it is quite simply irresponsible to 
rollback basic labor protections. This bill does nothing to put the 
country back on a track of sustained economic growth. Instead of 
preserving the ability of workers to unionize and demand fairer wages, 
this legislation will keep wages low and economic recovery stagnant.
  We should be working together to identify ways to keep people 
employed and providing more Americans with opportunities to return to 
work. We should not be spending valuable time contemplating measures 
that make workers weaker and more vulnerable to unemployment or unfair 
compensation for their hard work. In the state of New York, which has 
the highest rate of union membership, the 7.9 percent rate of 
unemployment is well below the national average and the latest 
statistics show it is decreasing. Nation-wide, between 2004-2007 
unionized workers enjoyed wages 11.3 percent higher than workers with 
similar characteristics who did not belong to a union. The more money 
workers have, the more they spend, and the more consumer demand grows. 
And yet, here we are considering a measure designed to prevent union 
elections across the nation and depress wage growth, instead of 
contemplating legislation to create teacher jobs, construction jobs, 
and economic reforms to address the deep structural causes of 
persistent unemployment.
  There is a good reason why people do not want to see their labor 
rights trumped. Our rights in the workplace are the basis for the 
middle class. These rights were essential to securing higher paychecks 
for everyday people, and obtaining health and retirement security for 
the average worker. At a time when we are facing the possibility of 
deep cuts in health, education, and social security it is all the more 
imperative that we keep in place whatever power people have to demand a 
fair compensation and a fairer share of the wealth we create through 
diligent work. Workers should be empowered to bargain for a bigger 
share of the wealth they create; they have earned it. But this is not 
what this legislation is interested in doing. It would rather protect 
employers at the expense of employees,

[[Page H7970]]

which history has shown will not distribute the wealth created by the 
workers.
  The main purpose of H.R. 3094 has nothing to do with democracy and 
fairness in the workplace. Making elections difficult or almost 
impossible, whether it be in society or the workplace, is neither 
democratic nor is it fair. The Election Prevention Act preemptively 
blocks the National Labor Relations Board's proposed rules to 
streamline the election process and use modern administrative measures 
to improve communication between all parties involved--the workers, 
employers, unions, and the Board. It does this because the more 
protracted the delays during an election process, the greater the 
chance workers will give up demanding a union and the power to bargain 
collectively.
  A basic American value is that we should all be able to choose how 
and with whom to form into an association for the purpose of voicing 
our interests and views. This same idea that we ought to be able to 
choose how and with whom to form a community of interests is enshrined 
in the National Labor Relations Act. The bill before us seeks to 
deprive workers of this basic right so fundamental to our understanding 
of democracy by giving employers the power to determine who should be 
included in an ``appropriate'' bargaining unit instead of allowing 
people to decide for themselves. This is unacceptable.
  Supporting this bill means contradicting our basic values about fair 
representation, ignoring the message that Americans have sent regarding 
their wish to retain their rights in the workplace, and putting 
ideology above the need to create employment. Voting for this bill will 
not only hurt our chances of an economic recovery--it is equivalent to 
cutting people's rights and preventing them from securing a fair 
portion of the wealth they have created.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3094, the 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill should be defeated 
because it does nothing to help create jobs or put this country back on 
the path to sustainable economic recovery. Rather, H.R. 3094 is an 
unconscionable assault on the right of every American worker to 
organize, a right that I have defended for my entire congressional 
career.
  The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is a partisan reaction to a 
recent rulemaking by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 
concerning union elections. This one-sided bill carries on in the fine 
Republican tradition of stifling any attempt of working men and women 
to gain any leverage on management by unionizing. This frightens my 
Republican colleagues to no end, and while they will tell you that H.R. 
3094 allows workers equal opportunity to hear both sides of the story, 
the hard truth of the matter is it will not. The bill we consider today 
allows employers to use all manner of litigious rascality to postpone 
union elections and fire workers for objecting to having to listen to 
anti-union propaganda. That is neither democratic nor fair, and is 
certainly undeserving of our support at a time when our country's 
middle class is being decimated.
  Vote down this bill, and stand up for America's working families.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
opposition of H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. 
Contrary to what the title suggests, there is nothing democratic or 
fair about this biased attempt to weaken labor unions and hurt working 
families all across the country.
  This partisan bill does nothing positive for the high unemployment 
rate in this country or our vulnerable economy. Instead of utilizing 
our limited time on the House floor to consider real solutions to the 
economic problems we are facing today, this legislation seeks only to 
exploit these difficult times in order to advance a Republican 
ideological agenda against union organizing and the National Labor 
Relations Board (NLRB).
  The goals of this legislation are simply to undermine the ability of 
American workers to organize and bargain collectively. H.R. 3094 will 
create barriers to union elections through waiting periods and more 
stringent criteria, dilute voter pools, and disproportionately tip the 
scales of power in favor of employers.
  We have seen similar attempts to disarm the NLRB in this Congress 
before, also deceptively titled to deliberately mislead the American 
people. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, which I 
opposed, sought to gut the NLRB of its authority entirely. Under the 
guise of protecting jobs, this bill also sought purely to advance a 
partisan agenda.
  It is these same partisan tactics that are preventing this Congress 
from making any significant progress on the real important issues at 
hand.
  Mr. Chair, it is shameful that my Republican colleagues insist on 
bringing such partisan bills such as H.R. 3094 to the House floor. At 
this critical time for our economy, it is absolutely vital that we 
spend our time constructively to work toward shoring up our economy and 
creating jobs here at home. Instead, they have demonstrated that 
radical ideology is a more important priority than compromise in the 
name of finding real solutions to our nation's problems.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose yet another attempt 
at rolling back workers' rights, H.R. 3094, the Election Prevention 
Act. This assault on union employees is anti-democratic and harmful to 
the American middle class. Instead of legislation to create jobs and to 
grow the American workforce, the House Majority is attempting to 
undermine worker protections and put workers at risk.
  It is a strength of our democracy that employees have the freedom and 
the federal statutory right to choose whether or not to be represented 
by a union. However, this legislation would effectively end collective 
bargaining rights by putting power exclusively in the hands of 
employers. It gives employers the ability to delay indefinitely a union 
election, allowing for intimidation and harassment of employees. It 
does nothing to protect workers who are fired, threatened, or 
interrogated for exercising their right to form a union. It also 
prevents individuals to choose the coworkers with whom they wish to 
seek representation. Furthermore, this legislation incentivizes 
wasteful litigation prior to union elections and would increase 
taxpayer costs by creating a backlog of required findings on 
superfluous issues.
  Unions have helped to improve the wages and working conditions of all 
Americans and to grow the American middle class. This war on union 
employees that is being waged in states across the country and here on 
Capitol Hill must not continue. It is time for us to turn our efforts 
to strengthening protections for American working men and women as well 
as to helping those outside the workforce to find good jobs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition 
to the cynically named ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,'' which 
is neither fair nor democratic and would do nothing to create a single 
job or improve conditions for American workers. Instead, this 
legislation represents just the latest Republican attack on the 
workers' rights that are at the core of American democracy.
  Look around you today. Fourteen million Americans--our neighbors, 
friends, and family members--are unemployed, searching for a job. They, 
and millions more citizens from every congressional district in 
America, are demanding that we, as their elected Representatives, 
proactively address our nation's economic crisis, create jobs, and 
reduce unemployment. But these demands continue to fall on the deaf 
ears of the Republican majority. No wonder we see such unrest around 
the country. Instead of attempting to put people back to work, the 
House Republican majority, in between its manufactured fiscal crises, 
spends its time attacking the rights of American workers. Instead of 
crafting bipartisan legislation aimed at helping unemployed Americans 
find work, the majority has instead focused on stripping those 
Americans fortunate enough to have a job of the rights they already 
possess.
  Today is Wednesday, the middle of the work week--a day when millions 
of unemployed Americans would love nothing more than to pull on their 
work boots, tie their ties, or put on their suits and head to work. But 
today on the floor of the House of Representatives, we're not 
considering a jobs bill. Instead, we face the latest product of the 
majority's single-minded obsession with the dismantling of American 
worker rights. H.R. 3094 does not create one single job. Instead, this 
legislation would undermine a private-sector worker's right to vote, to 
exercise his right to bargain collectively. This bill will effectively 
gum up, delay, and obscure the election process overseen by the 
National Labor Relations Board, opening the door for unscrupulous 
employers to undermine their employees' rights.
  What's worse, in order to pay for the changes made in this bill, 
tomorrow we will be considering a bill to eliminate the Presidential 
Public Financing System and the Election Assistance Commission--key 
safeguards against the influence of special-interest money in politics 
and abuses of voting rights, respectively. The irony should not be lost 
on anybody who is paying attention: in order to undercut the democratic 
rights of organized workers, this majority is undermining the 
democratic rights of the entire American electorate.
  Let's be clear: this bill, like all of the other unambiguously 
partisan, anti-worker bills brought to a vote in the House by the 
Republican majority over the course of this year, has no chance of 
being signed into law. It's simply an ode to special interests that 
does nothing to move our economy forward. After 11 months of control, 
the House majority has made clear that it has no interest in reigniting 
our economic recovery and helping put people back to work. I encourage 
my colleagues to defeat H.R. 3094 and to continue to push for the 
consideration of jobs legislation to help put Americans back to work.

