[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 47 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1775-H1782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 114TH CONGRESS, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF S.J. RES. 8, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE
SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 152 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 152
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 132) providing
for the expenses of certain committees of the House of
Representatives in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. The
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not
contain instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 8) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter
8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by
the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation
case procedures. All points of order against consideration of
the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on
any 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 commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
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 152 provides for a closed
rule providing for consideration of S.J. Res. 8, a joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor
Relations Board, and a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 132,
providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of
Representatives in the 114th Congress.
Across the Capitol, the United States Senate took positive action on
March 4 when it passed a resolution, S.J. Res. 8, invoking the
Congressional Review Act to overturn the National Labor Relations
Board's recent ambush election rule. On that same day, my colleagues
and I at the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on legislation I
strongly supported and cosponsored, H.J. Res. 29, which is identical
legislation to that which will come before the House today.
The National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule is just the
latest of its outrageous actions taken in defiance of longstanding
precedent, jeopardizing employee free choice and privacy and employer
free speech. This rule would give workers as few as 11 days to consider
a consequential decision before voting for or against joining a union,
prevent employers from having adequate time to prepare for union
elections, and postpone critical questions over the election, such as
voter eligibility, until after the election.
While providing little consideration of the longstanding rights of
employees and employers, the rule further violates their privacy by
ensuring that workers' personal information such as email addresses,
work schedules, phone numbers, and home addresses are provided to union
leaders.
There is a myriad of consequences to this harmful regulation,
including constraining the rights of workers to make informed
decisions, severely hampering employers' rights to speak to their
employees during union organizing campaigns, and weakening privacy
rights of workers.
These consequences will seriously impact the relationship of workers
and employers and upend a carefully crafted process for organizing
elections. These precedents have arisen over decades of practice within
existing rules and should not be upended by hyperpartisan bureaucrats
to the benefit of national unions at the expense of hardworking
Americans.
H. Res. 152 also provides for consideration of H. Res. 132, the
committee funding resolution for the 114th Congress. Since taking the
majority, House Republicans have been careful stewards of taxpayer
dollars, streamlining House operations and saving funds wherever
possible. In fact, this Congress, the House remains below the amount
authorized in 2008.
This bipartisan resolution will allow our committees to continue
their vital work on behalf of this institution, including legislative
reforms and oversight with additional investigations and field
hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 8, the resolution to overturn the
National Labor Relations Board's election rule.
The other bill I support, H. Res. 132, which provides for the
expenses of the committees of the House. The House Committee on
Administration's bipartisan work should be commended because, as we all
know, committees that we individual Members of the House are members of
play a very important role in the work we do every day.
Now, I think it is unfortunate that this bipartisan bill has been
packaged with a partisan bill to repeal important, commonsense reforms
that were done at the National Labor Relations Board, and they have
been wrapped up with a controversial bill.
The NLRB's function, as you know, is both to investigate and
prosecute unfair labor practices and to provide a legal framework for
employees and employers where employees may be seeking to organize in
their workplaces for better wages and working conditions. Both of those
functions are required of them by the National Labor Relations Act,
which has been in place since 1935.
The work that the NLRB is doing is important. It is precisely what is
required by the National Labor Relations Act. Holding a vote on this
resolution will get in the way of the NLRB's pursuing its mandate
successfully. Instead of focusing on important issues like shrinking
the wage gap and growing the middle class, instead, the Republicans are
spinning their wheels to score points by going after the National Labor
Relations Board and commonsense reforms to make it function more
effectively.
The President has already released a statement vowing to veto this
resolution, so it is another example of spinning our wheels. It is
obvious that neither the Senate nor the House will have enough votes to
override this
[[Page H1776]]
veto, so I ask simply: Why are we wasting our time on this misguided
legislation when there are plenty of challenges that our country faces,
whether it is balancing the budget, growing the middle class, or
dealing with use of force abroad? Instead, we are discussing
legislation which won't become law. While we are 3 months into this
Congress, I can't even count the amount of hours we have spent on the
floor discussing legislation that, as everybody knows, won't become law
because we have a President in the White House who said he will veto
it.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation uses the Congressional Review
Act, which is a rare legislative tool that allows the majority to rush
through legislation with little debate. In the Senate, normal rules of
debate and cloture are not even required, but it does require the
President's signature.
