[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 48 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1923-H1929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1120, PREVENTING GREATER
UNCERTAINTY IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 146 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 146
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1120) to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from
taking any action that requires a quorum of the members of
the Board until such time as Board constituting a quorum
shall have been confirmed by the Senate, the Supreme Court
issues a decision on the constitutionality of the
appointments to the Board made in January 2012, or the
adjournment sine die of the first session of the 113th
Congress. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 113-6, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentlewoman
from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 146 provides for a closed
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1120, the Preventing Greater
Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act. Although the Rules
Committee solicited amendments last week, we received only two
amendments, one Democrat and one Republican, neither of which was
germane to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the House Education and Workforce
Committee and I have been hard at work conducting oversight and
challenging the National Labor Relations Board on its anti-jobs agenda.
In January 2012, President Obama made three so-called ``recess
appointments'' to the National Labor Relations Board while Congress was
not in recess, in violation of the Constitution. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled these appointments
were unconstitutional. This decision calls into question every action
the Board has taken since these so-called recess appointments were
made.
The bill before us today, H.R. 1120, would provide greater certainty
for employers and unions by requiring the Board to cease all activity
that requires a three-member quorum and prohibits the Board from
enforcing any decision made since the appointments in question were
made in January 2012.
It is important to note also what this bill does not do. It does not
prohibit the National Labor Relations Board's regional offices from
accepting and processing charges of unfair labor practices. The bill
also allows the Board to resume activities if one of the three
following conditions is met:
The U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of recess
appointments;
A quorum of the Board is confirmed by the Senate;
The expiration of the recess appointees' terms at the end of this
year.
Finally, H.R. 1120 ensures any action approved by the so-called
``recess appointees'' is reviewed and approved by a future Board that
has been constitutionally appointed.
As my colleagues across the aisle are sure to point out, the
President has recently nominated three individuals for Senate
confirmation, in addition to the two he nominated in February. The bill
before us remains necessary as a commonsense pause button on the
Board's activities while the legal uncertainty is resolved. It would
give employers and unions the certainty they need to operate in the
interim.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to both the rule and the
underlying bill. The bill is inaccurately named. In fact, quite to the
contrary, the bill should be called the Creating Greater Uncertainty in
Labor-Management Relations Act, throwing into question actions of this
Board, decisions on both sides, as well as agreements that have been
reached through the process in the interest of business, as well as
working Americans.
Two weeks ago, Congress approved a continuing resolution on a
bipartisan basis to prevent the Federal Government from closing. There
were give-and-takes. There were things in it from both sides that
weren't perfect. Nevertheless, the majority and minority in this House,
the Republicans and Democrats, worked together in good faith,
successfully, to prevent a government shutdown, consistent with what
the American people wanted and consistent with any responsible
stewardship of the public trust.
After achieving that, I was initially optimistic that when the House
reconvened this week, we might be able to build on the spirit of
compromise, perhaps tackling the difficult issue of fixing our broken
immigration system and replacing it with one that works, that restores
the rule of law, perhaps dealing with some of the gun safety issues
that are being debated across society, perhaps dealing with tax reform
and bringing down our rates and broadening the base, perhaps dealing
with finally battling our budget deficit.
But, instead, here we are back in Congress, picking up where we were
before we worked together on the continuing resolution, passing
pointless bills for presumably political reasons--bills that have no
sign of passage in the Senate, bills that have a direct veto threat
from the President of the United States, which is in his Statement of
Administration Policy which I entered into the Record last night in the
Rules Committee, and just as importantly, a bill that has no positive
impact on the
[[Page H1924]]
most important issue facing our country today--job creation and
economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attack on American workers; this bill is
an attack on American businesses. Pure and simple, H.R. 1120 would
effectively shut down the National Labor Relations Board, invalidate
all 569 decisions that the NLRB made between January 12 and March of
this year.
My colleagues claim this is a response to the D.C. Circuit Court
decision. But when have we ever enshrined an intermediate court
decision into statute? It makes absolutely no sense. This court
decision found that nearly all recess appointments are invalid; but the
reality is the decision of the D.C. Circuit conflicts entirely with
judicial precedent and past practice.