[[Page H7971]]

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank our 
Chairman and I am thankful for his leadership on this very important 
issue.
  Once again, the President's National Labor Relations Board is 
trampling on the rights of American workers and employers by denying 
them the opportunity to participate in a free election. Current 
policies have been in place for decades to ensure each worker is given 
a fair amount of time to make a decision about joining a union. With 
the proposal set forth in June, the NLRB will decrease the amount of 
time given for a worker to consider joining a union from an average of 
thirty days to as little as ten days. This radical policy of rush 
elections will limit the amount of knowledge and information available 
to each union worker.
  Moreover, this new proposal will give unions the capability to branch 
out and form smaller collective bargaining groups, creating a bigger 
burden on employers as costs will rise to manage multiple unions. Our 
Nation does not need more government involvement that negatively 
impacts the way employers operate their businesses.
  The job killing influence of the NLRB such as the attack on Boeing 
workers in South Carolina must be stopped before it tramples the rights 
of American workers. Congress has a responsibility to ensure every 
American is given the right to a free election, an opportunity granted 
by the laws of our country.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this commonsense 
legislation and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of The 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act which protects our employers and 
union workers from the Big Labor policies of the President's National 
Labor Relations Board and promotes more freedom for job creation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3094, the 
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. This bill is just one more 
Republican attack on workers and middle class Americans under the guise 
of protecting the ``job creators'' we hear so much about from the other 
side of the aisle.
  In case you missed the recent Republican Presidential debate when 
front runner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said we should do 
away with child labor laws, the Republican message is clear: laws that 
protect workers are not needed. Instead, workers should just rely on 
the benevolence of ``job creators'' to pay them for the hours they 
worked or to hold a fair union election. Today's legislation is another 
attempt to undermine workers' rights.
  For eighty years, the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, has 
operated as an intermediary between workers and employers. I applaud 
the NLRB's decision to modernize union election rules with standardized 
election timelines and electronic petition filing, and a streamlined 
hearings process. House Republicans responded to these modest and 
overdue changes by bringing up legislation to interfere with workers' 
rights to organize.
  Every aspect of this legislation would make it more difficult for 
workers to form a union. It would allow companies to obstruct any 
attempt by workers to unionize and create infinite avenues for 
employers to delay elections, including litigation. These delays 
empower those employers who want to intimidate and harass workers and 
bring in union-busters. It would also allow employers to gerrymander 
bargaining units to skew election results in their favor.
  When I hold town meetings in my district, my constituents are not 
clamoring for Congress to make it harder to join a union. They want our 
economy fixed and they want jobs. Attacking working men and women, as 
this bill does, will not create a single job or help a single family 
pay their bills. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 3094, the Republican plan to crush workers' rights 
and destroy any glimmer of hope our working families have at economic 
recovery. The Republicans designed this bill to destroy 75 years of 
National Labor Review Board case law in their attempt to dismantle the 
middle class.
  Collective bargaining and the right to organize helped build a strong 
American middle class. It doesn't cost the federal government one dime 
in real money. Instead of taking steps to create jobs and strengthen 
working families, Republicans are dismantling key worker protections. 
All workers should have the ability to negotiate with their employer 
about salary and benefits, whether they're in a union or not. Organized 
labor is great for business. Thousands of companies across the country 
thrive with a unionized workforce.
  Those businesses recognize that their employees deserve to have a 
safe workplace and fair wages and benefits. That's just good business. 
This bill encourages corporations to stall NLRB elections while they 
mount a one-sided, anti-union campaign. At its core, this is an 
undemocratic bill that undermines our values.
  We have a long established process for workers to attempt to form a 
union and collectively bargain with employers. Employers and employees 
should stay on equal ground in the process. There is no need to deny 
workers their right to a free and fair union election.
  Many of my Republican friends like to talk about the issue of Tort 
Reform. They like to tell us that we have to prevent frivolous 
lawsuits--they cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars and they 
drag down the economy.
  I have news for my Republican friends: the Election Prevention Act 
encourages frivolous litigation. This bill will mean mountains of 
litigation before union elections can be held. The result is a massive 
backlog. Guess who picks up the tab? The American taxpayer!
  We have important issues facing our country and it boggles my mind 
that we are taking up yet another bill that does nothing to get our 
friends and neighbors back to work. We need to focus on lowering the 
unemployment rate and creating jobs--not taking away the rights of 
hardworking Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize this veiled attempt to destroy the 
rights of American working families.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today in the United States, 13.9 million 
people are unemployed. Nine percent of the American workforce is out of 
a job, worrying how to make ends meet. Nearly half are long-term 
unemployed, jobless for over 27 weeks.
  These Americans are looking to Congress for help. The President sent 
us a comprehensive plan for job creation and this House has not acted. 
We have over thirteen percent unemployment in the construction sector 
and roads and bridges to repair all over the country and this House has 
not brought an infrastructure bill to the floor. Local governments are 
facing tough budgets and laying off teachers and police and this House 
has provided no relief.
  Today we have a bill on the floor that will not create a single job 
nor help a single American worker. Instead, it will make it more 
difficult for them to assert their rights in the workplace and almost 
certainly encourage frivolous litigation.
  The time we spend on legislation like this is time we fail to spend 
addressing the real needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, it is sad for our country that today the U.S. 
House is voting on H.R. 3094, yet another bill to roll back workers' 
rights.
  Today's bill does nothing for the number one issue on people's minds 
in Hawaii and around the country: creating new, good-paying jobs.
  We're seeing unemployment on Hawaii Island at nearly 10 percent.
  On Kauai, it's nearly 9 percent. In Maui County, it's nearly 8 
percent.
  Instead of addressing this top issue of jobs, today's bill is part of 
a continuing assault against organized labor around the country. This 
bill is just like the attacks we saw in Wisconsin and Ohio.
  But Ohio's families said no.
  And so do Hawaii's.
  Because Hawaii families believe working men and women should be able 
to have a voice at the table.
  This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across our 
country through legislation enabling workers to bargain collectively 
for better wages and working conditions.
  Congress should be focusing on creating jobs--
  Not making it easier for a few companies to prevent workers from 
having a voice in the workplace.
  While most employers in Hawaii want to support their workers, I have 
heard from workers in Hawaii that some companies exploit the current 
system to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace.
  For example, in February 2003, National Labor Relations Board 
Administrative Law Judge Gerald Wacknov ruled against a Hawaii business 
where a labor dispute had been going on for years.
  In 2002, workers at this company, who had not been given a raise in 
six years, asked the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) 
for help in organizing a union.
  Judge Wacknov ruled that ``the Employer's conduct prior to the 
election . . . substantially interfered with the employees' free 
choice.''
  In the run-up to the union election, 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.
  Under current law, we know that a company can talk to their workers 
at any time and urge them to vote against joining a union.
  The company can scare workers into thinking that voting for a union 
will cost them their jobs.
  Meanwhile, unions are not allowed to visit the worksite to make their 
case for joining a union.
  They do not have access to complete contact information that will 
enable them to effectively contact workers.

[[Page H7972]]