Now, keep in mind, the Congressional Review Act is used to undo rules
that have been promulgated by the executive branch through the
Executive Office. So why would a President sign something that undoes
his own rules? He simply wouldn't have made those rules in the first
place if he didn't want them done.
So here we are, without two-thirds of this body, going through these
motions on something that we know isn't going to become law. The
Congressional Review Act has only been used once to overturn a rule in
the entire history of the United States and is there for emergencies.
This bill is far from an emergency. Instead, it is packaged with a
closed rule--an extreme and unnecessary procedural action--rather than
allowing for amendment and discussion of ideas from both sides of the
aisle.
This resolution would overturn the new and improved election rules at
the NLRB which are simply modernizing an antiquated system. The current
rules were done before email existed, as an example. And we talk about
how important privacy is; we are only talking about email addresses
that the employer has. So if employers can use them to lobby their
employees one way or the other in a vote, the organizing campaign
should also be able to use those same email addresses. If neither side
has access to them, that is fine; but if one side has access to them in
an election, the other side needs to have access under similar terms.
We in this body have a responsibility to protect workers' rights and
to provide employers with predictability and an expeditious processing
of organizing requests in the workplace. Under the current archaic
rules prior to this change, it was far too easy for bad actors to
endlessly delay workplace elections.
In our committee that Dr. Foxx and I serve on, we got to hear the
testimony of a nurse from California who had engaged in an effort in
her workplace to organize the nurses that had been delayed time and
time again, more than a year before a vote was finally held.
Oftentimes, if a year or 2 or 3 go by, there might be different
employees, people come and go, the groups of employees change, and
often some of these involved in the organizing are subsequently fired.
Employers are able to do this by appealing time and time again on
issues that have no bearing on the election simply to delay, delay,
delay.
The modest, commonsense reforms of the election rules truly go a long
way in balancing the system and making it work more efficiently. They
are standardized practices that are already common through many parts
of the country to allow workers to make their own decisions without
manipulations, threats, or intimidation from either party.
Under current rules, what happens all too often is employers
continuously appeal an election with unwarranted litigation so they
have time to threaten, coerce, and, far too often, fire workers. By the
time the election occurs, workers have moved on, voluntarily or
involuntarily, to other jobs or have been threatened so many times they
feel they have been forced to vote ``no.''
There is a proven direct and causal relationship between the length
of time it takes to hold an election and illegal employer conduct. In
other words, bad actors stall the election process and use the system
they have to do whatever it takes to win the election. There are
hundreds of examples of unscrupulous actors using the current system in
this way.
The nurse that I mentioned earlier decided that she and her coworkers
wanted a better workplace environment and began to organize, but the
employer delayed the action multiple times so they had time to threaten
the workers via text and email. They even held mandatory meetings with
employees to threaten and coerce them into voting against organizing.
They even did this under the guise of education. In the end, the nurses
were too scared to form a union.
Another unfortunate, but telling, example we talked about in
committee is a Mercedes-Benz dealership that delayed and stalled an
election at every opportunity. The entire process wound up lasting 428
days. With the new rule, the process would have taken 141 days. What I
can't understand is how some people think that 428 days is reasonable
and that somehow 141 days is an ambush election. I think 428 days for a
union election is inexcusable. It is harmful to our families and the
economy and harmful to the businesses, the lack of predictability that
that brings.
The average resolution for an election is 38 days. And we are not
dealing with the average here; we are dealing with the outliers. One in
10 election cases are still unresolved after 100 days. There is no
excuse for that. It is unthinkable. It is these 10 percent of employers
and organizing efforts that this election will impact. The other 90
percent work well. The current NLRB processes work well. We don't need
to change their methods.
