[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 47 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1782-H1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 152, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 152, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 8

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the National Labor 
     Relations Board relating to representation case procedures 
     (published at 79 Fed. Reg. 74308 (December 15, 2014)), and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1045


                             General Leave

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 8.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 8.
  In just a few short weeks, a regulatory scheme that many Americans 
never heard of will become a reality in almost every private workplace 
across the country.
  Today, workers and employers rely on a fair process for union 
elections. Under the current process, employers have time to raise 
concerns and, more importantly, time to speak with their employees 
about union representation.
  Under the current system, workers have an opportunity to gather the 
information they need to make the best decision for their families. But 
unless Congress acts, Mr. Speaker, that will all change.
  Under the guise of streamlining union elections, the National Labor 
Relations Board is imposing draconian changes that will undermine the 
rights workers, employers, and unions have long enjoyed.
  The Board's rule arbitrarily limits the amount of time employers have 
to legally prepare for the election, and it denies workers a reasonable 
opportunity to make informed decisions about joining a union.
  The rule also delays answers to important questions--including voter 
eligibility--until after the election, which means the integrity of the 
election results will be compromised before a single ballot is cast.
  To add insult to injury, the Board's rule will also force employers 
to provide union organizers with their employees' personal information, 
including email addresses, phone numbers, work schedules, and home 
addresses. Instead of advancing a plan to help stop union intimidation 
and coercion, the Board is actually making it easier for labor bosses 
to harass employees and their families.
  Are there times when delays occur under the current system? Of 
course. But delay is the exception, not the rule. In fact, right now, 
the median time between the filing of an election petition and the 
election is 38 days. Yet under the Board's new rule, a union election 
could take place in as little as 11 days. Eleven days.
  This is a radical rewrite of labor policies that have served our 
Nation's best interests for decades. Unfortunately, this is what we 
have come to expect from the National Labor Relations Board.
  Let's not forget, this is the same Federal agency that tried 
dictating where a private employer had to run its business. This is the 
same agency restricting workers' rights to secret ballot elections. 
This is the same agency ignoring the law by asserting its jurisdiction 
over religious institutions. This is the same agency tying employers in 
union red tape and empowering labor leaders to gerrymander our Nation's 
workplaces. This is a Federal agency that is simply out of control, and 
it is our responsibility to do something about it.
  This resolution, which I am proud to sponsor along with Senator Lamar

[[Page H1783]]

Alexander of Tennessee, invokes Congress' authority under the 
Congressional Review Act to block the NLRB's ambush election rule and 
anything substantially like it.
  If the Board or my Democrat colleagues want to pursue responsible 
reforms to improve the union election process, then I stand ready to 
work together on that effort.
  But if you believe employers should be free to speak to their 
employees during a union organizing campaign, then support this 
resolution. If you believe workers should be free to make an informed 
decision about whether to join a union, then support this resolution. 
If you believe we should protect--rather than threaten--employee 
privacy, then support this resolution. Finally, if you believe workers, 
employers, and union leaders deserve a fair election process, then 
reject the Board's ambush election rule by supporting this resolution.
  I encourage my colleagues to stand with America's workers and job 
creators by voting ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 8.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 8.
  The Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that we are 
considering today would undo the NLRB's election rule. The National 
Labor Relations Board election rule was promulgated to make the 
election process more efficient and fair.
  The current process to hold an election on whether to form a union is 
badly broken. After workers have filed a petition to hold an election, 
bad actors can use frivolous litigation to stall an election for 
months, even years. Election delays can provide opportunities for 
unscrupulous employers to engage in threats, coercion, and intimidation 
of workers. These delays can be exploited to violate workers' rights, 
including firing pro-union workers or threatening to close the plant if 
the workers choose to vote a certain way.
  We all know that the sanctions against violations are insufficient to 
deter the unscrupulous activities, including firing pro-union 
employees.
  Researchers from the Center for Labor Research and Education at 
Berkeley found that the longer the delay before the union election, the 
more likely the employer was to engage in illegal conduct that violates 
its employees' rights. The NLRB election rule would help prevent the 
illegal intimidation and coercion of workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this regulation provides targeted solutions to discrete, 
specifically identifiable problems. The rule brings into the 21st 
century the updating of rules involving the transmission of documents 
and communications, allowing you to use email and electronic 
communication rather than paper. It will enable the Board to better 
fulfill its responsibility to protect employees' rights by fairly, 
accurately, and quickly resolving issues of representation.
  In many cases, the rule just simplifies and standardizes practices 
that have been common in regions all over the country already, or 
reflects existing practices used in civil actions. The rule does not 
change substantive law involving elections. It just makes sure that you 
can have a timely election.
  These modest updates provide workers and employees with reasonable 
time to consider unionization while preventing unreasonable delay by 
bad actors.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't going to go very far. The 
administration has already issued a Statement of Administration Policy 
that I would like to quote from. It says that:
  ``The Board's modest reforms will help simplify and streamline 
private sector union elections, thereby reducing delays before workers 
can have a free and fair vote on whether or not to form or join a 
union.''
  It goes on to say that:
  ``Giving workers greater voice can help ensure that the link is 
restored between hard work and opportunity and that the benefits of the 
current economic recovery are more broadly shared.