  This company even hired a private security firm and posted large, 
threatening security guards outside the voting area during the vote.
  After Judge Wacknov's ruling in February 2003, the company appealed 
the decision. A year and a half later, in summer 2004 the overburdened 
National Labor Relations Board upheld Judge Wacknov's ruling and 
ordered a new election.
  In August 2004, a second election was held for the company's workers, 
and a majority voted to join the union.
  The company appealed yet again.
  In February 2005, NLRB Administrative Law Judge James Rose found that 
the company had effectively stuffed the ballot box in its favor by 
unfairly adding ineligible voters.
  In July 2005--40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an 
election--the NLRB Board finally certified the ILWU Local 142 as the 
union for the workers.
  Still, the company has continued to offer appeal after appeal of the 
election's results.
  It's now the end of 2011.
  The workers still do not have their first bargaining contract for 
better wages and conditions.
  Today's bill on the House floor would make this unfairness even 
worse.
  H.R. 3094 would make it nearly impossible, in contested situations, 
for workers to come to the table and have a voice in the workplace by 
voting to join a union.
  Nationwide, in contested cases, workers already have to wait an 
average of four months to vote whether to join a union. Various delays 
can already occur.
  Today's bill would make this problem even worse. It would add an 
extra minimum waiting period of two weeks before a hearing, and five 
weeks before an election. This is in addition to the already long wait 
time.
  And each day of delay allows an employer to continue to scare their 
employees into voting against a union.
  Today's bill would add to the NLRB's paperwork burdens. H.R. 3094 
would require the NLRB to hear frivolous appeals from a company to stop 
an election.
  This would completely overwhelm the NLRB with thousands of frivolous 
appeals and delay elections even longer.
  Clearly, the current system is already stacked against workers trying 
to have a voice at the table.
  This bill should really be called the ``Election Prevention Act.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.
  Instead, let's stand with working men and women of this country and 
focus on what people really want--getting back to work.
  Mahalo.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3094, 
the deceptively named ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,'' and I 
appeal to my colleagues to join me in rejecting this dangerous 
legislation designed to undermine the collective bargaining rights of 
America's workers.
  I oppose this legislation for three principal reasons:
  First, it flies in the face of 75 years of judicially-approved, 
National Labor Review Board (NLRB) case law governing the eligibility 
of bargaining units, transferring that power away from workers wishing 
to organize.
  Second, it would open the door to indefinite delays within the union 
election process, inviting frivolous litigation designed to cripple the 
system and prevent fair elections.
  Third, it would unfairly impose restrictions on the opportunity of 
workers to receive union information while allowing employers free 
reign to bombard their workers with anti-union propaganda.
  In short, this legislation would reduce the power of workers to 
organize for fair treatment to a level not seen since the late 19th 
century.
  At first glance, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act sounds like 
a reasonable bill, but its glib appeal vanishes when one examines its 
intent closely.
  Proponents argue that by inserting delays prior to a union election, 
so-called ``ambush elections'' would be avoided. It claims not to 
interfere with the NLRB's supervision of elections.
  Mr. Speaker, this claim is disingenuous. The argument that creating 
employer based delays for a union election will somehow give a union 
member more time to make a better and more informed decision is 
questionable at best.
  Letting an employer delay union elections is unfair to the American 
worker who wants his or her voice heard. Big Business is not supporting 
this bill to help unionized workers make more thoughtful decisions. 
H.R. 3094 is a blatant attempt to silence and confuse.
  Enacted in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was designed 
explicitly to encourage collective bargaining. Since then, the NLRB and 
the courts have interpreted this law and developed processes for 
handling workers who seek to form and manage unions.
  H.R. 3094 would substitute 75 years of expertise and decades of case 
law for new and untested processes that favor wealthy special interests 
and corporate litigators.
  Creating a legal precedent for unfairly stalling or even halting 
union elections is the true aim of this act. This legislation takes 
away the ability of unions to function as a democratically elected 
entity, prevents it from communicating with its members, and saps its 
organizational strength.
  Moreover, the resounding defeat of Ohio's Senate Bill 5, which tried 
to restrict collective bargaining rights of more than 360,000 public 
employees in that state, plainly demonstrates the American people's 
opposition to a legislature's attempt to stifle the rights of workers.
  Equally troubling is that under H.R. 3094 companies are free to force 
their workers to listen to anti-union information under the threat of 
discharge if they try to object. This provision is truly an act of 
coercion which has no place in the American workplace.
  The result of this strategy is obvious. H.R 3094 permits employers to 
intimidate their employees and discourage them from securing workplace 
rights.
  This is why the White House recently released a statement describing 
H.R. 3094 as an attempt to ``undermine and delay workers'' ability to 
exercise their right to choose whether or not they will be represented 
by a union.''
  Imagine if H.R. 3094 passed. Imagine a working environment where a 
union wants to cast a ballot, but its obstructed by the employer with a 
steady stream of delays, bureaucracy, and litigation. Imagine a working 
environment where one's livelihood is threatened if a worker refuses to 
attend an anti-union meeting. Imagine a working environment where 
dissent is not permitted. This would be the reality under H.R. 3094.
  At one time, this was the reality in our country. It existed in the 
days of child labor, when the 12-hour workday was the standard, when 
there were no weekends, no safety regulations, or any of the other 
workplace protections that we take for granted.
  America no longer lives in the Gilded Age. American workers fought 
for over 100 years to achieve the right of collective bargaining for a 
better future. The democratic core of the right to unionize is under 
attack by this legislation.
  H.R. 3094 would be a great leap backward for our country. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this deceptive legislation and secure the rights 
of American workers.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3094

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Workforce Democracy and 
     Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. TIMING OF ELECTIONS.

       Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     159) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Board shall 
     decide'' and all that follows through ``Provided, That the'' 
     and inserting: ``In each case, prior to an election, the 
     Board shall determine, in order to assure to employees the 
     fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this 
     Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective 
     bargaining. Unless otherwise stated in this Act, and 
     excluding bargaining unit determinations promulgated through 
     rulemaking effective before August 26, 2011, the unit 
     appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining shall 
     consist of employees that share a sufficient community of 
     interest. In determining whether employees share a sufficient 
     community of interest, the Board shall consider (1) 
     similarity of wages, benefits, and working conditions; (2) 
     similarity of skills and training; (3) centrality of 
     management and common supervision; (4) extent of interchange 
     and frequency of contact between employees; (5) integration 
     of the work flow and interrelationship of the production 
     process; (6) the consistency of the unit with the employer's 
     organizational structure; (7) similarity of job functions and 
     work; and (8) the bargaining history in the particular unit 
     and the industry. To avoid the proliferation or fragmentation 
     of bargaining units, employees shall not be excluded from the 
     unit unless the interests of the group sought are 
     sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to 
     warrant the establishment of a separate unit. Whether 
     additional employees should be included in a proposed unit 
     shall be based on whether such additional employees and 
     proposed unit members share a sufficient community of 
     interest, with the sole exception of proposed accretions to 
     an existing unit, in which the inclusion of additional 
     employees shall be based on whether such additional employees 
     and existing unit members share an overwhelming community of 
     interest and the additional employees have little or no 
     separate identity. The''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), in the matter following 
     subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by inserting ``, but in no circumstances less than 14 
     calendar days after the filing of the petition'' after 
     ``hearing upon due notice'';

[[Page H7973]]

       (B) by inserting before the last sentence the following: 
     ``An appropriate hearing shall be one that is non-adversarial 
     with the hearing officer charged, in collaboration with the 
     parties, with the responsibility of identifying any relevant 
     and material pre-election issues and thereafter making a full 
     record thereon. Relevant and material pre-election issues 
     shall include, in addition to unit appropriateness, the 
     Board's jurisdiction and any other issue the resolution of 
     which may make an election unnecessary or which may 
     reasonably be expected to impact the election's outcome. 
     Parties may raise independently any relevant and material 
     pre-election issue or assert any relevant and material 
     position at any time prior to the close of the hearing.'';
       (C) in the last sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``or consideration of a request for review 
     of a regional director's decision and direction of 
     election,'' after ``record of such hearing''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``to be conducted as soon as practicable 
     but not less than 35 calendar days following the filing of an 
     election petition'' after ``election by secret ballot''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following: ``Not earlier than 
     7 days after final determination by the Board of the 
     appropriate bargaining unit, the Board shall acquire from the 
     employer a list of all eligible voters to be made available 
     to all parties, which shall include the employee names, and 
     one additional form of personal employee contact information 
     (such as telephone number, email address or mailing address) 
     chosen by the employee in writing.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
291. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 112-291.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 19, strike the second period and insert ``; 
     and'' and after such line insert the following:
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Prior to presenting any objection, filing, 
     pleading, statement of position, paper, or appeal (in this 
     subsection referred to as `filing') in any proceeding prior 
     to an election under this section, an attorney or other party 
     representative has a duty, to the best of his or her 
     knowledge, information, and belief, and formed after an 
     inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, to assure that--
       ``(A) such a filing is not being presented for any improper 
     purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or 
     needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
       ``(B) the claims, defenses, positions, and other legal 
     contentions in the filing are warranted by existing law or by 
     a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or 
     reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
       ``(C) the factual contentions in the filing have 
     evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will 
     likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable 
     opportunity for further investigation or development of the 
     record; and
       ``(D) any denials of factual contentions in the filing are 
     warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, 
     are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
       ``(2)(A) At any stage of a representation proceeding prior 
     to an election under this section, including pre-election 
     hearings, requests for Board reviews, or Board reviews, the 
     Board or its agents, upon their own motion or that of a party 
     to the proceeding, shall have discretion to impose sanctions 
     against a party for presenting a frivolous or vexatious 
     filing or raising a frivolous or vexatious matter to the 
     Board under this section, or upon a finding that an attorney 
     or other party representative breached his or her duty under 
     this subsection. Sanctions may include reasonable litigation 
     costs, salaries, transcript and record costs, travel and 
     other reasonable costs and expenses. If the Board determines 
     that a party has raised a frivolous or vexatious matter for 
     purposes of delaying an election, the Board shall immediately 
     direct that an election be conducted not less than 7 days 
     after such determination.
       ``(B) For purposes of this section, a frivolous or 
     vexatious filing is one that an attorney of ordinary 
     competence would recognize as so lacking in merit that there 
     is no substantial possibility that the Board would accept it 
     as valid. The Board shall be guided by Rule 11 of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure in determining whether an objection, 
     filing, pleading, paper or appeal is frivolous.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment is very simple. If a party makes a frivolous or 
vexatious filing during a preelection representation hearing, the NLRB 
or an administrative law judge will have the authority to impose 
sanctions. Potential sanctions include reimbursement of attorney fees 
and costs. Further, if the Board determines that a party has presented 
a frivolous filing and further finds that such filing is for purposes 
of delaying an election, an election will be ordered to take place not 
less than 7 days after the determination.
  My amendment is rooted in well-established law--Rule 11 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11, which sanctions frivolous 
filings in Federal court, is a longstanding and tested standard that 
has been in practice for nearly 70 years, but it is currently 
inapplicable to representation proceedings at the NLRB. Why should we 
continue to allow the filing of frivolous litigation at the NLRB but 
defer it in the courts? The short answer: We shouldn't. There is no 
good reason. This amendment simply harmonizes NLRB practice with the 
national standards used in our court system.
  While I urge the adoption of this amendment, the underlying bill 
before us today is nothing more than another attempt by the majority to 
distract the public from the most important issue facing our country--
job creation. Because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
apparently lack any plan to get unemployed Americans working again, 
they are relying on the false specter of powerful unions and burdensome 
regulations as the bogeymen in the American labor market.
  However, a recent national poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
shows that only 0.2 percent of employers cite ``government regulations 
and interference'' as their reason for laying off employees. That's 0.2 
percent. The main reason cited for layoffs is lack of demand. We need 
real solutions to create American jobs, not phony distractions that 
attempt to steer the conversation to problems that don't exist.
  While current law allows union elections to proceed while requests 
for full Board review are considered, H.R. 3094 mandates that elections 
be delayed until the full Board decides whether or not to grant a 
request for review by the full NLRB, no matter how frivolous the 
arguments. In doing so, this bill incentivizes parties opposed to 
unionization to file frivolous lawsuits to delay union elections. Not 
only is this unfair to hardworking Americans, but it adds tremendous 
cost to taxpayers. This built-in incentive for delaying tactics makes 
my amendment all the more important.
  In the past, many of my Republican colleagues have argued 
passionately about the evils of frivolous lawsuits; therefore, I am 
confounded to hear opposition to my amendment that seeks to discourage 
frivolous litigation. Why is it that litigation that thwarts the 
ambitions of working families, no matter how frivolous or misguided, is 
now suddenly okay? Don't construction workers matter?
  Unfortunately, such frivolous litigation is too often used by 
unscrupulous employers to oppose unionization. In my own district, 14 
T-Mobile technicians attempted to organize a local chapter of the 
Communications Workers of America, only to discover that their employer 
had undertaken several subversive measures aimed at derailing the path 
to union organization.