President Reagan made 232 recess appointments. George H.W. Bush made
78. George W. Bush made 171. So far, President Obama has made 32--far
fewer than his predecessors. In fact, every President since Reagan has
appointed a member of the NLRB through a recess appointment.
In the absence of legislative action, any responsible Chief Executive
takes the prerogative to make our laws and system of government work.
If this body fails to pass immigration reform, the President might
build upon the deferred action program and try to do what he can for
detention reform. We need to change the laws. But failing that, what
can a President do besides try to make those laws work?
{time} 1250
In the absence of taking up ESEA reauthorization, in the absence of
replacing No Child Left Behind with a Federal education law that gets
accountability right and expands and replicates what works in public
education and improves what isn't working, in the absence of doing
that, the President and Secretary Duncan have taken the prerogative to
grant waivers for States on a statutory framework that we know is
insufficient and doesn't work.
So, again, it's no surprise that, in the absence of taking up
nominees, the President used his recess appointment power to make sure
that the important functions of government could continue.
When have we ever, as a House, responded directly to intermediate
circuit court decisions by instantly making them statutes? Look, the
majority of this House of Representatives wasn't so confident in the
D.C. Circuit when it said that ObamaCare was constitutional. We didn't
see bills instantly to say ObamaCare is constitutional because the D.C.
District Court said it was constitutional. What about when the D.C.
District Court upheld the constitutionality of civil unions in
Washington, D.C.? Was there a bill from my colleagues on the other side
to instantly say that civil unions are constitutional?
Look, this is in process through the judicial branch of government.
We need to wait until the Supreme Court has decided if they will even
rule in this case before we decide what to do on a statutory basis.
The executive branch needs to make the mechanisms of government work
to the best of their ability. The legislative branch makes the laws.
The judicial branch determines if either of the other two branches
impugn the rights of one another or of the American people. It is a
system that has served us well since our founding, and it's one that
this bill flies in the face of.
Again, despite this bill's title, ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in
Labor-Management Relationships,'' it actually achieves the exact
opposite--creates greater uncertainty in labor-management
relationships. It throws judicial precedent and nearly 600 NLRB rulings
into limbo.
American businesses would be severely harmed if this bill were to
become law, which, of course, there is no chance of. It won't be taken
up by the Senate. The President would veto it.
But were it to become law, like many other political measures that
have been pursued in this body, it would generate regulatory
uncertainty that would hang over business, hurting their valuations,
preventing hiring of new employees, hurting the public marketplace,
impacting entrepreneurs, employers, and workers to the detriment of our
economy, destroying jobs in this country. Without a forum in which to
mediate disagreements, labor and management, alike, have no recourse to
iron out their differences and less incentive to iron out their
differences. Passage of this bill could cause more strikes from
workers, damaging businesses and hurting workers.
The underlying bill could very well be named the ``Strike Promotion
Act.'' Instead of allowing Members and encouraging both sides of labor-
management disputes to offer improvements and find common ground, quite
the contrary, it destroys the very incentives that they have to reach
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that the NLRB has become such a political
punching bag, because I and many of my colleagues would certainly enjoy
the opportunity to debate commonsense proposals to improve the
relationship between employers and employees. If we want to have a
debate about the NLRB, let us have that debate directly, not through
some imposition into judicial prerogative. Let's bring in
representatives from businesses and labor organizations. Let's hear
from workers and businesses across America.
Look, if there's improvements to be made to the process that can lead
to quicker response times, that can lead to fairer adjudication, if
there's improvements that American businesses and American workers can
agree on to make the process work better for economic growth and
prosperity, let's do it. This bill does none of that. It leads to more
strikes, leads to greater economic uncertainty, leads to destruction of
jobs, leads to an interruption in the ability of a Chief Executive of
this country--whomever he or she may be--from implementing the law to
the best of their ability; and it's a bill that is, frankly, a waste of
our time to even debate here on the floor of the House since we know
that it has no chance of passage.
This bill is purely put before us for political intentions to perhaps
satisfy some fringe element somewhere that likes this bill and likes to
bash the rights of workers. But there's a lot of important work to be
done, work that is too important for us to waste our time on this form
of political posturing, which only stands to destroy jobs, hurt the
economy, and create greater uncertainty, damaging American businesses
and American workers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we need jobs in this country. There are nearly
12 million Americans unemployed and anxious to find work.