  ``The National Labor Relations Board's representation case procedures 
rule helps to level the playing field for workers so they can more 
freely choose to make their voice heard. In doing so, it will help us 
build an economy that gives greater economic opportunities and security 
for middle-class families and those working to join the middle class.''
  It concludes, Mr. Speaker, that:
  ``If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.''
  Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on this resolution, we should be 
addressing job creation, stagnating wages, economic inequality, and 
working to improve opportunities for Americans, rather than considering 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, somehow I am not surprised that the Obama 
administration supports the administration's National Labor Relations 
Board's actions.
  At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections.
  Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it this way, but the fact of the matter is 
that the NLRB is creating a solution to a problem that does not exist 
by wholly changing the union election process through their new ambush 
election rule. This rule, if left unchecked, restricts the right of 
employers to speak to their employees during their organizing campaign. 
It cripples--it cripples--the rights of workers to make an informed 
decision. It denies all stakeholders access to a fair process. And 
isn't that what we are about?
  This change is meant to weaken employers and employees who simply 
want a fair and just process that gives ample time for a deliberative 
review, discussion, and decisionmaking. Furthermore, the ambush 
election rule completely disregards the promise of neutrality that NLRB 
is mandated to uphold.
  The NLRB should serve as an impartial arbiter of labor disputes, and 
I urge my colleagues to join the Senate in passing S.J. Res. 8, which 
will stop these harmful and unjust actions committed by the NLRB and 
preserve fair election policies which have been in place for decades.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in very strong 
opposition to this resolution, and I urge every one of my Members to 
oppose this resolution.
  We considered a Paycheck Fairness Act, a card check bill which said 
that if the unions got the signatures of a certain percentage, that 
they could move ahead and be organized, subject to an election.
  There was a hue and cry about, that was undemocratic, that there 
ought to be a requirement for an election. A number of people came into 
my office, and I said, Well, I think we can accommodate that. We will 
make sure there is a requirement that--as every one of us can do--you 
can get the names of the voters, you can get their addresses, you can 
even get their history of voting, and you can perhaps call them on the 
phone. We can all do that in elections.
  But the fact of the matter is--and everybody on this House floor 
knows it--procedurally, so many employers who do not believe that they 
are going to prevail take the steps of delaying and delaying and 
delaying. They want elections tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, what the NLRB is trying to do with this rule is to make 
sure that there is an election, that it is fair, and that it will be 
held in a timely fashion.
  I hope this House defeats this resolution.
  This resolution would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from 
implementing the rule it promulgated in December to modernize worker 
representation elections.
  But there is a fear of elections, and the fear of elections is that 
the majority of employees will say, yes, I want to have a better voice.
  This is a case, once again, of the Republican majority seeking to 
roll back