                              {time}  1550

  One such legal challenge included a dispute over the definition of 
whether or not the CWA is a legitimate labor organization. Let me say 
that again: a dispute over whether or not the CWA is a legitimate labor 
organization. The CWA, we should all know, represents over half a 
million American workers.
  Under H.R. 3094, T-Mobile's frivolous challenge would have to be 
completely adjudicated by the NLRB before the union election could 
occur, giving T-Mobile the ability to legally hammer employees with 
anti-union messaging for weeks, months, or even years.
  A constituent of mine wrote to me regarding the T-Mobile incident, 
and I

[[Page H7974]]

quote: ``It is abundantly clear to us that the company is only engaged 
in this effort in order to buy enough time to continue with an 
intimidation campaign as an effort to prevent us from exercising our 
right to organize and bargain collectively. We want to exercise our 
legal right in a timely and efficient manner, to decide for ourselves 
through the established election process whether or not to join the 
CWA. This process of delay and intimidation being exercised by T-Mobile 
management is wrong and should not be allowed to happen in the future. 
After several months of this verbal and emotional assault, I will stand 
firm in my commitment to gaining a voice at work. What I am asking for 
is a fair chance to vote.''
  A fair chance to vote. What can be more American than that?
  This is a fundamental matter of standing up for the American worker. 
This bill is an affront to one of our most principled values. The 
ability of workers to collectively bargain has been one of the basic 
pathways for workers to gain the protections and pay necessary to 
access the American Dream. We should not undermine this shared 
principle, and yet this is precisely what the underlying bill does. My 
amendment would provide at least some protections for employees who 
seek to organize their workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOWDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me first thank Mr. Bishop for raising the important issue of 
frivolous, vexatious litigation. I am thrilled almost beyond words--not 
quite--almost beyond words that our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle recognize the deleterious impact that frivolous, vexatious 
litigation has on our economy.
  We very much support, Mr. Chairman, a more effective use of rule 
2011. We have consistently supported tort reform that correctly 
sanctions frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. So, again, I thank our 
colleague from the other side of the aisle for bringing attention once 
again to the impact frivolous litigation has on our economy.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right vehicle 
for a number of reasons.
  The purpose of the underlying bill is to correct the misguided effort 
of the NLRB to have quick elections, which means the time is compressed 
for litigants, especially those caught off guard by the legal filing, 
to respond. What do litigants and their counsel do when they're given 
an inadequate time to prepare for litigation? They over-plead, they 
over-answer, they throw everything they can into the answer because to 
do otherwise is to risk missing an issue and being sued for illegal 
malpractice or, worse yet, failing to adequately represent your client. 
So in a very counterintuitive way, the NLRB's rush to have elections is 
more likely to result in over-pleading than the status quo would be.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also gives increased power to the very 
agency that we are trying to rein in. That, too, is counterintuitive. 
To reward an activist, agenda-driven executive branch entity with even 
more power to wield incorrectly is an invitation we are loathe to 
accept.
  This amendment does not even provide all the safeguards of rule 11 in 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And I heard my colleague and 
friend on the other side of the aisle make reference to rule 11. If 
this were simply rule 11, we may very well be standing up to join in 
support. It's not rule 11. It doesn't provide notice and a reasonable 
chance to respond. It doesn't provide an appeal procedure. It denies an 
opportunity to withdraw the frivolous matter before sanctions are 
imposed. Even current NLRB provisions require due notice and an 
opportunity for a hearing in allegations of misconduct cases.
  This amendment, I am sure--I am convinced--is well intended, to root 
out frivolous filings and pleadings; but it has to be done in an 
evenhanded, fair manner, not one calculated to skew the balance even 
more in favor of those seeking unionization and away from job creators.
  Other than union membership being at a historic low, Mr. Chairman, 
why the rush to change the rules? Is 31 days too long? Is a 70 percent 
success rate in elections not good enough? I appreciate the motive 
behind the amendment, but I must oppose it because of the mechanism; 
and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from New York has 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I will only say in my 15 seconds that rule 11 
gives the person who files a frivolous motion or the entity that files 
a frivolous motion 20 days to withdraw that filing, which would defeat 
the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here, which is to see to 
it that we ultimately do get elections.
  And I would repeat what the minority whip said, which is I think is 
lot of us would feel differently about this underlying bill if there 
were not just a minimum time for which there was an election to take 
place, but a maximum time in which the election had to take place. This 
is one means for us to try to get that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOWDY. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOWDY. I just find it instructive again--and we need to give 
pause and reflect on why we're here. We're not here because Chairman 
Kline had an idea out of the blue. We're here because an activist, 
agenda-driven NLRB is dissatisfied with 31 days to have an election. 
They're dissatisfied with a 70 percent success rate. So what Mr. Kline 
has done--and smartly so--in this bill is try to get us back to the 
status quo ante and have a level playing field where employees can have 
enough information to make what may be one of the most important 
decisions of their lives.
  And again I will say to my colleague, rule 11 has built-in procedural 
safeguards. And we had a very civil, constructive, I thought, 
conversation about this amendment in committee, and I commend our 
friend for that. And I commend him for bringing up frivolous and 
vexatious lawsuits. And I'm happy to work with him on how to get it 
done. This vehicle, while well intended, is not the vehicle to get it 
done.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Boswell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-291.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 8, line 20, insert ``(except those designated parties 
     described in subparagraph (C))'' after ``parties''.
       Page 9, line 19, strike the second period and insert ``; 
     and'' and after such line insert the following:
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(1) the 
     following:
       ``(C) The designated parties referred to in subparagraph 
     (B) are employers that paid any executive bonus compensation 
     in excess of 10,000 percent of the total annual compensation 
     of the average employee during the 1-year period preceding 
     the filing of a petition under this subsection. Such parties 
     may not engage in the dilatory tactic of raising new issues 
     or positions during a pre-election hearing that were not 
     raised prior to the commencement of the hearing.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.

[[Page H7975]]

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to the 
underlying legislation. I first want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Miller 
and Mr. Andrews, for their work on this important issue.
  I'm concerned that this legislation creates an opportunity for 
parties to abuse the preelection hearing process to engage in open-
ended litigation. The majority would allow parties in a hearing to 
raise any ``relevant and material'' issues at any time before the close 
of the hearing. Yet they define ``relevant and material'' as ``any 
other issues'' that may possibly impact the election. Practically, this 
means that any workplace issue, however frivolous, could be raised and 
litigated before the hearing closes.
  As we've seen, there are always some--though not all--that seek to 
enrich their CEOs while denying their workers a fairer and safer 
workplace. This amendment would only apply to companies that have given 
bonuses--now hear this--bonuses to their executives that amount to 
10,000 percent more than the average yearly salary of their employees. 
Those employers would be required to state their issues and positions 
at the onset of a hearing and would be prohibited from engaging in 
open-ended litigation.
  This is a simple principle: If your average employee makes $50,000 
and you can afford to pay the CEO a bonus of $5 million, then you can 
also afford to be prepared for the hearing in 14 days and state your 
position up front.