President Obama and the Senate Democrats' policies of higher taxes,
record spending, and bigger government have failed to create jobs or
boost economic growth. Put simply, this economy is growing too slowly
to replace the millions of jobs lost. The failure of the President's
runaway spending, deficits, and debt is being felt by every family
struggling to put food on the table and pay their mortgages.
The March 2013 labor force participation rate is the lowest since
1979, and the 1-month increase in March 2013 of 663,000 new people not
in the labor force is the largest increase ever recorded for the month
of March since this data started being collected in 1975. If these
individuals ``not in the workforce'' were counted in the official
unemployment rate, that rate would increase to 11.2 percent.
Additionally, there are 47.3 million Americans receiving food stamps,
which is equivalent to 15 percent of the population and represents, by
far, the largest number in history. This number stands in stark
contrast to when President Obama took office and there were only 31.9
million Americans using food stamps. Today, nearly one in seven
Americans is on food stamps. What a sad commentary about our country.
All these statistics ultimately say the same thing: everyday
Americans will keep struggling until our economy turns around.
Fortunately for the American people, House Republicans have a plan for
helping to restore economic growth and create jobs throughout the
country.
The liberal elite simply cannot understand that more spending does
not mean more jobs. Reckless deficit spending, mounting debt, growing
red tape, higher taxes, a confusing Tax Code, higher energy prices, and
rampant uncertainty all have job creators playing defense.
[[Page H1925]]
Campaigning for another failed stimulus and more job-destroying
taxes, President Obama has repeatedly and falsely asserted that
``Congress isn't willing to move'' legislation to facilitate job
growth.
While the President plays politics, House Republicans have been
working and approving legislation to promote economic growth and job
creation. The Republican plan for growth tears down barriers to job
creation because jobs are priority number one.
As part of this plan, we are working diligently to cut job-killing
red tape that costs small businesses $10,585 per employee each year;
reduce gas prices; create jobs by producing more American energy, which
is important since every penny increased per gallon of gas costs
consumers $4 million per day; simplify the job-killing Tax Code that
cost Americans $168 billion in 2010 just to comply with it; prevent
job-killing tax hikes on small businesses; reduce uncertainty by
tackling the debt crisis with responsible spending cuts; and the
Republican plan will get Washington out of the way and put American job
creators back on the offense.
Growing jobs and eliminating the deficit go hand in hand. To balance
the budget, we need both spending cuts and real economic growth.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Well, it sounds like I agree with the gentlelady on many
of our national priorities. For goodness sake, let's reform the Tax
Code; let's bring down rates. Gas prices, my constituents are
complaining about them; let's take action. Preventing tax increases,
balancing the budget, making sure that we have a business climate
that's friendly for small businesses, why aren't we talking about any
of that on the floor of the House today instead of enshrining a D.C.
District Court decision into statute, to the detriment of job creation,
to the detriment of American business, against many of those great
concepts that my colleague, Dr. Foxx, espoused?
So, I mean, I think there's got to be a connection here. I think the
American people are smart enough to make it. It's great to pay lip
service to all these wonderful things that Democrats and Republicans
want to pursue, but what are we doing with our legislative time that
taxpayers pay for here in the House? We're trying to prevent the
President from implementing the law that Congress has made.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
In the summer of 2011, as the country continued to see rising
deficits, Members of the Congress knew that they had to do something
about that in connection with the extension of what we call the debt
ceiling, which lets the country borrow money to pay its bills.
{time} 1300
As a part of that agreement, a large number of people from both
parties voted for something that hasn't turned out very well, and it's
called sequestration. This is not something that's just a word that
gets tossed around in this Chamber and has political consequences; it
is having a real and negative impact on the country.
I just came from a hearing of the Armed Services Committee where the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense told
us that nine battle groups and three bomber groups of our Air Force and
our Navy planes have been grounded. About one-third of the Nation's air
capacity isn't flying.
Across the country today, people who are on Medicare who need
chemotherapy treatments from their doctors' offices are finding that
many doctors are declining to do chemotherapy treatments for cancer
patients because of the cuts that take place in sequestration.