I keep hearing arguments that employees are losing the rights to
privacy, but I want to address these points because they are completely
false.
The companies have work schedules, email addresses, and phone
numbers. They often use these to threaten and coerce employees at all
hours of the day and night. Those who are organizing already have
access to home addresses, but that is all they have. Without work
schedules, they might show up when an employee is sleeping or when they
are not home. This new rule provides the same information to employers
and organizers. If you ask me, a home address--which they already
have--is far more intrusive than an email or phone number, and I think
that these reforms will, therefore, further the privacy of workers.
The rules simply modernize the disclosure requirements, because the
last time they were updated people didn't have cell phones and emails.
All they had were home addresses, which is why the union organizers
currently have access to home addresses.
Employers also indicate that they might be surprised by an election.
The timeline the employers are referring to of 11 days is essentially
impossible in the real world. Moreover, in essentially every case, the
employer is fully aware that organizing is occurring long before the
petition is filed. Under the new rule, employers will have plenty of
time to make their cases, and employees will have plenty of time to
make an informed decision.
It is important to note that if the resolution were to actually pass
and somehow be signed by the President--which it won't be--it would
forever prohibit the NLRB or any agency from enacting a substantially
similar rule.
{time} 0930
That means the simple modernization efforts that I hope we could all
agree upon, such as allowing parties to file election documents
electronically, as this rule does, will be forever off the table,
forcing both businesses and workers to use an antiquated and costly
system.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Colorado knows very well that the House is doing
its work and focusing on the things that are important to hardworking
Americans. Just this week, we are holding 81 hearings here in the House
in various committees. That is definitely doing our work. We are here
on the floor today looking at a very important piece of work and
overriding this onerous rule. That is not a waste of time.
Mr. Speaker, the National Labor Relations Board has been attempting
for
[[Page H1777]]
years to tip the scales toward union organizers, and last December, it
was finally able to accomplish one of its major goals with approval of
this ambush election rule.
The two Board members who descended from the decision were clear
about the rule's primary purpose: enabling initial union representation
elections to occur as soon as possible. This rule will shorten the
length of time in which such an election is held from the current
median of 38 days to as little as 11 days.
The Board's decision was broad and unprecedented, overturning decades
of practice in labor laws and skewing elections in favor of unions. One
of its most outrageous provisions is postponing decisions about who is
eligible to participate in an election to after the election.
One of the most fundamental principles of a fair election is ensuring
only those eligible to vote to have the ability to vote, maintaining
the value of each voter's individual vote. That basic democratic
protection would be shattered by this rule. It may also lead to more
union representation elections being set aside and new elections being
ordered.
Glenn Taubman characterized the consequences of this ambush election
rule very fittingly in testimony before our Subcommittee on Health,
Employment, Labor, and Pensions, saying:
It is akin to a mayoral election in which it is unknown,
either before or after the election, whether up to 20 percent
of the potential voters are inside or outside the city
limits.
The rule will also require a new mandatory poster be placed in the
workplace within 2 business days of receiving a petition for election,
the content of which will be determined by the National Labor Relations
Board.
Employers are also provided only 8 days to find experienced
representation before facing a hearing and must file an in-depth
statement of position within only 7 days of receiving a petition for
election.
Companies of any size--and, in particular, small businesses--
frequently do not have in-house counsel and are not prepared at the
drop of a hat to respond to complex, consequential legal situations.
A provision with a serious impact on employee privacy is the access
provided to unions of additional contact information, including every
employee's name, address, personal phone number, and personal email
address, which must be provided within 2 days of an election order
without any option to opt out.
Important review procedures would be set aside by this rule as well,
including the opportunity for review of decisions made prior to the
election by the Board itself. The Board's requirement for review of
postelection disputes would be made discretionary for the first time as
well, limiting oversight.