[[Page H1784]]

the hard-earned rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively 
for better wages and benefits. And that is not an assertion. That is 
demonstrably proved in State after State after State over the last few 
years in which Republicans have taken control, and their first item of 
the agenda has been to undermine workers' rights.
  When workers organize for higher wages and benefits--like health 
insurance, retirement savings, and affordable child care--it opens the 
doors of opportunity for workers and their families to secure a place 
in our middle class. We know our middle class is shrinking. We know the 
middle class is having a very tough time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  According to a 2013 report by the Center for American Progress, the 
decline of union membership between the 1960s and today correlates to a 
decline of the middle class.
  When we have strong unions and workers' rights protections, the 
middle class does better. And workers who are not unionized benefit 
from the ripple effect of rising wages.
  Let's defeat this bill.
  I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of 
this committee, has said that he would sit down with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) to come up with a bipartisan bill--which this is 
not--which will do what all of us say we think is fair, to have 
elections, to have elections where both sides--and of course the 
employer always has access to the voter in this case--and do something 
for the American worker and for business which will put us on a steady 
path to growing the middle class and making sure that workers are 
treated as they ought to be, with the dignity and respect and the 
ability to support their families that they need.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I always find it to be of interest listening to this 
debate. Do you know what is most ironic about this bill? It is about 
elections. Everybody in this body has an election. But do you know what 
is different? Everyone in this body knows when their next election is 
going to be held and knows how much time they have to campaign, so much 
so that we have rules on this floor when we cut off communication 
months in advance so you can campaign.
  I listened with interest to the minority whip speak on this floor his 
support for something different from what this bill does. I wonder, if 
he cared so much about what the NLRB is doing, would he apply those 
exact same rules to his own election? Would he care to not know when it 
is going to be and then when it gets called he has 11 days to campaign? 
I think his speech would be different. So why are we asking the rules 
for us to be different from every other worker across this country?
  The root of representation is to work for the interests of those you 
represent. Everyone in the House knows that. And unions, as 
representative bodies, should exist for the benefit of the workers. But 
I don't think anyone disagrees that it is the workers, not the unions, 
who know what is best for themselves. Workers are the best judges of 
whether they want to support union political activity or even if they 
want to join a union at all. Joining a union is a big choice. To make 
an informed decision, workers need time to decide what is best for them 
and their families, and they shouldn't be pressured or rushed.
  So if unions really care about workers, and if they are confident 
that the benefits of their union outweigh the costs, they will give the 
workers as much time as they need. That is the irony of the recent 
decision by the National Labor Relations Board, to allow unions to call 
rush elections, to ambush employees and employers. Ambush elections 
don't help workers; instead, they bully workers to accept unionization 
as fast as possible. That is not pro-worker; that is pro-union--and 
there is a big difference.
  What makes the situation worse is that ambush elections will soon be 
forced on workers not by an act of Congress, but by unelected 
bureaucrats in the NLRB. That is an affront to the separation of powers 
that this country was based upon.
  So here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action. As our Senate 
colleagues have already voted to do, we are going to use the 
Congressional Review Act to send a resolution straight to the 
President's desk that blocks this antiworker and antibusiness rule.
  Now, I know the President has already threatened to veto this 
resolution, but I actually hope he will change his mind, because what 
does the President want to fight for? Does he want to fight for the 
workers? Does he want to fight for small businesses and jobs?
  Ambush elections don't help workers. They don't help employers. They 
only help unions. And no public official, not any Member of this House, 
and especially not the President, should ever support rules that allow 
special interests to strong-arm the hardworking American people.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House should support a rule about an 
election they wouldn't put upon themselves, and I don't know one Member 
of this House that would sit back and say somebody can call an election 
and you only have 11 days to campaign. I would like to hear somebody 
vote for that on this floor and ask to be held to the same standards 
they are trying to hold every other worker to in this Nation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, where to begin? In hearing the majority 
leader's remarks and in talking about fair elections, how is it fair if 
only one side has access to the phone numbers and email addresses and 
not the other side? Can any of us imagine running in our campaigns 
where only we or only our opponent can call or write emails to the 
voters? That doesn't make any sense.
  Talking about 11 days, again, that is fictitious. This rule is about 
the 1 in 10 cases that take over 100 days. Mr. Speaker, we heard 
testimony in committee about organizing that lingered on hundreds and 
hundreds of days. And as our ranking member pointed out, the longer it 
takes, there is a direct and causal relationship to illegal behavior.
  The election rules that the NLRB has implemented will help expedite 
this process to be sure it is done in accordance with the law. It 
modernizes our antiquated system to level the playing field for 
workers. These rules set up a fair system so that bad actors that 
needlessly delay and abuse the electoral system for the sole purpose of 
having time to coerce employees through mandatory meetings, threats, 
and even firings won't be rewarded for their bad behavior. This 
coercion is not just some far-fetched idea. One in 10 cases take over 
100 days.
  Now, why would delaying a union election be a bad thing for union 
workers? Because during that delay, these workers are forced into 
rooms, receive threats, are bombarded with texts and emails from the 
employer--again, from one side in the election--but the other side in 
the election, absent these rules, doesn't even have access to text or 
phone.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be focused on creating new jobs, not 
destroying them, and growing the middle class, not shrinking it. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Kline, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's leadership on this important 
issue, and I am grateful to be a cosponsor of this legislation.
  As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, I am concerned with the 
National Labor Relations Board's latest rule, which is referred to as 
the ambush election rule, and I stand in strong support of S.J. Res. 8.
  The ambush election rule is a tool to force union elections, not to 
protect