I met earlier this week with employees of the Naval Sea Systems
engineering command in Philadelphia, whom I represent. They are looking
at a 20 percent pay cut because of furloughs. These are real problems
that are affecting real people. The House is opting to do nothing about
this--nothing.
The economists have told us that these ill-advised sequestration cuts
will cost the economy 750,000 jobs this year. Mr. Van Hollen, my friend
from Maryland, has a bill, and that bill says that we should save an
amount of money equal to what the sequestration is allegedly saving and
not have these cuts in cancer care and not have a third of our air
power grounded and not have Federal employees take a 20 percent pay
cut.
Mr. Van Hollen proposes that we cut subsidies to huge oil companies,
that we cut subsidies to huge agribusinesses, and we have people who
make more than $1 million a year in income pay a slightly higher tax
rate. I understand, ladies and gentlemen of the House, that some would
agree with that proposal and others would disagree with that proposal.
That's democracy.
We're not even taking a vote on that proposal because the majority
Republican leadership has refused to put on this floor any piece of
legislation that would stop this harm to the country. I know they'll
say it's the President's fault or it's the Senate's fault or it's
whoever.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be lots of back and forth about
whose fault it was that we got into this position. It's everyone's
fault. There are people on both sides of the aisle that made a bad
judgment on this. I'm one of them. But now we have a responsibility to
fix it; and if the majority has an idea as to how we could fix the
sequester problem, bring it to the floor.
Since the new Congress took office on January 3 of this year, there
has not been one hearing, not one markup, not one bill, not one vote on
fixing this problem that threatens the jobs of 750,000 Americans.
Rather than this metaphysical legal debate we're about to have about
the National Labor Relations Board, why don't we put on the House floor
legislation that would create jobs in this country, postpone the
sequester, and deal with the problems that we talked about here today.
The House is in session, but it's missing in action when it comes to
addressing the real problems of the American people.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this
rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Paycheck Fairness
Act. Here we are in 2013--2013--and yet women make 77 cents for every
dollar made by a man for equal work. Equal pay is not just a problem
for women, but for all American families who work hard to pay their
bills. It's high time that this body took up the Paycheck Fairness Act,
which we will do if we defeat the previous question.
To discuss our proposal, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question. Defeat of the previous question will allow the gentleman from
Colorado to amend the rule to provide for consideration of the Paycheck
Fairness Act, an act that addresses the persistent problem of unequal
pay in our economy.
It has now been 50 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to
confront the ``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages in
America. President John F. Kennedy signed that bill into law to end
``the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages
than male employees for the same job.''
But that practice persists today. Today, even though women are now
half of the Nation's workforce, they are still only being paid 77 cents
on the dollar as compared to men. This holds true across occupations
and education levels. Don't let anyone fool you or tell you that if you
hold constant for education and other areas that, in fact, there is no
wage gap; it is just not true. A simple piece of legislation that says:
men and women--same job, same pay. Those of us who serve in the
Congress, men and women, all parts of the country, different education
skills, different skill sets in general, we get paid the same amount of
money. It's true in the military as well.
[[Page H1926]]
This week, we once again recognize Equal Pay Day, the day in 2013
when a woman's earnings for 2012 catch up to what a man made last year.
Unequal pay not only affects women; it affects families all across the
country who are trying to pay their bills, trying to achieve the
American Dream, and are getting less take-home pay than they deserve
for their hard work.
Everyone here agrees that women should be paid the same as men for
the same work. That is what paycheck fairness is all about--same job,
same pay.
It is why President Obama called for passage of the Paycheck Fairness
Act in the State of the Union address in January.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. Because it is time for us to come together and take the
next steps to stop pay discrimination--by putting an end to pay
secrecy, strengthening workers' ability to challenge discrimination,
and bringing equal pay law into line with other civil rights laws.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support the
Paycheck Fairness Act and unequal pay for good. Fifty years after the
Equal Pay Act, it is finally time to give women the tools they need to
ensure that they are paid what they deserve for the same day's work.
What are we waiting for in this body?