This flawed decision is currently facing litigation from the private
sector as well, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade
associations filing a lawsuit to block its implementation as a
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, Administrative Procedure
Act, and employers' rights.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Export-Import Bank ensures that American businesses remain
competitive in foreign markets, and reauthorizing it would create
certainty for business across this country and is fully permissible
under WTO rules.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation which
would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I, indeed, rise to oppose the
request for a previous question in order that we might get on with the
task of deliberating on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
Just to remind people, the Export-Import Bank provides loans or loan
guarantees to the foreign purchasers of American-made goods and
services--American-made goods and services.
This venerated institution has been around for 80-some years, it has
been enthusiastically supported by every single President since;
Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, all have supported
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
This federally chartered Bank disappears in 103 days if we do not
act. If the House continues to refuse to place it before the committee
of jurisdiction for a hearing, refuses to place it before the committee
of jurisdiction for a markup, refuses to consider it on this floor, the
Bank will disappear in 103 days.
The problem is that is not when the damage is done. The damage is
already beginning because of the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over
the Export-Import Bank. Air Tractor, a company in Texas, which
manufactures airplanes for use in firefighting and agriculture, lost a
multimillion dollar order to Africa because they were told: We don't
know if the Bank will be around.
Last year, FirmGreen, a California-based firm that was founded by a
wounded Vietnam veteran, lost a multimillion dollar deal overseas
because they were told there is too much uncertainty, there is too big
a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Export-Import Bank.
Ladies and gentlemen in the House, I don't know what to say, I don't
know what to say to Terry and Stacie Cochran, the owners of a business
in eastern Washington that have grown their business from one-third
based on exports to two-thirds based on exports as a consequence of
their relationship with the Export-Import Bank. I don't know what I
would say to Terry and Stacie if this cloud of uncertainty continues to
hang and the Bank goes away.
I don't know what to say to STAC, a business located in my district
in Sumner, Washington, an idea in a gentleman's head--also, by the way,
a veteran--who formed a business to sell adhesives into the marketplace
that now employs 8 or 10 people with a significant export business.
Why? Because of the Export-Import Bank.
I don't know what to say to Manhasset, of all places in Yakima,
Washington, one of the world's leading music stand manufacturers.
Indeed, 90 percent of the transactions, approximately, of the Export-
Import Bank are for small businesses.
The damage is being done now in the absence of action and the failure
of this House to take up this issue. The real damage is long term, and
it is significant, and it is material.
I talked the other day on the floor about the fact that commercial
airlines is basically a manufacturing duopoly. We all know that. One is
based in France. It is Airbus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The time of
the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Airplane manufacturing currently is a duopoly, a French-based
business and an American-based business, which I want to remind people
is the heart and soul of engineering manufacturing in this country, it
is the heart and soul of it.
It is not going to remain the case, in any event, because, as we all
know--and if we don't, we should--China is right now in the process of
developing a wide-body commercial aircraft for entry into the world
marketplace. I think it is tentatively named the C919.
China's export credit authority, which I remind the Chamber every
other developed nation on the Earth has, is multiple in size of
America's export credit authority, the Export-Import Bank. They are
literally--not figuratively--they are literally sitting over there,
rubbing their hands in glee, waiting for this Chamber to refuse to act
because when their airplane comes online in 2 to 8 years, they are
going to jump into this market like there is no tomorrow.
The damage to the heart and soul of our manufacturing sector cannot
be exaggerated; indeed, to remind you, every advanced economy on the
face of the planet has an export credit authority, and if we allow ours
to expire, it is tantamount to unilateral disarmament.
An amazing array of groups support this. Everybody from--yes, believe
it or not--the Sierra Club, to the Chamber
[[Page H1778]]
of Commerce, to the International Association of Machinists, to the
National Association of Manufacturers. Everyone supports our bill; yet
we dither.