                              {time}  1600

  I'm not sure why we're considering H.R. 3094 right now. It won't 
create one job, and it won't reduce our deficit by $1. It won't add one 
job for unemployed construction workers to fix Iowa bridges that need 
to be repaired. It won't help one member of the Iowa National Guard 
that recently returned from Afghanistan and is still looking for a job.
  All this bill does is help a small number of companies make it harder 
for their workers to organize. The very least we can do is make sure 
those companies aren't abusing their process while handing out 
executive bonuses that are 10,000 percent more than what their workers 
earn.
  Support this amendment for fairness.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It's kind of ironic sometimes, but this Occupy Wall Street sort of 
inspired amendment is an effort to dismantle a successful union 
election process and deny workers an opportunity to make an informed 
decision. Under the guise of fighting greed on Wall Street, this 
amendment will actually punish workers if their company executives 
receive bonuses deemed too big by officials in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, while most of the time, employer and unions can agree 
to the terms of the union elections, often a preelection hearing 
convened by an NLRB official is needed to address questions and 
concerns raised by both sides. The preelection hearing ensures all 
relevant and material preelection issues may be addressed before a 
worker is required to cast his or her ballot in the election, providing 
workers an opportunity to make an informed decision in the union 
election.
  Forcing a vote before these issues can be addressed at the 
preelection hearing will severely undermine an employee's free choice. 
This is the workers, the employees we're talking about here. In fact, 
this amendment may lead to needless delay in the election process. The 
courts have overturned the results of elections because important 
issues were not properly addressed at the preelection hearing.
  No worker should be denied a fair union election process because of 
the bonuses paid to company executives. Yet that is precisely what this 
amendment would do.
  Congress should not be picking winners and losers here, determining 
that some workers deserve greater protections than other workers. They 
all deserve protection. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act 
reaffirms longstanding protections for all workers.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  My friend from Minnesota, the chairman of our committee, says that 
Congress shouldn't be picking winners and losers. I think the Congress 
has already picked a lot of winners in the last number of months. 
They've picked the people who are the subject of Mr. Boswell's 
amendment, those whose bonuses are 10,000 percent more than the average 
salaries of their workers. They've picked them for the largest tax cut 
in American history.
  They picked a winner by saying that if that person manipulates a 
hedge fund or financial institution, the regulators will look the other 
way as our 401(k)s become 201(k)s and our home values shrink.
  Most decidedly, this Congress has picked a set of winners, and those 
winners are those at the very top of American society who have gotten 
93 percent of the pay raises. Ninety-three percent of the pay raises 
given out in this country have gone to that top group.
  So Mr. Boswell is trying to create a significant disincentive that 
says, you know what? If you pay yourself 10,000 percent more than your 
average worker, maybe there should be a separate set of circumstances 
you have to abide by and live by. It's a novel idea around this 
Congress, very novel idea that those at the very top of American 
society should have to live by a set of rules that protects the rest of 
American society.
  For that reason, I strongly support Mr. Boswell's amendment and would 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and Americans 
across the country, can get pretty angry when some officials, corporate 
officials receive extraordinarily high salaries. I'm not here to defend 
that.
  What I'm talking about here is, why would you punish the workers 
because the employers are paying themselves too much money? I don't 
think we should do that, and that's what this amendment does. It denies 
workers the opportunity to make an informed decision. We shouldn't be 
punishing those workers because executives have paid themselves too 
much money.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the discussion.
  Thank you, Mr. Andrews, for those very astute remarks that have 
applied to workers.
  My friend from Minnesota, Congressman, I recall we both have led 
troops, and I'm proud of you for having done that. I'm proud that I had 
the opportunity.
  I see these top CEOs as--who are their troops? Their troops are the 
workers. Thank heavens we have got those people that are willing to be 
entrepreneurs and get out there and invest and do those things, but 
they've got to have workers to get the job done just like you and I had 
to have troops to take the objective.
  What's the difference? Our troops had to be well-fed, trained, 
equipped, morale had to be good, and then we could take our objective. 
Any sergeant, any lieutenant, any lieutenant colonel, any general, they 
can't take their objective without troops. And how do CEOs and people, 
entrepreneurs that we appreciate--we rely on them, but they've got to 
have those workers; they've got to treat them fairly, and they've got 
to realize that they too want to have the American Dream.
  And I was concerned where is that American Dream going to be as I was 
surrounded by my grandchildren just a few days ago at Thanksgiving. Is 
it going to be there for them? Then we'd better be thinking about it.
  We don't pull the ladder up, we leave it down. Let's let everybody 
have a part of the American Dream.
  And 10,000 percent, and you're worried about that? Come on, give me a 
break.

[[Page H7976]]

  I urge support of this amendment. I think it is fair and it's the 
right thing to do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I, too, want to thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for his 
service. He, like me, made an early mistake and chose to fly and, even 
worse, to fly helicopters. He just perhaps was better at it than some 
of us.
  But this amendment is going in the wrong direction. It's not the 
percentage. How many percent? 10,000, 100,000, 1,000 percent more money 
that an executive makes--I don't want to defend that either. And I 
don't want to defend the leader who eats before his troops. I don't 
want to defend the leader who thinks he can get it done without the 
troops.
  But this amendment takes away the rights and the protections of the 
employees and the workers. We shouldn't punish the workers because 
we're mad at the executives. We shouldn't punish the troops because 
we're mad at the colonels. I agree with the gentleman on that.
  Let's don't punish the workers. Let's defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-291.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 2, strike ``and''.
       Page 8, line 20, insert ``(except those designated parties 
     described in subparagraph (C))'' after ``parties''.
       Page 9, line 19, strike the second period and insert ``; 
     and'' and after such line insert the following:
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(1) the 
     following:
       ``(C) The designated parties referred to in subparagraph 
     (B) are employers that have been found liable for any labor 
     law violation against a veteran of the Armed Forces during 
     the 1-year period preceding the filing of a petition under 
     this subsection. Such parties may not engage in the dilatory 
     tactic of raising new issues or positions during a pre-
     election hearing that were not raised prior to the 
     commencement of the hearing.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I rise to offer an amendment that would reinforce our 
commitment to protecting the employment rights of our brave 
servicemembers.
  We've all seen this show before, Mr. Chairman. Let's not insult the 
intelligence of the American public. When we had an Employee Free 
Choice Act the other side argued we only want to protect the secret 
ballot. Now it's no, we want to protect the ability to let you vote on 
a secret ballot, but only when we decide that time has come.
  We've seen this song and dance in Ohio, we've seen it in Wisconsin. 
Let's just be honest that we have a fundamental difference about labor 
rights and the ability to collectively bargain. We probably are not 
going to agree on that, but let's find some bipartisan ground where we 
can agree. I think my amendment is the one that will do that.

                              {time}  1610

  It's very straightforward. It simply prevents this piece of 
legislation, H.R. 3094, from applying to businesses that have been 
cited for violations of labor laws against employees who are veterans 
in the previous year. It is very simple. These are not the vast 
majority of employers who are playing by the rules. These are those who 
have had egregious violations, specifically against veterans, and this 
will help us protect those.
  I wholeheartedly agree we've got a lot of good, strong employers out 
there supporting our Guard and Reserve, but labor laws are still being 
violated. We need these laws--last year, 3,000 cases of employers who 
violated the Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 
USERRA, the main Federal law that protects veterans. My amendment 
provides a means for Congress to enforce veteran-related labor laws by 
removing the ability for violators to present unnecessary barriers to a 
free and expeditious union election process.
  Keep in mind, these are the very people who fought to protect the 
basic American right to organize collectively for a safe workplace; 
yet, when they come home, we're going to throw barriers in their way 
even by companies that have already violated veterans' employment 
rights at a time when we have high unemployment amongst veterans. This 
is one on which we can come together.
  By the way, 2 million veterans are in labor unions of their choice 
now, so this isn't a small number. This is a large number. Why would 
Congress hinder the ability for a veteran to choose whether or not they 
want representation? It's what they fought for.
  While my colleagues and I can debate the role of government in 
collective bargaining, I don't believe there should be any difference 
in where we believe that this should not apply to violators of 
veterans' employment rights and allow them to make the choice.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Of course I always hate to oppose something presented by my Minnesota 
delegation colleague, a veteran himself, but again I think we have a 
misguided amendment here.
  In the last amendment, we were sort of taking an Occupy Wall Street 
moment to express our outrage at the salaries or bonuses or 
compensation for executives, and we were going to punish workers 
because of our outrage. Unfortunately, we're sort of doing the same 
thing here.
  If you're a veteran and your employer has harmed any number of your 
rights under Federal labor law, they've broken the law and action ought 
to be taken against them. But now with this amendment, this would give 
this activist NLRB an excuse to undermine the free choice of your 
coworkers in a union election. I don't think we want to do that. We 
want to support the rights of all workers.
  As the distinguished minority whip said, employers and employees 
ought to get a fair election. We want a fair election for employers and 
employees, for workers--whether they are veterans or not veterans. I, 
having spent some time in uniform myself, have a special place for 
veterans. I want to make sure they get everything, everything that's 
coming to them. We owe them so much. But this amendment, unfortunately, 
would end up punishing them and their coworkers in, I think, a 
misguided effort to help them. We shouldn't do that.
  Let's support the underlying legislation and oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I respect the chairman and the gentleman's opinion on this, but I 
want to be very clear. The only people this applies to is violators of 
veterans' workplace employment. These are veterans returning home who 
choose to have union representation, who have fought for that right in 
uniform and are now being told this.
  The NLRB said this is no problem being able to be put in. It's at no 
cost to the taxpayer to be able to do this. And the thing that I hear 
coming up in the discussion today was we need to have more time to 
explain it to them.
  I have tremendous faith in the ability of our folks who served in 
split-second, life-and-death decisions overseas