[[Page H1785]]

workers. Revisions of the list requirements under the rule will compel 
employers to provide very personal information about their employees, 
such as names, address, telephone numbers, and email addresses. This 
will violate the privacy of workers while reducing the informed 
decision period. To add insult to injury, the rule does not limit or 
dictate what unions can do with this sensitive information.
  I am pleased that South Carolina is a right-to-work State. Union 
membership is not a requirement of employment in our State. It is based 
on freedom of choice. I am grateful we have fought as a State to give 
our employees and job creators the flexibility to choose what is best 
for them.
  South Carolina has successfully opposed the rogue NLRB when the NLRB 
tried to block 1,000 jobs at the Boeing facility in Charleston. With 
the leadership of Governor Nikki Haley, Attorney General Alan Wilson, 
and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, we stopped the NLRB, and now 
over 7,000 jobs have been created.

  S.J. Res. 8 will express our strong disapproval of the National Labor 
Relations Board rule and ensure a fair elections process.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Review Act is yet another attack on 
employees' rights to organize and to limit the National Labor Relations 
Board. The NLRB should have the ability to safeguard those rights and 
protect our Nation's workers from unfair labor practices.
  It is outrageous that the rights of employees are attacked, 
particularly at a time when we have a jobs deficit, a shrinking middle 
class, and are still struggling to recover from the Great Recession.
  The NLRB has made modest attempts to modernize its election 
procedures and reduce unnecessary litigation and delay in the election 
process. These are commonsense fixes that should not be controversial.
  The CRA would freeze in place the Board's current flawed election 
procedure. The Board would be prohibited from adopting rules to utilize 
new technology or modernize its procedures. The NLRB is an expert 
agency and should be trusted to determine the appropriate use of 
electronic voting or rules to safeguard ballot secrecy.
  Furthermore, I am not aware of any other government agency that has 
to seek Congress' permission before modernizing its rules for voting 
that takes place under its jurisdiction.
  Dismantling the NLRB would only serve to weaken, undermine, and 
jeopardize the economic security of the middle class. It is bad for 
business, bad for families, and bad for our economy. In fact, the 
National Labor Relations Board is the last line of defense for workers.
  We shouldn't be attacking our Nation's employees; we should be 
supporting them, investing in them, and protecting them. Let's come 
together to create jobs, protect the middle class, and make the 
investments we need to grow our economy.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Russell), a new member of the committee and someone who 
has been actively engaged in the major debates since he has walked into 
this body.
  Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, labor relations are vital to the smooth operation of 
business and commerce. In the culture of our Republic, Americans are 
raised to expect to have their say in everything from schoolroom 
elections to choosing the President of the United States. It is in our 
DNA to have a choice. To inform that choice, we expect free speech so 
we can ask questions, gain information, and make wise decisions. This 
is why the recently finalized rule by the National Labor Relations 
Board is so egregious. It is against that American spirit.
  Under this rule, longstanding policies that allow employers and 
employees to guide how they relate through unions has been deeply 
damaged. Companies could have as little as 11 days, or employees in 