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a typical liberal habit: do as I say, not as I do.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that our colleague from Connecticut should
direct her comments to the White House. There is absolutely nothing to
stop the White House from correcting the egregious pay differentials
that exist there among the most liberal group in the country.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I am going to yield 30 seconds to
the gentlelady from Connecticut to respond.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague that, in fact,
this body, under different leadership than this current majority,
passed the paycheck fairness bill twice. It has to be done through the
Congress; we have the ability to do it. I would suggest to my
colleagues, who on the other side of the aisle would like to talk about
pay equity for women, that they sign the discharge petition. We have
200 Members who are aboard. Let's get this bill out of the committee,
onto the floor, vote for it as we did in the past, and send it to the
Senate so that it could be passed there as well.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
{time} 1310
Mr. DELANEY. I appreciate my good friend from Colorado yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Last year, 58 percent of the college graduates in this country were
women. Right now in this country, over 50 percent of the individuals
that have college degrees are women, and last year in corporate
America, 53 percent of new hires for positions that required a college
degree were given to women. This reflects broad, gender-based parity
with respect to universities and with respect to entry-level positions
in corporate America.
However, Mr. Speaker, when we look at what's going on with respect to
advancement--in other words, women's ability to climb or ascend the
corporate ladder--we see a very different story emerging. Even though
50 percent of the workers with college degrees in corporate America are
women, when it came to promotions for managers, only 37 percent of
those went to women. When it came to promotions for vice presidents,
only 25 percent went to women. And when it came to promotions towards
the executive committee level or the C-suite, if you will, only 15
percent went to women. This reflects a significant talent drain that
occurs with respect to women as they advance in corporate America.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant problem for this country and
for every American. It's a problem if you care about our economy. To
have a productive and growth-oriented economy, we need diversity,
diversity of ideas, and we cannot have that unless women are
represented in policymaking decisions of corporations.
This is a problem, Mr. Speaker, if we care about competitiveness
because we cannot have a competitive economy if we make decisions based
on gender and not based on merit.
This is a problem, Mr. Speaker, if you care about working families.
More than 50 percent of the breadwinners in this country are women. If
they don't have the same access that men do, it not only affects them,
but it affects their children.
Mr. Speaker, this is a problem if we care about women, if we care
about young women in particular and our daughters. And as a father of
four daughters, I care very deeply about making sure my daughters have
a view that they have equality of opportunity regardless of whatever
career they choose.
We have to change the mindset of institutions, the mindset of
individuals, and this legislation helps do that.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reiterate again--and my colleague
from Connecticut has left--that there is absolutely nothing that would
prevent the White House from giving equal pay to people in jobs there.
We don't need new legislation to do that. It's certainly possible for
the White House to do it now. And that is one of the most egregious
situations of differential pay that exists in the country right now.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would respond to the gentlelady that most women in this country
don't work for the White House. Most women in this country work for
private sector employers, public sector employers, and others.
We care about all women. We want to ensure paycheck fairness--same
work, same pay. But somehow addressing this among a handful of women in
the White House hardly addresses the real needs of American families,
where women across our country in Colorado, in California, North
Carolina, and Texas are earning 77 cents on the dollar.
It's unfair. And as my colleague Mr. Delaney pointed out, it doesn't
enhance American economic competitiveness. It hurts us as a country to
have pay based on bias rather than merit. It's simply the wrong way to
go.
President Obama needs this body to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness
Act for us to be able to make sure that pay discrimination cannot
endure in this country.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and friends who
are managing this legislation.
We are in the Judiciary Committee passing something called the REINS
Act because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe
that the President is omnipotent.
Frankly, as my good friend from Colorado said, the President doesn't
control the bus drivers and school aides and nurses aides and doesn't
control the secretaries and doesn't control the construction workers
who happen to be women. They don't control those individuals. Oh, and
let's not forget the office workers who happen to be women.
Many of my constituents who get up every morning--I saw one young
woman, Mr. Polis, get on a city bus, drop her child off at the school,
really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a
U-turn around--not a school bus, a city bus--to get on that bus to
track all the way across to get to her job. I can assure you that she
is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the
dilemma that we have.
So I support ordering the previous question and voting ``no'' so that
we can move forward and do the right thing.
And that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on
the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act
because it is, in essence, a complete opposite. I would call it
something else, but
[[Page H1927]]
I'm going to restrain myself. H.R. 1120 is ridiculous.
In actuality, my friends, what it does is put a spear through the
relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the
NLRB. The President has just finished appointing Republicans and
Democrats--three Democrats and two Republicans--to do the work that
brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with
working people.