[[Page H7977]]

serving in combat to be able to, after a few days, make a decision with 
the information they're given whether they want representation or not, 
not being drug out in litigation for 2 years so they can protect their 
rights against employers previously cited in the 1 year. These are not 
the good actors. These are the bad actors.
  I don't like the underlying bill. I'm trying to make it better. Why 
are we protecting the 1 percent of bad actors in this at the expense of 
a veteran who has the right to organize?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Again may I inquire as to how much time remains on either 
side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think there is some confusion here. The other gentleman from 
Minnesota says that these are talking about veterans who have chosen to 
have a union. The point is we don't know if they've chosen to have a 
union. We don't know that. That's what the election is for. And they 
deserve the time and the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, 
hear from all sides and make an informed decision.
  What the underlying bill does, it says you get at least 35 days. And 
I would remind my colleagues that the current mean time, average time, 
is 31 days and the median time is 38 days. It's not out of line. But we 
think a month, 5 weeks, ought to be time for workers to be able to 
receive the information, ask the questions, challenge information from 
the employer and from the union organizer, and then make an informed 
decision.
  While it's true, certainly, sometimes in combat that you have to make 
split-second decisions to save your life or the lives of colleagues or 
to achieve the mission, you shouldn't be required to do that here in 
making this decision for you and your families. You ought to have time 
to do it.
  Because an employer has misbehaved, in the example of this amendment, 
the employer should be punished for that if he's a broken law, but the 
employees should not be deprived of the opportunity to make an informed 
decision, and that's what this amendment would do. So, again, 
reluctantly, I oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I express my disappointment with the gentleman. I do respect his 
service, and we have a fond attachment to our veterans in getting this 
right.
  Let me do something that doesn't happen down here very much to show 
you how small this is. I'll read you the entire amendment:
  ``The designated parties referred to in subparagraph (B) are 
employers that have been found liable for any labor law violation 
against a veteran of the Armed Forces during the 1-year period 
preceding the filing of a petition under this subsection. Such parties 
may not engage in the dilatory tactic of raising new issues or 
positions during a preelection hearing that were not raised prior to 
the commencement of the hearing.''
  No matter how you feel about the underlying bill, if we really want 
to make this better and try and reach across together, maybe this is 
one area we could do it.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Do what's 
right. Pick off these bad employers so they can't engage in these 
tactics against veterans. Let's get our folks back to work and let's 
agree to disagree on the fundamental underlying bill on labor. On this 
one, we shouldn't.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for keeping track 
of the Minnesotans here as well.
  I'm sorry, but again we just have a fundamental difference here. If 
an employer is liable, has made mistakes, has broken the law, they 
should be punished under the law, whichever law they have violated in 
violating the rights of employees, veterans or not.
  But this amendment is an attempt to dismantle a successful union 
election process that is fair to veterans and nonveterans, to employees 
and to employers. This amendment, in an attempt to punish employers who 
have misbehaved, who ought to be punished under the law under another 
law, is simply going to deny the rights of workers to have the 
opportunity to make an informed decision.
  I oppose this amendment and support the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1620


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-291.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, beginning on line 4, strike ``subparagraph (B)--'' 
     and all that follows through ``(B) by inserting'' on line 8, 
     and insert ``subparagraph (B), by inserting''.
       Page 8, line 24, strike ``last sentence--'' and all that 
     follows through page 9, line 9, and insert ``last sentence, 
     by inserting `or consideration of a request for review of a 
     regional director's decision and direction of election,' 
     after `record of such hearing'; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 470, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The question to my colleagues is whether workers come as Republicans 
or Democrats or if they come simply as Americans operating under a 
constitutional provision that we all celebrate, and that is the First 
Amendment.
  The First Amendment clearly allows the American people to petition, 
to have freedom of expression and, in essence, freedom to assemble. We 
also recognize that, in the course of power, there is the worker and 
there is the employer. The employer, in many instances, intimidates, 
and the National Labor Relations Board recognized the unevenness of 
power. Whether they are returning troops and veterans or whether they 
are single mothers and working families who want to better their lives, 
they understand that there needs to be fairness in order for this 
little, small book, the Constitution, to actually operate.
  My amendment is very simple. My amendment attempts to make an even 
playing field. It takes away the power of the underlying legislation, 
which is to limit how long the election may go on--in fact, delay the 
election, if you will. This amendment strikes the provision that deals 
with the timeframe in which the election can go on and in which the 
employer can interfere with that election. Delay gives unscrupulous 
employers more time to use the timeframe to delay the election.
  It's a simple premise that you win or lose elections; but if you 
allow employers to use the hand of intimidation and to stop the 
election, you take away some of the privileges of being an American.
  I, frankly, believe that in this time that we're on the floor we 
really should be debating the extension of the unemployment benefits, 
and I believe that we should be discussing the passage of the American 
Jobs Act. We're not doing that. We're here to limit the rights of 
Americans. So I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment that stops 
employers from delaying the rights of Americans by participating in 
delaying litigation, raising their power while limiting the power of 
the worker. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting my 
amendment.

[[Page H7978]]

  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 3094, 
``The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.'' My amendment eliminates 
the provisions in this bill that would allow employers to unnecessarily 
delay an election. The bill in its current form rolls back decades of 
earned collective rights for workers and prevents workers from simply 
voting in workplace elections.
  This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 3094 is 
designed to delay and ultimately prevent union representation 
elections, rendering the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 
powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for worker's 
rights.
  In order to prevent needless delays in conducting elections I propose 
my amendment which simply strikes the text which requires that an 
election must be delayed for at least 35 days from the date the 
petition was filed. This amendment would restore current law.
  While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemed focused on 
the NLRB decision and their claim to minimum delays, there is no 
provision in H.R. 3904 to limit the time that an election can be 
delayed. This would ensure that an election would be conducted as soon 
as practicable following the pre-election hearing, consistent with the 
facts determined by the Regional Director.
  By setting a floor that an election will always be held at least 35 
days from the filing of a petition, H.R. 3094 imposes delay for delays 
sake, even if an election could practically be scheduled before 35 days 
from the filing of a petition. A witness testified before the Education 
and Workforce Committee's that: ``This [35 day delay] would apply even 
where the union and employer are willing to stipulate to an earlier 
date. Other than facilitating an employer in ramping up an antiunion 
campaign, it does not appear to have any meaningful purpose.''
  The National Labor Relations Act provides workers with essential 
protections; protections that have resulted in a strong middle class. 
This law prevents companies from retaliating against workers who 
exercise their rights, such as the right to strike, petition for better 
pay, demand safer working conditions, and form a union.
  H.R. 3094 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define how 
the National Labor Relations Board should determine a unit for purposes 
of collective bargaining. In addition, it allows an election to occur 
sooner than 35 days after the filing of a petition. However, there is 
no limit on how long an election may be delayed. Delay would provide 
employers more time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure 
employees into abandoning their organizing efforts.
  This legislation would perpetuate undue delays in union elections, a 
blatant attempt to undermine American worker's right to organize to 
protect their rights. This bill is an attack on collective bargaining, 
and on the American workforce as a whole.
  Delaying elections grants employers the necessary time to use legal 
and illegal means to discourage employees' interests in forming unions 
for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill encourages legal but 
frivolous appeal litigation, further delaying elections for several 
months or years. The measure will severely cripple and undermine 
elections process. A procedure intended to empower workers.
  Consequently union voters lose zeal for elections and unscrupulous 
employers are able to manipulate elections for their desired outcome, 
stalling the plight of workers' advancement.
  Further, The bill misconstrues the procedure for deciding who is a 
bargaining unit. What effect will this have on the progress union 
workers have made over the last 75 years?
  Employers will use this disruption to gerrymander elections, induce 
uncertainty regarding elections, thus being able to manipulate workers 
and flood the ballot boxes with voters not engage in the organizing 
drive.
  For 75 years union workers have fought for basic rights to maintain 
improved and safer workplace environments. How does this measure effect 
these achievements?
  After the bill's implementation will workers view their workplace 
favorably? Will their wages match the growth rate of the company and 
economy? And will workers feel like American employers, supported by 
government, provide meaningful safety for community survival?
  This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that 
prevent employers from gerrymander elections when employees consider 
whether or not to form a union. Employees have a right to unionize. 
They have the right to exercise their rights collectively bargain for 
competitive wages, benefits, and safe working environments. I am 
extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to create 
an atmosphere that forces the voice of hard working Americans to be 
diluted by their employers. In many cases employees would have to 
settle for accepting the lowest wages, worst benefits, and harshest 
working conditions. This bill creates a race to the bottom that is 
simply not worthy of a great nation, and certainly not worthy of 
America.
  Time after time, throughout the 20th century, the nation turned to 
the labor community to build infrastructure, supply the Armed Forces, 
and manufacture the materials that constructed our great American 
cities, and time after time, hard working Americans answered the call 
and made this country great.
  It appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
decided to repay the American workforce by forcing them to choose 
between their rights and their jobs. I will fight, as I have throughout 
my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by protecting their 
right to vote in any capacity.
  My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs, 
and this bill is no exception. In fact, this reckless legislation 
threatens American jobs and undermines worker's rights while 
safeguarding special interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
harmful legislation, and instead focus our efforts on a bipartisan jobs 
bill that will foster a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GOWDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would strike provisions of the Workforce Democracy and 
Fairness Act that ensure employers have at least 14 days to find legal 
counsel and prepare their cases for the preelection hearings. 
Additionally, it would strike the provisions that ensure employers have 
35 days to educate their workers and that employees have 35 days to 
determine whether they wish to join a union.
  Information is power, and I, frankly, don't understand the antagonism 
towards information. I don't understand the antagonism towards 
employers. We give garden-variety, common-criminal shoplifters 180 days 
to find lawyers--180 days for a shoplifter to find a lawyer--but we 
can't give employers 2 weeks? Is 2 weeks really too much to ask to find 
a lawyer?
  There have been unions, Mr. Chairman, that have already endorsed this 
President and his reelection bid. Already, 360-something days out, was 
the first one I noted. So they need 365 days to prepare for an 
election, but we can't give employers 35 days? You can check out a 
library book for longer than you want to give employers the ability to 
prepare for an election.
  This is an important decision, not only in the lives of the employees 
but of the employers, many of whom are small business owners. They've 
got to negotiate the legal labyrinth that is our Federal labor law, and 
you're going to give them 35 days and 14 to get lawyers.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restrict employers' free speech and 
will undermine workers' free choice. Information is power. Sometimes 
that takes time. I don't think 35 days under anyone's calculus is too 
much time to prepare for an election. If we can give a shoplifter or a 
speeder or a drunk driver 180 days to hire a lawyer, surely to goodness 
we can give a small business job creator a couple of weeks.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Very briefly, in listening to my good friend from South Carolina, 
it's time to take out the white hanky and begin to cry for the 
employers against these deafening and deadly workers, some of them 
veterans and single parents.
  Hear me very clearly: there are 35 days for the filing of a petition, 
but there is no limit to the amount of time the employer can delay the 
election through litigation. If that isn't an imbalance against the 
vulnerable worker--the worker who is behind a cashier, the worker who 
is manufacturing a made-in-America trinket of some kind, the textile 
worker, the returning soldier on the battlefield--then what is?
  God bless the employers with their constitutional rights. I applaud 
them. But what this bill is doing and what this section is doing is 
taking a spear and going on and on and on with dilatory litigation 
tactics to disallow the organizing that is protected under the 
Constitution and the due process under the Fifth Amendment.
  Go ahead, employers, get your lawyers. Move on.
  But the question is, how long is too long?