relating to the companies, as little as 11 days to make a choice that 
could drastically affect their career and the health of the business 
that they rely on to put bread on the table.
  Employers would only have a 7-day period to obtain counsel, set 
parameters, and are even restricted in contacting and discussing issues 
with their employees. They are prohibited from making any changes after 
that 7-day period based on new information that they may acquire.
  Further, the privacy and safety of workers is placed in jeopardy by a 
swift ambush election process imposed by these rules that could put 
their employment in jeopardy.
  This resolution stops this. It restores policies that have guided 
labor relations for decades. It upholds the right for American workers 
to gain information to make choices without draconian, strong-arm 
pressure tactics that harm the worker and stifle American free 
enterprise.
  This body was founded, Mr. Speaker, on the spirit of promoting the 
general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility for our Nation. 
Passage of S.J. Res. 8 aids this by stopping and blocking the strong-
arm tactics of the National Labor Relations Board, and the American 
people are counting on us to do that job.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate Joint 
Resolution 8, an unnecessary partisan attack on hardworking Americans 
that will interfere with the rights of workers to an expeditious 
election on union representation.
  America's middle class workers should be free to decide if they want 
an election. Unfortunately, the current process can be mired in 
litigation, and in some cases, workers waiting for an election have 
faced interference or intimidation from outside groups. The NLRB's rule 
safeguards the ability of workers to choose whether to be represented 
by a union without confronting unnecessary delays.
  It makes little sense why Congress would want to get in the way of 
middle class Americans--factory line workers, health care workers, and 
utility workers--who ask for an election on union representation. It is 
also unreasonable to assume that employers, many of which have 
sophisticated legal teams, are going to be caught flat-footed. There is 
no ambush here.
  Mr. Speaker, the NLRB had a lengthy rulemaking proceeding with 
thousands of comments. It is unfair and, in fact, draconian to now use 
the Congressional Review Act to try to undermine the rights of workers 
by getting rid of this rule. The resolution is an ill-advised attempt 
to silence the voice of American workers, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen), another new member of the committee and someone 
who has also been engaged since the day he walked in.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am always interested when we are talking 
about workers and I hear that people want to talk about what is best 
for workers.
  I will tell you that I am a new Member of Congress, and I have had 
the privilege the past 30 years of my life to give people the privilege 
to have a good job. That is one of the greatest privileges of my life.
  We all want to do what is best for those folks who are sacrificing 
for us. We appreciate them; we appreciate their efforts. That is why I 
rise to support Senate Joint Resolution 8, to demonstrate the 
disapproval of Congress of the National Labor Relations Board's 
``ambush election'' rule to protect our workers.
  A few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and 
Pensions, of which I am a member, held a hearing on this very issue. We 
learned that this NLRB is not only unprecedented, it undermines the 
rights of both workers and employees and creates for challenges for 
businesses when our economy can least afford it.
  The expert testimony was from those who have been engaged in labor 
relations for quite a long time with tremendous experience. Their 
testimony