In summary, to repeat, the Export-Import Bank is a job-creating
machine, 1.2 million jobs in the last 5 years. The Export-Import Bank
is a deficit-reducing machine, $6.9 billion to reduce our deficit. It
doesn't cost us anything. There are no Federal taxpayer dollars
involved. It is a superperforming agency. It creates jobs; it reduces
our deficit--and significantly--and it goes away in 103 days if this
Chamber fails to act.
I oppose the demand for the previous question so that we might get on
with the business of strengthening America's economy.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The word ``venerated'' is usually reserved for clerics and not
government agencies. Such an attitude borders on worship of government
agencies, and I doubt very seriously that the majority of hardworking
Americans agree with that attitude.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my
distinguished colleague.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I hope you are feeling better soon, also.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule and Senate
Joint Resolution 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations
Board's ambush elections rule. I was proud to join my friend, Chairman
John Kline, in introducing the House version of this resolution.
We are here today because the Obama administration is trying to fix a
problem that does not exist, claiming that expediting elections on
whether to form a union is needed because of delays in the process and
supposed unfair advantages to employers.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I grew up in a union household. My
father worked for B.F. Goodrich Company. He was a longtime union member
after World War II. I have seen many things that the unions have done
that have been good. Unions are legal in America. Employees have a
right to hear all the information. They can decide whether they want to
be in a union or not be in a union.
There is no big hurry. Look, the National Labor Relations Board--and
this is March Madness, so I will use a basketball metaphor. I played
basketball, and other people do; you expect the referees to just be a
fair arbiter of the game. When you go in someone else's home court, you
expect to get a fair call.
{time} 0945
That is all we expect the NLRB to do, and that is not what is
happening now. Here are the facts.
In reality, under the current procedures, 94 percent of elections are
held within 56 days. The median is 38 days from a petition's being
filed. Furthermore, unions won 60 percent of those elections, so they
win more than half--or two-thirds, I should say. Given the importance
and consequences of the decisionmaking being made by workers, this is
an entirely reasonable period of time.
Under the NLRB's radical new policy, union elections could be held,
Mr. Speaker, in as little as 11 days after a petition is filed. As an
employer myself of not a large business, I don't know if I could find a
labor attorney in 11 days to go through this very complicated legal
issue. This is not nearly enough time for employers to present their
side to employees or for those employees to make an informed decision.
Unfortunately, for workers, the NLRB rule doesn't stop here.
Of grave concern to me is the threat posed to workers' privacy.
Currently, employers are required to turn over a list of employees and
their home addresses to union organizers within 7 days after an
election is ordered. So you have a week. The ambush election rule,
instead, would open the door for greater harassment and intimidation by
requiring employers to turn over each employee's name, address, phone
number, email address--all within 2 days of an election order.
It is for this reason that I introduced the Employee Privacy
Protection Act in the last Congress. This bill would have required only
the names of the employees and one piece of contact information of the
employee's choosing. The employee gets to decide how he is contacted
and to have that be provided to union organizers. I think that is very
reasonable. This will allow communications to happen but on the
workers' terms.
Choosing whether to be represented by a union is a big decision with
ramifications in the workplace and at home. Instead of ensuring a fair
process for unions, employers, and workers, this NLRB is trying to rig
the game in favor of union bosses, and that is not fair to workers or
to employees.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the resolution.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question because I
believe that it is imperative that we have an opportunity to present a
piece of legislation that will have a tremendous impact on our economy.
I believe that H.R. 1031, Promoting U.S. Jobs through Exports Act, is
an important piece of legislation, and I am in complete agreement with
my colleagues who have indicated that this piece of legislation has not
received a fair hearing. It has not received a markup in the Financial
Services Committee, and it has not been afforded an opportunity to come
to the floor.
One of the ways that we can eliminate things here in Congress is by
not acting on them at all. It appears that this piece of legislation is
destined not to be acted upon; thereby, the elimination of the Export-
Import Bank will take place. This is unfortunate.
I believe that, when there are things that you would like to say that
are being said better by others, it is better to let them say them. I
would like to just quote a few things from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
with reference to the Ex-Im Bank.