Many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with
working conditions are done at the NLRB.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
Do you know what this bill does? It puts a knife in the process that
has been used by President Bush 140 times--recess appointments--to keep
the work of the American people going forward. How backwards is that?
I love my friends, but we need to put on the floor sensible gun
legislation, we need to be talking about immigration reform. But to
talk about blocking the NLRB from work when President Bush used the
same process. And the fact that a court ordered something--300 other
opinions said the recess appointments are legitimate.
I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand
with your working friends in America, stand with our unions, stand with
making America great, and stand with peace and reconciliation by a
working NLRB.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, and the underlying bill,
H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management
Relations Act.''
This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking
remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or
NLRA, are violated.
The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right
to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This
applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees
who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare
their paychecks. It also protects workers when they act together to
protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the
employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws protected
employees who discussed their salaries with each other on facebook. You
don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws.
Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations
Board, or NLRB, with these grievances.
The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union
representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor
practices involving unions.
Recently, the D.C. Circuit, one of our federal appellate courts,
ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, cannot carry
out its congressionally delegated duties of enforcing the NLRA because
it deemed President Obama's appointments to the Board invalid.
The entire decision hinged on a controversial interpretation of the
word ``the'' in our Constitution. Article II states that ``The
President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen
during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court decided that this clause
of our Constitution refers to some recesses, but not others. Many other
federal courts have disagreed with this stretched reading of our
Constitution, and in areas of the U.S. covered by these courts, the
D.C. Circuit decision does not apply.
While we eagerly await the Supreme Court's verdict on the meaning of
the word ``the,'' the NLRB is still allowed to continue carrying out
its statutory duties under the NLRA, and American workers still retain
their rights under the NLRA.
That is why I am opposing. This bill merely eliminates the rights of
American workers in places outside the D.C. Circuit to seek a remedy
when their employer violates our National Labor Relations Act. Without
a remedy, rights are meaningless. Depriving employees of this remedy
during these difficult economic times is merely a stab in the back to
hard working Americans across the country. This Congress should not
take actions that undermine American employees and working families.
The argument that an active NLRB produces economic uncertainty is
unfounded. America has prospered since the creation of the NLRB. Other
countries that have much stronger laws protecting worker rights and are
much more heavily unionized, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and
the Netherlands, are doing better or at least as well as the United
States in this economic downturn. H.R. 1120 merely seeks to add more
uncertainty and create fewer rights for American workers during these
tough economic times.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and the underlying bill. Congress
should not remove the ability for employees to seek redress for
workplace wrongs. Instead, we need to stand up for our employees and
working families.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to respond again to my colleague from Colorado in his saying
that we have to pass a bill on pay equity to get the President to do
the right thing. That just seems incomprehensible to me.
I think the President should be our leader in this country and should
practice what he preaches, and so should our colleagues across the
aisle. I think that the White House could show itself as a model for
the rest of the country by paying the women in the White House the same
as the men are being paid. I find it interesting that our colleagues
have simply ignored what is happening in the White House and call for a
bill to be passed to make the President do what is the right thing. In
the past, our country and the people in our country have looked to our
President to be a role model for us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I would
ask the gentleman if he is ready to close.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.
I happen to have a gentlelady currently working for the Rules
Committee sitting next to me here and helping with our research on this
bill, and she informs me she used to work for the White House. She's a
female. She tells me she was paid the exact same amount as her male
colleagues.
With that, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Congressmen Polis, a leader on these issues, for
yielding me time.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, which would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from doing
its job.
The NLRB is tasked with protecting employees' rights to organize by
helping employees determine whether they want a union to represent
their interests or not.
Nations with bargaining rights have middle classes; those that don't
have bargaining rights don't have middle classes.
The NLRB also investigates charges of unfair labor practices from
both employees and employers, facilitates settlements rather than
expensive lengthy litigation, and enforces rules by administrative law
judges that provide orderly procedures to prevent the disruption of the
flow of commerce due to a labor dispute.
This bill before us is just another partisan ploy to undermine union
workers and continues the Republican war against the middle class.