[[Page H1786]]

provided comments about just how troubling such a threat to the privacy 
of workers and their families as employers would be required to 
disclose the names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails of employees 
to the NLRB, then to the union.
  This rule is misguided, and NLRB has no business in rushing to 
advance its own agenda. We need to protect fairness in the work place. 
That is why I call on my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution 
8.
  I am proud to say that I am from the State of Georgia, a right-to-
work State.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ALLEN. In the State of Georgia, we have created almost 300,000 
jobs since 2006. I am proud to say we have got the finest workers in 
America, and I want those workers to have the freedom to make their 
decisions and not the NLRB.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Bobby Scott, for 
yielding me time.
  I am a small business owner, and I am a union member, and I have a 
union business. The disapproval of the NLRB rule under the 
Congressional Review Act is an extreme move that would roll back 
hardworking Americans' rights to a fair and timely election on union 
representation.
  Let us look at what this rule does, two things: One, it modernizes 
communications; and, two, it protects workers from dishonest employers.
  When this law was written, emails and iPhones didn't exist, so it 
simply adds them to the list of what is available to contact people 
about joining a union.
  Second, it creates a fair, modern workplace election process that 
elections can be done in a timely manner. The current process has long 
been vulnerable to manipulation, delay, and drawn out legal maneuvering 
by some unscrupulous employers.
  The reality of today's workplace is employers still hold all the 
cards. The few bad actor employers can delay a union vote by 
intimidating or threatening employees. They already have the phone 
numbers, the emails, and the home addresses. Let's face it: What is 
more intimidating, getting an email or saying you know where someone 
lives?
  The bottom line is this isn't about the NLRB rule; this is about a 
process that we see across the country attacking hardworking Americans. 
Whether it is through so-called right-to-work laws or preventing the 
NLRB from updating the union election process, this is more evidence 
that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking Americans 
who want the ability to form a union.
  This has a substantial impact on their lives. Workers covered by a 
collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not 
covered and are more likely to have health care, retirement, and paid 
leave benefits than nonunion workers.
  I would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering 
message.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from my 
neighboring State of Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), another new member of 
the committee. We have got an almost embarrassment of riches of 
hardworking new Members.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak one more 
time on Senate Joint Resolution 8.
  I will make two points again. One of the things we see here is we 
have new rules which continue a trend, and that is you are 
fundamentally changing the way things have been for 70 years. In the 
past, unions have done a good job of organizing.
  We have added union representation to things, but one of the things 
that businesses want and that America wants is consistency. One more 
time, after having no big problems for 70 years, we are turning things 
fundamentally around. Now, why is that bad?
  The gentlewoman from Oregon just said this is no big deal because 
businesses all have lawyers on staff or whatever.
  Two comments on that: First of all, businesses don't all have lawyers 
on staff; and, secondly, I think it shows a fundamental 
misunderstanding of how business works and why it is so difficult to go 
into business today and why it particularly targets small businesses 
when you come up with new regulations.
  This would be a problem even for a big company that did have a lawyer 
on staff and say it is no big deal; but, of course, who is less likely 
to have a lawyer on staff? A small business who doesn't have full-time 
HR representatives and that sort of thing. This is targeting those 
small businesses.
  Again and again and again in this country, one thing that bothers me 
is the degree to which people don't have sympathy for small businesses. 
When you change things, they are the ones who have to go out, hire an 
outside lawyer, get up to speed on things, pay the big legal bills, and 
pay the price.
  That is one reason why, in certain industries, you do see, over time, 
big businesses continuing to grow because little businesses can't keep 
up with all the little rules.
  I will remind people one more time that this invades employee 
privacy. It is something they are not asking for. There is no reason 
for outside groups to be able to get somebody's home address or that 
sort of thing.
  In any event, I will ask the other people present in the room to go 
back home and ask, particularly their small employers, when they have 
to run to a lawyer--first of all, to ask their small employers whether 
or not they have a lawyer on staff because I think the vast majority of 
businesses in this country don't have a lawyer on staff; and, secondly, 
whether they do or don't have a lawyer on staff, if they have to go run 
to a lawyer, whether they think its no big deal, because I think it is 
an awfully big deal.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I would like to point out that I think the people who promote this 
piece of legislation and the people who oppose it basically take their 
positions for the same reason, and that is that labor unions improve 
wages, make better working conditions, promote job security, and give 
strength in numbers.
  We oppose and support this bill for the same reason. Some people want 
to see workers get more pay--we have seen stagnant wages--and some 
people think that when workers make more money, it just hurts corporate 
profitability--which, by the way, is up and has been increasing.
  The point is simply this: The NLRB does its job and modernizes union 
elections and proposes a rule. The Republican majority comes in and 
says, We don't like that because that might lead to more union 
elections, and it may lead to more unionized workers, and we like it 
how it is, we like flat and declining wages, we want the employers to 
have all of the power, we want the workers to be alone and on their own 
and without the strength that the numbers that a union provides. It is 
just as simple as that.
  Americans watching this debate today have yet another opportunity to 
see who is on their side and who is not. American workers get more 
money and get paid better when they are in unions.
  Collective bargaining strengthens family budgets because it means 
that workers can say, Do you know what, that is unsafe; do you know 
what, you are making plenty of money, so should we; do you know what, 
we need to get some job security in a union contract around here--and 
that is exactly why we see the opposition to this NLRB rule.
  So it is disappointing. I think President Obama was right when he 
said the number one problem facing the United States today is income 
inequality. That is the concentration of riches at the top and the 
stagnation for wages for everybody else.
  If that is the problem, then we need to do something about it. That 
means modernizing the right to collectively bargain.
  I will say modernizing union elections is the thing that will help us 
achieve that equality.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1787]]