The Chamber indicates: ``Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would put at
risk more than 150,000 American jobs at 3,000 companies.'' That is
significant.
The Chamber goes on to talk about the spinoffs--the other jobs--that
will be impacted by virtue of the 150,000 jobs that will be put at
risk: ``Tens of thousands of smaller companies that supply goods and
services to large exporters also benefit from Ex-Im's activities,''
meaning that these companies too will suffer, and these are additional
workers who will suffer.
The Chamber indicates: ``Other countries are providing approximately
18 times more export credit assistance to their exporters than Ex-Im
did to U.S. exporters last year.''
It goes on to read: ``If Congress fails to reauthorize Ex-Im, the
United States would become the only major trading nation without such a
bank, putting American exporters at a unique disadvantage in tough
global markets.''
Now, that is the United States Chamber of Commerce. I think this is a
source that many of my colleagues on the other side would rely upon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am also here to say that the
State of Texas, which is the largest State that deals in exports--the
top exporting State, accounting for approximately 18 percent of the
national exports--would be hurt. In Texas, we have approximately 1,630
exporters that utilize the Export-Import Bank. In my district, 46 small
businesses are using the Export-Import Bank, and 14 of these are
minority-owned while five are owned by women. The bank is making a
difference.
In Texas, we have a saying: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It
ain't broke. We are trying to fix it, and we are doing it by
eliminating an entity that is making a difference for our economy.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The history of this regulation is as sordid as most of the NLRB's
actions have been over the past few years.
The Board initially attempted to promulgate this regulation in 2011
without a legitimate quorum and saw its decision struck down by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
[[Page H1779]]
That court decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.
After rescinding its initial attempt at imposing an ambush election
rule, the Board, now back to its full strength after threats by Senate
Democrats to exercise the nuclear option to spark filibuster reform,
reintroduced the ambush election rule in February of last year. Today,
we face the consequences of that effort.
Those efforts are not the only objectionable actions of the National
Labor Relations Board in recent years. Last year, I sent a letter, with
several of my colleagues, opposing the NLRB general counsel's efforts
to deem franchisers joint employers with their franchisees. That
determination could have profound consequences for the over 8 million
Americans who go to work at our country's over 750,000 franchise
businesses.
The NLRB also purported to be able to instruct private businesses as
to where they could invest, telling The Boeing Company in 2011 that it
could not operate a factory in South Carolina it had already built. Our
Federal Government has far too much power, but, thankfully, it does not
yet have the power to tell businesses where they can and can't expand.
The Board was forced to withdraw its complaint in that instance.
The NLRB regulation that we will address today on the floor is just
another in a long line of objectionable actions that the Board has
taken since President Obama's appointees have taken office. There is no
reason to believe that their approach to the law will change, but our
step today to invoke the Congressional Review Act is merely another
sign of our willingness to exercise oversight tirelessly into the
Board's actions. We will continue to be vigilant on behalf of workers
and their employers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green's repeated reference
to the United States Chamber of Commerce's point of view prompted me to
believe that entering their actual words, that of the Chamber's, into
the Record would be a constructive addition to this debate. So I read
from their letter:
``Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would put at risk more than 150,000
American jobs at 3,000 companies that depend on the Bank to be able to
compete in global markets. Ex-Im is especially important to small- and
medium-size businesses, which account for more than 85 percent of Ex-
Im's transactions. Tens of thousands of smaller companies that supply
goods and services to large exporters also benefit from Ex-Im's
activities.
``Other countries are providing approximately 18 times more export
credit assistance to their exporters than Ex-Im did to U.S. exporters
last year.''
Further, the ``reauthorization of Ex-Im would benefit taxpayers by
reducing the deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars. Far from being
a subsidy, Ex-Im has generated $2.7 billion for taxpayers in the last
six years, mostly through fees collected from foreign customers.
Eliminating Ex-Im would increase the U.S. budget deficit.''