First we had the Ryan budget, which would put the burden of paying
for two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of seniors and
our middle class families. Now we have a bill that would result in
violations of worker rights going unpunished, union elections not being
certified, and that would end recourse for workers who are wrongfully
terminated.
Instead of letting the courts do their job, Republicans want to take
a Big Government action by preempting any decision from a higher court.
{time} 1320
This bill ignores the fact that Republicans in the Senate would not
allow for a vote on any of the President's nominees, and said publicly
that they just wanted to make the NLRB inoperative.
It is ironic that when President Obama follows the path as President
Reagan and President Bush did, that of appointing individuals to carry
out the work of our government, the Republican House proposes a bill to
completely undermine an independent Federal agency.
Finally, studies show that the world's best performing economies and
strongest middle classes have high union density and a high level of
cooperation between labor and management. If Republicans care about
creating jobs and strengthening our economy, then why are they
considering a bill that would take away a forum for employers and
unions to work out their differences?
[[Page H1928]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule
and the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman is ready to close, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I am ready to close, and I yield myself the remainder of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of
the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, rather than addressing a number of issues
that my colleagues have talked about here today, whether that issue is
gas prices, whether it's equal pay for women, whether that's equal pay
in the White House or equal pay for Main Street America, that's
something that's important to American families. Whether it's balancing
our budget, whether it's keeping taxes low and making sure that
American businesses can go and create jobs, none of those things are
being talked about here today. Instead, we are bringing forward a bill
that would be a bureaucratic nightmare, all without protecting a single
American worker and without protecting a single American business.
This bill was reported out of the Education and the Workforce
Committee, on which I serve, without a single Democratic vote, and it
is being rushed to the floor for consideration at a time when we face
record deficits, record gas prices, have a crisis for which we need to
create jobs; yet here we are, debating a bill that will go nowhere, and
if it did, it would destroy jobs in our country.
I'd love to see us spending more time balancing the budget and in
training and educating our workforce--preparing kids for the jobs of
the future. We have limited floor time here in Washington. Every moment
that we have is sponsored by the taxpayers of this great country. We
owe it to those who elect us and those who pay for this body to be open
as they pay for the very cameras which allow Americans to watch us here
today. We owe it to them to invest the limited time we have here
wisely, on critical issues of national importance, including making
sure that women across our country are paid the same amount for equal
work.
If we are going to have a discussion of the NLRB, let's at least do
it in a serious way rather than trying to enshrine a D.C. District
Court decision into law. Let's bring businesses and workers together
and have serious discussion; involve Senate Republicans, involve Senate
Democrats, involve the administration to come up with a better
framework for ensuring that labor and management can work together to
promote American competitiveness, to grow jobs and to grow the middle
class.
That's not what today's process is about, but these are just a few of
the ways we could improve the broken process. Unfortunately, again, it
seems like the Republicans have chosen none of the above.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to upholding
the Constitution and providing certainty for employers, employees, and
unions. The rule before us today provides for the consideration of a
bill that ensures that certainty by pressing ``pause'' on the National
Labor Relations Board's activities until the legal uncertainty is
resolved.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, research released this week from the
National Federation of Independent Business indicates that more small
businesses are decreasing their number of employees than increasing. On
top of that, the net percent of owners planning to hire new employees
fell last month to zero percent.
Some of this unfortunate news can be attributed to the legal chaos
created by the Administration's recess appointments to the National
Labor Relations Board, NLRB--appointments that a U.S. Court of Appeals
rendered unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, the NLRB continues to
issue job-crushing edicts.
Unfortunately, this confusion is only creating more costly
litigation--not jobs.
The Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act,
H.R. 1120, will resolve this confusion by preventing the NLRB from
implementing, administering, or enforcing any new decisions, until a
duly appointed and confirmed board can be organized.
I am proud to support this legislation on behalf of businesses
through Southwest Ohio, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on it in
order to provide some certainty for employees and employers.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 146 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
377) To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide
more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the H.R. 377 as specified in section 2 of
this resolution.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
[[Page H1929]]
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 146, if
ordered, and approving the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 97]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Barton
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Castor (FL)
Collins (NY)
Costa
Hastings (FL)
Huelskamp
Lynch
Markey
Pompeo
Speier
Young (FL)
{time} 1351
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H. Res.
146, On Ordering the Previous Question, had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
____________________