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  It is incredible. We are in this great Hall of democracy. The world 
looks to this very building, for what it seeks is to give people a 
voice, what our country was founded on. What we are having a vote on 
today is to clamp down and shut the mouths of those who are seeking to 
have a voice.
  Very recently, there was a poll conducted that said, if given the 
opportunity, 73 percent of American workers want to have a voice and 
would vote for a union, but what we are hearing today is shutting down 
the voice and creating predictability. This is about democracy; this is 
about what we in America believe in: giving everybody an equal 
opportunity for a voice.
  What the NLRB--and I have dealt with them for over 30 years. We have 
won some; we have lost some. They have been independent. Sometimes, I 
haven't been happy with their decisions, but I have always felt they 
have been fair.
  What we are talking about is bringing them into the 21st century, 
making a voting date that is agreeable to what real people think. You 
shouldn't have to wait 6 months, 9 months, go through the appeal 
process.
  Let's have a vote because, remember, the employer has had access--
unfettered access--to all these employees, and all we are saying is 
let's make sure that workers have a voice. If they say ``no,'' no harm, 
no foul, and go home. This is about creating an equal playing field, 
which certainly isn't there.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to vote against this anti-
American, antidemocracy, antiworker resolution.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott.
  One of the things that made the 20th century known as the American 
century was that the United States had the largest middle class in the 
history of the world--the idea that if you worked hard and played by 
the rules, you would get a fair wage and good benefits and that your 
children would be even able to do a little bit better than you have 
been able to do.
  It wasn't always that way, though, in the United States. We can thank 
to a great extent some of the great advances that we had in the 20th 
century, as far as workers' rights, to that of organized labor. Without 
labor unions, we would not have the strength of the middle class today.
  It is no accident that in the post-World War II period, when you saw 
average incomes rise in the fifties, in the sixties, in the seventies, 
you saw average incomes rise for workers, sure enough, you saw the 
percentage of the American workforce unionized also increase.

                              {time}  1130

  It is also no accident that, as the percentage of the American 
unionized workforce declined, so, too, did the average wages to the 
point at which we are today, where we have had a 20-year period in 
which middle class wages are stagnant, in which the working class has 
actually fallen behind, and in which--no surprise--we actually have the 
lowest percentage of the workforce unionized today in over 70 years.
  Mr. Speaker, let's stand up for the middle class. Let's stand up for 
our workers. Let us reject this antilabor, anti-union, antiworker 
measure, and let's start fighting and working for those who are working 
for America.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is the chairman prepared to close?
  Mr. KLINE. I am.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The rule that is subject to this resolution creates no substantive 
change in the law. It just requires that an election be timely. We have 
heard this 11-day myth. Let me just go through a little about that myth 
and how you get to the 11 days.
  First of all, the regional office would have to issue a notice of a 
hearing on the same day that the union would have filed the election 
petition. The hearing would have to be held as soon as possible and 
last only one day, and the regional director would have to issue an 
opinion on the same day.
  Right now, it currently takes a median of 20 days for the regional 
director to issue a decision on the hearing, and there is no reason to 
believe that it would be any shorter under this rule.
  The union would have to waive all of its rights to get information in 
terms of contact lists and things like that, and the region would have 
to schedule the election on the very first day possible. The chance 
that all of that is going to happen to get you down to 11 days is just 
very improbable.
  The administration has already indicated that its senior advisers 
would recommend a veto of this legislation, so it is not going 
anywhere.
  I look forward to working with the chair of the committee to do what 
we can to create jobs and to increase wages and to create safe 
workplaces. I would hope that the chair and I will get together on that 
rather than waste time on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  S.J. Res. 8--Congressional Disapproval of National Labor Relations 
               Board Representation Case Procedures Rule