I am going to repeat that. ``Eliminating Ex-Im would increase the
U.S. budget deficit.''
``Ex-Im's overall active default rate hovers below one-quarter of one
percent, a default rate lower than commercial banks.
``The U.S. Chamber, the world's largest business federation
representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all
sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and
industry associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and
defending America's free enterprise system, urges the House to pass
long-term Ex-Im reauthorization as expeditiously as possible.''
Those are verbatim words from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position
on the long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Why?
Because they know that the failure to do so 103 days from now will
materially damage the U.S. economy and will reduce the numbers of jobs.
I urge you to support the long-term reauthorization of the Ex-Im.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if my colleague from
Colorado is also prepared.
Mr. POLIS. If somebody else shows up, I might yield to him; but with
that understanding, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the Export-Import Bank
and what they do and why it is so important.
First of all, there are a lot of forms of subsidization that are not
permitted under trade rules or the WTO. However, there are certain safe
harbors for things that are allowed, and all of our major trading
partners have something like an Export-Import Bank.
What it does is it helps to effectively finance our exports. When we
have somebody who wants to buy products from an American company in
another country, rather than have that company, itself, have to collect
that overseas debt, effectively, that debt is transferred to this
pseudopublic entity, the Export-Import Bank, and that, effectively,
becomes the collection agent overseas for that debt. It, effectively,
allows our exporters to get their payments up front to outsource any
risk of no payment occurring. In fact, the U.S. Export Agency is in a
better position to collect those debts because people will see them
abroad as an entity of the U.S. Government. It works out well, as it is
profitable; it is supported by the business community; and it is fully
permissible under trade rules.
If we fail to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, we are,
effectively, stabbing ourselves in the foot. We are hurting our own
export economy. Do we think for 1 minute that other countries are going
to stop engaging in similar allowable trade practices that benefit
their own manufacturing industries? No, of course not. People across
the world are going to scratch their heads just as they do when our own
Congress shuts down our government, just as they do when Members of our
own Congress undermine our own President diplomatically. They ask: What
are the Americans doing? They are doing this to themselves. They are
hurting their own exports, and they are hurting their own
manufacturing.
That is exactly why I hope that we do defeat the previous question
and come forward with a clean Export-Import Bank reauthorization, which
I am confident would overwhelmingly pass here on the floor of the
House.
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, what this discussion really comes down to
with regard to the NLRB is whether or not bad actors should continue to
get away with abusing an antiquated system for their own advantage.
I truly believe--and I hope my colleagues do, too--that employers and
employees should have a level playing field with an updated and
expeditious processing mechanism. Employers should not be able to
endlessly delay and appeal elections and abuse a process that was put
in place just as much for them as it was for employees.
Organizing has a long and important history in America. Unions and
collective bargaining have made sure we have a weekend to spend with
our families, a 40-hour workweek, and made sure women are paid fair
wages.
{time} 1000
Organizing has made sure workers are safe from all types and forms of
workplace dangers. Countless studies show that the proportion of
workers in labor organizations tracks very closely with income for
middle class Americans.
Critics of this rule don't want a level playing field for labor
organizations to fight for the middle class. They want a process that
is open to delay and manipulation. Rather than letting workers choose
for themselves whether or not they want to join a union, bad actors
would prefer to delay or prevent the choice from ever being made at
all. This new rule reduces the opportunity for bad actors to play games
with the process and applies new technological updates to the process
as well.
The Republicans, time and time again, seem to want to waste time on
[[Page H1780]]
grandstanding instead of legislating. This is a perfect example of
another bill that won't become law. The Republicans want to tilt the
economy toward the wealthy, toward big business, toward CEOs.
We were sent here to do the people's work. The new rule for the NLRB
is entirely consistent with the legislative intent of the creation of
that agency, and it is for the advantage of people who live in our
towns and cities. It improves the economy, raises up the middle class,
helps give everybody a fair shot at the American Dream.
