[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.

                          ____________________