[[Page H7979]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My first job was delivering newspapers. My job after that was bagging 
groceries at a local grocery store. My job after that was working at a 
tobacco warehouse.
  I don't recall ever being hired by an employee.
  I don't understand the antagonism towards employers. I don't 
understand the antagonism towards people who are willing to invest 
their fortunes and have the unmitigated temerity to want to be 
successful and hire other people. I don't understand the antagonism 
towards job creators.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say it again: We give 180 days to someone who 
shoplifts from a store to go find a lawyer, but we can't give 14 days 
to the small business owner who wants to defend against a suit--to 
negotiate the legal labyrinth that many of the lawyers in this body 
don't understand, present company included. There are experts in labor 
law; but unless you have corporate counsel hired, you're going to have 
to go find a lawyer and educate him on your issues.
  Mr. Kline gives them a whopping 2 weeks. Fourteen days is eminently 
reasonable, and 35 days for something as potentially transformative as 
an election is not too much to ask for, and there is nothing in the 
Constitution of the United States that says otherwise.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I say to my good friend from South Carolina is that I have the 
greatest respect for employers. I'd like the gentleman to join me in 
passing the American Jobs Act to give them payroll tax relief and to 
give them tax credits for hiring new employees. But you have to ask the 
question:
  After this bill's implementation, will workers view their workplaces 
more favorably? Will their wages match the growth rates of the 
companies and economy? Will workers feel like American employers, 
supported by government, provide meaningful safety for community 
survival?
  This legislation, frankly, undermines the American workers. Can we 
all get along? Can we find a way to address the concerns of making sure 
that we are fair to the employer but not have delay after delay after 
delay to deny someone his constitutional right of organizing freedom of 
expression? I think we can.

                              {time}  1630

  The elimination of the provisions that I have spoken of is a dilatory 
upper hand of employers to get the better hand of our employees.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 15 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would invite my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us 
in addressing what I hear from every small business owner back in South 
Carolina, which is fix the regulatory apparatus, fix the tax structure, 
fix the litigation structure, quit spending money you don't have.
  Mr. Chairman, the President, who was standing not 3 feet in front of 
you, said we should have no more regulation than is necessary for the 
health, safety, and security of the American people. That's not a 
Republican that said that; it's the President of the United States.
  So I would ask the NLRB, what part of health, safety, and security 
are you trying to fix with quick elections, the placing of posters in 
the workplace, and other regulations that do nothing except punish job 
creators?
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. In my hand I have H.R. 3094 and in this 
hand I have the Constitution. I don't know who you would stand with. 
Support my amendment, support the Constitution, provide workers the 
opportunity for freedom and the right to organize.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                             Motion to Rise

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Moore moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  I rise to make this motion today because I am opposed to the 
underlying bill, the so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.
  Mr. Chair, I hope that all of my colleagues have gotten their tickets 
for this show, because once again my Republican colleagues have turned 
these hallowed Halls of Congress into a place for political theater or, 
better yet, a circus, and the joke is on working class Americans.
  Today's so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is another 
scene in this unfolding plot to undermine American workers.
  It would be comedy if it weren't such a tragedy for the American 
people. Every day, the American people are forced to play the part of 
the clown Pagliacci. They watch Republicans put on this performance, 
claiming to want to protect American jobs and workers while behind the 
scenes they work to dismantle the rights of the American worker and, 
like Pagliacci, the American people must learn to laugh with tears in 
their eyes.
  Today's installment of tragic theater stars a bill which has been 
more appropriately renamed by my Democratic colleagues as the Election 
Prevention Act.
  This bill would permit employers to delay indefinitely a union 
election by mandating delays in the union election process and failing 
to place limits on how long an election can be delayed. These delays 
would allow more intimidation and harassment of employees, including 
hiring union-busting companies.
  This bill perverts the notion of employee free choice in the face of 
the power of an employer to indefinitely postpone an election.
  In Wisconsin, Mr. Chair, we have seen this song and dance before 
under the guise of deficit reduction. Governor Walker undermined the 
workers' rights, rammed through legislation that cut State employee 
benefits and stripped unions of their collective bargaining rights.
  Ohio, too, has seen this horrific curtain call. Governor John Kasich 
and the Ohio Republican legislature's passage of S.B. 5. But what 
Governors Walker, Kasich and so many others are not prepared for is the 
second act of this drama.
  When the curtain opened on November 8 in Ohio, voters flocked to the 
polls in record numbers with a resounding voice and repealed S.B. 5. 
The staging continues in my State of Wisconsin, where in just 2 weeks 
we have garnered 300,000 signatures poised to recall Governor Scott 
Walker.
  Mr. Chair, the American people will not be upstaged by this anti-
union, anti-worker, and anti-family play. Our Nation's middle class is 
demanding to bargain for more of the wealth that they created.
  Mr. Chair, this clear attack on workers' rights departs from a long-
preserved tradition of American democracy in the workplace. It's time 
for us to close the curtain, pull the hook out on this circus act, and 
bring up the lights on real legislation that creates real jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I would now yield to my colleague, the gentlelady from 
Ohio, Betty Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and I thank her for 
the motion.
  What's it going to take to get this body to focus on priority one, 
which is

[[Page H7980]]

getting America back to work? Why, Mr. Chair, are we here yet again 
debating an anti-worker bill when we should be working together to help 
foster jobs? Instead of trying to disempower workers and further weaken 
the middle class, why aren't we trying to create opportunities for them 
and their families? Every day that the focus is on attacking workers 
instead of generating job opportunities is one day longer we're mired 
at unacceptable rates of unemployment, and it's one more day that far 
too many unemployed Americans will struggle.
  And yet here we are debating this extreme and lopsided bill to give 
big corporations the upper hand over working families, a bill that does 
nothing to bolster our recovery but does a lot to stack the deck 
against American workers. We have seen this fight before, as the 
gentlewoman has pointed out, in other places, and the American people 
are voicing their opposition to these types of fundamentally unfair 
attacks that stack the deck against workers.
  In my State of Ohio, we saw a Governor try to silence our 
firefighters, teachers, our police officers, our nurses, and other 
people who serve Ohio. Instead of focusing on jobs, the Governor and 
his allies pushed the bill through and unleveled the playing field for 
working families. It wasn't right there and it's not right here, and 
the American people urge the defeat of this bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 
expired.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the motion.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, this clearly, in fact, in the language of 
the motion, is designed to kill the bill. I understand the gentlelady 
doesn't like the bill, but the characterization of it is incorrect. We 
heard today on this floor some distinguished Members of the other party 
say that the NLRB ought to be fair, that employers and employees ought 
to get a fair election. We agree with that.
  We have heard today that the majority party has done nothing to 
improve the economy and help job creators create jobs. Clearly we 
disagree. Member after Member has stood up here and said we have a 
plan, we've been advancing legislation, we continue to advance 
legislation, we have over 20 bills passed by this House sitting over in 
the Senate waiting for Majority Leader Reid to take them up, jobs that 
will clear the way for job creators, the private sector, to put 
Americans back to work.
  Clearly there is a blizzard of regulations that is descending on the 
workplace. The Speaker got a letter back from the administration some 2 
weeks ago that said there were some 219 regulations in the pipeline, 
each of which would have an impact on the economy of over $100 million, 
and I think seven that would have an impact of over a billion dollars, 
regulations coming from every direction. My colleagues pointed out that 
even the President of the United States said we shouldn't be having 
more regulations that don't directly affect the safety and security of 
the American people, or words close to that effect.
  The gentlelady, my friend from Wisconsin, said that there was an 
unfolding plot. Well, I agree, there does seem to be an unfolding plot. 
It's coming from the administration through the NLRB to advance the 
special interest of Big Labor bosses. We don't think that's right. 
That's not giving employers and employees a fair election; that's 
advancing the special interest of big union bosses.
  It's not protecting the rights of workers, whether they're in a union 
or not.