         (Sen. Alexander, R-TN and 51 cosponsors, Mar. 3, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. 
     Res. 8, which would overturn the National Labor Relations 
     Board's recently issued ``representation case procedures'' 
     rule. The Board's modest reforms will help simplify and 
     streamline private sector union elections, thereby reducing 
     delays before workers can have a free and fair vote on 
     whether or not to form or join a union. The rule allows for 
     electronic filing and transmission of documents, ensures that 
     all parties receive timely information necessary to 
     participate in the election process, reduces delays caused by 
     frivolous litigation, unifies procedures across the country, 
     requires additional contact information be included in voter 
     lists, and consolidates appeals to the Board into a single 
     process.
       Instead of seeking to undermine a streamlined democratic 
     process for American workers to vote on whether or not they 
     want to be represented, the Congress should join the 
     President in strengthening protections for American workers 
     and giving them more of a voice in the workplace and the 
     economy. Growing and sustaining the middle class requires 
     strong and vital labor unions, which helped to build this 
     Nation's middle class and have been critical to raising 
     workers' wages and putting in place worker protections that 
     we enjoy today. Giving workers greater voice can help ensure 
     that the link is restored between hard work and opportunity 
     and that the benefits of the current economic recovery are 
     more broadly shared.
       The National Labor Relations Board's representation case 
     procedures rule helps to level the playing field for workers 
     so they can more freely choose to make their voice heard. In 
     doing so, it will help us build an economy that gives greater 
     economic opportunities and security for middle-class families 
     and those working to join the middle class.
       If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 8, his 
     senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is always interesting--isn't it, Mr. Speaker?--to listen to the 
debate and to the claims that are made and to the claims that are 
refuted. I found it a little bit interesting in listening to some of 
the comments on the other side of the aisle that, apparently, this 
Congressional Review Act S.J. Res. 8 action and all of those who 
support it are anti-union, antilabor, antiworker, and--I was a little 
shocked to hear--even anti-American.
  I am not called ``anti-American'' very often, Mr. Speaker, and I do 
resent it a little bit, but that is the way this debate kind of goes. 
Let's get a couple of things, I think, straight. I know that everybody 
can have his opinion and not the facts, but there are some things that, 
I think, are pretty clear.
  According to the National Labor Relations Board, itself, more than 94 
percent of elections occur in less than 56 days, which is less than 2 
months, Mr. Speaker, and the median time is only 38 days. Unions, Mr. 
Speaker, win over 60 percent of those elections, so there is a voice 
for union organizers, for workers, and for employers, because there is 
time. There is not a rush.
  Now, we just heard some discussion about whether 11 days is 
probable--we all agree, I think, it is possible--or

[[Page H1788]]

maybe it would be 12 or 13 or something like that, but it is not in 
question that you only have 7 days under this rule. This is the rule, 
by the way. This is the rule that we are talking about. The law that is 
affected is many times thicker than this.
  My colleague from Wisconsin talked about whether or not you have a 
labor lawyer on staff. Certainly, if you are a small- or middle-sized 
company, you don't. You can't afford that. So you have 7 days to go out 
and find a lawyer who can help you comply with this rule and with the 
law, the much thicker law. You have 7 days to get your position down in 
writing, and then you are stuck with it. Then you could have the 
election 4 days later. That is not an opportunity for informed 
discussion, debate for either the workers or for the employers.
  This is called an ``ambush'' election because it is, indeed, an 
ambush. We heard one of the speakers talk about: Would you rather have 
somebody have your email address or your home address? Under this rule, 
you get it all. Mr. Speaker, clearly, there are many instances of 
intimidation during these exercises, and often that intimidation comes 
from union organizers, not from your fellow workers usually but from 
outside union organizers, who are trying to push this onto the 
workforce.
  So I am very pleased to be supporting S.J. Res. 8, which is to 
provide congressional disapproval. I am not surprised, as I mentioned 
earlier, that the Obama administration supports the Obama National 
Labor Relations Board's position here, but it doesn't mean it is right, 
and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be standing up for the voices that we 
have heard about--for employers and employees--so that they can make 
informed decisions.
  The NLRB's rule, Mr. Speaker, stifles the right of employers to speak 
to their employees during an organizing campaign. It also cripples the 
right of workers to have the information they need to make a very 
important decision about whether or not to join a union or even that 
union. That is a big decision, and it shouldn't be jammed into 11 days 
or 2 weeks. You need the time to be informed in order to make such a 
decision.
  A ``yes'' vote on the resolution will help rein in this activist 
National Labor Relations Board, and it will ensure workers, employers, 
and unions can participate in a fair union election process. I urge my 
colleagues to support S.J. Res. 8.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 152, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 186, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 128]

                               YEAS--232

     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
     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)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     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)
     Rogers (KY)
     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 (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
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--186

     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
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     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
     Smith (NJ)
     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--14

     Garamendi
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Hinojosa
     Jordan
     Labrador
     Payne
     Roskam
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Smith (WA)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1208

  Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STUTZMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________