When we talk about the pathway to the American Dream, the pathway to
success in our country, the organized labor movement has and continues
to make enormous contributions toward making sure that Americans are
earning livable wages, that they can support their families and live
the American Dream. It is not only the weekends and 40-hour workweeks
that they have given us. The organized labor movement continues to
fight for the middle class and to fight to grow the middle class and to
address some of the increasing trend of income disparities that are
threatening our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and then we will bring forward the Export-Import
Bank clean reauthorization that does create jobs for middle class
Americans and in manufacturing. Some of those plants will be union and
some won't be. That is the choice of the workers. The NLRB bill
facilitates that choice. It doesn't presuppose that every workplace
will want to organize nor that no workplaces will want to organize. It
simply has a fair set of rules in place--fair to businesses, fair to
employees, fair to labor, fair to everybody--that allows a decision to
be made regarding organizing in the workplace.
What is even more important about the effort Mr. Heck talked about is
it will allow workers and business owners to participate in a bigger
pie. That is what we all want. By reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank,
we are creating jobs in our country and the export sector; and that
means that the owners of the companies will do well; it means the
employees of the companies will do well; it means the management will
do well; it means the line workers will do well.
So let's participate in a growing pie by passing a clean
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank rather than trying to divide
the pie to take more away from working families and the middle class
and give more to big businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The proud traditions of this House and its committees are continued
by the committee funding resolution this rule will provide for
consideration of. Our record of careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars
continues with the House authorized funds for the 114th Congress below
those in 2008. The funding resolution was favorably reported out of
committee by unanimous voice vote. The chair and ranking member of each
committee worked together to develop their individual budget
priorities, and each committee also reaffirmed its commitment to uphold
the equitable two-thirds/one-third allocation between the majority and
minority sides.
Our record of careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars continues, with
the House authorized funds for the 114th Congress below those in 2008.
Returning to the ambush elections rule, which was, sadly, not crafted
in the same bipartisan fashion as our committee funding resolution, Mr.
Speaker, we must remember that providing for free and fair elections is
one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy.
The National Labor Relations Board's ambush elections rule is an
affront to that principle. Without a chance to opt out, it provides the
personal contact information of every employee to organizers who may
have had no previous interactions with those employees. The rule could
lead to union representation elections being held within only 11 days
without any certainty over who should be participating in the election
or adequate time to consult with legal counsel.
It is not as if existing rules favor one party over another. If
anything, they favor unions. Currently, 95 percent of elections occur
within 2 months, and unions win more than 60 percent of them. The
National Labor Relations Board should be focused on maintaining fair
union representation elections backed by longstanding precedent, not
upending a longstanding, carefully tailored process for elections that
provided fundamental protections to all stakeholders: workers, unions,
and employers.
This Congressional Review Act joint resolution is an important step
in Congress exercising its oversight role to ensure that independent
agencies and the executive branch do not step on vital protections for
hardworking Americans.
I strongly commend this rule and the underlying resolutions to my
colleagues for their support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 152 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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.
1031) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, and for other purposes. 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 Financial Services. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1031.
____
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 H1781]]
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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 181, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Ellison
Garamendi
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Hinojosa
Johnson (GA)
Jordan
Labrador
Payne
Rogers (KY)
Roskam
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Williams
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
{time} 1033
Mr. CARNEY, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. RUSH and BUTTERFIELD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. MICA, BURGESS, and Mrs. HARTZLER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 181, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
[[Page H1782]]
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Bucshon
Garamendi
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Hinojosa
Jordan
Labrador
Payne
Perlmutter
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Schock
Scott, Austin
Smith (WA)
Williams
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
{time} 1040
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127 I was unavoidably
detained and missed voting of rollcall No. 127. Had I been present,
when the vote was called, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2015, the House voted on H.
Res. 152, to provide consideration of H. Res. 132. I accidentally voted
``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 127; I do not support H. Res. 152 or H.
Res. 132; I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 127. I would
like the record to accurately reflect my stance on this issue.
____________________