                              {time}  1640

  Employees and employers ought to get a fair election. The NLRB should 
not be slanting it, handing it to Big Labor bosses.
  So this is an effort to kill the bill. I believe it is a good bill 
that restores practices that have been in place providing fair 
elections for decades. I would encourage my colleagues to support the 
underlying legislation and vote against this motion to kill the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the preferential motion.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I would note that there is no quorum, and I 
request a rollcall.
  The CHAIR. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Ms. MOORE. I am not asking for a quorum call. I am just asking for a 
rollcall.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman withdraw her point of order of 
no quorum?
  Ms. MOORE. Yes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will count for a recorded vote. Those in 
favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
  A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members 
will record their vote by electronic device.
  Pursuant to clause 6(g) of rule XVIII, this 15-minute vote on the 
preferential motion to rise will be followed by 2-minute votes on the 
following amendments:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Boswell of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 241, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 863]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth

[[Page H7981]]


     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Mack
     McKeon
     Paul
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1713

  Mr. BARTLETT and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 863 I was unavoidably 
detained in a national security briefing. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Bishop) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 228, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 864]

                               AYES--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Berman
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Mack
     McKeon
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Smith (WA)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1718

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Boswell

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:

[[Page H7982]]

                             [Roll No. 865]

                               AYES--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Broun (GA)
     Cantor
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     LaTourette
     Mack
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Wasserman Schultz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1722

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Waltz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 221, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 866]

                               AYES--200

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--221

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy

[[Page H7983]]


     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Cantor
     Coffman (CO)
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Mack
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Wasserman Schultz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1727

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 866 I was 
unavoidably detained and I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 864, 865, and 866 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 867]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Cantor
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Mack
     Paul
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1732

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3094) to 
amend the National Labor Relations Act with respect to representation 
hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that 
Act, and, pursuant to House Resolution 470, reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page H7984]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. SUTTON. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Sutton moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3094, to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO ENSURE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD 
                   FOR EMPLOYEES AND EQUAL ACCESS TO VOTERS AND TO 
                   DISCOURAGE OUTSOURCING.

       Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     159) is further amended by inserting at the end of subsection 
     (c)(1) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Level playing field for employees and corporate 
     directors.--Once an election by employees is directed by the 
     Board, nothing in this subsection shall require a longer 
     delay for employees to vote for a bargaining representative 
     than is required for the board of directors to vote for a 
     chief executive officer under the incorporation laws of the 
     State where the employer is located.
       ``(D) Free and fair elections and equal access to voters.--
     Upon the filing of a petition for an election, the Board 
     shall ensure an equal opportunity for each party to access 
     and inform voters prior to the election, including by 
     prohibiting campaign meetings for which employee attendance 
     is mandatory or employee time is paid unless both parties 
     mutually agree to waive such prohibition.
       ``(E) Prohibition on corporations that outsource jobs.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), an employer that outsourced 
     jobs to a foreign country or announced plans to outsource 
     jobs to a foreign country during the 1-year period preceding 
     the filing of a petition under this subsection may not engage 
     in the dilatory tactic of raising new issues or positions 
     during a pre-election hearing that were not raised prior to 
     the commencement of the hearing.''.

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, but let me begin 
by saying that this final amendment, if adopted, will not kill the bill 
or send it back to committee. Instead, the bill, as amended, will 
immediately be voted upon for final passage. We may strongly disagree 
on the bill in question, but surely no one in this Chamber can disagree 
that, in these hard times, working families in this country deserve a 
fair shake. Unfortunately, the underlying bill, as written, is 
fundamentally unfair.
  Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, in my home State of Ohio, voters, in an 
exercise of direct democracy, voted to overwhelmingly repeal the 
infamous senate bill 5, which was a fundamentally unfair and extreme 
attack on workers. In a resounding victory for middle class Ohioans, 
many Democrats and Republicans alike went to the polls and soundly 
rejected the union-busting effort that would have unfairly silenced 
workers and stacked the deck against them. At a time when public 
officials across every level of government should be focused on getting 
Americans back to work, the underlying bill before us today, like 
Ohio's recently repealed senate bill 5, would unfairly stack the deck 
against our workers and American jobs.
  But the good news, Mr. Speaker, is that it doesn't have to be that 
way. Right here, right now, Democrats and Republicans together, like so 
many voters in Ohio joined together, can stand up for fairness and the 
middle class, and can pass this amendment. Our amendment would improve 
the bill in three very important ways:
  First, it would level the playing field between employees and 
corporate boards.
  It's only fair.
  When workers choose whether to organize a union, they're choosing who 
their representative will be in the workplace. When a board of 
directors takes a vote on whether to hire a CEO, it's choosing 
management's representative in the workplace. I doubt that proponents 
of this bill would ever think of leaving a corporation voiceless or 
would ever think of throwing obstacles in the way of a corporate board 
of directors' ability to choose its next CEO. Yet that's exactly what 
this bill before us does to workers.
  It's not right. Workers shouldn't have to wait any longer than a 
corporate board of directors. So this amendment levels things out by 
saying that nothing in this bill will impose any longer of a waiting 
period for workers to vote for a union than any State law imposes on a 
board of directors voting on a CEO.
  Second, this amendment will make sure that elections proceed 
legitimately and fairly.
  Everyone can agree that workers deserve to be fully informed. So this 
amendment requires that, when a petition for an election is filed, the 
board must ensure an equal opportunity for workers to hear from all 
sides. Under current law, Mr. Speaker, only one party--the employer--
can engage in what is called ``captive audience meetings.'' Only one 
party can force the voters to attend campaign speeches, rallies, and 
meetings or be fired. Under this motion, under this amendment, the 
parties would agree to equal access to voters.
  It's only fair. No more captive audience meetings unless the parties 
agree, unless there is fair and equal access to voters so that all 
sides may be heard and so that workers can judge for themselves and 
make fully informed choices when it comes time to vote.
  Finally and importantly, this amendment discourages job outsourcing. 
With 9 percent unemployment in the country and with our economy barely 
growing, the last thing we want to do is reward companies that ship 
jobs overseas.

                              {time}  1740

  The underlying bill provides employers with a nasty weapon for 
tactical delay. It allows employers to drag out preelection hearings 
indefinitely, preventing an election from ever happening.
  Employers can raise any issue at a time prior to the end of the 
hearing, even issues that have nothing to do with the conduct of the 
election or the question of whether there should be an election at all. 
Outsourcers should not have the benefit of a tactical delay to help 
ship jobs overseas. We should not allow it.
  This amendment says if you have outsourced jobs or announced plans to 
outsource jobs in the past year, you don't get that privilege. You have 
to do what every party to a Federal case must do: state your claims at 
the beginning of the hearing. We shouldn't extend privileges to 
outsourcers.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the bill.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the points of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. KLINE. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is similar to 
amendments we have seen earlier today. We had an amendment sort of 
trying to capitalize on the Occupy Wall Street movement and limit 
workers' rights because of behavior of executives.
  This motion attempts to rewrite existing rules regarding union access 
to employer property. Mr. Speaker, the point is the current system has 
been providing fair elections, as the distinguished minority whip said, 
for employers and employees. The NLRB's job is to see that employers 
and employees have fair union-organizing elections.
  At a time when millions of Americans are searching for work, the 
Democrats have introduced yet another proposal that will make it more 
difficult for job creators, employers, to put Americans back to work. 
Rather than promoting a balanced election process, this motion to 
recommit will further tilt the playing field in favor of Big Labor 
bosses.

[[Page H7985]]

  It's time for the Democrats here to stop standing in the way of the 
Nation's job creators and work on commonsense solutions that will allow 
job creators to put Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, the underlying 
bill protects employers' free speech and employees' opportunity to make 
an informed decision.
  This motion to recommit undoes that. We need to defeat this motion to 
recommit for what it is and support the underlying legislation. Let's 
vote ``no'' on this motion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; ordering the 
previous question on House Resolution 477; and adoption of House 
Resolution 477, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 239, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 868]

                               AYES--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Mack
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1801

  Ms. BERKLEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 869]

                               AYES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee

[[Page H7986]]


     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Braley (IA)
     Dreier
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Mack
     Paul
     Ross (AR)
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1808

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas and Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________